The Truth About Lust (Remastered)

Have you ever given any serious thought about what the word "lust" actually means?  Several years ago, I wrote a blog post on the issue of lust.  Though it does answer the question, there are several problems I have recently noticed about that post that I will correct here.  And by "correct it", I mean redo the whole blog post (the original is linked above for you to read if you wish).

The term "lust" seems to be a term that everybody knows about, but very few actually know the meaning of.  Most people are also probably very confident that they do know what the term means.  It is almost universally defined as being exclusively sexual in nature, and as including sexual desires, arousal, and gratification, among other things.  And nearly everyone considers all lust to be sin.  The purpose of this post is to answer the question, "How does the Bible define lust?"

Most of what is traditionally taught about lust comes from the "New Testament".  And mostly from Matthew 5:27-28, which says:

[27] You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery." [28] But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [NKJV]

If someone claims that something is a sin, and their only evidence of that is from the New Testament, it shows that he or she does not understand Scripture.  In particular, that Torah alone defines sin, and the commandment in Deuteronomy 12:32 to not add to Yahweh's commandments applies equally to all people.  But I am going to show from the New Testament alone that Yeshua's teaching on lust comes directly from Torah.

The first thing to note is that most people define lust as "adultery of the heart" (based Matthew 5:27-28).  The attempt to get the definition from the Bible is admirable, but "adultery of the heart" is meaningless if we do not know the definition of adultery.  Even then, "adultery of the heart" is still meaningless if we cannot determine what does and does not count as such.  All we can tell without any definitions, is that what is in the heart, if acted upon, would be adultery.  As usual, we are going to look to the Bible for our definitions.  And if we find our definitions in the Bible, we will disregard all other definitions.

Leviticus 20:10 defines adultery for a man.  Any man who has sex with another man's wife is guilty of adultery.  This single statement in Torah provides us with all of the information we need to know about the definition of adultery.  A man who has sex with a married woman who is not his own wife commits adultery.  And a married woman who has sex with a man other than her own husband is guilty of adultery.  It is impossible for a man to commit adultery with an unmarried woman, and it is impossible for an unmarried woman to commit adultery.  It should also be noted that under this definition, a man can have multiple wives at the same time without committing adultery, but a woman who has more than one husband at a time does commit adultery (along with her second husband).

As mentioned earlier, having this concrete definition for adultery alone is not enough to know what part of the law Yeshua (Jesus) is teaching us.  But here's something that was pointed out to me recently:  the word translated as "woman" in Matthew 5:28 is "gyne", which contrary to what Blue Letter Bible's "Outline of Biblical Usage" block claims, is not, I repeat, not, the generic word for "woman".  It's the word that is used to refer specifically to married women.  But even if it wasn't, we will see shortly that the passage still qualifies itself as referring specifically to married women.

Now we come to the word "lust".  The Greek word is "epithymeo", which means "to desire" or "to covet".  In fact, we find the following statement in the KJV:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. [Romans 7:7; KJV]

Here, the words translated as "lust" and "covet" are simply different forms of the same word.  Blue Letter Bible distinguishes the forms as different words here.  In this case, "epithymia" for "lust" and "epithymeo" for "covet".  What's the difference?  I have no clue.  I don't think there is one in this case.  Also, some Bible study tools do not reliably distinguish between two forms of the same word.  You will notice this when the distinction actually does matter, because why would this not be the case?  I have learned that the hard way.

So "lust" is just another word for "covet" and therefore has no functional difference from "covet".  Also note that Paul appears to be quoting the law as if the whole commandment is "do not covet".  He is not actually doing this.  By quoting part of the commandment, he is invoking the whole commandment and assuming that you know the whole commandment.  Here is what he is invoking:

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. [Exodus 20:17; NKJV]

Now we can see what Yeshua (Jesus) is really teaching in Matthew 5:27-28.  Yeshua is saying that if you covet your neighbor's wife (a violation of the 10th Commandment), then you have already committed adultery with her (a violation of the 7th Commandment) in your heart.  I bet you did not know that lust is actually the letter of the law.  And also that you thought adultery was the letter of the law while lust was the heart of the law.  Our Lord never added anything to God's commandments by calling anything "sin" that Torah itself did not already call "sin".

We can see by this correct definition of lust (that is, "to strongly desire" or "to covet") that not all lust is sin.  And if you think about it, if all lust was sin, then it would be impossible to marry.  For a man can only get married if he first lusts after the woman that he marries, and a woman can only get married if she first lusts after the man that she marries.

A man who lusts after an unmarried woman, and acts correctly on that lust, marries her.  An unmarried woman who lusts after a man, and acts correctly on that lust, marries him.  If they act incorrectly on that lust, then they will have sex before marriage, which is not adultery, but is a sin (see the first note at the end of this post).  Likewise, a man who lusts after his own wife, and a woman who lusts after her own husband, never sin.  But a man who lusts after his neighbor's wife, or a married woman who lusts after a man who is not her husband, always sins.  By the way, this is why I said earlier that Yeshua (Jesus) did not have to specify "married woman" in his teaching about lust.  It is because the Scriptures that he invoked did the specifying for him.

This definition of lust also means that lust is not restricted to sexual contexts.  You can lust after your neighbor's house, for example.  If you lust after your neighbor's house, it means that you desire to have your neighbor's house.  This type of lust has no sexual connotations to it.  Nonetheless, it is still wrong.

Also, most importantly, this definition of lust proves that lust is always a choice that you make.  It is not seeking sexual gratification or pleasure, or being sexually aroused by something.  It is not even sexual temptation (or any kind of temptation).  It is a choice to desire to have something that you cannot legally (by Torah's definition of "legal") obtain.  It is therefore not something that can be "triggered" by certain stimuli unless the person choses it.

Having one's eyes drawn to a beautiful woman is not lust, for human eyes are designed to be drawn to physical beauty, and the human form is designed to be beautiful, being made in the image of God [Genesis 1:26-27].  And God called all that he created "very good" [Genesis 1:31].  Finding a woman to be attractive is also not lust (even if it is your neighbor's wife).  It is God's design working as intended.  Whether you covet her is a choice that is entirely up to you.  Also note that Yeshua (Jesus) never said that it's looking at a woman that is lust.  Rather, he said that it is looking at a (married) woman with lust that is the sin.

By the way, Yeshua puts 100% of the blame for lust on the man who is committing the lust.  None of the blame goes onto the woman whom the man is lusting after.  Likewise, if a married woman lusts after a man who is not her husband, then 100% of the blame for her lust falls on her, and none of it falls on the man whom she is lusting after.

Remember, Yeshua told us plainly that we shall know the truth, and the truth will set us free [John 8:32].  Now that you have knowledge of the true definition of lust and that it is entirely under your control, you can be free from the constant fear of "accidentally" lusting after a woman just from seeing her (regardless of what she is wearing).

Notes:

1.  Our modern use of the English word "fornication" means "premarital" or "extramarital" sex.  The Bible however, does not give a specific name to that sin.  Instead, English Bibles use the word "fornication" to mean "prostitution".

2.  This is not freedom to exploit any perceived loopholes.  It is freedom from the enemy's accusations against you for things that are part of God's very good design.

3.  The full meaning of the word "covet" is to desire to have something strongly enough that you are willing to do something to get what you want.

Sola Scriptura Done Correctly

The term "sola scriptura" literally means "scripture alone", with the word "scripture" referring to the Bible.  So one might naively believe that the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" means only that which is stated in the Bible is doctrine.  But that's not how the Apologetics Industrial Complex define the doctrine.  Instead, they add "or that which can be reasonably inferred from Scripture".  What that usually means is "we make up our own doctrine and say it's from the Bible".  After all, wouldn't it be a shame if they had to admit that some of their "most important doctrines" are actually heresy?  Wouldn't it also be a shame if they had to admit that most of their rules on what is or is not "proper" for a Christian are also just human rules?  Adding "or what can be reasonably inferred from Scripture" to the definition of Sola Scriptura makes for a very convenient loophole around "do not add to God's commandments" [Deut. 4:2, 12:32].

Sola Scriptura, when correctly defined, only permits doctrines that are explicitly stated in the Bible as a doctrine, and only permits rules that are explicitly stated in the Bible as a command of God to be a command of God.  Doctrines that are not explicitly stated in the Bible as doctrine are false doctrines, rules not explicitly stated in the Bible as commandments of God are merely human rules, and traditions that are not explicitly stated in the Bible as coming from God are human traditions.

On the subject of "false doctrine", the definition I use for "false doctrine" is this:  "Anything held as doctrine that is not stated in Scripture as doctrine is false doctrine."  That is, the teaching is claimed to be a doctrine, but is not.  This does not automatically make the teaching wrong.  It just means that any claim that the teaching is doctrine is false.

On the subject of "human rules", something being a human rule does not mean the rule is bad.  It just means it is either (a) not found in the Bible, or (b) is found in the Bible, but is not stated to be a command of God.  There are times where we should be following human rules (such as those discussed in Weaponizing Weakness of Faith), and there are times where we should not be following human rules.

On the subject of "human traditions", not all of these traditions are bad.  Any tradition tied to pagan worship is bad by definition, as are any traditions that are part of any "holy days" that God did not declare to be holy, and traditions that are added to any of God's holy days.  See Self Righteousness Defined Correctly for more details.

If we go by the rule that only that which the Bible states as doctrine is doctrine, then we lose a lot of what we previously held to be doctrines (many of which are fine as interpretations of Scripture).  We also must now consider many rules that we previously held to be commandments of God as merely human rules.  And a lot of traditions previously believed to honor God are reduced to human traditions that do no such thing.  But we also gain some doctrines that are actually in the Bible, rules that are actually commandments of God, and "traditions" that God actually says honors him.

One of the most notable teachings that are reduced to just an interpretation of Scripture is the teaching of the Trinity.  I believe this is the biggest reason that they include "and what can be reasonably inferred" in the definition of Sola Scriptura.  Because if the Apologetics Industrial Complex defined Sola Scriptura correctly, then they would have to concede that one of their "core doctrines" is really just an interpretation of Scripture.

There are some who insist that the Trinity is a false god and therefore should be rejected outright.  But I believe that it's okay for one to believe that the godhead is triune in nature.  However, it is not okay to reject those who reject the Trinity.  There are also aspects of the Trinity that contradict what the Bible says.  Some use this as a reason for requiring others to reject the Trinity, but I do not.  Remove the heretical aspects of the teaching of the Trinity, and you've got yourself a teaching that is 100% compatible with the Bible, even if it is just an interpretation.  There is a lot more I could say about the Trinity, but that's for a future blog post.

Another notable teaching that's not actually in the Bible is something called "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" (PSA), which is also claimed to be a core part of the gospel.  According to this heresy, Yeshua paid the penalty for our sin so that we could be forgiven.  The problem is that Scripture is clear throughout that it is an abomination to knowingly punish the innocent.  The assertion I always see in response to that fact is, "it's okay if the person is willing and without sin".  This might seem like a reasonable response, but is in fact only pretending to address the problem.  I plan to address PSA in detail in a future blog post, but long story short, Yeshua's death on the cross was to take away our sins, not pay for them.

The above two teachings also provide examples of people trying to coerce others to believe what is not stated in the Bible under the pretext that "if you do not, then you are not saved, not a true Christian, or are in a cult".  There is a word to describe groups that try to force people to believe what is not stated in Scripture under the threat of not being welcomed into the Body of the Messiah:  "cult".  Ironic, isn't it?

I am not saying that one has to give up teachings that are not stated in the Bible (unless of course that teaching goes directly against what the Bible says).  We all have teachings that are not stated in the Bible and there is nothing wrong with that.  One just has to stop calling such teachings "doctrines", and stop trying to coerce everyone into believing them.

Concerning human rules, there are actually some human rules that come from the Bible.  For example, wherever Paul says, "I desire you do suchandsuch" or "I require/prohibit suchandsuch", Paul is admitting that those are his own rules.  Wherever he quotes Torah or Yeshua (Jesus), or attributes a rule to Torah or to Yeshua, Paul is claiming that the rules are actually a commandment of God.

There are also rules that some claim are in the Bible that are not.  For example, did you know that, even though the Bible clearly states that Yeshua (Jesus) is God, there is no rule in the Bible saying that you must believe that Yeshua is God in order to be saved?  That sure came as a surprise to me when I searched the Bible for that exact rule.  What the Bible does say, however, is that we must believe that Yeshua is the son of God [1 John 4:15], and that he is the Messiah/the Christ [1 John 2:22].  The Bible places a lot more emphasis on believing in Yeshua than it does concerning what we believe about Yeshua.

One of the ways in which a human rule is justified by someone who just learned that the Bible does not actually have that rule is to invoke "the principle".  They will say, "the Bible might not say it, but the principle is there".  In reality, they are confusing the principle of a hedge around a rule as the principle of the rule itself.  The principle of a rule is often stated in Scripture with the rule itself.  But when someone invokes "the principle " to justify a rule, it usually means the Bible either does not give a principle, or the given principle is something else entirely.  Sometimes, the principle being invoked is found in an entirely different passage of the Bible, but the Bible is actually speaking against it in some way.

Bottom line:  if a rule is not stated in the Bible, do not say that it is.  If a rule that is stated in the Bible does not include a specific item, do not say that it does.  If a specific principle for a rule is not stated in the Bible with said rule, do not say that it is.  If the Bible refutes the stated principle elsewhere, it's time to re-evaluate what you believe concerning those rules.  By the way, if the later happens, just remember that learning the truth will set you free [John 8:32].

Finally, we have human practices and traditions.  And yes, Hanukkah and Purim, are among these human traditions.  And just like with human rules, human traditions are not automatically bad.  Some can even be quite helpful.  The problem comes into play when we treat these human traditions as if they have spiritual significance, or believe that their practice somehow pleases God.  And practices and traditions that are rooted in the context of pagan worship are nothing but irredeemable abominations and are always displeasing to God, no matter how much was "sanitize" or "Christianize" them.  Likewise with any practices and traditions that are contrary to Torah.

The biggest problem with human traditions comes in the form of "holy days" that Yahweh did not command.  Israel made this mistake twice and both times it ended badly for them.  Yet most Christians are under the impression that they can do the exact same thing and somehow please God.  Leviticus 23 is where we find all of God's holy days.  If any "special day" is not on that list, then it is not special to Yahweh.  The most blatant offenders of these false "holy days" are Easter (named after the Babylonian fertility goddess), and especially Halloween, which doesn't even try to hide its origins in witchcraft!

Is it wrong to have celebrations on days God did not command?  Not at all.  Otherwise, we would also have to give up Hanukkah and Purim (among other memorials), and give up on birthday celebrations.  Just don't call those celebrations, or they days that they are on "holy".  Only Yahweh has the authority to declare a celebration or day to be "holy".

There is one thing to note about the Bible:  it's cultural context is Hebrew.  As a result, there will be places where the Bible uses idioms that only work in the Hebrew, or vaguely works in the English.  No amount of studying the individual words in these idioms will ever lead you to notice that there is an idiom in use who's meaning differs significantly from what the non-idiomatic meaning implies.  Sometimes, the Bible has clues that there is an idiom in use, but not always.  So Sola Scriptura simply will not work in places where the Bible uses a Hebrew idiom and assumes that you know that it is an idiom and what that idiom means.

To summarize, Sola Scriptura, when defined correctly, excludes anything that is "inferred" or "extrapolated" from being doctrines, commandments of God, or holy days.  Even principles applied to certain commandments are excluded if they are not stated in the Bible.  And if one follows this rule strictly when teaching others, a significant number of teachings, rules, principles, practices, and traditions, whether good or bad, will simply never be mentioned.  When it's not followed strictly, and one is honest about it, then those things not stated in Scripture, if taught, will be clearly distinguished as human teachings that are not found in Scripture.

Weaponizing Weakness of Faith

I made a post on Romans 14 a while ago, then followed that up with a post on 1 Corinthians 8.  The former deals with disputes concerning matters of opinions while the latter is a warning to not do anything that will cause someone to sin.  Both have to deal with how we treat those who are weak in the faith.  But I have noticed a pattern both before and after my posts on Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8:  people are claiming weakness of faith as a means of controlling those who are strong in faith.  This is a direct violation of Romans 14:1-8, where Paul repeatedly states that the strong are not to condemn the weak, nor are the weak to condemn the strong.  And those who seem to be choosing to be weak in faith insist on calling "evil" that which is good, which is a direct violation of Romans 14:16.  But why should our freedom be condemned by another person's conscience [1 Corinthians 10:29]?

I will give you an example using alcoholic drinks (though I do not drink alcohol).  I have not seen any of these examples online with alcohol, but it's the same principal.  Suppose someone who does not drink and is afraid of alcohol joins a congregation that permits alcohol.  In fact, let's say this congregation uses real wine for the Lord's Supper.  Such a person would not be able to partake in the Lord's Supper because of the usage of wine.  If this congregation learns that this person is afraid to drink alcohol and therefore cannot partake of the Lord's Supper, will they not try to accommodate him?  What would be a reasonable accommodation?  To set aside a glass of grape juice so that this person may partake in the Lord's Supper?  Or to stop using wine entirely for the Lord's Supper and force everyone to drink grape juice instead?

If you answer that the congregation should just switch over to grape juice, consider this:  The same person has to shop at grocery stores in order to buy food.  All grocery stores that I know of sell alcohol.  Does this person demand that the store stops selling alcohol?  Or does he just not go into the isles that have alcohol in them?  Is it not the latter?  If this person knows how to avoid alcohol when in a worldly place where it is readily accessible, why should a congregation of the Body of the Messiah get rid of their alcohol?  They shouldn't.  Instead, they should simply serve him grape juice for the Lord's Supper while everyone else drinks the wine.  The same rule applies to someone who is an alcoholic who has given up alcohol so that he stops falling into sin through it.  For why should their freedom be condemned by another person's conscience [1 Corinthians 10:29]?

But let's say that the person in question hates the fact that alcohol even exists.  So of course it will not be enough that a congregation serves him grape juice or some other non-alcoholic drink for the Lord's Supper.  Instead, the man claims that the mere presence of alcohol causes him to fall into sin, and that no member of the Body of the Messiah should consume it.  And if a Christian posts a picture on social media of himself responsibly enjoying wine, the man who hates wine will condemn the post, and the one who posted it might be guilt-tripped into taking it down.  Is this the fruit of someone who is merely weak in faith?  No!  It is the fruit of someone who seeks control over that which he has no business controlling.

It is expected for every believer to have some sort of weakness concerning something.  But when that weakness is used as a weapon to control others, that is when he or she has crossed the line.  Why should our freedom be condemned by another person's conscience [1 Corinthians 10:29]?  And, as it is written in Romans 14:16, nobody is permitted to speak evil of that which is good.  For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, not whatever outward appearance offends you [Romans 14:17], be it alcohol or anything else.

Let's say, for example, that a person who is weak in the faith does sin if he sees other believers drinking alcohol.  If seeing those who are in the world consume alcohol does not cause him to sin, but seeing believers do the same does, I would question if he is actually weak or is seeking control.  But let's say he is genuinely that weak.  If he is a new believer, then this can be excused.  But we are expected to grow in faith [1 Thessalonians 1:3].  This means that the things that initially lead us into sin, or cause temptation to sin, will eventually lose their power over us.  For Jesus sets us free from our sins [Romans 6:22], and knowledge of the truth also sets us free [John 8:32].

James 1:12 says, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation".  Scripture never says to run from temptation.  Even Yeshua (Jesus) had to deal with temptation [Matthew 4], and it was the Holy Spirit who led Yeshua into the wilderness in order that he be tempted.  Though it was not the Holy Spirit who did the tempting [James 1:13].  God himself puts us into situations where we will be tempted so that we will learn to resist temptation.  The more you successfully resist temptation, the weaker that temptation will be until it disappears.  The more you give into your temptation, the easier it will be to keep giving into temptation.  Therefore, resist temptation so that you will become strong.  Do not try to force others to maintain an environment where you are never tempted, for that is exactly the behavior that strengthens temptation.  Look up "exposure therapy".

It is acceptable to expect someone to follow your rules if you are in a place where you have the authority to set the rules.  It is unacceptable to try to force your rules onto others in places where you do not have the authority to set the rules.  Just like how you expect others to follow your rules in your places, so you should follow the rules of others in their places.  Trying to impose your rules in other people's places is not following the rules, it's usurping the authority of the ones who set the rules for those places.

Forcing someone to accommodate you because you are afraid of being tempted or falling into sin is cowardly at first, and a clear power-grab when it becomes clear that you have no intent to grow in the faith.  In the example of alcohol, the one who is afraid of alcohol should never be forced to drink, but should also never be permitted to forbid others from drinking when it is not their place to do so.  The one who is afraid of alcohol, but is not tempted by its presence is the strong in faith compared to the one who avoids even the mention of alcohol, "lest he be tempted".  This rule goes for all things where one person is tempted by the mere presence of something while another person is not.  Attempting to control everyone because of your weakness will only breed mutual, self-feeding resentment, and an inability to resist temptation when it inevitably stares you in the face.

If you are on the receiving end of this detestable behavior, remember this:  if you are not in a place where such a person sets the rules, then you are under no obligation to accommodate them.  The most you are obligated to do is (a) to help keep them from giving into temptation, and (b) to not compel such a person to violate their own conscience.  1 Corinthians 8 gives the example of eating in a pagan temple causing a new believer to be emboldened to eat meat that they know is sacrificed to idols.  So it's not the meat that's the problem, it's the context that's the problem.

Concerning those who are weak in faith, being easily offended and feeling entitled to judge others:  I will reiterate what Paul says in Romans 14:1-4: that the weak are to do no such thing.  Do not condemn someone for doing something that violates your own conscience.  Unless the Bible has an explicit prohibition against the thing that offends you, do not condemn it.  Likewise, the strong in faith are not to compel the weak to violate their own conscience.  Unless the Bible has an explicit requirement for something to be done, do not compel others to do it.  The weak and the strong are not to condemn each other on matters of opinion.  Both should do everything in their power to get along.  For the weak in faith is a servant of Yeshua (Jesus), and the strong in faith is a servant of Yeshua.  Who are you to condemn the servant of your master?  Instead, the weak should learn from the strong so that they may be strengthened by the strong.  Likewise, the strong should learn to understand the weak so that they can help the weak.

PS:  This post is heavily inspired by a video by Chris (aka:  Mudwalker) responding to a controversy on Twitter where some Christian women were condemning some Christian men for posting a shirtless fitness selfie.  The video is linked below.

No, Christianity is NOT a Religion

What is the definition of religion?  If you ask an atheist, they will tell you that it's a belief in one or more gods.  Consult a dictionary, you might get a similar definition.  We'll get more into that a bit later.  If you go back to the 1600s, you will get a wildly different answer.  The word "religion" comes from the Latin word "religio", which means (among other things), "reverence of the gods", "moral obligation", and "holiness".  And when the KJV was written, the word "religion" itself basically meant exactly that:  reverence to a divine power.  Something else that is interesting is how "religion" was also linked to words such as "rely" and "lecture".  "Rely" is linked to faith and "lecture" is linked to reading.  And "having faith" was known as having loyalty as well as trust.  If we go by this definition of religion, then it applies to Christianity.

It may seem at first glance that atheism would not fit this definition, but the gods of atheism are natural selection, luck, and time.  And atheists have placed their complete trust in and loyalty to such things.  So atheism does count as a religion by this old definition of religion.  Atheists don't like being called "religious", or atheism being called a "religion", so they attempt to use a definition that excludes atheism.  So let's see how the modern definition stacks up.

If we follow the trail that Merriam-Webster lays out for the definition of "religion", we can see that the "archaic" (aka: "outdated") definition involves being very careful with doing things correctly.  And we can also see that most of the definitions include the word "religious".  And their definitions for "religious" also contain the word "religious".  Not all that helpful.  We can trace this to the term "religious group", which means a group that shares common beliefs and practices of a religion.  While this is somewhat helpful, it does make the definition of "religion" a circular definition.  One of the other definitions include "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity".  If we look at the only definition of "religion" that does not contain the word "religious" in it, we get this definition:  "an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to".

Now we're getting somewhere.  Let's take a look at how Merriam-Webster defines "belief".  It is defined as (a) having placed trust or confidence in a person or thing, (b) an opinion, or (c) a conviction based on examination of evidence.  Notice that one of the definitions of "belief" is "opinion".  This seems to be the common definition of "belief", and it is the one that atheists use in their attempt to divorce atheism from religion.  So, by the modern, common definition of the word, a religion is "devotion to a system of opinions and practices, especially of a god or gods".

Notice that nearly every path in the definition tree that we take, religion is defined in such a way that Christianity and atheism are equally included, or defined in such a way that includes atheism while excluding Christianity.  Going by what atheists want the definition of "religion" to be, and by how the word "religion" is commonly used, it's Christianity that is excluded from being considered a religion.  By the same standard, atheism is a religion.  And it is because of this that I unapologetically declare that Christianity is not a religion:  because Christianity is grounded in truth, not in opinion.  And a careful examination of the available evidence will reveal this to be the case.  Yes, we are faithfully devoted to the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) as we should be.  But this devotion is grounded in truth and is not mere opinion.

If Christianity isn't a religion by the modern definition, then why do some Christians insist that it's wrong to say "Christianity is not a religion"?  Simply put, because the word "religion" appears in our English bibles.  For example:

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. [James 1:27; NKJV]

The definition of "religion" used in the Bible is of course the old definition involving reverence and moral obligation (morality can only come from a being that's above all other beings, by the way).  The Greek words in question are "threskos" and "threskeia", which have no link whatsoever to mere opinion.  Basically, all objections to the claim that Christianity is not a religion is based on the fact that ancient writings (including the Bible) get some words translated into English as "religion" or "religious".  These translations are going by a different definition of religion than what is used in the modern day.

Some Christians claim that it is dangerous to state that Christianity is not a religion.  Why?  From what I can gather, it boils down to one word:  "Tradition".  That's right, the claim that "Christianity is not a religion" is a threat to tradition.  Of other reasons given, one of the more rational ones is the fear that saying, "Christianity is not a religion" looks like compromise.  It's not.  Words tend to change their meaning over time.  And the word "religion" is no different.  It is simply nonsensical to use an archaic definition of a word when speaking to a modern audience if you want that modern audience to understand what you are saying.  Also, in my opinion, the real compromise would be not opposing any attempt at making Christianity look like mere opinion.

There's also the fact that Christian ministries fear losing their tax-exemption status by admitting that Christianity is not a religion.  In other words, they love money.  Besides, legal definitions rarely match common definitions.  But let's go back to the claim that "Christianity is not a religion" is a threat to tradition.  What's the true implication of this claim?  That Christianity not being a religion is a threat to someone's power.  Specifically, it's a threat to the power of the Apologetics Industrial Complex.

In summary, Christianity is not a religion by the common use of the word "religion", because the common use of that word involves defining "belief" as merely one's opinion.  And Christianity is not a matter of opinion.  But by other definitions of opinions that do not hold "belief" and "opinion" as synonymous, Christianity does qualify as a religion.

Why is this important?  Because the Gospel message depends on Christianity being grounded in truth.  And because a major reason for someone to become a Christian is because of the fact that Christianity is grounded in truth, not in legend or myth or fairy tale.  The Gospel has no power if Judgement Day or the resurrection of the dead is merely someone's opinion, or worse, a lie.  There is a war against Christianity, and one of the weapons used against the faith is to make it look like it's a matter of opinion.  It is our job, as those who know the truth, to refute the lie that Christianity is just an opinion.  And to expose the truth that all things that are contrary to Christianity are the real lies.

Self-Righteousness Defined Correctly

One of the more contentious issues within the body of the Messiah is the issue of righteousness.  Nobody has an issue with wanting to be seen as righteous.  But the moment righteousness is defined to include obedience is the moment people start taking exception.  And it's no wonder that this is done, since those who are governed by the flesh are hostile to Yahweh and are unable to obey Yahweh's commandments [Romans 8:6-8].  To be fair, it is good to challenge something if your motives are good.  Such a challenge serves to prove how well the thing one is challenging holds up to examination, if one's motives are to examine the claim.  But as we will see, this is not what is happening with the definition of righteousness when it is defined correctly.

In the New Testament, the Greek word "anomia" is the word for "lawlessness".  It literally means "the practice of being without law".  And the law that it always refers to is Torah.  It may also be translated as "iniquity" or "unrighteousness".  It is derived from "anomos", which literally means "without law".  It can also be translated as "iniquity", "unrighteousness", "transgression", and "unlawful", among other things.  They are all referring to the same thing:  being or living without Torah, whether by living by a different law, or willfully living contrary to God's law.  You might be able to see where I'm going with this.

There is a pervasive teaching going around the Body of the Messiah that I like to call "the lazy gospel".  Others refer to it as "easy believism".  I and others have also referred to it as "the lawless gospel".  This false gospel disguises itself as the true Gospel that salvation is through faith in Yeshua (Jesus).  But it frames faith itself as the fruit, rather than the thing that produces the fruit.  When taken to its logical conclusion, this lawless gospel perverts the Gospel of grace into a license to commit any sin that one desires, free of all restraint.

This lazy gospel relies on two truths to perpetrate its deception:  The first truth is that nobody can be righteous by obeying the law of Yahweh [Romans 3:19-20].  The second truth is that righteousness is by faith in the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah [Romans 3:21-24].  Paul goes to extreme lengths to drive this point home in Galatians 3.  So much so, that many assume that Paul is anti-Torah based on Galatians 3 alone.  I intend to do a blog post specifically on Galatians in the near future, but that's beside the point.  Those who teach the lazy gospel want to be righteous by faith without the fruit that goes with it, which is repentance.  They conclude that since it's believing in Yeshua (Jesus) that is the fruit that makes us righteous, then living in accordance with God's law for any reason must make one "self-righteous".

John has some warnings concerning righteousness.  One being a warning not to let anyone deceive you about what makes a person righteous:  1 John 3:7 says in no uncertain terms that it's the one who practices righteousness who is righteous.  So what does that mean for the teaching that righteousness is by faith?  Here's a hint:  One can also say that righteousness "comes from", "is caused by", or "is because of" faith.  So righteousness is the fruit that is produced by faith.  But then how is it that nobody can be righteous by their works?  Paul answered that in Romans 3:19-20:  By our works, we are wicked.  How then can faith apart from works result in righteousness?  Paul answers this question as well in Colossians 2:14:  The record of our debt is destroyed.  The legal charge against us no longer stands.  In other words, we have been forgiven of everything that makes us unrighteous, just by believing in Yeshua (Jesus).

If it's the one who practices righteousness who is righteous, having their slate wiped clean because of their faith in Jesus, then what does it mean to "practice righteousness"?  Paul answers this as well in Romans 2:13, where he says that it is the doers of the law (Torah) who are righteous.  So the one who practices obeying God's commandments is the one who is righteous, if they have first had their slate wiped clean by trusting the Lord Jesus.

What does this mean for "self-righteousness" then?  Remember that "self-righteousness" is often defined by the Church as keeping God's law.  Surely one cannot be both righteous and self-righteous at the same time, right?  As it turns out, one can't.  One can be righteous, or one can be self-righteous, but not both.  Paul warns in Romans 10:3-4 against those who set up their own righteousness rather than submitting to God's righteousness.  And this is after he spent Romans 6 and 7 saying that we are no longer under the power of sin, but are now slaves to righteousness (keeping God's law).

Yahweh himself, through the prophet Ezekiel, has also answered the question of self-righteousness.  In Ezekiel 33:13, the prophet of God speaks of someone who is initially righteous, but then starts trusting his own righteousness and commits lawlessness.  Ezekiel, speaking according to what God has commanded him to speak, warns that for such a person, their righteous deeds will not be remembered.  And in verses 14-16 Yahweh says through Ezekiel that when a wicked person turns from their wickedness and does what is just, that person's wicked deeds will not be remembered.

So, self-righteousness is defined as doing what is contrary to God's law, and making up your own standard of righteousness.  So is the one who is living according to Torah self-righteous?  Absolutely not!  On the contrary, such a person is submitting to God's righteousness by definition.

One objection raised to maintain the self-deception that living in obedience to God's law is self-righteousness is to claim that such people are trying to earn their salvation.  In fact, these people are so desperate to avoid being convicted of sin that they are unable to understand that obedience to God's law itself is not "salvation by works".  They themselves even teach a form of obedience (which is contrary to their own "lazy gospel").  But they never see their version of obedience as trying to earn salvation.  What they fail to realize that neither is obedience to Torah.  They also fail to see that their form of obedience is incomplete, and that obeying God's law from their heart is what makes one's obedience complete.

Is it possible for someone to try to earn their salvation by obeying God?  Absolutely.  Will it work?  By no means.  For the only way to earn salvation would be to have not sinned a single time, ever!  And who has done that but Yeshua (Jesus) alone?  But if a person has never, ever committed a single sin, then there is nothing for that person to be saved from.  We need the Lord because we have sinned.  We need salvation because we have transgressed God's righteous law of liberty and have become slaves to sin!

Since self-righteousness is making up your own standard of righteousness, it can take many forms.  This includes selective obedience.  This is most commonly in the form of arbitrarily labeling certain commandments the "moral law" and saying, "we must obey these", and labeling certain other commandments the "ceremonial law" and saying, "we do not have to obey these".  Some even say that it is wrong to obey what they have arbitrarily labeled as the "ceremonial law".  Self-righteousness can also be in the form of hedging God's commandments with your own (which Paul says are worthless [Colossians 2:20-23]).  And it can be in the form of adding to God's commandments, which is a direct violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.  Let's go over a few examples of self-righteousness.

The first example of self-righteousness comes from the Bible itself.  In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells a parable of a Pharisee who boasted about his own righteousness when he prayed to God.  The Pharisee in this parable believed he was righteous because he fasted frequently and tithed all of his possessions.  The former is not something that God commanded and the latter is a distortion of what God commanded.  Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13 go into more detail about the heaps and heaps of traditions and human rules that the Pharisees believed made them righteous, all while either neglecting or even countermanding God's actual commandments.  And while correctly teaching God's commandments when they sat on Moses's seat [Matthew 23:1-7].  By the Pharisees' own rules, a person is required to correctly teach Torah when they sit on Moses's seat.

Our second examples comes from James 2:1-13, when he is rebuking those showing partiality.  Many viewed themselves as righteous while showing partiality in their dealings with the poor verses with the rich.  Showing partiality either in favor of the poor or in favor of the rich is a direct violation of God's law, which is what makes such things a sin.  He also gives an example of how abstaining from adultery while committing murder makes one a sinner [James 2:11], right after saying in James 2:10 that breaking any of God's commandments makes you a sinner (law breaker).

Many twist James 2:10, saying, "if you break one commandment, they you have broken every commandment", and "therefore, we should not be trying to keep any of the commandments".  This, of course, is the opposite of the point James is making.  If ignoring one commandment makes you a transgressor, then ignoring all of them makes you a transgressor all the more!  And the people who do this somehow think doing this makes them righteous!  By the way, nobody takes this teaching to its logical conclusion.  Instead, they use it to justify their selective obedience, which is somehow also supposed to make them righteous.  Ever heard of psychological projection?  That's what those who say, "keeping God's law is self-righteousness" are doing.

For some more modern examples of self-righteousness, we have the Sunday Sabbath, a number of "holy days" that God never commanded (such as Christmas and Easter).  Observing the Sabbath only counts towards righteousness when it is observed on the 7th day of the week (Saturday), per the 4th Commandment.  Adopting holidays used by pagans to honor false gods always dishonors God regardless of one's intent, and so can never count towards righteousness.  Extra celebrations such as Hanukkah and Purim also cannot count towards righteousness, as God never commanded them.  And as per Leviticus 23:2, only the days declared as holy in Leviticus 23 (and other places in Torah) are holy.  Anything else is merely a human tradition that should never be treated as holy (human traditions are not sinful of themselves).

Some other examples of self-righteousness would include abstaining from profanity, not judging others (when practiced consistently), women wearing dresses, women covering their bodies in order to "be modest" and "not tempt men into lust", and men averting their eyes from women who are "dressed immodestly" in order to "not lust after them".  These are all matters of opinion and consideration for others.  Following these rules does not contribute to righteousness, nor does not following them contribute to unrighteousness.  See my post on Romans 14 for more details concerning matters of opinion.

Notice that the pattern of self-righteousness does not change.  It always involves one or more of the following:  (a) neglecting some of God's commandments, (b) hedging God's commandments, or (c) changing or refusing some of God's commandments.  All while thinking that this is part of being righteous.

In summary, self-righteousness is establishing one's own standard of righteousness.  This includes defining obedience to God's law as self-righteousness, and imposing your own standards of righteousness upon others.  While the true righteousness that comes from faith in Yeshua (Jesus) is obeying God's commandments from your heart.  And God has always wanted obedience to come from the heart.  That is why he commanded us to love him with all our hearts [Deuteronomy 6:5].  Therefore, examine yourself to see if there are any human rules you are following, and what your motives are for following them.  And use discernment when you consider dropping those rules.  Also examine yourself to see if and where your obedience to God is incomplete.  If through discernment, you find that it is incomplete, then begin to implement what you have learned.  But do so out of love and by faith, not out of fear.

Remember, because of your faith in Yeshua (Jesus), you do not need to fear condemnation.  Because you have a heart that desires to obey the one you believe in, God will show grace to you in your shortcomings.  The only ones who have anything to fear are those who's hearts are inclined to disobey God.