How to Test Claims that Something is a Sin

When trying to determine whether something that is claimed to be a sin actually is a sin, you only need to ask these three questions:

1. Does Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) have a direct command against it?
2. Does Torah list items that are permitted (or required) in a category that the item in question is in but is not on the list?
3. Is there a penalty associated with it, but without a direct or indirect command against it?

It really is that simple, as Torah alone defines what is right and wrong.  Whatever is contrary to Torah is sin and whatever is not contrary to Torah is not sin.  The Prophets do not define sin.  Jesus does not define sin.  The Apostles do not define sin.  Only the Law of Yahweh defines sin.  And for those who would say that Yeshua does define sin because he is God, let me remind you that if he is to live a sinless life as a human being, he must abide by the same Law that everyone else is expected to abide by.  If he were to teach what is contrary to Torah, then he would have sinned and his death on the cross would be useless for our salvation.  Therefore Yeshua does not define sin.

Also, I originally listed just the first two questions, and would have considered things that meet the criteria of the third question as things that God hates but does not forbid.  But while writing this post, I changed my mind, hence the third question.

Jesus said to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).  And you're not living on it if you are adding to it or subtracting from it.  For the Law says in multiple places, such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 to not add to or subtract from God's commandments.  This means that once written, the Law of God is read only.  Nobody after that can in any way change the Law, not even Jesus after he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  The Apostle Paul said multiple times that Torah defines sin, such as Romans 3:20 and 7:7.  The Law itself defines sin in multiple places as transgressing the Law.

For any given thing that is claimed to be sinful, answering "yes" to one of the above questions proves the thing in question to be sinful.  If the answer to both questions is "no", then the thing in question is not sinful even if it is detrimental or believed to be detrimental.

The first question should be self-explanatory.  If God's Law has a direct command against something, then that something in question is a sin.  Theft, adultery, lying, murder, and slander are all sinful because the Law has a direct command against each of these.  The same for eating animals like pigs [Leviticus 11:7-8].  And if you think of twisting 1 Timothy 4:1 to claim that I'm teaching "doctrines of demons" (as some have done), then you would be calling God a demon, for God himself gave that command.

The second question is a bit more complex than the first.  There are some places in God's Law that list of a number of things in a category that are either allowed or required.  In these instances, whatever is in that same category that does not make the list is forbidden.  A good example of this is the list of holy days in Leviticus 23 that we are to use to honor God.  So even if it could be proven that Christmas and Easter did originate within Christianity, it wouldn't change the fact that those days are not on the list of holy days for honoring God, and are therefore sinful to partake in.  We may see those days as serving God, but that's not how God sees them.

There are some things that do not have a direct command against them (answer to question 1 is "no") or an indirect command against them (answer to question 2 is also "no").  This is where the third and final question comes in:  If God's Law also does not list a penalty for doing something (answer to question 3 is "no"), then the item in question is not a sin.  But if there is a penalty listed for doing something, then the item in question is a sin.  Otherwise, there would not be a penalty.

A good example of something that has a penalty listed, but no direct or indirect command against it is extramarital sex.  In Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if an unmarried couple are caught having sexual relationships, then the man is required to pay the bride price to the woman's father, the two are required to marry (unless the father forbids it), and they are never allowed to divorce.  The bride price, can be multiple years worth of wages.  And if a woman had this type of sexual relationship, then presented herself as a virgin to another man and her deception was discovered, then the woman could die (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

In any case where the answer to all three of these questions is "no", then the thing in question is permissible.  In fact, since Torah is described as "the Law of Liberty" in James 1:25, then we should approach things in a "freedom by default" manner.  That is, unless we can prove it goes against God's Law, we should allow it.  Some examples of things that are not against God's Law include dancing, games and sports, and gender-neutral bathrooms, lockers, etc.

There are some things that Yahweh technically allows, but also hates.  These things are often identified by whether God's Law has a provision for them, but also a lot of restrictions.  One example is divorce, where as I explained in a previous post, is intended to be done only in cases of unfaithfulness in marriage.  We also know that Yahweh hates divorce because of Malachi 2:16, where Yahweh explicitly states as much when speaking through one of his prophets.

To summarize:  If you cannot prove that something is contrary to God's Law either by (1) a direct command, (2) by not making a list of items allowed or required that are in the same category as the item in question, or (3) by not having any penalty for doing something, then regardless of how sinful you believe it to be or how much you object to it, that thing is not, I repeat, not, a sin.

I'll leave you with this exercise:  Exodus 20:26 says, "Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it."  So what is the sin here?  Is it to build steps up to an altar, to approach the altar naked, or both?  Don't forget to prove your answer.

What Did Jesus Mean by "But I Say..."? [UPDATED]

IMPORTANT NOTE:  This article was originally published on December 27, 2021 but contains a serious error that I am correcting here.  You can still read the original in its entirety through this link.  Other than this one correction, this post is completely unmodified from the original.

Semi-Victory for Life!

A few days ago, the United States Supreme Court finally overturned the unconstitutional Roe vs Wade decision that legalized the murder of unborn children nation-wide.  But this wasn't in the best way possible.  We'll get into that in a little bit, but first, let's talk about the good things that'll come out of this ruling.

While rape and incest are often used as excuses for murdering unborn children, the truth is that these reasons are the overwhelming minority of abortion cases.  Nearly all abortions are for the sake of convenience, where a woman wants to have sex, but doesn't want to live with the consequences of her actions.  Now, with murdering unborn children illegal is almost half the country, a woman is required to live with the consequences of her actions for at least the next 40 weeks.  After that, if she still doesn't want to raise her child, she can give it up for adoption, which should have been the case from the beginning, even in cases of rape!  Perhaps this will restore the very good cultural norm of marriage before sex, which is what Yahweh intended.

Of course, because some states have legalized murdering your unborn child, a woman who still doesn't want to live with the consequences of her promiscuity for the next 40 weeks will have to pay a lot of money in fuel to travel to a state that does allow such heinous acts of violence against children.  Upwards of thousands of dollars to travel up to a thousand miles to the nearest state that allows one to murder their unborn child!  Well, that would be the case if corrupt corporations weren't so eager to pay such travel costs when they "can't afford" to pay for what is actually good for their employees (eg: well-deserved raises).  I've got a solution to that evil:  If a woman goes to a state where murdering your unborn child is still legal, then arrest her for murder when she comes back after having done just that.  There shall be no excuse for murder!  None!

What about cases of rape or incest?  First off, the "incest" argument is complete nonsense.  The conflation of incest with rape is just another excuse for them to legalize the murder of unborn children.  And for cases of rape:  If the victim is married to another man, then the man who raped her is guilty of adultery and should therefore be put to death for adultery.  If the victim is not married, then the man who raped her should be required (at minimum) to pay for the upbringing of the child.  Ideally, the man shall be married to her for the rest of their lives, and shall never be allowed to divorce.  And the fact that the pro murder group would rather murder the unborn child instead of holding the man responsible for his actions tells you everything you need to know about that death cult.

Now, what did the Supreme Court get wrong in their ruling?  They ruled that the issue of abortion is for the states to decide on their own.  In other words, they ruled that the states have the right to legalize or criminalize the murder of unborn children.  While this is better than legalizing the murder of unborn children nation-wide, it's still wrong.  The Supreme Court must recognize abortion for what it is:  Murder!

By the way, one of the main justifications for legalizing the murder of unborn children is to claim that unborn children are not human.  The dehumanization of human beings is always used to justify the most evil acts imaginable.  And this is also the exact same tactic that the NAZIs used to justify the genocide and mass murder of the Jewish people.  And just like what happened before and during World War II, the people have been programmed to accept this dehumanization of human life as gospel.  Once people understand that the unborn child is a living human being from conception, there will be no more legalized abortions.  And those who perform or have abortions will be rightly called "murderers".

Bathsheba Tempted Nobody!

I'm sure you've heard the story about how Bathsheba was bathing on her roof, was seen by King David, and because of that she and David had an adulterous relationship, and Uriah (Bathsheba's wife) was murdered as part of a cover up.  And had Bathsheba not been bathing on the roof, David would have never seen her naked and never would have lusted after her and acted on that lust.  It's the classic story of what happens when a woman doesn't sufficiently cover herself.

Except that's not what happened.  And the interpretation of the events is completely wrong!  First off, Bathsheba was not bathing on her roof.  It was King David who was on his roof!  Bathsheba was likely bathing in a river, which would be the normal place to find someone bathing back then.  And it wouldn't matter even if she was bathing on the roof, because she is not the one who sinned!  Read 2 Samuel 12:1-4 very carefully.  Bathsheba is likened to an innocent lamb that was needlessly slaughtered.  This goes well with Deuteronomy 22:25-27, where God likens raping another man's wife to murder.  In other words, Bathsheba wasn't willing.  She was forced!  And all of the blame goes squarely on King David, who forced her, and then murdered her husband.

So, what if Bathsheba was bathing on the roof?  Why doesn't she get blamed for anything?  Because that's not how lust works!  Ignoring the fact that a river (the typical place to bathe back then) is a public area where many people could be bathing together at the same time without any gender or age segregation, lust is simply desiring to have something (or someone) that does not belong to you.  It is on each person to control their own desires.  And "immodesty" does not cause lust, as demonstrated by the numerous examples in the Bible of men getting into trouble concerning women without the woman's clothing (or lack thereof) ever being brought up.  For example, in Genesis 34.  But why let facts get in the way of doctrine?

You might object, saying "didn't David commit adultery with Bathsheba because he saw that she was beautiful to look at?"  Obviously the answer is yes, but her lack of clothing in this one instance still changes nothing.  And the fact that both men and women were made in the Image of God, without any clothing whatsoever (Genesis 2:25), and that God called everything he made "very good" (Genesis 1:31), it's pretty clear that women are designed to be beautiful in the eyes of men, regardless of their clothing or lack thereof.  Likewise, God designed men to find women beautiful to look at, with or without clothing.  So it is not sinful for a man to look upon a woman and find her beautiful, even if she has no clothes on.  What is sinful however, is for the man to desire to have his neighbor's wife as his own wife, or to desire to have sexual relationships with his neighbor's wife.  It's also sinful for a man to actually have sexual relationships with his neighbor's wife.  And it is sinful for the woman to be willing to have the adulterous relationship.

What about the issue of temptation then?  If Genesis 3 is anything to go by, it is wrong to deliberately cause someone to sin.  But temptation to commit sexual sin at the mere sight of an unclothed female body is a modern day conditioning of society, as already pointed out here and elsewhere.  And it all starts with the incorrect view of the human body, which is the view that the human body is obscene and not fit to be looked at.  It ends with a realistic, Biblical view of the human body, that it is the very good image of God, which is designed to be seen.

Ham's Sin is Not What You Think!

What's your interpretation of Genesis 9:18-27?  It's probably that Ham was punished for seeing his father naked.  Or that Canaan was punished for Ham seeing his father naked.  Or that Ham not only saw his father naked, but that he also mocked him for it in front of his brothers.  Well, all of these interpretations are wrong.  First, let's see what the passage says, then we'll analyze some passages that share similarities to this one.

18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said: "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren." 26 And he said: "Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem, And may Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, And may he dwell in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant." [Genesis 9:18-27; NKJV]

Here's a question:  Why is it that Canaan, the son of Ham, is the one receiving the curse?  Shouldn't it be Ham receiving the curse since it's Ham that sinned?  Also, how does Canaan fit into this event other than being the one receiving the curse?  Genesis goes out of its way to point-out the fact that Canaan is the father of Ham.  Why?

Here are some similar passages.  First thing to note about the following passages is their link to sexual relationships.

If a man takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. [Leviticus 20:17; NKJV]

Jerusalem has sinned gravely, Therefore she has become vile.  All who honored her despise her Because they have seen her nakedness; Yes, she sighs and turns away. [Lamentations 1:8; NKJV]

35 'Now then, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord! 36 Thus says the Lord God: "Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, 37 surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who break wedlock or shed blood are judged; I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy. 39 I will also give you into their hand, and they shall throw down your shrines and break down your high places. They shall also strip you of your clothes, take your beautiful jewelry, and leave you naked and bare. [Ezekiel 16:35-39; NKJV]

In these passages, "seeing someone's nakedness" is in the context of sexual relationships.  Compare that to passages about providing for those in need:

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; When you see the naked, that you cover him, And not hide yourself from your own flesh? [Isaiah 58:7; NKJV]

"When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?" [Matthew 25:38; NKJV]

To "see someone naked" means to see that a person has no physical clothing on their bodies.  But to "see someone's nakedness" means to have sexual relationships with that person (always a male to female relationship).  Note that when Joseph was testing his brothers, he used the phrase "see the nakedness of the land" in the context of a vulnerability (Genesis 42:9-12) in a nation's defensive capabilities.

We should also note the link between "seeing" and "uncovering" someone's nakedness, like in Leviticus 20:17.  They mean the same thing.  And Leviticus 18:7-8 makes it clear what "uncovering someone's nakedness" really means:

7 The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness. [Leviticus 18:7-8; NKJV]

Again, these are Hebrew idioms that have to do with male to female sexual relationships, not whether the person is physically naked.  For some reason, the Old Testament uses only idioms when it comes to discussing sexual relationships.

This means that what Ham actually did not only involved seeing his father physically naked, but also having sexual relationships with his mother!  And that's where Canaan fits into the picture.  Canaan's mother is Noah's wife!  So it's no wonder that Canaan receives the curse instead of Ham.  Note that none of the rest of Ham's sons are cursed.  In fact, one of his sons, Egypt, is actually favored by God.

Now, what about seeing someone naked?  That is not a sin at all.  And, until recently, was considered a normal part of every day life.  I leave you with this poem from the YouTube channel "Renewed Mind".

Valentine's Day's Pagan Origins

Today, Valentine's Day looks like an innocent celebration of love, but it originated from an ancient pagan fertility ritual, which was then later "Christianized" by the Roman Catholic Church.  The mere fact that this is a pagan holiday means that it is forbidden by Deuteronomy 12.  For God commanded us not to mimic the ways of the pagans.  Also, since the Catholic Church is pagan, anyone who tries to assert that this day isn't pagan because it was created by the Catholic Church is actually proving the day to be pagan.

This fertility ritual would start with the sacrifice of a goat and a dog.  Then they would make strips of goat skin, drip them in blood, and slap their crops and young women with those strips.  And the women, believing that this would make them more fertile, would line up to slapped with these strips of goat skin.  Now, since this was a pagan fertility ritual, it was of course done in worship of a pagan god.  This "god" is Cupid, who is depicted as a naked baby with angel-like wings, and equipped with a bow and arrow.  Whoever got shot by this arrow would fall in love with someone.  Modern depictions of this false god have it covered with some sort of cloth for "modesty".  Anyone claiming to be Christian that celebrates Valentine's Day worships Cupid, not Yeshua.

Of course, this isn't the only thing that was done in the middle of the second month.  I like to refer to Valentine's Day as "adultery feast".  Why?  Because as part of this pagan fertility ritual, the young women would put their names inside a large urn, and the young men would take a card out of the urn, and whoever's name was on that card got to be his partner in sex for the year.  Sometimes, this would end in marriage.  The "adultery" refers to what would happen if it didn't result in marriage.  Though, technically speaking, adultery is when a man has sexual relations with another man's wife, not with an unmarried woman, as would be the case here.

By the way, have you noticed that this ancient ritual is a perversion of something that Yahweh called "very good"?  Yahweh created mankind to be fertile, along with everything required to produce offspring.  He created man to love women and women to love men.  And he calls this "very good" (Genesis 1:31).  The pagans somehow got the idea that there needed to be a ritual involving animal sacrifices to a god in order to increase women's fertility.  Fertility that is already there by design!  They also pervert that which Yahweh intended to lead to marriage into something sexually impure; into a ritual that results in a type of relationship that Yahweh requires to end in marriage.  And finally, they turned an attribute of Yahweh into a god who's very character is hostile to the ways of Yahweh!

The Truth About the Image of God

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  You've probably been told that it means we have some of God's qualities and attributes.  But if you recall what Genesis 1:26 says, you will notice that we are made in the image and likeness of God.  What you've been told is God's image is actually the definition for God's likeness.  You've also probably been told that because of the fall, the image of God was lost (or marred).  And that because of Jesus, the image of God has been restored.  The verse used to support the teaching that we lost the image of God at the fall is Genesis 5:1-3, where it once again says that man was made in the likeness of God.  But that passage also says that Adam had a son in his own image and likeness.  Of course, there are no other passages that support this doctrine, nor are there any passages that support the doctrine that the image of God was restored through the Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus).  Also, Genesis 1 states ten times that living things were made to reproduce after their kind!  Genesis 5 makes it pretty clear that man is reproducing after his kind, just like all the other creatures.  Yet you are told that the description of Adam having a son in his own image and likeness "proves" that the image of God was lost.

So if the image of God is conflated with the likeness of God, what does it really mean to be made in the image of God?  The Hebrew word for "image" is "selem", which is invariably used to describe a physical object made to look like something else.  The reason given for the exception when it comes to the image of God is that "God is a spirit" [John 4:24] and "spirits don't have flesh" [Luke 24:39].  Without going too far off topic, the Greek word translated as "spirit" is "pneuma", which literally means "wind".  In Hebrew culture (which is the culture that wrote the Gospels), things are often described by their function.  The function of wind is that it is not seen, but the effects of wind are seen.  And a closer study of Scripture will reveal that there are different types of "spirits" (winds).  Some types of "spirits" have physical form, others do not.  Ironically, some of the same teachers that use this to say that the image of God cannot be literal will acknowledge elsewhere how broad the use of the word "spirit" is in the Bible.  If you really want to be literal, then John 4:24 should be translated to "God is a wind".  Have fun trying to explain that away!

Is there any other evidence in Scripture that the image of God should not be taken literally?  No.  With the exception of a couple of out-of-context verses, there is no verse in Scripture that, in context, states or implies that the image of God is anything but literal.  Remember, the Bible says that we are made in both the image and likeness of God.  The likeness of God means that we share some of God's qualities and attributes.  The image of God means that we look like God.  The two should not be conflated.

The Bible reiterates man being made in God's image in Genesis 9:6, where it is given as the reason murderers are to be put to death.  When Paul was addressing the issue of head coverings, he used the fact that man is the image of God as the reason for saying that men should not wear them (1 Corinthians 11:7).  There is no indication anywhere that this is anything but literal.  A few other things to point out:  in John 14:9, Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the father".  And in Colossians 1:15, Paul described Jesus as "the image of the invisible God".  He also describes Jesus as the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4.  God being described as a wind in John 4:24 has nothing to do with whether God has a physical form.  And if God did not have a physical form, Jesus would not be able to say "if you have seen me, you have seen the father".  And Paul would also not be able to describe Jesus as being the image of that which is invisible.

Let's reiterate what Genesis says about human beings:

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. [Genesis 1:26-27; NKJV]

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. [Genesis 5:1; NKJV]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. [Genesis 2:25; NKJV]

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Genesis 1:31; NKJV]

Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. [Genesis 9:6; NKJV]

So the Bible says that human beings are made to look like God, and that this is very good.  The Bible also says that human beings are made to share God's qualities and attributes, and that this too is very good.  But the Church conflates the former with the latter, then outright denies the former; replacing it with heretical doctrines about "lust" and "modesty" based on what is clearly an unbiblical, heretical view of human beings.  A view that, as some have pointed out, is directly responsible for the pornography industry!  And a view that has to invent "commands of God" where there are none, under the pretense of avoiding sexual sin.

What Did Jesus Mean by "But I Say..."?

The phrase "but I say" or "but I tell you" appears in the Gospels quite a few times.  But what does it mean?  Let's examine the first time it appears, which is in Matthew 5:22.

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister [without cause] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. [Matthew 5:21-22; NIV]

It appears that Jesus is quoting from the Law.  And indeed, the Law does say, "you shall not murder" [Exodus 20:13].  However, the Law does not say, "anyone who murders will be subject to judgement".  It says the one who murders is to be put to death [Numbers 35:16-21]!  Is Jesus making the Law harder to follow?  Not at all.  For the Law says, "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18] and, "do not bear a grudge against anyone" [Leviticus 19:18].  What Jesus is doing here is linking Leviticus 19:18 with Exodus 20:13.  If you break the later, then you've broken the former in your heart.  This wouldn't be the only time that Jesus linked two different commands together, so that breaking one means you break the other in your heart.  In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus linked coveting with adultery.

So what about the next example?  Here's a verse where Jesus appears to be overriding God's Law.

31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."  [Matthew 5:31-32; NIV]

The Law does indeed say that anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce [Deuteronomy 24:1].  But here's the question:  Is Jesus forbidding what God has previously allowed?  Or is the intent behind the command in question being misused?  Remember the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  And the fact that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God:

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' 6 they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [Matthew 15:1-6; NIV]

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.  So it must be that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  What's the intent?  The word translated as "uncleanness" is the Hebrew word "erva", which means "nakedness" or "shamefulness".  If you read through Scripture carefully, you will find that sin is always linked with shame, with the former justifying the latter.  In other words, the intent of the command is to allow a man to divorce his wife if he finds out that she has been sexually immoral.

So then, what's with Matthew 19:8, where Jesus appears to be saying that the commands concerning divorce are not of God?  If Jesus was doing just that, it means that the inerrancy doctrine is wrong.  Also, remember Deuteronomy 13?  Moses could not have put that command there if God had not approved of it!  Otherwise, Jesus would be guilty of sin by forbidding what God's Law has allowed.  The issue here is the intent of the command, which agrees with what Jesus is saying.

Here's another example of Jesus apparently contradicting God's Law.  Mind you that Jesus is God, and God does not change (if he does change, then he cannot be eternal).

33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." [Matthew 5:33-37; NKJV]

If we take a careful look at the Greek text, you will notice that the "not" in verse 34 is a qualified not.  The most likely qualifier is the word "falsely" between "swear" and "at all".  What's going on here is that the Pharisees (in typical fashion) are saying, "If you swear by the Lord, you are bound by that oath.  But if you swear by other things, then the oath means nothing."  Jesus had a few things to say about the Pharisees rules concerning what you may or may not swear falsely by.  To paraphrase, "anyone who swears by anything is bound by the oath that they swear."

One more thing.  I noticed that the NIV says in verse 37, "All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."  Notice the clear change in meaning between the two translations.  The saying, "let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'" means we are to speak truthfully when we swear.  But the saying, "all you need to say is simply 'yes' or 'no'; anything further is from the evil one" is a clear violation of Deuteronomy 12:32.

To summarize, when Jesus said, "but I say", he either contradicted a human rule by what he said, or brought to light the intent of God's command, or linked breaking one command (one that cannot be enforced) with breaking another command (one that can be enforced) in your heart.  Never did Jesus speak against God's Law.  For he gave the Law and told King David through the Holy Spirit that the Law is eternal [Psalm 119:160].

The Truth About Lust

Ever heard of the term "lust" before?  Chances are the answer is yes.  And chances are that nobody has given you a definition for the word "lust".  And when it is defined, it's rarely defined according to what the Bible says it means.  All it takes is a simple internet search to see that the Bible, while often used to explain the definition given, is not used as the source of the definition.  In fact, if you read the articles in the link carefully, you'll notice that each source gives a slightly different definition of lust.  And some of these sources are closer to the biblical definition than others.

So, which one is correct?  As it turns out, none of the definitions given on the first page in the above-linked search results are correct.  Some are close, but they all fall into the same trap:  Namely, associating lust with strong, sexual desire.  And I'm just talking about all of the Christian resources that appear in those search results.  They're all wrong to some degree, and all in the same way!

To understand why they're all wrong, we first need to understand some of the verses used to support the given definition of lust.  We'll start with Matthew 5:28:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [KJV]

It is admirable for people to try to get the definition from the biblical text.  But often, the text is mistranslated or not read carefully.  Or both.  And in this case, it's both.  Many Christians believe that merely looking at a woman is lusting after her, especially if she's wearing revealing or form-fitting cloths (or is entirely naked).  But if we read the passage carefully, we'll notice that it's not looking at a woman that is lust.  Instead, it's looking at her with lust, that's the problem.  Her clothing (or sometimes lack thereof) is completely irrelevant to whether the man is lusting after her.

So that clears-up some of the misunderstanding of the text, but it doesn't give a solid definition of what lust is.  It just tells you what lust is not.  The KJV actually does a good job of providing a definition in Romans 7:7:

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. [emphasis mine]

Lust is the same as coveting.  And coveting is a strong desire.  Notice that some of those search results listed above do give this definition, but with an emphasis on sexual desire, and stating that the desire is always sinful.  Let's take a look at what the Greek words translated as "lust" and "covet" mean.  The word in question is "epithymeo", which means "to desire" (usually a strong desire).  The KJV and other translations translate this word as "desire", "covet", or "lust" based on the context.  If the context is negative, it's translated as "lust" or "covet" depending on whether the translators believe the text is referring to a sexual desire.  If the context is positive or neutral, then it's translated as "desire".  But it's the same word.

By the way, the Law of God does not say "You shall not covet."  What Paul is doing here, by quoting part of the commandment, is invoking the entire commandment which he is assuming the reader knows.  Here's what the full commandment being invoked says:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. [Exodus 20:17; NIV]

As you can see here, the command is not, "do not covet, period", but rather gives a list of things that you are not allowed to covet.  The things listed here are all things that you cannot legally obtain.  Notice that there are human beings on this list.  Namely, your neighbor's wife, and male and female servants.

And here's one of the misunderstandings about lust.  Lust is not a strong sexual desire.  Lust is when a man strongly-desires that a woman be his own wife.  It can also be when a man strongly-desires having sexual relationships with a woman.  So in this instance, part of the definition given is correct, especially if the source points out that the desire is a choice.  But the desire is not simply to derive sexual pleasure just by looking upon her.  The desire is to actually have sexual relationships with her.  And this is one of the main points where nearly everyone who defines lust gets it wrong.  That is not to say that the former is beneficial or good (it certainly is not, nor is it what God intended), it's just not what the word "lust" means.

Jesus' teachings against lust is actually him linking the 10th Commandment "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" to the 7th Commandment "you shall not commit adultery".  That is, you shall not desire that your neighbor's wife be your own wife, nor shall you desire to have sexual relationships with her.  For if you do, then you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.

Note also that this means that one can lust after a woman who is not married to anyone and not be guilty of sin.  In other words.  Lust is only sinful in the context that acting upon it would be a case of adultery.  If a man acts upon his lust of an unmarried woman, he, by definition, is not guilty of adultery and therefore, not guilty of adultery in his heart.  If the woman is married, but the man does not know it, then when he finds out that she is married, he must stop desiring her immediately.  Because if he continues to desire her, knowing the truth, he then becomes guilty of having committed adultery with her in his heart.