A clarification before we begin: I’m not about to say that leering at women with drool running down your chin is acceptable. That is not the point. I’m not looking to condone dishonoring behavior; I’m hoping to help good men with some needless guilt.
That said, let’s dive in.
Get Thee to the (original) Greek
(Note, all scripture quotations are in the NASB unless otherwise noted.)
Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Because of bad translation, this verse has caused a lot of needless guilt among Christian men for nearly 2000 years. (Ever since they stopped reading it in the original Greek.) Probably the biggest problem is the omission of Greek words which change the meaning of the passage.
And yes, that happens a lot.
To start with, let’s get a somewhat stilted (but more accurate) translation of this passage from my favorite interlinear Bible.
Matthew 5:27-28 (interlinear, which is why it sounds a little funny)
27 You have heard that it was said “not shall you commit adultery”.
28 I however say to you, that everyone looking upon a woman in order to lust after her already has committed adultery with her in the heart of him.
This is my first point: English translations often skip or omit Greek words to make the sentence flow in English. It’s a downside of translating because no translation is perfect. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. Like I said, they’ve omitted a Greek word for seemingly no reason at all.
I don’t understand why.
The Greek word translated “in order to” is the Greek word “πρὸς” (pros). It’s a preposition with the meaning:
4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to “interface with” (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).
4314 /prós (“towards, with”) indicates “extension toward a goal, with implied interaction or reciprocity (L & N, 1, 84.18), with “presumed contact and reaction” (L & N, 1, 84.23). 4314 (prós) naturally suggests the cycle of initiation and response
The Greek word Pros conveys intention. Jesus was talking about intentional, purposeful looking/staring here and that’s the first crucial point. Jesus is not talking about an accidental glance or catching a bit of flesh out of the corner of your eye.
I’ve heard some people really abuse this verse.
Some people say that just thinking a woman is attractive means you’re flirting with lust/adultery. Put simply, that’s stupid. There is nothing wrong with thinking a woman is beautiful, or that she has a beautiful figure. That is not what Jesus is driving at in this passage (which I’ll prove).
So no, thinking a woman is beautiful is not flirting with lust… Because Jesus is not even talking about lust in this passage!
Lust or Coveting?
Let’s talk about the word that’s translated “lust” in that passage. It’s the Greek word “ἐπιθυμῆσαι” (epithumeó). First, I’d like to point out that epithumeó is a verb.
It’s not a noun, it’s a verb.
A noun identifies a person, animal, place, thing, or idea/feeling. A verb (other than a linking verb) indicates action. The word translated “lust” is a verb and thus it indicates action, not a mere feeling or passing thought.
Epithumeó means:
1937 epithyméō (from 1909 /epí, “focused on” intensifying 2372 /thymós, “passionate desire“) – properly, to show focused passion as it aptly builds on (Gk epi, “upon”) what a person truly yearns for; to “greatly desire to do or have something – ‘to long for, to desire very much‘ ” (L & N, 1, 25.12)
So we have the Greek word “Pros” which shows the looking is intentional and purposeful. Now we have the Greek verb epithumeó, which again brings out the purposefulness of the action here. It means to show focused desire on something you really want.
Further – and I can’t stress how crucial this is – you must “greatly desire” and/or “show focused passion” and do it on purpose to be “epithumeó”. Again, this isn’t a passing glance or fancy. It’s not even (necessarily) a double take when an attractive woman walks by.
This is focused, intentional, passionate desiring.
Now, let’s dig the well deeper.
Romans 7:7 (KJV)
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.
Romans 13:9 (ESV)
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
The word translated “covet” above is the same word used in Matthew: epithumeó.
Think about that for a moment.
Really think about it.
When Paul quotes the 10th commandment (you shall not covet), he uses the same word that Jesus uses. Could they have a similar meaning? Absolutely.
Remember: context.
Jesus starts the previous verse by talking about adultery. The 7th commandment forbade adultery, and the 10th commandment forbade the thing that leads to adultery: coveting. earlier in the passage (verses 21-22) Jesus reminded them that murder is wrong, and then forbade the thing that leads to murder: hate.
Notice the symmetry there.
Epithumeó can have a positive connotation. Jesus Himself uses it in Luke 22:15. But in context, it certainly seems that Jesus is referring to the 10th Commandment about coveting.
Now, back to Matthew
The word that Paul uses for “covet” when quoting the 10th commandment is the exact same word that Jesus uses. Further, the context dictates that Jesus is referring to coveting (not lusting), in violation of the 10th Commandment. However, it’s translated “lust” instead of covet because…
because…
I have no idea.
As we’ve already seen, it’s a strong focused desire that’s not necessarily sexual in nature. With that understanding, I’m going to alter the NASB translation slightly to bring it more in line with what we’ve learned so far.
Matthew 5:27-28 (altered NASB)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who gazes intently at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Makes a big difference doesn’t it?
This understanding totally changes the meaning of the passage from “don’t look at women” to “don’t covet women”. Coveting is clearly a sin and you can find many references to it being one.
However, we don’t have the full meaning of the passage yet. There are still more pieces to the puzzle.
So Let’s Talk About What Coveting REALLY is
I could write paragraphs about what coveting really is. However, I’ll let Dennis Prager explain because he does such a marvelous job. (The video is less than 5 minutes.)
There’s nothing wrong with admiring what another person has. Sin/coveting only comes when you desire to take those things away from another person to own them yourself.
A Note About Adultery
If you require further evidence that Matthew 5 is talking about coveting, then look no farther than the definition of the Greek and Hebrew words that we translate “adultery”. In English, adultery means “a married person having sex with a person other than their spouse“. However, the Greek and Hebrew words have a more narrow definition for “adultery”.
Throughout the Bible, the words we translate “adultery” have only one meaning. Biblically speaking, Adultery is a man having sex with another man’s wife. (Or to state it differently “a married woman having sex with a man who isn’t her husband”.)
I have a whole article about adultery where I prove the statement above at length. Easton’s Bible Dictionary agrees with my definition and defines adultery as:
conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin.
If a married man has sex with an unmarried woman, that’s sexual immorality or fornication. Both are serious sins and I am not saying it’s acceptable because it definitely isn’t.
Sex outside of marriage is a serious sin.
It’s a very serious sin. it’s so serious that I devoted an entire article to proving that it’s not only a sin, but a wicked, senseless sin that God promised to judge.
I’m not trying to minimize that at all.
Two unmarried people sin greatly when they have sex with each other. However, they don’t commit adultery. Adultery requires a married woman to be involved. The marital state of the man is irrelevant to deciding if it’s adultery or not; the marital state of the woman determines if it’s adultery.
Now, back to the Matthew (again)
Important point:
In Greek, they don’t have a separate word for “wife” vs “woman”.
They are the exact same word and only context can tell you which is which. (which creates a headache interpreting some passages…) So, what if Jesus wasn’t talking about just any woman, but specifically a married woman? Remember, a man can only commit adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife.
Remember: context.
The point Jesus is making is about adultery. Biblical adultery can only be committed when a married woman is involved. Therefore, the women mentioned here must be married. If she isn’t, then you simply can’t have the sin of adultery. It’s literally impossible.
Please keep that in mind as you read.
Matthew 5:27-28 (Altered NASB from before with the proper meaning inserted)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who gazes intently at a [married] woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
All of a sudden, the whole verse makes perfect sense. Jesus says that if you covet your neighbor’s wife, you’ve as good as committed adultery with her in your heart. The issue is coveting another man’s wife, not noticing an attractive woman.
Conclusion
No, men shouldn’t stare open-mouthed and drooling at attractive women. However, it’s not wrong to notice beautiful women. It’s rude – and unloving/dishonoring – to gawk and stare though so please don’t do that. However, just because you noticed that a woman is beautiful – or even has a great figure – doesn’t mean you’ve violated Jesus’ words in Mathew.
You cross the line when you switch from noticing/admiring to coveting.
It’s about the desire to posses (covet) another man’s wife that Jesus warns about here. It’s perfectly normal and natural to find women attractive; just don’t cross the line and covet another man’s wife.
Just one last thought.
Men: keep it classy and treat all women with honor as if they were daughters of the Most High God… because they are. (Isaiah 45:6-7)
“Men: keep it classy and treat all women with honor as if they were daughters of the Most High God… because they are.”
All women are not daughters of God, sons of God are those who obey Him.
John 1: 12 but as many as received him, to them gave he [the] right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name;
13 who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God.
I would cite Isaiah 45:6-7, but I do see your point about obedience. My point was simply that we are called to respect everyone who is made in God’s image, and obviously that includes women.
So… What’s your take on the unmarried coveting the unmarried (masturbating, porn, oogling girls at the beach, etc)? Would the same principle be committing fornication in your heart.
And I’ve heard that during this time, pretty well all women were betrothed before marriage in Jewish culture. So to lust even at an unmarried was just as sinful as a married one. Thoughts?
I’m not sure I can answer that question directly because of your use of the word “coveting”.
If you watch the video again, you’ll see that coveting requires ownership by someone else and the desire to take that thing from that other person. Can you covet something that isn’t owned? I would argue no. Is it wrong for a man to want to “posses” (marry) an unmarried woman? Again I would argue no, partially because nearly all marriages in world history began that way.
So it’s not coveting, but…
…There are other sins and you can desire something in an unhealthy/sinful way. Certainly if you were planning to get an unmarried person into bed before marriage that could be “fornication in your heart”. (I did say several times that oogling women you see walking around is dishonoring and a no-no)
In the Jewish culture, Betrothal was legally binding and required a divorce to break. It was almost no different than marriage, except sex wasn’t allowed yet. an unmarried woman – by definition – wasn’t married or betrothed. I don’t see how desiring to marry an unmarried woman could be a bad thing.
Johnny
Job 31:1 talks about coveting an unmarried woman, I believe he is referring to Exodus 22:16.
For the daughter was also the property of her father.
We see that the man who sleeps with a virgin without the permission of the girl’s father receives a certain punishment, which means that his attitude was wrong.
But if a man has sex with a virgin who has no father then they do not sin, but now they are married..
If what you say is true, then theres a trade off then isnt there? A much higher percentage of women back then were married or about to be married, meaning this also applied to a much higher percent of men. So those men had some sort of romantic outlook for them, even if it wasnt sexual.
Nowadays, its a fact that much more men are involuntarily celibate, ie they cant find a partner, much less a virgin bride as most women are guaranteed to be sexually active after the age of 20. So they have no proper (Biblically) legal sexual outlook, while there are way more women dressing slutty and acting slutty then back then. However, the flip side is more of these women nowadays will be single, although tbh with modern day dating and the way women act, theres no straightforward guarantee to this either.
This leads to the last difference between now and then, now we have, as weird as it sounds, cartoon pornography. Would that fall under these laws? Id imagine not, although it can be seen as glorifying fornication which is bad.
Wouldn’t it be accurate to say though that to fantasize and masturbate to a women who isn’t your wife is cheating on your future wife or her future husband?
Wasn’t sex and sexual thoughts designed to be in a covenantal relationship with a your wife, which reflects God’s covenantal relationship with us?
Isn’t the marriage bed supposed to be honored above all else?
Honoring marriage above all else (even God) would be a sin. Heb 13:4 actually says “Marriage should be honored by all“.
Yes, sex belongs only inside marriage. However, to paraphrase 1 Cor 4:6 “Do not exceed what is written”; I hesitate to comment more on areas where I don’t have chapter and verse to back me up. I have personal opinions, but no clear “chapter and verse” on masturbation and fantasy. If you’d like my personal opinions, feel free to email me (address on the contact page) and I’ll share them. I hesitate to put them here without supporting evidence though, which I don’t have at present.
I have heard this argument about future wife and future husband. The argument sounds illogical to me.
If your not married to them now they are not your wife or husband. That is like saying your will put me in prison now for a crime I will commit 20 years from now. It does not apply in any way shape or form.
It’s like saying I will get written up being no call no show today for a job I will not be employed at until 30 years from now.
How do you even know the person will even get married or not die tomorrow? It just sounds like a way to argue an opinion when there is no scripture to back up an argument.
You say that in Matthew 5:28 the word epithumeó actually means to “covet”.
You also say that “coveting” is sin.
If this is true than in Luke 22:15 Jesus is guilty of “coveting” and therefore sin because the same word epithumeó (greek 1937) is the word that is translated “earnestly desired”
And He said to them, “I have (earnestly desired) to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer;
Therefore if this word really does mean “coveting” than Jesus must have been guilty of breaking the 10th commandment, and therefore sin. And that is an impossibility as He was the sinless Son of God.
Additionally this is not the only passage in which epithumeó is used in a light that is clearly positive and commendable.
I appreciate the level of scholarship you have given to exegete this scripture (really it is some of the best that I have seen thus far.)
However the fact that the word epithumeó is clearly shown to be an action that is not in itself sinful forces the conclusion Jesus in Matt 5:28 is in fact saying that everyone looking at a woman in order to simply “feel natural attraction or desire” for her is in fact sinning against God to the highest degree. To such a degree that he can expect to spend eternity in Hell for it if he does not somehow figure out how to stop, as the next verses clearly indicate.
I do not understand this.
If this is the case then I cannot see how a man can ever choose a wife without sinning. I cannot see how any of us can expect to be able to live in the 21st century without constantly being put in situations in which it is practically impossible to completely avoiding sinning. It seems to me that the old catholic hermits who went and lived in caves away from all women were the ones who had it right in light of this scripture. I do not understand this. It does not make any sense to me in light of the rest of scripture as the whole of scripture does in fact push us to believe that it is possible to live “perfect” as our heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:48) (Gen 17:1) (John 8:11) and many others. I do not see how we can do that if this in Matt 5:28 is indeed the standard.
Nevertheless, if we really are going to be serious with accurately understanding what this scripture is saying than I cannot see how we can come to any other conclusion.
After reading your comment, I went back and made some slight edits to make it clear that epithumeó doesn’t always mean coveting, and that it’s primarily the context that dictates my assertion that it means coveting in Matthew 5:28.
To be clear, as long as you aren’t purposely and intentionally coveting another man’s wife, you don’t run afoul of Jesus’ words here. You might sin, but IMHO Jesus is only talking about coveting another man’s wife in this passage.
I have been continuing to meditate on this passage. It is clear to me now that the word does mean coveting alone “desiring to poses” apart from any sexual desire. For 3 primary reasons. The first reason is because of the word that Jesus chose to use. He did not choose a word that had a sexual connotation. Even though some of those other 16 passages that the word is used in do translate it “desire”. None of any of the passages that the word is used in have any sexual connotation. The reason this is such a important point is because of this second point. And that is this, Jesus is here attempting to literally be as shocking and wide sweeping in His condemnation as He possibly can be. He is literally setting the standard as high as He possibly can in order to refute the claim that He was abolishing the law. Therefore, if He could have used a word in place of epithumeó that would have “swept up more people” into His net, He would have. But He didn’t. He used a word that meant strong “built upon” desire, not just normal desire. And He used a word that does not even have a sexual connotation. For this reason we might even gather that not only is looking at a married or unmarried woman and being sexually aroused by her not condemned but there may even be a curtain degree to which even wanting the woman herself is not necessarily sin as long as it does not become “covetous” desire for her. The 3rd reason that this passage must not be referring to sexual desire is in Genesis where the Lord pronounced all that He had made very good. Including the sexual desire that drives men to “leave father and mother and hold fast to wife”. A good creation of God which 1st Tim 4 confirms declaring “everything created by God is good”, to even “be received by those who believe and know the truth”. It would seem that at long last sexual desire was actually made for believers. Funny how once you understand what the word actually says, the club that the pastor used to beat you half to death with for having eyes and gonads becomes the word that actually gives you faith to enjoy looking at the opposite sex.
Grace & peace brothers and sisters.
Let the feast begin.
The original ancient Greek and Hebrew versions don’t necessarily prohibit ‘premarital fornication’ either, just ‘immoral fornication,’ and what’s considered immoral was never elaborated on (except by man’s faulty translation). In the eyes of God, probably a difference between a couple who has been together for 10 years and not married strictly for economical reasons (credit scores, etc.) versus prostitution or true lust. In my opinion all of this has been purposely over time to turn people away from Jesus, to make his rules appear less “loving and based on morality,” and more just “strict.”
I’m working on an article right now that will show the Bible clearly calls sex outside of marriage a sin. I’ll edit this comment (and the article) when I finish it, because this idea is getting way too popular. Saying something that’s morally wrong is morally right is dangerous.
EDIT: Article published here. Sex outside of marriage is a serious sin.
one thing that still don’t get that you didn’t touch.. the word ” with her in his heart ” ?
There’s nothing of interest in the phrase “αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ” (literally “with her in the heart of him”) The Greek words mean exactly as they are translated. The application is one of interpretation, not of translation. Essentially, Jesus is saying that you covet the other man’s wife, you are guilty of adultery even though you didn’t commit the physical act because of the condition of your heart. Wanting/wishing to commit a sin and only not committing it because you lack opportunity is the same as committing it in the eyes of The Most Righteous Judge.
If what you say about this verse is correct, why does Job 31:1 talk about lusting after unmarried women?
I never said it was okay to lust after unmarried women, but rather closed by saying men should treat all women with honor.
To be honest I believe the saints where celebrated some days ago. And in my own understanding the saint are those that fall to sin, came out of it, and finished well. Now if you look at this context you will notice that most of them where once sinners but the where consistent in coming out of it. So the bottom line is coming out of it not counting how many time you sinned.
I’m back. You said at the end of the article that gawking at women is in bad taste. Got that. But that brings me to this question. Is it a sin to masturbate? Like, fantasising or viewing a woman on a magazine and pleasuring yourself? Or a cartoon character? Is that the same as gawking at a woman, say, at the mall or in public? I hope you can help me understand. God bless.
There is no verse in the entire Bible you can use to say masturbation is wrong. None. However, it’s not a good idea to make it a regular practice for health reasons. It adversely affects some mood-stabilizing hormones, which can lead to some depression and lack of motivation. (sex doesn’t though; it actually has the opposite effect) Thus its not a good idea to make it a regular practice. Occasional maybe, but not regular.
As for magazines, porn, etc, they rather spectacularly fail the Philippians 4:8 test. Also, 1 Timothy 5:2 mentions treating “younger women as sisters in all purity”. There’s also Job 31:1 to consider. That said, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to have sex. You should want to have sex, and God provided an outlet for that: marriage. Until you’re married though – and after with women who aren’t your wife – I suggest following Paul’s advice to treat “younger women as sisters in all purity”.
That said, not all fantasy is about a specific woman. if you want to imagine your wedding night (or other situation with your future wife) and use that to masturbate, I don’t see a problem with that. However, I would caution against making it a regular practice for health reasons.
I probably need to write an article about this, but I haven’t gotten time. I’ll add a link to this article when I get time to write that one.
Does this apply to cartoon characters? I apologise if this sounds immature. But masturbating to a cartoon character seems different from lusting after a real woman. The issues put forth through the scriptures you quoted above apply to just that. Real women.
It’d be kind of strange calling, say, Mickey Mouse a brother in Christ. Or Helen Parr from The Incredibles a sister in Christ.
The example you gave of fantasising about a future seems to fall under lusting after imaginary women, which cartoon characters are, except visualised and drawn on paper. I could be wrong. What are your thoughts?
Richard, your reasoning is perfect and yet I think it misses the point. 1 Corinthians 6:12 says:
Perhaps (maybe) cartoon porn is permissible… maybe. But as Paul says, is it “profitable”? Is it beneficial?
I don’t see how it could be.
By contrast, I do see how imaging your wedding night/married sex could be beneficial. It’s imagining – dreaming – of the future that often spurns us to work for the future of which we dream. And “for lack of a vision, my people perish”. Additionally:
Marriage is the very thing that God ordained to be a picture of Christ and His church. It’s one of those things from above. Cartoon porn is… not. It’s most definitely an earthly thing.
My suggestion would be to read through the epistles slowly, out loud, to yourself. Not to find any specific verse on the matter, but to get an overall sense of how God expects His followers to behave. The calling is lofty, the struggle is real, and the standards are high. I don’t think I can reconcile cartoon porn with Paul’s statement: “Therefore, I – the prisoner of the Lord – urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling in which you’ve been called,”
You mentioned that “maybe” masturbating to a cartoon character is permissible. So it isn’t clear cut? Is it merely disliked, or could there be a solid scriptural prohibition?
It sounds like you want me to say “cartoon porn is totally fine”, which I won’t do. Please reread my previous comment because I did give an opinion on it, just perhaps not the one you wanted.
First, I would like to thank the admin., Berean Patriot for his/her work in shedding more light on this grey area of the Matthew 5:28 verse. Honestly, I used to be burdened with guilt when I remember the verse for the following reason :
Naturally, I think of myself as a shy person and though I’ve had crushes on girls, I’ve never openly confessed my feelings to any. I normally resort to furtive glances at them, and sometimes to my dismay I do get caught in the act as our eyes meet.😅
However, when I’m alone and feel kinda down, I have these pics of the girl I like( she’s fully clothed in them by the way.) that I go stare at adoringly and admiringly. Thing is, as much as I still do my best to limit my thoughts from getting sexual in nature, I still do get aroused even when I fancy the prospect of a relationship with her like going on a date.
I would then remember the aforementioned verse and feel guilty as I would reason that maybe secretly in my heart I did look at the picture with ‘lustful intent.’ This is usually followed with profuse apologies to God for what may have been my body’s natural attraction to a girl I’m interested in.
But thanks to your explanation, I think I see the fine lines clearer now and I’m grateful.
I would also like to give my two cents on the issue of porn of any form. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend it either. My reason being that what may start off as an innocuous shortcut/comprise may turn out into an insidious bondage.
On physiological level,our brains normally seek novelty, so yesterday’s video may not satisfy you today as it did then, and in essence you may resort to trying out newer and more hardcore genres you would never have imagined your character capable of viewing.
Furthermore,from my research, it messes with our hormonal balance : dopamine (for rewarding pleasure), epinephrine (for memory imprint) and
oxytocin(for bonding sensation). This could steal our away our needed time and energy to live and function normally in favour of repetitive binge watching. I can relate with the need for intimacy especially in lonely or stressful seasons but the costs are quite lofty for the reward. Sometimes what we actually need is company of loved ones,family and friends. I don’t guarantee it absolutely eliminates the raging hormones or horny feelings but it does help manage it.
On the spiritual level, I think a good litmus test would to know if it’s alright to indulge would be to ask :”what would Jesus do?” I think He paid rather heavy price with His life for our freedom and would wish we remain free and joyful. I would highly recommend this video by Pastor Joseph Prince which sheds more light on the matter: https://youtu.be/9Vx3AgKmlQE . And I would leave with the verse Proverbs 4:23. Thank you and God bless you.
Twisting the truth is lies! Repent! My Greek to English Interlinear (πρὸς = to) and the Google translate is the same! Do not be decieved. Take care and guard your heart.
All glory to God in the mighty name of Jesus Christ
You trying to defend! Good luck. Jesus is clear looking at a woman you already committed adultery! Don’t act like a saint.The point is its biology when we look at a woman the instinct is lust. But the spirit aka consciousness unique of being a human being tells us Hey , you are not an animal, its not right to think or feel that way. As real human beings we stop there and look for inner beauty.
Lets not out smart Jesus.
My analysis is not complete on this passage but a couple of preliminary observations .
First , Deuteronomy 5 – 21 uses the word desire , not covet , when referring to the neighbor’s wife . Covet is used for the house , field , etc. ( KJV ) . Second , Romans 7-7 uses the word lust when describing , or equating , the word covet ( KJV ) .
Addendum – in my previous post I said lust is used in Romans 7 -7 to describe or equate the word in question in the article . I would revise to say it may describe or equate .