Not
(The following conversation took place between my wife Cat and I whilst driving in our car.)
Me: Hey, so I’m thinking about doing a blog post exploring the idea of Jesus being fully man, but not having a sex drive.
Cat: Oh?
Me: Yeah. Because how can Jesus be fully man without a sex drive? And if he has a sex drive, then how can he be sinless, since Matthew 5:27-28, says, “Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” What man doesn’t look at women lustfully?
Cat [looking out her side window]: Oh.
Me: What?
Cat: What?
Me: Don’t you think that’s interesting? That Jesus has to be sinless, yet, by his own definition, cannot be, since being fully man means he must regularly commit adultery? If Jesus was fully man, then must have lusted. And if he lusted, he wasn’t sinless. [In slightly manic tone.] That’s kind of interesting, don’t you think?
Cat: Not really.
Me: What? Of course it’s interesting. It’s core to the whole conception of Jesus being fully man!
Cat: Look. You don’t lust after your sister, right?
Me: Ew. No.
Cat: And you don’t lust after your mom. Because your mom and your sister aren’t potential mates for you. That’s how Jesus saw all women. There are no potential mates for Jesus. Just like no sane father can lust after his daughter, Jesus couldn’t lust after any woman. To Jesus, every woman is his daughter. Literally.
Me: So there’s no psychological mechanism for his lust to kick in.
Cat: Right. Plus, it would be cruel of Jesus to have sexual relations with a woman. He’s God. Not exactly an equal relationship. And he’s knows he’s not gonna marry anyone.
Me: Right.
Cat: And that’s how Jesus can be fully man and never lust.
Me: Oh. [Long pause.] Yeah, I probably would have reached that same conclusion. [Cat silently resumes gazing out window.] I would have. Really. I would have thought of that.
Cat [pensively, still looking out window]: I wonder if I should start my own blog?
Me: No! You shouldn’t!
Just out: UNFAIR: Why the “Christian” View of Gays Doesn’t Work (softcover edition; Kindle edition; NookBook edition). Find me here and on my Facebook page.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 97 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Don’t we have to make a distinction between lust and attraction? Or are we saying that all attraction is automatically lust?
Surely any sin associated with sexual attraction lies in inappropriately indulging it, not just in experiencing it.
The idea that Jesus would have the same relationship to all women (and presumably all men as well) as he would his parents or siblings misses the point.
There’s something deeply wrong, or at least something deeply missing whenever we claim Jesus didn’t sin because he couldn’t. That makes him a great story, but a lousy role model.
This is implying that no straight married man can keep from having adultery with every woman who isn’t his wife – and the equivalent for every gay man and every woman. Isn’t it rather more important to say that it’s perfectly appropriate to recognize the attraction to someone else, appreciate their physical beauty and attractive character, and still not choose to deliberately cultivate sexual thoughts about them that turn them into an object in your mind?
I’d rather relate to a Jesus who could agree that someone was attractive and appreciate that about them without objectifying and dehumanizing them rather than someone who was wired so differently that his example is meaningless to me.
*****What man doesn’t look at women lustfully?******
Um….gay men!!! I never do. Seriously, despite the fact that I was married for 23 years. I did the deed and have two fine military officer sons to show for it but my “lust” was always for men.
And I have a problem with the use of the word “adultery” in this context. Adultery is “sexual infidelity to one’s spouse” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery and neither Jesus nor any man or woman can be committing adultery if they are not married, even if they lust for or have sex with someone who IS married (it’s that married person who is committing adultery). That goes for using adultery as a criticism of gays as well.
Using the word adultery in the context of general lust is a remarkably careless use of the word.
It is an interesting theory… and very well written. But in the end, it kind of states the problem with a god becoming human to understand humanity… and then failing to actually experiencing the reality of being human because they are a god…
being human is more than wearing a suit of flesh… it is about passion, love, lust, loss, joy, being hurt, hurting… loosing relationships and repairing them… it is also about not being 100% sure about what happens after death… and leaps of faith.
Lastly, to think that all the Jesus was and all that he experienced was captured by the biblical writers… writing nearly a generation after Jesus dies… belittles both Jesus experience. No person can be fully captured in a book. Also, the orthodox biblical writers had an agenda… to depict Jesus as a god… so the likely edited out his human aspects… there was actually a very big debate about this issue in the first and second centuries AD… this debate and centuries of thought re: Jesus and his teachings were supressed and destroyed when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 300′s AD … it was then that Jesus the man… was turned into Christ the god… and all those that disagreed with this point of view were basically just killed.
So it is a nice theory… but I think it likely misses the mark.
Asexuals exist, people with low sex drives.
At least I foolishly try to think of myself as fully-human most of the time. *Sigh.* *Wimper*
Last I heard, asexuals were at least 20% of the population. So yes, asexuals are fully human.
That many? I have a friend who is asexual and worries about it. If you can find where you heard that, I bet he would be delighted to know it.
It was mentioned in passing in a book called “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do” by Peter McWilliams. It’s actually online as well as in hard-copy form. I highly recommend it. Not only is it funny, but it has some good information in it. The exact quote is: “(On a purely physical level, psychiatrists say that 20 percent of the American public has no appreciable sex drive whatsoever.)”
It’s in the section “A Closer Look at the Consensual Crimes” under “Violations of Marriage: Adultery, Fornication, Cohabitation, Bigamy and Poligamy.” Here’s a link to the online version of the book: http://deoxy.org/ccrime.htm
Anyway, his stat may have been wrong but it stuck with me.
John, I am sure Jesus enjoyed the company of the Apostle John.
Let’s not get into this area …
But then if this is the case, and it is impossible for Christ to liust, how can he identify with those of us who do? oesn’t the Bible state that he was tempted in every way and so understands what we go through, thus offering us a way out?!
He was tempted (with real temptations), but Jesus didn’t sin. I don’t think we can fully understand that concept, but I believe that’s how it was. He was tempted – as we are – but Jesus (unlike us) reached a different conclusion about the temptation and had a different response than most of us would. He can relate to the attraction of sin, because he experienced it. Likewise, Jesus is the only one qualified to show us how to avoid it, because He’s the only one who has ever done that 100% of the time. It’s beautiful, really.
Wow. That is profound. Why in the world has this not been suggested before? I don’t lust after my brother because – ew. Jesus had a relationship with women and men that didn’t make the wiring spark. What a fascinating concept. Cat for President! Wait, I like this President,. Cat for Mayor of San Francisco!
Cat rocks!
He *couldn’t* lust? But he was an adolescent! And he would have been fully capable of falling in love, too.
Lots of people choose to be celibate but it doesn’t mean they never feel desire. And if Jesus was human, raised in a family, I think he would have seen “mother”, “father”, “sister” and “brother” as different than neighbors, friends, etc.
I don’t believe he saw every woman as his daughter or every man as his son. He might have decided he couldn’t have them, but he wouldn’t have had the built-in protection against even thinking of them in a sexual way.
Because that’s too easy! And he was tempted in every way we have been.
Okay. I want to read Cat’s blog!
Yes! She should!
I already thought your wife was super awesome fantastic. I mean, she *married YEW*, didn’t she? She *must* be one of the most amazing women on the planet for that reason alone because to live with you, day in and day out, would take the patience, strength, and perseverance of Ghandi & Mother Theresa combined. And now, through your blog, her superior intellect has been displayed for all the John-Shore-blog-reading-world to see. I bet she talks in her sleep and you steal all her ideas. ;P *runs* *fast*
Delightfull!!!!!!!!!
OK, I’ll just point out the extreme heterocentricity of your conversation about Jesus’s sexuality. Talk about assumptions!
As a teenager, I took “by the letter, not the spirit” comfort in the fact that I did not in fact lust after women at all. I have never committed adultery, under these rules. So sorry for all you straight men, bisexuals and lesbians out there…
There’s a pastor/psychologist in a traditionally very conservative denomination, who used to enjoy tweaking people in his seminars with an even more profound question: “Did Jesus have wet dreams, and if, physiologically, he must have, what did he dream about?”
Normally this would be a topic that I would find blasphemous. Our Lord and the possibility of sin in the same sentence? It just so happens that I am studying Hebrews 4, which addresses Christ’s temptation. Verse 15: He was fully tempted on ALL POINTS(NKJV) and in every way(NIV), yet He did not sin. Wow, that was a revelation to me. I had limited the temptation to the garden with satan and the food during the 40 days.
It is hard for us to grasp His full humanity and easier to grasp His full divinity. My mom once said “We don’t like to think about it, but Jesus had dirty diapers”. I am learning that fully human is just that. Because he experienced all types of temptation, He is capable of delivering us from all temptation.
I don’t like the argument. If we’re going to speak about Jesus being fully human and fully man, then we have to consider the real possibility of his lusting or adultering. And that doesn’t bother me in the least. Too many Christians like to box and package up Jesus in cute, comfortable ways
Well, I also wrote this:
http://johnshore.com/2007/10/30/christians-non-christians-and-the-fully-man-problem-with-jesus/
And Chris: I think the case here for why Jesus couldn’t, in fact, lust, is extremely tight. He couldn‘t lust, for the exact reasons stated.
Hi Cat! I had never thought about it quite like that! Excellent points. (By the way, I really think you should start your own blog
I would like to suggest that “to look lustfully at” means to look at for the purpose of imagining . . . well, you know. For the purpose of.
Go ahead, Gene. You can say it. No one's listening anymore. Because I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about.
i enjoyed this. great points. both of you
As part of an email that had nothing to do with this post or comment thread, my pastor presented this definition for lust:
“Lust is when we desire something that is not ours to have.”
I like this definition for two reasons–a) it doesn’t mention sex anywhere. While sex-related lust is the first type we think of, it’s important to remember that, even if we somehow avoid the whole sex-drive-lust thing, we ALL lust in some way.
and b) I thought it fit in quite nicely with our above discussions.
Ooh, I like this!
Wait a minute, Skerrib — this is America, the *only* shameful kind of lust is extramarital/sexual. That other stuff is just Manifest Destiny, not to be questioned. I’m sure that’s in the letter to the Philippians somewhere…
Oh, I’m sorry, I just remembered: You’re not going to be allowed to leave any comments. Bummer. Oh, well.
LOL
i’ll certainly be leaving more comments in your future posts. especially those that will feature more of Cat’s words of wisdom
You BITCH!!
Ha, ha, ha.
No, of course: thank you very much, Meigh. I certainly do appreciate it. I look forward to reading whatever comments you ever care to leave.
i bet you wouldn’t have thought of that. haha. kidding. i’m a new reader. and a new fan of your wife, Cat. she should start her own blog! haha.
kidding aside, your blog is really fun and full of insights. i saw this link through crosswalk, and I’ve put your link everywhere i can just so people can read your posts. i hope that’s okay.
keep posting!
← Older Comments
{ 1 trackback }