T. H. Weight. LUST.— The noun 'lust' (iirievixla) occurs only twice in EV of Gospels (Mk 4i», Jn 8-"), and the verb 'to lust' {iTn.evix€u] only once (Mt 5^). Both noun and verb, however, are of common occurrence in the rest of the NT. In modem usage, ' lust' is confined to sexual desire ; but, when the AV was niatle, the word liad a much greater elasticity of meaning, corresponding in this respect to iTridv/jiia and eiridvixew. In NT, as in classical Gr., these words properly denote strong desire whether good or bad, then evil desire in particular, and finally sexual desire specLficallj- Even in the Gospels we find illustrations of these varying connotations of both the Gr. and the Eng. terms. "When our Lord says of His desire to eat of His last Passover iirievfiia eTTeev/xriffa (Lk 22''), He simply expresses a deep longing. When He speaks of the seed of the word being choked by the lusts {iTriOvfiiaL) of other things (^Mk 4'^), these lusts are desires not neces- sarily evil, though the taint of evil is beginning to enter, because, while in themselves they may be harmless, these desires are allowed to hinder the operation of the word. When He says to the Jewish leaders, ' Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts (ewi.dviJ.Las) of your father it is your will to do,' both ' lust ' and iiridvtJ.ia have passed into a distinctly bad meanmg. And in Mt 5'^ the Gr. and the Eng. word are alike equivalent to lascivious desire. See also art. Desire, vol. i. p. 453.
Very little is said explicitly about lust in the Gospels, because little is needed. Lust is not to be dallied with or compromised with ; it is to be totally and continually shunned and avoided. Inwaril lust is as heinous as outward adultery to the eye of God, Avhich views alike the inside and the outside of man (]\It 5^).* The lustful eye will make the whole body full of darkness (Mt e-*^). The single eye and mind are free fi-om lustful fancies and thoughts (Lk 11^). The honest and good heart brings forth only good frait (Lk 8'^). Either tiie heart must be pure, and its fruit pure ; or else impure, and its fruit impure (Mt 12^). Adulteries, covetings, lasciviousness, — these defile a man (Mk 7-'"-). And Inst, in its veiy nature, is unholy. Hence Christ's Holy Spirit is opposite to, and inconsistent with, the lustful demon which makes its foul abode in the neglected heart of the careless or heedless or wanton. There is no limit to the iniquity and abandonment to which such evil possession or corruption may drag the blinded, besotted soul intent upon brutish delights never realized. Herod's course was impeded only a little by the rebuke of a John Baptist (Mk 6'^). No man can serve two masters (Lk 16^^) ; and he that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin (Jn 8^^).
W. B. Fr.vxklaxd and J. C. Lambert. LTSANIAS. — This name is given by St. Luke (3') among those who ruled in the various parts of SjTia and Palestine at the time when John the
* See discussion of this passage in art. Adcltert.
Baptist entered upon his public work. The name does not again occur in the NT. A Lysanias is mentioned by Dio Cassius (xlix. 32) as having been made king of Itunva by ^lark Antony and after- wards put to death by him. This same Lysanias is also spoken of by Josephus {Ant. XV. iv. 1), who adds that Antony was moved to the step of put- ting Lysanias to death by Cleopatra, on the gi'ound that he had conspired against her with the Par- thians. The same Lysanias and his connexion with the Parthians are alluded to also elsewhere by Josephus (BJ I. xiii. 1 ; Ant. XIV. xiii. 3). The data agi-ee in making him the son of Ptolemy, and locating his reign between B.C. 40 and 36. A Lysanias is mentioned again by Josephus in Ant. XVIU. vi. 10 and xx. vii. L In both of these passages the territory over which he ruled is designated a tetrarchy (cf. BJ il. xi. 5, xii. 8 ; Ant. XIX. V. 1).
The question raised by these data is, Does Josephus know two men of the name or one ? If he knows two, the Lysanias of St. Luke is evi- dently the second, and no further difficulty exists. If, however, he has the same man in mind through- out, the question next emerging is as to whether St. Luke knew and alluded to another and younger Lysanias, or erroneously identified the only ruler of that name with the times of the public appear- ance of John the Baptist and Jesus. In favour of the latter view, it is alleged that Josephus never gives any intimation of a diiierence between the two men of the name, and in fact does not at first reading seem to know two. His readers were bound, it is argned, to suppose that the Lysanias who was executed in B.C. 36 is meant wherever the name is u.sed. St. Luke was acquainted with the writings of Josejihus, but did not use them with acciu'acy, and an error is quite probable. He makes an error in defining the limits of the realm of Philip, Itursea. It is not held that an error can be demonstrated in his statement regarding Lysanias, but the probability is said to be for such an error, and the gi'ounds for believing in a second Lysanias are regarded as unsatisfjing. This view was propounded by Strauss, and has been supported by Keim, Krenkel, and Schmiedel.