During the Middle Ages and in Aquinas con- cupiscence was identified with man's sensuous nature. The difference between flesh and spirit was piiysical. So concupiscence was supremely manifested in the lusts of the flesh interpreted in a sensual fashion.
Tiie NT does not directly deal with these aspects of desire, but its spirit is more in harmony with the deeper analysis of Augustine. As regard's responsi- bility and redemption in relation to concupiscence the Augustinian position is the Pauline. The word ' concupiscence ' has been omitted altogether by the RV. In Ro 7^ iiriOvfiia is translated ' coveting.' It means illicit inclinations to follow one's own will as against God's law. With the arrival of self- consciousness there is already found in the per- sonality the strong bias to sin which comes to light as man is brought face to face with law. Sin is regarded in a semi-personal fashion as receiving a basis of operation in this bias. The word iiri6u/j.la is thus well translated 'concupiscence' in the theo- logical sense of the term. In Col 3» the English ' desii-e ' is sufficient to express the thought, because it is as vague as the original.
(d) In 1 Th 4^ the word einOvula. is used, as the context shows, of ' sexual lust.' The use of the term in Jude ^'^ approximates to this but seems to be wider. The same letter (v.is) ascribes it to impiety. The passage 1 P 2^1 approximates closely to this meaning. In 2 P 2^^ it means ' lust ' in our restricted sense. It is equated with adpKos dcreX- ydais. See also Apostol. Church Order (ed. Scliaff, The Oldest Church Manual, 1885, p. 242), where it is said that eiriOvfiLa. leads to fornication.
eirtOvfiia., then, when used de malo of illicit desires is not wholly restricted to sexual depravity (exc. in 1 Th 45 and 2 P 2^8 ; cf. Jude iS), although that is included, and owing to its obtrusiveness could not fail to be included. It means 'the whole world of active lusts and desires' (Trench, NT Syn.», p. 312).
(3) Other Greek words. — (a) The Greek word irdOos is also translated ' lust ' in 1 Th 4^ and kinevfj.ia. is subordinated to it as species to genus. This is the usage of Aristotle, who regards ' lust,' anger, fear, etc., as species of trddos. It is usually maintained that the difference between the two is that irdOos refers to evil on its passive and eiriOv/xla on its more active side. It is impossible, however, to prove this distinction from the NT, althougli in Gal 5-^, where ira.driiJM.Ta and iiriOv/xlai are found side by side, this distinction makes excellent sense. The words are used in a loose popular sense and not as the exact terminology of an ethical system.
(6) The same is true of the usage of ijdoval (Ja 4'), which is translated ' lusts.' It refers to pleasures in general ; though sexual pleasures are included, and perhaps form the chief element, eating and drink- ing would also be meant. ' All men are by nature weak and inclined to pleasures,' and so injustice and avarice follow (Swete, Introduction to OT in Greek. 1900, p. 567).
(c) Similarly fipe^is (Ro l^)—& word used some- times in classical writers of the highest desires— is used by St. Paul of the unnatural sexual lust of heathenism (see Trench, NT Syn.^, p. 314).
2. Genesis, grbwth and goal of lust.— (1) Genesis nf lust.— We do not find any attempt to deal psychologically with this problem. What we lind
is various suggestions and incidental allusions. In Jn 8"''' the lusts of murder and deceit are traced back to the devil. The idea is the Jewish one that the devil tempted Cain to murder his brother Abel, and that the serpent deceived Eve (cf. 1 Jn S***^-)- This vicAV that the devil is the originator of lust took various forms in Jewish thought (Sir 25-^'''-, 2 Es 4^'' S^''), and there are echoes of these in the NT. St. Paul (1 Co 11") seems to regard the wicked angels as moved to sensual lust by unveiled women. The existence of an evil tendency (yezer hara) in human nature was a problem for Judaism. Sometimes it was simply referred to the fall of Adam_(Wis 2^3^-; cf. Ro 5^^^; 1 Co IS^"?-), some- times it was ascribed to the devil, and sometimes to God. The last view is not found in the NT except to be refuted ( Ja l^^^"). The good tendency {yezer hatob) was without difHculty ascribed to God, but the evil tendency could not be so treated. St. Paul (Ro 7i»-3^) simply states these two ten- dencies and connects the evil with the fall of Adam. Yet there is nothing to encourage the view that man is not responsible. In truth, where St. John mentions the devil (1 Jn 3*) as the originator of evil desires, he is opposing the Gnostic view that the ' spiritual ' man is not responsible for sensual sins. Yet it is certain that the problem of evil is not solved on NT principles by any atomistic view of human personality, and that the redemp- tion of Christ has its cosmic as well as its personal aspects. St. Paul's teaching in Ro 1^^-^ was open to misunderstanding, but in principle it is the very opposite of libertinism.