Difficulty is not neutral, sinful desire is always sin; sinful lust is the lust of the flesh. 74 Henry Bullinger, "The Eighth Sermon," in The Decades of Henry Bullinger, Minister of the Church of Zurich, ed.
Exegesis: Context Exegesis: Context
He forbade Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in the middle of the Garden. Although the tree was good because God made it good, it was not good for Adam and Eve to eat because God forbade it. The forbidden tree may indeed have been "good for food," objectively, but Eve made no statement about the objective goodness of the tree.
Then Moses wrote, “And that it was a delight to the eyes.” Not
Because of God's perfect creation, Collins points out that Eve already had everything she could want in the garden. Not only that, she also had the resources in the Garden to get everything she thought the forbidden tree had to offer. The fruit had not changed, Eve had; she had fallen from “very good” (Gen 1:31) in her heart.
Then, Eve thought, “the tree was to be desired to make one wise.” Not only did Eve now see the tree as good and pleasant in a self-justifying, not an
But this sinful desire, lust, was willed by Eve, created by Eve, as a result of her submission to her new father, the Devil. Then, thought Eve, "the tree was desirable to make a man wise." Not only did Eve now see the tree as good and pleasant in a self-justifying, not a.
Finally, Eve acted on her concupiscence, “She took of its
Then, Adam followed the serpent and Eve, “And he ate.”
Moses even used the same word, "good", for God's description of his creation (Gen 1:31) and Eve's description in her heart of the forbidden tree (Gen 3:6). Furthermore, God through Moses used two cognates of the same words used to describe Eve's sinful desire in Genesis 3:6, "pleasant" and. Or to meditate on my desire for the one-flesh union of the whole humanum in the Eucharist where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, slave or free, woman or man.
Exegesis: Context Exegesis: Context
Since Jesus defines righteousness in 5:21-48 by explaining the true meaning of the law as opposed to a false or shallow understanding, it is best understood. This means that to follow the authoritative teaching of Jesus is to be faithful to the full meaning of the law. The purpose of the law was not only to prohibit the act of sin, but also the inner desire to sin, as is evident from the tenth commandment: "You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:17).
Then Jesus said, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent.” He claimed authority that is greater than the greatest
Sexual attraction's telos is sexual activity; this is the purpose of attraction, as evidenced by God's original design of heterosexual attraction in Adam and Eve before the fall (Gen 2:20-25). Returning to the words "with lustful intent", they must be understood against the background of Christ who is the purpose of the law. His standard is not the false teaching of the Pharisees, but perfect obedience to God's law.
Then, Jesus contended that a man with lustful intent toward a woman “has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” He rebuked his hearers,
He spoke of cutting out one's right eye, the best eye, the source of lustful intent, of an evil lustful gaze. Burk already concedes that Jesus is doing constructive exegesis of the Decalogue in Matthew 5:27-28, creating an amalgam of two verses. But why not also allow Jesus' exegetical interpretation of the law to introduce distinctions into the nature and grounds of moral guilt?35.
Exegesis: Context
It goes without saying that Jesus was not rebuking practicing one's righteousness while being seen by others, since Jesus was seen by others while practicing his righteousness. Third, by Jesus claiming that he came to fulfill the law and that his listeners should be more righteous than the Pharisees, he presented himself as the standard for it. Therefore, his listeners, in order to fulfill the law like him, must not even have lustful inclinations.
Following Romans 1:18-23, Paul argued, “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.” Due to their rejection of him and
Like other Jews, Paul could summarize the Mosaic law with the opening phrase of the tenth commandment "Thou shalt not covet." Gagnon notes that Paul's understanding of the Tenth Commandment was: "Thou shalt not covet" (Rom. 38 John Murray, The Epistle to Romans, of The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 44).
Paul continued, that God gave them up “to the dishonoring of
Then Paul explained why God gave them up, “because they
Then, he continued, “And the creature worshiped and served rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Instead of worshiping the true God, Yahweh, mankind worshiped fictitious gods of their own making.
Then, Paul argued, “For this reason God gave them up
They exchanged "the truth that God had made known" about himself through creation for the lie of false gods and the perverted doctrines that supported their false religions. 42. As part of the judgment for their false worship, God gave them over to fulfill their hearts." With any sexual passion that is contrary to God's plan, they dishonored God's telos for them as created in His image in order to reflect Him and fulfill His design for them.
Next, Paul gave evidence that God had given them over to their concupiscence, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are
Therefore, same-sex desires are contrary to nature, contrary to "the true knowledge of God." Such unnatural inclinations must be rejected, for they have no source or goal from God. Paul emphasized that God's plan for men and women is "by nature," that is, according to how God designed the male and female bodies to be united sexually in marriage. As Schreiner argues, God's plan cannot be separated from the purpose of male and female sexual relations.
The men gave up the women, Paul argued, “And were
Dayta a dagiti homoseksual a relasion ket maikontra iti nakaparsuaan, iti kaibuksilan a manglabsingda iti pinanggep ti Dios, ket maipakaammo babaen ti panangibaga a dagiti babbai ket binaybay-anda ti "natural a panagusar para iti dayta a maikontra iti nakaparsuaan." ν, ti parikut ti pisika eis tēn para physin, v. 26; kitaenyo ti Sal.-Phoc. 192), ken panangibaga a dagiti lallaki "pinanawanda ti natural a panagusar kadagiti babbai" (i phentes a ti pisikada ket naballasiw thēleias, v. 27) .50. Immanamong ni Murray: “Kas iti sabali a lugar iti pannursuro ti apostol (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1–7), naipasimudaag ti kinamapagpiaran ti heteroseksual nga aramid, ken ti kinaumiso daytoy ket naibatay iti natural a konstitusion nga impasdek ti Dios. Yantangay ti di natural a derrep ket awan ti panggep a dinisenio ti Dios, kas insuro ni Murray, ti umiso a sungbat ket ti panangilaksid iti panaggartem a maikontra iti plano ti Dios.
Then, Paul offered more detail: “Men committing shameless acts with men.” As a result of their unnatural passions, they pursued and committed
The only occurrence of the noun, here in Rom. 1:27, clearly has a negative meaning, as the context speaks of desire for things "contrary to nature", and in particular of sexual desire for other men. Their passions were unnatural, lusts for sex with other men, as Gagnon shows. The natural reaction, since these men committed acts contrary to God's design for their bodies, should have been shame and guilt.
Next, Paul explained their judgment: “And receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” As a result of these men searing their
But their conscience was so seared that even common sense could not dissuade them from turning God's plan for men and women upside down. Because of their sinking away from God into their corruption, God gave these Gentiles over to a "debased mind" (Romans 1:28) and they were full of all unrighteousness (Romans 1:29-32) which destroyed themselves and each other as He showed Shedd. At the very least, God's "handing them over" to "uncleanness" in Romans 1:24 and "handing them over" to the "lowly pit" in Romans 1:28 must be the result of all the sin before him—the idol. -worship and homosexuality, but also "sinful impulses", unnatural "desires" and "lust". This means that God "gave them over" to "uncleanness" and a "debased mind" in part because these sinful tendencies were morally culpable sin, and therefore He held them morally responsible and condemned them for having them.
Exegesis: Context
What matters is not what urges individuals feel, but what they do with these urges, both in their fantasy lives and in their concrete actions.61. One may believe that God brings trials and tests to his people, but he never brings temptations. James began his transition from a discussion of trials and temptations to a discussion of temptations with: “Let no man say when he is tempted [tried]: ‘I am.
James began his transition from discussing tests and trials to discussing temptations with, “Let no one say when he is tempted [tested], ‘I am being
The OT often explains that God Himself brings trials into the lives of His people. And he tested King Hezekiah by leaving him to his own devices when he received the Babylonian envoys (2 Chron. Then Jacob further explained why God does not tempt: "For God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one." Because God is perfect.
Then, James further explained why God does not tempt: “For God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” Since God is perfectly
But though God may try or test His servants to strengthen their faith, He never seeks to cause sin and destroy their faith.63. Moo correctly notes that James explained God's exact sovereignty over the trials of his people, but it was also emphasized that God is neither the author of sin nor the source of the temptation to sin. God's purpose for the trials of his disciples is always to strengthen their faith; However, the purpose of inner temptation is always to kill the temptation.
To further clarify the difference between God and sinful man, James wrote, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own
James wanted his readers to know that God is not the source of their temptations, but draws them and entices them with their own lust. Temptation can sneak up on us stealthily; he may also attack openly.”66 Trials and trials may be welcomed as joyous occasions because they produce “firmness” and ultimate perfection (James 1:2–4), but inner temptations come only from a sinful heart and must be rejected. as an enemy, as Blomberg notes.
Finally, James likened human development to the growth of sin from beginning to end: “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin
Moo writes: "The most we can say is that James, like other Jewish and Christian writers, wants to place the responsibility for temptation and sin squarely on the shoulders of each person." California, observed that here is a story of three generations - "the grandmother is lust, the mother is sin, and the daughter is death."80 Sin cannot grow in life and temptation can do nothing but sin and death. don't think When the apostle here says, "Desire, when it is conceived, produces sin," our adversaries, the pope-players, give occasion to bring their opinion about lust, that it is not sin.
