Hot answers tagged

11

General Context The answer to this depends on understanding the flow of argument of Romans. Too often I think we approach Romans with a hermeneutic governed by the section breaks, but the flow is extremely important. Paul is talking about sin in his present state. In chapter 6, he has discussed the death of sin (e.g. verse 1); in early 7, he has used the ...


9

The Greek text below is from the third book, thirteenth chapter (Book III, Ch. XIII) of Theophilus' apology (defense) to Autolycus, Theophilus' Pagan acquaintance.1 ἡ δὲ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ ἐπιτατικώτερον διδάσκει περὶ ἁγνείας λέγουσα· «Πᾶς ὁ ἰδὼν γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.» which is translated into ...


8

'Clean' (טָהֵר) in Leviticus 16 The Hebrew verb טָהֵר / taher is used consistently throughout the Hebrew Bible in terms of cleansing or purifying, and so in the context of Leviticus 16 the stated meaning is that by performing the described ritual, the High Priest would have his sins cleansed and he would become pure. This ritual purification was required ...


7

In the end, the focus is less on Er than it is on Judah and Tamar. Judah was stealing Tamar's rightful due, namely a sin and support mechanism. What Er did was irrelevant to the focus the author wished to place on Judah's bad behavior. For more on Tamar and Judah, check out: Why was Tamar more righteous than Judah Did God really kill Onan for masturbating? ...


6

Onan's sin was entirely related to his refusal to perform his levirate duty. Quickly about the other three: Coitus interruptus is not masturbation. It is a (very unreliable) method of birth control. Onan was attempting not to get Tamar pregnant because he did not want to provide an heir for his deceased older brother. It was not "theft of Tamar's child." ...


6

I think Matthew Henry's Commentary answers your question best: It is not so much an abuse of the body as of somewhat else, as of wine by the drunkard, food by the glutton, etc. Nor does it give the power of the body to another person. Nor does it so much tend to the reproach of the body and render it vile. This sin is in a peculiar manner styled ...


6

It is helpful to understand the purpose(s) of the Mosaic Law. Quickly: It was intended to point people to their need for a Savior (Gal 3:19; Rom 5:20). It was intended to highlight their sinful nature (Rom 7:7). It taught many aspects of God and peoples' relationship to him. For examples, the sacrificial system was a reminder of humanity's need for a ...


6

τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν....1 "For he caused him who knew nothing of sin to be sin for us...." The preceding vv. 18-20 make it clear that 'he' is θεός (God), and 'him who knew nothing of sin' in this context is Χριστός (Christ). The presence of the article (τὸν) with the participle γνόντα indicates that it functions as a ...


6

Jews reject the argument that Cain's sacrifice was insufficient because it did not involve blood, and they have some good arguments. Leviticus clearly spells out various "grain offerings," and there is even one example of a "sin offering" where the poor people were allowed to offer grain instead of an animal sacrifice. (See Lev. 5:11-13.) The traditional ...


5

This prophecy concerns the problems encountered in rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is closely connected with the story in Ezra 4. The wicked woman in the "eiphah" measure (bushel or barrel) represents one or more of the enemies of Israel, primarily the Samaritans and the Edomites, who harassed the builders after being excluded from the rebuilding ...


5

My own conclusion is that referring to Paul's "present, converted state, or ... past, unconverted state" sidesteps Paul's actual argument, because it takes no account of the fact that Paul is not speaking of the 'unconverted' in general, but of Jews (ie those who know the law) in particular. There are two equally correct conclusions: Paul is speaking of ...


4

The text is obviously ambiguous on this point and I agree with AffableGreek that Er isn't the focus of the story. However... Firstborns don't do well in the Pentateuch: Cain is made to be a wanderer (4:11) Ishmael is excluded from the Abrahamic covenant Esau is excluded from the Abrahamic covenant Reuven, Gad, and Menasheh, all firstborns, take up ...


4

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary to Leviticus 12, explains the sin-offering of the new mother (and the nazirite’s, in that chapter) as a sort of prophylactic offering: At the moment the woman (or the former nazirite) re-enters ordinary human interactions after her period of impurity, she brings this offering to symbolize her commitment to ...


4

The answer to your question is best examined by looking at Onan's sin in the context of the exchange between Judah and Tamar and requires a good understanding and background of the place of women in ancient middle eastern culture and the purpose of Leverite marriage practices. We must remember that this culture had no medicare and no social security. ...


4

Is Paul speaking of his past or his present state in Romans 7? Or another way of asking is, Is the man of Romans 7 an unregenerate man or a regenerate born again Christian? This is probably one of the most debated chapters in all of the Bible and how one interprets this chapter has a lot to do with how one can interpret other scripture as well. Things such ...


4

THE ONE WHO IS SPEAKING It seems so clear to me that the one who is speaking in Romans 7:14-25 is not only a mature Christian but an apostle at that. However, I believe the apostle is speaking in this section about himself as he is naturally (i.e. 'in the flesh' vs.14; 18) and not about his identity in Christ - the 'new man' (Eph 2:24), made alive through ...


4

The word "forgive*"(aphiemi-to send forth*) implies a legal action: it holds one 'harmless' from a legal debt. To be declared "aphiemi", means one's debt has been satisfied; in the case of Matt. 12:30-32, one's penalty of 'sin and blasphemy' shall be "aphiemi" them-following, of course, the prescription of 1 John 1:9,"If we confess our sins; He is faithful ...


4

Grammar καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας [ἐν] τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα τὰ παραπτώματα. ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ· (Colossians 2:13-14) And even though you were dead in your ...


3

This verse you are noticing is within the overall concept of a peaceful contentment in the moment which is not really a human ability but is a spiritual attitude that can only come from God. This simple contentment, such as the simple relaxed enjoyment of our daily eating and drinking as part of the essentials of living is contrasted with a meaningless ...


3

Considerations Language Features Immediate Context Parallel Passages Language Features Verse 2 is directly tied to verse 3 by the Greek word αντι (an-tee') which is translated in most versions as "Therefore," "Accordingly," or some variation. This means the outcome in verse 3 should be seen as a result of the principle stated in verse 2. This shows the ...


3

From a Christian perspective prophets after the return from the Babylonian exile are often citing visions about the days of Messiah. However there is no evidence that ancient rabbinic sources understood Zechariah 5 as referring to the end times. Therefore, it seems purely a Christian view that equates this chapter to those times. Under that view, the woman ...


3

Let's follow the context: Chapter 5: when there is no commandment to break, nothing has been broken. Sin has not been "committed." But death in the world was evidence that sin has existed (and remains) since Adam. After comparing Jesus with Adam 5 times, he introduces the real purpose of the law: an instrument to magnify, for us, the reality of sin. But ...


3

She was not unclean because she had a baby. She was unclean because there was an issue of blood that came out of her when she gave birth (see Leviticus 12:7). Its the blood, not the baby, that's deemed unclean.


3

The Greek word ἁμαρτίαν (hamartian) is the accusative case, singular number declension of the noun ἁμαρτία (hamartia), a feminine gender noun. It occurs 174 times in the King James Version wherein it is translated as follows (according to blueletterbible.org): sin (172x) sinful (1x) offense (1x) In Heb. 10:6, it is actually translated as "sacrifices for ...


3

Restatement of the Question: Why was Abel's sacrifice considered 'greater', 'more', or 'above' Cain's? Was it because they were different types of sacrifice, or was there something else at work? Historically, there is a great amount of speculation regarding this passage, but this answer is constrained to Scripture only : Answer 1: Because Cain was ...


2

Sexual Sin According to Jubilees, Er sinned by refusing to sleep with Tamar: (1) And in the forty-fifth jubilee, in the second week, (and) in the second year, Judah took for his first-born Er, a wife from the daughters of Aram, named Tamar. (2) But he hated, and did not lie with her, because his mother was of the daughters of Canaan, and he wished to ...


2

The Masoretic translation makes the verse easier to understand: 'None have beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath one seen perverseness in Israel' 'perverseness' can alternatively be translated as 'calamity' - so Rabbi Hertz Then we read: Because there are no gross-injustice (iniquity) in Israel God remains on their side and visit no calamities on them. ...


2

I'd like to add something to @curiousdanni answer (and his comments) but from Aramaic perspective. In Aramaic Peshitta the word forgiven in Matthew 12:30-32 is ܢܶܫܬ݁ܒ݂ܶܩ which can also have meanings of left, ignored, omitted, dismissed (see William Jennings' Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament) and it is used in other verses in such meaning. For example: ...


2

While this topic is usually called the "Unforgivable Sin" I believe that is a bad translation and it should really be called the "Unignorable Sin". Verse 32 is: Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (NIV) The Greek ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible