God in justice dealt out curses because of Man’s disobedience. And within the curse of God towards the serpent we see HOPE. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel” (Gen 3:15). God promised that there would be war between the serpent and the One that would come from Eve, but that seed of the woman would “bruise” the head of the serpent, though He Himself would be bruised. Death came because of sin, but God promised to destroy the devil and his work through the One to come.

I try to write short, concise pieces for my blog, but I would like to share something longer today. Can you handle it? Can you focus in for a few minutes longer to see something glorious from the book of Genesis? God, from the very beginning, has been revealing the gospel to His people, and I want to give you a glimpse into a tiny fraction of the glorious riches of Christ found in the very first book of the Bible.
Pre-Genesis
But before I do that, did you know that the gospel message was before the beginning? Before God ever spoke anything into creation, He had perfect Trinitarian unity with Himself, and He had all glory (John 17:5). He eternally existed as God over all things (Psalm 90:2). In this state, the Triune God waited to enact the gospel plan to save sinners through the death and resurrection of the Son, to the praise of His glory (1 Peter 1:20, Eph 1:4, John 17:24). So it should come as no surprise, that even “in the beginning” the gospel plan begins to be spelled out.
Genesis
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
God is the Creator of all things who existed before the beginning. He created light, the heavens, water, land, plants, sun, moon, stars, sea creatures, flying creatures, land creatures… “Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness… So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Gen 1:26-27). In the next chapter we get a zoomed in picture of how God did this: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed” (Gen 2:7-8). God gave mankind LIFE and FELLOWSHIP with Himself. God also gave a command to keep.
Gracious Command and Grievous Sin
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…”
Genesis 2:16-17
God gave a very generous command. What gracious words: “freely eat”! But of one tree they were not allowed to eat. They were not allowed to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). Despite the gracious words of God, we know the tragic story. The serpent deceived Eve, and Adam walked headlong into sin. “So when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [one] wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:1-6). They broke God’s gracious commandment.
According to God, “the day that you eat of it you shall surely die;” but you might say, “I thought they hid themselves and were thrown out of the garden?” True, man and woman did not physically die in that day, though sin would surely bring about physical pain and death. There was a more serious death that occurred in their act of disobedience. “And you [He made alive], who were dead in trespasses and sin” (Eph 2:1). “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Man became spiritually dead. They were air-breathing, heart-beating dead men. God had breathed into man, making him a living being and giving him fellowship with God. But now, because of man’s rebellion against his Creator, man was dead in sin and separated from God. Just as Adam and Eve hide themselves from God’s presence, so all sin separates us from God’s favorable presence. “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear” (Isa 59:2).
Hopeful Curses
God in justice dealt out curses because of Man’s disobedience. And within the curse of God towards the serpent we see HOPE. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel” (Gen 3:15). God promised that there would be war between the serpent and the One that would come from Eve, but that seed of the woman would “bruise” the head of the serpent, though He Himself would be bruised. Death came because of sin, but God promised to destroy the devil and his work through the One to come.
Adam and Eve were separated from God because of sin, and they lost access to the tree of life and the presence of God (Gen 3:23-24). Yet the promised hope remained that One would come and to save. For now, Adam and Eve would live, work, and have children under the curse. And those children to be born would inherit something from their father: “And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Gen 5:3). Adam was created with life in the likeness of God. After his sin and spiritual death, Adam had children in HIS own likeness, without life. And this progression continues on throughout the ages. Men have children in their likeness, with spiritual deadness inherited from their father Adam. “For as in Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22).
Read More
Related Posts:

Luther is most known for bringing Reformation light to the Church through faithful doctrine.  How better could God demonstrate that than by using a man like Luther to proclaim it?  Seeing all these flaws, against the backdrop of such grace, is cause to realize this truth.  God truly justifies the ungodly, lifts them up as jars of clay, and uses them, despite their flaws (2 Cor. 4:7).  Such is the will and testimony of our amazing, justifying God.

Historic testimony to Luther is grand. Not only have many of his letters, books, tracts, and sermons survived, but so have his table talks.  Table Talk is a collection of Luther’s sayings amongst his friends.  Thankfully, they have been preserved for our benefit.  There we see glimpses of the real Martin Luther.  There is no biographical tampering.  It is what Luther himself said; good and bad.  Knowing this, it will be good to think a little on the positives and negatives of Luther’s character in Table Talk
Negatives
Despite the impact of his writings and testimony, Luther was still a flawed man.  Were his flaws irredeemable though?
You may already know that Luther had a reputation for rude speech.  His table talks were no exception.  The worst of these are, perhaps, too vulgar to write here. A more polite example is as follows: A man once came to him, representing a widow.  He wanted help to find her a husband.  Luther’s response was not one of fluffy matchmaking.  Instead, he said: “Am I to furnish husbands for these women?  They must take me for a pimp!”[1]  Surely, we can see the funny side.  Regardless, his comparing this request to pimping is too much.  Luther did a lot of good by speaking God’s Word.  Sadly, he failed (as we all do) to temper his words with grace.  The result is a blotch on his character.[2]
Luther’s attitude to his opponents is also concerning.  At one point he said: “Erasmus is an eel.  Nobody can grasp him except Christ alone.”[3]  While we can accept that some men are slippery, it is uncouth to call them names.  There was also no love lost towards Zwingli either.  He said: “Zwingli also made the mistake of thinking that he knew everything.”[4]
Read More
Related Posts:

The beauty of repenting from our sinful desires is that we start to attack the corruption of concupiscence when it first rears its ugly head. We don’t give our sin a head-start until it brings us fully under its control, but we ask God to forgive us, and then to begin his work of putting that sin to death, even as he causes his holiness to grow in our heart. Yes, concupiscent desires are already a violation of the Seventh Commandment; however, it is far more heinous to allow those desires to keep growing to the point that they are “not only conceived in the heart,” but they fester until they “[break] forth in words and actions” (WLC 151.3).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus offers his authoritative teaching on the law. Through this section, we find Jesus arguing against the legalism of the scribes and the Pharisees—that is, the legalism that relaxed the infinitely high standards of the law (Matt. 5:19–20):

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees
In every age, the church must be vigilant to avoid legalism. We must never be like the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:24). God tells us that his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), but to…
Read more
2 months ago · Jacob Gerber

After showing that the Sixth Commandment against murder forbids even anger at our brothers (Matt. 5:21–26), Jesus begins teaching about the true requirements of the Seventh Commandment against adultery. Similarly, Jesus criticizes the traditional teaching of the rabbis that restricted the requirements of the Seventh Commandment to forbid physical adultery alone.
Much more, Jesus insists that the Seventh Commandment requires “pure and holy affections of the heart.”1 That God forbids coveting our neighbor’s wife should have been clear from the Tenth Commandment (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21).2 What Jesus intends to demonstrate, however, is that even the Seventh Commandment by itself deals with these questions of the heart.3
Result or Purpose?
Against a minimalistic view of the Seventh Commandment, Jesus says, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). To understand the weight of Jesus’ words, we must ask an important question about the grammar of this sentence: is the lust the purpose of the looking, or the result of the looking? That is, does Jesus speak against the man’s lust when it is his purpose/intention for looking, or is Jesus talking about the lust that arises as a result from looking?
Looking with Lustful Intent?
Here, many (most?) commentators take the former sense of purpose, which is captured in the ESV’s translation of the verse: “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent…”).4 According to this view of purpose, Jesus is condemning the man’s intentional, willful, volitional decision toward lust.
Lust Arising Unintentionally, Apart from Choice?
Two important technical resources, however, argue for the latter sense of result, rather than purpose. The first resource is Murray J. Harris’s widely renowned Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament classifies this as a result, rather than purpose, citing a similar use of πρός (pros) to describe result in John 11:4: “This illness does not lead to [πρός] death.”5 The second resource is the standard New Testament Greek lexicon, by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG), which classifies this phrase as “of the result that follows a set of circumstances (so that),” and translates the phrase as “one who looks at a woman with sinful desire.”6
According to this view of result, Jesus is condemning the lust itself that arises from looking on a woman—even when that lust arises unintentionally, and without any conscious decision of the will.
Matthew 5:28 in the Context of the Sermon on the Mount
How do we choose between the two interpretive options? To begin, we must consider the context of this passage. In the immediate context of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is revealing the full scope of the requirements of the law—requirements that go much further than we realize. So, Jesus taught that anger alone violates the Sixth Commandment (Matt. 5:22), and there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that this anger would be a conscious, volitional choice.
The immediate context, then, strongly suggests that Jesus is not only condemning clear, deliberate, willful choices to lust, but also (as with anger) instantaneous reactions of lust that arise from looking at someone who is not our spouse. So, it is not only a violation of the Seventh Commandment to commit physical adultery, and not only a violation when we deliberately stoke lust in our hearts, although both of those would be included.
Beyond that, Jesus is saying that any sexual desire toward someone who is not our spouse is already the sin of adultery—adultery of the heart. So, take a man who is minding his own business, but who happens to look up and sees a woman. If that man begins to experience unbidden, unchosen, and undesired sexual desires toward her rising in his heart, then that man has already sinned.
This, of course, is a heavy standard. How can we justify such a strict view of the the requirements of the law?

The Doctrine of Concupiscence

To understand the grounds on which Jesus condemns even unintentional lust, we must understand what theologians call the doctrine of concupiscence. Concupiscence is the Latin word for (sinful) desire or lust (concupiscentia), and, in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, this is the word that translates this key phrase in our passage: “ad concupiscendum eam” (“unto desiring/lusting after her”). This is also the Latin word that translates the word for “covet” in the Tenth Commandment (“Non concupisces…” [“You shall not covet…”]; Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21).
Thus, concupiscence describes sinful desires, or desires that incline toward sin. The question that theologians have debated for centuries has to do with whether concupiscence is in itself is sin, or whether concupiscence does not become sin until the will consents to the sin that concupiscence desires.
Read More
Related Posts: