Nature of the Atonement

[Andre]

HP: I do nor agree in the least with your stated conclusion. There has been faith within the nation of the Jews.

Paul is pretty clear - as a nation, the Jews have been "faithless" in the sense that they have not held up their end of the covenant. This is not to say that some Jews, as individuals, have not been faithful. In fact, Paul declares himself to be "blameless" as to keeping Torah.

Romans 2 shows that Paul sees the Jewish nation as being unfaithful:

17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

The first bit of Romans 3 is about the faithlessnes of Israel. In verse 2, Paul says that the Jew has been "entrusted" with the words of God. I think it is self-evident that the Jew has been entrusted with the word of God for the sake of the world (and not for herself alone).

2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God

But has the Jew (in general) been faithful to this entrusting? No, he has not:

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."[a]
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say?

Let's be clear: the subject here is the Jew. Paul is not talking about "people in general" not having faith - he is talking about the Jew. Remember how he introduces the chapter:

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

And later in Romans 9, Paul returns to the issue of the nation of Israel and says this:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone

Paul is re-asserting what he said in chapter 3 - Israel has "failed" or stumbled in respect to her calling to be "the light of the world".

And again from Romans 11

11Again I ask: Did they {***Israel by context} stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression {***Israel's transgression, by context} means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17If some of the branches have been broken off, {***clearly part of Israel is being described here} and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches

There are other arguments as well. In the strange and wonderful purposes of God, Israel's failure - her "faithlessness" or her "stumble" has been used by God to effect the reconciliation of the world.

But I think that the Scriptures are clear - as a nation, Israel has been faithless - has "stumbled". As we see in Romans 7, the Torah has snared her and living under Torah is certainly not the means by which Israel will bless the nations.

 

[swaimj]

I am interested to know - what texts will you put forward in defence of your claim that sin never resided in Him?

I cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show clearly that sin "resided" in Jesus. There is no doubt that Jesus bore our sin. However, the implication of saying that sin resided in Jesus is that somehow he became impure and sinful. Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying and I am drawing an inference from your words that you do not intend. Please clarify if you need to. I think at this point I will await your further arguments and texts. You have already allowed that the texts I have referred to support my view, so at this point, no further comment from me is needed.

 

[Andre]

The burden of proof is on you to show clearly that sin "resided" in Jesus.

You state that sin never resided in Jesus. I think that this very thing is reasonably well established in Romans 8:3. If Jesus is described as being "in the likeness of sinful man", what do you think that means? In what way was he "like" sinful man?

It would seem that you are saying that this "likeness" was purely one of "form" - that Jesus was like man in that he had a body, etc. But then why does Paul not say "in the likeness of man", without adding the qualifier "sinful"?

And if sin is in no way "in" or "on" or otherwise "connected" to Jesus, why does Paul describe the result of the cross as "condemning sin in sinful man"? Clearly Paul is talking about the cross in Romans 8:3. The wording in the NIV does not seem compatible with any conclusion but that Jesus in some way was a "repository for sin".

You have already allowed that the texts I have referred to support my view, so at this point, no further comment from me is needed.

I did not really say that. I was careful to say that the texts were consistent with your view. They are also consistent with my view - there is nothing in those texts that specifically discriminates between our respective views. On the other hand, I think Romans 8:3 is pretty clear that Jesus is in some sense a "container" or "residing place" for sin. The wording, at least in the NIV, strongly suggests this, notwithstanding any other reasons for believing, as you assert, that sin was never "in" Jesus.

 

[swaimj]

If Jesus is described as being "in the likeness of sinful man", what do you think that means? In what way was he "like" sinful man?

He was like sinful man because he was fully human. However, the scriptures say that he was "without sin". "He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin".

The wording in the NIV does not seem compatible with any conclusion but that Jesus in some way was a "repository for sin".

I think there is a difference in saying that Jesus was a repository for sin and saying that sin resided in Jesus. Saying that Jesus was a repository for sin is similar to saying that "he bore our sin"; a statement with which I agree. However, saying that sin "resided in Jesus" infers that he himself was sinful. The scriptures declare plainly that Jesus was "without sin". You seen to be using terms interchangeably that I do not think are interchangeable. I am not certain that I understand what you mean.

I did not really say that. I was careful to say that the texts were consistent with your view. They are also consistent with my view

If the texts are consistent with both our views, then we have no disagreement. However, if our views are in disagreement, then the texts do not agree with us both. The scriptures cannot be saying two completely different things simultaneously.

 

[Andre]

I think it is important to point out, and I still need to make this argument in full, that Paul sees sin not as an "abstract judicial concept" but more as a real force - an almost "personal" entity that inhabits our universe. So if Paul sees sin as this kind of thing, he is not saying that Jesus is a "sinner", he is saying that this evil force of sin is somehow "located" inside Jesus at the moment that sin is condemned on the cross. I will repeat: Romans 8:3 says that sin - not Jesus - was condemned on the cross.

I suspect that most of you reading this think of sin as a moral category. Fair enough. But I think that you are thinking like a 21st century westerner. If you try to step back and let Paul tell you what kind of "thing" sin is, I suggest you will discover that it is a force - a real "thing" in our universe, and not a moral category. Notice the language in Romans 7, suggesting that sin is a "person":

For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death

This is language that suggests that sin is an agent, not merely a moral category. Do impersonal moral categories "seize" or "deceive"? Or consider this text which the point even more forcefully:

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it

I think this verse is one that many Christians will puzzle over. How can Paul really mean this? Surely we all know that when we sin, it is "us" who are the agents that sin - and we are therefore held morally accountable.

No, says Paul. Sin is a kind of "intelligent virus" that infects people and "makes them sin". And Paul rightly lays the blame where it belongs - on sin, not on Paul.

Having said this, I will later muddy the waters when I will argue that Paul is really not talking about himself personally here, but I will leave that for another post.

 

[Andre]

He was like sinful man because he was fully human. However, the scriptures say that he was "without sin". "He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin".

I never said that Jesus committed sin. I am claiming that the entity "sin" was somehow "inside" Jesus on the cross. I think you still have to deal with Romans 8:3 and its strong implication that sin was "inside" or otherwise "connected" to Jesus when sin was condemned at the cross.

Paul says Jesus was in the form of sinful man and his very being in that form allowed sin to be condemned. It would seem difficult to argue that Jesus in no way "contained" or "held" sin in his person. This is like saying that "Fred came in the form of Hepatitis infected man and allowed hepatitis to be defeated in hepatitis infected man" without drawing the obvious conclusion that Fred "carries" or "contains hepatitis.

Please look at Paul's word selection carefully:

...God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

Who was sent in the likeness of sinful man ? Jesus. What happened? Sin was condemned. Where was sin condemned? In sinful man. How can this second "sinful man" not be Jesus who has just been described as being in the likeness of sinful man?

Please do not take offence of misrepresent me. I have never stated or otherwise implied that Jesus committed sin or bowed to the power of sin that was "infused into him". But Romans 8:3 seems pretty clear - Jesus somehow descended into the muck and mire of sinful humanity in order to fix the mess that Adam got us all into.

Again, to say that "sin was in Jesus" is not to say that Jesus committed sin.

 

[Andre]

If the texts are consistent with both our views, then we have no disagreement. However, if our views are in disagreement, then the texts do not agree with us both. The scriptures cannot be saying two completely different things simultaneously.

No. We might still have a disagreement. If I say the following:

"You can never put too much water on the core of a nuclear reactor"

I might mean either of the following:

1. Put all the water you can - the more the better'

2. If you put too much water on the core, there might be trouble.

The same concept applies to those texts - they work with at least 2 different views of what really happened at the cross. We need other texts to sort out the ambiguity. And Romans 8:3 is one of those texts.

Having said this, we may be in agreement after all. The distinctions I we are talking about are very subtle indeed.

 

[swaimj]

Please do not take offence of misrepresent me. I have never stated or otherwise implied that Jesus committed sin or bowed to the power of sin that was "infused into him". But Romans 8:3 seems pretty clear - Jesus somehow descended into the muck and mire of sinful humanity in order to fix the mess that Adam got us all into.

Again, to say that "sin was in Jesus" is not to say that Jesus committed sin.

OK. Fair enough. It seems to me that we have no disagreement in this area. Jesus was without sin, but he bore sin. Is this what you are saying? If so, it seems that we have no disagreement in this particular area.

 

[DHK]

You state that sin never resided in Jesus. I think that this very thing is reasonably well established in Romans 8:3. If Jesus is described as being "in the likeness of sinful man", what do you think that means? In what way was he "like" sinful man?

The very reason that He was born of a virgin was to avoid the sinfulness of man. The Bible is clear that he was without sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
--He knew no sin. It didn't reside in him. He never committed it. He was perfectly sinless from the inside out.

1 Peter 2:22 who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
--He never sinned. Outward sin is committed from that which resides from within. This is the teaching of Jesus. Our sin comes from the heart. There was no sin residing in his heart. He could not sin.
--You have vain philosophy that is at odds with the Scripture. It is evident that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong. It contradicts the rest of Scripture. If it does that, then back down and start over. Your interpretation is wrong. The likeness of sinflesh simpy refers to his humanity; for we are sinful flesh. But it doesn't mean that Christ is sinful. The rest of Scripture clearly points out that Christ was not.

It would seem that you are saying that this "likeness" was purely one of "form" - that Jesus was like man in that he had a body, etc. But then why does Paul not say "in the likeness of man", without adding the qualifier "sinful"?

To emphasize that man is sinful; and the Christ was not. It is a comparison. There was a likeness. He was not the same--only a likeness. He didnn't say He was exactly the same, but only a likeness.

And if sin is in no way "in" or "on" or otherwise "connected" to Jesus, why does Paul describe the result of the cross as "condemning sin in sinful man"? Clearly Paul is talking about the cross in Romans 8:3. The wording in the NIV does not seem compatible with any conclusion but that Jesus in some way was a "repository for sin".

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh
--It was only a likeness.
The purpose that he sent his son was to condemn sin in the flesh, something that the law or the keeping of it, could never do. Where the law failed, Christ succeeded. Keep the verse in context of what Paul is speakng of. There is not the faintest suggestion that Christ was a repostiory of sin. That is just your imagination--what you want to read into the text. Christ conquered sin. He did what the law could not do.

On the other hand, I think Romans 8:3 is pretty clear that Jesus is in some sense a "container" or "residing place" for sin. The wording, at least in the NIV, strongly suggests this, notwithstanding any other reasons for believing, as you assert, that sin was never "in" Jesus.

Hogwash! You cannot get that out of Scripture. You make Scripture contradict itself. You are reading into Scripture things that are not there. You fail to take verse three in the context of the rest of chapter 8 and ignore what the rest of the Bible says on the same subject.

 

[Andre]

OK. Fair enough. It seems to me that we have no disagreement in this area. Jesus was without sin, but he bore sin. Is this what you are saying? If so, it seems that we have no disagreement in this particular area.

This is indeed what I am saying, but with the important qualification that sin was the real "target" of God's wrath and condemnation. Jesus was not really so much "condemned" as he was killed as the necessary and unfortunate "consequence" of God condemning sin.

 

[Andre]

--He knew no sin. It didn't reside in him. He never committed it. He was perfectly sinless from the inside out.

I agree with your assertion that He never committed sin. I disagree that sin never "resided" in him. Romans 8:3 is clear. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful man and sin was condemned in sinful man. I will take Paul at his word - mysterious thought it may be, sin was "in Jesus" at the Cross. How can this be read differently? Who was on the cross? Jesus. What form was he in? He was in the form not of humanity in an unqualified sense, he was in the form of sinful man. And what was condemned? Sin. And where was it? In sinful man. Paul is quite clear - Jesus was a "container" or a residing place for sin at the cross.

This is entirely consistent with the broader sweep of Scripture. Jesus is doing the task convenantally assigned to Israel. Israel was to be God's vehicle for dealing with sin. That destiny devolves onto the one true faithful Israelite - Jesus - who does what Israel cannot do.

And this is relevant to the matter at hand precisely because, just as Jesus is the place where the sin of the world is finally focussed and concentrated in his flesh, so Israel acts out the very same pattern before handing the sin of the world over to Jesus.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase

God is doing a strange thing indeed - He gives Torah to Israel to make sin increase in Her. This is first stage of the long plan to "lure" sin into the flesh of Jesus and condemn in on the cross.

 

[Andre]

Here is Romans 8:3 in the NET Bible rendering:

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

Jesus is stated as being in the likeness of something - sinful flesh. Is it a "likeness" in respect to "sinfulness" or not? DHK is asking you to believe that Jesus' likeness does not extend to the very thing it is desclared to extend to - sinfulness.

Please think about this. To suggest that Jesus is not in some way "sinful" is to deny the plain words of Paul - Jesus is sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Not some other kind of flesh - sinful flesh. Am I saying that Jesus sinned? Of course not.

To suggest that the likeness does not extend to the very adjective that Paul uses - sinful - is patently incorrect.

If I say: "Fred came to the costume party in the likeness of a little green man", can someone say "Well, since its only a likeness, we cannot conclude that Fred's costume is green?"

Or if I say: "I purchased myself a mode of transportation and it is in the likeness of a red bike", can someone argue "Well, since it is only a likeness, one cannot conclude that the bike is red?"

 

[swaimj]

To suggest that Jesus is not in some way "sinful" is to deny the plain words of Paul - Jesus is sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Not some other kind of flesh - sinful flesh. Am I saying that Jesus sinned? Of course not.

To suggest that the likeness does not extend to the very adjective that Paul uses - sinful - is patently incorrect.

Andre, I thought we had agreed on this matter, but now I see that, once again, I cannot comprehend what you are saying. The above simply makes no sense. How can Jesus "not sin" and yet be sinful?

 

[DHK]

Here is Romans 8:3 in the NET Bible rendering:

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

Jesus is stated as being in the likeness of something - sinful flesh. Is it a "likeness" in respect to "sinfulness" or not? DHK is asking you to believe that Jesus' likeness does not extend to the very thing it is desclared to extend to - sinfulness.

No, you are misguided as to the grammar here.
"sinfulness" is only an adjective.
He is in the likeness of man's flesh. "flesh" is the noun in which he is in the likeness of.
God sent his son. God is the subject. God is the noun.
In the likeness of. This is a prepositional phrase describing the Son. "Likeness" is the important word here. The Son is "like"...
"Of sinful flesh" Another prepositional phrase defining the former prepositional phrase, in particular the word "likeness."
"the likeness" of sinful flesh" It was like flesh" What kind of flesh?
"sinful" The word sinful is an adjective. It defines the word flesh.
The author could have put any one of many different adjectives before flesh and still made sense: "sinflul flesh" "carnal flesh" "human flesh" "a sinner's flesh" etc. But the Holy Spirit chose the adjective "sinful" to describe the word "flesh". Jesus came in the likeness of man's flesh which was sinful. Christ is not sinful, man is, and Christ came in the likeness of man who is sinful.

The verse does not extend to sinfulness. It does not impy that Christ was sinful. That, my friend is heresy.

 

[Andre]

Andre, I thought we had agreed on this matter, but now I see that, once again, I cannot comprehend what you are saying. The above simply makes no sense. How can Jesus "not sin" and yet be sinful?

You pose what I think is an absolutely vital question. I see the scriptures as drawing a clear, albeit perhaps subtle, distinction between the "sin nature" and the act of sin. You and I come out of the womb "hardwired" to sin. It's in our DNA. Paul uses the word "sarx" to refer to this fallen nature.

Things get tricky and mysterious at this point. You may well ask whether I am asserting that Jesus somehow has such a nature at any point in His life, whether on the cross or before. I will answer "I do not know" to this question. And I politely warn certain posters (not you) that this admission should not be seized on as a sign that my entire proposal is faulty. Being sure of one's position does not make one right and, on the other hand, being unclear about certain things does not invalidate other things that are put forward. I will stick my neck out and provisionally say "yes, Jesus has this aspect of humanity as well as the other aspects of humanity".

But my point is not really in relation to this issue. To return to your question, I will answer it without relation to what is in the preceding paragraph. I mean to say that Jesus is "full of sin" in the very specific sense of "sin" that I have described. Sin, for Paul, is a "thing" that can be localized. It is localized in Israel through Torah and it is finally focussed down to a point in Jesus.

So when I say Jesus is "sinful", I mean precisely the following: Jesus "contains" or is otherwise connected to the agency of sin in the world. I am not saying that he sins. I really mean Jesus is 'full of sin' in the mysterious sense that the power of sin - this almost personal evil force - has been localized "in his flesh".

And once there, it is condemned as per Romans 8:3. Sin, I repeat, is a force, an agency, a "thing". It is not an abstract moral category.

This is an extremely challenging subject and one thing I should be more clear about is the distinction between the following:

1. Sin as understood to be a force or agency in the world; and

2. Sin as understood be "acts". When I steal, I commit a sin.

I am not sure how to integrate these two. But that does not undermine what I think is an accurate position on what Paul is saying in Romans 8:3. Whatever else may be going on, on the cross, the agency of sin - the personal evil force of it - is "lured" into Jesus very flesh and is condemned by God.

 

[Andre]

He is in the likeness of man's flesh. "flesh" is the noun in which he is in the likeness of.

No. That's certainly not the way English works. Perhaps you can make the case from Greek, but not from English.

If I say that Fred is in the likeness of a tall man, I am not, as you suggest, limiting the likeness to the issue of maleness. The word "likeness" covers the noun "man" as specifically qualified by the adjective tall.

If Fred is in the likeness of a tall man, he simply cannot be short. If Jesus is in the likeness of sinful flesh, we have to extend the "likeness" to the sinfulness and make sense of that somehow.

Let me ask you a direct question that I hope you will answer:

If I say that Fred is in the likeness of a tall man, are you suggesting that Fred can be short or of normal height?

 

[DHK]

Jesus never commited sin.
Jesus was sinless.
Jesus never had sin residing in him. He avoided a sin nature through the virgin birth.

If He had sin in anyway--whether by committng it, or even by having sin residing in him, it would have disqualified him from making an atonement for our sin. He could pay the penalty for our sin precisely because he was sinless. If he didn't do that then you are yet in your sins and on your way to Hell, to be eternally separated from Him forever and ever. That is the teaching of God's Word, not opinion.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Christ was the just, perfectly sinless in every possible way. He died for the unjust (that is you and I--sinners deserving only of the wrath of God), that He might bring us to God.

 

[DHK]

If I say that Fred is in the likeness of a tall man, are you suggesting that Fred can be short or of normal height?

non sequitor.
The example given does not fit the logic for every case. It is faulty reasoning.
My son is made in my likeness whether he be tall or shorit. I have more than one son. One is taller than me and one is shorter than me, and yet both are made in my likeness. Tallness then becomes irrelevant. The likeness extends to the noun, not the adjective. One might ask: in what ways is my son made in my likeness? They then may be able to list some ways. But they are only likenesses, and that is all.
Christ came in the likeness; not in the sameness. He looked like, but was not the same. He was not a sinner, but looked like a sinner. Ask his half brothers? He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He looked just like them. But his brothers never got saved until after the resurrection. It is difficult to grow up with someone who never sins, never gets angry, always obeys, does everything perfect. He was like sinful man, and yet without sin. It was only a lkieness and not a sameness. That is the meaning of the expression.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

......He avoided a sin nature through the virgin birth....

AMEN !!!!!!

 

[swaimj]

So when I say Jesus is "sinful", I mean precisely the following: Jesus "contains" or is otherwise connected to the agency of sin in the world. I am not saying that he sins. I really mean Jesus is 'full of sin' in the mysterious sense that the power of sin - this almost personal evil force - has been localized "in his flesh".

Jesus bore the sin of the world. He did not become sinful. This doctrine has been established in the church for thousands of years. I think you are trying to state it in a new way. I think you may believe that you have a unique understanding that no one else in the history of the church has arrived at. You do not. There is nothing new here.