Featured Question For You, Hebrews 10:28

Exactly. But he won't come out and say it, but this is exactly what he is saying. Methinks there are some on here claiming to be Baptists that just aren't.

 

Temptation is not sin though. He knew no sin, we are told He was tempted like we are and yet did not sin. Could He have given into sin as a human I believe He could or Satan would not have tried. He had to face the temptations we face and He had to keep the Law of Moses which included the 10 Commandments and He did just that. He had no sin nature because the sin nature is passed from the father (Adam) to the children. Eve transgressed but Adam sinned, "1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." so the Father would pass the Old Sinful nature to the children and since Jesus had no earthly father the Sin Nature by passed Him, Eve was deceived and Transgressed, Christ was tempted as she was by Satan and yet He did not Transgress.

 

PreacherForTriuth to answer your question,

"(Rom 8:3 NKJV) For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,"

So, no, I guess that verse implies that Christ did not have a "sin nature". He could certainly be tempted to sin though, we all know that.

And as far as the verses that discuss the evil inherent in "the flesh" they are too numerous to count. That is obviously what the OP was alluding to.

But sin is always tied to our physical nature it seems, having physical needs, so someone is hungry and tempted to steal bread. Even Christ's own temptations are depicted as arising out of his own physical needs. But just all the other areas of sin - lust, anger arising out of pain or sleep depriviation, or what have you, cursing God out of desperation due to illness - its all tied to our physical nature.

 

Wrong. Not even close.

 

Hamel - just now saw your most recent post, don't know how I missed it, will have a look.

 

Jesus is Incarnation of God, so why would his "physical needs" even come into this equation?

 

So do you hold that Jesus either was a sinner, or else was less than fully God?

 

He who knew no sin, became sin for us; meaning our sins were placed upon Him when He died on the cross. Jesus was sinless, immaculate, pristine, impeccable, perfect, unspotted, unblemished, the true Sacrificial Lamb of God. He had no sin nature, neither the ability to sin, and choosing not to. He could, in no way, sin. He was/is God manifested in the flesh.

 

PreacherForTruth:

So, you ask us to consider Hebrews 9:11, but what you really meant was for us to consider this elaborate and questionable interpretation of it by a one "John Gill". The crux of his treatment is that the perfect tabernacle not made with hands refers to Christ's earthly body (thus explaining your position regarding Christ's supposed otherworldly nature, even while on earth - which coincidentally is as susceptible to a charge of gnosticism I think as well)

This "perfect tabernacle" is actually alluding to God's temple in heaven, I think. Consider how "tabernacle" is used elsewhere in Hebrews:

(Heb 8:1) Now the main point in what has been said we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

(Heb 9:24) For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

 

Re - the idea of John Gill and PreacherForTruth that the "tabernacle not made with hands" of Hebrews 9:11 refers to Christ's earthly body:

(John 2:19-21) Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

SO here is an instance where Christ does in fact refer to his body as a "temple" (though not tabernacle). But he concedes that the temple of his earthly body could be destroyed, just as this temple in Jerusalem could be destroyed (as he talks about just previous to this) So, neither temple could be conceptualized as ideal in that regard.

So the perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, not of this creation that is discussed in Hebrews, cannot it seems be talking about Christ's earthly body. Christ was the sacrificial lamb. It does say elsewhere that the veil of the temple was his flesh. Symbols are used in different ways at different times in scripture.

---------
(edit)
And also the veil was torn! You can't have a temple that's perfect and eternal and not of this creation being torn and destroyed.

 

It seems there's a suspicion rampant here that people come in to surreptitiously promulgate some heresy which they are masking as an honest question. I think we can assume we're all Christians here right? (And there's only about 50 of us.) Any way, adherence to orthodox dogma is not what saves a person I don't believe. When someone puts forth a coherent and honest, albeit possibly slightly controversial thesis, I don't think it needs to be met necessarily with indignance and a mechanical recitation of dogma. The Bible says a lot of confusing things. We all know what the dogma is - we're trying to reconcile it with what we read for ourselves. Best I can come up with it now.

 

There's no suspicion, and even if there were it wouldn't erase the fact that some comments are errant and akin to Gnosticism. If you feel in yourself that this was met with indignance, that's all on you. Resistance? Absolutely. Are we really this thin skinned within the church? Apparently.

Someone makes a claim that Jesus had a sin nature, and you come up with "suspicion" as the culprit? Interesting.

In addition to this, there is the naivete who thinks that it is not likely that others would come to a forum, a theological forum to propagate heresy? Really? No need to be that naive about reality.

Non adherence to orthodox teachings have always been used to shed light upon error.

 

Preacher4Truth - I can't decide now whether the tabernacle in Hebrews 9:11 refers to Christ's body or not. You could, conceivably, be right, I do not know. You could be wrong (for the reasons already stated). Hopefully, one's eternal salvation does not hinge on their opinion on the matter.

 

Obviously it doesn't matter our thoughts on this as pertaining to salvation.

Now, it looks to me it refers to the Person of Christ, and to His eternal Glory and Person in Heaven. His bodily manifestation and Person here is of the One who "tabernacled among us" as per John 1:14.

 

Should have responded to this earlier. Its strange to me that you would be making some fine distinction between "transgression" and "sin" so I did I quick search of the Greek at BLB, and even Romans 5:14 for example has Adam transgressing (same word in Greek). So I'm not going to look into that further.

The idea that the reason for the Virgin birth is because the "sin nature" is passed down through the Man, is - to the best of my knowledge - pure conjecture. Possibly its valid (as for example I even heard Bill Gothard once matter-of-factly allude to it). I certainly know of no passage that remotely spells that out, maybe someone else does. Its strange that the only text you would mention in connection with this doctrine is 1 Timothy 2 in which Paul is disallowing woman from teaching because of Eve's trangression.

-----------------
(edit)

So, the idea is that apparently women also have a sin nature but its only passed down genetically through men? Did Mary have a sin nature?

 

(1 Cor 15:21-22) For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Just a search of "Adam" returned the following verse which is the only possible basis I guess for the doctrine of the sin nature being passed down through the man. But to look at that larger passage, is there any discussion regarding the sexes there? Is it explaining for example why the Messiah wasn't a woman? Of course not. "Man" is of course used generically throughout scripture (in the patriarchal world which it was then) to refer to all people of all sexes. So to take that passage and build a doctirne regarding the sin nature being passed down specifically through the man seems a stretch.

 

26 else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;
28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9

His 'coming' of v 26 was to put away sin. The 'coming' of v 28 is apart from sin. I don't find that confusing at all.

 

28so also the Christ, once having been offered to bear the sins of many, a second time, apart from a sin-offering, shall appear, to those waiting for him -- to salvation

aw pink

CHS

 

What is the corruptible part of man that must put on incorruptible?

What is the mortal part of man that must put on immortality?

Why does Peter say that David is both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us unto this day? What is the both relative to according to the text?

 

That's the way I understand it also.