Question For You, Hebrews 10:28

[preacher4truth]

Jesus is GOD though!

Your statement seems to imply jesus was not God...

He was/is God in human flesh, born w/o a sinful nature as all the rest of us are!

In the Incarnation , god assumed limitations of a man, yet without a sin nature...

that is why God was tempted, as He had limitations of the human body vol assumed!

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.

 

[revmwc]

Christ could certainly be tempted by evil when in the flesh, which makes him different from God in that regard:

(James 1:13 NASB) Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

(Heb 2:17-18) Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

(Heb 5:8-10) Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

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.

 

[Mark_13]

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.

 

[preacher4truth]

PreacherForTriuth

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.

Wrong. Not even close.

 

[Mark_13]

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

 

[DaChaser1]

Wrong. Not even close.

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

 

[DaChaser1]

Whatever those verses I listed say, that's what I think.

I try to be noncommittal on everything and just quote scripture. Seriously, I think that's the best course of action. I think if all pastors did is get in the pulpit and read the Bible, it would in some ways be better than a sermon, because any time one deigns to interpret, to explain, to elaborate, they invariably depart from the truth, at least to some limited extent. Its a necessary evil though, as one can't just quote the Bible always.

But as to what I think, I used to memorize the Bible a lot - the entire books of Ephesians, I Peter and James. Am just getting back into it now, having memorized Psalm 103 recently. Its a lot easier than people think - no problem at all to memorize an entire chapter in a couple of hours. Actors memorize like this all the time.

So, maybe one can reach a point where they have no thoughts of their own - only scripture.

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

 

[convicted1]

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.

 

[Mark_13]

PreacherForTruth:

Consider Hebrews 9:11, and the reference of 'tabernacle' being perfect, and referring to that body of Christ that would be offered;

Quote:
by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; meaning the human body of Christ, which was greater than tabernacle of Moses; not in bulk and quantity, but in value, worth, and dignity; and was more perfect than that, that being only an example, figure, shadow, and type, this being the antitype, the sum and substance of that; and by it things and persons are brought to perfection, which could not be, in and by that; and this is a tabernacle which God pitched, and not man; which was reared up without the help, of man: Christ was not begotten by man, but was conceived in the womb of a virgin, under the power of the Holy Ghost; he came not into the world in the way of ordinary generation, but in a supernatural manner; and so his human body is a tabernacle, - John Gill

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;

 

[Mark_13]

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.

 

[Mark_13]

Mark..., it does appear to me that many on this forum board just sit in wait.
Without exception there are always positions taken in opposition to the topic.

Below are some tidbits of responses. Accordingly, How Dumb I Am, and we wonder why so many believers are reluctant to ask questions..., put forth any concerns they might have, have their misunderstandings dealt with, or confusions that often arise over the literal meaning of Scriptures, etc.

Am I to assume all these responses were provided simply as a help..., or otherwise were they offered up in a condescending tone? There's one poster on here that will flat out tell 'ya "YOU'RE WRONG!

Your view is taking on a rather Gnostic notion,

Nothing in it said a thing about nor even implied what you are now saying.

and did NOT have sinful nature, so could not be referencing that!

Nothing in this passage implies that the first time He was sinful, or had a sinful nature. That is totally against all dogma concerning God.

Clearly in the OP you spoke of "His previous sin nature." Now you've attempted to go down another road, which is fine, but your not owning up was what got me coupled with blaming others for not understanding you.

My Question was, does the language, "...appear the second time without sin," which obviously refers to Him coming back in all His glory for the Saints but does it also indicate His previous sinful nature simply by having been in the flesh? Obviously, He did not sin as we do?

Yes, I USED THE WRONG WORD. I said "nature". Should not have used that word. My error. So, I'll sit back in neutral and leave it alone.

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.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

 

[Mark_13]

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.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

 

[Mark_13]

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.

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?

 

[Mark_13]

(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.

 

[kyredneck]

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

"And unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." This needs to be interpreted in harmony with its context, and as furnishing the antitype of what is found in Leviticus 16. The word for "appear" here is not the one commonly used for the return of Christ—it means "to be seen." When Aaron disappeared within the veil, the people waited with eager expectation until he came out again to bless them. So Christ, having made atonement, and gone into heaven, shall yet re-appear and be seen by those who wait for Him. As men after death, must yet appear the "second time" in their body, to undergo condemnation therein; so Christ shall appear the second time, to bestow on God’s elect eternal salvation.

"Unto them that look for Him:" that is, all the redeemed, the "many" whose sins He bore. Though the vision tarry, they wait for it (Hab. 2:3). Five things are included in this word "look for." First, the steadfast faith of His appearing, resting with implicit confidence on His promise in John 14:2, 3. Second, a real love unto it: 2 Timothy 4:8. Third, an ardent longing after it, so that they cry, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20). Fourth, a patient waiting for it, in the midst of many discouragements: James 5:7, 8. Fifth, a personal preparation for it: Matthew 25:10, Luke 12:35-37.

"Without (imputed) sin, unto salvation." Hereby Christ’s second advent is contrasted from His first. When he appeared the first time, it was with "sin" upon Him (John 1:29) as the Surety of sinners. Therefore was He the Man of sorrows, and afflicted from His youth up (Ps. 88:15). But He will re-appear in a very different state: as the Conqueror of sin and Satan, the Savior of His people, the King of kings and Lord of lords. At His return, the efficacy of His once-for-all offering will be openly manifested. The question of His peoples’ sins having been finally settled at the cross, He will then glorify His redeemed. "For our conversation is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile ,body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself" (Phil. 3:20, 21).

aw pink

Let us go a step further with our text: once only does the Lord appear for
purpose of putting away sin. He came once to do it, and he has done it so
well that there is no need for him to offer any further sacrifice. “This man,
after that he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down.” He will
never appear a second time for the putting away of sin. It was his purpose
once; but he has so fulfilled it that it will never be his purpose again. The
high priest, as you know, came every year with blood for the putting away
of sin. He has slain the victim this year, but next year he must come in the
same manner, and the next, and the next, and the next; because the
sacrifice had not really removed the guilt; but our Lord has come once for
this divine purpose; and he has so achieved that purpose that he could truly
cry, “It is finished”; for the work is done once for all. He has so perfectly
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself that he will never need to offer a
second sacrifice. That our Lord should ever come a second time as he
came the first time is inconceivable by those who love him. He will come a
second time, but in a very different style, and for a very different purpose;
not as a sacrifice for sins, but as King and Judge.
And here

CHS

 

[percho]

I would say it refers to simply his coming a second time sinless (he already came once sinless).

I would also argue that your premise of the idea of "flesh" is flawed. Simply having a material body does not make one a sinner. Adam and Eve started with good bodies. We will have bodies of flesh in the new heaven & new earth. It is not the bodies of men that are corrupt, it is our souls.

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?

 

[percho]

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.

That's the way I understand it also.