Two neglected aspects of the atonement in regards to Christ and sinfulness

Johann said:
What Did Paul Mean?
So, what does Paul mean when he says this in Romans 8:3—“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh”? There is much for our consideration in this text, but here I restrict myself to the phrase “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” What does this mean?

There is no doubt but that by “sinful flesh” Paul refers to fallen human nature. The question, then, is this: Why did he not simply say that God sent his Son “in the flesh”? That is what John says in John 1:14 (“and the Word became flesh”). Why did he include the adjective “sinful”? Had he said, “in sinful flesh” without qualification we would likely conclude that Jesus did in fact have a fallen, sinful human nature. Which raises the question, why does he include the word “likeness”?

Some argue that Paul introduced the word “likeness” because he wanted to avoid affirming the true humanity of Christ. This is one version of the ancient heresy known as Docetism. According to this view, Christ’s “flesh” or human nature only seemed (from the Greek, dokeō) to be human flesh. Rather, the body of Jesus was a phantom or took on a ghost-like appearance.

But in the second half of verse 3, Paul says that God condemned sin “in the flesh” and there is no qualification of the reality of the “flesh” that was condemned when Christ was nailed to the cross. Also, and even more explicitly, the apostle John says that “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2b) and that every spirit that does not make this confession is “the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:3). And then there are numerous other places in the New Testament where the reality of Christ’s human nature (his flesh) is clearly asserted.

Others contend that Paul makes use of the word “likeness” in Romans 8:3 to affirm that Jesus never committed an act of sin. Thus, he took on fallen human nature, like ours, but unlike ours in that he never actually acted on a sinful impulse. Unfortunately, though, that does not address the question of whether he experienced “sinful impulses” from within his own human nature.

We know that he was not guilty of human sin, like we are. Tom Schreiner also points out that whereas “likeness” may denote “mere similarity” it also has the notion of “identity,” such that “the Son did not merely resemble human flesh but participated fully in sinful flesh. Still, it doesn’t follow logically that the Son himself sinned” (Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, [Baker Books, 2nd Edition, 2018], 399).

My only concern here is with the phrase “participated fully in sinful flesh.” What precisely does that mean?

Also, if all that Paul intended was that Jesus never actually committed any act of sin, it reads quite awkwardly. To say that he came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” is an admittedly odd way of saying he never actually sinned. The word “likeness” more likely is used to indicate a difference between Christ’s human nature and ours, not what he did with or how he acted upon that nature.

Consider homoiōma
C. E. B. Cranfield has yet another interpretation. He suggests that “the intention behind the use of homoiōma [‘likeness’] here . . . was to take account of the fact that the Son of God was not, in being sent by the Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining himself.”

The Son of God was not, in being sent by the Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining himself.


Thus “the intention is not in any way to call into question or to water down the reality of Christ’s sarx hamartias [‘sinful flesh’] but to draw attention to the fact that, while the Son of God truly assumed sarx hamartias, he never became sarx hamartias and nothing more” (The Epistle to the Romans, Volume 1 [T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1975] 1:381). Again, says Cranfield, “the Son of God assumed the selfsame fallen human nature that is ours, but that in his case that fallen human nature was never the whole of him—he never ceased to be the eternal Son of God” (1:382).

Then there are those, including me, who contend that Paul used the word “likeness” to avoid saying that Christ assumed fallen human nature. He took on flesh like ours, because it was really and truly human flesh, a genuine human nature. But it was only “like” ours, and not identical with it, because it was unfallen. He does not use the word “likeness” to deny or undermine the reality of Christ’s human nature, as if to say that his flesh only resembles ours but has no qualitative affinity with it. He uses “likeness” because he feels compelled to use the phrase “sinful flesh” instead of merely “flesh.” Had Paul omitted the word “sinful” he also would have omitted the word “likeness.”

The question, then, is why Paul includes the word “sinful” at all? John Murray explains:

He is concerned to show that when the Father sent the Son into this world of sin, of misery, and of death, he sent him in a manner that brought him into the closest relation to sinful humanity that it was possible for him to come without becoming himself sinful. He himself was holy and undefiled—the word “likeness” guards this truth. But he came in the same human nature. And that is the purpose of saying “sinful flesh.” No other combination of terms could have fulfilled these purposes so perfectly.” (The Epistle to the Romans, [Eerdmans, 1960], 1:280).

Similarly, Douglas J. Moo argues that homoiōma “probably has the nuance of ‘form’ rather than ‘likeness’ or ‘copy.’ In other words, the word does not suggest superficial or outward similarity, but inward and real participation or ‘expression’” (The Letter to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Eerdmans, 2018], 479). Paul, he suggests, “is walking a fine line here. On the one hand, he wants to insist that Christ fully entered into the human condition, became ‘in-fleshed’ (in-carnis), and, as such, exposed himself to the power of sin (cf. 6:8–10). On the other hand, he must avoid suggesting that Christ so participated in this realm that he became imprisoned ‘in the flesh’ . . . and became, thus, so subject to sin that he could be personally guilty of it” (479–80).

This leaves one fundamental question unanswered. Is it inherently “sinful” to experience sinful urges or inclinations, or is it only sinful to act upon them?

Is it inherently “sinful” to experience sinful urges or inclinations, or is it only sinful to act upon them?


Peter speaks of “the passions of the flesh, which wage war against” our souls (1 Pet. 2:11). Did Jesus experience such passions but simply refused to yield to them? Is the mere existence of such passions in a human soul an indictment, or must there be a choice to follow their promptings in concrete thought and action?

In the final analysis, I must concur with Murray and Moo. Jesus did not have a sinful nature. Although he was susceptible to the effects of the fall, insofar as he experienced physical weakness and, ultimately, physical death, he experienced no sinful or selfish passions.

One thing is certain and beyond debate. Jesus never committed an act of sin. The sinless life of Jesus is absolutely essential for his capacity to serve as our sacrificial substitute, an atoning death in which he was not dying for his own transgressions but for ours (see 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15).
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Did Jesus Have a Fallen Human Nature?

“I’m persuaded that it was a nature free from the taint of original sin, a nature that in no way was disposed to or prompted by internal sinful urges.”
www.thegospelcoalition.org www.thegospelcoalition.org

Thanks @civic

2Co 5:21 The one who in his person had no da'as of chattat (sin) [Ac 3:14; Yn 8:46; MJ 4:15; 7:26; 1K 2:22; 1Y 3:5], this one Hashem made a chattat sin offering [Ga 3:13; YESHAYAH 53:10; VAYIKRA 4:24 TARGUM HASHIVIM] on our behalf that we might become the Tzidkat Hashem [DANIEL 9:24] in Moshiach. [1C 1:30; Pp 3:9] [T.N. In this next chapter Rav Sha’ul warns against associations or worldly influences or fascinations that will contaminate the believer, who should not think he can have both the world’s evil pleasures and the House of G-d’s holy chelek.]

he: Isa_53:4-6, Isa_53:9-12; Dan_9:26; Zec_13:7; Rom_8:3; Gal_3:13; Eph_5:2; 1Pe_3:18; 1Jn_2:1-2
who: Isa_53:9; Luk_1:35; Heb_7:26; 1Pe_2:22-24; 1Jn_3:5
we: 2Co_5:17; Isa_45:24-25, Isa_53:11; Jer_23:26, Jer_33:16; Dan_9:24; Rom_1:17, Rom_3:21-26; Rom_5:19, Rom_8:1-4, Rom_10:3-4; 1Co_1:30; Php_3:9
Click to expand...
Great references in your post.
 
dizerner said:
You and I have, we have both blasphemed God in our lives.

If God wanted to voluntarily bear our sin, I think he would have the power to do that.

We just don't naturally understand how evil sin really is to God.
Click to expand...
POSSIBLE CHRONOLOGICAL
SEQUENCE ON DAY OF ATONEMENT

Lev 16:4: early on the Day of Atonement, high priest cleansed himself ritually and "He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash, and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments). (??) Then he shall bathe his body in water and put them on.

Lev 16:6,11: Then he began his daily sacrificing. Unlike Christ, he had to sacrifice for his own sin.

Very likely he would have already slaughtered 22 different animals by the time he reached the event known as the atonement. It was an exceptionally busy and bloody thing that he did on this day.

Lev 16:23: After finishing all these sacrifices, he took off the robes of glory and beauty and went and bathed himself again completely. He then put on a white linen garment, with no decoration or ornament at all, and performed the sacrifice of atonement.

In this ritual, the high priest symbolized Jesus Christ, who, in His true and perfect work of atonement, stripped off all His glory and beauty and became the humblest of the humble. (Phil2:6-7) He dressed Himself in human flesh, pure but plain and unadorned. In all of His humility He never lost His holiness.

When the high priest was done with the sacrifice of atonement, he put the robes of glory and beauty back on, picturing still further the work of our Lord.

In His high priestly prayer, anticipating what would happen after the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus said, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was” (Jn17:5). He was saying in effect, “Give Me back My robes. I’ve done the job of atonement. My work of humility is Over.”

Lev 16:12,13: In the garment of white linen, the high priest took coals off the bronze altar, where sacrifice was going to be made. He put them in a gold censer with incense and carried it into the Holy of Holies.

Here again is a beautiful picture of Christ, interceding for His own before God’s presence.

Lev 16:14: Then the high priest went out and took a bullock purchased with his own money, because it was to be offered for his own sin. After slaughtering the bullock and offering the sacrifice, he had another priest assist him in catching the blood as it drained off. He swirled some of it in a small bowl and carried it into the Holy of Holies, where he sprinkled it on the mercy seat. The people could hear the bells on his robe as he moved about. He hurried out, and the people breathed a sigh of relief at seeing him. Had he entered the Holy of Holies ceremonially unclean, he would have been struck dead.

Lev 16:15, 8, 9, 16,17: When he came out, two goats were waiting for him by the bronze altar. In a small urn were two lots to determine which goat would be used for which purpose. One lot was marked for the Lord and the other for Azazel, for the scapegoat. As each lot was drawn it was tied to the horn of one of the goats. The goat designated for Jehovah was then killed on the altar. Its blood was caught in the same way as that of the bullock and was swirled in the bowl as it was carried into the Holy of Holies. This blood, too, was sprinkled on the mercy seat, but this time for the sins of the people. Again he hurried back out.

Lev 16:21,22: He then placed his hands on the goat that remained, the scapegoat, symbolically placing the sins of the people on the goat’s head. That goat was taken far out into the wilderness and turned loose, to be lost and never to return.

The first goat represented satisfaction of God’s justice, in that sin had been paid for. The second represented satisfaction of man’s conscience, because he knew he was freed of the penalty of sin. Still again we see Christ. In His own death he paid for man’s sin, thereby satisfying God’s justice, and He also carried our sins far from us, giving us peace of conscience and mind. He satisfied both God and man. The two goats actually are two parts of one offering. “And he shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering” (Lv 16:5). They represented propitiation and pardon, two aspects of the one atoning sacrifice.

Here is Spurgeon's exposition of Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement… (See also commentary on Leviticus 16)

Leviticus 16:1, 2. And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord, and died, and the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

The way into the heavenly places was not yet made manifest; the inner shrine, called the holy of holies, was specially guarded from human access. No one could have said in those days, "Let us come boldly unto the throne of grace," for only the high priest could approach the mercy seat at all, and he must go within the veil strictly in accordance with the instructions given to Moses by the Lord. Nadab and Abihu appear to have entered into the presence of God wrongfully, they had probably been drinking, for there was a command afterwards given that no priest should drink wine or strong drink when he went into the house of the Lord. God in his righteous anger slew these young men at once, and now, lest any others should intrude into the secret place of communion, a law was given to tell when and how man might approach his God.

Leviticus 16:3. Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.

There is no access to God except by sacrifice; there never was, and there never can be, any way to God for sinful man except by sacrifice.

Leviticus 16:4. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

Our great High Priest offered himself without spot to God, and he is himself without sin; but the Jewish high priest must make himself typically pure by putting on the snow-white garments of holy service, and before doing so he must wash himself with water, that he might come before God acceptably. None might approach the Holy God with impurities upon them.

Leviticus 16:5, 6. And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

These priests were sinful, and therefore they must first themselves be purged from guilt before they could come nigh to God; but the true High Priest of God, our Lord Jesus, needed to offer no sacrifice for himself, for he was pure and without blemish or stain of sin.

Leviticus 16:7. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

These two goats were not for himself, but for the people. You must regard them as if they were but one offering, for it needed both of them to set forth the divine plan by which sin is put away; one was to die, and the other was typically to bear away the sin of the people.

Leviticus 16:8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

One goat was to show how sin is put away in reference to God by sacrifice, and the other goat was to show how it is put away in reference to us, God's people, by being carried into oblivion.

Leviticus 16:9-14. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself: and he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: and he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.

This was his first entrance within the veil, with holy incense to denote the acceptance which Christ has with God, though he is always well-beloved, and dear, and precious to his Father. This incense sent up a cloud that veiled the glory of the Shekinah which shone between the two wings of the cherubim, and so the high priest was better able to bear the wondrous brilliance by which God revealed his presence. When Aaron had thus filled the place with the sweetly-perfumed smoke, he took the blood of the bullock of the sin-offering, and carefully sprinkled it seven times on the mercy seat, and on the ground around the mercy seat. What a mercy it is for you and me that the spot where we meet with God is a place where the blood of the great sacrifice has been sprinkled, ay, and that the ground of our meeting with God, the place on which the mercy seat rests, has also the blood mark upon it!

Leviticus 16:15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Twice, you see, is the holy place thus besprinkled, first with the blood of the bullock, and then with that of the goat.

Leviticus 16:16. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

If God is to dwell in the midst of sinful men, it can only be through the blood of the atonement. Twice seven times were the holy place and the tabernacle to be sprinkled with blood, as though to indicate a double perfectness of efficacy of the preparation for God's dwelling among sinful men.

Leviticus 16:17-19 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

Even this altar, to which we bring our prayers and our thankofferings, has sin upon it. There is some defilement even in the saltwater of our penitent tears; there is some unbelief even in our most acceptable faith; there is some want of holiness about our holiest things. We are unclean by nature, and by practice, too, what could we do without the sprinkling of the blood? See how the Lord insisted upon it in the case of his ancient people, yet there are some in these modern times who deride it. God forgive their blasphemy!

Leviticus 16:20, 21. And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

Notice the "all" in verse 21, "Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness." This was the second part of the atonement showing, not sacrifice, but the effect of sacrifice, and explaining what becomes of sin after the sacrifice has been accepted, and the blood has been presented within the veil.

Leviticus 16:22-25. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: and he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people. And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.

Only the fat of it, the best of it, was burnt upon the altar, for sin offerings were not acceptable to God. They were regarded as being filled with impurity by reason of the sin which they brought to mind; for this reason the bullock and the goat of the sin offering had to be burnt without the camp: "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate," as our sin offering. Yet, inasmuch as the fat was accepted upon the altar, so is Christ, even as our sin offering, acceptable before God.

Leviticus 16:26, 27. And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp. And the bullock for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.

All must be burnt; and the last is mentioned because it more strikingly sets forth the impurity of the sin connected with the sin offering. All must be burnt right up; there must not be a particle of the sin offering left unconsumed.

Leviticus 16:28. And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.

Everything that has to do with God's service must be clean and pure purified by fire, and purified by water. An atonement cannot be made by that which is itself defiled; it must be without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing before it can put sin away; this is the virtue of Christ's atonement, for he was altogether without sin of any kind.

Leviticus 16:29-31 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

This shows what sacredness the Lord attached to the great day of atonement, and gives us more than a hint of the preciousness of our Lord's atoning work for us. Now let us turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and see how the apostle spiritualizes the services of the Mosaic dispensation.

May we continue?
 

Similar threads

civic
Atonement Theories
Replies
2
Views
162
Bob Carabbio
Bob Carabbio
Behold
Calvinism + TULIP : Will get you Killed... (Vol 2)
Replies
8
Views
68
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
Behold
"IN Christ".. The Simplicity of it.
Replies
0
Views
112
Behold
Behold
J
The law is not about mercy, and atonement is not about punishment.
Replies
11
Views
377
TomL
T
David Koberstein
The KINGDOM in two Stages
Replies
0
Views
16
David Koberstein
David Koberstein
Back
Top Bottom