Post by ResLight on Jan 15, 2014 20:24:40 GMT -5
It is being claimed by some that Jesus, although sinless, had a fallen nature and would have grown old and died naturally, had he not been put to death. Of course, the reason Jesus came to earth was to die as the offering for sin, so the idea of his growing old and dying is speculative. Nevertheless, since Jesus was sinless, and never once disobeyed; he had the right to live forever as a human. He gave up that right in sacrifice to pay for the sin of the world.
The question has been asked: Did Jesus come to save perfect man or fallen man?
At creation, Adam was upright (straight, just -- not crooked -- Ecclesiastes 7:29). It was an unfallen sinless, just, straight, incorrupt, man -- Adam -- that fell short of the glory of an incorrupt nature (Romans 3:23) through sin (Romans 5:11-19) and thus brought the fallen sinful condition, corrupt, crooked nature, upon man, and entered mankind into the bondage of corruption and futility; it was not a man who was created in a fallen condition of already falling short of the glory of God that brought death upon mankind. Therefore, the equivalent price to correspond to Adam before Adam sinned would have to be an unfallen sinless man. Thus Jesus came to save [deliver] fallen man from his fallen condition back to what Adam had before Adam sinned.
atonement.rlbible.com
If one is sinless, then he has not fallen:
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.
The argument is put forth that in God's law it is one eye for one eye and one tooth for one tooth etc. Atonement is not from two eyes for one eye. Thus according to this reasoning, to redeem fallen man with anyone other than a man with the same fallen nature would be a transgression of God's own law.
Adam, of course, was not of the fallen, sinful nature until he sinned. The above simply thwarts the whole basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, and would conclude that the ransom sacrifice delivers mankind from nothing, since even after the sacrifice, the fallen nature would still be there.
What was required was a man like Adam who, until he sinned, did not have a fallen nature due to sin. What, then, was required, was one who was not sinful flesh, but who would suffer and die the penalty of sin as though he did have sinful flesh. That is why Jesus needed a body of flesh specially prepared by God, a body that could be sacrificed as an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:5,10) Without that special arrangement, Jesus would simply have been born under the same condemnation in Adam as all the rest of mankind dying in Adam.
The fallen "nature", that is, being by nature of "sons of wrath", is only due to sin, for without the condemnation of sin, one is not under the wrath of God, and one has not "fallen" short of the glory of God, and thus one is not by nature a son of wrath, nor is one a son of disobedience. If Adam had not sinned, then Adam would never have 'fallen short' of the glory of God so as to be fallen by nature, a son of wrath, a son of disobedience, and Adam would not have died, since he would not have been condemned to death, and we would still see walking around on earth today. -- Romans 3:23; Ephesians 1:2,3.
All who have been born in Adam are dying in Adam, since the condemnation of that one sin is upon all due to that one sin of Adam which one sin has made sinners of us all, yes, even conceived in sin. Humans would not be dying if it were not for sin. -- Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Psalm 51:5.
Adam, of course, could have obeyed God before he had become by nature a child of wrath, falling short of the glory of God. As a son of God, I have no reason to think that he was not being led by God spirit, and could have continued so had he not chosen to turn away from that spirit to disobedience. He did not have sinful flesh until his flesh became sinful by becoming a son of disobedience. It was only then that that disharmony with God came upon him, making him a son of wrath, a son of disobedience, when he stopped being led by God's spirit. -- Romans 8:14.
If Jesus had been, by nature, one fallen from the glory of God, a child of wrath, then he could not have been our redeemer, since he would have been under God's wrath just as all mankind. Jesus, did, however experience the results of the sinful flesh, suffering and death, even though his flesh was not sinful, in his paying for our sins. It was not necessary for him to have sinful flesh in order to experience the suffering of mankind.
The question is asked: "How could he be tempted as we are tempted if he did not experience the passions that we experience in our fleshly nature?"
In the same manner that Adam was tempted before Adam became a son of wrath, a son of disobedience. Although Adam was created incorrupt, upright, straight (not unright, unjust -- Ecclesiastes 7:29), he had not put on incorruption, the condition required for immortality, no longer being subject to death of any kind. (1 Corinthians 15:53,54; Revelation 2:11; 20:6) Although yet mortal, he was living, and could live forever, thus, in effect, having everlasting life, as long as he did not disobey. (Genesis 2:17; 3:22) He did not have to disobey, but he chose to disobey when he was tempted by his wife. It was then that God's wrath came upon him making him by nature a child of wrath. He did not have any fallen "nature" until then, because until then he had not fallen short by sin. He fully had the crown of glory as God gave to him; he had not fallen short of it, thus had no fallen nature, not until he fell short of the glory by sin.
The claim is made that since Jesus became flesh, that the word "flesh" means that Jesus possessed all the frailties and passions of mankind both physically and morally. That Jesus was participated in the frailties of fallen mankind in paying for sin is not denied. That he also participated in mankind moral corruption we do deny. The word "flesh", after the fall, is indeed often used to designate what had human "flesh" has become, having fallen short of the glory of God. This is, indeed, the nature of human flesh since Adam sinned. This does not mean that Adam had sinful, fallen, flesh at the beginning, nor that Jesus had sinful, fallen, flesh, which, in effect denotes flesh that falls short of the glory of God due to sin. Jesus never fell short of that glory since he never sinned.
It is furthered argued that Jesus overcame by the spirit of God. Jesus overcame the world and the temptations of Satan, the ruler, the god, of this world, by remaining obedient, and not submitting to those temptations. Yes, Jesus continued to follow the leadings of God's spirit and received strength and support from God through God's spirit, so one could say that Jesus overcame by, through, God's spirit being in him. However, Jesus did not to have overcome sin in his flesh, however, since he never had any, and thus never had any fallen nature which would have been due to sin. What he had to overcome was any temptation to sin which would actually have made him fall short of God's glory.
For studies related to Jesus' sacrifice:
atonement.rlbible.com
God willing, this posting will eventually be moved to:
atonement.rlbible.com/?p=426
The question has been asked: Did Jesus come to save perfect man or fallen man?
At creation, Adam was upright (straight, just -- not crooked -- Ecclesiastes 7:29). It was an unfallen sinless, just, straight, incorrupt, man -- Adam -- that fell short of the glory of an incorrupt nature (Romans 3:23) through sin (Romans 5:11-19) and thus brought the fallen sinful condition, corrupt, crooked nature, upon man, and entered mankind into the bondage of corruption and futility; it was not a man who was created in a fallen condition of already falling short of the glory of God that brought death upon mankind. Therefore, the equivalent price to correspond to Adam before Adam sinned would have to be an unfallen sinless man. Thus Jesus came to save [deliver] fallen man from his fallen condition back to what Adam had before Adam sinned.
atonement.rlbible.com
If one is sinless, then he has not fallen:
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.
The argument is put forth that in God's law it is one eye for one eye and one tooth for one tooth etc. Atonement is not from two eyes for one eye. Thus according to this reasoning, to redeem fallen man with anyone other than a man with the same fallen nature would be a transgression of God's own law.
Adam, of course, was not of the fallen, sinful nature until he sinned. The above simply thwarts the whole basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, and would conclude that the ransom sacrifice delivers mankind from nothing, since even after the sacrifice, the fallen nature would still be there.
What was required was a man like Adam who, until he sinned, did not have a fallen nature due to sin. What, then, was required, was one who was not sinful flesh, but who would suffer and die the penalty of sin as though he did have sinful flesh. That is why Jesus needed a body of flesh specially prepared by God, a body that could be sacrificed as an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:5,10) Without that special arrangement, Jesus would simply have been born under the same condemnation in Adam as all the rest of mankind dying in Adam.
The fallen "nature", that is, being by nature of "sons of wrath", is only due to sin, for without the condemnation of sin, one is not under the wrath of God, and one has not "fallen" short of the glory of God, and thus one is not by nature a son of wrath, nor is one a son of disobedience. If Adam had not sinned, then Adam would never have 'fallen short' of the glory of God so as to be fallen by nature, a son of wrath, a son of disobedience, and Adam would not have died, since he would not have been condemned to death, and we would still see walking around on earth today. -- Romans 3:23; Ephesians 1:2,3.
All who have been born in Adam are dying in Adam, since the condemnation of that one sin is upon all due to that one sin of Adam which one sin has made sinners of us all, yes, even conceived in sin. Humans would not be dying if it were not for sin. -- Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Psalm 51:5.
Adam, of course, could have obeyed God before he had become by nature a child of wrath, falling short of the glory of God. As a son of God, I have no reason to think that he was not being led by God spirit, and could have continued so had he not chosen to turn away from that spirit to disobedience. He did not have sinful flesh until his flesh became sinful by becoming a son of disobedience. It was only then that that disharmony with God came upon him, making him a son of wrath, a son of disobedience, when he stopped being led by God's spirit. -- Romans 8:14.
If Jesus had been, by nature, one fallen from the glory of God, a child of wrath, then he could not have been our redeemer, since he would have been under God's wrath just as all mankind. Jesus, did, however experience the results of the sinful flesh, suffering and death, even though his flesh was not sinful, in his paying for our sins. It was not necessary for him to have sinful flesh in order to experience the suffering of mankind.
The question is asked: "How could he be tempted as we are tempted if he did not experience the passions that we experience in our fleshly nature?"
In the same manner that Adam was tempted before Adam became a son of wrath, a son of disobedience. Although Adam was created incorrupt, upright, straight (not unright, unjust -- Ecclesiastes 7:29), he had not put on incorruption, the condition required for immortality, no longer being subject to death of any kind. (1 Corinthians 15:53,54; Revelation 2:11; 20:6) Although yet mortal, he was living, and could live forever, thus, in effect, having everlasting life, as long as he did not disobey. (Genesis 2:17; 3:22) He did not have to disobey, but he chose to disobey when he was tempted by his wife. It was then that God's wrath came upon him making him by nature a child of wrath. He did not have any fallen "nature" until then, because until then he had not fallen short by sin. He fully had the crown of glory as God gave to him; he had not fallen short of it, thus had no fallen nature, not until he fell short of the glory by sin.
The claim is made that since Jesus became flesh, that the word "flesh" means that Jesus possessed all the frailties and passions of mankind both physically and morally. That Jesus was participated in the frailties of fallen mankind in paying for sin is not denied. That he also participated in mankind moral corruption we do deny. The word "flesh", after the fall, is indeed often used to designate what had human "flesh" has become, having fallen short of the glory of God. This is, indeed, the nature of human flesh since Adam sinned. This does not mean that Adam had sinful, fallen, flesh at the beginning, nor that Jesus had sinful, fallen, flesh, which, in effect denotes flesh that falls short of the glory of God due to sin. Jesus never fell short of that glory since he never sinned.
It is furthered argued that Jesus overcame by the spirit of God. Jesus overcame the world and the temptations of Satan, the ruler, the god, of this world, by remaining obedient, and not submitting to those temptations. Yes, Jesus continued to follow the leadings of God's spirit and received strength and support from God through God's spirit, so one could say that Jesus overcame by, through, God's spirit being in him. However, Jesus did not to have overcome sin in his flesh, however, since he never had any, and thus never had any fallen nature which would have been due to sin. What he had to overcome was any temptation to sin which would actually have made him fall short of God's glory.
For studies related to Jesus' sacrifice:
atonement.rlbible.com
God willing, this posting will eventually be moved to:
atonement.rlbible.com/?p=426
