Was Jesus born with a sin nature?

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

9 hours ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

That is a good distinction to make, because the “nature” in the man is not defined by the fleshy physical body, but rather by the “spirit” that is  “in” the man.

And we know Christ proceeds Mary (all flesh actually) and was never flesh until he come in the flesh. And what we are given to know is that Christ (the person of/ who was not flesh) is come in the flesh, was made flesh, was made of a woman (regardless of what it is made up of) he come in it. Whether that is called "the body thou has prepared for" him and that be somehow, a body that was knitted together in Mary (during conception by the Holy Ghost) in a woman made under the law. And whether that means tid bits of her fleshly dna were used (apart from an earthly man father) and that somehow means something, or whether tid bits of her own earthly man father is tied into Mary's own dna because she was born of two earthly parents.

Its an endless thing to reason with on that level.

9 hours ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

For instance, when we are born again of the Holy Spirit our physical fleshy bodies do not change, but rather our heart/mind/spirit is changed.

Paul said in 

Romans 8:9

But ye (((are not in the flesh,)))but (((in the Spirit,))if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

 

So being in “the flesh” is not always talking about the physical body, but rather being “in that sin nature” because of the spirit/sin nature that entered “into”the world and “into” mankind by way of Adam.

 

 

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man “sin”entered “into” the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

This spirit/sin nature that is “in” the world is “of” the Devil, and is at “enmity”against the Spirit of God.

 

Romans 8:7

Because ((the carnal mind is enmity)) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

But Jesus was not “of” this world, nor  “of” the spirit of this world.

 

John 8:23

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are “of”this world; I am not “of”this world.

 

So when we are born again from “above” by the Spirit we no longer have that same spirit/sin nature that is “in” the world, but the “divine nature”of He that is from above.

 

1 John 4:4

Ye are “of”God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is “in”you, than he that is “in”the world.

 

2 Peter 1:4

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of ((the divine nature)), having escaped the corruption that is “in”the world through lust

 

Peace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot break your paragraph for some reason but in respects to John 8:23 even Jesus said what applied to him also applied to them on the basis of not being of this world as he went forward, for example

Ye are of this world, Jesus is not of this world

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

And now ye are not of this world either

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

John 17:4 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, 
even as I am not of the world.

Those who are given unto him out of this world

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

So even when reasoning with the words "natural man" (lets say) making it after the physical flesh (alone) of the natural man, we know there is a spiritual state/condition of that natural man (which also receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God) on a whole other level of comparison. In that sense I do not see Jesus taking that state on himself but the flesh itself, because he is holy and uncorrupted, and was never corrupted, whereas men (who dwell in the flesh) are.

Which makes this discussion rather slippery too because we know Christ come in the flesh (very literally so). And so lets say the Spirit of Christ was made flesh  after that manner (not sure if that was your above point taking it in that direction) as far as being born again, because some would argue that this could not be true until the Spirit was poured out right after Christ was crucified/raised up again right? And yet Jesus was telling them "who were of the world", not from heaven (in the iteral sense as he was) but of the earth that they too were no more of the world (as he moved along with them chapter by chapter) as is shown in the above. So that was not carnally/physically true but spiritually true.

But the same here, showing the Spirit of Christ as mentioned in both places, Paul said,

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his

And Peter shows the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets also

1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

I would just confess that Christ is come in the flesh and leave what is hazy about that alone, I think that is difficult to nail down although I do not believe he took part in our corruptness (according to the spiritual state of the flesh) because even as you point out and he points out the Father who was greater dwelled in him and walking after the Spirit (or by the Spirit) you will not be fulfilling the lusts of the flesh anyway and Jesus was led by and walked by and spoke by the same and is the perfect man in that.

Athough I always wondered in what ways he was made obedient because I cant imagine he was ever disobedient.

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by AFlameOfFire

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

On 12/2/2023 at 3:53 PM, enoob57 said:

Jesus didn't have a sin nature because you must sin to have that... but His flesh was tempted as Scripture says and that as we to put anything created before God... yet this He did not do... we see it clearly in Gethsemane:
Matthew 26:41 (KJV)
[41] Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Paul spoke on this as well Rom 7... the magnificence of Jesus is He never gave in to the weakness of the flesh. This alone demands my devotion to Him as I fail often in myself and this only magnifies His Person to my devotion to Him... Yes King of Kings and Lord of Lords but in my heart Man of Man... He did what only God could do and He did it in flesh...
 

You can see he has his own will and that he would ask the Father if he was willing to remove this cup he was to drink

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

What he would have willed in the days of his  flesh there (as the flesh weak) would appeal to the Father (if he was willing) to remove that cup, but still said, not my will but thine be done.

He was strengthened by an angel

Luke 22:44 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

And even after being strengthened he is still in agony

Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Speaking of the days of his flesh, this is truly one partaking of our nature here

Heb 5:7  Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him  that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

I don't understand this part though

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Because he was obedient unto death even though he suffered greatly before he did, so I would ask, what did he learn obedience in? And what suffering was needed to get the Son of God to become obedient? I don't understand that part.

Then continues, 

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Then here

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

So he "by the grace of God" should taste death, that's another one I am unclear of, it doesn't just say he tasted death for us but that he by the grace of God did so.

It continues, 

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Here is what I would have loved to see, a time or place where Jesus was disobedient in some way that made his sufferings justified in those situations so I can see how he was somehow imperfect and then made perfect by them, because I cannot see or relate to an imperfection in him that needed (somehow) to be made perfect by them. Unless this has only to do with being a more merciful high priest. So that he could have been less merciful had he not been subject to the intimate dealings with men, what men do to other men, the pride of man, and just stupid men not getting "God things". 

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest  in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

I think that could be it.

I am just talking out loud bouncing off your post after thinking about it.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by AFlameOfFire

[Stewardofthemystery]

10 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

And we know Christ proceeds Mary (all flesh actually) and was never flesh until he come in the flesh. And what we are given to know is that Christ (the person of/ who was not flesh) is come in the flesh, was made flesh, was made of a woman (regardless of what it is made up of) he come in it. Whether that is called "the body thou has prepared for" him and that be somehow, a body that was knitted together in Mary (during conception by the Holy Ghost) in a woman made under the law. And whether that means tid bits of her fleshly dna were used (apart from an earthly man father) and that somehow means something, or whether tid bits of her own earthly man father is tied into Mary's own dna because she was born of two earthly parents.

Its an endless thing to reason with on that level.

I cannot break your paragraph for some reason but in respects to John 8:23 even Jesus said what applied to him also applied to them on the basis of not being of this world as he went forward, for example

Ye are of this world, Jesus is not of this world

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

And now ye are not of this world either

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

John 17:4 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, 
even as I am not of the world.

Those who are given unto him out of this world

John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

So even when reasoning with the words "natural man" (lets say) making it after the physical flesh (alone) of the natural man, we know there is a spiritual state/condition of that natural man (which also receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God) on a whole other level of comparison. In that sense I do not see Jesus taking that state on himself but the flesh itself, because he is holy and uncorrupted, and was never corrupted, whereas men (who dwell in the flesh) are.

Which makes this discussion rather slippery too because we know Christ come in the flesh (very literally so). And so lets say the Spirit of Christ was made flesh  after that manner (not sure if that was your above point taking it in that direction) as far as being born again, because some would argue that this could not be true until the Spirit was poured out right after Christ was crucified/raised up again right? And yet Jesus was telling them "who were of the world", not from heaven (in the iteral sense as he was) but of the earth that they too were no more of the world (as he moved along with them chapter by chapter) as is shown in the above. So that was not carnally/physically true but spiritually true.

But the same here, showing the Spirit of Christ as mentioned in both places, Paul said,

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his

And Peter shows the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets also

1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

I would just confess that Christ is come in the flesh and leave what is hazy about that alone, I think that is difficult to nail down although I do not believe he took part in our corruptness (according to the spiritual state of the flesh) because even as you point out and he points out the Father who was greater dwelled in him and walking after the Spirit (or by the Spirit) you will not be fulfilling the lusts of the flesh anyway and Jesus was led by and walked by and spoke by the same and is the perfect man in that.

 

10 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

Athough I always wondered in what ways he was made obedient because I cant imagine he was ever disobedient.

Yeah, I don’t see disobedience to the Fathers will as an option.  God’s Word ALWAYS does what pleases the Father.

John 8:29

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for “I do always”those things that “please him.”

 

Isaiah 55:11

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but “it shall” accomplish that which “I please,”and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

 

Failure was not an option. 👍

 

 

10 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

 

 

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

6 hours ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

 

Yeah, I don’t see disobedience to the Fathers will as an option.  God’s Word ALWAYS does what pleases the Father.

John 8:29

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for “I do always”those things that “please him.”

 

Isaiah 55:11

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but “it shall” accomplish that which “I please,”and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

 

Failure was not an option. 👍

 

 

 

Amen this fits right in there with yours

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
 

It says his power is made perfect in weakness also, this is one I have yet to fully grasp here also

2 Cr 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

[Stewardofthemystery]

4 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

It says his power is made perfect in weakness also, this is one I have yet to fully grasp here also

2 Cr 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

I think the weakness part is about His willingness to lay down His own life for our sins.  Notice what Jesus says here…

Matthew 26:53-56

King James Version

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me (((more than twelve legions of angels?)))

54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus ((it must be?))

55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.”

Sending more than 12,ooo legions of angels would be a show of great power and authority.  But that is not the way God decided to take care of the sin issue.  

God could have done it differently if He so desired.  But I believe God did it this way to show us His Love toward us through the willingness of Jesus to become weak, and allow Himself to be crucified for the greater good of all His friends.

In this show of “weakness,”allowing Himself to be crucified, He showed us “the power of His love.”
 

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Stewardofthemystery

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

37 minutes ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

I think the weakness part is about His willingness to lay down His own life for our sins.  Notice what Jesus says here…

Matthew 26:53-56

King James Version

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me (((more than twelve legions of angels?)))

54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus ((it must be?))

55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.”

Sending more than 12,ooo legions of angels would be a show of great power and authority.  But that is not the way God decided to take care of the sin issue.  

God could have done it differently if He so desired.  But I believe God did it this way to show us His Love toward us through the willingness of Jesus to become weak, and allow Himself to be crucified for the greater good of all His friends.

In this show of “weakness,”allowing Himself to be crucified, He showed us “the power of His love.”
 

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 

I have no argument with any of the scriptures on how God chose to do this, I think this started out concerning what kind of flesh he had. I used to see people argue the likeness one but that is used also towards Paul, "the gods come down to us in the likeness of men" (and yet they were)

To me it doesn't really matter either way, because I can make it work for me in my own reasoning that he according to the power of God was capable of healing all manner of diseases right? So what then, if he was actually knit together in the womb in the presence of iniquity in the flesh, what couldn't he possibly dissolve as far as any of that goes? That sounds a little crazy to say that out loud, but really, could anything sinful that ever touched him actually harm or corrupt him?  If by grace sin would have no dominion over us, how on earth could it affect him who was full of grace and truth? 

That power (over any sin) and less so over the army of angels he could get the Father to send him. You know, like eww, sin cooties. That reasoning doesn't work though before he ascended because he was like, "touch me not" there but he was also made sin for us that we could be the righteousness of God in him.

Although I will say, I was laying in bed thinking about all the possible ways to prove one way or  otherwise I guess since death passed upon all men and he said that unless we did eat his flesh and blood we would have no life in us so that might work for sake of argument but even there he said as the Father hath life in himself so hath he given the Son to have life in himself. 

I am starting not to enjoy mind bending threads haha I think I am in need of vegging out in front of some super scenic video with some awesome instrumental music playing and do a fast of that for 30 days, sounds good if only I could afford the bandwidth 

 

[enoob57]

16 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

And even after being strengthened he is still in agony

None of us can fathom the sins of all beings ... Here is a good treatise on the subject
 

How Was Jesus “Made” Sin?

Author:

Ron Rhodes

A verse commonly misinterpreted by cultists is 2 Corinthians 5:21, where the apostle Paul tells us that God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (NASB, emphasis added). Based on this verse, for example, the Christadelphians argue that Jesus had to engage in self-redemption before seeking to redeem the rest of humanity: “He himself required a sin offering”;¹ He “saved himself in order to save us.”²

Word-Faith leaders take a different—though even more heretical—spin on the verse. Kenneth Copeland, for example, asserts that Jesus “had to give up His righteousness”³ and “accepted the sin nature of Satan.”⁴ Benny Hinn likewise declares that Jesus “did not take my sin; He became my sin….He became one with the nature of Satan.”⁵

In what follows, I will demonstrate in brief fashion that there are five key hermeneutic principles that disallow such distorted understandings of Christ and His salvific mission. These principles, which guide our understanding of the apostle Paul’s intended meaning (the only correct meaning), are: (1) interpret Bible verses in context; (2) correctly understand, assess, and draw insights from Old Testament typology; (3) interpret verses in accordance with lexical insights gained from the original languages of the Bible; (4) interpret Scripture by Scripture, recognizing that Scripture is its own best interpreter; and (5) interpret difficult verses in light of the clear verses.

1. Interpret Bible Verses in Context. The immediate context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 centers on reconciliation to God (see vv. 18–20). The Greek word for reconciliation in these verses, katallages, refers to “the exchange of hostility for a friendly relationship.”⁶ The state of hostility exists because of human sin against a holy God, which, according to the apostle Paul, was dealt with at the cross of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14–15). In view of this, the friendly relationship that Adam and Eve lost can now be restored through faith in Christ. The basis of Paul’s reconciliatory message is then stated in verse 21: God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

2. Correctly Understand, Assess, and Draw Insights from Old Testament Typology. A type is an Old Testament institution, event, person, object, or ceremony that has reality and purpose in biblical history, but that also—by divine design—foreshadows something yet to be revealed. The Passover lamb in the Old Testament (Exod. 12:21) was a “type” of Christ, who is Himself the Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36).

An understanding of the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament provides significant insight on the concept of substitution. For example, the sacrificial lamb had to be “unblemished” (Exod. 12:5; Lev. 4:3, 23, 32). At the time of the sacrifice, a hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal to symbolize a transfer of guilt (Lev. 4:4, 24, 33). Notice that the sacrificial lamb did not thereby actually become sinful by nature; rather, sin was imputed to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute. In like manner, Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished (1 Pet. 1:19), but our sin was imputed to Him and He was our sacrificial substitute on the cross of Calvary. Simply because our sin was imputed to Him does not mean He changed in nature or actually became sinful.

3. Interpret Verses in Accordance with Lexical Insights Gained from the Original Languages of the Bible. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, the phrase “on our behalf” (“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf ”) derives from the Greek term huper. This word can bear a number of nuances, not all of them substitutionary in nature. As professor Daniel Wallace has noted in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, however, there are a number of factors that argue in favor of a substitutionary use of the word in New Testament times. For example, the substitutionary sense of huper is found in extra-New Testament Greek literature (see, e.g., Plato, Republic 590a; Xenophon, Anabasis 7.4.9–10), the Septuagint (e.g., Deut. 24:16; Isa. 43:3–4), and in the papyri (e.g., Oxyrhyn chus Papyrus 1281.11–12; Tebtunis Papyrus 380.43–44).⁷ One papyri example relates to a scribe who wrote a document on behalf of a person who did not know how to write. In all, Wallace counts 87 examples from the papyri in which huper is used in a substitutionary sense, and this by no means exhausts the extant papyri data. Wallace thus concludes that “this evidence is over whelming in favor of treating huper as bearing a substitutionary force in the NT era.”⁸ The Friberg Greek Lexicon likewise affirms that the word is used “with a component of representation or substitution in the place of, for, in the name of, instead of.”⁹

Christ’s death, as the Lamb of God, was “for” (huper) us in the sense that it was on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). The word is used in this same on-behalf-of sense elsewhere in Scripture. Jesus at the Last Supper said: “This is My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19, emphasis added here and in the verses that follow). Likewise, in John 10:15 Jesus affirmed, “I lay down My life for the sheep.” Paul thus exults that “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8; see also Gal. 3:13; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9). Jesus “gave Himself for us to redeem us” (Titus 2:14), “the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18; see also 2:21). The idea of substitution richly permeates these verses.

4. Interpret Scripture by Scripture. Since Scripture is its own best interpreter, we must approach 2 Corinthians 5:21 in light of the clear teaching of other verses. While there are quite a number of pertinent theological facts we could derive from other verses that may have relevance for a proper understanding of this verse, for illustration’s sake I cite one alone: the immutability of Christ. Scripture reveals that Christ, as God, is unchanging and unchangeable (cf. Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). In Hebrews 1:12 the Father—drawing a contrast between the universe that ages and is passing away, and Jesus who is untouched by the passing of time—says of Jesus, “You are the same, and your years will not come to an end” (emphasis added). We are assured of the divine Savior: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8, emphasis added). Whatever else we might conclude from such verses, they certainly prohibit any suggestion that Jesus changed in His essential nature as God, or, more specifically, took on the nature of Satan.

5. Interpret Difficult Verses in Light of the Clear Verses. Among the more obvious teachings in the clear verses of Scripture is the perpetual sinlessness of Jesus Christ (emphasis is added in the following verses). The writer of Hebrews affirmed that “we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Jesus was “holy, innocent, [and] undefiled” (Heb. 7:26). He was One “who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). Jesus’ betrayer was remorseful, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4). A hardened Roman soldier cried out, “Certainly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47). The apostle Peter affirmed that we are redeemed not “with perishable things like silver or gold…but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18–19). John said, “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). In view of such verses, it is impossible to argue that Jesus’ essential nature actually became tainted or corrupted by sin.

The Apostle Paul’s Intended Meaning. Based on the preceding hermeneutic considerations, we conclude that the apostle Paul’s intended meaning in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that Jesus was always without sin actually, but at the cross He was made to be sin for us judicially. While Jesus never committed a sin personally, He was made to be sin for us substitutionally.¹⁰ Just as the righteousness that is imputed to Christians in justification is extrinsic to them, so the sin that was imputed to Christ on the cross was extrinsic to Him and never in any sense contaminated His essential nature. As one Bible expositor put it, “The innocent was punished voluntarily as if guilty, that the guilty might be gratuitously rewarded as if innocent.”¹¹

In a nutshell, then, the whole redemptive plan is one of substitution—and without such substitution there can be no salvation. It was by His utterly selfless sacrificial death on the cross that our sinless Savior—the unblemished Lamb of God—paid the penalty for our sins and thereby canceled the debt of sin against us, thus wondrously making possible our reconciliation with God. The redeemed of God can only respond in exultation and praise: “To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood…to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever” (Rev. 1:5–6).

—Ron Rhodes

Ron Rhodes, Th.D., is president of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries and adjunct professor of theology at Biola University (La Mirada, California), Southern Evangelical Seminary (Charlotte, North Carolina), and at Golden Gate Seminary (Southern California campus). He is an award-winning author of numerous books and articles.

notes

1 Frank Jannaway, ed., Christadelphian Answers (Houston: Herald Press, 1920), 24.

2 Ibid., 24.

3 Kenneth Copeland, “The Incarnation,” Audiotape #01-0402 (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985), side 2.

4 Kenneth Copeland, “What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,” Audiotape #02-0017 (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1990), side 2.

5 Benny Hinn, quoted in Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 155–56.

6 Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. and rev. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 521.

7 Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 383–88.

8 Ibid., 386.

9 Timothy Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, in BibleWorks software, BibleWorks, LLC.

10 See Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, Correcting the Cults (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 244.

11 Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary, in PC Study Bible software, BibleSoft.

 

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

Would seem simple enough, that the Word was made flesh, in which flesh he did no sin. I never really thought about it much above that.

[Jaydub]

On 12/3/2023 at 3:40 AM, JohnD said:

Or did he create a fully functioning embryo which the Holy Spirit placed into the virgin womb of Mary?

I believed this too for a while, but then I thought it couldn't be because of the seed of the women in Genesis

Genesis 3

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.,

 Now that I think about it, it may be symbolic because the verse is not referring to Satan's physical seed, so why would it be referring to her physical seed. It also would make him more like Adam 1. No mother or father

Hebrews 7

Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

[JohnD]

26 minutes ago, Jaydub said:

I believed this too for a while, but then I thought it couldn't be because of the seed of the women in Genesis

Genesis 3

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.,

 Now that I think about it, it may be symbolic because the verse is not referring to Satan's physical seed, so why would it be referring to her physical seed. It also would make him more like Adam 1. No mother or father

Hebrews 7

Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

The woman is Israel (Revelation 12).

"Without father or mother..."