I know what some of you might be thinking: Why write another article on Christ being our substitution and identification? Simple, right? Not so simple! More needs to be said. For many, what I am about to say will not be palatable for them. They just won’t get it. They have too many hurdles to overcome with regards to the meaning of certain passages of Scripture; even with such ideas of us no longer having the old corrupt sinful human nature (or the old man with the old heart); or even understanding us as no longer being the person that Paul describes for us in Romans 7, which many have correctly ascertained as indeed referring to the old man or the old human nature as inherently sinful. Until one crosses over those foreboding hurdles, all will remain an enigma, a mystery. Having eyes they will just not perceive; and having ears they will just not hear. Indeed, many will cringe at what I am about to talk about. But, nevertheless, it is biblical. It is the children's bread which many know not of. Indeed, of a truth, God has spoken to us. Christ as our Substitute has completely identified with us, so that we in turn can completely identify with Him; not just in theory but in practice; not just positionally but in righteous living as well. John MacArthur has boldly and without hesitancy asserted before all: “So righteous and holy is this new self [or new man] that Paul refuses to admit that any sin comes from the new creation in God’s image....Paul places sin in the believer's life in the body….he will not allow that new inner man to be given responsibility for sin.”[1] So the real question now is: Do YOU believe that? If not, then something is extremely deficient in your faith. And I am here, by God's grace, to hopefully help and make up for that deficiency. So let’s get started.
The consensus among most bible expositors with regards to “flesh” (Gk. sarks) as being used in its depreciatory ethical/moral sense of the “sinful human nature” in Romans 7-8, is a given. So, based upon that note, let us translate Rom. 8:1 with verse 3 accordingly:
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus; who walk not according to the sinful human nature (or “flesh;” Gk., sarka) but according to [the nature of] the Spirit…. For what the Law was powerless to do, in that it was weakened by the sinful human nature (or “flesh;” Gk., sarkos), God [did by] sending His own Son in the likeness of the sinful human nature (“of flesh of sin,” or “sinful flesh;” Gk., sarkos hamartias), and for sin, condemned the sin in the sinful human nature (or “the sin in the flesh”; Gk., ten harmartian en te sarki).With the omission of the latter part of verse 1 in most early manuscripts withstanding, the problem for many commentators is whether or not we should remain consistent in Romans 7-8 in understanding “flesh” in these chapters as referring to the sinful human nature when referring to men in general, and then to Christ’s “flesh” here in verse 3 as just referring to His human flesh, yet without sin in it. But as unsettling as this may sound for us, Paul is consistently in context talking about human flesh with sin in it. Even I almost “cringe” at the contemplation of this, and what it entails for us in believing what really happened with our Substitute for sinners. But just in case anyone should misunderstand Paul as saying that Christ just came in the “likeness of human flesh,” Paul says Christ came in the likeness of flesh “of sin.” Christ wasn’t just “of flesh,” as many other verses elsewhere denote, but “of flesh of sin” (or of “sinful flesh” as denoted in most translations[2]). Again, not just of ordinary human flesh as is commonly expressed in many other verses in the NT with this Greek word “sarks,” but of flesh with sin actually in it. In Christ’s entire human nature within and without made up of spirit, soul and body (or just spirit/soul and body if you are a dichotomist), Christ took on sinful flesh—a human nature tainted with sin. All of our sins were placed in and upon Christ. Not only in His body, but in His soul as well. And we will talk more about this shortly.
Now, it became very evident to me while studying this subject, that Christ had to have died a death spiritually in His human spirit (and even many of the reformers to some degree understood that much, as you will soon discover). But what did this really entail? It had to be all in us, or only a part in us. And thus just one of the reasons why many of the reformers (as well as many in the church) could not bring themselves to believe that Christ became “all” that was in us, but only a “part” of us, leaving us “part” old man and “part” new man; “part” renewed and “part” unrenewed; “part” regenerate and “part” unregenerate. What a travesty to the truth. And Christians have been duped by this intricately woven web of deceit, unpretentiously swallowing this idea about themselves hook, line and sinker. Well, I am here to unravel it all and remove the hook that has been so deeply set within. Not with pliers, mind you, for they won’t do. But with surgical precision the hook must be removed. I am on a mission to march around this insidious and foreboding giant-of-a-wall until it all comes tumbling down. Even if it takes just one brick or stone at a time to do so. My mission is the mission of the gospel of Jesus Christ in setting at liberty those who have been bound with chains of sin. That is our message to those who are sitting in darkness—bar none! Everything else takes a back seat. As such, this message is second to none.
So, it is along these lines of thinking that I would like to say that I am fully convinced, along with many others, that the Scriptures depict for us that Christ became entirely as us in His human spirit, soul and body so that He could also liberate us entirely in our human spirit, soul and body. Jamieson, Fausett, and Brown note here under Rom. 8:3 that this does not mean, “that He took our nature with all its properties save one; for sin is no property of humanity at all, but only the disordered state of our souls, as the fallen family of Adam; a disorder affecting, indeed, and overspreading our entire nature, but still purely our own.”[3] Henry Alford's acute awareness of the Greek even takes it a step further: “the flesh whose attribute and character was sin. The gen[itive] implies far more—(not merely the contamination by, but) the belonging to and being possessed by [sin].”[4] Did you catch that? Flesh "possessed by sin"! This is a genitive of possession marking Christ's flesh, in this particular case, as possessed with sin. Meyer likewise notes here at this venture: “Many others take [in the flesh] as meaning [just] the body of Christ; holding that in this body sin has been put to death at the same time…; or that the punishment of sin has been accomplished on His body… But against this it may be urged, that plainly ἐν τῇ σαρκί [in the flesh] corresponds deliberately to the previous διὰ τῆς σαρκός [through the flesh]…;”[5] It was "through" the flesh that Christ came to condemn the power of sin "in" the flesh, not "on" His flesh. Meyer adds: “God has deposed sin from its rule in the σάρξ [flesh] (its previous sphere of power), thereby that He sent His own Son into the world in a phenomenal existence similar to the sinful corporeo-psychical human nature.”[6]
As such, Christ not only dealt with our outward practice of sin in our body, but with our inward disposition of sin as well in our spirit (aka, the “old man” or the "natural" man) in his entirety. Christ not only “justified” us, but He has set at liberty them that were bruised internally as well by dealing a death-blow to the power behind sin. All of our sins both within and without of the flesh that are mentioned in Gal. 5:19-21, and then some, Christ took in and upon His flesh and crucified for us in Gal. 5:24 with all of its passions and desires (sinful cravings or lusts), in order to liberate us within. Even John Calvin ventured so far as to say that, “Christ underwent our infirmities, that he might be more inclined to sympathy, and in this respect also there appeared some resemblance of a sinful nature.”[7]
Matthew Poole disagrees. For instance, in his commentary on Rom. 8:3, he states with regards to the word “flesh” here being used of men in general, and then also of Christ:
Flesh in this clause [concerning Christ] carries quite another sense than it did in the first verse; and in the former part of this verse, than it does in the following verse; there it is taken morally for the corrupt nature of man, here physically for the human nature of Christ.[8]So there you have it in a nutshell. Matthew Poole pretty much speaks for the rest in his camp. “Oh, Christ really condemned the sin in our flesh alright in the former and latter clauses,” so they say, “but He didn’t actually become it in the clause that talks about Himself.” But they can’t have it both ways here. Either Christ condemned sin "in" our flesh, with our sin placed "in" His flesh—or not! If our sin was not in or upon Christ, then He couldn’t condemn it or end it. He might be able to be a guinea pig that bears the guilt or blame for it, but He couldn’t condemn it in Himself—or even in us for that matter! But our sin had to be in and upon Christ in order for Him to condemn it, kill it, and render it powerless in our own lives. And that is exactly what Romans 6:6 affirms to us, when it says Christ crucified our “old man.” How could Christ do so, unless He somehow and in some way became him (or us) in order to crucify him (or us)? You cannot crucify in your person, something that is not you in your person. No, Christ really became us as the “old man” in order to kill him and render him powerless in our lives, so that our body of sin might be rendered ineffective to go on sinning anymore. That is what Romans 6:6 clearly affirms. There is no other way to understand this. No one can “wiggle” out of what this verse, and even this entire chapter, is affirming to us. We died to sin within (and without) when Christ died to sin within and without! We were already dead in sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5), so how is it that we died with Christ, if it wasn't physically? We died with Christ spiritually to sin, clearly, when He also died spiritually to the sin of our old man created in Adam. And we rise spiritually as well to a new life because Christ was also "made alive in spirit," according to 1Pet. 3:18 and 1Tim. 3:16 as noted in the ASV translation. Our old man (or our old sinful disposition or nature, also referred to as the "natural" man) was crucified with Christ, in order that we would rise as a “new man” in Christ, or as a "spiritual" man. The old natural carnal man has passed away and a new creation (or new spiritual man) has been created in his place. Christ didn't crucify a realm, a regime, or an outward relationship to the world, the flesh, and the Devil (as Douglas Moo and a small handful of other Christians erroneously assert). Christ crucified A MAN! He crucified who we were as the old man "in" Adam. All of this has to do with who we are internally on an inward spiritual level.
What Is "The Sin" That Christ Condemned In The Flesh?
Now before moving on, it should first be noted here that by Christ condemning "the sin" in His flesh—and by “the sin” it is to be understood as “the sin” as expressed in John 1:29, and as understood by most commentators of this verse in John's gospel as a phrase referring to the collective mass of all sin (whether for a singular sin or for any or all sin) as also noted by John in 1Jhn. 3:5—that Christ was condemning the root cause of the sin of our old sinful human disposition or nature, which is the actual principle or power behind the sin that inherently produces sin on a continual basis in the first place. Again, Rom. 6:6 is basically saying the same thing: our old man (or “the flesh” also in this case, as noted in Gal. 5:24) is crucified, in order that “the body of the sin” (or the physical body in this particular case which is the vehicle for “the sin”), might be rendered powerless to continually keep on sinning anymore. To be sure, “the sin” as noted here, and everywhere else throughout Romans 5-8, in the reading of the literal Greek, is not—I repeat NOT—the sinful nature as many have erroneously postulated (for example, see Kenneth Wuest’s commentary on Romans 6). It is a phrase that is used by Paul to refer to any or all sin of the old nature, or even of the physical body, which are the vehicles or avenues for the sin. The phrase, or the term, “the sinful nature,” is actually delineated for us by Paul in Rom. 8:3 where he refers to it as the “sinful flesh” (or “flesh of sin”) in the middle of that verse, “in the flesh” in the latter part of that verse, “the flesh” in Gal. 5:24, being “fleshly” in Rom. 7:14, and also “the old man” or “natural man” in Rom. 6:6 and 1Cor. 2:14 respectively. These ideas can also include the physical body as well as conditioned by this principle or power of sin. But for the sake of our discussion here, we normally refer to the “old man” and “the flesh” as indicative of where this principle or power of the sin dwells, and of which Christ crucified. But this crucifixion by Christ also renders our bodies as no longer conditioned by this principle behind sin any longer. What Christ did on the cross, not only takes care of who we were internally, but externally as well. The two really do go hand-in-hand. As goes the one, so goes the other. They are mutually inclusive of each other, not exclusive. As Meyer worded it earlier: "it is the sinful corporeo-psychical human nature" that Christ crucified; the body as well as the soul—with the “body” still having to be dealt with, while the inward disposition to sin has in the past been dealt a death-blow, according to Rom. 6:6, with Paul using the aorist indicative for the crucifixion of our "old man," and the aorist subjunctive with regards to the "body." The former denoting a definitive once-and-for-all past-tense event, the latter denoting the possibility of it decisively happening based upon certain conditions being met by us with God's help, as Paul afterward denotes in the verses that follow when he speaks of reckoning ourselves as good as dead to sin in our bodies (v. 11ff).
So, when Paul tells us literally in the Greek in Rom. 6:12-13 to “not let the sin reign in your mortal bodies,” or “to not go on presenting the members of your body to the sin as instruments of unrighteousness,” Paul is NOT referring to us no longer allowing the sinful nature to have its way with us, for that "old man" with his ways, or "the flesh," in Rom. 6:6 and Gal. 5:24, is crucified and dead! On the contrary, Paul is referring to us no longer allowing the sin of the physical body as the vehicle for sin to have its way with us (which no doubt is also understood by some to be personified here by the noun with the definite article in the phrase, “the sin”), and which actually takes us back to “the trespass” of Adam in Rom. 5:15 which is likewise personified here as the subject by also using the noun form of this word in the nominative neuter singular. And it is also "the sin" mentioned throughout this chapter, and, more particularly, in verses 12 and 21. Clearly, the words “the trespass” also personified here by using the definite article, do not have a reference to a sinful nature at all, as anyone with any sense can see, but to "the sin" of Adam in transgressing God’s command which was given to him. These verses above in Rom. 6:12-13 have been a tough nut to crack for some, but I believe the answer lies in the “key” that unlocks this mystery as delineated above. Like I said at the beginning of this article, a person will not even begin to see or perceive this if they still believe they are the person in Romans 7. All of this will remain a "mystery"—an enigma! And such a person will find themselves twisting words and Scriptures like these mentioned above in order to fit their own misconception about themselves. So, again, "the sin" here in Rom. 6:12-13, and elsewhere, is not the sinful nature at all. "The sin" (or "the trespass") mentioned of Adam in Romans 5 is what brought judgment upon Adam (and upon all of his posterity) that resulted in the sinful nature and physical death; in both a spiritual death and in a physical death by impartation and by imputation. By causing us to receive not only the penalty for Adam's sin, but also the power and inclination for his sin. Not only on behalf of us, but also actually in the place of us; not only upon our person, but in our person as well.
Now, R. C. H. Lenski, in tandem with Matthew Poole above adds: “Paul has just used the term ‘flesh’…in the sense of our corrupt nature; if he had continued in this strain and had written that God sent His Son ‘in the flesh’ [with the emphasis on "in"], the sense would be that Christ appeared in our sinful nature.”[9] But whether “in” or “of” the flesh, it makes no difference, as Meyer clearly denoted earlier of Christ condemning sin in the flesh, through the flesh. And one can find many examples in Scripture where being “in the flesh” or “of the flesh” in certain contexts denotes one having a sinful nature. We find this similar nuance in Romans 8 just a couple of verses later (which is lost in most translations), where in verses 5 and 6 Paul refers to the mind “of the flesh,” and in verse 9 he says we are not “in the flesh” but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in you; not to mention also Gal. 5:19; Eph. 2:3 and 1Pet. 4:2 as depicted accurately in the NASB. John says that everyone who confesses that Jesus Christ has come “IN the flesh” is from God (1Jhn. 4:2), so does this mean, according to Lenski’s analysis above, “that Christ appeared in our sinful nature”? Not here! How ridiculous is that! The problem for Lenski is that his own prejudices have caused his mind to be stuck on a certain position, blinding him to seeing any other notion. Only in a given context can we determine what the meaning of “flesh” is. And in the context of Romans 7-8, the meaning of “flesh” is clearly flesh with sin in it. And this is why Paul emphasizes flesh with “sin” in it. Not just ordinary human flesh, but human flesh with sin in it! I like how God’s Word Translation translates Rom. 8:3b: “But God sent his Son to have a human nature as sinners have and to pay for sin. That way God condemned sin in our corrupt nature.” This really says it all. And the New English Bible, except for its interpolation of the words "as a sacrifice," follows suit with: "By sending His own Son in a form like that of our own sinful nature, and as a sacrifice for sin, he has passed judgment against sin within that very nature." The Good New Translation likewise concurs: "He condemned sin in [the] human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin." Weymouth's translation also tells the story. In the Greek (as noted also by J.F.B., Alford, and Meyer above), it really says Christ took on human flesh with sin in it, in order to condemn or put an end to sinning in our flesh. As any careful student of the Bible will notice, the word “offering” is not in the original Greek text; it is an interpolation which is an attempt to absolve Christ of actually becoming sin in our stead, and just become an offering for sin. And more will be said on this as well later. But suffice it to say for now, many of these men just mentioned above do not see the word "offering" being intimated here one iota. In speaking for most of these men, Godet writes: "The context does not require the idea of sacrifice, because the matter in question is not guilt to be expiated, but solely the evil tendency to be uprooted."[10] Cranfield agrees: "It has often been understood here to mean 'as an offering for sin.' But the context does not seem to support the sacrificial interpretation. So it is better to take it in a general sense as indicating that which the mission of the Son had to do."[11] Charles Hodge, and many more in his camp (including his son Archibald), see it as only the "guilt" to be removed, and not the sin, and therefore see Christ as only an "offering" for sin in a judicial or forensic sense, and not dealing with the power of sin here at all in our lives. As reformed pastor James Montgomery Boice notes here: "The majority of Protestant commentators, as well as many in the early church, were so concerned to protect the doctrine of justification by faith apart from the merit of works that they rejected any thought of sanctification in this passage [in Rom. 8:3]. Charles Hodge is an example."[12] In short, Charles Hodge states that verses 3-4, in particular, "must be understood of justification, and not of sanctification."[13] And more will be said on this later as well with regards to Hodge and what he says concerning all of this. But suffice it to say for now, in Hodge’s commentary under Rom. 5:12, he notes how that Calvin “lived in a day when the imputation of Adam's sin was made, by the theologians of the Romish Church, so prominent as to leave inherent depravity almost entirely out of view. The whole tendency of the Reformers [including Calvin], therefore, was to go to the opposite extreme.”[14] It was “the opposite extreme” that we are condemned not only for Adam’s sin by imputation, but also condemned for our own inherent depravity created in us through Adam, and thus undercutting the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin as the only reason for our condemnation. And, sadly, going this “opposite extreme” has been no less true with regards to Hodge in insisting that in Rom. 8:1-4 and 2Cor. 5:21 (and even in some other minor passages) that they all have to do with the doctrine of just justification, rather than that of our personal sanctification and our deliverance from the moral depravity and power behind sin.
Now some more examples can be cited where “in the flesh” does not necessarily denote a sinful nature. For example, in Rom. 2:28 Paul talks about circumcision “in the flesh.” Does this refer to the sinful nature? Not at all. In 2Cor. 10:3 Paul says we walk “in the flesh.” Does this mean that we have a sinful nature? Of course not! And what about 2Cor. 12:7 where Paul said he had a thorn “in the flesh”? Does this mean he had a thorn in his sinful nature? How absurd is that! So, you see, being “in” or “of” the flesh in many given contexts does not determine that one necessarily has a sinful nature or not. Like I said earlier, it is the context and subject matter that determines this for us. And, again, the context and subject matter in Romans 7-8 is all about those who have a sinful nature, and how Christ took on that nature in order to condemn it in His flesh in the crucifixion on the cross. Of course, at birth, Christ never “appeared” in our “sinful” flesh, He became that way on the cross for us in order to crucify it. This is the dilemma we are faced with: On the cross did Christ really become “like” us, warts and all? Or, did He become “like” us on a human level, but without all the warts and all? You are pretty much going to hear a lot of people say in their commentaries with regards to this verse in Rom. 8:3 that Christ became us, “but without all the warts and all”—or without the sin!
Paul definitively says here in Rom. 8:3 that Christ’s flesh was not just “flesh,” but flesh “of sin.” Remember the genitive of possession noted earlier? It should not go without notice here that this is the difference that Paul is emphasizing. It is not whether Christ was “in” or “of” the flesh—that is a moot point. Christ was in or of the flesh, in this particular case, with sin in it. Our sins were placed in and upon Christ’s human nature or flesh. This is what marks the characteristic difference between the most common usage of the word “flesh” in the Greek as referring to just the human body, as opposed to the more insidious idea of the flesh with sin deeply rooted in it, as denoted in: “sinful flesh.” If not, then words have no meaning. And doesn’t Paul essentially say the same thing in 2Cor. 5:21, when he says that Christ was “made sin” who knew no sin? John says Christ was “made flesh” (Jhn. 1:14, KJV) with no indication whatsoever of Him being made like sin, and rightly so. And Paul could very well have said the same thing in Rom. 8:3, but he didn’t. In 2Cor. 5:21, Paul now omits “flesh” altogether and says Christ was “made sin” because Paul wanted to differentiate between what is just “mortal flesh,” from what is mortal flesh with “sin” in it. Again, the word “offering” in this verse in Second Corinthians is an interpolation made in some translations and by many commentators that the original Greek does not support. Again, it is an attempt to absolve Christ of having our sin placed in and upon His person.
Albert Barnes in his commentary here on Rom. 8:3, in tandem with Poole and Lenski above, says that Christ “partook of flesh, or the nature of man, but without any of its sinful propensities or desires.”[15] But if “flesh” in the entire context here in Romans 7-8 is talking about the sinful human nature, then how can it be said that Christ “partook of flesh…the nature of man, but without any of its sinful propensities or desires,” if the nature of the unregenerate man here that Paul is talking about is sinful? What is meant by this statement of Albert Barnes? Again, according to Barnes, and many in league with him, Christ partook of man’s human nature but without the sin in it. But, again, if that were true, then Paul would have omitted “of sin” altogether and would have just said “in the likeness of flesh,” as he elsewhere does when referring to Christ’s human “body of the flesh” as in Col. 1:22, and our human “body of the flesh” as in Col. 2:11. In Rom. 6:6 Paul had just referred to “the body OF THE SIN” as denoting the human body (Gk. soma) as the vehicle for sin. So isn’t that in essence what Paul is saying of Christ here in Rom. 8:3 in Him becoming “flesh OF SIN”? Again, in Php. 2:7, Paul mentions Christ being made in the “likeness of men” without any indication of being made like sin, and rightly so. But here in Rom. 8:3, Paul says Christ is made like the flesh “of sin,” which is somewhat analogous to the phrase “the body of the sin” in Rom. 6:6, and which is more in agreement with the immediate context here in Romans 8 which denotes sinful men with natures prone to sin, and in which Christ evidently became likened to in order to condemn the sin in our fleshly human nature through His sin-laden human nature. The only difference between Rom. 6:6 and Rom. 8:3, is that in Rom.6:6 Paul is referring to the human body as the instrument or vehicle of the sin, while in Rom. 8:3 we are dealing with the “flesh” in its depreciatory ethical/moral sense of indwelling sin in the human nature. So, Christ had to become like “sinful flesh” in order for God to justly condemn sin in the human nature (or “the flesh” as a "corporeo-psychical" entity) in our stead.
I, along with Henry Alford, Meyer, John Murray, J.F.B., Godet, Cranfield, James Boice, Bengel and a host of others, take this to mean here in Rom. 8:3 that Paul is speaking in a practical and experiential way with regards to our sanctification, having nothing to do here whatsoever with our justification at all. Yet most, if not all of these men still see the believer as still dealing with the old nature or the principle of sin (or "indwelling sin," as they like to call it), but now only on a muted level with the new man now ruling the roost.
Click here for part two.
Footnotes:
[1] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Ephesians, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), pp. 178-179.
[2] See 2011 NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, ASV, DRB, ERV, WBT, WEB, YLT.
[3] Accessed online at: biblehub.com.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Accessed from John Calvin’s commentary on Romans in public domain online at: www.studylight.org.
[8] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody: Hendriksen Pub., 2008), vol. 3, p. 502. Words in brackets and italicized bold words mine.
[9] R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minn: Augsburg, 1936), p. 500.
[10] Commentary on Romans, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1977), p. 299; italics his.
[11] The International Critical Commentary, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1975), vol. 1, p. 382.
[12] Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Pub., 1992), vol. 2, n. 1, p. 799.
[13] Romans (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), p. 254.
[14] Ibid, p. 150.
[15] Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint 1983), p. 172.
No comments:
Post a Comment