Embodiment
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 7 NASB
Flesh – The Greek word translated “flesh” is sarx. It is quite clear that John believes Yeshua came en sarki, “in the flesh.” And it is quite clear that John does not believe that Yeshua’s coming in the flesh made Him sinful. He was a human being without sin. He was in the flesh yet He did not sin. Right?
John’s claim raises some important and difficult issues for the doctrine that being born human makes us sinful. That doctrine is generally called “sinful nature.” It teaches that ever since Adam, the very fact that we are born in the flesh means that we are born with a sinful nature that causes us to sin. According to this idea, we are all sinners not because we each choose to sin but because we were born that way. This is why the NIV chooses to translate that Greek sarx with “sinful nature,” not “flesh,” in Paul’s letters. But this is a theological concept, not a linguistic one and the NIV translation hides this fact by pretending that Paul meant sinful nature when he used the word sarx.
Of course, if having flesh means being sinful, we have a big problem. Yeshua had flesh. This would imply that He was sinful. Not acceptable. So how do we get around this? Well, we start by claiming that since He was the child of the Holy Spirit and not a human father, He did not inherit sinful nature from Joseph. But what about Mary? Yeshua was the product of two, not one. So, the sinful nature issue still applies – as long as Mary was born in the flesh. Voilá, the solution appears. Catholicism invents the “Immaculate Conception,” the doctrine that Mary was miraculously prevented from sinning from the time of her conception. In this way, she did not pass sin on to Yeshua because she too was without sin. I suppose that helps explain why Mary is often held in higher regard than her son. She is a woman who never sinned and she experienced sinless perfection first. Doctrine trumps reason. Of course, since there is no Scriptural evidence for this claim, it rests on the authority of the Church. Protestants reject Mary’s sinlessness – but for some unexplainable reason, some Protestants continue to assert the notion of transferred sinful nature. Perhaps Luther didn’t really leave the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church as far behind as we imagine. He remained a descendant of Plato who actually originated the ideas behind this theological notion.
So when does sarx mean “sinful nature”? Well, actually, never. It only means “sinful nature” when I already embrace the doctrine from Plato. Sarx just means “flesh,” but how you read it depends on you, not the text. But you already figured that out, didn’t you?
This leaves us with the crucial question. If Yeshua was fully human, then why didn’t He sin? Don’t tell me it was because He was God. That pushes you toward Docetism. Don’t tell me it was because his mother didn’t have a sinful nature. Tell me how the idea of sinful nature got there in the first place – and then ask yourself whether or not the story of Yeshua makes any sense if that doctrine is true. Is He like us, or isn’t He? Can we be like Him, or can’t we? Is obedience up to you or is it all Adam’s fault?
Topical Index: sinful nature, sarx, flesh, 2 John 7, Immaculate Conception
I have had difficulty with the sinful nature concept for a while now. I’ve been thinking on it for several years now. I have been a staunch Southern Baptist through and through for many years and yet, it just didn’t add up. The more I thought about it the more it didn’t make since on a simpler and simpler level.
For Yeshua’s identification with our tendency to sin to be valid, he had to have had the same stab at a righteous life as I, and all of us, do. It’s not that I HAVE to sin, having no choice, due to my demanding sinful nature. It’s that I choose to do so, submitting to my yetzer hara, which isn’t inherently evil, just very powerful. I, as Yeshua did, have the option at every turn to subjugate it or give in to it. Yeshua subjugated it at every turn. Adam chose death over life, the yetzer hara over the yetzer hatov and opened the door for sin to make its entrance. Adam was the door that sin entered in to mankind simply because he was the first. If that would have been Bob, or Jim, or Steve or Michael rather than Adam, then sin would have entered human existence through them, whoever was first.
Because Yeshua chose not to sin at every opportunity to do so, he earned the spot to be effective in canceling the effects of sin which is death. No one else ever did that. He did and, thus, killed death and its destruction on us. Death became powerless forever because Yeshua lived a life fully in righteousness and physically died. At his physical end, death had absolutely no power over him. He thus provided a way out of death in to life again for all willing to follow his life. HaShem graciously saves us from death by Yeshua’s leading of a righteous human life. The evidence we offer that we follow Yeshua is our obedience to Torah.
This makes more sense than the sinful nature construct.
If not, then my children should be duly punished for my many mistakes and sinfulness as they inherited my blood at their births. Right?
From Summing Up Judaism
There is a story in the Talmud that is often told when someone is asked to summarize the essence of Judaism.
During the first century B.C.E. a great rabbi named Hillel was asked to sum up Judaism while standing on one foot.
He replied: “Certainly! What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah.
The rest is commentary, now go and study.” (Talmud Shabbat 31A.)
Hence, at its core Judaism is concerned with the well-being of humanity.
The particulars of every Jew’s individual belief system is the commentary.
Thanks Skip for this post!
Growing up as young girl I never believed the “original sin” doctrine but, somehow along the way I adopted it. It wasn’t until the last few months that God told me I had some housecleaning to do, and that the “original sin” doctrine had to go. Interestingly enough I read that Augustine de Hippo had originated it, but I suppose he got it from Plato. Anyhow, I now understand that I wasn’t reading Romans 5:12 correctly; that was clearly my error. But perhaps you can help me with Palm 51:5…..
Thank you!
Certainly. I have written about Psalm 51:5 long ago. What is Psalm 51? Poetry. Do poets use exaggeration, displaced metaphor, odd associations and phonetic harmonies to make points? Of course. If Psalm 51 is a poem, what point is it attempting to make? If it is a poem, is it fodder for literalist doctrine? Take a look here. https://skipmoen.com/2011/07/20/twenty-four-to-one/
Just a few weeks ago, I too “cleaned out” Original Sin [Adam] from my thinking…as I studied Augustine/ Plato/ Docetic connection….
AND remembered the Word of the LORD from Ezekiel 18:20. “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity [Adam, too!] ; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
Good point! I have alot to think about now
Claudia,
Skip’s TW “Twenty-four To One” explains Psalm 51:5 incredibly well. Enjoy! https://skipmoen.com/2011/07/20/twenty-four-to-one/
David
Thank you Skip and David,
I’ve just read the “Twenty-Four To One” post and plan on re-reading it later on. I’m content that I’ll be able to settle what seemed to me as an “inconsistency” in my private understanding of certain Scriptures.
Also, I’d like to thank you, Skip, for the manner which you answer questions that are posed to you. You don’t always tell people what to think but provoke them to think for themselves as you lead them to conclusions. I appreciate this approach—it’s very refreshing!
Thanks Skip. The original sin doctrine always reminds me of David, a man that was said to have “God´s heart.” It also reminds me of Abraham, God´s friend. Both men sinned, but remained blameless before God.
Maybe (just maybe) we need to understand God´s nature of forgiveness, which in our mind is so incomprehensible. Maybe Yeshua at some point DID roll his eyes to Mary, dragged his feet to take out the trash, as a normal human being. Maybe he even did so after he turned 13.
But maybe, just maybe, he was quick to repent and come back to God. We don´t have any proof of this, except a lot of silence in the Scriptures. But why would we assume the opposite and humanly impossible alternative instead of the natural human experience?
I just say, if we must explore the possibilities in the face of the Scriptural silence, then let´s explore them all. If we must respect the silence as not enough evidence to draw conclusions, then let´s throw them all away and accept that we cannot know. We´ve done that before too.
Bessy, you wrote: “Maybe Yeshua at some point DID roll his eyes to Mary, dragged his feet to take out the trash, as a normal human being. Maybe he even did so after he turned 13. But maybe, just maybe, he was quick to repent and come back to God.”
I see a slippery slope here. Why stop at accusing Him of just eye rolling or foot dragging, why not accuse Him of adultery or murder if, as you point out, Yeshua was quick to repent and turn to His Father for forgiveness? If that is all that was required to be the Messiah then many men and women in Israel would have met that requirement and there would have been no need of the cross. So, I don’t see where “sinless” can mean quick to repent. When we are forgiven we aren’t classified by YHWH as sinless; words that describe that are restored, redeemed, saved, delivered, etc. Something to consider. In love, Michael
OH, AMEN, AMEN! How I wish I could write this in letters 60 feet tall!
I agree Michael, it IS a very slippery slope, but when has that stopped us before?
I don´t intend to accuse Him of anything, it is not an accusation to wonder if He ever did those things that are not correct seem to be part of human nature, which we believe he did have. Most of us have rolled our eyes at Mom and never murdered. Does one action imply the other?
My point is, let´s go through Scripture, not dogma or doctrine, however ingrained it may be. What is sin, then? making a mistake and not repenting? Did Yeshua NEVER experience regret or remorse?
I don´t intend disrespect to my Savior. Just want to understand.
Hum, “how long must I put up with you?” “You of little faith” “How I longed to shelter you” Words of a man who knows the passion and sorrow of God.
I have wondered about the sinful nature and the Mary issue for some time. This is what came to me but I wonder if it has any sound basis. I am not a scientist. Would the male sperm be the activating force? If so, would the blessings and curses from the man’s DNA chromosomes activate the woman’s curses and blessings in her DNA chromosomes passed on to the child? If the male activating sperm has no generational iniquities (propensities toward bad behaviors, health issues, mental disorders, etc.) in his DNA chromosomes, but only blessings, would that only activate the blessings (desire to only obey God, health, stamina, high intelligence, etc.)? This, making the child free of generational propensities to sin? If so, that takes us back to the garden. Was Adam born without the inherited propensity to sin? Did he just choose to disobey God and originate sin. If that were the case, then Yeshua could also sin like Adam, but He didn’t. With all these questions, of course, we always have to go back to Helel (Lucifer) and the role it plays in all of this. Is what we get revelation or speculation?
I was taught something like that Robin only far less technical. Don’t even ask me where the doctrine comes from. Surely Skip has a clue but not me. It was passed on to me by a baptist missionary. Who knows where he learned it? Ready?
The sinful nature is passed on by the father because Adam sinned willfully. Eve was deceived and therefore her seed remained neutral giving her the ability to conceive a sinless son by the Holy Spirit.
That sounds as good as any of the explanations IMO. However like many of you I’ve not quite been able to swallow (let alone digest) the total depravity/sinful nature doctrine since I began actually reading the bible in it’s entirety. So glad this is opened up today. Can’t wait to see what’s inside! 🙂
Sounded good to Augustine and Luther too, but it comes from Plato, not YHWH.
Correction: Adam was born, should be, was Adam made without….
Ahhh, Choices, choices.
We all have em and we all make em and everything is a choice. Seems that Messiah made much better choices and in so doing, chose to be obedient to his father, Y-H. No wonder the Father was well please with the son. I appreciate greatly your thoughts Bessy on the fact of Y-H’s forgiveness and the possibility that Jesus knew this well. Never considered this.
Interestingly enough, we have those same choices to make every day. Does that mean we could be like Jesus? Hmmm
I love Einstens definition of insanity….”doing the same thing over and over and yet expecting different results.” Go figure :-0
If He is the same as us, then why was He conceived by means of the Holy Spirit? Something has to be different.
Skip will rescue us tomorrow once we have all stumbled around for a day.
You might have to stumble around a bit longer. Isaiah suggests that Yeshua can rescue us because He is God in the flesh and only God can actually forgive sins such as ours. But what if HIs coming in the flesh is also the only means to defeat death, the consequences of sin. And to defeat death, someone who is sinless must die (voluntarily) in order that death has no claim on him.
Skip, clearly you are right, He had to be sinless for death to have no legal hold on Him.
I must have been born under a rock, but I’ve never heard of “the doctrine that being born human makes us sinful.” That which is “flesh” (sarx) is “flesh.” Whether dog flesh, monkey flesh, fish flesh or human flesh, “sarx”is sarx, flesh is flesh. A chunk of cold meat.
But what separates man from the beasts of the field? Ask Nebukadnezar, he lived as one for a number of years before God restored his sanity.
Our “iniquities” have separated between us and our God according to God’s prophet, Isaiah. ~ But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.~ (Isaiah 59.2) When Adam and Eve disobeyed the direct commandment of their Creator in the garden, what was their initial response after the “incursion?” or trespass? They (themselves) tried to hide themselves. Men loved darkness rather than light. Why? ~ “This is the judgment, (this is the Verdict, this is the condemnation) that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ~ Light is that which reveals. Darkness conceals (at least tries to!)- but Light reveals. And lest we forget- ~ *in Him* was light and the light was the life of men. ~ Or, in His own words: When Jesus spoke again to the people, He said, “I AM the Light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
What is our (right) response to these words? Do we run towards the Light or away from it? Light (again) is that which reveals. When I lay down in the (ever so comfy!) dentist’s chair, and as he or she pulls down the “light” to shine brightly inside of my mouth, what is the (helpful) dentist looking for? (This is a “good thing” folks!) For they are looking for rot or decay to repair. Hallelujah for the light, (that which reveals). Whether a car mechanic or a plant, no one functions without light. Without light- there is no sight.
Now consider the “blackness of darkness” revealed in the small but powerful book of Jude. ~ Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever ~ (Jude 1.13) This is not a happy place. A place of zero light.
~*in Him* was life and the life was the light of men. ~ Light. Love. Laughter. What’s not to like?
The whole world was lost in the darkness of sin;
The Light of the world is Jesus;
Like sunshine at noonday His glory shone in,
The Light of the world is Jesus.
Come to the Light, ’tis shining for thee;
Sweetly the Light has dawned upon me;
Once I was blind, but now I can see;
The Light of the world is Jesus.
No darkness have we who in Jesus abide,
The Light of the world is Jesus;
We walk in the Light when we follow our Guide,
The Light of the world is Jesus.
Ye dwellers in darkness with sin-blinded eyes,
The Light of the world is Jesus;
Go, wash at his bidding, and Light will arise,
The Light of the world is Jesus.
No need of the sunlight in Heaven, we’re told,
The Light of the world is Jesus;
The Lamb is the Light in the City of Gold,
The Light of the world is Jesus.
Come to the Light, ’tis shining for thee;
Sweetly the Light has dawned upon me;
Once I was blind, but now I can see;
The Light of the world is Jesus.
~ For all that is secret will eventually be brought into the open, (revealed) and everything that is concealed will be brought to light and made known to all ~ (Luke 8.17)
I guess you didn’t grow up Catholic or Southern Baptist. 🙂 They know this doctrine very well.
The devil had already done a similar thing before the flood, so I am wondering if this is more prevalent than we think? I guess it is not a sin for God procreate with Mary, and as far as I know He didn’t say He would never do it again. Is this even thinkable? Why do these spirit beings really want to procreate with humans?
This is really the issue and the core of the bloodline being pure for the Messiah to come from, right?
How would people even know unless the women were all virgins and wound up pregnant? Did the devil only pick virgins? Is this where all evil comes from? Eve was seduced away from the Lord, not from Adam. Adam also chose Eve over the Lord.
Innocence is not a sin, it is just vulnerable, like a child in puberty-
I wish they would preach about this, it would be very interesting and revealing as to their conclusions.
There’s a lot of mixture here. Some accurate. Some not. Hard to separate it all out so that we can make sense of this. Why would you even suggest that Mary’s virgin birth might be thought of in the category of “sin”? Are you assuming that sex is sin? We should clear that up righty away. Augustine thought something along these lines which is why he believed that the sinful nature was transmitted sexually. As for “never do it again,” that is generally the idea behind “My only begotten Son.” There isn’t ever going to be another.
Bloodline being pure? Where did that come from? Yeshua’s bloodline is hardly pure, containing at least one prostitute, an adulterer, a woman engaged in sort-of incest, and many outsiders. Pure? No way! That is NOT the issue.
What does the devil have to do with this? I don’t get that connection at all, unless you are referring to Genesis 6, in which case you need to do a lot more research on the Nephilim.
How is the virgin conception sex? if it were, it would be outside marriage! I think we have dug ourselves a hole here.
And Skip,
“how long must I put up with you?” “You of little faith” “How I longed to shelter you”
sounds like a lot of frustration to me, not regret.
The only instance that I can remember of regret in Scripture is when God regretted having created man (Genesis 6:6), so it seems one can regret without having sinned. I´m sue there are more I don´t recall.
My question is still “What is to be sinless? Is it a state, a condition or an action? Is it a verb or an adjetive? What happens if I inadvertantly hurt someone, did I sin?
And if the human body (itself) is “sinful,” then why are we (according to God’s own words) supposed to present our bodies, in view of God’s mercies, a “living sacrifice” which is (only) appropriate or reasonable to us -in light of all He has done for us? (Romans 12.1) Paul was rather adamant about this.. “..I beseech you therefore!” He’s beggin’ us to do this.
Adam and Eve (both) were naked and yet were not “ashamed.” (Genesis 2.25) Why? And yet when they sin and disobey the clear and direct command of God, then the “cover-up” begins.. Again.. why? Darkness conceals. Light reveals. Another reason to be grateful for “the atonement,”- the cleansing and covering sacrificial blood of the Lamb.
Just don’t forget that “naked” has nothing to do with a n absence of clothing, just as “fig leaves” has nothing to do with vines. Read Guardian Angel to see why.
It was God (Himself) who provided a “covering” for them: ~ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them ~ (Genesis 3.21)
I never said sex! I wasn’t even thinking that at all. I was just pondering the “procreation” of Jesus coming from Mary and the Holy Spirit. Just to clear things up, I do not think sex is sinful. I was only seeing how unique it is that this could even happen to a human host and a God Himself, and then I remembered Gen. 6 and thought the Devil tried to get in on the game. Forget I even said anything, it is not for anyone to conclude except The Lord of Hosts. Hmm…Hosts? I didn’t mean sinless either, I meant that the bloodline was not from the offsprings of the devil. This stuff sounds so out there it makes me laugh. I do appreciate your honest perspective about this subject because it does come up with people.
Dear Skip we must understand that to be the mashiaj it must be a men, following the hebrew thought not a god or semi-god
I have been pondering this very question for a while now and no I don’t believe that we are born with a sinful nature..I believe we are born with the choice to sin which Jesus chose not to.. While we choose to.. We do have the ability to live as he did with the right discipline.. This is why his life is laid out for us to follow in his footsteps.. Not in the doctrine of f theology!
I had heard it preached/taught that man is born with the sin nature and giving the example of not having to teach a child to sin, it comes naturally. OK…so we have given the entire world’s population the excuse for sinning. It’s really NOT their fault, if that’s the case! So why do we complain about the sinner for sinning if they cannot help it because they are born that way? Where is the logic with this??
Other men in Scripture were described as “perfect”, “upright” which would allude to a state of sinlessness. Noah and Job are two who immediately come to mind. But with what we have been taught as Christians, is a state of sinlessness as such possible? Not according to John:
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Could it be that our paradigmatic view of sinlessness cannot be properly understood in light of the “abolishment” of Torah? Did not the sacrifices offer absolution/atonement and the cleansing of the mikvah provide the washing away of ritual impurity?
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 Is this “confession” admitting our need for cleansing of a sin committed? Maybe this meant more than mere speaking out loud, but rather involved doing something about it.
Using the deity of Christ as the reason for Him not committing sin, makes His Example rather out of reach for us, UNLESS we view our empowerment from on High with the Holy Spirit (doctrine of sanctification as the second definite work of grace). This was taught in a Pentecostal church teaching, this sanctification being the impetus for our being sinless. (Never did accept that in view of how we live our day to day lives! Let’s be real!!) This somewhat flies in the face of what Peter said in Acts 10:34,35 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and “does what is right” is acceptable to him. (Italics mine)
In consideration of our Messiah’s sinless state, could it be possible that He “earned” the right to be called the Son of God through His obedience to the Torah and the practices in observing the authority of the Torah? Would this take away from His deity? Would this not “qualify” Him? He was so amazingly devoted and in touch with His Father, overcoming the temptation to sin as He obeyed the Torah fully as a choice. He “grew” from a child into a man, eating, sleeping Torah, as did all males in the community. Some who were taught Torah probably learned it by rote, others were believers from the heart. The “grace upon grace” of John 1:16 seems to provide us some insight into the higher level Christ kept and taught
Torah, not as a man but as YHWH intended. Grace upon grace, Torah upon Torah.
And Christ went about doing good (Acts 10:38)
He was commissioned as priest and prophet, received/accepted the commission and carried it out through the offering of death unto resurrection as the first fruits of the Kingdom.
Just some random thoughts.