[TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have

[Wm. Taylor]

Subject: [TruthTalk] Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have David, regarding your thesis, "Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have":   I am new to this forum, so am not sure where or how the discussion began, or how or whether it ended. From what I gather, it has been a while since anyone has weighed in on the issue. I am impressed with your patience. This is a difficult teaching for most Christians; not only are they not willing to accept it, in my experience, they are not even willing to entertain its possibility. In my humble opinion, this is not so much because it is an unbiblical teaching -- it is not; rather it is due to the fact that we have primarily lost the historical context for teaching it. This is not a new teaching; indeed the early Church was quite comfortable with it. It was only late in the formative centuries of the Church that it came under attack. You seem to have a real good grasp of the Scriptures in this area. I am writing to assure you that history is on your side as well.   A great resource for this discussion is T. F. Torrance. Are you familiar with him? In case you are not, he is a Scottish theologian, who taught for many years at the University of Edinburgh. He is currently 91 years old. Torrance has researched this topic more than anyone in recent times. In his great little book The Mediation of Christ, he introduces his handling of the Incarnation with these words: "Perhaps the most fundamental truth we need to learn in the Christian Church, or rather relearn since we have suppressed it, is that the Incarnation was the coming of God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence against the reconciling love of God. That is to say, the Incarnation is to be understood as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature, our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator. This is a doctrine found everywhere in the early Church in the first five centuries, expressed again and again in the terms that the whole man had to be assumed by Christ if the whole man was to be saved, that the unassumed is unhealed, or that what God has not taken up in Christ is not saved" (39).   After establishing the historicity of these beliefs and attaching their origin to the writings of the Apostles, he then goes on to state, "before long in the fourth century there began a revolt against the idea that Christ took our fallen humanity including our depraved mind upon himself in order to redeem it from within. Thus there developed especially in Latin theology from the fifth century a steadily growing rejection of the fact that it was our alienated, fallen, and sinful humanity that the Holy Son of God assumed, and there was taught instead the idea that it was humanity in its perfect original state that Jesus took over from the Virgin Mary, which of course forced Roman Catholic theology into the strange notion of immaculate conception, . . . Strange as it may now seem, Christian theology in the West, not least in so-called 'Protestant Orthodoxy,' has largely followed the line of the Roman Catholic Church, although without taking over its notion of immaculate conception" (40).   The truth is, as much as we want to be objective in our study, like it or not, we all bring something to the text. It is important, I believe, when entering into this discussion to set it in its proper historical context (as you attempted to do when you told Judy that her beliefs were rooted in Roman Catholicism). Much has happened throughout the centuries to shape and mold the way we go to the Scriptures. If we do not know what earlier Christians believed and do not know the events which took place to challenge and change those beliefs, then we are prone to assume that what we believe today is what Christians have always believed. This topic is a great case in point: what the early Church considered orthodoxy is now treated as appalling to the sensitivities of most 'orthodox' Christians. My guess is that most of these Christians are unaware of what their early brothers and sisters believed. They assume that the immaculate view is also the historic view. They deserve to know that it is not.   It seems to me that Christians should be able and willing to ask the question, What has happened to influence my thinking in this area? Why did early Christians accept this teaching, when I am unable even to consider it? What stands in the gap between the beliefs of these early Christians and those that I hold? If nothing else, David, if Christians will take seriously the early history of the Church, when they say No to you, they will know that you have been relegated to some pretty good company.    Another resource, if you are interested, is Thomas Weinandy. His book, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh, is very relevant to your thesis. Interestingly, he is Roman Catholic. At the end of the book he attempts to defend the doctrine of Mary's immaculate condition; this even though for all the same reasons as the early fathers, he insists upon the necessity of Christ having had to have had a human nature subject to the fall. In fairness to Weinandy, he makes a decent argument, which is no small feat, considering the precarious position in which he finds himself.   Well, I hope this was helpful. Until next time,   Bill Taylor