[TruthTalk] The Humanity of Jesus

[Judy Taylor]

From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Judy wrote concerning the word "likeness": > That word is used in other places besides Romans 8:3 and it always means the same thing ie "likeness" > It never means "exactly the same as"   There are not that many passages that use the word, so it is difficult to argue about the range of meaning it cannot have based upon a negative consideration such as "it never means..."  We should be focusing on what it does mean, not what it never means based upon only a few examples.   jt: OK, what about Phil 2:7 "He made Himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a bondservant, and was made in the likeness of men?"  I know we have discussed the meaning of the Greek word for likeness in the past and that made no difference to you, it does to me.   I have always agreed that Jesus is unique and so I am not trying to make him not unique.  The question remains, however, whether his uniqueness was primarily his spirit or his physical body.  I argue that his uniqueness stems from his spirit, his identity as the Son of God.  The word "likeness" in Romans 8:3 is used, not to convey that Jesus had an imitation body or a counterfeit human flesh, but rather to point to the similarity or likeness of his body to sinful flesh.  It was the sameness of his physical body to sinful flesh that makes Paul's point about how he condemned sin in the flesh.    jt: How exactly does this work then David and why does one have to have a fallen human nature to condemn sin in the flesh?  In John 6:55 Jesus tells the disciples that His flesh is food indeed, & His blood is drink indeed and that the ones who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him and He in them and then went on to says in John 6:63 that it is the Spirit who gives life - the flesh profits nothing.   For some reason, you do not want to hear what the Bible is teaching in Romans 8:3.  You dismiss the passage without considering its message.   jt: Because David, even though I am blessed by much of your teaching I believe you are wrong about this.  I don't dismiss any passage of scripture but I want the correct meaning.   Judy wrote: > I believe our fundamental difference is in the way we view sin.  I don't believe it is a "physical flesh" > problem to start with; the body just follows along it follows orders unless one is paraplegic or > something like that..   This probably does highlight a major reason we have difficulty seeing this the same way.  My biological understanding enables me to understand how sin is a flesh problem, and the revelation of Scripture confirms my understanding of the physical body's contribution to sinful behavior.    jt: If you see this so clearly then you probably should spell it out because I just don't see it Not only that it rubs against everything I understand about the holy vs the profane.  He came for the express purpose of becoming a sacrifice for us and God's demands regarding sacrifices was very stringent.  They were to have no spot, wrinkle, or blemish.  A sin nature (rebellion within) regardless of whether the body participated would be a huge blemish.   I would like to get into this a little more, perhaps, but if you cannot see the range of possible meanings in Romans 8:3, then further discussion along these lines is impossible.    Why?  If I wanted to read "ranges of meanings" into scripture, I could make it say all kinds of things. I want to know what God is saying.  What He wants to communicate to me.    If you cannot see that Romans 8:3 is speaking about the likeness of the body of Jesus to sinful flesh, but instead you see the flesh of Jesus as being unlike sinful flesh, there is little motivation for me to say anything else.    jt: I don't see sin beginning primarily in the body of flesh even though it probably winds up there as we yeild ourselves to obey lust (which is a spirit) and fear (which is a spirit) I see it in our little grandson as obdurance, and stubborn rebellion. He wants to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it.   The passage very clearly speaks of Christ's being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, but you keep seeing that his flesh was unlike sinful flesh.   jt: Yep. I see His flesh as holy and set apart. Even Anna the prophetess and Simeon who stayed at the temple where he was brought as a tiny baby recognised this and said so.   Judy wrote: > You will need to describe for me what you mean > when you say "a body of sinful flesh"   I would love to, Judy, but first we need to agree with Romans 8:3.  Why should I go on to interpret for you what I understand about this body of sinful flesh if you do not acknowledge that Romans 8:3 speaks about the similarity of Christ's flesh to sinful human flesh?    jt: A similarity is one thing ie: All that glitters is not gold.  But I don't want to be in the position of calling the holy profane or vice versa and I've not seen anything in scripture so far to convince me that His flesh was not pure, holy, and blameless flesh.   Sure, let's talk about how it is similar, but objections will surely be raised if we do not first agree that it was indeed similar, based upon the authority of this passage.   David Miller wrote: >> Do you agree with me, based upon the Phil. 2:7 passage and your acknowledgement >>that Jesus was truly a man that Roman 8:3 might be understood to mean that Jesus >> had sinful flesh?   jt: I will agree that he was truly a man with mankinds' physical limitations such as hunger, thirst, weariness, etc. but I draw the line when it comes to sin.   Judy wrote: > That would mean He had two natures   That's right.  He had a human nature and a God nature.  He was both Son of Man and Son of God.  Two natures.   jt: I wouldn't put it like that - I would say he was the nature of God in the body of a man.   Judy wrote: > - I believe he came in the "likeness" of man and that He layed > aside some aspects of divinity which meant that he had physical > limitations but he was always "holy"  He was Emmanual or God > with us.   I agree.   Judy wrote: To me it is ludicrous to even imply that God and sin are compatible except in fallen humanity, that is, those who are in the process of walking out their own salvation with fear and trembling.   I agree.  This is the point, that Jesus shared in fallen humanity.  This is the mystery of godliness spoken of in 1 Timothy 3:16.   jt: I don't see the above spelled out in the mystery of godliness ie: God was manifested in the flesh (I read body) Justified in the Spirit Seen by angels Preached among the Gentiles Believed on in the world Received up in glory"   The point is that God and sin are not compatible, and that is how Jesus conquered sin for us.  By coming in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh that we might arise with him in newness of life.   jt: Jesus overcame in the three areas where the first Adam fell in the wilderness but sin was conquered at the cross.  In speaking of this Jesus said "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out" (Jn 12:31) and then "the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me" (Jn 14:30); and in speaking of the judgment of the cross "of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged" (Jn 16:11).  Later in speaking of God's wisdom Paul says "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" ( 1 Cor 2:7,8)   I figure that if Jesus had a fallen flesh nature the prince of this world would have had something in him for sure, whether or not he actually sinned with his body.   judyt