DId Jesus have a "perfect" Human Nature?

[David Graham]

I was reading as part of my preparations for our Good Friday Service, Hebrews 5:8: "He learned obedience from what he suffered, and once made PERFECT, he became the source of eternal salvation etc...."

Here is my question. Was Jesus born with a perfect human nature (as well as an obviously perfect divine nature) or did it become so through suffering as per the scripture. If so, what sort of perfection is being spoken about? e.g. Was it simply an absence of sin?

It would seem to me that prior to his death, Jesus' human nature was sinless but weakened by his body, thus enabling him to become the offering for sin on behalf of us all. Yet, if this is the case, how did he bear our sins to death and Sheol?

I don't want any discussion to "descend" into arguements about theories of the atonement, but I am curious to know just how he did it?

Looking forward to reading your contributions.

[Hans Deventer]

David, the "made perfect" comes from the Greek τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο, which has also something of "having reached the end" or "the goal" in it. So there is movement in it.

I think our concept of perfection is at times too static. So Jesus, though perfect, was also "perfected" through His sufferings. I think both statements are true.

[Randy Wise]

I was reading as part of my preparations for our Good Friday Service, Hebrews 5:8: "He learned obedience from what he suffered, and once made PERFECT, he became the source of eternal salvation etc...."

Here is my question. Was Jesus born with a perfect human nature (as well as an obviously perfect divine nature) or did it become so through suffering as per the scripture. If so, what sort of perfection is being spoken about? e.g. Was it simply an absence of sin?

It would seem to me that prior to his death, Jesus' human nature was sinless but weakened by his body, thus enabling him to become the offering for sin on behalf of us all. Yet, if this is the case, how did he bear our sins to death and Sheol?

I don't want any discussion to "descend" into arguements about theories of the atonement, but I am curious to know just how he did it?

Looking forward to reading your contributions.

The body, (the Jesus that was), occupied was fully human. Jeus was not a slave to sin as He overcame the world without sin. I think He who was in Jesus was greater than the one who tempted Him to sin. In fact Jesus came to destroy the work of the one who leads the whole world astray. That one who leads the whole world astray was a liar and murderer from the beginning. That one now stands condemned.

Randy

[Marcus Kibbe]

Here is my question. Was Jesus born with a perfect human nature (as well as an obviously perfect divine nature) or did it become so through suffering as per the scripture. If so, what sort of perfection is being spoken about?

The perfection being spoken of is 'mature holiness', imo. He was never disobedient but his sufferings were the testing-ground in which his obedience became full-grown (mature).

how did he bear our sins to death and Sheol?

I think the first question is, what does it mean to "bear sin"?
Must it be understood in terms of the bearing of sin's penalty, or can it be interpreted in other ways?
And is substitution necessarily involved in sin-bearing? If so, what kind of substitution?

Not trying to "descend" the conversation into an argument over atonement theories, but I don't see how one can coherently answer your question without first addressing these other questions.

[Hans Deventer]

I think the first question is, what does it mean to "bear sin"?
Must it be understood in terms of the bearing of sin's penalty, or can it be interpreted in other ways?
And is substitution necessarily involved in sin-bearing? If so, what kind of substitution?

20 “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness. (Lev 16)

The goat was not punished. In fact, no sacrifice in the OT was punished. It was sent away, literally, while the bearing of the sins was obviously symbolic. The entire process was meant to teach the Israelites, and by acting in obedience to God's command, show they repented of their sins in order to enable God to forgive them. Which, as we know, He longs to do.

There is substitution in sin bearing, as the text above already indicates and many more do. But there is also participation, and we should take care to balance these.

"3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom 6)

Christ did what we never could, in order for us to do what He did: take up our cross and follow Him.

[Marcus Kibbe]

20 “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness. (Lev 16)

The goat was not punished. In fact, no sacrifice in the OT was punished. It was sent away, literally, while the bearing of the sins was obviously symbolic. The entire process was meant to teach the Israelites, and by acting in obedience to God's command, show they repented of their sins in order to enable God to forgive them. Which, as we know, He longs to do.

Hold up here, Hans. You're driving a wedge between the two goats in Lev. 16, the sacrificed goat and the scapegoat. The two together are described as a "sin offering" in the singular (Lev. 16:5). One goat was to be sacrificed and its blood sprinkled in the usual way, while on the living goats head was laid all the sins of the Israelite community. Each goat embodied a different aspect of the same sacrifice, one the means, and the other the results, of the atonement.

As for your comment, "no sacrifice in the OT was punished", what does that mean? It is commonplace in Leviticus and Numbers that those who break God's laws "will bear their iniquity", "will be held responsible", "will suffer for their sins", "will be cut off from his people", "will be put to death", etc. A penalty always follows sin. Are you saying that no sacrifice in the OT satisfied such a penalty?

[Benjamin Burch]

This is always entertaining.
PSA!! PSA!!PSA!!

[Jim Chabot]

This is always entertaining.
PSA!! PSA!!PSA!!

Lets remember that it is perfectly acceptable to hold a penal substitutionionary view of the atonement and also be a Nazarene. While most of us here do not hold to this view, I do not, most of the Nazarenes that I have known over the years do hold to PSA.

[Jim Chabot]

Hold up here, Hans. You're driving a wedge between the two goats in Lev. 16, the sacrificed goat and the scapegoat. The two together are described as a "sin offering" in the singular (Lev. 16:5). One goat was to be sacrificed and its blood sprinkled in the usual way, while on the living goats head was laid all the sins of the Israelite community. Each goat embodied a different aspect of the same sacrifice, one the means, and the other the results, of the atonement.

As for your comment, "no sacrifice in the OT was punished", what does that mean? It is commonplace in Leviticus and Numbers that those who break God's laws "will bear their iniquity", "will be held responsible", "will suffer for their sins", "will be cut off from his people", "will be put to death", etc. A penalty always follows sin. Are you saying that no sacrifice in the OT satisfied such a penalty?

Is it a "penalty" that always follows sin, or is it a "consequence" that follows? Granted, something bad always follows sin, that's a given. But is it punishment?

[Benjamin Burch]

Lets remember that it is perfectly acceptable to hold a penal substitutionionary view of the atonement and also be a Nazarene. While most of us here do not hold to this view, I do not, most of the Nazarenes that I have known over the years do hold to PSA.

I agree. You are correct about that. My point is simply that this conversation has run it's course on NazNet... 100x over. There is nothing more to be said or gained by this conversation, here or in the other thread. Especially with Marcus, as he clearly will not change his mind. Yet he continually attempts to have this conversation over and over again. Why? Because as Hans has said, he believes it is his mission to convert us. The only proper response at this point is to be entertained.

[Jim Chabot]

I agree. You are correct about that. My point is simply that this conversation has run it's course on NazNet... 100x over. There is nothing more to be said or gained by this conversation, here or in the other thread. Especially with Marcus, as he clearly will not change his mind. Yet he continually attempts to have this conversation over and over again. Why? Because as Hans has said, he believes it is his mission to convert us. The only proper response at this point is to be entertained.

Of course he doesn't need to change his mind, nor do you or Hans. I don't get the impression that Marcus is trying to convert anyone, he is just speaking his mind and stating what he thinks. We all do this, he is just in the minority.

Entertainment isn't a bad option though. I've found quite a bit of theology here to be entertaining, it's much better than getting aggravated about it.

Our church is pretty small, yet there are only two of us who do not ascribe to PSA there, and my wife isn't one of the two. She still pokes at me for removing the phrase "wrath was satisfied" from "In Christ Alone" and for changing the words to any song that makes reference to the Father turning away from Christ. She gets even by singing "How Great The Father's Love for Us" every year. Definitely not an essential, at least she does realize that there is more to the atonement than just the penal attributes that may not actually be there.

[Steven Burton]

The biggest issue I have with PSA is the advocating I have seen that it is the only way to understand the atonement.

[Hans Deventer]

Marcus, you won't listen since your only goal here is to promote PSA and some other inerrant views (see Ben's post) but for the sake of those reading along, I'll explain.

Hold up here, Hans. You're driving a wedge between the two goats in Lev. 16, the sacrificed goat and the scapegoat. The two together are described as a "sin offering" in the singular (Lev. 16:5). One goat was to be sacrificed and its blood sprinkled in the usual way, while on the living goats head was laid all the sins of the Israelite community. Each goat embodied a different aspect of the same sacrifice, one the means, and the other the results, of the atonement.

I'm not driving a wedge. Neither was punished.

As for your comment, "no sacrifice in the OT was punished", what does that mean?

It means that no animal, no grain, no whatever was used for a sacrifice, was ever considered to be punished.

It is commonplace in Leviticus and Numbers that those who break God's laws "will bear their iniquity", "will be held responsible", "will suffer for their sins", "will be cut off from his people", "will be put to death", etc. A penalty always follows sin. Are you saying that no sacrifice in the OT satisfied such a penalty?

Exactly. Never. A sacrifice is never a punishment.

Of course one could write a book about this but just a few short sketches: Originally, in the heathen world, sacrifices were meant to manipulate the gods. It was meant to put them into a situation where they owed you their blessing. The OT makes clear that God doesn't work that way. In the OT, a sacrifice shows that you are willing to give something to God as a sign of gratitude (what later became the peace offering), or as a way to restore the relationship after it had been broken by people, as God had prescribed. It showed how the breach of the covenant was serious and in need of restoration and how that wasn't cheap. Then there are the sacrifices accompanying the creation of a covenant. Between people or between God and people. And we have the goats of Yom Kippur and the Paschal lamb. None of all these have to do with punishment. The animal or whatever that was sacrificed, was never punished. The goal is restoration of a relationship, of the covenant. As Larry pointed out, already in the covenant with Abraham God shows that He alone took the consequences upon Him. He is the one who gives, who forgives, and suffers for it. Whatever we do is limited and symbolic. His' is the real deal.

Hence Jesus wasn't punished either. In Him, all the OT images came together. The goats of Yom Kippur, the Paschal lamb, the sin offering, I would argue even the peace offering, and of course also the covenantial offering. And it shows how costly forgiveness is. No cheap grace (Bonhoeffer). And then all of sudden, He was punished? One has to pretty much dismiss of the entire OT to be able to make that jump.

[Hans Deventer]

The biggest issue I have with PSA is the advocating I have seen that it is the only way to understand the atonement.

Well, I have more issues. To me, the character of God is at stake. PSA makes it sound as if Jesus actually said that "For God so hated the world and was bent on its total destruction, that His only Son had to come to absorb all of God's anger and hatred and sneakily lead us into heaven through the back door, so the God wouldn't notice". It's the old distortion of the gospel through which you hear people say that they actually like Jesus, but don't like God.

God, throughout the entire Scriptures, is willing to forgive. If we would only return (Luke 15). The Gospel as Jesus proclaims it, is actually so much better than we make it to sound. But, He never forces us, and if we are hell bound to run away from Him, that's indeed where we will find ourselves. Hell, whatever it looks like, is real.

[David Graham]

So from what I read, Christ bore our sins in a "Metaphorical" sense as the "Scape goat", remembering that the high priest did indeed call him a sinner (Blasphemer); and his body bore the consequences of human sinfulness in all of its fury, so that he sacrificed his life for love of the human race. His human nature remained uncorrupted through-out the process, which could mean that Jesus could never take any legal penalty for our sin, since he was sinless and "perfect" in the dynamic sense of the word.

If I'm right in this than the PSA becomes irrelevent!?

[Hans Deventer]

While in church this morning, I had to think of theories of the atonement, and theological theories in general. And why I am suspicious of them. For God's love, grace and forgiveness, so central, so much the very core of the gospel, can never be put into a system. And certainly not one that turns it into some kind of judicial transaction. Sure, the Bible uses many images, but never presents one as the all encompassing image. The reasons are obvious: grace is by definition never just, and any human system is inadequate in explaining it all. So when we create a system in which grace has become a mere transaction within a judicial system, we have so distorted the gospel as to become barely recognizable.

Again, grace is never just. And only given at the highest personal cost. That's why the gospel is not a system but a story, truly the Greatest Ever Told. And like the parable of the Prodigal Son, it makes no sense at all. Totally unjust. But here we find the heart of God. Praise Him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jim Chabot]

While in church this morning, I had to think of theories of the atonement, and theological theories in general. And why I am suspicious of them. For God's love, grace and forgiveness, so central, so much the very core of the gospel, can never be put into a system. And certainly not one that turns it into some kind of judicial transaction. Sure, the Bible uses many images, but never presents one as the all encompassing image. The reasons are obvious: grace is by definition never just, and any human system is inadequate in explaining it all. So when we create a system in which grace has become a mere transaction within a judicial system, we have so distorted the gospel as to become barely recognizable.

Again, grace is never just. And only given at the highest personal cost. That's why the gospel is not a system but a story, truly the Greatest Ever Told. And like the parable of the Prodigal Son, it makes no sense at all. Totally unjust. But here we find the heart of God. Praise Him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that grace is indeed just! Not in any way that we are capable of understanding of course. I don't believe that we can truly understand justice if we cannot include grace as an integral part. Of course as humans we see through a glass darkly, so we have to imagine and realize the limits of our understanding.

But you know what they say;

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Then from there Paul describes the atonement in a way that we cannot reconcile unless we separate out the diverse theories and then by faith accept them all as one.

[Hans Deventer]

I believe that grace is indeed just!

Well, not in the sense that is used in human theories, Jim. And that is my point.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Well, I have more issues. To me, the character of God is at stake. PSA makes it sound as if Jesus actually said that "For God so hated the world and was bent on its total destruction, that His only Son had to come to absorb all of God's anger and hatred and sneakily lead us into heaven through the back door, so the God wouldn't notice". It's the old distortion of the gospel through which you hear people say that they actually like Jesus, but don't like God.

God, throughout the entire Scriptures, is willing to forgive. If we would only return (Luke 15). The Gospel as Jesus proclaims it, is actually so much better than we make it to sound. But, He never forces us, and if we are hell bound to run away from Him, that's indeed where we will find ourselves. Hell, whatever it looks like, is real.

Yes! For me the god that PSA leads to (the same one as is described, IMHO, by the Canons of Dort) is not a god I could worship, let alone serve.

[Jim Chabot]

Well, not in the sense that is used in human theories, Jim. And that is my point.

Agreed, in my mind I move past those theories and ignore them. For me, it's a much happier way of dealing with it.

Not to repeat myself, but;

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes! For me the god that PSA leads to (the same one as is described, IMHO, by the Canons of Dort) is not a god I could worship, let alone serve.

I'll gladly serve the God of Calvin and the God of PSA, if that is who God is, then no problem for me, I'm there!

But I believe that scripture is God's word given to us in sure form, and I see from His word that He doesn't self describe Himself that way.

[Marcus Kibbe]

To me, the character of God is at stake. PSA makes it sound as if Jesus actually said that "For God so hated the world and was bent on its total destruction, that His only Son had to come to absorb all of God's anger and hatred and sneakily lead us into heaven through the back door, so the God wouldn't notice". It's the old distortion of the gospel through which you hear people say that they actually like Jesus, but don't like God.

Yes! For me the god that PSA leads to (the same one as is described, IMHO, by the Canons of Dort) is not a god I could worship, let alone serve.

You're both making the mistake of assuming that the substitute was the man Jesus, viewed as a human being and conceived as an individual separate from both God and us - an independent third party. Beginning with this priori opens yourself to a gravely distorted understanding of the atonement. You are picturing Christ as intervening in order to pacify an angry God, or ascribing to God a desire to punish the innocent Jesus in place of us guilty sinners who deserve the punishment. This is classic PSA caricaturing. In both cases God and Christ are separated from one another: either Christ persuades God or God punishes Christ. Both denigrate the Father into a pitiless ogre.

God does not compel Jesus to do what he was unwilling to do himself. It is wrong to speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over against each other as if they acted independently of each other. Christ was not the object of God's punishment and God is not the object of Christ's persuasion. Both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative to save sinners. Our substitute who took our place and died our death on the cross, was neither Christ alone, nor God alone, but God in Christ.

The drama on the cross involved two actors, not three, ourselves and God. Not God as he is in himself (Father), but nevertheless, God made man in Christ (Son). It is the Judge himself who in holy love assumed the role of the innocent victim. The unity of the Father and Son rendered it possible for God at once to endure and to inflict penal suffering. Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice.

When understanding Christology rightly, all PSA caricaturing evaporates away. There is nothing even remotely immoral here, since the substitute for the law-breaker is none other than the divine Lawmaker himself.

In Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth explains that there are three "Christological aspects" for understanding the atonement rightly - that Jesus is "very God, very man, and very God-man". Only when this biblical account of Jesus Christ is affirmed can the uniqueness of his atoning sacrifice be understood.

[Jim Chabot]

Christ was not the object of God's punishment and God is not the object of Christ's persuasion. Both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative to save sinners. Our substitute who took our place and died our death on the cross, was neither Christ alone, nor God alone, but God in Christ.

Could we be speaking different languages here? I'm not seeing where the who of the sacrifice is at issue here. What I'm hearing and saying is that never is the sacrifice considered either guilty or punished. The sacrifice bears or carries the sin, this sin is carried to the grave when the innocent life is extinguished. While the sin is the object of wrath, the sacrifice is more correctly seen as deserving appreciation, both by man and our God who loves us.

Am I making any sense?

[Benjamin Burch]

You're both making the mistake of assuming that the substitute was the man Jesus, viewed as a human being and conceived as an individual separate from both God and us - an independent third party. Beginning with this priori opens yourself to a gravely distorted understanding of the atonement. You are picturing Christ as intervening in order to pacify an angry God, or ascribing to God a desire to punish the innocent Jesus in place of us guilty sinners who deserve the punishment. This is classic PSA caricaturing. In both cases God and Christ are separated from one another: either Christ persuades God or God punishes Christ. Both denigrate the Father into a pitiless ogre.

God does not compel Jesus to do what he was unwilling to do himself. It is wrong to speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over against each other as if they acted independently of each other. Christ was not the object of God's punishment and God is not the object of Christ's persuasion. Both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative to save sinners. Our substitute who took our place and died our death on the cross, was neither Christ alone, nor God alone, but God in Christ.

The drama on the cross involved two actors, not three, ourselves and God. Not God as he is in himself (Father), but nevertheless, God made man in Christ (Son). It is the Judge himself who in holy love assumed the role of the innocent victim. The unity of the Father and Son rendered it possible for God at once to endure and to inflict penal suffering. Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice.

When understanding Christology rightly, all PSA caricaturing evaporates away. There is nothing even remotely immoral here, since the substitute for the law-breaker is none other than the divine Lawmaker himself.

In Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth explains that there are three "Christological aspects" for understanding the atonement rightly - that Jesus is "very God, very man, and very God-man". Only when this biblical account of Jesus Christ is affirmed can the uniqueness of his atoning sacrifice be understood.

Blah blah, blah blah, God needed punishmentto appease his justice in order to forgive and still remain just. Blah blah.

The fact is the Bible says no such thing. Sorry Marcus, this was fun. Time to move on. This conversation is a waste of everyone's time.

[Hans Deventer]

You're both making the mistake of assuming that the substitute was the man Jesus, viewed as a human being and conceived as an individual separate from both God and us - an independent third party.

Nope, that would be nonsense. No mere human could have done what Christ did. That's theology 101. You really should take us more seriously, Marcus, even if we don't share your morbid obsession with death and punishment, nor your inability to see a theory of the atonement as anything other than that: a theory.

But we have been here numerous times and nothing ever changes so the only thing that really interests me is the answer to the question as to why you keep bringing this up. I have an idea but some say I am wrong. Well, you've got the key, prove me wrong!

[Paul DeBaufer]

You're both making the mistake of assuming that the substitute was the man Jesus, viewed as a human being and conceived as an individual separate from both God and us - an independent third party. Beginning with this priori opens yourself to a gravely distorted understanding of the atonement. You are picturing Christ as intervening in order to pacify an angry God, or ascribing to God a desire to punish the innocent Jesus in place of us guilty sinners who deserve the punishment. This is classic PSA caricaturing. In both cases God and Christ are separated from one another: either Christ persuades God or God punishes Christ. Both denigrate the Father into a pitiless ogre.

God does not compel Jesus to do what he was unwilling to do himself. It is wrong to speak of God punishing Jesus or of Jesus persuading God, for to do so is to set them over against each other as if they acted independently of each other. Christ was not the object of God's punishment and God is not the object of Christ's persuasion. Both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative to save sinners. Our substitute who took our place and died our death on the cross, was neither Christ alone, nor God alone, but God in Christ.

The drama on the cross involved two actors, not three, ourselves and God. Not God as he is in himself (Father), but nevertheless, God made man in Christ (Son). It is the Judge himself who in holy love assumed the role of the innocent victim. The unity of the Father and Son rendered it possible for God at once to endure and to inflict penal suffering. Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice.

When understanding Christology rightly, all PSA caricaturing evaporates away. There is nothing even remotely immoral here, since the substitute for the law-breaker is none other than the divine Lawmaker himself.

In Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth explains that there are three "Christological aspects" for understanding the atonement rightly - that Jesus is "very God, very man, and very God-man". Only when this biblical account of Jesus Christ is affirmed can the uniqueness of his atoning sacrifice be understood.

Am I making mistakes when I think of atonement theories? Of course I am, anyone who thinks he isn't is a fool. Am I making the mistake you suggest? No, I most certainly am not.

And no matter how you spin it, the PSA still has an angry, vengeful god who NEEDS his wrath fulfilled. I won't deny that there may have been some biblical authors who they or their communities at one point or another saw their experiences as god's wrath visited upon them. There may be a passage or two withing the Pauline corpus which may seem to suggest a type of PSA. However, these are not the only views expressed about either God or atonement. I am with Hans, I think that how atonement occurs at the cross is a mystery and that humans have tried to explain it using multiple theories, all of which fail to fully encompass it. Taken all together they fail collectively and individually.

[John Reilly]

To answer David's question, Yes, I think Jesus did have a perfect human nature. No other human was more perfect than Jesus. Specifically, The imago Dei was not broken in Jesus' nature. Jesus was the only man to have unbroken imago Dei. SO as God intended and by design, Jesus had perfect human nature.

[Paul DeBaufer]

To answer David's question, Yes, I think Jesus did have a perfect human nature. No other human was more perfect than Jesus. Specifically, The imago Dei was not broken in Jesus' nature. Jesus was the only man to have unbroken imago Dei. SO as God intended and by design, Jesus had perfect human nature.

If this is so how do we explain Hebrews 4:15 telling us Jesus was tempted in every way we are? I think that there is a qualitative difference in facing temptation with the so called fallen nature and facing the same temptations without. I could well be missing something or adding something.

[Cynthia Prentice]

I think that in many ways we are looking at this backwards. Instead of discussing the "wrath of God" or God's penalty for sin...I think a more accurate terminology would be the "wrath of man."

When God stepped into a formal, covenant relationship with Abraham, he did so in a way that was common for Abraham's culture. The "cutting" of a covenant as a way to enter into relationship was something that man came up with, not God. It was a preexisting practice of the culture to enter into a covenant relationship in that particular way. It was man's idea, not God's, that an animal should be slaughtered and both parties of the covenant should walk through the blood, thus symbolically saying, "If I break the covenant, you can do this (walk through my blood) to me." It was man's idea that the penalty for breaking the covenant would be death. God in all his glory loved/loves us so much that he stepped down into Abraham's culture, entered into a covenant relationship with him, and volunteered to play by man's rules. But he took it so much farther than any man of that day and culture would have taken it.

God, alone, walked the blood path. God agreed to take all the "penalty" for breaking the covenant relationship onto himself. In the concrete, symbolic "language" of the day, when he passed through the animals he said, "Abram, if I break this covenant you can do this (walk through my blood) to me, and if You break this covenant you can do this (walk through my blood) to me." This is such an overwhelming picture of love and grace from the very beginning! There was no man or woman living at that time in history who would have ever entered into a relationship like that...but God did. It changes everything when we realize that this type of covenant was an invention of man...not God. Yet, God entered into it anyway. We, human beings, came up with these rules...with the penalty...not God. Yet, I see why he chose to enter into relationship in that specific way. It would have been the most powerful way possible to proclaim love and grace during the time of Abraham.

[John Reilly]

If this is so how do we explain Hebrews 4:15 telling us Jesus was tempted in every way we are? I think that there is a qualitative difference in facing temptation with the so called fallen nature and facing the same temptations without. I could well be missing something or adding something.

Paul, temptation is not sin. Jesus teaches us that with the Holy Spirit we can resist temptation. SO Jesus in his perfect nature was tempted but was without sin. Jesus knows our weaknesses through temptation so He can empathize with us but in his strength Jesus remains sinless.

[Marcus Kibbe]

When God stepped into a formal, covenant relationship with Abraham, he did so in a way that was common for Abraham's culture. The "cutting" of a covenant as a way to enter into relationship was something that man came up with, not God. It was a preexisting practice of the culture to enter into a covenant relationship in that particular way. It was man's idea, not God's, that an animal should be slaughtered... It was man's idea that the penalty for breaking the covenant would be death.

It would be a mistake to start with anthropological studies when answering what OT sacrifices signified. Sure, sacrifice was a universal phenomenon in the ancient world, but we should not assume a priori that Hebrew and pagan sacrifices had identical meaning. They may well have had common origin in God's revelation to our earliest ancestors. It seems better to recognize the special status of Scripture and say that the Israelites preserved the substance of God's original purpose, whereas the pagan sacrifices were corruptions of it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, temptation is not sin. Jesus teaches us that with the Holy Spirit we can resist temptation. SO Jesus in his perfect nature was tempted but was without sin. Jesus knows our weaknesses through temptation so He can empathize with us but in his strength Jesus remains sinless.

Well I didn't mean to equate temptation with sin, if it seemed that way then I miscommunicated. What I did say is wouldn't someone with a "fallen" nature experience temptation fundamentally differently than someone without the "fallen" nature? But maybe my question is presumptuous, maybe that is not what you meant by Jesus being the only man without a broken Imago Dei. If I misunderstand your term then may I ask, What do you mean by broken imago dei and that Jesus is the only man to ever not have one?

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

I need to spend time on this but one quick question so I can rest at night: For Easter this week I had a skit performed for our kids (and the congregation). For the skit I used 2 white robes - one I rubbed in the dirt, the other remained clean. The Roman guards, as the act of crucifixion, put the dirty robe on Jesus. I pointed out that Jesus robe, which would be white, become dirty upon the cross, as he took on our sins, (see 1Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.) Then for the Resurrection, Jesus puts on the clean white robe.

Was I right to make the first robe dirty and use it as an illustration as I did? I think so but in the context of this string, I wonder.

[John Reilly]

Well I didn't mean to equate temptation with sin, if it seemed that way then I miscommunicated. What I did say is wouldn't someone with a "fallen" nature experience temptation fundamentally differently than someone without the "fallen" nature? But maybe my question is presumptuous, maybe that is not what you meant by Jesus being the only man without a broken Imago Dei. If I misunderstand your term then may I ask, What do you mean by broken imago dei and that Jesus is the only man to ever not have one?

Paul, Adam and Eve initially was created with perfect imago Dei. They fell into temptation and imago Dei was broken. Jesus demonstrates we can have imago Dei, be tempted and not sin. Entire sanctification restores imago Dei. Therefore we need not sin when we are tempted. Much the place where Jesus was. Jesus had a perfect imago Dei, was tempted and did not sin. Entirely sanctified believers have imago Dei restored and also need not sin when tempted. Entire sanctification does not prevent temptation and does not prevent one from falling into sin. But if we do sin of course we have One who is faithful and will forgive us our sin.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well I didn't mean to equate temptation with sin, if it seemed that way then I miscommunicated. What I did say is wouldn't someone with a "fallen" nature experience temptation fundamentally differently than someone without the "fallen" nature? But maybe my question is presumptuous, maybe that is not what you meant by Jesus being the only man without a broken Imago Dei. If I misunderstand your term then may I ask, What do you mean by broken imago dei and that Jesus is the only man to ever not have one?

Paul, Adam and Eve initially was created with perfect imago Dei. They fell into temptation and imago Dei was broken. Jesus demonstrates we can have imago Dei, be tempted and not sin. Entire sanctification restores imago Dei. Therefore we need not sin when we are tempted. Much the place where Jesus was. Jesus had a perfect imago Dei, was tempted and did not sin. Entirely sanctified believers have imago Dei restored and also need not sin when tempted. Entire sanctification does not prevent temptation and does not prevent one from falling into sin. But if we do sin of course we have One who is faithful and will forgive us our sin.

The trouble I have with this is the material way in which the imago Dei is being spoken of, as if it is a thing which one "has" and is "created with."

I think Scripturally it is something which humans are created in, and therefore are. We do not "have" the image of God, we "are" the image of God - or called to be. Thus, instead of our image of God being broken, instead, the image of God we reflect becomes broken - or it is gone entirely.

Thus, I would say that salvation doesn't "restore" our image of God, but it restores us, transforming us from the mess of an unglorified image into the image of the glorified God.

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.... So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;

they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,

He is the image of the invisible God,

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.

We were created not with something that was broken and needs "restored." We were created to be something, to reflect something. We traded that glory and image for other images with no glory. In Christ, God has restored us to that image and the proper glory associated with that image.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We have been, are being, and will be transformed into the image of Christ, which is itself the image of the invisible, glorified, God.

I think our language is significant in this regard.

Thus, in answer to the OP, I'm not sure that Christianity before Augustine spoke much about "perfect" or "imperfect" human natures. Instead, what I understand both Scripture and Tradition to say is that humanity has gone astray and no longer reflects the image of the glorified God. Thus, Christ, Godself, came down to humanity and took on human nature, uniting it with the divine, so that when we are united to Christ we, too, are united with the divine.

Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants in the divine nature.

I don't think Scripture has in mind a perfect or imperfect human nature. It has in mind a human nature which needs deliverance from sin so that it may participate in the divine nature. Christ unites these in himself.

So I would think the "perfection through suffering" is one of both maturity as well as the triumph over sin. That is, we not only need united with the divine life, but we also need sin conquered, and Christ did this for us, becoming the perfect source of our salvation.

[Benjamin Burch]

P.S. It is soooo nice having my computer back! Now I can actually multi-quote and write long responses without wanting my hair to grow back so I can tear it out.

[Jim Chabot]

P.S. It is soooo nice having my computer back! Now I can actually multi-quote and write long responses without wanting my hair to grow back so I can tear it out.

What! You have hair that will actually grow back?

Must be nice!

[Benjamin Burch]

What! You have hair that will actually grow back?

Must be nice!

Not much. Enough around the sides and back to grow it out and pull it back out, lol.