Does "Jesus literally changing" include being righteous?
Does "Jesus literally changing" include being righteous?
Perhaps I totally misunderstand what Bob intended. ?
As many of you know, I am an avid supporter of Bob Enyart, especially his bible teaching ministry. I find it rather astonishing that I am hard pressed to disagree with what I clearly understand he teaches. It’s usually over matters that I realize that I don’t fully understand the other things that must be going on in his mind. And remember how the context really alter things, we make a point while addressing one context in response to one question, and in another different context, and answering a different concern, we may say nearly the point in a seemingly contradictory way. So grace has been more than sufficient for all unclear matters.
Here are quotes and highlights from Bob’s show, “Do callers change?” dated Jan 30, 03.
Highlights and quotes.
- God became flesh and dwelt among us.”
“How about other changes with God, sticking with God the Son”
- Humility
- “And, then He suffered we know,”
- “And let me ask you a bible question,”
“Did God the Son, become sin for us, did He become a curse for us?”
(Dan) . . . And so he did change.
That’s how. . . He took our punishment, He took our sin upon Himself.
Now let me ask you. Dan, was it only a figure of speech, or did he really take our sin upon Himself?
(Dan) . . . It wasn’t a figure. . .
Right, absolutely.
And then, He took our sin upon Him, He was separated from the father, but Paul writes, He was justified in the spirit and reunited.
(Commercial break)
“So that while Jesus Christ became sin and became a curse, for us, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in 1st Timothy 3:16, that, that He was Justified in the Spirit. And justified is a change word, because Christ, ,,, and hay Dan, is this orthodox Christian teaching, that Jesus, took on the sin, He took our sin upon Himself, And He was separated from the Father, but then He was justified in the spirit, and now He is, Jesus Christ the righteous. Is that all orthodox? Ya, I think so.”
End Highlights and quotes.
He goes on to argue against classic immutability, so his argument from the start to the end was consistent in demonstrating change in God. And I agree, God changes. But he was trying to demonstrate that God the Son (really and personally) changed (not figuratively changed) when He was justified in the spirit, and then was considered “Jesus the righteous”.
It seems as though Bob is saying that there was a time when Jesus Christ (Himself) was not justified in the spirit, or as He said, “and now” (after the change of being justified in the Spirit) He is Jesus Christ the righteous. As though previous to that point, Jesus Christ was not always righteous or just?
If the change he is indicating was literal and real in the person of Jesus, that should necessarily mean that prior to the point that He was justified, He was NOT justified in the spirit, He was NOT Jesus Christ the righteous. And that just doesn’t make good sense to me.
Here are the verses Bob offered.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"),
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
Our sin really personally and not figuratively separates us from God so much that we need a Savior.
I offer Heb 4:15, that Jesus (in His own being) was sinless. Jesus “taking on the sins of the world”, that really did happen, and Jesus really was punished for our sins, but this is not saying that Jesus (in His person, in His being) literally changed from “sinlessness” into being “sin”. Is Bob saying that when Jesus was separated from the Father (forsaken), that the separation (not personal disapproval) was because Jesus and sin had become one, or that sin had literally transferred from us into Christ, literally making Him as we were, separated from God because of our own personal sin? Because of that, we need a savior, did that mean that Jesus needed a savior too?
Wait, can we separate sin from the sinner?
No one can actually or literally separate the sin from the sinner, even if you are forgiven, your sins will always be yours and yours alone. Yet when forgiveness happens, God makes “a change in “account” “for us”. And I think it’s in this same substitutionary way that Jesus “took on the sins of the world” and “became sin for us”, it was “on account” of the world’s sin that he really did do what He did. He “substituted” Himself for us, and God the Father “accounts” Jesus’ righteous account to all saved people’s account even though their sin remains with them, God sees Jesus’ righteous account covering over us, so our “account” is judged as righteous.
What’s in the formula “for us”?
The debt was paid by Him on our “account”. I believe that is why the scriptures keep saying “for us”, like when it says that Jesus became sin “for us”, and He became a curse “for us”. It’s a statement of relational action “on our account”, He substituted Himself “for us”, “on account of us”.
Literally becoming sin? Literally becoming an inanimate object?
Examine the claim of a person really becoming an inanimate object. Can anyone really and personally become “sin”? Sin is not something a free will moral agent can “become”, sin is something one can “do” or “be guilty of”, or “be forgiven of”, or “pay the price for”. So if you want to be sin, the closest you can really do is be guilty of, or be forgiven of, you can’t change yourself into being sin itself.
So all the way around, Jesus “becoming sin for us”, and “becoming a curse for us”, holds the idea of a relationship which is highlighted in the words, “for us”. God really hung on a tree, and God really took on our problem of sin by paying the debt because of His love in order to provide a means of justification, since we could never remedy the problem of the world’s sin. But does any of that mean that God the Son personally changed when He became sin for us or was justified in the Spirit?
Now, to be fair, I don’t know how to “best” explain Jesus “being justified in the spirit”, but I think it’s fair to say that it does not imply that previously “Jesus” Himself was personally less than just or righteous. Right?!?
I’d suspect it has to do with Him taking on the punishment for the sins of the world (= becoming sin for us) and becoming a curse for us. God could not accept man because God is just and righteous and man was exceedingly unjust and unrighteous. And God the Son did not deserve to take our punishment, which was the greatest punishment possible. But the Son could make the payment, as long as the father accepted it. So I suppose Jesus being declared justified, would be the same as saying that God accepted His Son’s sacrificial offering for sins such that justification came to the world. Before Jesus was justified in the spirit, the world had to wait in hopes of eternal life. We who are saved are part of God, and our righteousness comes from Him, our redemption comes from Him. So perhaps God was declaring those who are identified in Jesus, as being justified in Jesus, being justified in the spirit.
Here’s an analogy that I hope proves helpful.
The richest man in the world was so rich, that he could pay off all the entire worlds debt and still be wealthy. So, one day he was in an especially giving and gracious mood and just decided to pay off all the debts of the world! And so he paid the world’s debt. Now, when it was all done, one could say, he took on the debt of the world, he became debt for us, and he suffered the pain of paying our debt like a curse from the terrible problem of the worlds huge dept. But, after the dept was paid for and accepted as payment in full, then the rich man (on account of the world) was declared debt free, He owed nothing to anyone, yet really, that really means that now the world owes nothing to anyone.
The world’s debt was because of bad financial dealings. But the rich man’s so called “debt” was simply self-imposed because of charity. In fact, if He wanted to, at the last minuet, and without any liability, he could have changed his mind and given back all the accounts of debt back to the world and said, I will not pay your debt, it’s a curse and a burden that is your and I do not accept it for myself. It’s not wrong to not pay off someone else’s debt, but it is right to pay off someone else’s debt if they so chose to do so, and if the debtor accepts the substitutionary payment arrangement.
No one but the debtors could forgive the debt. They could either say, ok, no one has paid your debt, but we’ve just decided to forgive all your debts. Which would really be the same as them paying off your debt for you, they did pay for the products or services that remained in debt. Or, someone other than the debtors could come in and pay the dept, and in either case, the debtors could all forgive all debt regardless of who paid it. That is how I understand God taking on the sins of the world and becoming sin for us. It is real, but it concerns our account and the actual sin is not transferred, so Christ becoming sin FOR US, represented no real change in Jesus. The change was that previously, He had not paid for the sins of the world, and God had not previously accounted Jesus’ sacrifice as payment in full. And because this change more so represents relationships, rather than Jesus literally becoming sin, it’s seem like a faulty example to use to sight God changing.
When God humbled Himself, He really changed in Himself, but when Jesus became sin for us, He did not literally become sin, it’s a statement of relationship for us, a change Jesus provided for our account.
Perhaps I totally misunderstand what Bob intended. ?
(First edit, please review accordingly.)
