Answer to “Korsets Seier”

Answer to “Korsets Seier”

“Korsets Seier” asks, “Did Jesus have a sinful flesh?” And with this question follows a long explanation.

I am amazed that there can be such a lack of understanding of God’s Word and what it really says about the glorious work of salvation about which Paul testifies in Romans 8:3 where it says, “For what the law could not do in that it was powerless because of the flesh, God did by sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.”

This scripture expresses the profound beauty of the gospel, as opposed to the law. The law condemned the sinner because he had sinned; God condemned sin so that the sinner should be set free. God accomplished His work of salvation in His Son, Christ. He did this by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemning sin in the flesh. “K.S.” does not understand that we are dealing with the judgment of sin, which is the salvation of man. Is it so difficult to understand that God condemned sin in His Son as a representative of mankind? “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us . . . .” 2 Cor. 5:21. If God condemned sin in His Son who was made sin for us, does this mean that Christ has become impure as “K.S.” wants to make it out to be? Seeing that God accomplished this salvation for mankind in Christ Jesus, can there be any doubt that this sentence, which should have been fully executed in us, fell on Christ? God’s judgment dealt with sin. Sin was condemned in the flesh.

In Whose Flesh Did God Condemn Sin?

This is the central question that we want to ask “K.S.”: we want to ask everyone to examine it so that they may not distort God’s Word and nullify His salvation. Was sin condemned in the flesh of Peter, James, or John? If that were the case, Christ could have refrained from coming into this world. Then He could have used one of them as the savior of the world. This would have become what the false religion “Millennial Dawn” teaches; namely, that Christ was not a Mediator, but only a means (medium), and that God could have used anyone else.

In whose flesh did God condemn sin? One believer’s answer was, “In the world’s flesh.” Then why did the Christ come? According to this verdict the world could have become its own savior. However, it cannot do that; but One died for all, therefore all died. 2 Cor. 5:15. The work of salvation must go through the One. He was the One who did not know sin and was made to be sin for us.

It was in Him, in Christ’s flesh, that sin was sentenced. The work of salvation was carried out in Christ. Not in anyone else. Since God condemned sin in Christ’s flesh, it is obvious that Christ had to have sin in the flesh.

Then “K.S.” states further: “The Scriptures say that He ‘came in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3), but it is one thing to ‘be like’ something, yet it is a totally different matter to be the same thing.” Consider what this kind of interpretation leads to. It is written about Jesus that He took on the form of a servant, coming in the likeness of men. Phil. 2:7. It is one thing to be like [resemble] a man, another thing to be a man. According to this interpretation, Christ should therefore be only like [resemble] a man but not be a man. But if Christ came in the likeness of man, and it means, as we believe, that He was a man, then we conclude that when Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He came with sin in the flesh.

The Greek word omoiøma, which in Norwegian has been translated with “likeness” in Romans 8:3, is found, among other places, in Philippians 2:7, where it says, “coming in the likeness of men.” But that Christ did not just come in the likeness of men but as a true man is evidenced by what Paul writes immediately after, adding, “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself . . . .” V. 8. (In the first centuries after Christ, some false teachers appeared and declared that Christ’s appearance on earth was only an illusion and that He was not a real man.) The same Greek word occurs in Romans 6:5: “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.” In this instance the Greek word that was previously translated as “appearance” has been translated as “likeness.” But imagine that the fundamental idea of the word is what “K.S.” says it is; then we are united with Christ in a resemblance of His death and in a resemblance of His resurrection, but not in a real death and resurrection. Then our union with Him in His death and in His resurrection is only an illusion, a fantasy. For it is one thing to be like something, but it is something else to be the same thing. (“Christian Science” teaches such fantasies, for example when it concerns sickness.)

The Greek word omoiøma means: that which is conformed or assimilated.

It also means likeness, resemblance. The word assimilate is usually used in the context of foods being absorbed by the body whereby these foods are made one with the body. In this manner, according to Romans 6:5, we shall be united with Christ in His death and in the resurrection by assimilating His divine work in us by faith. It also states in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent in a semblance (lignelse—Norw.) or likeness of sinful flesh. When He came into the world, sinful flesh was assimilated or absorbed in Him; therefore He came in the likeness of sinful flesh; He was conformed or made like sinful flesh. He was made sin. 2 Cor. 5:21.

It was in this flesh that sin was condemned.

The work was finished in Christ.

Hallelujah! God did it. Rom. 8:3.

When Jesus came in the likeness of men, He did not come as a copy of a man; when He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, He did not come in a copy of sinful flesh; and when we are united together in the likeness of His death and His resurrection it is not a copy but an indisputable fact. Otherwise everything would be a mirage.

Is it any wonder that the self-life bears abundant fruit in those places where this copy-doctrine is being taught? There people are taught that you are totally dead and that sin has been taken away, but when this is also only a mirage, is it not reasonable for the weeds to grow tall, sheltered by such a doctrine?

Moreover, assuming that Jesus was not sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, but only in an image or in a semblance of sinful flesh, was sin then condemned in this image, in this semblance? (For according to “K.S.” a semblance means an imitation of sinful flesh.) We see that such doctrines lead to utter folly and we must, unfortunately, pursue this line of thinking so that, if possible, someone can come to his senses by means of this folly.

“K.S.” says, “He who knew not sin was truly made to be sin for us, but He Himself was not sinful.” They said about Jesus when He went into Zacchaeus’ house, “He has gone in to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.” Luke 19:7. What was the consequence of Jesus’ visit? The consequence was that sin departed. But was Jesus as sinful as Zacchaeus, and did He have to repay four-fold? Far from it! Jesus was absolutely not sinful.

However, we will use the illustration of Zacchaeus. Jesus came to sinful mankind, being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, in a body, and sin had to leave where He entered. Sin was condemned in His flesh. It was driven out by judgment; sin was sentenced in Him. But did that make Jesus sinful? No!

“K.S.” says further: “People believe that Jesus had to feel sin in His being as the most corrupt people do, in order to show that we, by fighting against it, will also overcome as He overcame.” I don’t know what people believe, neither do I know who these people are, but I know this: in Christ the most corrupt person’s sin was judged. Do you believe that? We believe that Christ walked according to the Spirit—what we call the newness of spirit—and not according to the flesh. Nevertheless, He denied Himself by saying about His own will: Not My will, but Yours be done. And He also says that the person who wants to follow Him must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Him.

When Adam sinned, he did his own will, not God’s will. Concerning Jesus, we know that He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, that is, without doing His own will.

Therefore He can now be a faithful High Priest for us. Therefore we can also be tested in various trials, yet without sin—for He has overcome, and we shall also overcome. He was tested in all points as we are (not similar to us), yet without sin, and in whatever we have been tried, we can also be of help to others. But if we are tested and sin, we cannot be of help to others. “K.S.” uses this point of Jesus being tested in all points as we are, yet without sin, attempting to prove by a wrongful interpretation of the letter, that Jesus was not sent in the likeness of sinful flesh.

It is so wonderfully written: “Therefore, in all things, He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God . . . .” Heb. 2:17.

What a blessed consolation it is for everyone to know that all wretchedness, beginning with Adam, was judged in Christ.

We should not be amazed at the fact that Jesus had to fight in His temptations, calling out, “Not My will, but Yours, be done,” because angels came and comforted Him. However, I am amazed that “K.S.” teaches that you can be finished with everything after a brief “Gethsemane-battle.” And now “K.S.” also believes that you can, by fighting such a short battle, go into any kind of trial afterward, sailing along with a “Hallelujah!” where Jesus fought tremendous battles. We can point to many instances where souls who have followed this doctrine have fallen in sin—have done their own will—where they would have been victorious by taking up the battle against it.

“K.S.” says, “It is self-evident that if Jesus had the same sinful flesh that we have, He would be no better than the high priests of the old covenant. Then Jesus would have had to atone for His own sin.”

It is evident that “K.S.” is totally blind to the difference between committing sin and having sin. It was the transgressions themselves—the sins—that were atoned for by the punishment for the transgressions being laid on Him. If Christ had been guilty of punishable transgressions, He would have had to atone for His own sin, or more aptly put, He could not have atoned for His own sin, because our Passover Lamb that was sacrificed had to be without blemish and without spot. Jesus asks, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” However, it is something else that the very root of sin was condemned in His flesh. He consecrated a new and living way through the veil, which is His flesh. Heb. 10:20. John points at Jesus and says, “Behold the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the entire world.” John 1:29. Where did Jesus bear this sin? He bore it in His flesh. And that is where it was judged. Did the high priests in the old covenant bear the sins of the world? No! At that time they had animal sacrifices, whereas Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice. We see that He was much better than the high priests in the old covenant, as the new covenant was worthy of better sacrifices.

When Were the Sins of the World Laid on God’s Lamb?

Romans 1:3-4

Then we have this misleading comparison between Adam before the Fall and Christ, which many people emphasize, because Christ, according to His nature, was supposed to have been like Adam before the Fall!

Adam was created, whereas Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit. Adam was given the task of ruling over the animals of the field, but Christ came with a totally different mission. God sent His Son in order to save mankind by letting condemnation pass over that which corrupted them, namely, sin; and He accomplished this work in His Son. Adam was of the earth; Christ was from heaven, and the One who is from heaven is over all. “K.S.” says, “Where the first Adam fell, the last Adam stood firm, going through everything as a conqueror.” The Bible doesn’t tell us about any more than one trial that Adam had to endure, in which he fell. In other words, Christ was not tempted in all points as Adam was, yet without sin. But Christ was tempted in all points as we are. Neither was Christ made like Adam in all things, but it is written: “Therefore, He had to be made in all things like His brethren . . . .” Heb. 2:17. And of what benefit and comfort would it have been for us if Christ had been tempted only as Adam was tempted? Adam could not be tempted in all points as we are tempted with the nature he had before the Fall, and neither could Christ if He had had Adam’s nature before the Fall, because if Christ had been tested in all things as Adam was tested, that would have been without significance for us.

But suppose that Christ did have Adam’s nature. Does that mean that sin was condemned in a nature like Adam’s before the Fall? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable for sin to be condemned in “Adam” after the Fall? Adam before the Fall was not in need of salvation, but “Adam” after the Fall, was.

In Hebrews 9:28 we read the following: “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, without sin, for salvation.” Sin was condemned in Christ’s flesh when He appeared the first time; therefore judgment and offerings will be unnecessary when He appears the second time.

Salvation in Christ is glorious. See how intimately Christ has become united with mankind, and afterwards how intimately He has become united with those who are willing to be saved. Acts 2:47. The word “likeness” is of wonderful worth in the original language. Just as Christ assimilated or was absorbed to be made one with mankind, being made like it (Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7), so we who believe are being absorbed and made to be one with Him in His resurrection. Rom. 6:5. What a glorious truth this is that brings life and immortality to light.