The recent postings (#5) on the Trinity debate are available - Bowman on the Trinity and Burke on the Trinity. There has also been a recent set of rebuttals by Rob Bowman on round 3 that can be read starting here and here.
In this posting I am going to look at one aspect of the debate focusing on the humanity of Jesus in relation to his sinlessness and ability to be a sacrifice for all mankind. I started thinking through this issue as presented by Burke (representing the Biblical Unitarian view) and wondered how this view dealt with how the mortal man Jesus who was in no way divine could have taken on the sins of all mankind. As I read and thought through this issue I realized that there are many fundamental theological differences besides the Trinity that exist. It would seem that some particulars regarding the consequences of the Fall, the understanding of the atonement, and necessity for a holy and blameless sacrifice for sins before much progress can be made in debating who Jesus is.
I want to start with letting Burke define the Biblical Unitarian Jesus:
In posting #3, the Christology of Unitarians is summarized as follows:
While accepting imputed sin, the Unitarian rejects the notion of a sin nature. The sin nature can best be described as the affect of the Fall on man that damaged his will and gave him a propensity to sin such that we start off as helpless, sinners, and enemies (Rom 5:6,8,10) who by nature are under God’s wrath (Psalm 51:1-5; Ps 58:3; Eph 2:3). It has been said that we "sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin". Our imputed sin and sin nature allows Paul to safely write that "none are righteous" (Rom 3:10) and "all have sinned and fall short" (Rom 3:23).
Burke writes the following in posting #5:
From various comments on forums and Bible Basics it is my understanding that in addition to rejecting the notion of sin nature/total depravity, the Unitarian also rejects the idea of spiritual death as a concept different from physical death. Because in this view there is simply physical death. Man has no soul and is unconscious or annihilated after the body dies. Only those that are in Christ are rewarded with a resurrection and immortality. This limits the wrath and condemnation of God to physical death with no hope of eternal life, eliminating any concept of eternal contempt (Dan 12:2; Matt 25:46). However, I have not seen Burke discuss these views so I am not if he accepts them or would describe them. But this seem to be an attempt to further remove problems with a mortal man paying the penalties of all mankind.
Burke goes on asking:
Bible Basics goes on to say:
Because Jesus did not have imputed sin or a sin nature he could be the substitutionary sacrifice we needed because he did not deserve death, condemnation, and wrath. Because Jesus is human - having the likeness of sinful flesh he could taste death for all, and because He possesses the fullness of divinity He could live a holy life, be righteous, and be the perfect sacrifice that was required to pay the penalty for all mankind's sin.
UPDATE:
On two various discussion boards with Christadelphians I have been corrected in my interpretation of the Bible Basics description of Rom 5:12-20. I took this to be describing imputed sin and meant that the Unitarian position held this doctrine. This seemed like a fair reading both from the description in the book as well as the usage of a passage that evangelicals would interpret as describing imputed sin (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 494). However, the Unitarian position is that Adam's sin and guilt were not imputed to Jesus and there were no other punishments that Jesus deserved by virtue of being human other than physical death. The position holds that Jesus suffered the effects of the Fall as all men do in that he was mortal and would suffer physical death much like we all live in a corrupted creation where growing food is more difficult.
Interestingly enough this misunderstanding on my part demonstrates the main point that I was trying to make in this blog post - that there are a lot of theological presuppositions that each camp brings to the table and there are built in definitions to words (like nature) and passages (like Rom 5) that do not carry over the same meaning in the other person's theological vocabulary.
In this posting I am going to look at one aspect of the debate focusing on the humanity of Jesus in relation to his sinlessness and ability to be a sacrifice for all mankind. I started thinking through this issue as presented by Burke (representing the Biblical Unitarian view) and wondered how this view dealt with how the mortal man Jesus who was in no way divine could have taken on the sins of all mankind. As I read and thought through this issue I realized that there are many fundamental theological differences besides the Trinity that exist. It would seem that some particulars regarding the consequences of the Fall, the understanding of the atonement, and necessity for a holy and blameless sacrifice for sins before much progress can be made in debating who Jesus is.
I want to start with letting Burke define the Biblical Unitarian Jesus:
In posting #3, the Christology of Unitarians is summarized as follows:
The Biblical Unitarian Jesus was genuinely born to the virgin Mary following her miraculous conception by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20) and was therefore the literal Son of God (Luke 1:35). He grew up just like any other human child (Luke 2:52), was tempted like any normal man (Matthew 4:1-11) yet resisted sin (Hebrews 4:15) through the strength of his superior will (Matthew 16:23) and his close association with the Father, upon whom he depends for his existence (John 6:57), just as we do. Despite being capable of sin, he lived a sinless life (1 Peter 2:21-22), died on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:26-27) and was raised to immortality by the Father (Acts 2:22-24, Galatians 1:1). (emphasis added)In posting #5 another summary of the Christology of Unitarians is given:
The Bible describes Jesus’ humanity in a way that leaves no room for deity and totally precludes the “God-man” hypothesis. Born as a mortal man and made like his brethren in every way (Hebrews 2:17), he was subject to the Law of Moses (Galatians 4:4) and capable of sin (Luke 4:1; cf. James 1:13-14). His sinless life was made possible by his superior mental and intellectual qualities (Luke 2:46-47), his close relationship with the Father (John 1:18, 10:30, 38), and the angelic assistance he received whenever necessary (Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43).The belief that Jesus as a man was under the curse of the Fall is stated clearly in a site that describes Christadelphian beliefs:
We know that he struggled with the awful burden of his task (Matthew 26:39-42; Luke 22:42) and suffered when he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15), but completely resisted sin. As a mortal man, he required release from the pains of death (Acts 2:24) and recognised this need through his prayers and supplications to God, who was able to save him from death (Hebrews 5:7). Submitting obediently to his sacrificial death on the cross (Philippians 2:8; Colossians 1:20) he was raised to life by the Father (Galatians 1:1) and now sits at His right hand in an exalted, glorified form (Mark 16:19; Acts 5:31; Philippians 3:21), exercising divine power, authority and judgement while he awaits his Second Advent (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 21:27; John 5:27; Acts 1:11; Ephesians 1:20-22). (emphasis added)
Because he had our nature, Christ had to die. He was a descendant of Adam through Mary, and all of Adam's children have to die (1 Cor. 15:22). All Adam's descendants had to die because of his sin, regardless of their personal righteousness: "Death reigned...through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead...the judgment was (on account of) one (Adam) to condemnation (to death)...by one man's disobedience many were made sinners", and therefore had to die (Rom. 5:14-19 cp. 6:23). (emphasis added)The site goes on to say that:
The Jewish high priest had to make an offering firstly for his own sins, and then for those of the people (Heb. 5:1-3). Christ's sacrifice had this same two-fold structure. Although he did not have any sins personally, Jesus was still of human nature, and needed salvation from death. This salvation was provided by God on account of Christ's own sacrifice; thus Jesus died both to gain his own salvation, and also to make ours possible. (emphasis added)
From these excerpts here is a summary of the Biblical Unitarian view:
- Jesus did not exist prior to the miraculous conception.
- Jesus is a mortal man, who is like us in every way.
- Jesus resisted sin through his superior will and intellect.
- Jesus deserved to die because he was under the penalty of Adam.
- Jesus lived a sinless life, therefore God raised him from the dead and sat him at His right hand.
- Jesus was sinless, therefore his death pays the penalty for all our sins.
While accepting imputed sin, the Unitarian rejects the notion of a sin nature. The sin nature can best be described as the affect of the Fall on man that damaged his will and gave him a propensity to sin such that we start off as helpless, sinners, and enemies (Rom 5:6,8,10) who by nature are under God’s wrath (Psalm 51:1-5; Ps 58:3; Eph 2:3). It has been said that we "sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin". Our imputed sin and sin nature allows Paul to safely write that "none are righteous" (Rom 3:10) and "all have sinned and fall short" (Rom 3:23).
Burke writes the following in posting #5:
A common evangelical objection to the Biblical Unitarian atonement is that Jesus could not have been morally sinless unless he was God, because all humans are considered sinners from the moment of their birth as a result of “original sin” (or “total depravity”, as the Calvinists call it). But Biblical Unitarians do not believe in “original sin” or “total depravity.” We believe that human nature is capable of sin and prone to sin, but humans are not regarded as sinners until they sin. Thus Jesus’ human nature did not preclude the potential for sinlessness.The Unitarian view in rejecting a sin nature altogether does not require condemnation and wrath to fall upon the man Jesus. He was able to escape these penalties because he did not commit personal sin. This would make there view of the affect of the Fall on mankind similar to that expressed by Pelagius who believed that man by nature is capable of choosing to sin or not to sin and that only committing personal sin is punishable by God.
From various comments on forums and Bible Basics it is my understanding that in addition to rejecting the notion of sin nature/total depravity, the Unitarian also rejects the idea of spiritual death as a concept different from physical death. Because in this view there is simply physical death. Man has no soul and is unconscious or annihilated after the body dies. Only those that are in Christ are rewarded with a resurrection and immortality. This limits the wrath and condemnation of God to physical death with no hope of eternal life, eliminating any concept of eternal contempt (Dan 12:2; Matt 25:46). However, I have not seen Burke discuss these views so I am not if he accepts them or would describe them. But this seem to be an attempt to further remove problems with a mortal man paying the penalties of all mankind.
Burke goes on asking:
This presents yet another weakness for Trinitarianism: the question of Jesus’ nature. As an evangelical, Rob surely believes in some form of “original sin”; but how does he view it in relation to Jesus? If Rob’s Jesus does not have original sin, how can he be truly human and “made like his brothers in every way”? If he does have it, how can he be sinless?The Unitarian view as noted above takes exception to the fact that in many ways the Trintarian view of Jesus is not like us in “every way” (Heb 2:17) if he did not have imputed sin or a sin nature. Unitarians skip this problem reject sin nature despite Scripture that teaches that man does have a sin nature from birth (Psalm 51:5) and is under condemnation and wrath (John 3:36; Rom 1:18; Rom 5:9,16; Eph 2:3, 5:6). However I do not agree with the assertion that Adam’s sin was imputed to Jesus or that Jesus had a sin nature. Scripture elsewhere describes Jesus as being sent in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3) and “being made in the likeness of man” (Phil 2:7). These verses coupled with the miraculous conception certainly allows for the conclusion that Jesus was made incarnate and born as a man without imputed sin and a sin nature. Therefore Jesus was not under wrath and condemnation like the rest of us. This state of humanity that Jesus did posses may have been like Adam before the Fall (this is conjecture on my part). Adam would not have had imputed sin or a sin nature at this point, yet had the ability to be tempted and the potential to sin or not to sin. This would make Jesus no less human than Adam would have been before the Fall.
Bible Basics goes on to say:
As a descendant of Adam, Christ was 'made' a 'sinner' and therefore had to die, as all Adam's descendants were classified as sinners worthy of death due to his sin. God did not change this principle, He let it affect Christ too. God "made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21).
Apart from Jesus, all of Adam's descendants deserve this punishment, for we have all sinned personally. Jesus had to die because he was of our nature, sharing in the curse which came upon Adam's descendants. Yet, because he personally had done nothing worthy of death "God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him" (Acts 2:24 N.I.V.). Christ was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). Thus it was due to Christ's perfect character, his "spirit of holiness", that he was gloriously resurrected.The Unitarian view states (or at least seems to) that Jesus deserved to die because of Adam’s guilt (imputed sin) but did not deserve to die because he was sinless (personal sin). How could a mortal man who by superior intellect and a close relationship with God lived a sinless life die for all the rest of mankind’s sin and taste death for us all when he had to pay the penalty he deserved (having Adam’s imputed sin)? Could someone with imputed sin and guilt be holy and perfect even if he was sinless? How could a man separated from God (by virtue of the guilt of Adam) have the relationship that Jesus had with the Father or have the ability to reconcile us to God? Doesn't this require more than any man is capable of? Does it not require a divine nature with inherent holiness, undeserving of death, wrath, and condemnation?
Because Jesus did not have imputed sin or a sin nature he could be the substitutionary sacrifice we needed because he did not deserve death, condemnation, and wrath. Because Jesus is human - having the likeness of sinful flesh he could taste death for all, and because He possesses the fullness of divinity He could live a holy life, be righteous, and be the perfect sacrifice that was required to pay the penalty for all mankind's sin.
UPDATE:
On two various discussion boards with Christadelphians I have been corrected in my interpretation of the Bible Basics description of Rom 5:12-20. I took this to be describing imputed sin and meant that the Unitarian position held this doctrine. This seemed like a fair reading both from the description in the book as well as the usage of a passage that evangelicals would interpret as describing imputed sin (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 494). However, the Unitarian position is that Adam's sin and guilt were not imputed to Jesus and there were no other punishments that Jesus deserved by virtue of being human other than physical death. The position holds that Jesus suffered the effects of the Fall as all men do in that he was mortal and would suffer physical death much like we all live in a corrupted creation where growing food is more difficult.
Interestingly enough this misunderstanding on my part demonstrates the main point that I was trying to make in this blog post - that there are a lot of theological presuppositions that each camp brings to the table and there are built in definitions to words (like nature) and passages (like Rom 5) that do not carry over the same meaning in the other person's theological vocabulary.
