Sunday, November 30, 2008
What are we anyway
As I started to look at the sin nature I noticed that the subject was intricately linked to how we are made. Things like flesh and spirit seem to come up often when discussing the sin nature. So before we can tackle that I suppose it would be good to cover how we were created so that we are on the same page there before we go on. In Genesis God made a physical body and then breathed into it the breath of life and it became a living soul. It seems fairly simple at this point. Body plus breath equals living soul. Later on however different concepts start to come into play. We notice that man has a spirit, and then when we are saved we have the spirit of God as well. Spirit as a word is also linked to the word breath. Which may mean that the breath of life is the spirit, but then how did we ever get our own? wouldn't everyone's spirit be Gods since we cant really breath the breath of life into ourselves. Then we hear about the heart being wicket and deceitful but the hebrew attributes the heart as being more like what we would call the gut. The scripture also says "the thoughts of the heart" which seems to imply that the heart as a thinking capacity. So is our heart more like our mind? If that is the case where does our mind stop and our spirit start because I rarely find a conflict between what my mind thinks and the what I ought to do, it is usually going against my better judgment that leads me to sin. Just some thoughts, to throw out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The issue of the spirit, soul, and body is something I do not fully grasp yet (maybe some day). I do think as you said that it is intricately linked.
ReplyDeleteThere are many questions here. Since the root is the sin nature and that the subject (not necessarily the nature) are linked to how we are made. Then we need to look at man before and after the fall.
Man was and is a body firstly (Gen 2:7). Into that body God breathed 'lives,' I understand the 'life' to be plural...maybe one for Adam and one for Eve? Then the Man (body) with the spirit BECAME a living-soul. We know each one of the elements had an origin somewhere. I'd say the short answer is that Hebrews says that Levi was in Abraham when he tithed to Melchisedec and therefore Melchisedec's priesthood was superior. Logically then, just as Levi was in Abraham, I am in Adam. Whose son was Adam? God's so where was Adam? In God just Levi was in Abraham, and so to, I was in God. The long answer is...
In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth which would later be formed into a man (with literally a feminine side =), but where did all the 'stuff' come from?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
What if we take this out of the context of the gospel and into the larger context of the whole Word of God (after all he is the Word). Where did life come from? In God. All life was in God. Where else could it have come from? Whether the life of the Body, Soul, or Spirit, there is no where else that it could come from.
On a side tangent of interest, he said this life was the 'light of men.' Plural men, but in a moment he speaks of a man singular. I say this because when Yeshua was glorified he shone, when Moses was near God talking face to face he shone, John the baptist who was obedient was called burning, shining light, we are called the Light of the World. I heard once at a bible camp that this guy didn't believe Adam and Eve were really naked, but were clothed in light, I disregarded this as being a man trying to protect children from thinking about naked people. I still think that's true, but I heard it again recently and I don't except that they weren't really naked, but based on Moses and many other hints...maybe when they broke fellowship with God by violating his will their light really did go out and that was the nakedness of which they were ashamed.
Anyways, we know God created all things, so the body came from God. We know all life was in God, and so a straight forward reading "God breathed in his nostrils (plural) the breath of lives (plural)" suggests that the natural spirit that we have inside of us (without the Holy Spirit) is the breath of God. Which I can't help thinking means in our natural unfallen state, we would be scripture...God-breathed...which then makes sense that Yeshua is the Word because he never broke fellowship so his spirit never died and he was always breathing-God.
The Spirit (from God) infused Man (created out of God in the sense that it didn't come from anywhere else...he didn't have dirt lying around it came out of his mind and will) becomes a soul...the soul is something different from the spirit (Heb 4:12), but it is a product of infusion of the spirit and it is the element we call life (Gen 12:13) even though the byproduct of life (for lack of a better term) is because of the spirit.
Without getting dealing with the issue of the mind and heart yet, we can at least agree that it is 'garden of our person.' It seems confusing because we are taught to associate nefesh with spirit though here it is used for soul, and then of course there's ruach...it's very confusing to me, but we know there are at least these three parts though their function may be not clearly deliniated. And from Paul (1 Cor 15:45) we find that whatever the understanding in Genesis, it is the Soul that is meant. Why do I say the soul is the garden of the person? It is the dwelling of a our sorrow (Mark 14:34). It's who we speak to when we speak to ourselves, it has ease and merry (Luke 12:19). In short soul is self.
Spirit, Self, and Body that's us. I think heart and mind/intellect all would fall under self as sub catagories. But roughly, I think we could agree on this so far? I'm not one hundred precent on it, and I'm not even completely convinced that we are only three parts, but I think all that we are falls under those three, as God is concerned with saving those catagories.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He wants to sanctifies and preserve us wholly. So in which of these three parts does the 'sin nature' reside? Well if we're still dealing with Adam before the fall, then it can't be in any. Sin nature is not natural, it's synthetic. Can we prove this?
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Sin was outside of the universe, in other words it didn't exist (where else could it be?). That has to include man who was made of the Earth and infused with life from God.
Also we know that Yeshua is the second Adam and he didn't have sin or know sin. So it can't be part of original creation. Yet we know his body hungered, slept, bruised and bled just as ours and yet without sin.
So sin is something new...a downgrade from the original image. We can see that is true because Adam and Eve were both in the image of God when created, but Adam's sons (after the fall) were in the image of Adam (a fallen man, not God).
What happened at the fall? Man died. I think the Young's Literal Translation renders best:
"...of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die."
I heard it rendered once that "in that day it will be certain you will die." But if that is true than it implies that death might occur anyways, yet we know sin and death came by Adam. Someone might argue that the might comes from that they 'might eat later,' but if that is the understanding than not say 'if you eat you will die.' Much simpler and less confusing. Regardless the KJV, ASV, and JPS in addition to the YLT all render it as a certainty of the day not a day of certainty.
What is death anyways? If you have a dead man, is the nan not there? His spirit and soul may be gone but man is firstly a body, that's why God talks about 'dead men.' If you have a power cable and there's no power in it, you say it's dead, but the cable is still there. If you have a dead work, the work is still there even though it is dead.
I would say in a word, death is not destruction, but uselessness. A dead man is no good. A dead battery won't start your car. A dead faith won't help anyone.
So when did Adam die? I think he really died on that day, it just took a long time for him to decompose to the point of him not moving. Sure he was 'alive' but I'd say he was a dead-alive. Why does God say he breathed in "lives and man becaming a living soul?" Isn't it kind of redundant to say 'living soul.' When we know that life is in the blood of living creatures? It's almost like saying man had 'abundant life.' While animals only got life. Isn't that what Yeshua said he came to restore? John 10:10...
Everything died because of sin. Man's spirit died (but was still there) being cut off from God. Man's soul died because his self was cut off from communion with God through his useless/dead spirit. Man's body died though still breathing and walking because it had no connection with the source of life nor had it a living soul (abundantly alive soul).
Isn't it like the inverse of the new creation? I was still Jesse from one minute to the next, but I became a new creature. The Man in the image of God and in communion with God, living abundantly died the moment he ate of the tree...becoming instead an animated corpse. Even physically we know this is true because from the moment of conception our bodies are decaying. Does a ressurrection body corrupt? No or we wouldn't have anything to look forward too. So the body made new is really the death of the old. Adam's body was corrupting from the moment he ate, yet Yeshua's body even in be buried did not see corruption (Act 13:37).
I think I just came to realize something...if there was no 'sin nature' when Adam brought sin into the world, then it was completely the creation of free will. This gives a whole new meaning to me of Titus 3:5
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Saved here is past tense, there is also a future (body) and a present salvation (soul) that scripture speaks of...so then the salvation that is spoken of here must be the spirit. If it were the body than why does it die? If it was the soul, then why do we sin? It must be the spirit.
But what does this mean? We are 'bathed in rebirth' and the renovation or re-NEWing of the Holy Spirit. If we are born again, what kind of child are we? 1 Cor 15 talks about the second Adam being a quickening or 'life giving' spirit (blast/current). Adam as we bare the image of the earthly Adam (we bare his image because we were sinners after his image), so then we bare the image of Yeshua as well who is what? A life-giving spirit.
The regeneration, the first or common salvation must be a returning of our spirit to life! Death began with the spirit, life must also.
But this raises a question to me. If my spirit is now live (or lives), and I am now no longer in the image of the fallen Adam, but now in the image of the second Adam. Then where can my sin come from? I am essentially Adam myself. Like him, as a new creation, I have no sin nature..or rather my sin nature is dead. So where did Adam's sin come from? The creation of his own will. Likewise, when I sin it must be a choice and not the overriding power of any nature.
It has to be me that is choosing to try and bring sin back into the world. But then are we stuck in an endless cycle of repeating Adam's sin? I don't think so because when Adam broke fellowship he died, but when I sin my spirit remains alive because of Yeshua's work and continues to renovate me. But without a sin nature, like Adam, I still must submit my self (soul) to God. Just as the second Adam with a life-giving spirit submitted himself when like us from the outside he was tempted, but did not sin.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteGood questions. They have been debating several of these topics sense Plato. We could take the discussion into several areas of interest.
Jesse,
Great response!
This issue is far more serious in nature than one might originally think. Many people equate the spirit with the soul. They believe they are one in the same. As a result, they make man a dichotomous, a theory of evolution. Darwin was not the inventor of evolution, he was simply recognized. Plato and his band of merry men, Socrates and those that followed were the original founders. This, the theory of evolution, was after they witnessed a frog coming out from amidst the mud. Imagine that! Interestingly enough Plato is also responsible for what has come to be known as “dichotomy.” He believed the body was from the material world, and that the soul was from the world of ideas, and therefore immortal. The soul was only temporarily united with the body and upon death would reunite with what they called the world of forms. They also believed that the soul was not subject to time or space and therefore had access to universal truths contained in the world of forms. So close, but yet so far! Ironically, they were right! A man devoid of the spirit can only recognize the soul and the body.
It is difficult to comment in totality on this subject. It may take a couple of days, but I find it extremely intriguing. Jesse’s point about the “need to look at man before and after the fall” is very important. Man in his original state of creation was a trichotomous being, according to Scripture, and supported very well by Jesse.
Thoughts for your consideration (in support) are stated below. Where was Jesus’ body at the time of His death? Where was His soul? And then finally, where was His Spirit? Ecclesiastes may give some insight. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7).
It might also be considered that if Jesus were tempted in all points like as we, this would also have to include body, soul, and spirit. A reading of Matthew 4 might serve well. In verses 1-4 it appears as though His body was tempted to produce bread to satisfy His bodily hunger. In verse 5-7 His soul was tempted to make a great display of His power and authority. In verse 8-10 He was tempted in the spirit to worship Satan rather than God.
We are God-conscious in our spirit; we are self-conscious in our soul, and we are sense-conscious in our body. Who is the natural man? He is one dominated by his soul. It is his own will that determines. A man in such a state, dominated by his soul, is not in a position to spiritually discern. You must be born from above. And even in the case where one is, as Jesse aptly pointed out, he must submit his own will to the will of God in order to walk faithfully.
A spiritual man can then be seen in one who is controlled by the Spirit. He, a man working in cooperation with the Spirit, controls his will. His will does not control him. Truth does not come through the soul (or the body). This would be to equate it with the wisdom of man. Wisdom from God is received in and by the Spirit. It should be noted that the soul represents the intellectual and emotional elements of man. The spirit represents the divine life which links us directly to God and enables us to know of Him.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to make a quick comment about the heart. I agree with Chris that an accurate understanding of the term is essential to correct comprehension of ideas. This would be true of all words used in Scripture. I would also suggest that the writers of Scripture, while not always obvious to us, are consistent in their use of terms and their meaning.
A helpful key to interpretation that I have employed is not original with me, but very useful. It is called the principle of first occurrence. Quite often it will reveal in what sense a writer is using a particular word.
I find it interesting that while in engaged on the makeup of man, whether he be a dichotomy or a trichotomy, that if we look at the first 3 times the word “heart” is used we may have a solution to our question. They are found in Genesis (6:5-6; 8:21).
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This passage clearly reflects the point that you (Chris) made in your opening. The heart apparently includes all that we would mean by thought, in other words our intellect.
“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen. 6:6). Does God have a heart? I’ll skip this question and move on to my point. It is clear from this passage that “grief” or emotions are covered by this word.
Here’s the kicker! “And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; though the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done” (Gen. 8:21). This verse seems to suggest that it is in the “heart” that the “will” is worked. The will, of course, is the deciding impulses that control our action.
It could be deduced therefore that the heart, man’s interior life, constitutes thought, feelings, and will. A pattern of execution is established in the process. As a man thinks upon a matter it creates emotions or feelings. The combination of the two, the two become one, determines one’s mind and what he will do.
Every action that we take can be seen to arise from this process. Right conduct or wrong conduct is, as Jesse pointed out in his response, an issue of the will, but more importantly all three (intellect, emotions, and will). Words and deeds are therefore the overflow of the heart.
I think we can agree then that Man seems to be Body, Spirit and Soul, and that the other parts would most likely fall under those categories. I would also seem right to me that as we are made in the image of God that we would also be a trinity of sorts. So perhaps we could go from there.
ReplyDeleteOne point of disagreement I have is the idea that sin did not exist yet. I am fairly certain that God conceived of sin when he conceived of free will. Also Satan committed a rebellion before this point and I would also consider that a sin as well. I noticed that God seemed to plan for it because he placed the tree that they were not allowed to eat from in the middle of the garden where Adam and Eve would have walked by it daily. Had God not wanted them to touch it he could have placed it out of sight and out of mind. But this placement of the tree seemed to give them some form of training in the way of restraint. Also God made the Seventh day the Sabbath and although I can't be certain I imagine that since it was sanctified(set apart) that they did something different on that day as well. Kind of like the law of one man and one woman being implied by Adam and Eve in the new testament.
So then where I become confused is If we will always have a body will we always have temptation? You may recall that Eve listed the fruit being pleasing in sight in Gen 3:5 If this is the case then senses and free will will always lead to temptation. Is this the flesh that the New testament speaks of? Perhaps we can't ever overcome temptation, but just sin.
The reason I have brought up this subject is because I have been wondering how I can learn to overcome sin in my own life. I seems like my Soul(?) is constantly craving what it should not have. Then my own feeble attempts to beat it is kind of futile. I can go without food for so long but eventually I will need to eat before I die. Sin feels that way to me in a lot of ways. Do we constantly deny ourselves or accept that this is the way we are made and just pray for mercy?
I just had a realization also. What if when we are united with God all of needs of the body will be met by him thus we will not be tempted by substitutes. But this begs the question of why weren't Adam and Eve satisfied?
Chris,
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I would ask is that we define sin. You said that you believed it was already in existence, to which I would agree, but I am not certain of the context. The second statement you made was “when he conceived of free will.” You may have very well answered your own question.
What is sin? We could get technical (sinology) or even use clichés (missing the mark), but I want to make it simple. It is to not seek. Free will gives you the opportunity to choose whom you will follow. I think too often we picture sin as doing something wrong, which it is, but in and of itself, in other words without right, it would be nothing. The question is not, “Why did they sin”, but rather “Why did they not do right?”
The idea of a sin nature, commonly held, sounds good, but what does it mean? Would not darkness exist where there was no light? You may suggest, as I have quite often heard, that Adam was filled with the light. How then do you explain his sin? This is the typical follow up question. In order to solve this problem scholars create what we call the sin nature. Man is born with the propensity to sin. They say that all things natural, he will eventually do, because this is how he was made. My point is not to establish or dismiss the proposal, but I do want to ask a very simple question.
Why does someone not do what is right? If you say that you can’t help it, I might at first agree. I would have to ask (this is not directed toward you, but the infamous “straw man”), “Are you born again?”
The knee jerk response is, “Are you saying I’m not?” By no means, would I imply. I ask because I must have needs to know. I couldn’t expect someone to not sin without the power to avoid. So, if one is not, I can understand why. However, if one is “born again,” I must ask another question. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit (God Himself) provides you power to overcome? Now, if you answer no, we have some work left to do, but if you answer yes, then we can move forward.
If God gives you the power to overcome, how come you don’t? It must be confessed it is because you give in. Automatically, one might assume then that it must be an issue of will power. How did sin enter the picture? I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were born in sin, nor did they possess a sin nature. There would have been no need for the serpent if this be the case. Sin enters through the senses. It penetrates to the very heart of man, if you allow. And it will, especially if you are deceived.
Why don’t we do what is right? Logically there can only be one of two reasons. It is either because we don’t know, or because we don’t, this pill is difficult to swallow, WANT. One might say, but I do. I want to do what is right! I ask then, “Why you don’t?” What is the answer? I don’t know. You see it is not that difficult. This, by the way, would confirm your statement about the purpose of the tree. “Training in the way of restraint,” is an operative and key to understanding temptation. You are indeed being trained for something special. I’d like to comment further, but for now I must go.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the long answers, but Jesse will tell you “lack of words” is not my short suit. I say this to my own shame at times. Anyway, I want to pick up a little further along in your statement. “We will always have a body, will we always have temptation?” The answer is absolutely, positively, yes. However, it is not “free will,” but “senses” that will indulge. Unless you mean that your “free will” is constantly infringed, and bombarded by those outside of your own senses.
The flesh, to which Paul speaks, I believe can be summed up, depending on context, to include your intellect, your emotions, and your will, as expressed in your body. Thus, we can overcome temptation by disrupting its intent. Victory achieved we rise up, entrance allowed we fall down. It should be noted however even entrance does not guarantee the display of sin. We can take the “thought captive” as Paul tells us.
Learning to overcome sin is a question of submission. Submission begins with a trait you have already revealed to be present within you, willingness. I want to make a point about a fact that must be recognized. Not all Christians are “overcomers” or else there would be no sin. The reason is simple enough. Not everyone understands the need to engage in the conflict that arises. They have no fight in them. Yet, it must be understood that it is a process of maturity in the faith. A willingness to trust God at every moment, and to resist the devil, sounds simple, but it is true. God certainly understands the battle that rages and as an incentive promises great reward for victory.
I just had a conversation with Jesse the other day about this very topic (not in the same context). Sometimes I think we miss out on the roses, because we are searching for a golden crown. What do I mean? Do you think Abraham ever sinned? How about the other saints? How do you think they felt when they did? I can’t imagine that it would be good. What was the difference in them that I (before I understood) had not realized?
I could give you a theological explanation. I have one and it is good, but very difficult to explain on paper. It is much easier to draw on a board (ask Jesse about that one). I would rather give a practical, personal example. I have been married for 21+ years. There was a time, in the not so distant pass, when we would get in arguments. You say, but everyone does. These were not your typical arguments. They lasted for days. It became a pattern that drove me insane. How did we work it out? It wasn’t by saying that we would never argue again. If you’re married, or know someone who is, you know that this is impossible. Instead, what we decided to do was attempt to make progress. The arguments still come, but the distance between them continues to expand. The reason is because now when we see it coming, we stop and say, not this again. The peace we enjoy with each other is priceless. The cost of arguing is too much. And by the way, we all need to pray for mercy!!
If you still need to know why Adam and Eve weren’t satisfied, I have a great dialogue going on in one my blog articles. I can email it over to you. It is only about 4 or 5 pages, but it is rich with insight. God Bless you for your honesty.
chris wrote: "If we will always have a body will we always have temptation? ... Perhaps we can't ever overcome temptation, but just sin."
ReplyDeleteI think that in this flesh, that is right. In this physical life, we will always be tempted, but we are to resist the temptation and not sin. But in the resurrection to immortality, we will not even be tempted. We will be like God and will no longer have human nature with its carnal pulls and temptations (1 John 3:2, James 1:13).
The Word, like God the Father, could not be tempted before He was born as Jesus Christ. Then the Word, who was God, became a man. He gave voluntarily gave up His divine power that He had with God before. While He was in the flesh, he was subject to the temptations of Satan and the pulls of the flesh. He could have sinned, but He didn't. But when He was resurrected, He became fully God again with all the divine power and attributes and glory He had with God before, and now cannot be tempted. Likewise for us. As men, we are tempted and can sin. But those who are in the first resurrection will be as Christ was after His resurrection, like God, not able to be tempted or to sin.
Jesus Christ was the forerunner who went before us. His resurrection to immortality was an exact pattern and model of our own resurrection, those who attain to that first resurrection. And we will be like Christ is now.
But in this life we have to struggle, and it is a battle. Paul describes his own battle in Romans 7:7-25. This passage doesn't seem to give all the answers as to how to overcome sin, but at least we have the encouragement that Paul went through the same struggles and frustrations that some of us go through. And in the end of the passage he seems to be saying that he is putting his trust in God that God will help him make it in the end.