The Penitent Christ
Posted by 
Nathanael Szobody on
Nathanael Szobody on Continued from I peter
There is no aspect of the Gospel which is not in Christ. He is the mystery of God for all time in this world. He is the second Adam who accomplished everything that the first Adam did not, and he accomplished it for us so that we might become the righteousness of God.
What is that ‘becoming’ but repentance of sin and a union with the life of God? And this is possible not because we met God’s salvation with our repentance
Comments ( 50 )
The cross and the resurrection is a pretty stark paradigm change.
"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed."
Surely there is no need for our Lord to feel sorrow for sin, and yet his love is expressed in that he did anyway for our sake. In this I would say he was penitent; he lived a life and died a death sorrowful of sin--our sin--on our behalf.
In the same way, God does not need to turn from sin, indeed he cannot change his mind. But he chose to become one of us so as a man he could always be turning away from sin for us. The issue isn't what Jesus needs, but what he chose to do for us.
To change one's mind, as I have stated above, is only part of true spiritual repentance. Repentance must have begun before the rational changing of one's mind because the Spirit must change the heart in order for the mind to even conceive of changing. That change of heart by the spirit is also repentance, for 'circumcise your hearts' is a call to repentance.
A question for you: What does God provide that does not exist already in Christ (apart from the topic of this discussion)?
2) Could you please clarify your question?
To clarify the question: My understanding of humanity falls into two categories; first Adam and second Adam. The first Adam provides the life of sin--or death, rather--the second provides every aspect of the life of the spirit. My understanding is that all that God provides he does so through the 'vicarious' act of Christ. Is there an example of any action in our spiritual life (besides repentance) that would show this to be an incorrect understanding; that God provides through means other than uniting us with what Christ has already done?
God provided the law; we are the recipients.
God provides salvation; we are the recipients.
God provides a coming and present kingdom; we are the recipients.
These blessings are to humanity, and Christ provided the redemption, reconciliation, and restitution; yet Christ was not created, Christ needed not the law, Christ needed not salvation, Christ needs no kingdom. Rather, Christ is the King, Christ is salvation, Christ fufilled the law, and Christ is the Creator.
In all these mammoth provisions, God is the absolute self-sufficient source in whom all things consist and subsist; He, as the faithful Creator, therefore sets the way back to Himself, in an example like no other, Christ. And it is in that example that we see perfection at its finest. And because of this perfection that certain applications and definitions for fallen man do not apply (i.e. repentance).
This is my point; what God provides is what he already is; that should include repentance. However, you make the point that since Christ has no sin of his own to turn from or concerning which to change his mind he cannot do what fits the definition of repentance--and it would be irresponsible for us to mess with the definition of repentance when scripture itself does not do so.
Here's my dilemna: In Christ is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; he is the fullest explanation of all truth. So there comes a point when we observe an 'explanation' of God's character in the acts of Christ that are not containable in any given human term, so we must use its closest approximation.
We observe that Christ throughout his entire life was confronted with the possibility of sin in temptation, being tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin. It is this possibility that, as man, he was always refusing, and doing so actively, so the term 'turning' is not innapropriate. He was always turning away from the possiblity presented toward the light of his father. He did so ultimately on the cross when he became sin for us, experienced it to the utmost as his father forsook him, and conquered it, going from death to life. In this is the power for our repentance which he provides. But if we cannot refer to this 'movement' of Christ in always turning, not from the life of sin, but from the possibity of sin, as repentance, than what can we call it?
What can we call this steadfastness, always doing the will of Him who sent Him? I do believe that Hebrews 7.26 gives a good notion: For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Some have used the word "impeccable". And I would say that because of His holiness with the work of God's Spirit that one is brought to repentance for changeless He remains. And our relationship to Him is formed and completed by His very nature. He is the unmoved mover.
The other side of the paradox is the observed phenomenon of God's eternal character when it encounters sin and the sinful world. Because humans do change there is observed an apparent change in God as his unchangeable character responds to humanity. Thus he was 'sorry' he made man and destroyed the sin through the flood, thus 'starting over,' and 'sorry' that he had made Saul king, removed his spirit from him and placed in on David, as if 'changing' his plan.
So also I would uphold an observed 'turning' of Christ in response to finding himself in a sinful world with the possibility of sin.
The paradigm is 'death to sin and resurrection.' This is an aparent 'change' or 'turning' in which repentance finds it's context. It is this movment that is common both in Christ and in the believer when he repents.
-nszobody
In light of your statement, could you answer the following:
James 1:13 ...for God cannot be tempted with evil...
John 14:30 ...for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
1 John 1:5 5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1 Peter 2.22 Who did no sin, neither was guile (deception or trickery) found in his mouth:
Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy (of the inherent nature of God and Christ), harmless (of one who does no evil, upright, without fault), undefiled(pure, spotless), separate (be different from) from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
If Christ cannot be tempted with sin, had no sin nature, is light having no darkness at all, without deception treachery or trickery, having the inherent nature of holiness, having the inherent nature of uprightness, manifesting that divine purity and spotlessness, and in these charateristics differentiating Himself from sinners and now is exalted higher than the heavens, how could Christ ever have the possiblity of sinning?
Can you explain these verses in a straight-foward hermeneutical exposition showing that paradox you propose?
Mark 1:13 "And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan."
Luke 4:2 "[Jesus]was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil."
Hebrews 2:18 "For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. "
Hebrews 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."
Suffice it to say: Jesus was tempted. Not only was he tempted, but tempted "in every way as we are" and not only that, but even "suffered when tempted." If the possibility of sin were not present, then he accomplished nothing by his incarnation; he was a 'robot god' who does what he does because he has no other choice, or at very least, could never sympathize with what we go through in temptation. There is always possibility, not that Christ himself should possibly sin, but that the possibility of sin was presented to him for him to turn from.
This does not mean that there was anything of sin in him; there was not. The prince of this world has nothing in him, he is completely pure, for he is God, just as you describe God in his perfection.
The passage in James states that God cannot be tempted with evil. This context is speaking of the God-head as a whole, as we relate to him as our Father. This is not speaking to the mystery of the incarnation.
This is the paradox: Perfect God became incarnate man; he is perfect and sinless by nature of being God. He was also tempted and suffered in that temptation and had all the possibilities presented before him that are presented to one who is fully man. That is the mystery of the incarnation, or paradox, as I refer to it. Who could claim to explain such a thing in rational categories? I will agree with every positive statement of yours concerning Christ's perfection and righteousness and purity. However the negative statement that Christ, therefore 'cannot,' be tempted is a denial of his nature as fully man. Both sides of the mystery of the incarnation must be upheld.
Furthermore, the suffering that He endured was the fact that sin was so ugly and awful because the end thereof is death. Sin is an affront to His holiness.
Secondly, There is a large difference between sympathy and empathy. Christ sympathizes with those who want to do right. There is no validity of sympathy for those who want to do wrong for they want no right relationship with God. We have a Saviour who is sympathetic with our weaknesses to do right, but not empathetic. This sympathy is for our "weaknesses", and not our sin nor our sin nature. Why are you trying to introduce the possiblity that Christ could have fallen?
I am not; I stated: "There is always possibility, not that Christ himself should possibly sin, but that the possibility of sin was presented to him for him to turn from." The possibility is not within him but 'presented to him,' thus, temptation.
As for 'choice,' this remains strickly personal, and does not account for the fact that sin has and does occur and it is this wider problem that Christ's choice dealt with. So I use 'possibility' to account for the wider implications of the choice presented.
If you are uncomfortable with such wild and fast use of terms, I would assure you that I would not use them thus in a teaching position, say bible study. But the blog is my ideas laboratory; I use words as tools for developing ideas and widening perspective. All philosophers do this to some extent because human language falls short of ever being exhaustive in the communication of ideas. How much more so in a personal struggle to understand a relationship eternal in nature?
This unification with the work of Christ is the theology of imputation. We are made one with his death and resurrection so that his righteousness is imputed to us. So when we are told in Romans 6 that it is in baptism that we are buried with christ (also, Colossians 2) this supports the notion that baptism is concurrent with the experience of conversion. However, in an adult the work of the spirit will usually first be seen in its transformation of the mind, and so baptism will necessarily follow that demonstration. In an infant the transformation of the mind is only seen developmentally as it is trained in the word of the gospel first proclaimed to him in baptism.
Therefore, if a person leaves the faith and returns, this does not nullify God's act, only, for a time, the person did not receive any benefit from it. He need not be rebaptized but rather to return to the faith of baptism in Christ; which itself exists in Christ in eternity. God need not repeat himself for the unfaithfulness of man.
There are parallels with Israel. A wayward Israel was called back to the covenant made at Sinai; the call was to return to faith in God's word which had been given in a particular time and place. One cannot be recircumsized; so it is with baptism.
1) How then can we explain the fact that the Father puts His seal, the Holy Spirit, upon each believer from now till the pearly gates (TILL THE DAY OF REDEMPTION(in heaven))?
2) And since God places his seal (the Holy Spirit) upon us who believe, how is someone able to break the seal of the King, the seal of God, the Spirit of promise?
3) Why is there in this verse also a sequential order noted by the syntactical construction?
Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
1; "How can we explain?" Well, he is faithful, and all of his purposes are brought to fruition; that includes salvation.
2;My understanding of the eternal security of the believer is that it always remains contingent on remaining 'in Christ.' The seal is indeed of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. The Father's seal is given based on the fact that a believer is 'in Christ.' If a believer follows his own passions he is not 'losing his salvation'(as if it were some gift wrapped package to be misplaced) as much as he is abandoning the realm of salvation in Christ in which all of God's promises, even those to the individual, remain true for all eternity, fulfilled in the person of Christ himself and in those who persevere in him. Ambiguous? Perhaps, but that is as far as my understanding has taken me.
3; In this verse there is a very clear sequence because it is the sequence in which salvation was brought about among the Ephesians--who incidentally were all first generation Christians. He is speaking to their experience, and to the experience of all who have come to faith as an adult.
There is only one clear statement of sequence: they were sealed after they heard and believed (I'm not sure where you got "In whom ye also trusted;" I don't see it in the Greek.) This need not bring a problem for the infant, for the word is proclaimed in baptism, and God gives faith to believe to whom he wills, irrespective of human capacity. I would assume this also applies to the intellect. The demonstration of active faith will always be commensurable to one's development.
2) Can you speak on God's "seal" upon us and who has the right to break the "seal"? My understanding of this language is that only God can break the seal after we are in heaven. What say you?
3) One the one hand you say that faith/trust/belief is a gift from God and on the other we can accept and later reject. But in baptism, this is the act of the acceptance of that faith, is it not? How do we lose our baptism? But if our baptism is not lost, then how do we lose our salvation since in baptism we are in Christ?
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For in one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...
3; No, one cannot lose one's baptism. If one strays from the faith and returns, he did not lose his baptism, rather, he did not benefit from it. Romans 9:4 says concerning Israel: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises." Yet in Chapter 11 he speaks of some being "cut off." Though the covenants, etc. belonged to them, they did not benefit from and did not pursue them by faith (also in chapter 11). I would draw a parallel. One does not lose one's baptism, but if one abandons the faith, or depends on the ritual itself rather than faith for salvation, they do not benefit from it. True, being baptized into Christ is part of being or becoming part of the body of Christ, but it depends on faith. The faith can be lost without losing one's baptism--but then does it really mean anything? Not without faith.
Now, whether we can conclude that one who abandons the faith at the earliest age and never returns was ever saved or 'elect' is a matter for a discussion on election, eternal security, and the nature of the new covenant.
At some point to discuss baptism without faith and repentance is to step outside of any context in which it is taught in scripture; so I hesitate.
On the same token I would hesitate to say with certainty that baptism is not baptism when it is performed as prescribed in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Because then we would be forming our definition of God's gift based on subjective human condition. Whether he uses the oral proclamation of the word to produce faith, followed by it's proclamation in baptism, or the proclamation in baptism followed by the growth of maturity through the oral word, either way, one is saved by faith in the word according to God's choosing.
A "prerequisite to baptism?" The only prerequisite to a gift of God is his sovereign will. We certainly see a pattern in Acts in which all converts were first generation, but when baptism is taught on in the epistles there is given no prerequisite.
In the three passages where the apostles take any amount of time to teach on baptism, (Romans 6, Colossians 2, and I Peter 3) only in Colossians is faith even mentioned, and it is not presented in any distinguishable order. Only it says that you were buried with Christ in baptism in which you were raised through faith in God's powerful working.
---------------------------
My point in being a little preachy was to say that faith personally and the corpus of faith was what the NT spends most of its time speaking on--"faith is first" not only in order but preemminently.
---------------------------
I do contest against the notion that only Col. metions faith because Rom ch 1-5 speak much of faith before teaching baptism just as Colossians 1 speaks on faith before baptism in Colossians 2 just as I Pet. ch 1 speaks on faith before baptism in chapter 3. The structure, pattern and thought flow of each book reguarding where baptism is placed manifests a considerable significance. That significance is apologetic order, functional order, and theological order. Wouldn't you agree?
"Why take what may be otherwise and make it a standard practice rather than the majority of instances and make that the standard practice?"
Firstly, who are we to say whether an infant has faith before or after baptism? It is given by God to whomever he wills. In Psalm 22:9-10 David strongly implies that he did have faith as an infant.
The reason we baptize infants is because of our theology of the family, explained in detail in The Covenant of the Family.
The apostles had no need to reiterate a theology of the family as it pertains to the salvation of children or explicitely apply the doctrine of baptism. God's manner of dealing with the family as a created entity had already been established. The sovereignly created order of the family and its spirituality remains constant.
Though Peter explains anyway in Acts 2 when he preaches that those who are repentant should be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, and that this promise is for their children as well, and for all peoples.
He is reaffirming the Old Testament theology of the family, beginning with Abraham. God's promise was to Abraham, and it was for his children, and all nations. That had immediate ramifications for his children, namely, that they were brought into the faith of their parents and administered the gifts and signs that accompanied it. With Peter's reaffirmation of this modus operandi (et credandi!) there really leaves little question in my mind as to whether baptism and all the benefits of being included in the body of Christ should be extended to the children of faithful parents.
------------------------------------------------------
But as for our discussion for repentance, consider the fact that our Lord says He changes not and at the same time it says He changes His actions. Now if He changes not but His actions change this is not an inconsistency. In the law we find blessings and cursings. Blessings in obedience and cursings in disobedience. So if we are in accord with God's plan we receive blessing and if not we receive cursing. An analogy might the physical constant of gravity. We either can understand gravity and its design and use it to our benefit, or do things counter productive to gravity and suffer our foolish thinking. In a similar fashion, is how I see man interacting with God. His character remains the same; but, it is our obedience or disobedience that determines whether we enjoy His blessings or suffer His cursings.