What does it mean that the Son was “in the likeness of sinful flesh”?

Explanation:

We know from other passages that biblical authors are careful to point out that while the Son assumed the flesh and blood of humanity, he did not sin. For instance, Paul himself writes in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God made him to be sin who knew no sin.³ In other words, Jesus never sinned. Likewise the author of Hebrews writes that the Son was made like his brethren in every way yet without sin (Hebrews 2:17). Likely, Paul has the same idea in mind in Romans 8:3. That is, likely Paul wants to affirm that the Son entered humanity fully, but he does not want to imply that Jesus ever sinned. So he balances this line by writing that the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh.⁴

Counterargument:

2 Corinthians 5:21 and Hebrews 2:17 are not relevant to Paul’s concerns. Rather, Paul is focused on the epochs of human history. This generates its own contextual challenges unrelated to Jesus’ sinlessness.⁵ Paul set up Romans 8:1–39 with Romans 5:1–21, where he discusses the epoch of Adam. The epoch of Adam is associated with the flesh, death, and sin. Paul then explains that God sent the Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. His point is that the Son entered the epoch of Adam in his entirety, which implies that Jesus was subject to all of the same challenges and temptations of being human. We know from elsewhere, and in particular 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Hebrews 2:17, that Jesus was without sin, but the context suggests that this is not Paul’s concern here. Rather, the point is that the Son entered humanity’s fleshly state in full.

Response to counterargument:

There is an obvious problem with this counterargument. If all Paul wanted to say in rom Romans 8:3 is that the Son entered humanity in full without suggesting anything about Jesus’ sinless state, there is no reason for Paul to include the prepositional phrase in the likeness.⁶ That is, if Paul wanted to say the Son entered humanity, he would have simply said that God sent his Son into sinful flesh. Of course, this is not what Paul writes. Rather, Paul includes the prepositional phrase in the likeness. Paul must include the prepositional phrase for a reason, and the likeliest reason is his desire to indicate that the Son never sinned.

Explanation:

Paul has explained forcefully that all are under sin and all who sin are under condemnation, aside from God’s grace in Jesus Christ. He has also explained that the force of sin is tied to being in the flesh. For example, in Romans 7:5 Paul writes that while living in the sinful flesh our passions are aroused, which produces fruit for death. Further, in Romans 8:8 Paul says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. In other words, he seems to say that since we are in the flesh, we inevitably sin. Of course, Jesus Christ was in the flesh in the sense that he shared fully in humanity. Still, Jesus did not sin and was not guilty of any personal sin.⁷ So, when Paul explains that God sent Jesus into the flesh to do what the law could not accomplish, he has to walk a careful line. In particular, he has to walk a fine line when explaining that Jesus was fully in the flesh but never sinned. Paul walks this line by noting that Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh. The phrase carries enough nuance to make clear that Jesus was in the flesh but never sinned.

Counterargument:

This view gives too much weight to the fact that Paul refers to the flesh as sinful in Romans 8:3. That is, this view tries to highlight that Paul says not that the Son came in the likeness of the flesh but that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. By characterizing the flesh as sinful, Paul walks the line of teaching that Jesus was fully human, but sinless. Unfortunately, this view overlooks the fact that in Paul’s letter to the Philippians he likewise refers to Jesus as being in the likeness of humanity, but he does not mention anything about sin. That is, in Philippians 2:7 Paul writes that Jesus was born in the likeness of men. Of course, he says nothing there about sin. Likely, Paul has the same thought in mind in Romans 8:3, which suggests that the likeness Paul has in mind is not the likeness of being in the flesh without sinning, but being generally like humanity in many ways, but not in all ways.

Response to counterargument:

There are two problems with this counterargument. First, we know from Hebrews that Jesus was made like his brothers in every way yet without sin (Hebrews 2:17). This implies that Jesus was fully human, so we cannot conclude from Philippians 2:17 that when Paul says Jesus was in the likeness of humanity, he was like humanity in some but not all ways. Rather, Hebrews 2:17 affirms that Jesus was fully human. Second, that Paul writes in Romans 8:3 that Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh, rather than in the likeness of humanity as he does in Philippians 2:7, is important, because of the context in Romans. Paul has emphasized the difficulties of living in the flesh, and how the flesh leads to sin and death. Now he affirms that Jesus entered the flesh, but he does not want his audience to think this entails that Jesus sinned. So he carefully walks this line by saying Jesus was in the likeness of sinful flesh. This allows for the fact that Jesus is fully human, without suggesting that he ever sinned.

The one weakness here is that if Paul wanted the Romans to notice by the term likeness that Jesus was sinless, he could have simply noted that God sent his sinless Son in sinful flesh, or something similar. As it stands, by implying that the Son was sinless through the use of likeness, Paul leaves his meaning somewhat ambiguous.

Explanation:

Paul explains that because of the weakness of the flesh the law could not save, so God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. At first is it not clear what it means that the Son was in the likeness of sinful flesh, because the New Testament teaches that although he was divine, Jesus was also fully human (Hebrews 2:17). Still, we can understand what it means that the Son was in the likeness of sinful flesh by noticing that the term likeness can mean something like form. In other words, human beings share in the reality of Adam, in that humans are embodied, and because of their embodiment, weak, frail, and subject to temptations. The Son took on the same form of sinful flesh, as in, he became fully human by entering the epoch of Adam. Thus, like the rest of humanity, the Son was in the form of sinful flesh.⁹

Counterargument:

There is a problem with this view. It implies that the Son may have sinned. For this view takes it that the term behind the ESV’s likeness is best understood in the sense of form which has to do with sharing in a like reality. Of course, if the Son shared in the like reality of sinful flesh, this implies that the Son sinned. If the Son sinned, then the Son was not able to take away our sins, which means we remain in our sins (Hebrews 7:26). Paul would know that our Saviour must be without sin, so it is unlikely that he would write that the Son took on the form of sinful flesh, given that this implies that the Son sinned.

Response to counterargument:

We know from other letters that Paul affirms the sinlessness of the Son. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes that God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that we might become righteous. In other words, Paul is clear that Jesus never sinned. Still, the sinlessness of Jesus may not be in view for Paul in Romans 8:3. Instead, he may be highlighting the fact that although flesh is weak and prone to sin because of temptations, this did not prevent God from sending his Son into the form of sinful flesh to save us. In other words, the abundance of God’s grace is displayed in the fact that the Son would take on sinful flesh to save those who were his enemies. The abundance of God’s grace is Paul’s point, and he expects his audience to intuitively grasp that the Saviour never sinned.

Explanation:

Given the nature of the Son’s work, the phrase in the likeness of sinful flesh is a fitting way to describe how God condemned sin. For it indicates two notions. First, God condemned sin, not by scrapping his entire creation and beginning anew, but by working through the fallen state of humanity. Thus, Christ entered the epoch of Adam by taking on the likeness of sinful flesh. Second, although Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, unlike the rest of humanity, death had no dominion over him. Thus, his existence in the flesh was only like ours in the sense that, while he took on the infirmities and frailty of the flesh, his existence resulted not in death but in the death of death. So, Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh so that by entering the epoch of Adam, he could establish the new epoch of the Son.¹⁰

Counterargument:

According to this view, Paul refers to the Son as in the likeness of the flesh because he wants to note that the Son entered our reality fully while holding out that there was something different about him. In particular, what was different about the Son is that death had no dominion over him. Of course, the reason death had no dominion over him is that the Son was sinless. In other words, another important difference about the Son, and possibly the reason why he was different in the sense that death could not contain him, is that he obeyed the Father perfectly and never sinned. Thus, if Paul uses the phrase in the likeness of the flesh to denote that the Son shared our full humanity, but was different in some important sense, the likely difference he has in mind is the Son’s sinlessness.

Response to counterargument:

It is possible that Paul wants the Romans to infer that the Son was different in the sense that he did not sin. Still, his likely emphasis is on the fact that he initiated a new epoch and that death had no hold on him. We can detect this because Paul has already introduced the epochs of history in Romans 5:1–21, and because his focus has been on the fact that through Jesus’ death he conquered death (Romans 6:10). That the Son was also sinless is implied, though it may not be the force of Paul’s meaning.

The weakness of this view is that if Paul’s main point is that the Son shared completely in the flesh but did not succumb to sin, Paul would likely not have characterized the flesh as sinful. Rather, he would likely have written that the Son came in the likeness of the flesh. That he came in the likeness of sinful flesh alludes to the notion that Jesus was very much like us, aside from sin.