How is sin condemned sin in the flesh?

Explanation:

To understand what it means that sin is condemned, it is important to notice that Paul uses the phrase for sin in relation to God sending his Son to condemn sin. That is, Paul writes that God sends his Son in the likeness of the flesh and for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh. The phrase for sin is actually a technical phrase often used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to denote a sin offering. So Paul is saying that God sent his Son as a sin offering to condemn sin in the flesh. Of course, we know from the Old Testament that the sin offering was used as a substitute for the sins of the people. That is, by sacrificing a sin offering, the punishment that the people’s sin deserves was transferred to the animal sacrifice, so that the debt of sin was satisfied. In the same way, Jesus is the sacrificial offering who takes on the punishment that our sins deserve. Thus, sin is condemned through Christ, and we are forgiven.³

Counterargument:

When Paul writes that God sent his Son for sin, it is not clear that he has atoning sacrifice in mind. Rather, he could just as likely be saying that God sent his Son for sin in the general sense that what Christ does on the cross concerns sin.⁴ Of course, if Paul is not saying that the Son was an atoning sacrifice, then we cannot infer that Paul is saying that God condemned sin through the Son by carrying the punishment for sin. Further, it is not clear that the sin offering carried the punishment for sin in the Old Testament. Rather, while a sin offering was sacrificed for forgiveness, the death of the animal symbolized what the sinner deserved for sinning, but the death of the animal was not itself the carrying of a punishment.

Response to counterargument:

First, the term for sin is used fifty-four times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, of which forty-four occurrences refer to a sin offering.⁵ So we can be fairly confident that for sin is used here by Paul to indicate that God sent his Son as a sin offering to condemn sin in the flesh.

Second, while it is true that the animals sacrificed were only a symbol of the punishment that our sins deserved, and so did not carry the punishment themselves, this is not the case with the Son. Rather, the Son actually carried the punishment we deserve, which is why his work on the cross was effective for forgiveness. As we learn from the author of Hebrews, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away the sins of the people, but the sacrifice of Jesus does cleanse us from sin once for all (Hebrews 10:4,Hebrews 10:8). So while the animal sacrifice only symbolized the punishment for sin, Jesus carried the actual punishment and thereby condemned sin in the flesh.

Explanation:

Paul writes that God sent his Son to condemn sin in the flesh. To understand what it means that the Son condemned sin in the flesh it is important to notice that the verb to condemn is a judicial term. That is, it is a legal term having to do with the passing of a sentence.⁶ We know this because the verb is used this way elsewhere. For example, in Mark 14:64 Jesus is condemned, in the sense that a sentence of death is passed on him. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 11:32 Paul refers to the condemnation of the world, which implies the passing of a sentence on the world.⁷ Of course, if to condemn means to pass a legal sentence then a legal sentence is passed on sin. In other words, God passed a legal sentence onto sin through the Son’s sacrifice on the cross. Through the Son’s sacrifice on the cross God passes a legal sentence onto sin so that the legal requirements related to sin are satisfied.

Counterargument:

This argument confuses the object of the sentence. According to this view, Paul uses to condemn in the judicial sense of passing a sentence on something. It then contends that the sentence is passed on the Son in the sense that the Son carries the punishment for our sins. Since the punishment for our sins is carried by the Son, the judicial requirements related to sin are satisfied, and we are set free. The problem with this argument is that Paul does not say that God passes a sentence on the Son. Rather, through the Son, God passes a sentence on sin. In other words, sin is condemned, not the Son; sin receives the sentence, not the Son, and so sin is abolished, not the Son. Of course, this sentence is passed onto sin by God through the Son, but we should not confuse the fact that sin receives a sentence with the Son receiving a sentence.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Paul writes that God condemned sin through the Son, this begs the question, How through the Son is sin condemned? We know from 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God made him to be sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. In other words, although the Son knew no sin, God made him to be sin in the sense that God condemned sin by punishing Jesus as a substitutionary atonement for the sins that we commit. By punishing Jesus for our sins, God condemns sin. So while it is true that God condemns sin, it is important to understand that the way he does this is through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So God condemns sin in the sense that he punishes Jesus for the sins we commit.⁸

We must offer strong support to show how Jesus’ being offered as a sin offering to condemn sin implies that sin is condemned because the Father punished the Son. The most obvious way to generate support for this view is to connect the function of the sin offering with Jesus carrying the penalty for sin, which this view has attempted, but it could do more to establish this connection.

Explanation:

When Paul writes that God sent his Son to condemn sin, he includes the phrase in the flesh. That is, God sent his Son not only to condemn sin but to condemn sin in the flesh. Likely, the phrase signals what Paul means that the Son condemned sin in the flesh. For we know that sin preys on the weakness of the flesh, and that the ultimate goal of sin is death.⁹ So, what Paul seems to be saying is that God uses sin’s impulse to bring about death in order to condemn sin, by sending the Son in the flesh. Since the Son was in the flesh, the Son enticed the power of sin to produce the death of the Son. This is what sin accomplished, but by doing so, sin and death itself were condemned, because death could not hold the Son. Thus, the Son’s atoning sacrifice on the cross brought about the greatest reversal in history. While sin thought it had won by bringing about the Son’s death, in this very act sin itself was condemned.¹⁰

Counterargument:

The logic of this argument is confused. This view proposes that the power of sin operates on the weakness of the flesh to produce death. Thus, God sent the Son into the flesh so that sin would operate to produce his death, but also that this death would actually condemn sin. The problem is that sin operates on the weakness of the flesh by instigating the fleshly person to sin, which results in that person’s death. For example, if sin operates in Paul, it means that Paul, because he is weak in the flesh, sins, and because he sins, this produces death in him. Of course, if this is what this argument has in mind, then the argument is saying that the Son entered the flesh, sinned, because he sinned, he died, but his death condemned sin. Obviously, this is false because we know that the Son was sinless (Hebrews 2:17; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Further, if the Son did sin (an impossibility), then his death would not have condemned sin because it would have been deserved. Thus, the logic of this view is confused.

Response to counterargument:

The idea here is not that death has some sort of dominion over this epoch of human existence. That is, because of Adam, death entered humanity, and until death is conquered, it will continue to dominate. Thus, Jesus enters the flesh that entices death, because death dominates every human in this epoch. Still, because Jesus is perfect, he conquers death through the resurrection. So although death thinks it has the better of Jesus by killing him, as it does all humans in the old epoch, through Jesus, death is conquered, and he thereby ushers in a new epoch. So this view is based not on confused logic but on the fact that since Adam, death dominates the old era.

Explanation:

In order to understand what it means that the Son condemned sin in the flesh, it is important to notice a couple of themes that Paul has already introduced in previous chapters. For example, in Romans 5:1–21 Paul has alluded to the fact that there are two epochs, the epoch of Adam and the epoch of Christ. The epoch of Adam is associated with sin and death, while Christ establishes a new epoch by conquering death. We also know from Romans 6:1–23 that by being crucified with Christ we put to death our sinful nature and are made alive in the Spirit.¹¹ When we put these themes together, we see that Christ’s condemning sin has to do with him establishing a new epoch, and this new epoch is established through the crucifixion, which destroys sin and death. So the Son condemned sin by dying on the cross, which was the death of death.

Counterargument:

While it is clear from Romans 8:3 that the Son condemned sin by dying on the cross, what this view fails to make clear is how dying on the cross condemns sin. In other words, the question is not, What does it mean that Christ condemned sin in the flesh? but, How does Christ condemn sin? God sends the Son, and by dying on the cross he condemns sin, but how? How does dying on a cross condemn sin? Unfortunately, this view offers no insight into this question.

Response to counterargument:

The fact is, Jesus Christ was not only human but divine, and death has no hold over the divine nature. Thus, although Jesus’ human nature died on the cross, since his human nature was united to the divine nature, death could not hold Jesus’ human nature. Thus, Jesus was raised to new life and conquered death, establishing a new epoch.

The weakness here is that this view does not explain exactly how to think of sin as a ruling power. This view depicts sin as an independent power. Does this imply that the devil is in mind? Further, since it was God’s plan for the Son to die on the cross and condemn sin, how does this connect with the devil’s initiative in bringing about the death of the Son? If this view could answer these questions from Paul’s writings, it would be a more viable option.