- New here? Consider Subscribing via RSS feed. It’s the best and fastest way to get content!
The Cost of Discipleship, written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Within the first few pages of the first chapter, I fell in love with this book. The first chapter, entitled “Costly Grace,” caught me hook, line, and sinker.
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate” (43-44).
“The road to faith passes through obedience to the call of Jesus. Unless a definite step is demanded, the call vanishes into thin air, and if men imagine they can follow Jesus without taking this step, they are deluding themselves like fanatics” (63).
This is not to say, however, that Bonhoeffer keeps me fastened to his words. Actually, quite the opposite happens. I find that his thoughts become repetitive, and unnecessarily provocative. Themes are repeated over and over. This is not to say that The Cost of Discipleship does not offer a good read, rather it was unnecessarily repetitive in areas I thought Bonhoeffer had made his point already.
On to theology
This is probably the most disturbing aspect of Bonhoeffer. As I said, the first two chapters got me hooked. After that, things seemed to change as I began to understand that Bonhoeffer is a little more liberal in his theology than what he leads his readers to believe in the first few chapters. In page 61, Bonhoeffer calls the call of Christ—His grace—irresistible. Then later in chapter six, Bonhoeffer asserts that the beatitudes found in Matthew 5:1-12 are directly, and strictly for the disciple, and the disciple alone. Says Bonhoeffer,
“‘Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.’ Not only do the followers of Jesus renounce their rights, they renounce their own righteousness too. They get no praise for their achievements or sacrifices. They cannot have righteousness except by hungering and thirsting for it. . . . Those who follow Jesus grow hungry and thirsty on the way” (110).
This is not consistent, because Bonhoeffer asserts that hungering and thirsting for righteousness can only happen to the disciple of Jesus. This is not altogether untrue, but what about the present state of the disciple? Is he not already filled with righteousness? Therefore, it would stand that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are those whom have no salvation, whom God chooses to reveal His irresistible grace to. Then can one be filled with righteousness; or in other words, then can one be filled with Christ. Because Christ is the fulfillment of righteousness, sinners are saved through His purchase. Thus, the beatitude is fulfilled when a sinner is saved; God placed the hunger in them and He fills that hunger too.
Bonhoeffer and the Church
This is where Bonhoeffer gets a little more liberal in his theology. Says Bonhoeffer, “the created world can only be known through [Jesus],” because it was “he who . . . accept[ed] humanity by taking upon himself our human nature” (237). We mustn’t over look this. Bonhoeffer asserts that Christ was the embodiment of sinful flesh, while being without sin. Many Word of Faith teachers (Benny Hinn, for instance) say the same thing; that Jesus became sin, was full of sin, and was the very identity of sin on the cross. This is not true. Christ bore sin, he did not become sin. This is really important folks.
Moreover, Bonhoeffer asserts that “All men are ‘with Christ’ as a consequence of the Incarnation, for the Incarnation Jesus bore our whole human nature. . . . But Christians are ‘with Christ’ in a special sense” (240). Clearly, Christ did not bring “All men” unto himself. He has not done this, and He will not do this. Otherwise, salvation would be entirely inclusive; that is, universal salvation.
He says the Body of Christ is the Church. Not just in a metaphorical way, but in reality. Says Bonhoeffer, “the new man is both Christ and the Church. Christ is the new humanity in the new man. Christ is the Church” (242). It is clear to begin to see Bonhoeffer’s pragmatistic theology. One must go no further, Bonhoeffer would say, than to his brother for communion and fellowship with Jesus (I posted about this here). We do experience Christ in the Christian community, but we are not the very “Incarnation” of Christ on earth! Christ has risen in a real, bodily form. This is ontologically true. Bonhoeffer, however, alludes to Christ’s ontological resurrection as merely an “awakening” of our hearts, and the veracity of Scripture. Thus, he is thereby denying the deity of Christ as testified by the Scriptures.
“The ultimate purpose of God,” says Bonhoeffer, “is to establish a holy community” and “is at last fulfilled in the Body of Christ” (273). I am not sure I agree with this. I do, however, agree that this is certainly a purpose of God, but it seems to me that glorifying Himself in Christ and making His own name famous stands as a greater purpose of God, an overarching principle through Scripture. Otherwise, it would be all about us, people. Rather, it is all about God. This is why I think Bonhoeffer says that “in the Incarnation the whole human race recovers the dignity of the image of God” (301). Statements like this are without a doubt liberal in theology.
Even though Bonhoeffer, at times, makes solid statements, he is altogether missing the mark. For an individual to be “like Christ,” all he needs to do, according to Bonhoeffer, is “contemplate the image of the glorified Christ, and we shall be made like unto it” (303), because “conformity with the image of the Son of God” is merely “a progress from knowledge to knowledge” (303).
I am going to have to rate this book 3 out of 5.
The only reason I did no rate it 2 out of 5 is because if I did, I think I would be judging out of hostility toward it. As it stands, his writing is thought provoking and I did learn from reading this book. I would not, however, recommend this book to a new believer, or one who is unsure about his theological convictions. This would be something good to read for someone who has a solid conviction of his own theological worldview.
- Jonathan J.
 300x250.jpg)
“the created world can only be known through [Jesus],” because it was “he who . . . accept[ed] humanity by taking upon himself our human nature” (237)
I do not get that he was saying what you said he said (huh?).
The closest I can see is that he was going with the 2 cor 5:21 concept of Christ becoming sin for us…
I understand where you are coming from. Bonhoeffer, however, asserts that Christ became sin—the actual fulness of—for every man. I do not think that 2 Corinthians 5:21 means that Jesus was actually a sinful person while on the cross. Furthermore, Bonhoeffer unites all men to the work of Jesus—in other words, their sin is removed. I do not think this is accurate.
About "knowing the world through Jesus," Bonhoeffer says that the only way we can know the created world is to know it through Jesus. We know this is untrue also because many unbelievers know the created world. He needs to define what he is saying more if this is not what he means.
I stopped reading at the theology section when i read "we give up our righteousness"….Isa. 32 "the effect of righteousness is peace and quiet forever" A true follower would be ready to hear Jesus say these things because that is what they would already be looking (thirsting) for. Once baptized, righteousness is give by God. It may take us awhile to receive and accept it however since this gift is so incredibly wonderful. Its like a dream come true!
Are you disagreeing with Bonhoeffer, or me? I am cannot tell by your comment.
First, I don't think it's fair to say that Bonhoeffer's theology is "liberal", because liberals tend to lean towards the "cheap grace" that he abhors. I think that Bonhoeffer's notion of the call to discipleship is in effect a call to obedience. And his whole point is that obedience is costly. That he himself lived out his convictions, tells us of his sincere faith and character. Ultimately, I think the value of anyone's personal story (or teaching) is often found more in their personal testimony, than in their personal theology. It was after-all the power of Christ's righteousness, his death on the cross, and his resurrection that gave credence and credibility to his teaching and ministry. The testimony of the cross really validated his teaching in the beatitudes, IOW.
Bonhoeffer's teaching may have been radical for his time when so many were caught in the "traditional" practices of Catholicism and Mainstream Protestantism where people are "born" into church membership where religious faith consists primarily of practicing the sacraments rather than practicing one's faith by living obediently and following Christ. While I'm sure I also disagree with some aspects of Bonhoeffer's theology or choice of words, IIRC the book (as it is aptly titled) was primarily about the call and practice of discipleship, and what that may cost the believer, it was not primarily about his Soteriology or even Ecclesiology for that matter.
OK. As I said in the beginning of the review, his views on cheap and costly grace drew me in like gnats to spider's web. I fell in love with his description of costly grace. As far as sacraments go, I think he was probably a sacramentalist, due to his view on baptism and the Lord's supper; that they were the only ways one could enter into a relationship with Jesus.
Again, as I said, I think it was supposed to be about discipleship, but he gets into theology about the church that is unnecessary for what costly grace is. Why make the point that the Church is the very incarnation of Christ? This is untrue and misleading.
Second, hungering for righteousness is not the same as hungering for forgiveness or reconciliation with God. The true disciple does hunger for righteousness, even for greater and increasing righteousness. It would seem to me that the unsaved are lost in their sin, if they're living in rejection of Christ and the gospel, they aren't exactly hungering for righteousness. But aren't they rather, living more or less for themselves, depending on their own self-righteousness that is completely flawed and insufficient? They may hunger for truth, perhaps for Good News, for the Messiah, or even for salvation and forgiveness, but how can they really hunger and thirst for righteousness, when apart from Christ there is none righteous?
I also think I agree with Bonhoeffer in that the beatitudes were clearly given to the disciples. Jesus was speaking to his disciples (Matt. 5:1-2) about the law of the Kingdom and/or the requirements for entry and leadership in the coming Kingdom. Jesus actually left the multitudes and withdrew to teach his disciples the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, Bonhoeffer's call for disciples to be more serious followers of Christ… "because 'conformity with the image of the Son of God' is merely 'a progress from knowledge to knowledge' (303)" seems consistent with the teaching of the Sermon itself from 'knowledge' of the OT law to 'knowledge' of the Kingdom Law as Matthew recorded Jesus teaching them.
See also 2 Cor. 3:15-18, and then in chapters 4 and 5 Paul pretty much literally describes the cost of discipleship himself there.
Third, I think I would take another look at 2 Cor 5:21 as well. It is after all, the apostle Paul's interpretation of what happened to Jesus on the cross! These three versions pretty clearly state that Jesus was "made to be sin", and not only that, but it was precisely so that we could become righteous in Him.
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (ESV)
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV)
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (NASB)
While 1 Peter 2:24 does say, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." I don't think there is a contradiction there between what Paul asserts in 2 Corinthians, both can be true, they are not mutually exclusive. What I think Peter says in the middle there is crucial though – "He bore our sins… SO THAT WE MIGHT DIE TO OUR SINS AND LIVE FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS". Is that not what Bonhoeffer was getting at with idea that disciples of Christ are to hunger and thirst for righteousness? How can you fault Bonhoeffer for saying essentially the same thing as Peter and Paul?
If you read the first two chapters of 1Peter the context is even more clear, and it parallels and compliments nicely what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians. Vs 21 says explicitly: "For you have been CALLED for this PURPOSE, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an EXAMPLE for you to follow in His steps…", there's no getting around it, Christ is to be our example. Thus in Bonhoeffers words: “contemplate the image of the glorified Christ, and we shall be made like unto it”, or in Paul's words: "I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus… For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself." Phil 3:14,20,21
While I don't have "The Cost of Discipleship" in front of me, and it's been years since I read it, I think Bonhoeffer draws inspiration from several of these texts, and while we could quibble on the details of his theology here and there, I think he falls more into orthodox evangelical Christian teaching and thinking than not. No need to call his thoughts or writing disturbing, provocative, or liberal unless you also think the same of the apostles Peter and Paul. Then again, as agents of the Holy Spirit I guess their words and actions were rather provocative and disturbing in their own right, as was the Lord Jesus himself!
This is why I said it is not entirely untrue. Of course a disciple of Jesus would hunger and thirst to be like his master. Of course. You say, "It would seem to me that the unsaved are lost in their sin, if they're living in rejection of Christ and the gospel, they aren't exactly hungering for righteousness. But aren't they rather, living more or less for themselves, depending on their own self-righteousness that is completely flawed and insufficient? They may hunger for truth, perhaps for Good News, for the Messiah, or even for salvation and forgiveness, but how can they really hunger and thirst for righteousness, when apart from Christ there is none righteous?" Yes they are living for themselves. Yes they are insufficient. But Christ is righteousness, so how can someone do as you say? The unsaved are unable to hunger for such a thing. That's why I said, it is God who must place that hunger in the individual, thus they will be filled and God will be glorified.
While the disciples are certainly hungering for more righteousness, they are already filled with it: Christ himself. The Beatific vision is the fulfillment of the Beatitudes.
I still do not agree that conformity to the image of God is knowledge to knowledge and contemplation. Yes, God's people do die for a lack of knowledge, but one can have all the knowledge of the Bible, lack love, and be a worthless, clanging symbol. Character change must happen, desires must change, and this can happen with minimal knowledge.
I still do not agree with Bonhoeffer on the work of Christ. First, he includes all men into receiving the forgiveness of sins. Second, I do not think we must take 2 Cor. 5:21 to mean that Jesus was actually a sinful person on the cross. James F.B. commentary: the sin-bearer. Clark commentary: sin offering. Matthew Henry commentary: not a sinner, but sin, that is, a sin-offering, a sacrifice for sin. We must not think that Christ actually became very sin. Other wise, what follows is thus: "Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners."
Yes. Of course we contemplate. But contemplation alone does not conform us.
I don't think you're reading him or me quite right. Isn't the Cost of Discipleship pretty much an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus the King taught his disciples who believed him to be the Messiah, the requirements of those who would enter into the Kingdom?
Isn't the latter half of the Sermon a lesson about how he was coming to complete and fulfill the OT knowledge of the law, but then he gave an exposition of the spirit of the law and how that higher standard would be the standard for entering the kingdom, and that anyone whose righteousness did not exceed that of the super OT law-abiding Scribes and Pharisees would not even be able to enter? IOW Jesus was expanding their knowledge of the OT Law to knowledge of the Kingdom Law and ultimately to the Law of Grace. But the disciples knowledge at that point was not yet complete, the King did not undo what they already knew, but He was in the process of revealing and completing it.
And then Jesus went on to say that of those that will enter, those that keep the law, will be great in the kingdom and those that do not keep the law will be least in the kingdom. Isn't Bonhoeffer merely calling us as disciples to be conformed to the image of Christ by obedience to that higher standard that the Lord put forth in the Sermon on the Mount?
If Christ is the fulfillment of the Beatific vision as you say, then Bonhoeffer was correct that we need to “contemplate the image of the glorified Christ, and we shall be made like unto it” (303), because “conformity with the image of the Son of God” is merely “a progress from knowledge to knowledge” (303).
And those who follow Jesus' teaching there in the Sermon about the spirit of the law and who in turn, follow him literally and obediently as Bonhoeffer challenges: “The road to faith passes through obedience to the call of Jesus. Unless a definite step is demanded, the call vanishes into thin air, and if men imagine they can follow Jesus without taking this step, they are deluding themselves like fanatics” (63).
I don't think Bonhoeffer advocated contemplation alone. He lived his life emulating the Christ he contemplated. He sought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and both his theology and his life reflected that. And like Paul, fixing his eyes on the prize; he didn't only fix his eyes on the prize alone, to the exclusion of everything else, he also ran the race to win.
I think it's clear that for Bonhoeffer there is no conformity through "contemplation alone", because he already stated that a definite step of obedience was required. Those disciples that followed Jesus' teaching from knowledge of the law to knowledge of grace would realize that their own righteousness was insufficient. Thus as Jesus taught in Matt 7 the disciple must ask (God) for the righteousness we lack, and then those that took that step of obedience, would by grace and through faith "grow hungry and thirsty on the way” (110)" to actually conform to that standard of righteousness both established and met by King Jesus. IOW whoever hears those words of Jesus and acts on them is like a wise man who builds his house on a rock.
I don't know what "IOW" means, lol. I am reminded of "Princess Bride" when one of the characters continue to say, "Inconceivable!"; and another character finally replies: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Except I am the one who keeps looking at it and thinking, "I do not think it means what I think it means." Funny.
You are correct in saying that Bonhoeffer does mention this in the beginning of the book. Also, I went back to the book and read the last few pages and Bonhoeffer does actually make references to action and not contemplation alone. But when he talks about being formed into the image of Christ, he refers to that process by a process of contemplation and knowledge: "If we contemplate the image of the glorified Christ, we shall be made like unto it, just as by contemplating the image of Christ crucified we are conformed to his death. We shall be drawn into his image, and identified with his form, and become a reflection of him. That reflection of his glory will shine forth in us even in this life, even as we share his agony and bear his cross. Our life will then be a progress from knowledge to knowledge, from glory to glory, to an even closer conformity with the image of the Son of God" (303). The think that concerns me here is the explicit statement that he makes in the immediate context. If contemplation leads to action, and if knowledge leads to action, then it is justified. But Bonhoeffer does not mention that in this statement. He simply says that by "contemplat[ing] the image of the glorified Christ, we shall be made like unto it." I would prefer him to say, "contemplating the image of the glorified Christ will draw us closer to wanting to be made like unto Him." Instead, he does not do this. Semantics are not always an issue, but understanding that Bonhoeffer may not have believed in the literal resurrection of Christ (not just in our hearts), statements like this concerns me.
That is why I would recommend this book to an individual who is sure in their theological convictions—at least for the most part.
Finally, I think that liberalism is essentially complacency. Cheap grace is liberal, it's lazy, complacent and presumptuous, it has a self-righteous entitlement mentality that is offended by the teaching of the Word of God. Spiritual liberalism tries to do away with the challenging, provocative truth of Scripture, it explains away the miraculous, it reduces deity to humanity and elevates humanity to the divine. Whatever one wants to say about Bonhoeffer, I wouldn't call him or his beliefs very liberal, neo-orthodox maybe. I think that he was simply calling for a more Christ-centered, incarnational ethic in the church by Christ followers, particularly in a world where governments are increasingly criminal and oppressive. The liberal tendency is to compromise with and submit to governmental authority.
Jesus and the apostles taught that we were to expect persecution, and that there would be a cost for following Him, I think that ought to disturb every follower of Christ who is comfortable with their christian life, beliefs and/or ministry. Given the rate at which the present administration is seeking to radically change and alter the USA, we may yet live to find ourselves in circumstances not unlike those in which Bonhoeffer wrote "the Cost of Discipleship" and then died for living it out. Those who do not learn from history are typically more apt to repeat it.
I would try to read and evaluate Bonhoeffer or any other Christian author more at face value and then in light of the Scriptures themselves, rather than through the filtering prism of a particular school of systematic theology or thought. Sorry for the overly lengthy comments, it must have been both a worthwhile book & a good review since it provoked such lengthy response!
That Bonhoeffer speaks in such piety does not necessarily accredit his theology. I have no idea how this man lived. I know he was in the middle of a war, was imprisoned, and influenced by two theologians who were one liberal and the other conservative. This does not mean I do not have respect for Bonhoeffer. For goodness sake, he wrote a book in hopes of spurring brothers and sisters on to more devoted disciples! I have great respect for people who want to do this. This does not mean, though, that I agree with their theology. And if the theology is so far off (e.g. Benny Hinn), then I would have to divide.
There are two areas where I really divide with Bonhoeffer: his understanding of the Church and Christ's resurrection. It seems as though he denies the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus is presently, physically, with the Father. Rather, I think Bonhoeffer is saying that the resurrection of Jesus is experienced only in the heart, therefore the Church becomes Christ on earth and carry on His mission. This is more liberal than it is conservative theology. I agree with his views on cheap and costly grace (love them), but definitely not on the Church and the resurrection. Even though I don't agree with his view on the Church, I was inspired to write a post about communion and fellowship with Jesus: http://www.sortingbeans.com/communion-and-fellows…
That this particular view is interesting to think about, it is nonetheless dangerous in it's way, because it denies the deity of Jesus.
And yes, even though I disagreed with it, I enjoyed reading it. Actually, I purposely stopped highlighting areas I did not agree with and simply highlighted all the things I did agree with.
Fair enough, my friend. I'm not looking to split hairs, I just thought you were being a bit too harsh. I'm not sure that it's fair to put Bonhoeffer and Hinn's theology in the same basket. That Christ lives in the hearts of believers, and that the Holy Spirit is present wherever two or more are gathered in His name is not unbiblical. I never got the feeling or sense that he denied the actual resurrection of Christ, I wonder if maybe you might be adding the "only" part. Does Bonhoeffer actually say that the resurrection of Jesus is experienced ONLY in the heart? Or is just because he emphasizes that? The Church is the 'bride' of Christ, but as individual believers (disciples) surely we are to represent Christ to the world? We are called to be ambassadors, to be salt and light, and all followers of Christ are charged with carrying out the great co-mission.
FWIW I don't necessarily agree with most Protestant views of the church either, my view is more Baptistic, but again the book was primarily about discipleship not ecclesiology. I have enjoyed the discussion though and it did provoke a fair amount of thought on my part, thanks.
I'm interested if you have any thoughts about Bonhoeffer's experiences with Nazi Germany, and whether there might be any lessons worth noting (good or bad) in light of the rapid changes being made in America by Obama and the Democrats? Some people would say that Obama is like Jesus, others say he's more like Neville Chamberlin, and still others say he's more like a fascist dictator in the making.
But I think that most people are starting to agree that the government under his leadership is expanding and growing at an alarming rate, and much of what his administration is doing does not bode well for individual freedom, religious liberty, or Christian social concerns. Any thoughts in that regard?
Bonhoeffer does not make any explicit comments about the resurrection of Jesus is ONLY experienced in the heart. He refers to the ontological resurrection of Jesus to be only seen in the Word. Let me make this quote from his footnotes on page 230, regarding the resurrection:
Do you see the deviation? Notice how he refers the ontological resurrection as something "true only as a word of the scriptures." Otherwise, it would be "analogous to the fanatical doctrine of perfectionism, which arises from a similar ontological misunderstanding of the scriptural utterances." I think critical thinking here reveals, at least largely, Bonhoeffer's view of the risen Christ. (By the way, what does "FWIW" mean? You stump me with these abbreviations.)
About the political stuff: brother, I wish I could hang with you here. You are, however, beyond me in these matters. I read your facebook posts about the political matters, but I am far from being learned in them. As far as Obama goes, I don't like it. He is NOT like a Jesus—this I know! I think you are right on in your last paragraph. Actually, would you be up for writing a guest post about this topic?
Again I don't have "The Cost of Discipleship" handy, mine is somewhere in storage. Based on what your quoting here, I see where you're getting the idea that he struggled with ontological nature of the resurrection. I think that the literal resurrected body of Christ is absent from this earth, He went away to prepare a place for us right? But that Christ is present in the person of the Holy Spirit, in our hearts. Likewise the "body of Christ" is also the church, which is made up of all the saints, believers, and true disciples and I think that is what Bonhoeffer was getting at in the context of the book. Which was about the Lord's Sermon to his disciples and the inevitable cost of their discipleship, and of ours if we follow Christ's teaching and trust God to provide the level of righteousness that we cannot attain on our own, but then continue to grow in righteousness and be conformed to his image by obediently observing the law of the kingdom as Jesus outlined in the Sermon.
Sorry to stump ya. I thought everyone younger than me knew these abbreviation things.
FWIW = For What It's Worth.
I did go for while before I figured out IIRC = If I Recall Correctly
LOL you do know that one right? laugh out loud.
I might be up for a guest post, but it might have to wait a week or so.
Well, I know "lol" and "BTW" and "LMBO"—but never hear of "FWIW" and "IIRC" or "IOW". Sheesh, lots of abrev. I particularly don't care much for these types of abbreviations. The only one I really use is "lol" and every once in a while, "BTW," but I don't even like using that.
Let me know if you decide to be up to a guest post. I'd love to have you as a guest author in the political arena.
Wow! What an impressive array of comments. I must say that no matter how you interpret 2 Corinthians 5-21, there is no doubt whatsoever that God the Father, in His infinite justice, had to physically separate Himself from His Son. What indescribable agony Jesus must have endured because of this, since, as John so eloquently puts it: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God from the beginning” (John 1-1-2).
Of course, Christ did not literally commit our sins, but it seems clear that He somehow experienced them. The world grew dark because all goodness was gone for a time, and Jesus, in the throes of spiritual agony, screamed, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me”. Let us never forget what Christ, our precious Lord, suffered on our behalf. Great review and comments. God bless you.
Thanks for stopping by, Meredith. The experience of Christ on the cross is something the Church has frequently discussed. It’s sort of the same idea as Christ’s righteousness to us. We are given the righteousness of Christ, but not in its full sense. In other words, we are not righteous like Jesus is righteous, because we still have obvious remaining sin. So what does it mean that we have the righteousness of Christ? It means we have imputed righteousness. All that means is that we have been declared righteous. Notice that this is different from having imparted righteousness, because if it was imparted righteousness then we would be fully and completely righteous. Instead, we are declared to be righteousness by the imputation (the legal transfer) of Christ’s righteousness to our account.
So, when the Scripture says that Jesus became sin, it’s not that he was the very embodiment of sin, but instead he was the object for which the sin would be punished. “He became sin who knew no sin” is the same as saying “He bore our sin on the cross,” because it is the debt account he paid, not sin He experienced. This is my reading of the Bible when it talks about Jesus becoming sin. I just finished up a doctrine class and we discussed this very issue. After all was said and done, this is what makes the most sense, being that Christ has remained sinless, even on the cross.
Nice to see you around. maybe I’ll start writing again.
Great points. “Our righteousness is as filthy rags” as is stated in Isaiah, and so it’s truly marvelous that a holy God would credit His righteousness to our account. We can stand before God without fear because we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness. He is our advocate and “there is now no condemnation in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8-1, 1 John 1-1).
I did not mean to imply at all that Christ is a sinner in any shape, form, or fashion. However, there is no denying His spiritual agony on the cross far outweighed His physical agony. I think we, in our fleshly realities, often focus too much on Jesus’ physical torment during the crucifixeon. While I’m sure He suffered in this regard, the spiritual battle He fought is something we’ll never comprehend until we are in His glorious presence. I only pray I’ll be able then to thank Him properly, something my tongue-tied prayers can never adequately do in this feeble body of flesh.
I’d recommend the book, Seeing the Unseen, by Joe Beam.
I do hope you find time to write again. God bless you.
Amen! What weight he bore for us, which we will never fully comprehend!
We are so undeserving, yet He loves us in spite of that. I suppose that is why we respond with unceasing, eternal worship to Him!
There is a flood that is coming, and one vessel whereby we must be saved from the flood. That flood is the wrath of God, and the vessel is the greater Ark, Jesus Christ. He provided the way and bore the wrath of the flood, so that we might live in Him!
God bless and see you around.
By the way, I love “The Princess Bride” too! “Mawiage! That bwessed awwangement! That dweam within a dweam! Have you the wing?” LOL! (The only abbreviation I know the meaning of! I’m woefully behind the times).
Ha! Love it!