Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology?

[Brother Bob]

That's exactly the point I am trying to clarify. 1) Is there such a thing as a "sin nature" and 2) if so, what is its relation to the flesh?

RAM, you believe in human nature don't you? I'm sure you do. We all do. How do you define the human nature? Of what does it consist? Volumes have been written on what Paul meant by "flesh". I haven't studied this in some time and to be truthful I haven't heard this question before.

I believe in something called "human nature". I characterize it within categories which work for me: physical, social/emotional, mental/intellectual, and spiritual. When Luke summarizes the first 30 years of Jesus' life in Luke 2, he states that Jesus grew in stature (physical), wisdom (mental), and in favor with man (social/emotional) and God (spiritual). There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned. Examples are Adam and Christ. I believe all other humans are born with an imperfect human nature. That is they have inherited predispositions and tendencies to sin within their genes and also learn from other imperfect humans, habits and patterns of wrong thinking and behavior.

According to Paul in Romans 8, all are born hostile to God and His Laws. I believe Jesus did not need to born again! Everyone else does. Jesus had no predispositions or tendencies to sin. There was nothing in Him. Not so with us. Yes, we can be born again, but the "old man" or 'old nature' will always remain. As long as we walk in the Spirit we will have dominion over human nature that naturally wants to sin. Some call this natural human nature "the sinful nature". I understand it and don't have a problem with it. When Paul uses the term "flesh", I believe he is referring to the human nature we are all born with....within the four categories I outlined above.

But more to the point, there is a good reason to distinguish "sin nature" from the "flesh". Jesus became flesh, yet without sin. And Adam and Eve were flesh without sin before they sinned. So the two can not be identified as exactly the same. But maybe in all the children of Adam they are effectually the same now, since all have sinned ... but I don't think so.

Well here is another issue raised...the human nature of Christ and how it differs from others born of Adam. Some say Christ was born with the same nature as all of Adam's children. Others say He was born with a sinless nature. We can dig into this issue and profitably so, but it feels like thread drift. "Flesh" is highly theologically charged. It is not a simple reference to the bodily desires (physical). I believe it is reference to human nature that has fallen into a sinful state. Jesus was not born into a sinful state needing to be born again.

Most folks say we sin because we have a sin nature. That doesn't make any sense to me because Adam and Eve started the whole world sinning when they themselves had no sin nature. It makes more sense to me to think that we sin because we choose to live for ourselves and put our fleshly desires above our desire to serve God. You addressed that point well.

It's both. A perfect being can sin because they are free to choose to sin and when they do they corrupt their nature. A person born with an imperfect nature really has no choice but to live according to his imperfect nature. The difference seems to be that the perfect being has a choice, the imperfect being has no choice, but both have the ability to sin.

Yes, you and I, before we are born again, choose to live for ourselves, because we are born conditioned to do so. Even when we are born again, we are tempted to please ourselves because the selfish nature is still within us. But once born again, we have a new power to help us choose correctly.

Yes, sin corrupts our nature, like a rot or a cancer, and makes us more likely to sin more each time we sin - like a physical addiction like smoking or drinking. But I still don't know if there is such a thing as a "sin nature" that "causes us to sin." I don't see how that explains reality - it feels like "plogiston."

Richard, for me, the 'sin nature' is the human nature we are all born with, that is full of tendencies to sin.

The reason I'm trying to work out this language is because it has consequences. For example, if the Christian gets a "new nature" when he or she is born again, does that mean they have no more "sin nature"? Some people teach that, and then get confused about why Christians sin. If we understand that the born again Christians still have flesh, just like Adam and Eve before the fall, then we can understand that there will be a war between the "flesh and the spirit" and we clear up the confusion.

Scripturally, we are to reckon our sinful human nature as crucified with Christ. Watchman Nee has a good chapter on this in his "The Normal Christian Life."

So what is your understanding of "flesh"? Just what exactly does it consist of?

The big thing is that I have a real dislike for undetectable metaphysical "entities" with "properties" that are not actually spoken of in Scripture and that don't actually explain anything. Those kind of things make my mind feel all fuzzy and out of focus.


Amen! Our spirits are dead before we are born in Christ. We MUST be born again. And yes, fleshly things we once loved are now hated because we have a life in the Spirit and know the Mind and Will of God, and our communion with Him is lost when we look to the flesh, and that causes sorrow.

But still ... I seem to be explaining the whole biblical teaching in terms of flesh (that is not intrinsically evil) and spirit. I don't seem to need the term "sin nature" to explain anything.

I understand. All I know is that the tendency to sin will always be present, but that there is a Power present within that impowers to dominate it. Flesh equals sinful nature to me. But I see how it is confusing....and I'm not sure we fully understand all the dynamics involved.

Peace

[sylvius]

In the beginning - the issue was 'don't eat, don't touch/strike' because you will die.. Here it appears 'the sting of death was sin'.

this already is kind of deception.

God had said, Genesis 2:17,

But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

He didn't say nothing about touching!

Yet the woman told the snake, Genesis 3:3,

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"

giving him the opportunity, v.4:

And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die.

Rashi: http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, 'Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating' (Gen. Rabbah 19:3).

Now the question is: how she came to the conviction that also touching the tree was forbidden?

Jewish tradition says: Adam told her.

(the command was given to Adam even before the woman was made,
Genesis 2,

17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
18. And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him."

)

why did Adam tell her?

out of anxiety to lose her he builded a fence around the tree!
Anxiety for death.
saying: this is forbidden area for you, like kind of red zone district.



this must be also why Jesus was "eating with tax-collectors and sinners"

Mark 2:10,

Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

Luke 7:39,

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner."

In the 1Timothy verse the woman was deceived

1Ti (54) 2:14 (70) says the woman was deceived..

Eph 5:6 (60) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

In "ishshah's" desire to be 'wise' she believed a lie that she would not die.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

RAM, you believe in human nature don't you? I'm sure you do. We all do. How do you define the human nature? Of what does it consist? Volumes have been written on what Paul meant by "flesh". I haven't studied this in some time and to be truthful I haven't heard this question before.

Hey Bob ... I understand that I pushed us off into the "deep end" of this theological pool when I brought up this question. You are correct, volumes have been written on what Paul meant by the flesh. So we should be very careful not to rush to any conclusions.

But on the other hand, the thing that got me going was not a problem with "volumes" of theological writings so much as the popular concepts that are tossed around as if they were self-evident truths when in fact they have not been carefully thought out or fully established as biblical truths.

My interest here is to clarify what I (we) really believe the Bible teaches. Its a big topic, so I think we all would want to realize that this thread is not going to be resolved any time soon. I anticipate a long, interesting , adn very fruitful discussion.

One of the things that would be really helpful is for the interested parties to lay a little ground work. We need to do our homework.

What are a few of the long-established and well-accepted definitions of the "sin nature"?

What are the major schools of thought on this issue? Calvinist vs. Arminian vs. Orthodox vs Roman Catholic?

When was the term "sin nature" first used? Is it a biblical term?

And so on ...

I believe in something called "human nature". I characterize it within categories which work for me: physical, social/emotional, mental/intellectual, and spiritual. When Luke summarizes the first 30 years of Jesus' life in Luke 2, he states that Jesus grew in stature (physical), wisdom (mental), and in favor with man (social/emotional) and God (spiritual). There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned. Examples are Adam and Christ. I believe all other humans are born with an imperfect human nature. That is they have inherited predispositions and tendencies to sin within their genes and also learn from other imperfect humans, habits and patterns of wrong thinking and behavior.

Human nature is usually defined as "that set of attributes that all humans have in common." As such, it is a collective abstraction. I don't think of a "substance" called "human nature." We run into really big problems if we try to push the definition of collective abstractions too far. For example, is it part of human nature to have two arms? If so, then are you not a human if you lose an arm? If we push it, we are forced to adopt some sort of genetic definition of "human nature" but even then we would be plagued with endless variations in the genome. And besides, that's not what people normally mean when they talk of human nature anyway. It is just an abstraction for a set of common characteristics. And as such, we make a grave error if we treat it as a "substance" with its own set of "properties."

I think this is why the topic is so difficult for some folks. Most people don't deal well with abstractions, and so they make them into "things" and then they attribute "properties" to those "things" and begin to apply causal laws to them and develop theories about how they are "transmitted." That is what has happened with the theory of "sin nature." People sincerely talk about it like its a substance that can be transmitted through the father to the unfortunate child. A brief refutation of this non-biblical idea is found here.

This is why it is hard for me to follow you lead when you say that

There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned.

It seems like you are treating "human nature" as a "thing" that can be "perfected." But this doesn't make sense to me because "human nature" is a collective abstraction. Of course, we have verses like Hebrews 12:23 that speaks of "the spirits of just men made perfect." But that's different because "the spirits of just men" are not abstractions but realities. The just men really exist and can be perfected in relation to God. But "human nature" does not "exist" - it is not a "thing" that can be "perfected." Only things that actually exist can be perfected.

According to Paul in Romans 8, all are born hostile to God and His Laws.

Yes, the Scripture says "the carnal mind [lit. mind of the flesh] is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7. That is exactly what I said in my opening post. The flesh sins because it CAN NOT be subject to the Law of God. That's the point of this thread. We do not need an abstraction called "sin nature" to understand what the Bible teaches on this point. Note also, that since the flesh is real, it can be perfected. And that's what's going to happen at the resurrection! Praise God!

I believe Jesus did not need to born again!

Amen! I hope I didn't say anything that could be misconstrued to suggest that He had to be born again!

Everyone else does. Jesus had no predispositions or tendencies to sin. There was nothing in Him. Not so with us. Yes, we can be born again, but the "old man" or 'old nature' will always remain.

There has been a lot of debate about this question. Some say the "old man" was crucified with Christ and so really is GONE. Others note passages like Romans 7 that make it seem like the the Old Man is still in power (to a degree).

Alternately, we could understand that the flesh will lust against the spirit whether you are a born again Christian or a heathen. There is no "sin nature" in this view at all. I like this solution because it a simple, clean, elegant understanding that integrates with the whole body of Scripture and doesn't require undetectable metaphysical substance that doesn't explain anything anyway.

As long as we walk in the Spirit we will have dominion over human nature that naturally wants to sin. Some call this natural human nature "the sinful nature". I understand it and don't have a problem with it. When Paul uses the term "flesh", I believe he is referring to the human nature we are all born with....within the four categories I outlined above.

I think it is impossible to identify "sin nature" with "human nature" because Jesus was fully human, yet without sin.

As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there.

Brother Bob, I want to thank you for wrestling with me over this issue! That was an excellent post!

God bless you with abundant peace, my brother!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I found this interesting and very explicit definition of the Sin Nature from Robert McLaughlin's website [emphasis mine]:

THE OLD SIN NATURE [OSN]

Biblical documentation of the sin nature is found in Rom 5:12. "Therefore, just as through one man [Adam], sin [the sin nature] entered into the world, and [spiritual] death through [the] sin [nature], so [spiritual] death spread to the entire human race because all sinned [when Adam sinned]." The old sin nature is Adam's trend after the fall in action. Immediately after Adam sinned, he acquired an old sin nature and became spiritually dead. The sin nature of Adam is passed down through his seed to all his progeny, therefore every OSN originates biologically from the seed of the father, Gen 5:3. Only Jesus Christ was born into this world without an OSN since He did not have a biological father. The OSN exists in the cell structure of the body and each one is unique. It can possess a trend to either lasciviousness or asceticism and it has a strength and a weakness. The OSN will not be eradicated from the body until the moment of physical death, however it has been crucified positionally in every believer, Rom 6:6.

The sin nature exists in our physical cell structure? Wow. Does that mean we will be able to eliminate it with genetic engineering?

[shalag]

this already is kind of deception.

God had said, Genesis 2:17,

But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

He didn't say nothing about touching!

Yet the woman told the snake, Genesis 3:3,

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"

I learned something critical from Richard’s presentation on the Biblewheel. He presented a gospel passage from Matthew and that same account from Mark and Luke. He pointed out the alphabetic sequence and why one book/spoke would have certain information while another book/spoke with the same account would omit it. I believe this is true with Genesis also. In Genesis 1 (ALEF) God, Elohim, in the beginning, creates the earth and all that is in it. Genesis 2 (BEYT / house/family relationship) reveals Adam placed in his new home Eden and given relationship with a helpmeet. In Genesis 3 (GIMEL/ the camel's head is lifted to see in the distance). GIMEL also speaks of God’s riches, His divine wisdom and allows for reward and punishment.) Genesis 3 introduces the serpent [nachash/358] – (the antithesis being Mashiach/358). The serpent suggests to the woman that there is wisdom equal to the Word of God. Genesis 4 (DALET/door) relates birth and death issues. And so forth

It is true that the Gen 2:17 account does not introduce ‘touching’, but because it is not revealed in Chapter 2/beyt does not negate that God ‘said it’.. In Chapter 3 – and in fact – in verse 3 we are introduced to the word ‘touch’/naga – nun/gimel/ayin. The fact that this word also lends itself to ‘strike, be stricken’ seems the perfect place to reveal this truth.

In the third gospel of Luke we see - Luke 22:64 (128) And having blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face and asked Him, saying, "Prophesy! Who is the one who struck You.

Mark (41/13th prime/mem) 15:25 (40/mem) = 81 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Touching is not only an intimate knowledge but can be a harsh act, such as Cain killing Abel or the scourging and crucifixion of Messiah Jesus Christ.

This word naga is also used in many other passages as beaten, brought down, smite, strike, plagued, cast as well as to join, reach up, touch.

Adam was placed in the garden Gen 2:15 (18) to ‘keep/protect’ it. In Genesis 3 the woman specifically says, GOD SAYS not to touch it. Was this a lie or 'an addition' to God's command to them? I don’t believe so. I believe Adam was commanded, even though this tree’s fruit was poisonous, not to ‘touch - ‘naga – strike, smite’ this tree from the garden. Adam may have thought to remove the tree so it posed no threat. We would like to eradicate evil from the world also, but God in effect says, “Not yet, in due time, let the wheat and the tares grow together.” God obviously placed the tree there for His own purposes.

John 12:31 (86) Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 (87) And I, if I be lifted up (GIMEL) from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 (88) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

TOUCH the tree and you will die. Jesus Christ naga/was smitten and hung on the tree - he died.

I believe naga/touch is revealed in Chapter 3 - specifically - - as it relates to its prophetic fulfillment in Christ. And after 3days He arose from the dead.

And when they ate of the tree in the garden - Adam did die in that day - both spiritually - -and physically.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I learned something critical from Richard’s presentation on the Biblewheel. He presented a gospel passage from Matthew and that same account from Mark and Luke. He pointed out the alphabetic sequence and why one book/spoke would have certain information while another book/spoke with the same account would omit it. I believe this is true with Genesis also. In Genesis 1 (ALEF) God, Elohim, in the beginning, creates the earth and all that is in it. Genesis 2 (BEYT / house/family relationship) reveals Adam placed in his new home Eden and given relationship with a helpmeet. In Genesis 3 (GIMEL/ the camel's head is lifted to see in the distance). GIMEL also speaks of God’s riches, His divine wisdom and allows for reward and punishment.) Genesis 3 introduces the serpent [nachash/358] – (the antithesis being Mashiach/358). The serpent suggests to the woman that there is wisdom equal to the Word of God. Genesis 4 (DALET/door) relates birth and death issues. And so forth

That's an excellent summary, shalag! The pattern continues through the whole book of Genesis. E.g. The word "Hebrew" and the person of Melchizedek first appear together in Gen 14, which corresponds to Spoke 14 of the Wheel where we find the Book of Hebrews which reveals Melchizedek as a type of Christ. This is all explained in the Inner Wheels > Genesis section of the website. Its an example of the "wheels within wheels" in the Bible.

Mark (41/13th prime/mem) 15:25 (40/mem) = 81 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

For those who may not be following shalag's connections, Mark is book 41, and 41 is the thirteenth prime, and mem is the 13 letter, so you get a chain of associations Mark (41/13th prime/mem). The connection with mem is then reiterated in the sum of the verse and chapter numebrs 15+25 = 40 = the numerical value of mem. The sum of the two number 40 + 41 then gives 81 = 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 (the fourth power of 3, usually written as 3^4) and this then links back to the theme of the Number 3 and the smiting of Christ on the Cross (4) at the third (3) hour.

shalag is practicing an intense form of Scriptural meditation. Her writings are extremely dense, and can easily seem very confusing if we don't slow down and meditate upon every symbol and step of association.

I am thinking we should probably move this thread over to the Hebrew Alphabet forum since it is too advanced for folks who have not mastered their symbolic meanings and alphanumeric values. It also seems that the topic has moved away from the question posed in the original post, namely, does the Bible teach that there is something called a "sin nature"?

[joel]

I am thankful for the opportunity to post on this site. And, to offer my views concerning "the sin nature".

It has been previously stated in the thread, and my paraphrase is......the flesh is inherently weak. In the garden, before the "sin", Adam and Eve were housed in a body that was weak.

During the trial, Eve was deluded in that she sought knowledge through sight. If I am not mistaken (Richard you may be able to check this....), there are differing sources of knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil, not intended to be totally unavailable to humanity, was to be obtained by hearing, and not by sight. This is the basis of the temptation in that she "saw", and chose to respond to what she "saw" rather than on what God had "said" ( which she got wrong, to a degree, and did not respond to the Adversary correctly.......which may be the responsibility of Adam in that he was the one who originally heard God's word and should have relayed it to her correctly...........so a different discussion may be; did she hear correctly and did not respond to the Adversary correctly......or, did he [Adam] fail to pass it to her correctly?).

After the transgression, did they obtain a "sin nature" which they did not previously have?

A study and discussion of Paul's letter to the Romans may help us see the actual truth and, then, enable us to explain and present it to others in a more accurate presentation in that I do not find a verse that identifies a "sin nature". That phrase may be one which we may need to discard in favor of a more accurate description of our true condition as Adam's race. That would be beneficial in obtaining the corresponding truth of what we are now "in Christ".

Thanks, Richard, for opening a forum on your site. I have followed your Bible Wheel presentation for some time, and am now interested in hearing from others who have benefitted from the "light" that you have received.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am thankful for the opportunity to post on this site. And, to offer my views concerning "the sin nature".

It has been previously stated in the thread, and my paraphrase is......the flesh is inherently weak. In the garden, before the "sin", Adam and Eve were housed in a body that was weak.

During the trial, Eve was deluded in that she sought knowledge through sight. If I am not mistaken (Richard you may be able to check this....), there are differing sources of knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil, not intended to be totally unavailable to humanity, was to be obtained by hearing, and not by sight.

That's a new idea to me. It sounds like it could be a Jewish tradition. Maybe Silvius knows something about it.

This is the basis of the temptation in that she "saw", and chose to respond to what she "saw" rather than on what God had "said" ( which she got wrong, to a degree, and did not respond to the Adversary correctly.......which may be the responsibility of Adam in that he was the one who originally heard God's word and should have relayed it to her correctly...........so a different discussion may be; did she hear correctly and did not respond to the Adversary correctly......or, did he [Adam] fail to pass it to her correctly?).

That's been debated. Silvius noted in post 22 that the tradition that says Adam added to the command not even to touch, since he was afraid of her dying. Of course .... I'm not sure how this is going to clarify the question of "sin nature" versus "flesh".

After the transgression, did they obtain a "sin nature" which they did not previously have?

Now THAT'S the $64,000 question (64 = Aletheia/Truth, and 1000 = Ho Nikon/He who overcomes).

A study and discussion of Paul's letter to the Romans may help us see the actual truth and, then, enable us to explain and present it to others in a more accurate presentation in that I do find a verse that identifies a "sin nature". That phrase may be one which we may need to discard in favor of a more accurate description of our true condition as Adam's race. That would be beneficial in obtaining the corresponding truth of what we are now "in Christ".

That's exactly what I'm hoping to accomplish here.

Thanks, Richard, for opening a forum on your site. I have followed your Bible Wheel presentation for some time, and am now interested in hearing from others who have benefitted from the "light" that you have received.

Joel

Thank you Joel for showing up and contributing to the discussion.

God bless!

[sylvius]

The knowledge of good and evil, not intended to be totally unavailable to humanity, was to be obtained by hearing, and not by sight

.

hearing and seeing

the ear has in it the cochlea,like a snail-shell.

the word is to be heard in different windings, on different levels, which again might be expressed with "Pardes", "P" standing for "pshat", plain meaning,
"R" for "remez", symbloic meaning, "D" for "Drush", homeletic meaning, "S" for "sod", mystery = the esoteric meaning.

seeing, sight, seems to be something of the outside.

you just can't look around the corner.

and what you see is just a part of the spectrum.

But strange; Exodus 20:14,

כָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם, וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, וְאֶת-הָהָר, עָשֵׁן; וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ, וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק.

And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.

So there is also another kind of seeing.

There is said that Adam, before sinning, could look from one end of the universe the other and well with the light of the first day
(which is not physical light).

called "ohr haganuz" = hidden light.


Rashi on Genesis 1:4,

And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated
Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah: He saw it that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future.

hey, that's interesting since on Richards' website is one great article about "badal/hivdil/mavdil", "Dividing the waters of the word"
http://www.biblewheel.com/Collaborat...2002_07_03.asp

I don't know where that comes from and how he (Mark Darroch) came to that.

but it's astounding for sure.

[joel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
After the transgression, did they obtain a "sin nature" which they did not previously have?

(Richard's response)

Now THAT'S the $64,000 question (64 = Aletheia/Truth, and 1000 = Ho Nikon/He who overcomes).
----------------------------------------------

It appears that the most comprehensive discussion of the matter of sin (as to its cause and its effect on humanity) occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans.

In the introductory chapters (1-4), Paul outlines the effects of sin especially in regards to our broken relationship with God. It is here that he clarifies our universal need of a change, a complete change, and that there is absolutely no way for us to do it through our efforts.

He works his way to the grand truth of "justification by faith". It is here that the first major change is presented. Christ Jesus has shed his precious blood for us all, and by virtue of God's grace, our status is changed from "subject to His wrath" to "Justified by faith in His blood."

Beginning in chapter 5, Paul begins to explain how through Adam both sin and death entered into the "world". Now we begin to see the "cause" of our pitiful state.

The old humanity was made subject to both sin and death. In the discussion that follows, both sin and death are reigning as despots.

It is at this point that the wondrous change that God has accomplished through Christ's sacrificial life, death, and resurrection is expanded to include the victory over both sin, and death. And, as Paul clarifies in his following letters, Christ has created a new humanity in Himself.

In Romans 6:6, Paul explains...."that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of sin may be nullified...."

The expression, "the body of sin", and the "old humanity" are linked together, and it is His death on the cross that is focus of the victory.

The change that has occurred is the end of the old, and the inauguration of the new.

Joel