Advent Talk

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Go and check out the Christians Discuss Forum for committed Christians at

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?  (Read 2760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?
« on: January 28, 2019, 03:40:11 AM »

Here is a good explanation on this issue:
"When Jesus would uplift men to become members of the heavenly family, He humbled Himself to become a member of the earthly family, and by partaking of our nature He became the Son of man, the Son of Adam, and a Brother to every son and daughter of our fallen race."--Ms 58, 1896, p. 4.  {17MR 25.3}
"The two expressions human and divine were, in Christ, closely and inseparably one, and yet they had a distinct individuality."  {ST, May 10, 1899 par. 11}

"The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God and the Son of man..."  {17MR 338.1}   

Why the question of Christ’s Nature is vital to us.                                                                                   

 Papal Rome teaches that Jesus did NOT take our fallen nature but possessed a human nature different to ours. She claims that possessing a fallen nature is itself a sin and therefore teaches that Christ could not possess it. Rome teaches the doctrine of the “Immaculate conception of Mary” - that she was miraculously given a sinless nature, a nature unlike ours, so that Jesus inherited a sinless “human” nature from her.

 Today many Protestants effectively teach the same thing. Like Catholics they claim that merely possessing a fallen nature is sin. The only real difference between Roman Catholic theology and so-called Protestant theology is that the Protestant view claims that instead of God miraculously giving Mary an unfallen human nature, God gave Jesus an immaculate unfallen human nature, or some unique hybrid nature that we do not possess.  Many modern day Seventh Day Adventists in contrast to our forefathers have been promoting similar sentiments.

Had Christ lived his earthly life in any nature other than our fallen nature then He would have failed to condemn sin in our fallen nature and would have failed to demonstrate what is possible in our fallen nature. Christ lived a life of sinlessness in our fallen human nature and thereby condemned sin in the flesh, in our flesh. Christ proved that our nature is no excuse for sinning and that obedience to God’s law is possible in our fallen nature thus exposing Satan’s lie and charge against God : “Satan, the fallen angel, had declared that no man could keep the law of God after the disobedience of Adam. He claimed the whole race under his control.”  {3SM 136.1} 

The only way that Christ could demonstrate how, we in our sinful nature, might live sinless lives is by himself living a sinless life in our sinful nature.

“He [Christ] came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the EXAMPLE OF A SINLESS LIFE.”  E.G. White, Desire of Ages, p49.

“He sent His Son to this world to bear the penalty of sin, and to SHOW MAN HOW TO LIVE A SINLESS LIFE.” E.G. White, Reflecting Christ, p37.

“He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live LIVES OF SINLESSNESS.” E.G. White, Review and Herald , April 1, 1902

“He placed us on vantage ground, where we could live pure, SINLESS LIVES.” E.G. White, Signs of the Times, June 17, 1903.

“Every one who by faith obeys God’s commandments, will reach the condition of SINLESSNESS in which Adam lived before his transgression.” E.G. White, Signs of the Times , July 23, 1902.


  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2019, 04:06:17 AM »

And we see in scripture:

Romans 1:3 King James Version (KJV)

"3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"

Hebrews 2:16 King James Version (KJV)

"16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

and yet without sin:

Hebrews 4:15 King James Version (KJV)

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

and we can partake if we just look to Christ:

Hebrews 9:28

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.



  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2019, 04:26:33 AM »

Here is Ministry magazine on the issue:
"The Word became flesh

The Bible says, "The Word [Christ] was made flesh" (John 1:14). What does the Greek word for "flesh" mean? Does it tell us whether Christ's human nature was sinful or sinless? Sarx appears 151 times in the New Testament. 4 Arndt and Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon gives it eight meanings: (1) the material covering a body [1 Cor. 15:39]; (2) the body itself as a substance [chap. 6:16]; (3) "a man of flesh and blood" [John 1:14]; (4) "human or mortal nature, earthly descent" [Rom. 4:1]; (5) "corporeality, physical limitation(s), life here on earth" [Col. 1:24]; (6) "the external or outward side of life" [2 Cor. 11:18]; (7) "the willing instrument of sin" [Rom. 7:18]; and (8) the source of sexuality (John 1:13]. Only one of these (number 7) has to do with sin. Therefore sarx does not necessarily mean ''sinful''5

In Greek, the usual word for "sin" is hamartia 6 and not sarx. Schweitzer's theological dictionary notes that sarx may designate an earthly sphere (see 1 Cor. 1:27), not necessarily "sinful and hostile to God, but simply . . . limited and provisional." 7 It also says sarx may mean an object of trust (see Rom. 2:28). Here "what is sinful is not the sarx, but confidence in it." 8 Schweitzer concludes, "Where sarx is understood in a full theological sense, as in Galatians 5:24, it denotes the being of man which is determined, not by his physical substance, but by his relation to God." 9

Does God becoming flesh merely mean He received a human body? Christ said of His incarnation, " 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me' " (Heb. 10:5, N.I.V.). In agreement Paul wrote, "He appeared in a body" (1 Tim. 3:16, N.I.V.). The Greek word for "body" is soma, yet the word "body" (N.I.V.) in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not soma but sarx. It merely means "enfleshment," not "sinful."

How, then, do we understand these words: God sent His "Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and. . . condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3)? First, consider what Paul could have said. He might have written, (1) God sent His Son in sinful flesh or (2) in the likeness of flesh. The first would mean His flesh was sinful, and the second would say that He only appeared to be in the flesh but was really some extraterrestrial being (cf. 1 John 4:1-3, a text misunderstood by some). 10

Paul said neither. He focused on Christ coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. The key word is "likeness." Two Greek words are translated "like" in English: isos, meaning "same," as in Acts 11:17, where "God gave them the like [same, isos] gift," and homoioma, used in Romans 8:3, meaning "similar" (because human), but not "same" (because not sinful). Scripture is consistent on this point. Thus Philippians 2:7 says of Jesus that He "was made in the likeness [homoioma] of men." 11 Hebrews 2:17 says, "He had to be made like (homoioo) his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest" (N.I.V.).

Do these Greek words and these passages suggest that Jesus was only similar to other humans in having a sin-affected physical human body, but not the same as other humans, for He alone was sinless in His spiritual relationship with God? Ellen White thought so.12 The Biblical evidence we have looked at so far supports such a conclusion."
Pages: [1]   Go Up