Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

[reddogs]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging and the inherent traits of genetics. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations. Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'.

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

In eastern orthodoxy, the body is NOT inherently sinful, neither is the forbidden fruit which contains the knowledge of good and evil - not Pandora's box; Eve's sin was a conscious choice against God's instruction, Adam's sin was going along with that conscious choice, even though he knew better. They deliberately and willingly turned away from God, that's the real Fall of humanity, also the literal meaning of sin - missing the mark, either intentionally or unintentionally, blaming "fleshly nature" and the forbidden fruit is just an excuse. This is the excuse Jesus ridiculed: "IF your right hand causes you to sin ..." "IF your right eye causes you to sin ..." When God became flesh and dwelt among us, the flesh was sancified through the incarnation, it became a temple of the Holy Spirit. It was gnosticism philosophy that denigrates the physical, practical and tangible and praises the spiritual, theoratical and abstract, that's the philosophy of the Nicolaitans that's still prevailing in perhaps most churches, and it's unbiblical.

Nonetheless, sin entered the world through Adam as he was banished from Eden, and sin ever increases from there on, as mankind's connection with God was cut off. We say it all the time that man was made in the image of God, but another important fact that's rarely mentioned is that from Seth and there on, mankind was no longer directly made in the image of God, but in the image of Adam, which means everybody is a copy of the original. Jesus, however, was born of the Holy Spirit, he was not another copy in the likeness of Adam, but another image in the likeness of God, that's why he's called the second Adam.

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. (Gen. 5:1-3)

 

[Elijah7777]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall

We each reflect the image of one or the other—Adam or Christ. > We cannot be both. > Jesus died so we could be redeemed, set free from the legacy of Adam’s fall. > We can perish in Adam’s likeness, or we can live as a type of "Him who was to come." >> “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” > — Romans 5:14 (NKJV)

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging and the inherent traits of genetics. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations. Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'.

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Do you believe that Jesus is fully human and also fully divine, the way the Gospel of Mark pictures him as God's Son? If so, his divine-human nature is a mystery to the extent that the ways those two natures work together. Are you trying to reason out that mystery? If so, why?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Do you believe that Jesus is fully human and also fully divine, the way the Gospel of Mark pictures him as God's Son? If so, his divine-human nature is a mystery to the extent that the ways those two natures work together. Are you trying to reason out that mystery? If so, why?

Jesus is indeed fully human, but a sinless human being born of the Holy Spirit, in the ORIGINAL image of God. In contrast, all other humans from Seth onward are born in Adam's image after the Fall, which is the mould of a sinner, the original image was flawed by sin. This is the fundemantal difference that explains mankind's sinFUL nature and Jesus's sinLESS nature.

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. (Gen. 5:1-3)

 

[Hawkins]

Scientifically, you may need to first understand how to plant an egg to clone a lamb. Technically, "another Adam" can be cloned with original genetics then planted to a human to give birth to.

 

[Beetow]

.
It is very easy to show that Jesus was among Adam's biological posterity.

To begin with: the Bible says Jesus was on track for David's throne.

● Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he
will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

Before any man can be considered for the throne, they must first be one of David's
paternal descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The new testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the paternal requirement.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual
posterity as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological
posterity because Jesus was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins
according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was among David's biological descendants, then of
course Jesus was among Adam's biological descendants too because we all, including
David, descend from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.

FAQ: Well if Jesus really was one of Adam's biological descendants, then why didn't
he inherit the so-called fallen nature?

REPLY: The fallen nature isn't inherited. I know that's true because Eve was fully
constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his tasting the forbidden
fruit, so it was impossible for him to pass the fallen nature to her by means of
heredity.

The thing is: according to Rom 5:12-21 Adam is the cause of his posterity's
fallen nature, but according to Eph 2:1-2 & Heb 2:14 he isn't the source of it.
_

 

[reddogs]

.
It is very easy to show that Jesus was among Adam's biological posterity.

To begin with: the Bible says Jesus was on track for David's throne.

● Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he
will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

Before any man can be considered for the throne, they must first be one of David's
paternal descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The new testament verifies that Jesus satisfies the paternal requirement.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual
posterity as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological
posterity because Jesus was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins
according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was among David's biological descendants, then of
course Jesus was among Adam's biological descendants too because we all, including
David, descend from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.

FAQ: Well if Jesus really was one of Adam's biological descendants, then why didn't
he inherit the so-called fallen nature?

REPLY: The fallen nature isn't inherited. I know that's true because Eve was fully
constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his tasting the forbidden
fruit, so it was impossible for him to pass the fallen nature to her by means of
heredity.

The thing is: according to Rom 5:12-21 Adam is the cause of his posterity's
fallen nature, but according to Eph 2:1-2 & Heb 2:14 he isn't the source of it.
_

Christ was of the seed of Abraham and David so was fully man, but we also have what gives us greater understanding when it comes to what He came with. Christ was born it says when Mary was found with child, "of the Holy Ghost'. Do you think He would be given a mind full of sin and predisposed to iniquity, of course not. It was one that Adam was given, not full of lust or evil desires, one before the fall but still like Adam able to be tempted and sin, thus the true test of the temptation brought by the devil in the wilderness, otherwise it was just a farce, a charade played out with no real test. This change, the transformation, the new heart created that David spoke of, the born again experience we must go through that Christ spoke of, on the road to sanctification.

When we turn to Christ fully we are justified by faith, but we then have to be sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit, and this is a free gift available to every man, thus Christ has no advantage, we stand at the same place with this 'mind of Christ' given us. We then come before God, transformed with a new heart, perfect, and able to stand just before His judgement rather than 'filthy rags' we have of self.

The seed, the flesh was Adam after the fall. But the mind had no propensity to sin, no thoughts of iniquity, it was the the mind, the thinking, the reasoning that Adam was given before the fall. Our thinking rises above the flesh, it contains the essence of who we are, it is where the Holy Spirit transforms, or as David asks, creates a new heart and new spirit. It is where we are born again, not in the flesh, but our minds, and sanctified and made perfect before God.

Its not fully explained, yet we are given the pieces to understand how our characters are changed, our thoughts cleansed and the fruits of the Spirit flow out from it. Its all there, we just have to grasp and comprehend how it all comes together. Lets go over what scripture gives us, which I think you know well, but lets look to see if what it supports that Christ had a mind that was as what Adam was given and how the robe of Christ righteousness/mind of Christ comes into play.

We read
1 Peter 2:24
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Here we are given an example of one who did 'no sin' that we should follow and commit ourselves to God, 'that we being dead to sin' like Christ 'should live unto righteousness' and it adds 'by whose stripes ye were healed'.

So what I read is that it says we should reach the standard of no sin and be dead to sin and live to the level of righteousness that Christ, who heals or (cleanses) us from sin. We see this clearly in this verse.

1 John 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

This confirms not only that He cleanses us but was manifested for this, and we saw how He was manifested in Matthew and we see also in Luke.

Matthew 1:18-20
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Holy Ghost would not have conceived a child with a mind of sin and corruption of iniquity, and we see that it says a 'holy thing'. And Gods Word is clear that this child who was Christ is not made with a mind after the fall, it is 'without blemish and without spot'.

1 Peter 1:18-19
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

[Elijah7777]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Do you believe that Jesus is fully human and also fully divine, the way the Gospel of Mark pictures him as God's Son? If so, his divine-human nature is a mystery to the extent that the ways those two natures work together. Are you trying to reason out that mystery? If so, why?

It’s not really a mystery to those who study the Hebrew language: God desires to dwell with His people and be intimately present in His creation. He first dwelled in the Tabernacle—a portable sanctuary. In Hebrew, this tent is symbolized by the letter Bet (ב), which represents a house or dwelling.

Later, His presence moved to the Temple in Jerusalem. Then, after Calvary, we became the temple of God—He now dwells within us.


That “Bet” connection is rich with meaning, especially since it’s also the first letter of Bereshit (Genesis), suggesting from the very beginning, God was building a dwelling with and among humanity.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

It’s not really a mystery to those who study the Hebrew language: God desires to dwell with His people and be intimately present in His creation. He first dwelled in the Tabernacle—a portable sanctuary. In Hebrew, this tent is symbolized by the letter Bet (ב), which represents a house or dwelling.

Later, His presence moved to the Temple in Jerusalem. Then, after Calvary, we became the temple of God—He now dwells within us.


That “Bet” connection is rich with meaning, especially since it’s also the first letter of Bereshit (Genesis), suggesting from the very beginning, God was building a dwelling with and among humanity.

How is your post an answer to mine, Elijah7777?

 

[Elijah7777]

How is your post an answer to mine, @Elijah7777?

We are having a discussion about your use of the word "mystory" in your response to someone else. I tend to take a expository approach and it is enough to study one word at a time.

When the Gospel of John says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1), the Greek term used for “Word” is Logos—a concept far richer than mere spoken or written words. Logos implies divine reason, creative order, cosmic truth—the very principle by which the universe was formed and sustained.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

It’s not really a mystery to those who study the Hebrew language: God desires to dwell with His people and be intimately present in His creation. He first dwelled in the Tabernacle—a portable sanctuary. In Hebrew, this tent is symbolized by the letter Bet (ב), which represents a house or dwelling.

Later, His presence moved to the Temple in Jerusalem. Then, after Calvary, we became the temple of God—He now dwells within us.


That “Bet” connection is rich with meaning, especially since it’s also the first letter of Bereshit (Genesis), suggesting from the very beginning, God was building a dwelling with and among humanity.

Elijah7777, you talk about Hebrew as if the New Testament is written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek, wasn't it?

 

[Elijah7777]

@Elijah7777, you talk about Hebrew as if the New Testament is written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek, wasn't it?

I like to return to what Moses actually said. Scripture states “It is written” seventeen times, including the pivotal moment when Jesus rebukes Satan three times in the wilderness, each time quoting from Deuteronomy. Yet in some instances, we find no words from Moses at all—revealing teachings that lack foundation and pointing us toward false doctrine.

My main reason for going back is the clarity and precision of the Hebrew language. Unlike Greek, which—though powerful—lacks the nuanced depth of Hebrew, the original tongue conveys truth with unmatched exactness. After the Tower of Babel, when God confounded human language, this fragmentation made interpretation more challenging. Greek, a language of conquest, lends itself well to issuing commands—perfect for military clarity—but it does not always capture the sacred subtlety of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Take for example the common interpretation that God fashioned the woman from Adam’s “rib.” That translation comes from the Greek. But the Hebrew word used is “tsela”—more accurately meaning side. This reveals something much deeper: woman was not formed from a mere bone, but from Adam’s very side—implying equality, unity, and intimacy. The one became two, and through covenant, they are joined again to become one flesh—just as we are made one with Jesus.

 

[Rookie]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging and the inherent traits of genetics. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations. Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'.

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

In my personal curiosity Christ wasn't born through Joseph so he didn't inherit the sinful nature of Adam, but we have that nature. How would you factor that in?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Sin and death spring from Adam. AS Christ was born of a virgin, His human flesh was free of death and sin:
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
(Lk. 1:34-35 NKJ)

21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Cor. 15:21-22 NKJ)

Christ's human nature was fully human, yet without sin:
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 NKJ)

Christ "knew no sin" because: 1) "sinfulness not present in his flesh"; 2) "Never entertained the idea of sinning"
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(2 Cor. 5:21-6:1 NKJ)

"Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; (1 Pet. 2:22; Isaiah 53:9)

"Holy, undefiled, separate from sinners"
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; (Heb. 7:26 NKJ)


To sum up, Christ was incarnate in sinless human flesh, having only a "likeness to sinful flesh":
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, (Rom. 8:3 NKJ)

 

[hawkman]

The Flesh that Jesus had was no different that the flesh we and everyone before us had . The flesh can not sin on it's own , it takes a mind , a brain for the sin to be done . You have to choose to hold your thoughts captive as Jesus did , we have the Holy Spirit as our Guide .

If Jesus did not have the same flesh as us then the verse highlighted below is a lie .

Hebrews 4:15 Context​

12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For 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. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Original View of Original Sin

Augustine’s writings on original sin are often seen as a reaction to his own perceived youthful sexual excesses. In reality, his views are rooted in philosophy.

foundations.vision.org

 

[Alfred Persson]

The Flesh that Jesus had was no different that the flesh we and everyone before us had . The flesh can not sin on it's own , it takes a mind , a brain for the sin to be done . You have to choose to hold your thoughts captive as Jesus did , we have the Holy Spirit as our Guide .

If Jesus did not have the same flesh as us then the verse highlighted below is a lie .

Hebrews 4:15 Context​

12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For 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. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The Original View of Original Sin

Augustine’s writings on original sin are often seen as a reaction to his own perceived youthful sexual excesses. In reality, his views are rooted in philosophy.

foundations.vision.org

That isn't considered Orthodox:

10. His Sinlessness. Another quality of this transcendent personality is his sinlessness. All tradition and testimony unite to pronounce him “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26); “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22); “in him is no sin” (1 John 3:5); and he “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). He is spoken of “as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19), and as “the holy and Righteous One” (Acts 3:14). Pilate declared to the priests and to the multitudes, “I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4), and both he and his wife referred to him as “that righteous man” (Matt. 27:19, 24). Even the demons address him as “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). One of his own most memorable sayings is, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” From his childhood up to the close of his life he maintained the record of a spotless character, and while assuming authority to forgive the sins of others, he never acknowledged a need of repentance or of remission of sins on his own part. He stands sublimely apart as the one transcendent sinless personality among men. Terry, M. S. (1907). Biblical Dogmatics: An Exposition of the Principal Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures (p. 265). Eaton & Mains; Jennings & Graham.


The Proof of the Impeccability of Christ Pages 150–152

The Proof of the Impeccability of Christ

The ultimate solution of the problem of the impeccability of Christ rests in the relationship of the divine and human natures. It is generally agreed that each of the natures, the divine and the human, had its own will in the sense of desire. The ultimate decision of the person, however, in the sense of sovereign will was always in harmony with the decision of the divine nature. The relation of this to the problem of impeccability is obvious. The human nature, because it is temptable, might desire to do that which is contrary to the will of God. In the person of Christ, however, the human will was always subservient to the divine will and could never act independently. Inasmuch as all agree that the divine will of God could not sin, this quality then becomes the quality of the person and Christ becomes impeccable.

Shedd has defined this point of view in these words:
Again, the impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in his person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of his apostle Paul. He too would say, “The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?” Rom. 7:19, 20, 24. But there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man: On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Christ: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” John 8:46; and the confident affirmation of St. John: “In him was no sin.” 1 John 3:5. There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,” Gal. 5:17.18

Shedd like many of the early church Fathers does not clarify the distinction between desire and will. That the human and divine natures of Christ could have different desires is obvious, but in the nature of personality there cannot be two determinative wills. Decision may be a product of deciding between desires, but there cannot be two wills in the sense of sovereign wills in one person, even a unique Person like Christ. All orthodox theologians agree that the ultimate decision reached by Christ in all cases was an act of will of the person in which the divine nature dominated. The human will could never go beyond the stage of desire where this conflicted with the divine will.

The question of the impeccability of Christ therefore resolves itself into a question as to whether the attributes of God can be harmonized with a doctrine of peccability. The concept of peccability in the person of Christ is contradicted principally by the attributes of immutability, omnipotence and omniscience.

The fact of the immutability of Christ is the first determining factor of His impeccability. According to Hebrews 13:8 (ASV), Christ is “the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever,” and earlier in the same epistle Psalm 102:27 is quoted, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail” (Heb. 1:12). As Christ was holy in eternity past, it is essential that this attribute as well as all others be preserved unchanged eternally. Christ must be impeccable, therefore, because He is immutable. If it is unthinkable that God could sin in eternity past, it must also be true that it is impossible for God to sin in the person of Christ incarnate. The nature of His person forbids susceptibility to sin.

The omnipotence of Christ makes it impossible for Him to sin. Peccability always implies weakness on the part of the one tempted; he is weak to the extent that he can sin. On the part of Christ, this is clearly out of the question. While the human nature of Christ if left to itself would have been both peccable and temptable, because it was joined to the omnipotent divine nature, the person of Christ was thereby made impeccable. A careful distinction should be made between omnipotence, which has a quality of infinity and therefore would sustain impeccability, and the concept of sufficient power or grace. Impeccability is defined as being not able to sin, whereas a concept of sufficient power would be merely able not to sin. A moral creature of God sustained by the grace of God can achieve the moral experience of being able not to sin as is illustrated in every victory over temptation in the Christian life. All agree that Christ was able not to sin, even those who affirm His peccability. The contrast, however, is between the idea of sufficient power and omnipotence. The infinite quality of omnipotence justifies the affirmation that Christ is impeccable.

It is foolish speculation to attempt to decide what the human nature of Christ would have done if not joined to the divine nature. The fact remains that the human nature was joined to the divine nature and, while its own realm was entirely human, it could not involve the person of Christ in sin. On the ground of omnipotence, then, it may be concluded that Christ could not sin because He had infinite power to resist temptation.

The omniscience of Christ contributed a vital part to His impeccability. Sin frequently appeals to the ignorance of the one tempted. Thus Eve was deceived and sinned, though Adam was not deceived as to the nature of the transgression. In the case of Christ, the effects of sin were perfectly known, with all the contributing factors. It was impossible for Christ having omniscience to commit that which He knew could only bring eternal woe to Himself and to the race. Having at once infinite wisdom to see sin in its true light and at the same time infinite power to resist temptation, it is evident that Christ was impeccable.
Walvoord, J. F. (2008). Jesus Christ Our Lord (pp. 150–152). Galaxie Software.

 

[RandyK]

In eastern orthodoxy, the body is NOT inherently sinful, neither is the forbidden fruit which contains the knowledge of good and evil - not Pandora's box; Eve's sin was a conscious choice against God's instruction, Adam's sin was going along with that conscious choice, even though he knew better. They deliberately and willingly turned away from God, that's the real Fall of humanity, also the literal meaning of sin - missing the mark, either intentionally or unintentionally, blaming "fleshly nature" and the forbidden fruit is just an excuse. This is the excuse Jesus ridiculed: "IF your right hand causes you to sin ..." "IF your right eye causes you to sin ..." When God became flesh and dwelt among us, the flesh was sancified through the incarnation, it became a temple of the Holy Spirit. It was gnosticism philosophy that denigrates the physical, practical and tangible and praises the spiritual, theoratical and abstract, that's the philosophy of the Nicolaitans that's still prevailing in perhaps most churches, and it's unbiblical.

Nonetheless, sin entered the world through Adam as he was banished from Eden, and sin ever increases from there on, as mankind's connection with God was cut off. We say it all the time that man was made in the image of God, but another important fact that's rarely mentioned is that from Seth and there on, mankind was no longer directly made in the image of God, but in the image of Adam, which means everybody is a copy of the original. Jesus, however, was born of the Holy Spirit, he was not another copy in the likeness of Adam, but another image in the likeness of God, that's why he's called the second Adam.

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. (Gen. 5:1-3)

Yes, I saw this last part in my questions about it many years ago--about Adam regenerating his own sinful nature and endowing his children with the Sin Nature, as well as physical problems associated with it. But I do think we're made in the image of God, despite the entry of Sin into our beings.

I especially like the 1st part of your message in which you state that it was Adam's choice to disobey God that constituted Sin, and not just eating the fruit of knowledge. The fact this fruit represented the wish for knowledge of both good and evil, to be like God who is above evil, indicated that Adam and Eve were in pursuit of God-like qualities not reserved for them. They were simply to avoid eating of a tree God allowed Satan to tempt them with in terms of knowledge. It was clearly a "carnal knowledge" that Satan was tempting them with.

By externalizing the knowledge of good and evil from their mandate to avoid the fruit gave them the option to either become participants in the knowledge of evil or obey God. They chose to participate in the Sin of Disobedience, thus rendering their knowledge of evil corrupt.

I also strongly agree with you, and with the Orthodox position as you state it, that the physical body of Jesus was not participatory in Adam's fallen body. I like how you say Jesus was the "2nd Adam," and thus quite separate from inheriting Adam's fallen body.

Jesus was subject to the external elements of the fallen world and thus vulnerable to them. That made him mortal.

But being sinless, I don't think he had even a tooth ache. If he was restless it was because external elements imposed their discomfort on him.

I think it is often misunderstood what Paul meant when he indicated Christ bore our sins. It meant that he took the legal punishment that we deserved, even though he didn't deserve it. In suffering the abuses of human Sin he was in effect giving opportunity to forgive the entire human race for any sin.

As such, he bore the punishment reserved for sinners who suffer their due in a fallen world. He bore that punishment for Sin. He didn't become Sin in the sense of becoming a "Sinner!" He wasn't really being punished for his own Sin!

Rather, Jesus just experienced the curses that normally fall upon sinners in this fallen world. As such, he could forgive all of mankind for producing such a fallen world in the 1st place. My words only...

 

[hawkman]

That isn't considered Orthodox:

10. His Sinlessness. Another quality of this transcendent personality is his sinlessness. All tradition and testimony unite to pronounce him “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26); “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22); “in him is no sin” (1 John 3:5); and he “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). He is spoken of “as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19), and as “the holy and Righteous One” (Acts 3:14). Pilate declared to the priests and to the multitudes, “I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:4), and both he and his wife referred to him as “that righteous man” (Matt. 27:19, 24). Even the demons address him as “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). One of his own most memorable sayings is, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” From his childhood up to the close of his life he maintained the record of a spotless character, and while assuming authority to forgive the sins of others, he never acknowledged a need of repentance or of remission of sins on his own part. He stands sublimely apart as the one transcendent sinless personality among men. Terry, M. S. (1907). Biblical Dogmatics: An Exposition of the Principal Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures (p. 265). Eaton & Mains; Jennings & Graham.


The Proof of the Impeccability of Christ Pages 150–152

The Proof of the Impeccability of Christ

The ultimate solution of the problem of the impeccability of Christ rests in the relationship of the divine and human natures. It is generally agreed that each of the natures, the divine and the human, had its own will in the sense of desire. The ultimate decision of the person, however, in the sense of sovereign will was always in harmony with the decision of the divine nature. The relation of this to the problem of impeccability is obvious. The human nature, because it is temptable, might desire to do that which is contrary to the will of God. In the person of Christ, however, the human will was always subservient to the divine will and could never act independently. Inasmuch as all agree that the divine will of God could not sin, this quality then becomes the quality of the person and Christ becomes impeccable.

Shedd has defined this point of view in these words:
Again, the impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in his person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of his apostle Paul. He too would say, “The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?” Rom. 7:19, 20, 24. But there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man: On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Christ: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” John 8:46; and the confident affirmation of St. John: “In him was no sin.” 1 John 3:5. There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,” Gal. 5:17.18

Shedd like many of the early church Fathers does not clarify the distinction between desire and will. That the human and divine natures of Christ could have different desires is obvious, but in the nature of personality there cannot be two determinative wills. Decision may be a product of deciding between desires, but there cannot be two wills in the sense of sovereign wills in one person, even a unique Person like Christ. All orthodox theologians agree that the ultimate decision reached by Christ in all cases was an act of will of the person in which the divine nature dominated. The human will could never go beyond the stage of desire where this conflicted with the divine will.

The question of the impeccability of Christ therefore resolves itself into a question as to whether the attributes of God can be harmonized with a doctrine of peccability. The concept of peccability in the person of Christ is contradicted principally by the attributes of immutability, omnipotence and omniscience.

The fact of the immutability of Christ is the first determining factor of His impeccability. According to Hebrews 13:8 (ASV), Christ is “the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever,” and earlier in the same epistle Psalm 102:27 is quoted, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail” (Heb. 1:12). As Christ was holy in eternity past, it is essential that this attribute as well as all others be preserved unchanged eternally. Christ must be impeccable, therefore, because He is immutable. If it is unthinkable that God could sin in eternity past, it must also be true that it is impossible for God to sin in the person of Christ incarnate. The nature of His person forbids susceptibility to sin.

The omnipotence of Christ makes it impossible for Him to sin. Peccability always implies weakness on the part of the one tempted; he is weak to the extent that he can sin. On the part of Christ, this is clearly out of the question. While the human nature of Christ if left to itself would have been both peccable and temptable, because it was joined to the omnipotent divine nature, the person of Christ was thereby made impeccable. A careful distinction should be made between omnipotence, which has a quality of infinity and therefore would sustain impeccability, and the concept of sufficient power or grace. Impeccability is defined as being not able to sin, whereas a concept of sufficient power would be merely able not to sin. A moral creature of God sustained by the grace of God can achieve the moral experience of being able not to sin as is illustrated in every victory over temptation in the Christian life. All agree that Christ was able not to sin, even those who affirm His peccability. The contrast, however, is between the idea of sufficient power and omnipotence. The infinite quality of omnipotence justifies the affirmation that Christ is impeccable.

It is foolish speculation to attempt to decide what the human nature of Christ would have done if not joined to the divine nature. The fact remains that the human nature was joined to the divine nature and, while its own realm was entirely human, it could not involve the person of Christ in sin. On the ground of omnipotence, then, it may be concluded that Christ could not sin because He had infinite power to resist temptation.

The omniscience of Christ contributed a vital part to His impeccability. Sin frequently appeals to the ignorance of the one tempted. Thus Eve was deceived and sinned, though Adam was not deceived as to the nature of the transgression. In the case of Christ, the effects of sin were perfectly known, with all the contributing factors. It was impossible for Christ having omniscience to commit that which He knew could only bring eternal woe to Himself and to the race. Having at once infinite wisdom to see sin in its true light and at the same time infinite power to resist temptation, it is evident that Christ was impeccable.
Walvoord, J. F. (2008). Jesus Christ Our Lord (pp. 150–152). Galaxie Software.

Go find the post on this forum where I have said Jesus was sinful . Alfred Persson , you did not say one word about the scripture I posted , here it is again .

Hebrews 4
15For 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.

Does this verse speak truth or do you call it a lie ?

Augustine had some mighty powerful Kool-Aid he was serving up .

 

[Alfred Persson]

Go find the post on this forum where I have said Jesus was sinful . Alfred Persson , you did not say one word about the scripture I posted , here it is again .

Hebrews 4
15For 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.

Does this verse speak truth or do you call it a lie ?

Augustine had some mighty powerful Kool-Aid he was serving up .
View attachment 21631

You said: "The Flesh that Jesus had was no different that the flesh we and everyone before us had"

Our mothers conceived via our father's sperm. We inherit Adam's fallen nature (with his desires for sin) through our father.

Jesus' human nature was supernaturally conceived by Holy Spirit without a human father. Jesus did not lust as we do.

Walvoord, in his book "Jesus Christ Our LORD" discusses the sinlessness of Christ very thoroughly. You should get his book. I only excerpted parts of it.



You ask for my opinion about the text in Hebrews, I certainly do not agree with your limiting "without sin" to the act alone:

Christ's human nature was fully human, yet without sin:
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 NKJ)


"in all points" includes everything in the compass of flesh, hence I conclude Christ didn't lust sinfully as we do.

In other words, Christ was incarnate in the "likeness of sinful flesh", it wasn't sinful flesh:
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, (Rom. 8:3 NKJ)


Our sinless LORD could not say with Paul:
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. (Rom. 7:18 NKJ)