Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Greetings all,

I've tried to make this post as short as possible while still getting my point across and offering my question: thanks for your patience in advance. :)

A common belief in Christianity is that Jesus- the Son of God- was "like us (humans) in every way, but without sin- including not having a 'sin nature'."

In the following verses, we read that the Son of God was "made" like the seed of Abraham in order to make reconciliation for their sins:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:16-18 KJV)

Verse 16 is rendered in some other translations (including NKJV) not as "taking on the nature" but as "giving aid":

"16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted." (Heb 2:16-18 NKJV)

In chapter 4 verse 15, the writer of Hebrews- speaking of Christ's temptations- asserts that, although He was tempted, He never succumbed or yielded to temptation: Christ never sinned.

"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."

The general idea behind these verses is commonly understood to be that in order to aid humans in their sin condition, and in order to make propitiation for their sins, it was necessary for the Son of God to be genuinely human in order to fully "heal" the human condition. As Gregory of Nyssa wrote: "what Christ did not assume, he did not heal".

My question is this: if Christ assumed a human nature that was NOT fallen, then how could he "heal" fallen human nature? Pre-fallen human nature was not in need of healing or deliverance or salvation. If Adam and Eve had partaken of the Tree of Life instead of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, it is assumed they would have continued to live on with an un-fallen human nature which was not in need of healing or salvation.

Thoughts?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Adam and Eve had a fallen nature to begin with or they would not have taken the fruit from the tree, It was afterwards that they realized it. Their spirit was just like ours before it is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is why the tree was in the garden in the first place, to give them life and healing.

If they would have been perfect as God is perfect then there would not have been any death. What the concern of God was is this, even though they had sinned in his presents they still could have taken from the tree and lived. It is not known if one time would have given eternal life in a physical sense or if they would had to eat of the tree several times. I would assume they would had to eat of the tree as needed throughout their life expanding.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by healing the spirit of mankind. After Adams sin there was no healing for the inner man until Jesus sent back the Holy Spirit. Which gave mankind power over a sinful nature, and a new desire to serve righteousness instead of evil.

Without the spirit of God in us we are not mindful of his presents and the things which are right in his sight. If we are religiously trained in rules and holy laws then our mind becomes the ruler of the things of God instead of our nature. In this case we do not have the power to over come sin. This is the state that Adam was in while in the garden. He knew God by sight and hearing. He also knew God by the things God told him and taught him. But he did not know God inwardly which would have given Adam constant conviction in the things which are right and the things which are wrong.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Nature is a descriptave term. Adam and eve Sinned. could Jesus have sinned? The answer has been debated for years , but Jesus stated i came to do the will of Him who sent me, and not his own.

Obvious the devil tried to tempt him in the wilderness.

However at the end Jesus became sin for the whole world

2 corinthians 5:21
For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him

he didnt commit sin, but he took the sin of the world upon him

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Or if Jesus did not assume a human nature that was fallen,what did he over come?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

I do not think Jesus had a fallen nature even though He is called the 2nd Adam.What we are overlooking here is several things.


Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Generally it is man's seed that mixes with the woman to produce offspring
But this says HER seed which is exactly what happened in the womb of Mary

Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luk 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.

THEREFORE Mary [for this reason the child that is conceived,made,created in your womb}Mary, shall be [not already is or pre existent]called the Son of God..

Adam is from God..He chose to sin
Jesus is from God..He chose not too

Jesus was the son God always wanted in Adam..

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Since I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin, I don't have a problem believing that Jesus had sinful flesh just like we do as Paul described in Romans 7 yet Christ truly overcame the flesh and did not sin.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Wow and people get upset over me..LOL..If there was no original sin why do you suppose Jesus came for ?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

well i dont agree that people are born into sin, or that they inherited sins from there fathers.

i think it comes down to a sinful nature. when one denies the will of God in order to fullfill there own lust, would be more to me what the original sin was.

and we all have that attibute the thing is we all act on it for our own purpose, yet jesus who was Just like us, always stressed he came to do his fathers will over his own. I mean how could adams sons and daughters be held accountable for the actions of there father. the sin of adam and eve was against adam and eve.

However the self centered nature and the desire that adam and eve had when they flat out disobeyed God carried over to there children who would inturn act on that same desire as well.

I like your analogy that jesus is the Son that God wanted adam to be.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Because all people sin. I don't believe God holds everyone, even babies, accountable for Adam's sin.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Umm if if were not for Adam...well..

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Mankind inherited the fallen nature from Adam,not sure what Bible you guys read..LOL..I do not believe it was physical death Adam brought but spiritual death, separation from God.I believe People born today are already dead,that is they are separated from God automatically.If they die unconverted,they die unconverted,this torment stuff preached in pulpits IMHO is not from the scriptures but I do not want to be a hijacker..but it looks like I will disagree with both of you guys on the sin issue

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

You are saying that an innocent baby is born separated from God because of Adam's sin and if it dies before conversion then it is lost. The baby never sinned on its own. It doesn't even know the difference between good and evil but it is lost? :spit

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

they inherited a fallen nature, they did not inherit the sin. nature is a descriptive term of how we act, conduct ourselves

def
human nature
n
1. the qualities common to humanity <-( right here the quality to be disobedient to God, that is what i consider a fallen nature)
2. ordinary human behaviour, esp considered as less than perfect
3. (Sociology) Sociol the unique elements that form a basic part of human life and distinguish it from other animal life


what sin has little babies commited. None thats obsured to charge them with a sin they never commited.

That would be like charging my brother who died of asthma as a baby and God holding the sin adam committed by taking the fruit. The child didnt take the fruit.

however the baby has a inherit trait as do we all which could be rendered the fallen nature, and that nature is to do our will over Gods, and that is exactly what adam did.

He basicaly said I can be my own God, i dont need God anymore i can take charge of myself. that is what adam did when he took the bite of the fruit.

He disobayed God, and that disobidience is mankinds fallen nature.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Hello Austin,

Thanks for your response. If Adam and Eve had a fallen nature when they were created, then how do we reconcile Gen 2:17 where God told Adam if he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, he would "die"? This implies that he was "alive" before he ate of it. I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit transforms us (as you said), but to bring us alive again from our own death in Adam (1Cor 15:22).

I don't believe they were "perfect" as God is perfect, because in God there is not even a possibility of succumbing to temptation and sinning. With Adam & Eve, there obviously was.

I agree this was God's concern, and that's why he expelled them from the Garden (Gen 3:22-24).

When I'm speaking of healing, I mean what you're saying: mankind by himself has no power over his sinful nature. It is only through the power of our Sacrifice and High Priest that we have the ability to resist the inclination of the flesh (Heb 2:17-18).

I agree that Adam did not have the same experience as is offered to us today- the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is because it had not yet been given. But I disagree that Adam was created with a sinful nature. I believe this was acquired later. As Paul stated, it was through Adam's sin that death passed upon all mankind (Ro 5:12).

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Hello acerrak,

Thank you for your response. I think the question you asked is important: could Jesus have sinned? I believe the answer is "yes", because otherwise, his temptations would have been meaningless. As Heb 2:18 states, Jesus genuinely suffered in his temptations, and as you stated, the purpose of these temptations was for Jesus to choose the will of the Father, not his own human will. Since he was victorious in this (and thank God he was!), he is able to impart that victorious power to us!

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Was Jesus drawn away of his own lust, and enticed?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Hello Prax,

I agree that Jesus' "overcoming" had to be genuine and meaningful. This is why I believe- at the very least- there existed the possibility for him to sin in choosing his will over the will of the Father.

If Jesus DID assume a fallen human nature, could he still have qualified to be the perfect sacrifice for mankind? We know that the Law demanded a sacrifice without spot or blemish (Ex 12:5), and we know that Jesus was accounted as such (Heb 9:14; 1Pet 1:19). If Jesus had possessed a fallen nature, yet simply not sinned, would he still have been considered "without spot or blemish" in God's eyes?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Hello SRM,

Thanks for your response. I agree that Jesus came as the second Adam, to repair/undo what Adam had done: disobey God. Jesus had to constantly choose the Father's will above his own, and this is what the first Adam failed to do.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Hi Mizpeh,

Interesting. Do you differentiate between original guilt and humans possessing a sinful nature, or what has been labeled an "evil inclination", or do you believe individual humans are innocent in God's sight until they commit an act of sin?

As I posed the question to Prax above, if Jesus assumed a "fallen" human nature, could he still have qualified to be a sacrificial Lamb without spot or blemish? Under the Law, lambs (or any other sacrificial animal) had to be BORN without blemish, not simply remain free from acquiring blemish after they were born.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

A human is made up of body, soul, and spirit. In the spirit is where the life and existence and awareness of God should be. When we are born into this world our spirit is not like unto God's nature. It lives without the acknowledgment of God, or in others words, we are spiritually dead unto the life and existence of God.

The soul area on mankind is where our emotions, appetites, and desires are located. also in that area is where the mind and decision center are. This is the area where we are affected by both spirit and flesh.

Our physical bodies are motivated by desire. Hunger, cold, physical appetites, and so on.
Our soul area and our body can be affected by both a spiritual inclination or a physical inclination.

Often we are conformed by what we hear, see, and do. Many people for instance can become religious and still not know Jesus in spirit and yet have a very wonderful and perfect appearing life style in the eyes of self and others. The problem is, they don't have leadership of the Holy Spirit and conviction of the Spirit because they are spiritually separated from the living and moving of the Holy Spirit.

This was the condition that Adam and Eve were in and also others born into this physical world. This is what the apostle Paul meant when he said, You were alienated from the life of God and in the world, but now have come into the light of
Jesus Christ.

I, and I say this of myself, believe that a person must be spiritual made alive by the power of God through faith and repentance. I also believe that the Holy Ghost is a gift outside of the gift of salvation. I believe this because. The disciples were believers in Jesus by faith and by witness. But yet Jesus told them to abide in jerusalem until they be endued with power from on high. I believe they were spiritually born again within. If they would have died before the day of pentecost they would have went to heaven.

It boils down to this, we must be born again of the spirit to enter the kingdom of God. If we were OK just by faith and learning, then that would have never been quoted in the bible. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.

Now some how this teaching has changed. In modern churches today they say all you have to do is simply believe in Jesus and after that you got it all.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

He also had to be our kinsman redeemer...how can he be our kinsman if he is not made to be like us in every respect?

BTW this is also why the Heavenly Flesh doctrine is wrong

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

What part do you not understand?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

i think your taking it out of context, what sin has a baby comitted? is a baby a man? what about a woman. scripture just says man..

actually paul also stated
romans 7:9

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died

see Paul even acknowledges that He was alive until he understood the commandments.

even jesus stated in John 15:22

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin

so please keep it in context and not try to make a straw mans arguement on verse of scripture.

Paul is basically stating we all sin, but we are not born with sin. we all have the fallen human nature to sin.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

bump

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

dont think he was drawn away of his own lust, but i definatly think the devil inticed Him.

matt 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.


so the Spirit led him, not his own lust.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Jesus had human nature but not fallen human nature. He was like Adam before Adam sinned. Adam's ability to sin did not mean he had fallen nature. FALLEN nature implies he FELL from something. Adam did not fall from anything when he was created. He later fell, and the nature he wound up with later was, therefore, FALLEN. Jesus was born sinless and without fallen human nature. He was tempted to sin just like Adam was before Adam actually sinned. But that does not mean he had fallen human nature.

1 Cor 15 says man brought death so man had to bring resurrection from the dead. That is why Jesus had to be incarnate.

Will check out the AID issue in the original post. Interesting.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

:happydance

Amen bro. Blume. And we are not born sinning of course, but because of our fallen nature, we will end up sinning in some way or another. Because we are born in that fallen nature, thus in bondage to sin from within.

And it appears by what is written in Ez. 20:5, 34:7. and Num. 14"18. is how sin is passed down to all of us that are born after the first Adam also. Meaning the devil was after Adam all along, not Eve. So unless you can come up with some scripture that says sin is passed on down thru the Mother, or even suggests it is, then Jesus was born as the Son of Man entirely sinless. And since it says he remained that way written in 2:22, he did not sin.

But that is also how Jesus was not born in sin as well at all. Because His true Father was God according to Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 1. So he was very much like God made man in the beginning. Which was lost after they succumb to make the Devil or Lucifer their spiritual Father when they were tempted. Whereas Jesus did not give in to the devils temptation at all, as the first two did. Could He have done so? Probably if he was like the first Adam. But we know He didn't. And that is what matters.

As for Adam being made with a sin nature, I definitely do not believe this at all. He took it on when He partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Which represented Lucifer, who knew both good and evil, which IMO is why the tree was named this in the first place. Whereas Jesus Christ represents our Tree of Life spiritually because of what He said beginning in John 6:46-58.

As for babies and children, they are ignorant of what is sin and what isn't. Sin described as being what is written in James 4:17. So despite the nature to do so they are born with, until they do begin to know what is sin and what isn't, I do not believe God is going to hold them accountable yet. There may be a lot more than meets everyones eye to that statement too. Don't know.

Also take note about who both Adam and Eve did become like, which some are way off in what they do see here. That answer is written in Gen. 3:22 where God said, "And the lord god said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever.

So let us consider who was in that Garden then for the man to become like one of us. Just take that part and look around. There was God, who scripture definitely says there is no way they became like God at all then. Then there was the man of course. Who actually lost what he was previously because of disobeying God. So the man didn't become like himself at all. Ah but then there was the devil right? And that is of course, who he became like. That is if the devil also is simply another name for Lucifer, who had been in bed in knowing full well about what it was like to be good, yet also evil both. So guess who man became like then. The devil or satan or Lucifer of course.

Also recognize what it means biblically to know someone as well. Whether we are talking about in the flesh, or spiritually. And that is when all of mankind fell into bondage to sin. Of course, that does not mean that all men followed after their spiritual father either. As many OT saints didn't. But they could not go to be with the Lord yet either, until after the cross took place. Then apparently many of those OT saints did.

So what I see is we all are born with that sin nature, as someone else also wrote about too. Unless someone can show me some scripture I am not rightly dividing by what I am seeing here of course. Then I will need to take another look of course.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

God gave Adam free will, to choose. If that means having a fallen nature then even God has a fallen nature.

There must be more to having a fallen nature

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Right.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

This verse seems to explain it pretty well. For him to be tempted in every way as we are, Christ had to have inherited the human propensity for sin. Yet, "as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19), He came into the world without having sinned, and continued thus even after temptation.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

What in reply to the post are you saying right to? Adams fallen nature or God having a fallen nature?

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Praxeas said:

He implied that it is not true that man was created with a fallen nature simply because Adam could choose, because that would bring us to the ridiculous conclusion that God has a fallen nature simply because God can choose. And since we know God does not have a fallen nature just because He can choose, I agree that man did not have a fallen nature when created just because he could choose.

FALLEN nature is a nature that is less than the nature man originally had. MAN FELL from a certain higher nature and wound up with a FALLEN nature. If man's nature is not one that is less than a nature he had originally, then man cannot have a "FALLEN" nature. You have to FALL from one nature to a lower nature to have a FALLEN nature. Otherwise we should not use the term FALLEN nature.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Christ did not have to have a propensity to sin just because he was tempted. A propensity to sin is a sin nature. Christ merely had the potential to sin, not propensity. A propensity is a BEND TOWARDS SIN. It is too strong a word that leans too much toward having a sinful nature to say Christ had a "propensity" to sin. Would you say Christ had these words to say about himself as Paul did? "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

If you believe Christ could not have said that, then why did Paul? We have to believe Christ did not have the propensity to sin like Paul said he did.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

I started a new thread in the fellowship section about SIN NATURE. I think it deserves its own thread.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Any way we slice it, Jesus had to be able to say the same thing Paul said if there is no sin nature issue involved in us and not Jesus.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

For Paul's statement in Romans 7 to apply to Christ would contradict both of the verses I referenced.

If you have issue with the choice of the word "propensity", I will gladly rephrase. Let me say that Christ as a man had a "vulnerability" to the temptation of sin. To have accepted Satan's temptation would have been sin, and if the man Christ did not desire the things offered, then there was no temptation. Thus, if Christ were impervious to the temptations (knowing that they were sin), then Hebrews 4:15 is an exaggeration.

Re: Was Jesus' human nature "fallen"?
 

Being tempted to sin does not mean Christ had a sin nature. That is the overall issue. Paul described what it is to have a sin nature in Romans 7, and Christ did not have that same propensity Paul described.