Those who teach that Christ took a sinless spiritual human nature at His incarnation—the spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall—do so out of a sincere concern to preserve the perfect sinlessness of our Saviour. That is why they object to the truth that Christ assumed our sinful nature, the post-Fall nature of Adam with its bent to sin. Their main arguments are four in number:
1. If Christ took our sinful nature, as we know it, He would have been tainted with sin, and therefore could not be the spotless Lamb of God; He would Himself be a sinner in need of redemption.
2. Although Christ did assume humanity and was like us physically, the Scripture refers to Him as "that Holy One" (Luke 1:35), "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15), "separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26). Therefore His spiritual nature was like Adam's before the Fall.
3. Christ could not have resisted temptation had His human nature been sinful in all respects as is ours.
4. Christ is the second Adam; therefore He took the sinless spiritual nature of the first Adam.
Since a correct view of Christ's humanity is essential to a true understanding of the salvation He obtained for all mankind, both in terms of justification as well as sanctification and glorification, we cannot ignore these objections which come from sincere men of God. Let's consider them, then, in the spirit of truth, unity, and the clarity of the full gospel so that the divine purpose of enlightening this dark world with God's glory may soon become a living reality.
1. If Christ took our sinful nature, as we know it, He would have been tainted with sin, and therefore could not be the spotless Lamb of God. This argument comes from the doctrine of original sin. This doctrine teaches that because of the Fall sinful human nature stands condemned because of indwelling sin (see Romans 5:18, 19; 7:20, 23). Hence, it is thought, if Christ assumed such a sinful nature, He would automatically become a condemned sinner as all men and women are from their birth.
It is true that Paul refers to our sinful humanity as "the body of sin" (Romans 6:6) because it is indwelt by "the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2). But the problem of original sin cannot be applied to Christ. At the Incarnation, Christ's divinity was mysteriously united to our corporate humanity that needed redeeming, so that Christ was both God and man at the same time. However, it is most important that we keep these two natures distinct—a distinction the sixteenth-century Reformers unfortunately failed to preserve.
In the Incarnation, Christ took upon His own sinless divine nature our sinful human nature. For this reason, wherever the Bible refers to Christ's humanity, it uses the qualifying word "made." He was "made flesh" (John 1:14, KJV); "made ... to be sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21); "made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4); "made a curse" (Galatians 3:13, KJV); "made of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3, KJV). The word "made," means that Christ was made to be, or became, what He was not by nature.
So, while Christ did really and truly assume our sinful nature which is under the curse of the law and therefore condemned to death, this did not make Christ Himself to be a sinner or a blemished sacrifice. That human nature which He assumed was not His by native right; He took it in order to redeem fallen mankind. Had Christ, even by a thought, yielded to the sinful desires of the flesh, He would have become a guilty sinner like us. But as long as He did not unite his will or mind to our sinful nature which He assumed, He cannot be considered a sinner.
Yes, Scripture tells us that He was tempted in all points like as we are (that is, through the flesh, see James 1:14), but He never sinned (see Hebrews 4:15). Yes, at the Incarnation He took upon Himself our sinful nature as we know it, in order that He might be the Saviour of the world. But instead of that human nature contaminating Him, He cleansed it on the cross. This truth is beautifully illustrated in His miracles of healing for lepers. To the Jews, leprosy was a symbol for sin. According to Old Testament laws, anyone who touched a leper would become unclean. But in Christ's case, it was the very opposite; He did touch lepers, but instead of becoming unclean, He cleansed them! This is the glorious power of the gospel.
Because Christ was "made flesh," and took on Himself something that was not intrinsically His own, Paul is very careful to use the word "likeness" when he says that God sent His Son in "the likeness of sinful flesh" to condemn "sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). On the one hand, Scripture identifies Christ with our total sinful situation, apart from actually sinning, in order that He might truly redeem us from every aspect of sin (see Hebrews 2:14-18). But on the other hand, it also makes it very clear that He was not altogether like us. He was not a sinner; this can never be.
The International Critical Commentary, (Romans, vol. 1), says Paul used the word "likeness" in Romans 8:3 to emphasize the fact that "the Son of God was not, in being sent by His Father, changed into a man, but rather assumed human nature while still remaining Himself." Therefore, this commentary concludes, "Paul's thought seems to be that the Son of God assumed the selfsame fallen human nature that is ours, but that in His case that fallen human nature was never the whole of Him—He never ceased to be the eternal Son of God."
We may explain it this way: Every born-again Christian has become a "partaker of the divine nature" through the experience of the new birth (2 Peter 1:4). This divine nature is sinless, but in no way does this make the believer himself innately sinless, even though Scripture considers him to be a righteous person and declares him to be a child of God (see Romans 8:16; 1 John 3:1,2). This is because the divine nature does not belong to the believer by native right. In the same way, partaking of our sinful nature did not make Christ a sinner because that human nature was not His by native right. He assumed it in order to redeem it. Therefore, as long as Christ Himself did not consent to sin, or yield in any way to temptation, He remained spotless.
Those who insist that by taking our sinful nature, Christ would have disqualified Himself from being the spotless Lamb of God have failed to see the true significance of the sanctuary symbolism with reference to Christ's redeeming work. Because of the Fall, all humanity stands condemned and under the curse of the law (see Romans 5:18; Galatians 3:10). God's law demands two requirements if fallen men and women are to be redeemed from this condemnation and curse and have their status changed to justification unto life.
First, the law requires perfect obedience in order to qualify for life. Christ accomplished this by His thirty-three years of active, positive obedience to God's law in our human nature which He assumed. However, this obedience, even though it was absolutely perfect, could not cleanse our humanity from the curse and condemnation of the law.
Second, the law requires death—eternal death—as the wages of sin. Only death could set us legally free from sin (see Romans 6:7). So until Christ took this condemned humanity to the cross and surrendered it to the full wages of sin, He could not qualify to be our righteousness and justify the ungodly (see Romans 4:5,25). Christ satisfied this further demand of the law, its justice, by dying for us on the cross. Thus, by both His doing which satisfied the positive demands of the law, and by His dying which met the justice of the law, Christ obtained eternal redemption for mankind (see Hebrews 9:12) and forever became the Saviour of the world (see John 5:24).
Only in the light of this truth can we understand the Old Testament sanctuary symbolism. By His perfect active obedience to the law, Christ fulfilled the symbolism of the spotless lamb; it was this that qualified Him to meet the justice of the law on our behalf. Nowhere in Scripture do we find it hinted that the spotless lamb represented the sinless human nature of Christ. This is only an assumption that cannot be proven explicitly from the Word of God. What that spotless lamb represented had to do with our salvation; it represented the perfect obedience of Christ which the law demands of us in order to qualify us for life. When the spotless lamb was slain, it represented the blood or death of Christ which cleanses us from sin (see Hebrews 9:22-28).
This twofold symbolism of the Old Testament was replaced by the symbolism of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. The bread we eat represents Christ's body in which the perfect will of God—the law—was fulfilled (see Hebrews 10:5-9). The grape juice we drink represents the sacrificial death of Christ which met the justice of the law (see Matthew 26:27).
Had Christ taken Adam's sinless nature as our representative and substitute, the law would have required of Him only positive obedience, as it did from Adam. But since Christ came to redeem fallen man—not sinless man—our sins which proceed from the flesh had to be condemned at their very source, the flesh. This is what Christ did by assuming that same sinful flesh and submitting it to death on His cross. Thus He "condemned sin [singular] in the flesh" (Romans 8:3).
Some argue that if Christ assumed our sinful nature as we know it, His perfect obedience would have been polluted because of the "corrupt channel" through which it was performed. (They derive this term "corrupt channel" from a mistaken reading of Selected Messages, 1:344.) But this cannot be substantiated by Scripture.
It is true that, in itself, Christ's perfect obedience could not justify the fallen race, because of the "corrupt channel," the sinful human nature, that stood condemned. Hence both the dying as well as the doing of Christ was necessary in order to justify sinful man. But in no way was our Saviour's perfect performance marred by the sinful human nature He assumed. According to Scripture, Christ "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). His obedience was perfect. Never for a moment did Christ consent to temptation; not even by a thought did sin rest in His mind. According to the Greek New Testament scholar K. Wuest, "The words 'without sin' (Hebrews 4:15) mean that in our Lord's case temptation never resulted in sin" (Hebrews in the Greek New Testament, 95). Thus Christ produced a perfectly sinless character in our corporate sinful nature that He assumed. In doing so, He fully satisfied the positive requirements of the law as our substitute. This qualified Him to be the spotless Lamb of God.
Yet on the cross this same Christ, as the Lamb of God, took away the sin of the world (see John 1:29). How could Christ take away "the sin" of the world if it was not there in the flesh which He assumed? How could Christ condemn "sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3) in a sinless flesh?
But Christ did take away our sin by condemning it on the cross. He could do this because He assumed our flesh which has sin dwelling in it (see Romans 7:17,20). "He [Christ] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself' (Hebrews 9:26). According to Wuest, the putting away of sin denotes both the sinful nature as well as sinful acts: "The verb (thetos) means 'to do away with something laid down, prescribed, established.' Sin had established itself in the human race through the disobedience of Adam, a sinful nature and sinful acts" (ibid., 40, emphasis supplied).
Because Christ partook of and overcame our sinful human nature, He is able today, as our High Priest, to both understand "the feeling of our infirmities" (Hebrews 4:15, KJV), as well as "aid those who are tempted" (Hebrews 2:18, KJV). The word "infirmities" must not be limited to physical weaknesses such as fatigue or aging, as some teach. Again, according to Wuest: "The word 'infirmities' is astheneia, 'moral weakness which makes men capable of sinning,' in other words, the totally depraved nature." Interpreting the expression "He Himself [Christ] also is compassed with infirmity," Wuest continues: "The high priest has infirmity, sinful tendencies, lying around him. That is, he is completely encircled by sin since he has a sinful nature which if un-repressed, will control his entire being" (ibid., 98).
In this connection it is interesting to note Karl Barth's observation:
Those who believe that it was fallen human nature which was assumed have even more cause than had the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism to see the whole of Christ's life on earth as having redemptive significance; for, on this view, Christ's life before His actual ministry and death was not just a standing where unfallen Adam had stood without yielding to the temptation to which Adam succumbed, but a matter of starting from where we start, subjected to all the evil pressures which we inherit, and using the altogether unpromising and unsuitable material of our corrupt nature to work out a perfect, sinless obedience (quoted in The International Critical Commentary, Romans 8:3).
Thus we may be assured that our redemption in Christ's holy history was both perfect and complete. Not only do we believers have in Christ's righteousness "justification of life" (Romans 5:18), but in Him we can likewise claim liberation from our bondage to sin, so that we may now live unto God (see Romans 6:7-13). This is the basis of true justification as well as sanctification, both of which are to be received by faith alone.
2. Although Christ did assume humanity and was like us physically, the Scripture refers to Him as "that Holy One" (Luke 1:35), "without sin" (Hebrews 4:15), "separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26). This is the second objection raised to the idea that Christ assumed fallen, sinful human nature. But do such statements of Scripture suggest that Christ's human nature itself was sinless?
In order to understand these statements correctly, we must take into account other Bible texts which identify Christ with our sinful human condition. There must be no contradiction in Scripture. Note, then, such statements as: God "hath made Him to be sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21, KJV); God sent Him "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3); "in all things He had to be made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17); Christ "Himself took our infirmities" (Matthew 8:17).
Some try to reconcile these two apparently opposite views by teaching that Christ took our sinful nature only as far as our physical makeup is concerned. Thus He was prone to fatigue, aging, etc., but, they insist, morally or spiritually, He took the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall. Such a view goes far beyond what can be supported by an honest interpretation of these Scriptures. Furthermore, in Scripture, our physical and spiritual natures are related, so that if the one is sinful, so is the other. Hence "this corruptible" is identified with "mortal," and "incorruption" with "immortality" (see 1 Corinthians 15:53). Similarly, "the body of sin" (Romans 6:6) is identified with "the body of this death" (Romans 7:24).
As I see it, a true harmony of these two groups of texts—which on the surface seem to contradict each other—is possible only when we take into consideration two important facts:
First, Christ was both God and man, so that He had two distinct natures united in one person—His own divine nature, which was sinless, and our corporate sinful human nature, which He assumed. Thus Christ was a paradox. On the one hand, He could be called "that holy thing," and on the other hand, He was "made to be sin."
Second, although Christ took upon Himself our sinful nature, this must not be identified with our sinning nature. Our sinful nature has sinned and continues to sin, but His human nature did no sin, so that in performance His humanity can be called sinless. According to Scripture, Christ understands our weakness since He took our sinful nature that is dominated by the "law of sin." Nevertheless, His mind never for a moment consented to sin, so that His flesh was totally deprived of sin (see 1 Peter 4:1).
Once we come to grips with these two important facts—the sinlessness of Christ's divinity and the perfect sinlessness of the character He produced in His humanity—the problem of reconciling these two sets of apparently contradictory texts ceases. Clearly, the texts referring to Christ's sinlessness are dealing either with His sinless divine nature or His sinless performance or character. And the texts that identify Christ with our sinful condition are referring to His equipment, our sinful human nature which He assumed, and which is "sold under sin" (Romans 7:14). Incidentally, a similar group of apparently contradictory statements can also found in the writings of Ellen White, and the same principle applies to her writings too.
With this in mind, let's examine the key texts that refer to Christ's sinlessness and see if this conclusion is valid. Do they, indeed, refer either to His divine, sinless nature or to His sinless performance that He produced in our sinful flesh—rather than to the human nature He assumed at the Incarnation?
1. Luke 1:35. In this verse, the angel announces to Mary her conception of the Lord Jesus Christ. He calls Him "that Holy One." Notice that the angel uses this phrase in connection with Christ being called "the Son of God," a term applying to His divinity. It was Jesus' divinity, the fact that the human child to be born was also the divine Son of God, that the angel was referring to when he called Jesus "that Holy One." He was not speaking of Christ's human nature.
2. John 8:46. "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" Jesus challenged the Jewish leaders who were incapable of discerning His divine nature or appreciating His perfect character. He was referring to His performance which was without sin—not to His human nature, which incidentally, was made in all points like His brethren (see Hebrews 2:17).
3. John 14:30. Jesus says, "the ruler of this world [Satan] is coming, and he has nothing in Me." It was ever Satan's purpose to thwart the plan of salvation by enticing Christ to sin. The temptations in the wilderness are a good example. But all his attempts failed, as Hebrews 4:15 confirms. Again, Christ was referring to this victory over temptation, His sinless performance. Jesus Himself explains this passage in the next verse: "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do" (verse 31). Thus this text refers to His perfect obedience, not His human nature.
4. Hebrews 7:26. This verse says of Christ that He was "separate from sinners," "holy, harmless, undefiled," all of which suggest Christ's perfect performance, His righteousness. Christ was unlike, or separate from, the sinful human race He came to redeem in His sinless living—not in the nature which He took. Otherwise, Hebrews 2:17 makes no sense when it says of Him that "in all things He had to be made like His brethren." I believe Hebrews 1:9 explains in what sense Christ was separate from us: "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions." The perfect character Christ produced in our sinful humanity separated Him from the rest of us.
5. 2 Corinthians 5:21. This text says of Christ that He "knew no sin." The context of this statement is Christ as our sin-bearer. In fact, the entire text says, "He [God] made Him [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin for us" (emphasis supplied). Christ knew no sin with reference both to His divine nature as well as to His character or performance. Yet the Bible is clear that He "bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24). He did this by bearing our sinful humanity on the cross, the humanity He assumed at the Incarnation. That is why Peter adds in this very same text, "that we, having died to sins, might live" (emphasis mine). The only way we could have died to sin by Christ's death is if His humanity was really our corporate sinful humanity that stood condemned (see 2 Corinthians 5:14). This is why Paul tells us, God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the only way we could have died to the law "through the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4).
6. 1 John 3:5. John says, "In Him [Christ] there is no sin." The context of John's statement indicates that "sin" here means sinning—not the human nature Christ "took." The preceding sentence in this verse reads: "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins [plural, referring to our acts of sin]." Christ did not commit even one single sin, but He came to take away our many sins. He did this, of course, by taking our sinful, corporate humanity to Himself and executing that humanity on the cross.
7. Hebrews 9:14. This text says Christ "offered Himself without spot." This expression, as well as the one which follows—to "purge your conscience from dead works"—suggests performance rather than nature. Christ was "without spot" in performance, although tempted as we are (see 1 Peter 1:19; Hebrews 5:8, 9).
To the above text, we must add John 1:14. Some Adventist pastors interpret the statement, "the only begotten of the father," to mean that Christ's humanity was unlike ours. Their argument is that the word "begotten" in Greek means "one of a kind." They insist, therefore, that since Christ was "one of a kind," His spiritual human nature must have been different than ours—that is, spotless or sinless. The problem with such an interpretation is that John does not say that it was Christ's human nature, or His humanity, that made Him "one of a kind." He says that what made Christ, the God-man, "one of a kind" was the fact that "the Word [Christ as the divine Son of God] was made flesh [human]."
Further, if the word "begotten" is referring to Christ's sinless human nature which was unlike ours and therefore "one of a kind," then we must admit that Isaac, the son of Abraham, also had a sinless human nature since the writer of Hebrews uses the same Greek word translated "begotten" when referring to Isaac: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son" (Hebrews 11:17, emphasis supplied). What made Isaac "one of a kind" was not his human nature, but the fact that he was a miracle child born after Sarah had passed the age of childbearing (see Romans 4:19). In the same way, what made Christ "one of a kind" was His unipersonality—the fact that He was both God and man at the same time. The "Word became flesh" making Him unique or one of a kind (John 1:14).
Thus, it seems clear that none of these texts refers to Christ's human nature itself; they cannot be used to prove that His spiritual human nature was sinless like that of Adam before the Fall. When correctly harmonized, Scripture teaches that Christ's sinlessness was in character or performance, produced in a human nature exactly like the one He came to save. He "condemned sin" in the human nature which is dominated by the principle of sin, or love of self.
Hence, God's righteousness manifested in sinful flesh can be truly called "the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). The Greek word translated mystery means "something that can be seen and known, but that cannot be explained." How Christ produced a sinless life in a sinful human nature is indeed a mystery, but it is a biblical fact. Had Christ lived a sinless life in a human nature that was spiritually sinless, His holy living would not be a mystery. This brings us to the third objection.
3. Christ could not have resisted temptation had His human nature been sinful in all respects as is ours.
This was the very objection raised against the 1888 message. Note again how Ellen G. White responded to it in the Review and Herald of February 18, 1890:
Letters have been coming in to me affirming that Christ could not have the same nature as man, for, if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it was not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battle as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern (emphasis supplied).
In Romans chapters 2 and 3, Paul demonstrates that both Jews and Gentiles "are all under sin" so that "there is none righteous, no, not one" (3:9,10). Therefore, so far as sinful human nature is concerned, "There is none who does good, no, not one" (verse 12).
Yet the same apostle also informs us that the very thing that sinful human beings, in and of themselves, cannot do, God did through Christ! (see Romans 7:14-25). The very thing that the law could not do because of weakened human nature, God did! (see Romans 8:3). God did it in Christ's humanity which was "in the likeness of sinful flesh." And he did this so that the "righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us [believers] who [like Christ] do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:3,4).
Christ's sinless living did not prove that sinful human beings, in and of themselves, can resist temptation and live above sin. Instead, His sinless living demonstrated that sinful human beings, indwelt and controlled by God's Spirit, can overcome all the powers of the devil that he musters through the sinful flesh. This is what the New Testament teaches. Speaking of Himself as a man, Christ made it clear that He could do nothing of Himself (see John 5:19,30) and that He lived "because of the Father" (John 6:57). Even His works all proceeded from the Father (see John 14:10,11). Luke, after relating the temptations of Christ in the wilderness, concludes: "Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). Speaking of Christ's death, the writer of Hebrews says: "By the grace of God" Christ tasted "death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9).
It is only in this context that Christ could resist all temptations and thus make it possible for the born-again believer to live above sin. "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises [in Christ]: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2 Peter 1:4, KJV).
Paul makes it clear that humans, in and of themselves, cannot resist temptation, but he makes it equally clear that what is impossible with man is possible with God: "Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Galatians 5:16). "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil its lusts" (Romans 13:14).
Thus in the light of these texts, if any dare to say that sinful humanity cannot resist temptation or live above sin as long as they walk in the Spirit, they are elevating the power of the devil and sinful flesh above the power of God. Paul declares, "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2). And he adds, "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Romans 8:11).
This is the glorious truth of the gospel which gives all believers everlasting hope in this world of sin. The ultimate power of sin is the grave. So anyone who can conquer the grave proves they can conquer sin. God allowed the sins of the whole world to put Christ in the grave, but they could not keep Him there. Christ's resurrection is the greatest proof that all our sins were conquered in Him.
4. Christ is the second Adam; therefore He took the sinless spiritual nature of the first Adam. This is the fourth objection raised against the idea that Jesus assumed our fallen, sinful human nature at the incarnation.
It's true that Christ is the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), but the New Testament clearly qualifies in what sense Christ is like Adam. To go beyond this qualification is to take liberties not warranted by God's Word.
In Romans 5:12-21, Paul compares and contrasts Adam and Christ. This passage makes it clear in what sense Christ resembles Adam. It is not in nature, but in representation. All mankind was present in the first Adam when he ruined his posterity by his representative sin. In the same way, God united all men to Christ, qualifying Him to be the second or "last" Adam" (see 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:3). By Christ's representative obedience, all men were legally justified unto life in Him, just as by Adam's sin, all mankind were made sinners (see Romans 5:19). It is only in this sense that Scripture makes a comparison between Adam and Christ. What Adam did affected the whole human race, and what Christ did, likewise, affected all mankind (see Romans 5:15,18). To go beyond this comparison and identify Christ's human nature with Adam's sinless nature before his fall, is to add to Scripture an idea that is not present in the texts.
Nowhere in the Bible do we find Christ in any way compared with Adam in terms of nature. On the contrary, Christ, is called the Son of David and of Abraham (see Matthew 1:1; Romans 1:3), both of whom had sinful flesh. He is referred to as being made "in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). Scripture says of Him that "in all things He had to be made like His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). Clearly then, we cannot say that Christ took Adam's sinless nature in the incarnation simply on the basis that He was called the second Adam.
Any attempt to preserve Christ's perfect sinlessness at the expense of the full significance and power of the gospel is to undermine the truth of the gospel. Those who teach that Christ assumed only the pre-Fall nature of Adam must of necessity teach that He did not have to contend with the power of sin dwelling in sinful flesh. But such a teaching destroys a vital truth of the gospel. The gospel offers sinful man not only legal justification, but also God's power unto salvation from sin itself (see Matthew 1:21; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:17, 18, 24).
To appreciate this salvation, we must understand sin in the light of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. At the heart of this controversy lies the issue of God's law, founded on the principle of selfless love (agape), a love which "does not seek its own" (1 Corinthians 13:5; cf. Matthew 22:36-40) versus the law of sin, founded on the principle of the love of self (see Isaiah 53:6; Philippians 2:21). These two opposite principles met and fought each other in the humanity of Christ. On the one hand, Satan, working through Christ's flesh, desperately tried to entice Christ's mind to consent to self-will. But on the other hand, the Holy Spirit working through Christ's mind, never yielded. Thus every attempt on Satan's part failed, for Christ's response was always, "Not as I [self] will, but as You will" (John 4:34; 5:30; Matthew 26:39).
This battle began the moment Christ was old enough to choose for Himself, and it ended at the cross when Satan, using the full driving force of temptations arising from sinful flesh, tempted Christ to come down from the cross and save Himself (see Luke 23:35-37). But Christ refused to yield and was obedient "even unto death" (Philippians 2:8, KJV). Thus Satan's kingdom, along with his principle of self-love, was totally defeated forever (see John 12:31; Romans 8:2, 3). This victory is a vital part of the good news of the gospel. "Be of good cheer," Jesus says, "I have overcome the world" (John 16:33; see also 1 John 2:16; 5:4 for John's definition of the "world").
Some who hold to the idea of Christ having a sinless human nature may object that Christ did not need to take our sinful nature in order to be tempted. This is true, of course. Adam has already proven that sinless human nature can be tempted and sin. But this is not the issue involved in Christ's temptations. It is a mistake to identify and equate Adam's temptation and fall with our own temptations and failures. When Adam sinned in Eden, he committed an unnatural act, for his sin was a contradiction to his sinless nature. His act of disobedience was inexcusable and therefore unexplainable.
On the contrary, when fallen, sinful man yields to temptation, he is doing something perfectly natural to his sinful nature. Those who teach that a person need not have a sinful nature in order to be tempted, and who therefore argue that Christ could be tempted and subject to the possibility of falling even though His human nature was sinless, may be making a correct statement per se. But the fact is Scripture clearly states that Christ was "in all points tempted as we are" (Hebrews 4:15, emphasis supplied). This means that Christ had to be tempted through His flesh even as we are, because for us, temptation is defined as being "drawn away of. . . [our] own desires and enticed" (James 1:14).
The real issue in Christ's earthly life was not that He could be tempted or that He was subject to the possibility of falling as did Adam. The issue was: Could Christ, in sinful human nature, resist Satan and defeat temptation—the principle of self-seeking? For, you see, our real problem is not only that we are born with certain sinful tendencies, but that we are in slavery to sin and the devil (see John 8:34; Romans 3:9; 6:16; 7:14; Acts 8:23; 2 Peter 2:19; 1 John 3:6-8). This was not true of Adam or his nature before the Fall. Hence Adam's temptation and fall in Eden must never be identified with our temptations and failures. The sinless Adam had no "self that needed constantly to be denied or crucified. But Christ had to deny Himself all His life; His self-will had to be crucified daily (see Luke 9:23).
It is true that the fundamental issue in every temptation is the same, for temptation is simply being enticed to say "No" to God and live independently of Him, to follow self-will instead of God's will of love. In that sense, no fundamental difference may exist between Adam's temptation and ours, but a world of difference exists in the actual struggle against the temptation itself. For if sin is saying "No" to God or living independently of Him, then our basic definition of a sinful nature must be one in which there is a bent toward self-love and independence from God.
Paul brings this out clearly when he describes mankind's sin problem in Romans 1:18-23. By very nature, sinful men and women are self-seeking and self-dependent; sinful tendencies are simply different manifestations of this principle of self-love. This, in fact, is the primary meaning of the Hebrew word translated "iniquity" (see Psalm 51:5; Isaiah 53:6). The mind controlled by the flesh, what the Bible calls the "carnal" mind, is "enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Romans 8:7).
But this was not true of Adam as God created him. Adam was tempted to sin in a nature controlled by selfless love, and hence his failure is inexcusable. Satan tempts us in a nature that is controlled by "the law of sin"—the love of self—a nature that naturally seeks its own way (see Isaiah 53:6; Philippians 2:21). Adam's sinless flesh was subject to the law of God, and in fact, he delighted in God's law. But our carnal nature is not subject to God's law. It is at war with God's law. There was perfect harmony and agreement between Adam's sinless nature and the Spirit of God who dwelt in Him. But in the case of the born-again believer, the Spirit and the flesh are at war with each other (see Galatians 5:17).
Sinning was unnatural for Adam; it was an extremely hard thing for him to do. But for us, sin is enjoyable to our sinful nature; it is the most natural thing our nature feels like doing (see Romans 7:14-23). Adam could be justified by keeping the law; but in our case, "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20, KJV; Galatians 2:16). Adam's sin cannot be explained for it is the "mystery of iniquity," revealing the power of the devil. With us, it is the opposite. There is no mystery involved in why we sin. But when the righteousness of God is manifested in our sinful flesh, it reveals God's power over sin and the devil and is called "the mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16). This mystery of godliness was first manifested in Christ, and through Him, it was made available to us by faith (see Colossians 1:27).
The great error of those who claim that Christ did not need to come in our fallen nature in order to be tempted as we are, is this: They identify Adam's situation with ours. Much more was involved in Christ's victorious life over temptation and sin than would have been required for Adam's success had he not fallen. This is a point we need to consider carefully if we are to fully appreciate Christ as our righteousness. When we discover the real difference between Adam's temptation in his sinless nature and our temptations in our sinful nature, we cannot but conclude that if Christ had assumed the sinless spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, He could not possibly be tempted as we are. This, in turn, will open our eyes to appreciate how great a salvation Christ has accomplished for us.
Let's consider, then, the temptations of Christ in relation to that of Adam. Christ was both God and man, and therefore possessed inherent divine power. Therefore, it would seem that the temptation would be very great to use that divine power independently of His Father. Thus we could conclude that His temptations were far different from, and greater than, either Adam's or ours, since we do not have this divine power at our disposal. But while this may sound convincing, we have to realize that this can be true only in the context of a sinful nature. In the context of a sinless human nature, such a conclusion makes no sense.
You see, if in a sinless human nature, Christ's temptations were greater than ours because of the inherent divine power available to him, then would we not have to admit, as well, that Adam's temptation was also greater than ours, since his natural ability to do righteousness, inherent in his sinless nature, was greater than ours? If so, if Adam experienced greater temptations than we face, would it not also be much more understandable that he should give in to temptation than that we should do so? Would not this make his sin more excusable than ours? But such reasoning flies in the face of the facts and also undermines God's perfect creation.
Further, if it was extremely hard for Christ to be God-dependent because of His own inherent divine power, should not the very opposite be true of us because of our inherent weaknesses? Should it not be very easy for us to be God-dependent? Yet we must all confess that to live by faith, that is, to be God-dependent, involves a constant struggle (see 1 Timothy 6:12), as well as continual self-denial and acceptance of the principle of the cross (see Luke 9:23).
It is true that in tempting Christ, Satan tried to persuade Him to take matters into His own hands and act independently of His Father. But we must keep in mind this distinction: If Christ had assumed a sinless human nature, Satan would be tempting Him to do an unnatural thing, because His human nature would have been naturally unselfish. In order to resist temptation, He would not have needed to deny His own will as He told us He had to do (see John 5:30; 6:38).
On the other hand, if Christ took our sinful nature upon Himself, a nature naturally bent toward yielding to self-will, then Satan would be tempting Him to do a perfectly desirable thing, something extremely desirable to self, when he tempted Him to act independently of His Father. There is a world of difference between being tempted in a sinless nature as Adam was and being tempted in a sinful nature as we are.
The principle of self-love is foreign to God's nature, or for that matter, to sinless human nature which He created. The devil originated the law of self-love (see Isaiah 14:12-14), and he infected the human race with it at the Fall. If Christ had assumed a sinless spiritual human nature, without the inclination to sin, He obviously would not have had to contend with self-love as a part of His human nature; Satan could not have tempted Him through the flesh as he does us.
Jesus declared that He came not to do His own will, that is the self-will of His human nature, but the will of the Father (see John 5:30, 6:38; Luke 22:42). The fact that Christ, as a man, could speak of His own will, in potential contradiction to His Father's will, clearly indicates that He identified Himself in His humanity with the temptations to self-will of those sinful human beings He came to save. And He could do so only by assuming our sinful nature. The Gospels show that the great battle in Christ's life was against this principle of self-will—the stumbling block to holy living that exists in the lives of all sinful men and women.
If Christ's flesh was exempt from the law of sin, the law of self-love, then His flesh need not have suffered each time He refused to yield to temptation. But we read that "He Himself has suffered, being tempted" (Hebrews 2:18), that He was made "perfect through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10), and that He learned "obedience by the things which He suffered" (Hebrews 5:8). Christ's victory was attained in His mind, because it was surrendered to the control of the Spirit. But this involved suffering in the flesh, since His flesh was deprived of its own way, that is, of sin. This is how Peter expressed the conflict: "Therefore since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin" (1 Peter 4:1).
What is true of Christ must be true of us, because the flesh He assumed was the likeness of our sinful flesh. Had Adam successfully resisted the devil's temptation, this would not have involved crucifying the flesh or human nature. But for Christ, as it must be with the believer, victory over sin involves the principle of the cross (see Galatians 5:24).
Our Lord's holy life, if produced in a sinless nature like that of Adam before the Fall, can bring no hope or encouragement to believers struggling with temptation. Satan has used this lie— that Christ came in sinless flesh—to destroy in the hearts of millions of Christians all belief that sinless living in sinful flesh is possible. Thus he has opened the door to antinomianism and makes the power of the gospel null and void in their lives.
If Christ assumed Adam's sinless spiritual nature, He becomes Adam's example, but not an example for fallen humanity. In which case, our only hope of holy living would be either through the eradication of our sinful nature (the heresy of "holy flesh" or perfectionism), or by waiting until the second coming when this corruptible puts on incorruption. If this is true, all admonition in the Bible to holy living becomes futile.
But if the gospel is to be vindicated before the end comes, the last generation of believers must restore the truth as it is in Christ so that the world may be enlightened with His glory (see Revelation 18:1; Colossians 1:27). This was God's purpose in the 1888 message.
Our Saviour accomplished far more than merely what Adam failed to do in Eden. Christ produced the perfect righteousness of God in the likeness of sinful flesh. Herein lies the true sinlessness of Christ and the fullness and power of His gospel. God did the "impossible" by producing perfect righteousness in our sinful flesh in Christ Jesus. And if we by faith will obey this truth and allow the Holy Spirit to indwell and dominate us (see 2 Corinthians 2:16), then He will also reveal His power in the "body" of Christ, the church. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John 5:4, KJV). This, too, is righteousness by faith.
It is the knowledge of Christ's righteousness produced in our sinful flesh that gives every believer the hope of glory. Let us, therefore, abide in Him, and thus make ourselves totally available to Him so that we may walk "even as He walked" (1 John 2:6, KJV).