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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Christ could not have resisted temptation had His human nature been sinful in all respects as is ours.
- Christ is die 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, as we saw earlier, 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," as we saw in chapter 12, 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 unrepressed, 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 1:26). 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 1:26. 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 die 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 word 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 and fourth objections raised against the idea that Jesus assumed our sinful, fallen human nature at the Incarnation—which we will deal with in the next chapter.
Key Points in Chapter Fifteen Objections Considered – Part 1
- Those who object to the truth that Christ assumed our sinful human nature, the post-Fall nature of Adam with its bent to sin, do so out of sincere desire to preserve the perfect sinlessness of our Saviour.
- One objection this group raises is: If Christ took our sinful human nature as we know it, He would have been tainted with sin; He would Himself be a sinner in need of a Saviour.
- However, in the Incarnation, Christ took upon His own sinless divine nature our sinful human nature. That is why the Bible uses the qualifying word "made" when it refers to Christ's humanity—"He was "made flesh" (John 1:14). This means that Christ was made to be, or became, what He was not by nature.
- While Christ truly did 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. 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 to our sinful nature which He assumed, He cannot be considered a sinner.
- 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 (see Romans 8:3).
- A second objection raised against the idea that Christ assumed our sinful human nature is this: 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). Do not such statements suggest that Christ's human nature was sinless?
- The Scripture also contains other statements which identify Christ with our sinful condition (see 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:17; Matthew 8:17). Some try to reconcile these two apparently opposite biblical views by teaching that Christ took our sinful nature only as far as our physical makeup is concerned. Thus He was subject to fatigue, aging, etc., but His moral nature was the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall. However, in Scripture, our physical and spiritual natures are related; if one is sinful, so is the other.
- A true harmony of these two groups of texts is possible only when we take into consideration two facts: First, Christ was both God and man. He had two distinct natures united in one Person—His own sinless, divine nature and our corporate, sinful nature which He assumed. 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. In performance, His humanity can be called sinless.
- A close examination of the texts used to support the idea that Christ's human nature was sinless shows that they do not refer to Christ's human nature itself. 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.