There was no sin in Him. That's the simplest possible definition. Several classic statements follow:
That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:30). Holy, harmless, un-defiled, separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26).
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ (5BC 1131).
It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin.... Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.
On not one occasion was there a response to [Satan's] manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any advantage (ibid., pp. 1128, 1129).
When Ellen White speaks of the "perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ" she surrounds her statements with various verbs of volition. Christ "did not participate
in sin," He "knew no sin," He did not " sin," "had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished." No "taint of, or inclination to corruption rested upon Christ," and He in no "way yielded to corruption." "On not one occasion was there a response to [Satan's] manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground." Not once did He "give him any advantage."
That does not mean that she defined "sin" as only outward acts, but it seems clear that volition has to be involved in Christ's perfect sinlessness. A constant choice of righteousness requires an inner state of sinlessness, a holiness of heart that was basic to His outward character.
These expressions make clear how Christ "had" no "propensities of sin," or how "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." (An evil propensity is more than a leaning toward sin, a tendency toward it, or an inclination toward it. These leanings constitute temptations, but they can be resisted and denied. Jesus felt the pressure of all our leanings, tendencies, and inclinations, "yet without sin" because He denied them all An evil propensity is a desire for sin which has been cherished and fulfilled. There was no evil propensity in Jesus' mind which always purposed to be righteous, "even unto the death of the cross.") In her idea of Christ's sinless nature, it would not be a matter of exemption from genetic inheritance, but of no "participation" in sin. Thus His nature was perfectly sinless.
But we all assume that newborn babies aren't capable of deciding any kind of a "verb" of volition. Therefore it is easy to conclude that He must need some "exemption" for His sinlessness as a baby.
But we must ask: is sin itself transmitted genetically? To say that "all have sinned" (except Christ) does not prove that it is. One genuine exception would have to disprove the assumption. And if we understand this correctly, one such exception would prove that all our continued sinning is unnecessary. Generations of belief in original sin must not prejudice us. As Adventists we should learn from the 1844 "Great Disappointment" our lesson not to assume that theological concepts we have inherited from Christendom are necessarily true (the naive assumption that the earth is the "sanctuary" led to the pain of the Great Disappointment). Thus chastened, we can give "original sin" some close scrutiny.
Unless Ellen White was given to a Jesuitical use of ambiguous language, we must accept her teaching that in His incarnation Jesus received no programmed "exemption" from our normal genetic heredity from the fallen Adam:
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown is the history of His earthly ancestors (DA 49).
Christ did not make-believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children [not Adam] are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same," He was the Son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent. (5BC 1130; emphasis supplied here and in all quotations hereafter).
The consistent testimony of Scripture is the same. Never do we find a hint that Christ was given any "exemption." Note the pile-driving repetition in Scripture (italics supplied):
God [sent] His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3).
Concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed [sperm, Greek] of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3).
We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.
It became Him
to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy Him that had the power of death.
For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed [sperm, Greek] of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.
In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted (Heb. 2:2-18).
Here was Paul's golden opportunity to emphasize the unlikeness of Christ to our genetic inheritance, to point out how He was different from us in the nature which He received "of the seed [sperm] of David." But Paul details a perfect likeness with us through the fallen sinful "sperm" of mankind.
But in Christ "is no sin" for He "knew no sin." "His head" was not "touched" by the tempter, only "His heel." His "heel" was ours, our flesh; but His mind was His"holy, harmless, undefiled." He Himself was His holy, righteous character, whereas He clothed Himself with "the likeness" of our sinful flesh.
But what is sin? Certainly something far deeper than outward acts or words, even than thoughts. It is deep heart-alienation from God, not merely spiritual separation from Him, but actual heart-enmity against Him.
We can see this truth defined at the cross. Christ sinlessly experienced spiritual separation from God for He cried out, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But His heart was "not for one moment" at enmity with Him. Separation from God need not force one to sin. Christ's painful experience in forsakenness gave Him the same excuse for enmity against God that all of us have used, but He chose to say No to it. He would not let separation become alienation. He believes in God even in total darkness.
There enters into the picture now a new element that has never been present in any other baby ever born into this world. Christ was agape in human flesh because "God is agape," says John (1 John 4:8). Thus His perfect sinlessness as a baby meant that He was always in heart-union with His Father. In Him there was a joining together of humanity's legacy of sinfulness with that divine quality of agape which forthwith "condemned sin in the flesh." This special kind of love always creates a cross when it meets the problem of sin in human nature, and on that cross self is crucified. In Him, God did not run away from our battle; He met it head-on.
The result?
He "took" our "flesh with all its liabilities" but solved the problem of "sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
The contrast between the two views is interesting. One says that Christ could not be our sinless Substitute, our Saviour from sin, our interceding High Priest, if He comes too close to us for He would then have been forced to sin. If sin is rooted in human flesh, it is invincible. The devil's invention of sin is too strong for God to deal with if He comes too close to it. (Logically therefore, this view would yield the great controversy to the enemy).
The other view sees that Christ could not be our Substitute and Saviour unless He does come close to us by identifying with us where we are, and solving that problem of sin right where it is, in our fallen, sinful nature. He has to be our second Adam, the new Head of the fallen human race. He cannot save what He does not take or assume. He cannot win a sham victory.
Now, back to our question: could that work of condemning sin "in the likeness of sinful flesh" have begun in Christ's babyhood?
If not, when did it begin?