Did Jesus have a sinful nature?

[Rachel]

My Bible teacher said that Jesus had a sinful nature. Somehow I disagree with this. Anyone have any thoughts or insight?

[Josh]

This question is much more difficult than meets the eye, and it actually took me many days to wrestle with it, but I think I have decided that NO, He did NOT have a sinful nature.

But I'm open-minded about it. Disagree? Try to change my mind. You may actually succeed on this one.

[Skrappybiskit]

Nice quite from Percy B. Shelly (sp?), Josh.

Anyways. Jesus was "was in all ways like us, sin excepted"... but whether or not he was sinless because he had no sin nature, or because he denied that sin nature his entire life long is up for a bit of debate. I say he didn't have a sinful nature. He had a human nature, but one without sin.

Now I must find those scriptures back.

Skraps

[bloop]

I'm having trouble separating "human nature" from "sinful nature".  I tend to think he did, btw.

[oneafroboy]

No, Jesus did not have a sinful nature.

Now, unfortunately, I can't remember the specific verse that said this, but I have read it. Anyway, the "sin gene" (if we can call it that) is passed down from father to offspring. Hence, this is why Adam (even though you could argue Eve sinned first) is the reason that we all have a sinful nature. He is the great father, if you will, and we are all his offspring, and so we all have sin.

Because Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not receive that "sin gene", and thus did not have a sinful nature. Otherwise, He would have been born a sinner (like the rest of us), for which He still would have been damned. (Aha, so there's more to the whole no-earthly-father thing!)

[Rachel]

Now, unfortunately, I can't remember the specific verse that said this, but I have read it. Anyway, the "sin gene" (if we can call it that) is passed down from father to offspring.

A sin gene? That sounds a little odd. How can a sinful nature be genetic? Anyway, my problem with the sinful nature is that if Jesus indeed had one would He have been guilty of original sin?

[Guest]

I have a basic understanding that sin is something you do, not something you have.  Jesus could have the propensities as other humans yet never act on them in spite of all temptation.

[Vlad!]

First off, I think Afro was being metaphorical with his 'sin gene.'

But to answer this question, we need to know what we're talking about. I believe that Christ was free of the taint of sin from birth, since he was fathered by God and not by man. On the other hand, he was capable of deviating from God's will if he wanted to. I have to run to class, but once I get back I'll try to support this a bit.

[ash]

I'd like to hear how your youth pastor related that to his message.
It's troubling to think Christ did have a sinful nature - but I believe He didn't have sin.

Matt 1:21
"[Jesus] will save his people from their sins." I find it hard to believe a sinner can forgive the world of their sins.

Romans 5:21
"so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Sin reigned in death/darkness - Jesus is the light of the world. He must be sinless. Just like how Christians see the ying yang as incorrect (there is no good in evil, and no evil in good) Jesus can't have sin and be light of the world... seems simply enough.  

I say ALWAYS look up what your pastors/friends/etc. say about God or His Word - just as everyone should be doing.
 

[Vlad!]

I find it hard to believe a sinner can forgive the world of their sins.

As Guest pointed out (and you alluded to in the start of your post), there's a difference between having a sin nature and being a sinner. It think it's farily obvious that Jesus wasn't a sinner, in the sense that he didn't commit any--the Bible is quite clear on that point.

Here's an elaboration on what I said: Christ had the ability to sin: like Lucifer, now Satan, he could have deviated from God's will. But where Satan failed, Christ persevered...he overcame this inclination (or, as Guest says, the propensity--that's a good word in this case) to sinfulness. Anything else would have been pointless: if he couldn't sin, why admire/worship him for his sinlessness? Why would the devil bother to tempt him, if it was pre-determined what he would do by his very nature?

As for original sin, as I said, he was free from that, since he was not fathered by man but by God. Assuming you believe in original sin. If you don't, well, he was free from it anyway, since it doesn't exist.

[GusX:]

Hebrews 4:

"14   Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15   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.
16   Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."


Some,  "commentation" on this verse..

"Christ executed one part of his priesthood on earth, in dying for us; the other he executes in heaven, pleading the cause, and presenting the offerings of his people. In the sight of Infinite Wisdom, it was needful that the Saviour of men should be one who has the fellow-feeling which no being but a fellow-creature could possibly have; and therefore it was necessary he should actual experience of all the effects of sin that could be separated from its actual guilt. God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, romans 8:3 ; but the more holy and pure he was, the more he must have been unwilling in his nature to sin, and must have had deeper impression of its evil; consequently the more must he be concerned to deliver his people from its guilt and power. We should encourage ourselves by the excellence of our High Priest, to come boldly to the throne of grace. Mercy and grace are the things we want; mercy to pardon all our sins, and grace to purify our souls. Besides our daily dependence upon God for present supplies, there are seasons for which we should provide in our prayers; times of temptation, either by adversity or prosperity, and especially our dying time. We are to come with reverence and godly fear, yet not as if dragged to the seat of justice, but as kindly invited to the mercy-seat, where grace reigns. We have boldness to enter into the holiest only by the blood of Jesus; he is our Advocate, and has purchased all our souls want or can desire. "

[Matthew Henry - abridged version]

Jamieson=Fausset-Brown Comments on the term "without sin"  ..

      WITHOUT SIN --Greek, "choris," "separate from sin" (Heb 7:26). If the Greek "aneu" had been used, sin would have been regarded as the object absent from Christ the subject; but choris here implies that Christ, the subject, is regarded as separated from sin the object [TITTMANN]. Thus, throughout His temptations in their origin, process, and result, sin had nothing in Him; He was apart and separate from it [ALFORD].



I'm pretty confident that that answers the question with some sense of satisfaction...

[Rachel]

Yes Gus that last post did clarify it pretty well, thanks.    I think I understand it a little better now.

But now may I beg another question?

Assuming you believe in original sin. If you don't, well, he was free from it anyway, since it doesn't exist.

Vlad, I don't understand why you think original sin doesn't exist? Isn't it in the Bible somewhere?

[GusX:]

Vlad is just extending the logic..    If you don't believe in Original sin - then Obviously it doesn't exist for you, And then Christ would not have the problem of original sin - due to the fact that It " doesn't exist."

[Vlad!]

GusX: is right. I didn't say original sin doesn't exist; I was merely pointing out that, regardless of your beliefs on the issue, my point still stands. Sorry for the confusion.

[oneafroboy]

Btw, Vlad! was right, I was more or less being metaphorical.

I think Jesus was the New Adam. No original sin. He was not born a sinner. He was just fully human and faced with a lot temptation, which He resisted. He was human, so the temptation was real. He was also God, so He was able to pull it off.  

[Rachel]

Oh okay, thanks for the clarification.

[BigBird]

Because Jesus did not have an earthly father, he did not receive that "sin gene", and thus did not have a sinful nature. Otherwise, He would have been born a sinner (like the rest of us), for which He still would have been damned. (Aha, so there's more to the whole no-earthly-father thing!)

OK. Just a couple ponderations...

Didn't Sarah have an "unfathered" child in the OT? Did Jacob have a sin nature?

If Jesus was the "New Adam" does that mean God messed up the first time?

Haven't thought of this too much so forgive if there's some ignorandum...

[Vlad!]

Jacob wasn't Sarah's son, Isaac was. And he was born of man--he was Abraham's son.

And no, I think it's better to say that man messed up than God messed up.