Did Jesus Have a Sinful Nature While on Earth?

[DHK]

Scripture is clear that Christ took upon Himself the nature of a man, Abrahams nature. Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Possibly DHK would like to make one small exception to the sinful nature he attests to with Abraham, since Christ took on his seed and as such his nature.

Why not study the verse first. You are making the verse mean something that it does not mean. Look at it in another translation:

Hebrews 2:16 For most assuredly, not to angels does he give help, but he gives help to the seed of Abraham. (WEB)

"To lay hold of" means to lay hold of with intent to help. Christ came not to give help to the angels but to give help to the seed of Abraham, that is the descendants of Abraham. It is not speaking of him taking on anyone's flesh. You have the wrong Scripture, the wrong meaning.
You will have to do better than that. Your interpretation of this verse is way off. It has nothing to do with the nature of Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If there was any single issue I would attach as a clear cause of deception within the Church today, I would say the proliferation of so-called translations lie most likely directly at the very core of that deception.

 

[DHK]

If there was any single issue I would attach as a clear cause of deception within the Church today, I would say the proliferation of so-called translations lie most likely directly at the very core of that deception.

Or the lack of one to study. Have you checked other commentaries? People like Albert Barnes, the common standard commentaries found on the internet. Lack of study is disobedience to the Word of God.

 

[DHK]

If there was any single issue I would attach as a clear cause of deception within the Church today, I would say the proliferation of so-called translations lie most likely directly at the very core of that deception.

On the other hand it can be one of the most helpful aids in Bible Study, especially when you run across some of that stilted archaic language in the KJV:

(Heb 2:16) For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. (ESV)

(ISV) For it is clear that he did not come to help angels. No, he came to help Abraham's descendants.

(NET) For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham's descendants.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham. (ASV)

Hebrews 2:16 For most assuredly, not to angels does he give help, but he gives help to the seed of Abraham. (WEB)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If there was any single issue I would attach as a clear cause of deception within the Church today, I would say the proliferation of so-called translations lie most likely directly at the very core of that deception.

 

[DHK]

If there was any single issue I would attach as a clear cause of deception within the Church today, I would say the proliferation of so-called translations lie most likely directly at the very core of that deception.

You are entitled to your opinion which you have stated more than once now. If you are not willing to engage in intelligent debate I will close the thread.

There is the matter of obedience to the Lord.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

To relinquish this duty is sin. It is not the fault of many translations that you do not come to a proper understanding of Heb.2:16; it is for a lack of study.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Don't close the thread on my account DHK. In fairness, many others may desire to continue. I believe it has been a good thread and still can continue to be. :thumbsup:

 

[drfuss]

I thank each of you who contributed to this thread. As I said in the OP, this issue was new to me. Right now I tend to agree with the Orthodox position as stated in post #3:

"As an Orthodox Christian, we believe and teach that Christ is fully 100% divine and fully 100% human, which means His nature is just as ours is...the difference being is that Christ's humanity submitted perfectly to His divinity, thus Christ, being 100% man remained sinless....that's about as simple as I can explain it.

In XC"

However, on issues that appear to have a tension in scripture, I don't take a strong position on. Also, a sinful nature may be defined somewhat differently by various beliefs which may account for some of the disagreements.

Again, I appreciate your inputs into answering my question.

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture is clear that Christ took upon Himself the nature of a man, Abrahams nature.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Possibly DHK would like to make one small exception to the sinful nature he attests to with Abraham, since Christ took on his seed and as such his nature.

You make a good point.

Some might argue that Phil 2 makes it even stronger since we see Christ "existing in the FORM of God" and then we see him empty himself and be found in "the FORM of man".

If "Form of man" does not mean "man" then "Form of God" cannot mean God.

Thus once you accept that Christ is in fact the Son of God -- God the Son -- then it is clear that via the incarnation of God the Son -- via the virgin birth - he was both God and MAN.

However - Eph 2:5 points out that fallen man is "by nature children of wrath" -- our very nature is sinful as we see in Romans 3. We ALL need a savior!

Christ did not "need a savior".

His nature was not "morally depraved" as we see our nature being described as depraved in Romans 3.

He was not "by nature a child of wrath" even though Eph 2:5 says we are.

He was tempted as Matt 4 states and the temptations were REAL - not imaginary or pretend.

Adam ALSO did not have a sinful nature -- but Adam and Lucifer are both good examples of the Bible truth that a being created without a sinful nature CAN still choose to sin. Temptation was REAL even for them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I thank each of you who contributed to this thread. As I said in the OP, this issue was new to me. Right now I tend to agree with the Orthodox position as stated in post #3:

"As an Orthodox Christian, we believe and teach that Christ is fully 100% divine and fully 100% human, which means His nature is just as ours is...the difference being is that Christ's humanity submitted perfectly to His divinity, thus Christ, being 100% man remained sinless....that's about as simple as I can explain it.

In XC"

However, on issues that appear to have a tension in scripture, I don't take a strong position on. Also, a sinful nature may be defined somewhat differently by various beliefs which may account for some of the disagreements.

Again, I appreciate your inputs into answering my question.

The question surrounding the concept of sinful nature is -- "how much sinful nature can you have without needing to be saved from it? "

If the Romans 3 description of the sinful nature is NOT something that we need salvation from - then "there is none righteous" and "there is no one who seeks after God" needs to be redefined.

But as it stands now - Romans 3 is a good illustration of what is meant in Eph 2:5 where Paul says that mankind is "by nature children of wrath".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

The question surrounding the concept of sinful nature is -- "how much sinful nature can you have without needing to be saved from it? "

If the Romans 3 description of the sinful nature is NOT something that we need salvation from - then "there is none righteous" and "there is no one who seeks after God" needs to be redefined.

But as it stands now - Romans 3 is a good illustration of what is meant in Eph 2:5 where Paul says that mankind is "by nature children of wrath".

in Christ,

Bob

The definition of a sinful nature may lead to misunderstandings To me, a sinful nature means to have a nature to commit sin when old enough to decide; it does not mean original sin at birth. To others it means original sin, I think.

IMO, the scriptures used to support oniginal sin at birth, really is referring to the nature to commit sin when old enough to decide. When we are old enough to decide, we will commit sin due to our sinful nature from Adam.

Or course Jesus committed no sin even though he had a nature to commit sin just like us.

 

[DHK]

The definition of a sinful nature may lead to misunderstandings To me, a sinful nature means to have a nature to commit sin when old enough to decide; it does not mean original sin at birth. To others it means original sin, I think.

Where does the Bible put that word "when" in there? Where does the Bible add that condition. Can you provide me a chapter and verse. Where is the condition?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Where does the Bible put that word "when" in there? Where does the Bible add that condition. Can you provide me a chapter and verse. Where is the condition?

HP: Why DHK, you are definitely off your game. The word ‘when’ is mentioned hundreds of times in Scripture. They are so numerous I could not begin to publish them all. Don’t be lazy, look them up yourself.

Sorry DHK , I could not resist. Sometime ones learns best by swallowing a little of their own medicine. :wavey::smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

HP: Why DHK, you are definitely off your game. The word ‘when’ is mentioned hundreds of times in Scripture. They are so numerous I could not begin to publish them all. Don’t be lazy, look them up yourself.

Sorry DHK , I could not resist. Sometime ones learns best by swallowing a little of their own medicine. :wavey::smilewinkgrin:

Aaaah, HP, But in this case the Bible never says: All have sinned except...
All are sinners except....
There is none good except...
There in none righteous except....
There are no exception clauses in the Bible, not even for infants. All mankind falls under the curse and therefore has a sin nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, can you define sin according to Scripture?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The amazing thing to me is those that read Scripture and are so certain they have an infallible handle on it, at yet hardly a post goes by of anyones that cannot be questioned as to what they meant by it, and reasonable so.

I could say, I believe men are born with a sin nature. I could even say I believe in original sin. I could say that all men have a nature to sin. All of these can be true, yet understanding what I mean when I say ‘nature’ or ‘original’ depends on the definition I give them, not what the reader interprets them as.

The word nature is a most abused word. Those holding to original sin automatically see a nature from birth as sinful, but is in reality the case? I say absolutely not. Ones nature can be, and is, developed by choices even before the age of accountability. Once one sins and becomes guilty before God habit sets in and solidifies ones bent to sin or ‘nature’ to sin. The simple truth is the word ‘nature’ by no means can be stamped in stone that it must be speaking of a sinful nature and that from conception. It is simply wrong to attach such a narrow connotation to the word ‘nature’ as those do that seek to find support for Augustinian original sin.

 

[DHK]

It is simply wrong to attach such a narrow connotation to the word ‘nature’ as those do that seek to find support for Augustinian original sin.

See what is wrong here. You have an opinion. It is not Scriptural. But your opinion is so horrid to you, so horrible that God could ever do something like this, that you base your philosophy on reason and not on the teaching of the Word of God. Your whole philosophy is not Scriptural. It is based on something that incenses you; something that you cannot accept as morally right--the sovereignty of God to do with his creation as He sees fit. Therefore you come up with your own system, however unscriptural it may be to rationalize away what the Bible really teaches.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tell us DHK, what does the word of God teach us the word 'nature' means?

 

[DHK]

Tell us DHK, what does the word of God teach us the word 'nature' means?

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(from Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown:
14. natural man--literally, "a man of animal soul." As contrasted with the spiritual man, he is governed by the animal soul, which overbears his spirit, which latter is without the Spirit of God (Jude 1:19). So the animal (English Version, "natural") body, or body led by the lower animal nature (including both the mere human fallen reason and heart), is contrasted with the Spirit-quickened body (1Co 15:44-46). The carnal man (the man led by bodily appetites, and also by a self-exalting spirit, estranged from the divine life) is closely akin; so too the "earthly." "Devilish," or "demon-like"; "led by an evil spirit," is the awful character of such a one, in its worst type (Jas 3:15).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

HP: I missed the portion of the Word of God that tells us what the word ‘nature’ means. Did I miss it in your post?