Jesus had a human nature?

[Salamander]

The following is a reply I made in a thread about the theology quiz: "Um, I need some help here with the question about how many natures Jesus has?

The human nature is always sinful, yet Jesus was without sin in that he could not have ever sinned, so how is it the quiz determined that Jesus has the Divine nature which cannot sin, yet Jesus also has the human nature which IS sinful???

I never knew that taking on the form of a man made Jesus subject to sin according to human nature?

I believe we can see the subtility of the devil in the "correct" answer!

I scored 100% according to the Bible, but only 95% according to the quiz. Guess which question I "missed"?

If Jesus ever had two natures, the human nature subject to the flesh and the flesh at enmity with God and lusteth against the Spirit, then how could this quiz be theologicaly correct? It is not correct 100% in and of itsself."
__________________
Is there anyone else that sees the problem with, suggesting only, Jesus also having the human nature?

No one has responded to my post in that thread and think this is very worthy of discussion.

I do understand that he took on the form of man, yet Jesus was never even able to sin.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I also had a problem with that same question, Salamander.

The human nature is subject to sin. Christ was not.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve had human natures without a sin nature. They had the capacity to sin. After the fall, sin has been closely associated with human nature and we often use the phrase "human nature" with the assumption of sin.

In the same way Christ is seen has having two natures, a divine nature and a pre-fall human nature with the capacity to sin but no actual sin.

Debates over these natures were the primary issues in the ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) that state Christ as the union of both divine and human natures in one person. Most major Christian groups (Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc) consider these as two of the seven key ecumenical councils that help define Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Marcia]

Jesus had to become man in order to atone for sins. He was not just taking on a body - this latter view was rejected because it denied the humanity of Jesus, which the Bible teaches. It's always been a battle against false teachers to maintain the teachings of both the full humanity and full deity of Jesus.

Heb 2.14-18

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

15and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
17Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

This passage also points out that Jesus died to save men, not angels. It refutes the view that fallen angels can be redeemed (a view I come across sometimes in my ministry).

 

[Amy.G]

Wasn't this a belief of the Gnostics? That the divine cannot inhabit the flesh because the flesh is evil. At least that's what I think they believed. I may have it wrong.

 

[Marcia]

Wasn't this a belief of the Gnostics? That the divine cannot inhabit the flesh because the flesh is evil. At least that's what I think they believed. I may have it wrong.

Yes, I think they believed that Jesus only appeared to have a body - that he did not have a real body.

I spoke on the roots of New Age thinking last Sunday to a class and there were 2 variations on this that the early church had to deal with:
Docetism: The teaching that Jesus only appeared to have a body - it was not a real body

Cerinthianism: The teaching that Jesus was a man but at baptism the "Christ spirit" descended on him, making Him divine, then left him before he was crucified. (The view that Jesus and "the Christ" are not one and the same is prevalent in the New Age today, and is taught by Matthew Fox, an Episcopal priest; also, the idea of a "Christ spirit" that descends on man is part of New Thought teachings - Unity and Church of Religious Science).

Many believe that 1 John, Colossians, and some other books were partly written to counter this, particularly 1 John 4.2, 3

Gnosticism was in infant stages in the first century, not coming into full bloom until the 2nd century, but was already teaching some of its core beliefs then. The "Gnostic Christians" were infiltrating the early church and misleading and confusing people.

This is another reason the bodily resurrection of Jesus is so important.

These heresies have not gone away - they only take on new forms and are around today (also in Deepak Chopra's "The Third Jesus" which I have an article about on my website).

 

[Jarthur001]

The following is a reply I made in a thread about the theology quiz: "Um, I need some help here with the question about how many natures Jesus has?

The human nature is always sinful, yet Jesus was without sin in that he could not have ever sinned, so how is it the quiz determined that Jesus has the Divine nature which cannot sin, yet Jesus also has the human nature which IS sinful???

I never knew that taking on the form of a man made Jesus subject to sin according to human nature?

I believe we can see the subtility of the devil in the "correct" answer!

I scored 100% according to the Bible, but only 95% according to the quiz. Guess which question I "missed"?

If Jesus ever had two natures, the human nature subject to the flesh and the flesh at enmity with God and lusteth against the Spirit, then how could this quiz be theologicaly correct? It is not correct 100% in and of itsself."
__________________
Is there anyone else that sees the problem with, suggesting only, Jesus also having the human nature?

No one has responded to my post in that thread and think this is very worthy of discussion.

I do understand that he took on the form of man, yet Jesus was never even able to sin.

Its called the Hypostatic Union of Christ. The reason it works and why Christ had no sin nature, is because of the virgin birth. If Christ was born of man/the old Adam, he would have had the sin nature.

 

[pinoybaptist]

We all have sinful human natures because we all have human fathers. Jesis had no human father. Here is Luke 1:26-38:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

A lot of things can be seen from these 10 verses but there are two significant verses which may be related to this discussion.

One. this announcement was made by the angel Gabriel during the period of espousal between Joseph and Mary. No marriage had yet been consummated there by the Scripture faithfully suggests that Joseph still had the right to divorce, or put away, Mary, as the Spirit fathfully records elsewhere, which also records faithfully that no sexual contact had been made between Joseph and Mary.

Two, it was the Holy Ghost who came on Mary, and who overshadowed her, therefore planted the seed in her womb which is in lieu of a human seed, that divine seed then going thru the usual normal processes of embronic development, thus being possessed of a human body, without its propensity and inclination towards sin. As the spirit is, so is the body.

I think this gives more insight to us as to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2:11 (For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.)

See also Hebrews 10:5 - "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: "



It highlights the fact that our bodies have this propensity towards sin, and we fall into sin, not because we have bodies, per se, but because we have a corrupted and fallen spirit. We are products of fallen products. Seeds of Adam who was first corrupted with and by sin. (Romans 5:12).

As Arthur said: the reason it worked is because of the hypostatic union. The nature of God (with its supernatural powers suppressed) and the nature of man (with its fallenness and corruption absent), makes it possible for the Son of God to be tempted, and not sin, and to have blood which God which is a Spirit cannot have and which is required for the atonement of sin.

 

[EdSutton]

As far as I know, Scripture simply says Jesus was without sin, meaning, IMO, that He did not sin. Where does Scripture ever say that Jesus could not sin?

There is a difference.

Incidentally, and FTR, I have nothing but more than disdain for these so-called 'on-line' "theology quizzes", as I have previously stated several times.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Wasn't this a belief of the Gnostics? That the divine cannot inhabit the flesh because the flesh is evil. At least that's what I think they believed. I may have it wrong.

No, you got one right for a change. :smilewinkgrin:



:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Allan]

We all have sinful human natures because we all have human fathers. Jesis had no human father. Here is Luke 1:26-38:

I agree here since the sin nature is passed on via father and not the mother.

Two, it was the Holy Ghost who came on Mary, and who overshadowed her, therefore planted the seed in her womb which is in lieu of a human seed, that divine seed then going thru the usual normal processes of embronic development, thus being possessed of a human body, without its propensity and inclination towards sin. As the spirit is, so is the body.

You have no scriptural support for any of this except that which you desire to to believe must be made up to fit your view. (I'm not meaning this in a degrading way but factual)

I will agree with your last sentence though. IF a person is not born with a sin nature then the flesh will respond after the manner of the spirit. However if a person is not born with a sin nature then the flesh will not respond in the same manner as one who is.

The flesh however IS corrupt in that it can get sick, grow old, and even die. However this corruption is not a spiritual one but a natural one regarding all material things.

Let us not confuse a human nature with that of the sin nature when speaking of Christ. For though He was human and capable of all human emotions, feelings, and pains like we are, He on the other hand was absent the sin nature like we have. Thus He was man but a man without sin.

When speaking of a lost man we must see the two as being closely connected but not the same thing. Much like the soul and spirit. They are so closely connected that technically they can be viewed as one and the same and yet they are also biblically distinct one from another.

I think this gives more insight to us as to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2:11 (For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.)

I think your reaching quite a bit here.

See also Hebrews 10:5 - "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: "

This one I can agree with since God had to step in and create Christ from the seed of a woman and that this physical seed must also be from the seed of David according to the flesh. So God has prepared Him in that He was born without sin and specifically to fulfill all prophesy.

[/COLOR]It highlights the fact that our bodies have this propensity towards sin, and we fall into sin, not because we have bodies, per se, but because we have a corrupted and fallen spirit. We are products of fallen products. Seeds of Adam who was first corrupted with and by sin. (Romans 5:12).

Again I agree here.

 

[Salamander]

Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve had human natures without a sin nature. They had the capacity to sin. After the fall, sin has been closely associated with human nature and we often use the phrase "human nature" with the assumption of sin.

In the same way Christ is seen has having two natures, a divine nature and a pre-fall human nature with the capacity to sin but no actual sin.

Debates over these natures were the primary issues in the ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) that state Christ as the union of both divine and human natures in one person. Most major Christian groups (Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc) consider these as two of the seven key ecumenical councils that help define Christian orthodoxy.

One problem, since Christ is God and God CANNOT sin, then how is it anyone who KNOWS this could conclude that Jesus had the capacity to sin yet without sin!

Glad I'm just a plain ol' saved person who has to look up "orthodoxy" to be certain I am not orthodox!

 

[Salamander]

Let us not confuse a human nature with that of the sin nature when speaking of Christ. For though He was human and capable of all human emotions, feelings, and pains like we are, He on the other hand was absent the sin nature like we have. Thus He was man but a man without sin.

Um, it is human nature to sin, not Divine nature which cannot sin. Hence the quote "To err is human, to forgive Divine"

I believe you're confusing the humanity of Christ with human nature which is always found sinful.

When speaking of a lost man we must see the two as being closely connected but not the same thing. Much like the soul and spirit. They are so closely connected that technically they can be viewed as one and the same and yet they are also biblically distinct one from another.

The soul without a born again spirit is dead in tresspasses and sins. No rebirth no alive spirit. Jesus was never like this, all humans are at the point of recognition of sin and accouintability for one's own sin. These scenarios in no way represent Christ, His soul and spirit were never apart or divided, neither could they be due to his humanity.

This one I can agree with since God had to step in and create Christ from the seed of a woman and that this physical seed must also be from the seed of David according to the flesh. So God has prepared Him in that He was born without sin and specifically to fulfill all prophesy.

Um, explain this? God never "created" Christ, Christ is God.

 

[lbaker]

I agree here since the sin nature is passed on via father and not the mother.

Do you have a scripture for that?

My take is that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God at the same time.

The book says He was tempted just like us. If that's true he had to have the same sinful nature that we have, otherwise His temptation was just a joke and He wasn't completely human.

The only thing that changed when Adam ate the fruit was that he gained a knowledge of good and evil. At least that is all I find in scripture. Maybe that is what Paul refers to as the sinful nature. Or, maybe the SN was something Adam was created with - perhaps something to do with free will? Obviously Adam was created able to sin, since he (or they) did.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Do you have a scripture for that?

My take is that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God at the same time.

The book says He was tempted just like us. If that's true he had to have the same sinful nature that we have, otherwise His temptation was just a joke and He wasn't completely human.

The only thing that changed when Adam ate the fruit was that he gained a knowledge of good and evil. At least that is all I find in scripture. Maybe that is what Paul refers to as the sinful nature. Or, maybe the SN was something Adam was created with - perhaps something to do with free will? Obviously Adam was created able to sin, since he (or they) did.

That word 'tempted' does not mean he had the ability to sin. It means 'tested.'

Satan tested Christ to see if He would sin. He did not sin, because He could not sin.

 

[lbaker]

That word 'tempted' does not mean he had the ability to sin. It means 'tested.'

Satan tested Christ to see if He would sin. He did not sin, because He could not sin.

Have you got a passage that says Jesus could not sin?

Also, what kind of a test is it if He is guaranteed to pass? No test at all.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Hebrews 4:15 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.

This is not the same word 'tempted' that we find in

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Clearly, Christ did not have a sin nature, for He could not be tempted to sin.

Jesus did not have to stop and think, 'Should I?, or Shouldn't I?' when satan tested Him. He was fully submitted to the Father's will, and therefore could not sin.

 

[lbaker]

Hebrews 4:15 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.

This is not the same word 'tempted' that we find in

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Clearly, Christ did not have a sin nature, for He could not be tempted to sin.

How could Jesus possibly feel our infirmities, or be tempted (or tested) as we are, if it was impossible for Him to sin? A test isn't a test if there's no possibility of failure.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

How could Jesus possibly feel our infirmities, or be tempted (or tested) as we are, if it was impossible for Him to sin? A test isn't a test if there's no possibility of failure.

Jesus felt our infirmities (ailments, sicknesses, afflictions) because He was in a flesh body subject to infirmities.
Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8)
He cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13)
He came to do the Father's will (Hebrews 10:7,9)

As to the test, it is still a test whether one knows all the answers or not.

 

[annsni]

Hebrews 4:15 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.

This is not the same word 'tempted' that we find in

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Oh really? Then why is "tempted" in both verses the same word?