Son of Man

Leave it to me to start a disagreement

 

You don't have to see it. Human nature before sin is untainted. Jesus is like this. After the Fall humanity became tainted which basically means we default to sin. Jesus does not have this default. Otherwize you're going to say that Jesus had a corruptable human nature tainted with sin. Which he did not. If he did he could not save us from sin as he was not an acceptable sacrifice.

 

If it was perfect, how could it give in to sin? I believe post fall our natures are intertwined with sin, but pre-fall the capacity to sin obviously was there.

I used to understand this in the exact way you have presented, but now I am not so sure. If He didnt' have man's corruptible nature, how could He physically die? Death came with sin according to Scripture, so clearly Jesus had our post fall nature. How could He be tempted "in every way" as we are? While on earth He had one thing we don't have...He is God. I believe that is what kept Him from sinning, not His nature.

 

Not sure if the word "perfect" is the right word to describe man's pre-fall nature. Maybe a better word would be "innocent".

Hebrews says "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, " (5:8-9)

Jesus obviously had a human nature but not a fallen one. I tend to think that Jesus had the same kind of innocence that Adam had and when that innocence was tested by temptation, He passed the test.

This is an area I have lots of questions and not many answers that satisfy anyone else except me. :godisgood:

 

Tom, I agree with your entire post except this part. Pre-fall, the innocent nature would not die. Death came as a result of sinning, and thus death spread to all men. In order for Christ to have died, His nature could not be that of pre-fall man, could it?
Like you I have more questions than answers on this...but based on many doctrines, things don't quite fit together.

 

I'll go out on a limb on this.
I think just about the only thing Jesus shared with us is flesh, blood, and bone, and our limitations as to presence.
He had no sin in him, no acts of sin his whole life, and in the womb, his mother's blood did not nourish Him as normal babies would be nourished by blood from their mother through the umbilical cord.
Now, that's a limb.
Don't y'all go blowin' me off it now.:laugh:

 

I don't think we can explain or understand it. We know Jesus was fully man and suffered what man does in terms of thirst, fatigue, being tempted, dying, etc.

yet

we know Jesus did not have a sin nature because "there was no sin in him," and I think that includes a sin nature as well as doing sin.

 

There is so much about the person of Christ that we can never understand.

Let me suggest that maybe at the cross from my point of view there could be a couple of explanations why Jesus died.
1. It might be that when all of our sin was placed on him, that made the human part of His nature able to die. Or,
2. When Jesus said, "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" He was simply "dismissing" his spirit so He could die.

I am not sure about any of this. How can we humans with such limited intellect understand the combination of, like you or someone said, "100% God and 100% man".

 

No matter what we are all agreed about the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus.

But I was wondering where you got the idea that "his mother's blood did not nourish Him..." Is there some scriptural basis?

 

I agree. Jesus was totally unique and so there is nothing we can compare this to.

When we come to the nature of the Trinitarian God, we cannot totally understand because we are not God! Although God has revealed his attributes and much about himself to us, there is a mystery to the nature of God that remains beyond us simply because we are human.

 

Jesus, being God could not sin. The temptation was not to see whether or not Jesus would sin or not. It was to prove that he was God. It showed mandkind He is truly God.

 

Some of you may be old enough to remember Dr. M. R. DeHaan's Radio Bible Class. Dr. DeHaan was also an MD as well as a theologian, and preached a series of sermons titled Chemistry of the Blood. You can Google it and easily find it.

Dr. DeHaan offers an interesting idea on how Jesus could be born to a sinful woman, yet not inherit a sinful nature. It is, that the original sin was Adam's sin, and that the sinful nature is transferred from the father's blood, not the mother's.

I read this little 9-chapter book 30 years ago or so, and the sermons were preached much earlier--at least 50 years ago. You may agree or disagree with the medical basis for his conclusions, but he does offer an explanation for a sinless child of sinful parents.

One pastor I read thinks it's "bad chemistry and worse theology." Dave Doran, a Baptist pastor from Allan Park, Michigan. He says:

Read more of his blog at http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=221

 

I've forgotten the Scripture, but this was actually a theory forwarded by my seminary professor, and I don't know how he arrived at it.

Didn't pay much attention in class, though, because it was just about this time I've started listening to Mc'Arthur whom the same professor accused of not "believing" in the shed blood of Christ, and which I've found to be untrue.

wasn't listening because he kinda lost credibility for me at that point and I just wanted to graduate and get out of the seminary and be independent of the "sending" church.

 

Been there, done that! :laugh:

 

When I was in my teens, my pastor used Dr. DeHann's book which made much sense to me. I remember the impact of recognizing the science of blood typing and transfusions was so recent..... yet the scriptures had already told us the truth. The father's seed contains the blood typing for the child. (Well, actually, both parents contribute.... but, without the father of flesh, God supplied the compliment.... a mystery to us.)

It was much latter that I learned that the pregnant mother nourishes her child through the placenta which permits the exchange of oxygen and nutrients but each body, that of the mother, and that of the child, has its own blood supply which does not mix and ciruculate with the other. From a scientific standpoint, we know that somehow immunity is transferred from mother to child before birth and through mother's milk...... but just how this is related to the blood supply or separate from it while part of it..... I've no idea.

But this means that Jesus had the pure blood of God, flowing through his veins God required a sacrifice (obediance was the standard/law but man lost that by disobediance and fell under the curse/judgement of law which is death... to the flesh and eternal suffering to the spirit or soul [the difference between spirit and soul.... is not clear to me]), but nothing under the curse of sin's penalty could be clean (or pure) to satisfy once and for all the curse of sin and death. Jesus himself provided that pure blood, and submitted his innocent flesh for the sacrifice, bearing our sins. Victorious over death he rose and carried that pure and untainted sacrificial blood and presented it upon the alter as our triumphant High Priest, where it is received as payment in full.

How amazing and wonderful and a mystery it is..... that God became 'man' for us! Jesus, both Son of God and Son of Man: the only begotten of the Father, making possible that we may become 'begotten' in Him.

 

I've seen people advocate this and find it very bizarre. It is just not credible at all to me that sin is connected organically to the blood only of the father. I think there is no biblical basis for it. Sin is not organic; it is part of our nature. We don't get it through blood but through the sin passed on from Adam which has somehow bent our nature to rebel against God. I don't think it is a material thing.

This smacks of Gnosticism to me as well. It is not the physical body that is the source of sin though the body has reaped the results of sin (illness, death); sin is the whole fallen nature.

 

Yes, sin is not transferred physically either through your father or mother. Sin is a moral issue, not physical.

I do not believe in original sin. I believe all men are born innocent and become sinners when they knowingly and willingly commit sin (which we all do).

The scriptures numerous times say we are "flesh". Our flesh has many desires and passions, but that in itself is not good or bad. We have an appetite, and that is good, we need to eat to be healthy. But if we go to either extreme, if we deny our appetite, or completely give into it we have health issues.

The same with the sex drive, it is not evil for a man to enjoy looking at his wife and desiring her. It is when a man allows himself to have passions for another woman that problems arise.

As Webdog said, man was created with the ability to do either right or wrong, else Adam and Eve could not have possibly sinned. And we see that besides the serpent's lie, Eve's natural desires seduced her to sin.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve's natural desires caused her to be tempted to eat this fruit. It was beautiful and no doubt looked delicious for food. It was desired to make one wise. Up to this time, it was God's word and warning that restrained Adam and Eve from eating this fruit. It was the serpent's lie that seduced her to give in to her natural desires. Satan cannot force us to sin, only tempt us.

And this is exactly how he tempted Jesus. Jesus was a man and so was very hungry after fasting for 40 days. And so Satan always attacks what he perceives as our greatest weakness. But Jesus was able to withstand this temptation.

It was Augustine who taught that sin is passed down physically, but it is false doctrine.

No, we are flesh just like Adam and Eve. The flesh is weak and easily tempted, but this is no excuse for sin.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

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:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

We are not tempted because of Adam or our father and mother, but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed (which means seduced). And when we sin, sin brings forth death. Therefore death has passed on all men, for that all have sinned.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Many falsely teach this verse to say that sin has passed upon all men. That is not what it says. It says "death" has passed on all men for that all have sinned. We spiritually die for our own sin, not Adam's or our parent's.

 

I partly agree -- I agree it is a moral issue but I do think we are born with a sin nature.

On this I disagree. This view is also not Baptist at all; I'm surprised that some Baptists here have this view.

Sometimes the word "flesh" refers to the body or to lusts but sometimes it refers to the fallen nature, so it depends on the passage.

You and Webdog are in the same boat but I'm not in there with you. :smilewinkgrin:

I think Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature but had the capacity to sin. Their desire and will to sin was passed on as part of the Curse of the Fall.

I agree Satan cannot force us, but I think we are born in rebellion against God and we want our will over anyone else's. That is the fallen nature. We are not born innocent or morally neutral. But we've debated that before many times on the BB.

I think the Bible teaches it.

But unsaved people are more likely to give in to sin; some even want to sin. I think this is a natural desire in fallen man.

I disagree with your view.

 

The problem is in thinking of sin as a thing, whether corporeal or otherwise.

Sin is a lack of something.

The thing that Adam could not give was life. He had died the day he ate of the forbidden fruit.

The Virgin Birth was not a necessity for Christ's sinlessness. He would have been sinless had His body been prepared "in the family way." The Virgin Birth was a miraculous sign, and nothing more.

 

Those of you who disagree with Dr. DeHaan's view are free to do so, but I suggest you read the whole thing before drawing a final conclusion. Please don't base your reaction to the small snippet in my post.

I'm not blindly defending The Chemistry of the Blood. I find it interesting, but I'm not holding it up as settled truth. I simply think critics will be more credible if they read what he wrote.