Did Jesus Have the Same nature as Adam. Or All of Us then?

I think this is the whole point of the incarnation (the self-sacrifice of the Son, the giving of the Father) and Christ bearing our sins in His flesh, being made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

 

I am not sure that we are speaking of the same thing when we mention the “temptation”. I don’t mean that Jesus was enticed to sin, or that He was tempted to sin. I mean that the temptation was there (the opportunity) which appealed to a natural desire.

For example, if I am 3 days into a week-long fast and my wife offers to cook my favorite meal, I may not be tempted by the offer but the offer is nonetheless a temptation. My desire for food is not a sin. The presence of opportunity (the temptation) is not a sin. If I have vowed not to eat and put my desire for food (my desire of the flesh) over my commitment to God, however, then it is a sin.

Was satisfying hunger a sin for Jesus? No, of course not. But during that fast it would have been sin. What about assuming His rightful place over the nations? Again, not in itself for this is what is going to take place as every knee will bow. But at that time it would have been a sin as it was not the will of the Father. What about avoiding suffering? Again, this is not a sin. It is a normal human response. But it would have been a sin to avoid the Cross.

But to be clear, I am not suggesting that Jesus was being enticed or tempted to give in to these natural desires, these desires that in themselves were not sinful. Instead, I am suggesting that Jesus was successful in obedience where we falter.

I may disagree with you partly on this point. Some of this disagreement (?) I hope I’ve clarified by explaining my terms more clearly (my apologies for not doing so at the start).

While I do not see the Garden narrative to present a conflict or dichotomy between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, I do see it as presenting a conflict in terms of “warring” with the flesh. Jesus desired to redeem mankind. He lay down His own life, and throughout His ministry He explained that this was of His own accord. This was also the will of the Father, who sent His Son that all who believed would be saved. But at the same time Jesus had natural desires of the flesh. This is why, I believe, He prayed that if possible the cup would pass. The desire of the flesh would be not to suffer, not to be humiliated, not to be nailed on a cross. The desire of the spirit would be the will of the Father.

Upon retrospect, we may agree here and be wording it differently. Jesus’ entire earthly life was one of submission and faith in the Father.

I do not believe that human nature itself is one of rebellion. I think in the Bible when we speak of nature we are speaking of the “flesh” and the “spirit”. The difference between our positions are not, however, that far off. While I believe that we had the same human nature that Christ had, we don’t have the same mind. This is why, IMHO, Paul encourages us to have the same mind that Christ had – that He sought equality with God as something not to be grasped but humbled Himself in obedience even to death.

It’s what we do with our desires – how we respond to them, to an extent, anyway. I do believe that sin is like an addiction and we end up with desires that are unnatural - either the desires themselves (e.g., homosexuality, pornography) or in power (e.g., gluttony, excess). This is why I try to emphasize that Jesus had natural desires of the flesh which, while contributing to His suffering, He submitted to the will of God.

 

Hey Y1. I wasn't labeling you, but I am labeling the belief that Jesus had a "human nature" but not a "human nature like we have" as essentially saying Christ did not have a human nature. It is a heresy just worded differently. You are denying that Jesus was a "real man" like we are "real men". If you were to read Paul in Ephesians you would realize that the difference is not our natures but that our corruption comes from sin corrupting our desires.

Why should I reject the teachings of Jesus, Paul, James, and the author of Hebrews for your theory?

 

Nothing. That's the point. When Paul said that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh he was not saying that Christ was sinful because he was human. But Christ had desires of the flesh that he did not before the Incarnation. And if Christ yielded to the flesh above obedience to God then it would be sin. Christ was human, yet without sin.

 

He was born under the fall curse.

Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

 

Which passage are you referring to ?

 

We all have human natures and we all sin (by placing our desires above God's will). Jesus had a human nature but didn't sin (he was obedient to the Father even unto death).