Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?

When you make a false assertion don't expect an answer.

 

Ah, but nary a word of Scripture jives with the notion that there is a "fallen" human nature (as opposed to an "un-fallen" one). The assumption is that human nature in its present state constitutes sin itself, but it is not exactly a biblical teaching if you know what I mean.

 

The first man, Adam, became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man, Adam, was from the earth, a man of dust. The second man is from heaven. As was Adam, the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. And as is Christ, the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

 

So Adam predates Christ? Christ is not eternal?

 

Absolutely. They certainly did sin. But if the nature of things is correct (that flesh yields flesh, spirit yields spirit) and the fruits evidence the nature (for example see Matthew 7, Galatians 5, James 1, etc.) then the Fall (Adam's sin through which death entered the world) demonstrated that Adam was also created short of the glory of God. He yielded to his nature rather than God's will.

 

Does the following imply that Adam predates Christ or that Christ is not eternal?

1 Cor 15: 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Of course not. It is not the spiritual that is first but the nature, and then the spiritual (here we are speaking of the resurrection of the body). We are born of flesh - i.e., we have born the image of Adam, but we will also bear the image of Christ.

 

My personal belief (what I believe Scripture says of man) is that man, while created in God's image, was also created less than God. When we rely on our own righteousness (as Adam did in the Garden) we sin. We simply fall short of the glory of God. We can do what is right in our own eyes and still be wrong in terms of God's standard. When we take our eyes off of God to look upon ourselves then we sin. Not because we have a fallen human nature but because our created nature is less than God.

My point is that nowhere does Scripture state or imply that Adam's nature itself changed except perhaps when he "became like God" knowing good and evil. And even here I don't think the Bible is speaking of a change in nature.

Part of our separation on this issue is one of definition and expression (we largely believe the same regarding human nature as it is now) but another part is legitimate disagreement. Such is life.

 

The prohibition on murder is based on man being created in God's image in Genesis 9:6. 1 Corinthians 11:7 also reaches back to this principle in regards to the family structure (as man, i.e., male, being created in God's image). James 3:9 also reaches back to the Imageo Dei when James condemns cursing man because we are made in God's image.

When we say that Adam had a son in his (Adam's) image this is not, IMHO, a shift from man being made in the image of God (as evidenced by the passages I just provided). Rather, this is what it means that "like begats like". We are all sons of Adam, made in the image of God as Adam was created in the image of God.

That said, I understand the teaching that the Fall marred the image of God in mankind. Love becomes lust, justness becomes anger, etc. We see the same things within humanity. You attribute it to a "fallen nature" or a "marred image of God" while I attribute it to turning to one's own righteousness (to human nature) rather than to God.

The difference, I suppose, is that where you see an inability based on a fallen nature I see an inability based on the human will. We look to ourselves, our human natures, when we should be looking to God.

 

This thread is closed.