In . . . Sinful Flesh by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Dec 21, 1905

“In . . . Sinful Flesh”

By Editor

A READER of the REVIEW has written to the editor at some length concerning the statement made in a recent editorial to the effect that the flesh which Jesus took was sinful flesh. Many questions are asked, but the most of them will be answered by settling the main question at issue.

The paragraph to which objection is offered reads as follows:—

And it is further declared that the flesh which Jesus took, and in which he was tempted, was the same as the flesh of the other members of the family, sinful flesh. Here is the direct statement: “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

Referring to this paragraph, our correspondent says:—

I notice that this scripture does not say that God sent his own Son “in sinful flesh,” but “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” To me this seems a very different statement. How could one in sinful flesh be perfect, be holy, be unblemished (free from stain)?

There are two ways in which we might deal with this inquiry. We might introduce positive proof in support of our view, or we might show that such consequences would follow from the position taken by our correspondent as would forbid us to accept it. To make assurance doubly sure, we shall do both of these things.

Let us, then, consider some of the positive statements of the Scriptures bearing directly upon this matter. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” The natural and legitimate conclusion from this declaration would be that the flesh and blood of Jesus were the same as the children had. This is further emphasized in the same connection: “For verily he taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold [margin]. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.” The mission of Jesus was not to rescue fallen angels, but to save fallen man. He therefore identified himself with man, and not with angels, and he became “in all things” like unto those whom he proposed to help. The flesh of man is sinful. In order to be “in all things” like unto man, it was necessary that Jesus should take sinful flesh.

Again we have the statement previously quoted: “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” The suggestion is made that the expression “in the likeness of sinful flesh” does not mean the same as “in sinful flesh.” We might then properly ask, What does it mean? Does it mean “in sinless flesh”? If so, why did it not say so? Why are the words “flesh of sin,” as it reads in the margin of the Revised Version, introduced, if it is not the intent to convey the meaning that the flesh of Jesus was the same sinful flesh which we have? It seems to require a forced interpretation in order to attach any other meaning to the statement.

But we may apprehend the meaning of this passage more clearly if we compare it with another statement in which a similar form of expression is used. Here is one: He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” Do we not rightly conclude that Jesus was really a man when we read

that he was made “in the likeness of men”?—Most certainly. The only way in which he could be “in the likeness of men” was to become a man. That he did really become a man, and that he still is a man, is shown by the assertion that there is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Is it not equally clear that the only way in which God could send his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” would be for that Son to have sinful flesh? How would it be possible for him to be “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” and yet his flesh be sinless? Such an interpretation would involve a contradiction of terms.

It should, of course, be remembered that although Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” yet he did not commit sin. “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

We now turn to consider some of the consequences which follow if Jesus did not take sinful flesh. We must remember that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, being both Son of God and Son of man. This is the great central truth of Christianity, and from it come blessed results to believers. “The Saviour was deeply anxious for his disciples to understand for what purpose his divinity was united to humanity. He came to the world to display the glory of God, that man might be uplifted by its restoring power. God was manifested in him that he might be manifested in them.” In order that the character of God might be manifested in sinful men who should believe on him, it was necessary that Jesus should unite divinity and humanity in himself, and that the flesh which he bore should be the same as the other men in whom God was thus to be manifested. Another way of expressing it would be to say that the Son of God tabernacled in the flesh when he appeared in Judea, in order that the way might be prepared for him to dwell in the flesh of all believers, and that it was therefore necessary that he should take the same kind of flesh as that in which he would afterward dwell when he should take up his abode in the members of his church.

This is not a mere matter of theory. It is intensely practical in its bearings. If the Son of God did not dwell in sinful flesh when he was born into the world, then the ladder has not been let down from heaven to earth, and the gulf between a holy God and fallen humanity has not been bridged. It would then be necessary that some further means should be provided in order to complete the connection between the Son of God and sinful flesh. And this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church has done. The creed of that organization is in perfect harmony with the view taken by our correspondent.

The formal expression of this doctrine is called the dogma of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, according to which the mother of Jesus was “by a special privilege preserved immaculate, that is, free from the stain of original sin, from the first moment of her conception.” As the mother was thus entirely different from other women, so the flesh which Jesus took from her would be different from the flesh of other men, and there would still be a separation between Jesus and men in sinful flesh. The Roman Catholic Church, having created this separation by its creed, has introduced a system of mediation between the Son of God and men in sinful flesh. First come the priests on earth, which are known to have sinful flesh; then come those who did dwell in sinful flesh, but are now canonized by the church as saints in heaven; next the angels; and lastly the mother of Jesus. Thus the door into heaven is not Jesus, but the church, and such a price is charged for opening the door as it is believed the sinner or his friends can pay. These are the consequences which naturally follow the doctrine that Jesus did not take sinful flesh, and we avoid these consequences by denying the doctrine, and holding to the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, our correspondent asks, “How could one in sinful flesh be perfect, be holy?” This question touches the very heart of our Christianity.

The teaching of Jesus is, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” And through the apostle Peter comes the instruction, “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” No one will deny that we have sinful flesh, and we therefore ask how it will be possible to meet the requirements of the Scripture if it is not possible for one to be perfect or holy in sinful flesh.

The very hope of our attaining perfection and holiness is based upon the wonderful truth that the perfection and holiness of divinity were revealed in sinful flesh in the person of Jesus. We are not able to explain how this could be, but our salvation is found in believing the fact.

Then may be fulfilled the promise of Jesus: “If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

It is the crowning glory of our religion that even flesh of sin may become a temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Much more could be said in reply to the question of our correspondent, but we hope that the principles involved and their relation to Christian experience have been made clear, and we trust that none of our readers will accept the doctrine of the papacy because they are unable to explain the mystery of godliness. It is safe to believe the plain teaching of the Scriptures.