Did Jesus Have a “Sinful” (Post-Fall) Human Nature? A Biblical Refutation of the SDA Claim

The he claim that Jesus assumed a sinful/post-fall human nature (as some Adventist streams teach) fumbles both the text and the gospel. Historical Christian doctrine asserts that Christ assumed true humanity without sin. That’s not pious hair-splitting; it’s the difference between a spotless Savior and someone who’d need a Savior.

Below is a straight-shooting, historico-grammatical walk through the key passages. No fluff, just exegesis.

1) “Holy” From Conception (Luke 1:35)

Text: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you… therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”

Exegesis: The “therefore” (διό) grounds the child’s holiness in the Spirit’s overshadowing. From conception, He is hagion—set apart, morally pure. If Christ took a sinful nature (moral corruption/concupiscence), Luke’s “holy” lands flat.

Implication: Virgin conception + Spirit’s sanctifying act = no inherited sinfulness. He is truly human, but not morally fallen.

2) The “Likeness of Sinful Flesh” ≠ Sinful Nature (Romans 8:3)

Text: “God… sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

Exegesis (historico-grammatical):

1. ὁμοίωμα (homoiōma) = “likeness,” similarity with a difference. Paul uses the same term in Philippians 2:7 (“likeness of men”) to affirm real humanity, while guarding mystery.
   
   
2. Christ takes our mortal, frail condition (“flesh” post-fall: hunger, pain, death), not our internal moral corruption.
   
   
3. The purpose clause: He came to condemn sin—not to share it.

Implication: He bore our conditions, not our corruption.

3) “In Every Respect” — With the Author’s Built-In Exception (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15)

Texts:

1. “He had to be made like His brothers in every respect…” (2:17)
   
   
2. “…tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin (χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας).” (4:15)

Exegesis: The writer himself gives the qualifier: “without sin.” The phrase “in every respect” is comprehensive within the writer’s own bounds—real flesh and blood (2:14), real temptations and suffering—minus indwelling sin. Think full humanity under fallen conditions, not fallen morality.

Implication: Shared vulnerabilities ≠ shared vices.

4) Spotless Priest, Spotless Lamb (Hebrews 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19)

Texts:

1. “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners…” (Heb 7:26)
   
   
2. Christ offered Himself “without blemish (ἀμώμου) to God.” (Heb 9:14; cf. 1 Pet 1:19)

Exegesis: The sacrificial typology demands moral perfection. “Undefiled” and “without blemish” are moral categories in the priestly/sacrificial context. A priest with a sinful nature is ceremonially and morally disqualified.

Implication: If Jesus possessed a sinful nature, He fails the Levitical pattern He came to fulfill.

5) “He Committed No Sin” (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; John 8:46)

Texts:

1. “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth.” (1 Pet 2:22; Isa 53 echo)
   
   
2. “In Him there is no sin.” (1 John 3:5)
   
   
3. “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46)

Exegesis: Not just sinless acts—John asserts absence of sin “in Him.” That’s deeper than never slipping up; it denies indwelling sin.

Implication: Zero inner corruption; impeccable holiness.

6) The Second Adam, Not Another Fallen Son of Adam (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:45–49)

Exegesis: Paul contrasts two federal heads: Adam (condemnation) and Christ (justification). Christ is not merely another member of Adam’s fallen line; He is the new head—the Second Adam—bringing righteousness and life.

Implication: If Christ shared Adam’s sinful nature, He’d be downstream of Adam, not the upstream federal Redeemer.

7) “Made Sin” Means Sin-Offering, Not Sinful (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Text: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…”

Exegesis (lexical/theological): In the LXX, ἁμαρτία (hamartia) regularly means “sin-offering.” Paul says Christ, the One who knew no sin, became our sin-offering. This is forensic/imputational, not ontological corruption.

Implication: He bears our guilt legally and sacrificially, without becoming a sinner.

8) Tempted Without Concupiscence (Hebrews 2:18; James 1:13; Genesis 3)

Exegesis:

1. Christ was truly tempted (Heb 2:18), but “God cannot be tempted with evil” (Jas 1:13). In the incarnation, the divine Person experiences real testing according to His human nature, yet without the inward pull of sinful desire (concupiscence).
   
   
2. Adam was tempted pre-fall (Gen 3) without a sinful nature; so temptation does not require inner corruption.

Implication: Real temptation ≠ sinful nature. Jesus’ temptations were from without, not from within.

9) “Flesh” in Paul Often Means the Sin Principle in Us—Not in Christ (Romans 7–8; John 14:30)

Exegesis:

1. In believers, “flesh” (σάρξ) can mean the sin principle (Rom 7:18).
   
   
2. Of Christ, Scripture never speaks that way. Jesus says, “The ruler of this world has nothing in Me.” (John 14:30)

Implication: The Pauline “flesh” that houses sin is our problem, not Christ’s.

10) Chalcedonian Logic Backed by Scripture

No need to quote creeds to prove the Bible, but note the match: one Person, two natures—fully God, fully man, without sin (John 1:14; Phil 2:6–8; Col 2:9). Scripture teaches a real humanity (hunger, weariness, death) without moral defilement. That’s the only way the cross actually saves.

Answering Common SDA Proof-Texts

• “He had to be like His brothers in every respect.” (Heb 2:17)

Amen—but the same author says “without sin.” (Heb 4:15; 7:26) “Every respect” = fully human conditions, not shared corruption.

• “Likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom 8:3)

See #2. “Likeness” preserves both identity (real humanity) and distinction (no sin).

• “To be our Example, He had to take our sinful nature.”

No. Adam was a perfect example before the fall, and still fell. Sinners don’t need another sinner; they need a sinless Substitute (Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 3:18). Christ is both Substitute and Example—in that order (1 John 2:1–6).

 

Why the Post-Fall View Breaks the Gospel

1. It disqualifies the sacrifice. A blemished lamb can’t atone (Heb 7:26; 9:14).
   
   
2. It guts imputation. If Christ is internally sinful, He can’t bear our sins as the spotless One.
   
   
3. It confuses “condition” and “corruption.” Jesus assumed our weaknesses and mortality, not our moral pollution.
   
   
4. It feeds perfectionism/legalism. If Jesus beat sin from inside a sinful nature, the call subtly shifts from grace to try harder. The NT centers on union with a sinless Christ, not last-generation heroics (Rom 8:1–4; Gal 2:20).
   
   

Bottom Line

1. Biblical data: Holy from conception (Luke 1:35); without sin in being and act (Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5); truly human under fallen conditions (Heb 2:14–18) but not morally fallen.
   
   
2. Right synthesis (historico-grammatical): He took our nature (humanity), not our sinfulness. He bore our sins as a spotless sin-offering, not as a sinner.
   
   
3. Gospel payoff: Only a sinless Christ can be your perfect righteousness and once-for-all sacrifice (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 10:10–14).

If your Jesus could sin or did share a sinful nature, your atonement collapses. Praise God, the biblical Jesus is holy, innocent, undefiled—and that’s why His cross actually saves.

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph