Now after Ellen White passed from the scene Adventist started to drift away from what she had written and was true Adventist belief that Christ had no taint of sin, and began to hold that "sinful flesh" meant Christ had desires of sin such as lust and covet. So lets start with a verse that speaks directly to that about the nature of Christ:
Romans 8:3 King James Version (KJV)
3 For 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:
I was listening to a program with Adventist theologian Herbert Douglass, who knew many of those involved including M. L. Andersean, on Amazing Facts, and he in went in depth over the Adventist book Questions on Doctrine, but to my surprise did not make one quote from the book that he had a issue with. Instead he quoted others who said it had an effect on how Adventist looked at the nature of Christ and the Atonement. So I looked over the history of what occurred and found that the book was written to answer critics especially Calvinist theologians who had felt that Adventist tended to hold that Christ was not only made flesh in the nature of Adam after the fall, but had sinful desires especially by the Adventist practice of saying Christ had "Sinful Flesh". Now we know that the lusts of the eye as well as the lusts of the flesh were shown by Christ to be sin, and if Christ was found with no sin, then Jesus could not have had these carnal desires and still be sinless. So what did the Calvinist find that led them to this idea, and what did Walter Martin and Barnhouse do that led to Questions on Doctrine.
Well we find that In the late 1800's, sporadic outbreaks of emotionally-expressive and body-centered worship styles occurred in various branches of evangelical Protestantism, and the Holiness movement in particular spawned dozens of these, each with unique doctrinal content and associated personalities. An Adventist version, the so-called "holy flesh movement," came into the church through A. F. Ballenger who was in turn influenced by the Holiness movement and who advocated an emphasis on the Holy Spirit in Christian thought and life. The beliefs of this group, in relation to the nature of Christ differed in the teaching on the incarnation which dominated the thinking of the leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana from 1898 to 1901. In Indiana, Ballenger's ideas were picked up by S. S. Davis, a minister and evangelist was influenced by Pentecostals he worked with, who was supported by his Conference president, Robert Donnell. While this Movement
did receive the official endorsement of some local conference committees and administration, its work and teachings did not represent the official viewpoint of the Church as a whole at that time.
The Holy Flesh theory claimed that those who followed the Saviour must have their fallen natures perfected by passing through a Garden of Gethsemane experience. The records from eyewitness accounts report that in their services the followers of this holy flesh movement" worked up a high pitch of excitement by use of musical instruments such as organs, flutes, fiddles, tambourines, horns, and even a big bass drum. They sought a physical demonstration of the "spirit" and shouted and prayed and sang until someone in the congregation would fall, prostrate and unconscious, from his seat. When the subject revived, he was counted among those who had passed through the "Gethsemane experience", had obtained holy flesh, and had translation faith. Thereafter, it was asserted, he could not sin and had obtained a form of immortal assurance. How it relates to the issue at hand is on the doctrinal teachings of this movement regarding the nature of Christ's
humanity, that He took the nature of Adam before the Fall.
Adventist were warned against the 'Holy Flesh Movement' with its idea of being made 'holy' by just getting the 'spirit' such as we see in the Pentecostalists/Charasmatics had made inroads in some conferences, but Ellen Whites counsel had brought it to stop in the church by 1901. But then after Ellen Whites death, Adventist fell into another snare, the idea that Christ was filled with the same desires began to take hold from the use of the words that Christ was made "sinful flesh" in Adventist publications. Many projected there own sinful failings into these words, rather than accept the correct understanding. This is what critics saw, a church whose member believed Christ was not just made flesh, but desired to sin.
Because the critics had found this in the publications it was brought to the attention of Adventist theologians who sought to give a better more correct explanation, but it caused some discomfort. Adventist doctrine clearly held that Jesus did not sin, that at no time, and in no wise did He yield to sin. But then what did He receive from His mother Mary, for He was the seed of David according to human descent. In the Ministry Magazine a article came out at the time in which stress was laid on the fact that Jesus was the 'seed of the woman', not of man. Now if, and this is what was some Adventist found disturbing, Jesus did not inherit through Mary on His human side all that we inherit by human nature, then what kind of nature did Mary have, and how far is this from the Immaculate Conception doctrine of Catholicism? We shall look at that question, but lets first take a look at the nature of Christ and what happened as Adventist settled into the idea that
Christ had what can only be seen as Mans sinful desires and the shock of correction.
In the 1950s, Questions on Doctrine (QOD) was published by the church. Let me give you the background.
In the 1950s Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin came to the Adventist leaders with some questions. Barnhouse was the publisher of Eternity magazine, and Martin was a researcher on cultsnon-mainstream religious movements held by sometimes self-proclaimed majority Christians to be heretical, error-teaching bodies. Already Martin had written a number of books excoriating other religious groups as cults. His latest project was a book on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The introduction in QOD says that Martin's book had been planned to particularly emphasize those areas wherein Adventist teachings differ from some other Christian groups.
A group of Adventist Church leaders met with Martin and Barnhouse. Martin and Barnhouse presnted their assertions that certain theological views expressed in several of our books in print were unacceptable if we expected to be viewed as orthodox Christians. The Seventh-day Adventists insisted to Martin and Barnhouse that this church was in the process of updating things, and that like every church, Adventists had our own conservative lunatic fringe to deal with.
Three main questions especially concerned Martin and Barnhouse: (1) What we teach about the atonement, (2) What we teach about the role of works in salvation, and (3) What we teach concerning the nature of Jesus' humanity? Other teachings held by Adventists such as the role of Ellen White concerned them also, but those three were the all-consuming ones. Martin and Barnhouse let the Seventh-day Adventist leaders know that their response to what was the church position on these views would have a impact on what they would write. In QOD, that volume's authors wrote,
The critics appear to cite some statements out of context, and it appears it bothered them not the least, the fact that Adventists had no formal creed made it desirable and necessary for Adventist to declare the churchs position on the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second person of the godhead, was not one with the Father from all eternity, and that His death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement.
Now looking at the question of "formal creed, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had developed in America out of the Second Advent Movement led by William Miller, a Baptist lay-preacher. The doctrinal emphasis during the early decades of the Church's development and growth reflected similar tenets which marked the Millerite Movement plus those distinctive concepts of faith which set the Seventh-day Adventist Church apart as the instrument used by God to herald the Third Angel's Message. In 1822, William Miller prepared a "brief statement of faith" which was composed of twenty articles, one of which was left incomplete. Among the subjects not included in the twenty articles of faith was the doctrine of the incarnation.
Most of the Statements from 1844-1888 in regard to the human nature which Christ assumed at Bethlehem are to be found in the early writings of Ellen G. White. These statements are specific and clearly enunciated. The first statement appeared in 1858. In describing the time when Jesus made the announcement of the plan of redemption to the unfallen angels, she writes that He told them that - - "He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear on earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted in His own experience with the various temptations with which men would be beset, that He might know how to succour those who should be tempted."(Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1., p. 24.).
This was difficult for the angels to accept, and they offered themselves as substitutes; but Jesus informed them that the life of an angel could not pay the debt for sin. He, however, assured them that they would have a part to play in the plan for man's redemption. Note carefully the words what Jesus Himself said would take place:
"Jesus also told them that they should have a part to act, to be with Him, and at different times strengthen Him. That He should take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1., p. 25).
In the 1870s as Ellen White began to write more fully on the life and mission of Jesus Christ, comprehensive statements on the Incarnation appeared. Except for two articles on the subject of tithing, all the written material from her pen in the Review for the year 1874 was on the subject of the plan of redemption and the temptations of Christ. In these articles the following specific statements are to be found which define the nature of the humanity Christ took upon Himself in becoming man.
"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam....
What love! What amazing condescension! The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity! He would place His feet in Adam's steps. He would take man's fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who (had) triumphed over Adam." (Review & Herald, Feb. 24, 1874).
"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wondered four thousand years from Eden and from the original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family.
When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. He stood in the strength of his perfection before God. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced.
Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure. Ηere Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf, four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing every successive generation farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed. . . .
In what contrast is the second Adam as Ηe entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single-handed. Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ's advent to earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He, who knew nο sin, became sin for us. He humiliated himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that he might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him." (Review & Herald, Jul, 28, 1874).
"The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and, identified itself with the weaknesses and necessities of fallen man, while His divine nature grasped the Eternal. . Christ's work was to reconcile man to God through His human nature, and God to man through His divine nature." (Review & Herald, August 4, 1874).
Because man fallen could not overcome Satan with his human strength, Christ came from the royal courts of Heaven to help him with His human and divine strength combined. Christ knew that Adam in Eden, with his superior advantages, might have withstood the temptations of Satan, and conquered him. He also knew that it is not possible for man, out of Eden, separated from the light and love of God since the Fall, to resist the temptations of Satan in his own strength. In order to bring hope to man, and save him from complete ruin, He humbled Himself to take man's nature, that, with His divine power combined with the human, He might reach man where he is. He obtains for the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that strength which it is impossible for them to obtain for themselves, that in His name they may overcome the temptations of Satan (Review & Herald, August 18, 1874).
During the first part of the year 1875, the articles from the pen of Ellen White continued to present the temptations of Christ. She commented - "How few can understand the love of God for the fallen race in that He withheld not His divine Son from taking upon Him the humiliation of humanity" (Review & Herald, March 18, 1875). She pointed to the fact that Satan put forth his strongest efforts to overcome Christ on the point of appetite at a time when He was enduring the keenest pangs of hunger. Then she wrote:
"The victory gained was designed, not only to set an example to those who have fallen under the power of appetite, but to qualify the Redeemer for His special work of reaching to the very depths of human woe. By experiencing in Himself the strength of Satan's temptation, and of human sufferings and infirmities, He would know better how to succour those who should put forth efforts to help themselves" (Review & Herald March 18, 1875).
In 1878, Ellen White wrote a letter to a young man setting Christ before him as the "great Exemplar." She quoted Hebrews 2:17 that "Christ was made like unto His brethren." Then she commented:
"Ηe felt both joy and grief as they feel. His body was susceptible to weariness, as yours. His mind, like yours, could be harassed and perplexed. If you have hardships, so did He. Satan could tempt Him. His enemies could annoy Him. . . . Jesus was sinless and had no dread of the consequences of sin. With this exception His condition was as yours. You have not a difficulty that did not press with equal weight upon Him, not a sorrow that His heart has not experienced. His feelings could be hurt with neglect, with indifferences of professed friends, as easily as yours. Is your ρathway thorny? Christ's was so in a tenfold sense. Are you distressed? So was He. How well fitted was Christ to be an example." (Letter 17, 1878)
About this time, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, was published. In this volume a specific contrast between man's fallen nature and Christ's humanity is made. Ellen G. White wrote:
Our Saviour identifies Himself with our needs and weaknesses, in that He became a suppliant, a mighty petitioner, seeking from His Father fresh supplies of strength, to come forth invigorated and refreshed, braced for duty and trial. He is our example in all things. He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. Ηis humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 201-202).
Commenting further on the prayer life of Jesus, she penned the following:
"He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common with humanity. He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. Jesus endured agony which required help and support from His Father." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2., pp. 508-509).
As one reads the last two references, it would appear these statements are at variance with what had been written prior to, and contemporary, with these statements. There is neither conflict nor a contradiction when one understands how Ellen White understood and used the word "passion." The following paragraph illustrates her use and understanding of the word as well as the phrase - "the inclinations of the natural heart." It reads:
"No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must first be gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act, before passion can dominate over reason, or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin. ... Cast yourself, helpless, unworthy, upon Jesus, and claim His very promise. The Lord will hear. He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart, and He will help in every time of need." (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p. 177)
Another statement defining the nature of the humanity Christ assumed appeared in 1877. It reads:
"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Ηimself the form and nature of fallen man, that He might be made perfect through suffering, and Himself endure the strength of Satan's fierce temptation, that He might understand how to succour those that should be tempted." (Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 2, p. 39)
In 1887 Ellen White wrote an article for the Review (Review & Herald, July 5, 1887) regarding pride that was leading to strife for supremacy. She set before the reader Christ's sacrifice as an example to be emulated. In so doing she stated certain facts that involved the nature of the humanity Christ assumed. Three points were clearly enunciated:
1) He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for a little while relinquished.
2) He humbled Himself and took mortality upon Him. As a member of the human family He was mortal.
3) He brought into His human nature all the life-giving energies that human beings will need and must receive.
Around this time, Jones and Waggoner brought their insight into the incarnation in their writings, and then came out in the General Conference of 1888 with the Righteousness by Faith understanding which included of necessity, a discussion of the nature of the humanity which the Son of God assumed. Their concepts on the subject of the incarnation produced opposition. Some of those who were opposed wrote to Sister White. These did not simply write to the prophetess to obtain the light she had been given in regard to the humanity of the Son of man, but to assert their doubts as the basis for questioning. To these questioners, she replied in a morning talk given at Battle Creek, Michigan on January 29, 1890. She revealed that "letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had He would have fallen under similar temptations." To this reasoning she declared: "If He did not have man's nature, He could
not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." (Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, bk. i, p. 408.)
To Ellen G. White, the incarnation was "a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in all its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood." However, she cautioned that "the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness." Ellen G. White, Letter 280, 1904 (5BC:1113)
In 1896, Ellen White wrote: "In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fulness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one." Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896.
It is in this union "that we find the hope of our fallen race." Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896, SOP says, "The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God." Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, October 13, 1898. Therefore, we need to "fix our minds on the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven the incarnation of the Son of God." Ellen G. White, MS 76, 1903 (7BC:904).
SOP tells us: "There are light and glory in the truth that Christ was one with the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. This is the light shining in a dark place, making it resplendent with divine, original glory. This truth, infinitely mysterious in itself explains other mysterious and otherwise unexplainable truths, while it is enshrined in light, unapproachable and incomprehensible. As "one with the Father", "the Lord Jesus Christ... existed from eternity a distinct person." Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.
While Ellen G. White definitely states that "we cannot explain how divinity was clothed with humanity",Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, October 1, 1889. Ellen G. White in her writings during this period unfold various fundamental aspects of what took place when Christ became man. In 1899, she wrote:
"Christ, at an infinite cost, by a painful process, mysterious to angels as well as to men, assumed humanity. Hiding His divinity
laying aside His glory, He was born a babe in Bethlehem." Ellen G. White, MS 29, 1899. In creation, Christ had given "to humanity an existence outside of Himself;" but "in redemption, He takes humanity unto Himself. He makes it a part of His own being." We might then ask - "Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person - the man Christ Jesus." (Ellen G. White, "The Word Made Flesh" Andreasen Collection # 2.)
So was the divine nature degraded by accepting the human nature formed in the womb of Mary? The answer is clearly no, "In Christ, divinity and humanity were combined. Divinity was not degraded to humanity; divinity held its place, but humanity by being united to divinity withstood the fiercest test of temptation in the wilderness." Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, bk. i, p. 408. What then is meant when the expression - Christ "united humanity with divinity" - is used in the Spirit of Prophecy? Note the following two quotations: "He [Christ] united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He united Himself with the temple. Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, December 20, 1900 (4BC:1147). In His person, humanity inhabited by divinity was represented to the world. (Ellen G. White, "The Kingdom of Christ" June 13, 1896.)
The nature of the humanity of the Son of God - "a distinct person" in His own right from eternity - is also clearly and unmistakably set forth by the servant of the Lord. While Christ was declared to be the second Adam, He did not accept the nature of Adam in his innocency, but Adam's fallen nature. She wrote: "In Christ were united the divine and the human - the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam the transgressor, meet in Jesus - the Son of God, and the Son of man." (Ellen G. White, MS 141, 1901.)
Neither is there any doubt left as to the condition of the humanity which Christ accepted in connection with Himself. On this point it was written: "Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." (Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, December 20, 1900 (4BC:1147).)
"Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension He would be enabled to pour out His blessings in behalf of the fallen race. " (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, July 17, 1900.)
Lest she be misunderstood, what she meant by the term, "human nature", or when she stated that Christ became "flesh", Ellen G. White emphasized that it was "in the likeness of sinful flesh.". In an article for the Youth's Instructor, she penned these words - "Let children bear in mind that the child Jesus had taken upon Himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, * and was tempted of Satan as all children are tempted." (Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, August 23, 1894.)
SOP says "He [Christ] was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh." Ellen G. White, W-106-1896. We see Sister White used the expression, "likeness of sinful flesh" - which is a Biblical phrase and we have to look to see if she meant that the nature that Jesus assumed was not the nature of Adam after the Fall, but only something which physically resembled it. However, in two published sources it is plainly stated that "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature", Ellen G. White, Medical Ministry, p. 181. And "He took upon Him our sinful nature." (Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, December 15, 1896.)
While being specific as to the nature that Christ assumed, Ellen White was just as pointed as to the results of such a union. She declared - "In His human nature, He maintained the purity of His divine character." Ellen G. White, Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898. In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898 "No taint of sin was found on Him." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, January 16, 1896.)
The article in the Signs of the Times from which the last sentence was quoted bore the title - "Sin Condemned in the Flesh." In this article the various Bible texts, which refer to Christ's sinlessness are quoted, such as, "that holy thing"; "He did no sin"; "knew no sin"; "in Him was no sin"; and that Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." Then this sentence is written - "This testimony concerning Christ plainly shows that He condemned sin in the flesh." (Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, January 16, 1896.)
Going forward to the events leading up to QOD, the Adventist leaders agreed to receive the questions presented by Martin and Calvinist critics. Martin came armed with dozens. The ensuing dialogue would result in the publishing of two books: one by the Adventist Church, with the working-title, Questions and Answers, and another by Martin, who would delay the publishing of his book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism6 until after the Adventists had first published theirs.
'Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine' was the name of the Adventists' eventually-published book. It contained several good and helpful sections. Those are not the problem. But many Adventists were especially concerned about the sections presenting Seventh-day Adventist teachings on the atonement and also the nature of Christ. Some claimed that whereas Adventists previously had believed that the atonement is being completed in heaven by Christ now, QOD now was holding that it was completed at the cross. And that whereas Adventists had held that Jesus took the humanity of humankind after the fall, QOD said it was before the fall. But Herbert Douglas, in his presentation did not lay out or quote from QOD any parts to support this, which caught my attention and led to me to look to see what it is actually there. We have to understand that "in the likeness of sinful flesh" did not mean Christ had a desire to sin or lusts of the flesh or lusts
of the eye, he was dead to sin but alive to the Holy Spirit and as it clearly says, He "condemned sin in the flesh." The "Mind of Christ" was sinless as Adam had before the fall.
We look at Romans 6:
Romans 6 King James Version (KJV)
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall, "sinful flesh". But Jesus did not have a tendency to sin, nor did Jesus develop a desire to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our nature after centuries of deterioration and damage from sin, but yet He had no sin, so no lustful desire or lust in the eye, and we cannot allow us to say that He had sinful desire, thus its ok for us. No, never.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but Christ using the same power we have available to us today, resisted and kept from and did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations.
1 Peter 1:18-19
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
My understanding is we have to have the same righteousness as Christ 'in the flesh' had, we must take off our filthy rags and put own His garment He provides, as just as we must do in becoming dead to sin, Christ did, and if with the Holy Spirit we are made dead to sin and ungodly desire, we then allow for Christ to be in us and we in Him, and put on His righteousness and become "alive unto God".
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So Christ has no advantage when it comes to sin....
