Your reference to cellular-level corruption is intriguing. If sin alters humanity at such a fundamental level, then how do you view Christ’s human nature in light of this? He was born of a "made sinner" human mother, yet without inheriting sin’s corruption.
LOL! That is fodder for a separate op!
I subscribe to the doctrine of Impeccability as well as the position Jesus was fully God and fully human. I also do not find scripture to actually, explicitly state an ovum from Mary was used in the incarnation of Jesus. What scripture does state is that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:18-20). The text does not say he was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and Mary. There's no mention of Mary contributing anything to his pregnancy. This, of course, typically leads to a lot of debate (which is why I encourage you to start a new and separate op on the matter because as soon as folks read this post they're going to address it.... and the specified topic of this op will be lost. Folks will appeal to Genesis 3:15's "seed of a woman" and a variety of other verses, all of which I can address, but in the end there'll be mixed agreement. The traditionalists will maintain their adherence to that position. Furthermore, because of Jesus' divine ontology and the doctrine of Impeccability I side with the Reformed who hold Jesus was incapable of sin and, therefore, verses like Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15 should be read in the context of his unique ontology. Jesus was not made in the flesh of sinful man, but in the flesh of
sinless man. His cells were not like yours or mine. His cells did not bear any mark of corruption within them. James' definition of temptation, therefore, does not apply the same way to Jesus as it does to you or me or the rest of humanity. There are no lusts within Jesus by which he might be dragged away and enticed to sin.
That is how the temptation in the wilderness should be read. He was baited, but there was no internal desire to consider what Satan offered. Had any such desire ever existed anywhere at anytime in Jesus, from toenail to head hair follicle then that would have instantaneously disqualified him from being the
perfect, blemish-free sacrifice.
The correct Christology is critical to a correct soteriology.
Does this suggest that sin’s transmission is not purely physical, but tied directly to divine ordination—meaning corruption is passed through legal imputation rather than just biological descent?
Would love to hear your take on how Christ remains untouched by inherited sin if it operates at a cellular level.
Sin's entrance is attributed to disobedience (Rom. 5:12). After an individual disobeys God then sin corrupts
everything. That is what happened with Adam (and Eve) in Genesis 3:6-7. Adam's disobedience did not merely affect Adam; it brought sin into the entire world. Bacteria and viruses no longer worked as they were originally designed, and they no longer submitted to the divinely mandated stewardship of humanity. Disease ensued. As a consequence, now all creation yearns for the sons of God to be revealed, and it yearns to be made new.
BUT..... that's just the earth end of things. If the tradition about Satan having been a rebellious archangel is true and correct then the serpent is just as much a slave of sin as any human. The wages of sin is death. That applies to Satan. He is NOT a free agent. He is a minion, a sinfully dead and sinfully enslaved minion. Sin is despotic. The chief difference, hamartiologically speaking, between the angelic sinner and the human sinner is that God, in His grace, has seen fit to offer salvation to humanity where none is available to Satan and his ilk. The point being, angelic
spirits suffer the consequence of disobedience and sin, too. They are not flesh and blood like us (they have bodies, but they're not like our bodies).
However, perhaps the better way to look at sin is not as a "thing," but as an "anti-thing." God is the Thesis. Righteousness is the thesis. Sin is the antithesis. Sin is the
absence of something, not the existence of some alternative. Sin is the absence of righteousness, holiness, faith, faithfulness, obedience, perfection, etc. It is the absence and antithesis of everything that is God.
To the degree that all the abstracts are not material (thought, emotion, volition, love, peace, holiness/separateness, etc.), the answer to your question is yes, not either/or. Sin is purely physical, but sin is
also non-physical. Sin (or corruption) is transmitted physically, but it is also transmitted behaviorally, cognitively, etc. AND it is also imputed as a function of the OEM specifications of the Creator's design in creation. None of this is either/or. It's all of the above.
Which brings me to something I think critically important when reading scripture. We need to avoid the problem I call "
onlyism." Onlyism occurs anytime we read a verse that says something and we think that verse is definitive. For example, earlier I mentioned 1 John 3:4's definition of sin. John said all disobedience is sin. That is true BUT John did NOT say only disobedience is sin. Nor did he says the only measure of sin is disobedience. Other verses define sin as any lack of righteousness (and righteousness is not measured solely by the Law (as some think). Paul was writing about how holy days and dietary restrictions are to be handled and he said
anything not done in faith is sin. The point being that 1 John 3:4 is nt the ONLY verse defining sin. Another example would be the so called "five-fold ministry" of Ephesians 4.
No list in the Bible is exhaustive. When Paul lists five roles or "offices" that Jesus has given the Church he is not being exhaustive. Jesus also gave the Church administrators and a variety of other leaders and servants by which the objectives of Ephesians 4:11-16 are accomplished. An entire diagnostic criteria was developed using the specified five positions and entire congregations has been taught everyone has some blessing from God to be one of those roles. IT's a gross misuse of scripture all because the word "some" was ignored and the list was read with an "
only" inserted: God gave only apostles, evangelists, prophets, preachers, and teachers
. That is not what the text states at all.
So you can see the matter of Christology entails many different aspects including those having to do with his divine ontology that I haven't yet broached. If Jesus is God, then there has never been a moment in all of creation when he was not also King. It's completely irrational to have a God who is not also king and always, everywhere sovereign. That would necessarily mean he is sovereign over sin. Tie that to the fact he is the last Adam. Adam was given to commands: 1) be fruitful, subdue, and rule, and 2) don't disobey Me. Had Adam obeyed the first command then he never would have disobeyed the second command. Do you follow that?
As a human being,
Jesus always and everywhere obeys the first command. He, therefore, never has a problem with the second.
There is also never a a point in eternity, nor a moment in creation when Jesus is not the resurrection and the life. He spoke the words of John 11:25 and 14:6 long before he hung from Calvary.
He is NOT like sinful man. Neither is he a sinning man. He
is the resurrection.
Start an op on it
Not enough information in the preaching
Mental handicap (inability to comprehend the message)
Sin nature (moral disposition of rejecting God)
. It would be nice if that were not the case, but it is. To make things worse, the only people in the Bible who ever "walk in the light" are those people in whom God is already working to that effect. There isn't a single example of anyone waking up one day and deciding in their sin-ridden flesh, "Hey, I think I will walk in the light today," especially anyone who heart is darkened and whose thinking is futile. No one seeks God.
