How did Jesus avoid having original sin?

[WJL]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. I have a related theological question regarding original sin and death: since death is the result of Adam’s sin (original sin) and Mary and Jesus were preserved from the curse of original sin, wouldn’t that mean that they would also be preserved from death, making it impossible for them to die (or even be killed, in Christ’s case)? How can this apparent paradox be resolved?

 

[Cristiano]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. I have a related theological question regarding original sin and death: since death is the result of Adam’s sin (original sin) and Mary and Jesus were preserved from the curse of original sin, wouldn’t that mean that they would also be preserved from death, making it impossible for them to die (or even be killed, in Christ’s case)? How can this apparent paradox be resolved?

First of all we do not know if the Blessed Mother died or not. A lot of people (including myself) believe that she assumed into heaven before her death. However, this is not a dogma of the Church and you are free to think whatever you want.

In the case of Jesus He could have been preserved from death, in the same way that the Son did not have to be human. This is simply what God willed. God’s will makes perfect sense to me because Jesus’ death was (according to Mosaic law) the only possible perfect sacrifice for the atonement of our sins. Nothing is impossible for God, but we can find apparent paradoxes for that because of our limited intellect.

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5). In His humanity, Jesus was a descendant of Adam. Descendants of Adam receive original sin (Romans 5:12). So how did Jesus avoid having original sin?

Thanks.

This is a divine mystery even more impenetrable than that of predestination. Some Catholics believe that it was by Mary’s Immaculate Conception, while others believe that it was by the substantial grace of union between the Son of Man and the Divine Word. I think it’s both. St Ignatius of Antioch (c.A.D.110) speaks of Jesus as “both of God and of Mary”.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. I have a related theological question regarding original sin and death: since death is the result of Adam’s sin (original sin) and Mary and Jesus were preserved from the curse of original sin, wouldn’t that mean that they would also be preserved from death, making it impossible for them to die (or even be killed, in Christ’s case)? How can this apparent paradox be resolved?

Neither Jesus our Lord nor Mary were subjected to the corruption of death in the tomb. Our Lord gloriously rose from the dead and our Blessed Mother was gloriously assumed body and soul into heaven. Neither of them returned to dust (Gen 3:19). We the faithful, who have contracted the stain of original sin, must wait until the last day for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8: 19-23;1 Cor 15: 20-24).

PAX :harp:

 

[MagsM]

This is an interesting topic.

1 Tim 2:12 says Eve’s succumbing to deception is original sin, and Rom 5:19 says that the willful disobedience of Adam was original sin.

Here are a couple of ideas I’ve heard or thought of…and a question or two if you wouldn’t mind.

a) I’ve heard it said that since all died in Adam (not Eve), original sin is with man, not woman. If woman does not carry original sin, and God is Jesus’ Father, then He can indeed be without original sin. However, I believe that 1 Tim 2:12-15 contradicts this idea.

b) An intuitive thought is that Jesus became sin/flesh (2Cor 5:21), but did not commit sin having not been deceived through temptation (Matt 4:1-11, James 1:14, Matt 15:18) and being 100% obedient to His Father’s will (John 12:49, 14:31) He covers both original sins: perfect obedience and not believing the enemies lies. (feel free to correct me here)

c) Regarding Mary - She was certainly righteous and obedient and we see no evidence of her sinning in the bible, but the bible says in Rom 3:23 “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Please forgive my ignorance in asking the following questions, and be assured that it is not out of contention that I ask, but in sincertiy to learn the truth: In light of Rom 3:23, how can anyone but Jesus be put in the sinless category? Is there context I am missing or maybe found elsewhere? Is Mary’s sinlessness stated in the Catholic Catechism? If so, where?

 

[Ignatius]

Jesus was sinless (Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5). In His humanity, Jesus was a descendant of Adam. Descendants of Adam receive original sin (Romans 5:12). So how did Jesus avoid having original sin?

He’s God, so He can do anything. Also, God is all good and so is free from all sin.

 

[Good_Fella]

This is an interesting topic.

1 Tim 2:12 says Eve’s succumbing to deception is original sin, and Rom 5:19 says that the willful disobedience of Adam was original sin.

Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
1 Timothy 2, 14

For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.
Romans 5, 19

Eve transgressed, but the fall occurred by Adam’s disobedience. If Adam hadn’t listened to Eve the fall of mankind would not have happened. Eve sinned against God, but we have inherited the stain of original sin through Adam’s disobedience probably because Eve was formed out of Adam who then must have shouldered ultimate responsibilty for sin.

Here are a couple of ideas I’ve heard or thought of…and a question or two if you wouldn’t mind.

a) I’ve heard it said that since all died in Adam (not Eve), original sin is with man, not woman. If woman does not carry original sin, and God is Jesus’ Father, then He can indeed be without original sin. However, I believe that 1 Tim 2:12-15 contradicts this idea.

There is no contradiction in Scripture. Because Adam disobeyed God by listening to Eve after she had transgressed, both of our original biological parents have transmitted to us a human nature wounded by their own first sin deprived of original holiness and justice. This deprivation is original sin ( cf. CC 417). Eve’s transgression alone couldn’t have transmitted the stain of original sin. It had to be coupled with Adam’s disobedience in order to be universally effective. If Adam alone had transgressed without Eve’s involvement, the fall of mankind (Adam) would still have occurred. It was to Adam that God had given the direct command not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent deceptively reminded Eve of what Adam must have told her.

Since Eve was formed out of Adam, it is not surprising that both were inclined to disobey God in their freedom. We mustn’t lay the blame entirely on Eve. After all, Adam isn’t the one who was deceived by the serpent but knew better having been commanded by God himself. (Satan must have known that his chances in causing Adam’s fall were better by reaching him through Eve. The devil uses God’s creation to lure us away from God.) Anyway, Eve’s capacity to transgress presupposes Adam’s potential to do likewise, she being formed out of him. Thus we have inherited a wounded human nature from both of our original parents.

b) An intuitive thought is that Jesus became sin/flesh (2Cor 5:21), but did not commit sin having not been deceived through temptation (Matt 4:1-11, James 1:14, Matt 15:18) and being 100% obedient to His Father’s will (John 12:49, 14:31) He covers both original sins: perfect obedience and not believing the enemies lies.

For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
2 Corinthians 5, 21

The context of this verse is irrelevant to our discussion. St. Paul is telling us that Christ had to be sinless in order to atone for our sins and make perfect satisfaction to God for our transgressions. Since sinful man has offended God, only a sinless man can make a perfect sacrifice to God for sin in his person and life in propitiation for our sins. The apostle is not suggesting that Jesus had a sinful nature but resisted temptation. Satan must have presumed that Jesus was affected by concupiscence, which, by the way, isn’t sin as Martin Luther erroneously believed.

c) Regarding Mary - She was certainly righteous and obedient and we see no evidence of her sinning in the bible, but the bible says in Rom 3:23 “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Please forgive my ignorance in asking the following questions, and be assured that it is not out of contention that I ask, but in sincertiy to learn the truth: In light of Rom 3:23, how can anyone but Jesus be put in the sinless category? Is there context I am missing or maybe found elsewhere?

The word for “all” in the Greek is pantes, which implies there can be an exception to the universal rule. St. Paul is telling us that all are subject to original sin. Mary was subject as well, being human, but spared the stain of original sin by God’s intervention upon her Immaculate Conception.

Is Mary’s sinlessness stated in the Catholic Catechism? If so, where?

Please see the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854.

PAX :heaven:

 

[steve_b]

Jesus, being God, would have an unstained nature even if he had been born the son of a prostitute. If he could prevent Mary from recieving the fallen nature associated with OS, he could preserve his own nature as well.

God cannot have a fallen nature. He can only be like us in all things except sin.

Bingo!!!

Irenaeus Against Heresies Bk 3, Ch 21, paragraph 10 says it this way

1. For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground Genesis 2:5, and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for all things were made by Him, John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

Irenaeus is saying that Jesus took on Adams nature with respect to his origin. And Jesus preserved that nature perfectly, free from ALL stain of sin and rebellion just as God created it to be.

And Jesus redeemed His mother from her conception, in anticipation of His incarnation through her.

 

[MagsM]

Eve transgressed, but the fall occurred by Adam’s disobedience. If Adam hadn’t listened to Eve the fall of mankind would not have happened. Eve sinned against God, but we have inherited the stain of original sin through Adam’s disobedience probably because Eve was formed out of Adam who then must have shouldered ultimate responsibilty for sin.

Thanks…I think we’re saying the same thing

There is no contradiction in Scripture. .

We’re in agreement here. I did not mean to imply that I thought there was.

The apostle is not suggesting that Jesus had a sinful nature but resisted temptation. Satan must have presumed that Jesus was affected by concupiscence, which, by the way, isn’t sin as Martin Luther erroneously believed.

LOL! I definately did not think Apostle Paul was implying that Jesus had a sinful nature. But I do appreciate your diligence and patience in clarification Thanks.

The word for “all” in the Greek is pantes, which implies there can be an exception to the universal rule. St. Paul is telling us that all are subject to original sin. Mary was subject as well, being human, but spared the stain of original sin by God’s intervention upon her Immaculate Conception.

Please see the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854.

Thanks Good Fella, this was very helpful. I appreciate your kind response - my apologies if I was unclear in my original post.

Mags

 

[Good_Fella]

Thanks…I think we’re saying the same thing

Cool.

We’re in agreement here. I did not mean to imply that I thought there was.

I’m sure you didn’t.

LOL! I definitely did not think Apostle Paul was implying that Jesus had a sinful nature. But I do appreciate your diligence and patience in clarification Thanks.

Which is why Jesus couldn’t have been punished for our sins as Protestants mistakenly believe. Such a notion terribly distorts the Divine Justice.

Thanks Good Fella, this was very helpful. I appreciate your kind response - my apologies if I was unclear in my original post.
Mags

You’re welcome, Mags. I figured you were pointing out apparent contradictions. I hope you took the time to read Pope Pius’ encyclical to better understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Before a person can accept this teaching, he must believe that one can become inherently righteous by the infusion of divine grace. With God all things are possible in accord with his efficacious will: a perfect mother for his perfect Son.

He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.
1 John 3, 8
PAX :heaven: