Sin Nature and the Sarx, how can Jesus be sinless if all flesh is evil

The Church rejected Gnostocism and Manichaeism as heresies. Proponents taught dualistic philosophies that asserted all material is evil, and only the spiritual can be good. The idea that human nature is necessarily evil is related to these heresies. One solution to the problem of human sin is the idea of original sin (accepted by many, but not all Christian denominations). Adam and Eve were originally sinless, thus their sarx was not evil. They sinned and acquired a new nature, and passed it down to their descendants, whether genetically, spiritually, or through example. Whichever means of transmission is the correct one, it argues that imperfections in our nature are communicable.

The Gospel teaches the good news that God's righteousness is similarly communicable:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (22) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. (Romans 3:21-22)

If it were not possible for God to give us His righteousness, we would be in big trouble, because we are incapable of producing it on our own. When Jesus was born, by divine miracle, the communication of sin from Mary to Jesus was interrupted. Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born immaculately, hence had no sin nature to communicate, but that just pushes the problem back a generation. It was a miracle of special creation that God was able to do two things: create a person related by blood to humankind, and make him sinless.

It has been posited that sin passes to children only through the father, which might make explain how that is possible, but I know of no scriptural backing for that belief.

Regardless of which method of sin transmission is correct, it is God who created us and designed the means, physical and spiritual, by which character, whether spiritual virtue or vice, is transmitted from parents to children. Since he designed the process, he also was capable of designing for Himself a means of incarnating a savior in a sinless body.

In EXODUS 12:5 we see that the passover lamb had to be "without blemish ". "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats."

In 1 CORINTHIANS 15:22 we see that :"For as in Adam all die,even so in Christ shall all be made alive".

We know that Jesus was the Lamb of God.Our lamb.

See John 1:29 "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taken away the sin of the world "

So Jesus was without sin.

Not all flesh is evil. Adam and Eve were created with flesh, but before they fell they were innocent and pure. They were sinless but had the ability to choose to do evil; but on the other hand they could have chosen to do the right thing; there was nothing in them leaning them towards doing evil. This inner purity makes their choice to do evil so much the worse.

As for us, our nature is fallen, we have a bias to do what is evil. We don't need a Devil to make us sin; our own nature leans us that way without his help.

As for our Saviour, his human nature is the same as that of Adam and Eve, his human nature is the sinless human nature of Adam.

If you look up "Flesh" in the New Testament section of "Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words" you will see there are above a dozen different usages of the word "sarx". "Sarx", "flesh", is strictly meat when stripped of the skin (Strong's).

The two ways I think it easiest to summarize Vine's entry for "sarx", when relating to people:-

1. "Flesh" as "the seat of sin in man"; "the weaker element in human nature"; the human nature, which Adam and Eve have passed on to all their descendants, which is weak and sinful, (except Jesus who was born by a miracle). E.g. in Galatians 5:17 "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh"; and "I know that in me, that is in my flesh there dwells no good thing" (Romans 7:18); and "so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:8), meaning all those who do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and live accordingly (Romans 8:9); in such Scriptures what is being emphasised the sinfulness of the fallen, human nature;

2. "Flesh" as the physical body of a human [or an animal]. E.g. "which was of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3); "but if I live in the flesh" (Phil 1:22) Paul is simply meaning if he remains alive in this world in his physical body; "And the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14); "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16); "and the two shall be one flesh" (Matthew 19:5). In these Scriptures only the physical flesh is being spoken of, the fallen, sinful, human nature is not what is in mind.

So the Son of God, Jesus Christ became flesh, meaning physically He took upon Himself a human body; but He did not become flesh, meaning He did not taken on a fallen, sinful, human body, but that sinless innocence which Adam and Eve were created with and had until they sinned.

It's a problem of translating sarx into English. This article discusses precisely what you are inquiring, arguing why sarx doesn’t ever mean “sinful nature”.

Another excellent resource is this book excerpt on "Sin in the theology of Paul" by Tom Holland, author of Romans: The Divine Marriage. It contains a wonderful analysis of the meaning of sarx in the OT, Hellenism, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul to signify various concepts depending on context: covenant relationship, human frailty, mankind, physical body, etc.

Some paragraphs from the book excerpt:

...

To summarize the OT's teaching on "flesh", we can note that the term is morally neutral, speaking of man's creaturely existence and frailty. There is no lexicographical evidence to suggest that the term carried any negative moral connotation.

...

The translators of most English versions try to help their readers understand the term "flesh" by rendering it in ways they think appropriate. This seems reasonable, but, unfortunately, the translations often contradict the contexts in which the term is found. To translate flesh as "sinful nature" (as in the Romans passage under consideration) does not normally convey what Paul was writing but, instead, misrepresents him on a vitally important issue.

...

I highly recommend reading the whole 19 pages.