Here is Waggoner on this topic (from "The Gospel in Galatians")

3. Now as to the rendering of the expression “under the law,” in Galatians 4:4. I have no fault to find with the rendering, “born under the law,” but think that it is the correct rendering. I will go farther than you do, and will offer some Scripture evidence on this point. John 1:1, 14: “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The word rendered “made” is the same as that in Galatians 4:4, and evidently signifies “born.” The Word was God, yet was born flesh of the Virgin Mary. I don’t know how it could be so; I simply accept the Bible statement. Now read Romans 8:3, and you will learn the nature of the flesh which the Word was made:— “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.” Christ was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Philippians 2:5-7: “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Revised version. Now note the next verse: “And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” And now compare the above with,
Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

These texts show that Christ took upon Himself man’s nature, and that as a consequence He was subject to death. He came into the world on purpose to die; and so from the beginning of His earthly life He was in the same condition that the men are in whom He died to save.

Now read, Romans 1:3: The gospel of God, “concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David accord ing to the flesh.”

What was the nature of David, “according to the flesh”? Sinful, was it not? David says: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5.

Don’t start in horrified astonishment; I am not implying that Christ was a sinner. I shall explain more fully in a few moments. But first I wish to quote, Hebrews 2:16, 17: “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of man; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners.

When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.

And now as another parallel to Galatians 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
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.”

Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.

4. You say:
“That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine?

You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.

I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them.

“Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him.

What a wonder! Christ had all the glory of Heaven; we had nothing; and so He “emptied Himself,” became nothing, in order that we might be glorified together with Him, and inherit all things. Christ was sinless, the very embodiment of holiness; we were vile and full of sin, having no good thing in us; He was made sin in order that we might be partakers of His righteousness. Christ was immortal, having life in Himself; we were mortal, doomed to eternal death; He suffered death for us, in order that we might share His immortality. He went to the very lowest depths to which man had fallen, in order that He might lift man to His own exalted throne; yet He never ceased to be God, or lost a particle of His holiness.

5. Again; why was Jesus baptized? He said that it was “to fulfill all righteousness.” We may not say that it was simply as an example; for that would be really denying the vicarious nature of the atonement. It must have been for the same reason that He died, namely, for sin. Not His own sin, but ours; for as in His death, so in His life, our sins were counted as His. And thus it is that He could be all His life, even from His birth, under the condemnation of the law. It was not on His own account, but on ours.

I think that I have shown clearly, by abundance of Scripture testimony, that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law, and that this was necessarily incident to the fact that He was born of a woman; “for man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble;” and this was literally true of Christ. He was in all things like His brethren, in His life of temptation and suffering, and even to length of days; for His earthly life was exactly the length of an average human life.

To answer the question succinctly, Christ was born under the condemnation of the law (Gal. 4:4), which the previous post explains in detail.

His divinity was holy. True?
His humanity was holy. True?
Jesus was in every sense a holy thing. True?
He did not possess the tendency to sin. True?

Tom, I thought you would agree that each statement is true. Even that last one, you would say that "possess" would not apply because Jesus didn't possess it, but He took it upon Himself. You even corrected EGW on her use of "possess" regarding us possessing Christ's nature. But you also say that EGW and the postlaps gang were all very careful to distinguish between what Jesus had/possessed and what He took.

Arnold, it sounds like you're trying to use the same logic as Rosangela in claiming to believe Prescott's sermon "The Word Made Flesh." The intent of the author doesn't matter. Just consider the words, without regards to context or the author's intent. But that's not the way I'm reading Donnell. His intent is clear enough, even if he could have been more precise in the way he phrased things.

It is what he intended to say to the SDA's fighting the Holy Flesh ideas fought against. Haskell did so by quoting Ellen White, and explaining her meaning, in "The Review and Herald." Haskell explained to her what the theology of the group was, and she responded that their wasn't a thread of truth to the whole fabric. The part of the "whole fabric" most attacked was its foundation, regarding Christ's human nature.

Also, if you're going to take me to task for something I've said, please have the common decency to quote what I've said. I've repeatedly asked you to quote things, and you've refused, with the excuse that to do so would be contrary to the group's policy (apparently your idea is their OK with you're quoting them, as long as you're not precise). That excuse doesn't apply here, because it's not contrary to this group's policy to quote others. Indeed, it's encouraged! So please do so! Please quote the comment you have in mind that I wrote, and we can discuss it. Otherwise, mum's the word!

And?...: so what?

Are you thinking that means he was personally condemned in the sense of corrupted by personal guilt - they are not the same thing, as I understand & showed clearly before? What is your understanding of condemned human nature?

Also, the Saviour isn't naturally human - yes, I know he a few (four at last count) individual differences to his human brethern. He is, on this point, also the Son of God, divine. Hence, he took on himself our human nature which is naturally condemned by the law, and conquered sin itself in his flesh; thus he bore the curse of the law for us on the tree, and redeemed us from that curse - effecting the salvation of the world all by himself, that is without our participation and agreement when doing so.

Does this cover your question in its fuller context?

Here's something by Priebe:

I can't even begin to recommend anything. I searched online for his stuff on Original Sin, and I found something that was translated from Latin (I believe). I don't even know the title of the book it came from. I just waded through it as much as I could, until my brain finally gave up.

Not clear at all. If one needs no salvation, why need he a savior? He doesn't.

Those who are safe need no savior.


The first sentence is a good summary of Original Sin. IOW, apart from the work of Jesus, we are dead.

The second sentence is a good summary of the plan of redemption, which fixes the problem laid out in the first. But the enormity of the solution does not negate the existence of the problem.

Because the postlap position logically contradicts what EGW said about babies. When asked about the salvation of the babies of unbelieving parents, she said she didn't know.


But the postlap position is that babies are uncondemned. If so, their destiny is known. The fact that it is unknown means that the tidy postlap explanation does not explain it sufficiently.

I'm going to do this upside down.


You don't remember what I'm talking about? I don't remember where it was either. If I did, I can cut and paste like a pro.

To jog your memory, it was in reference to this quote:
I pointed out that the promise is that we will "possess" Christ's nature, which was superior to Adam's unfallen nature. You said that "took" would be a better word.

Even so, I'll stick with "possess."


OK, let's assume Donnell lacked precision. There's still 3 major points to go.


Here are the rest of the points in your quote, which I assume make up the "fabric" of their argument:

His divinity was holy.
His humanity was holy.
Jesus was in every sense a holy thing.

Are all of these false?

Even if the 4th point is false (tendency to sin), that's just 25%. There's still quite some fabric to go.

I'm guessing that the point on the holiness of His divinity is agreed upon. If not, speak up now, because that will be a huge point of contention.

Was His humanity holy or unholy? Is it wrong to say that Jesus was in every sense holy?