The possibility of any claiming that this text suggests Jesus had sinful flesh is easily offset by other texts (e.g. Hebrews 7:26). But the strongest argument is within the verse.

1. The reasoning at the beginning of the verse is (to paraphrase): “The law could not succeed because fallen flesh was not able to keep it.” How illogical, then, that God should send another one possessing sinful flesh! What ill would that cure?
2. Also, if Jesus came in sinful flesh, how, as the verse concludes, would sin in the flesh be condemned? Is this not tantamount to saying that God sent His son so that He could condemn him? So, the verse interprets itself: Jesus looked like man because he was man, but he came that way not to be sinful but to relieve sinful flesh in whose likeness he came.

– David Doran

Download PDF