Could Jesus Sin?

[TSIBHOD]

From another thread, I bring this quotation:

If you are Human, you are capable of sinning.

Can you back up this statement?

I would say that Jesus was not capable of sinning. 1 John 3:9a, in Paladin's favorite NRSV, says, "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them."

Now, I'm going to run with an assumption that when Scripture talks of "those who have been born of God," then whatever it says about "those" is applicable to Jesus. Let me continue with that verse. It says that "they [those who have been born of God] cannot sin, because they have been born of God."

My conclusion is that Jesus cannot sin, nor could He have, nor will He ever be able to.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Chalcedonian Formula, to which was a result of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers {the Nicene Creed} has handed down to us.

((Copied from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm instead of typing it))

Or, to put it quicker:

Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man, of two Natures that cooperate as One Person, either one side dominating the other or submitting to the other.

Saying that Jesus wasn't capable of sinning due to his 100% Human nature is monophysitism, which is a heresy.

The reason why He couldn't sin? The fact of hypostasis: the two Natures were One: the Human Nature could have sinned, but it cooperated with the Divine Nature, which couldn't. Jesus the Man was in full cooperation with Jesus the God.

 

[gitlance]

From another thread, I bring this quotation:


Can you back up this statement?

I would say that Jesus was not capable of sinning. 1 John 3:9a, in Paladin's favorite NRSV, says, "Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them."

Now, I'm going to run with an assumption that when Scripture talks of "those who have been born of God," then whatever it says about "those" is applicable to Jesus. Let me continue with that verse. It says that "they [those who have been born of God] cannot sin, because they have been born of God."

My conclusion is that Jesus cannot sin, nor could He have, nor will He ever be able to.

Let me ask you a question...

1) Are you "born of God"?

2) If you are, have you ever -- or do you ever -- sin?

Of course Jesus, being fully man -- yet fully God -- was capable of sinning, but He never did. He is the only perfect person who has ever lived. That is why only He was able to be the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb "without spot or blemish".

 

[Philip]

Wasn't this addressed hundreds of years ago?

St Paul writes:

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.​

How could our sinful nature be crucified with Christ if He had not assumed our sinful nature in the Incarnation?

St. Gregory Nazianzen explains:

If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity.​

If Christ did not assume our sinfull nature, then it has never been healed. We would still be under the curse of Adam.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Saying that Jesus wasn't capable of sinning due to his 100% Human nature is monophysitism, which is a heresy.

The reason why He couldn't sin? The fact of hypostasis: the two Natures were One: the Human Nature could have sinned, but it cooperated with the Divine Nature, which couldn't. Jesus the Man was in full cooperation with Jesus the God.

I've read the Chalcedonian Creed already.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that to avoid monophysitism (which I read that the Coptic and Ethiopic churches believe--what say you to that?), we must say that Jesus was capable of sinning; but do to the hypostatic union of His two natures, He couldn't have sinned? Either I understand you wrongly, or you're saying that Jesus couldn't sin but was capable of sinning. If the latter is so, I fail to understand how this makes sense. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Let me ask you a question...

1) Are you "born of God"?

2) If you are, have you ever -- or do you ever -- sin?

Ah. I have considered this. (I know I may look dumb, but I'm not quite so dumb as I look. ) The explanation to which I subscribe is the one below. (Emphasis within the quotation is all the author's.)

"He cannot sin..." This is the plain Word of God. However, as God's children we all can testify that we are born of God, and that we do sin. And therefore we present some very plausible arguments to prove that God does not mean exactly what He said. Let us forever cease trying to justify ourselves. "Let God be true and every man a liar." The only scriptural explanation of this verse is that we are not "born again" in the fullness of this regenerating experience. Our new birth, by the Spirit, genuine as it is, has not developed into maturity. We have been reproduced after God's likeness like the seed which is produced by the flower, or the egg that is produced by the bird. That seed or that egg is a genuine birth, containing all the potentialities of a new flower exactly like the flower that produced it, or a new bird exactly like its parent. But the full glory and the potentialities of that new life lie dormant within the seed or the egg--and are by no means manifest, or even apparent to our observation. Once can see no similarity whatsoever between the tiny seed with its black crusty covering, and the beautiful red poppy which waves its petals in the breeze; no similarity between the little blue egg in the nest, and the bird that flies aloft into the atmosphere on wings of liberty. In fact, if we did not understand the mysterious processes of nature, we would consider one a fool to suggest that the seed and the poppy are one and the same thing; or that the egg and the bird are one and the same thing. And yet they are--in kind, in nature, in possibility.

So it is with the birth of the Spirit. Thank God for the seed, the incorruptible seed, in virtue of which we have become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4), or "born again" (1 Pet. 1:23). But that seed in the hearts of God's people has scarcely developed beyond the germ state; it has not grown and developed to the place where we can testify, "his seed abideth" in us; and therefore we can and do sin.
--George H. Warnock, The Feast of Tabernacles, Chapter 7​

We, as mere seedlings, can and do sin. Jesus, as a mature one born of God, as a full-grown son, could not and did not sin.

Also, it seems to me that those who can sin do sin. One seems to follow the other of necessity in our lives. Why was Jesus different. If He didn't sin, how is it that we can really say that He could've sinned?

 

[PaladinValer]

Some things cannot be understood by logic as we know it. They are of a higher logic (Logos means "Reason" as well as "Word") that we are not yet capable of comprehending, though we can achieve some idea of.

Jesus is Man. He could indeed sin because He is Man.
Jesus is God. He could indeed not sin because He is God.

It is a Mystery of Faith, for in order for Jesus to truly be Messiah, He must be both God and Man equally, for to emphasize one is to diminish the other. To emphasize the Divine is to weaken the Man, and to do so means that Jesus was not completely Human and therefore could not be a true Paschal Lamb and be a true Sacrifice for all our sins. To emphasize the Man is to weaken the Divine, and to do so means that Jesus was not completely God and therefore could not be the Divine Son, for even the prophets spoke with Authority with the aid of the Holy Spirit, but they were sinners just as we are.

So to say that Jesus was capable of sinning, yet could not sin, is the only acceptable answer. To say that He couldn't sin and wasn't capable of sin is just as heretical as to say He could sin and wasn't capable of not sinning. They are both monophysitism; the former emphasizes the Divine and the latter emphasizes the Human.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Wasn't this addressed hundreds of years ago?

St Paul writes:

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.​

How could our sinful nature be crucified with Christ if He had not assumed our sinful nature in the Incarnation?

St. Gregory Nazianzen explains:

If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity.​

If Christ did not assume our sinfull nature, then it has never been healed. We would still be under the curse of Adam.

Philip, I don't think you're trying to say that Christ was born with original sin like the rest of us, because for one, I don't think that the Orthodox even believe in original sin. (Right?) But what is it that you're trying to say? What do you mean when you say that Christ assumed our "sinful nature"? Surely your meaning is not that Christ assumed our "tendency to sin," since Christ didn't sin.

Anyway, please clarify your meaning before I respond further.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, it is theoretically possible for a human to be capable of sinning yet to never sin, if said human makes his will match God's Will.

You are falsely equivocating the two.

 

[Philip]

Philip, I don't think you're trying to say that Christ was born with original sin like the rest of us,

He assumed our sinful nature and healed it.

because for one, I don't think that the Orthodox even believe in original sin. (Right?)

We don't accept the idea that people are born guilty and deserving of punishment. We do believe that people are born under the consequence of Adam's sin. We are born separated from God and mortal.

Edit: As I think about it, it is probably better to use the term 'conceived' rather than 'born'.

But what is it that you're trying to say? What do you mean when you say that Christ assumed our "sinful nature"? Surely your meaning is not that Christ assumed our "tendency to sin," since Christ didn't sin.

Christ united two natures, human and divine, in one person. The human nature included our fallen parts. However, He immediately united that fallen nature with the divine nature, allowing them to cooperate. Through this, He eliminated the 'tendencey to sin'.

In some sense, it is purely speculative to ask if Christ could or could not sin since He never did. However, it is central to the Orthodox understanding of salvation that Christ assumed and healed our fallen nature. BTW, this is one of the problems we see in the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary was preserved from the 'the stain of Original Sin', how could it be that Christ assumed our fallen nature from her?

 

[TSIBHOD]

Some things cannot be understood by logic as we know it. They are of a higher logic (Logos means "Reason" as well as "Word") that we are not yet capable of comprehending, though we can achieve some idea of.

[...]

So to say that Jesus was capable of sinning, yet could not sin, is the only acceptable answer. To say that He couldn't sin and wasn't capable of sin is just as heretical as to say He could sin and wasn't capable of not sinning. They are both monophysitism; the former emphasizes the Divine and the latter emphasizes the Human.

"Jesus was capable of sinning, yet could not sin." This still makes no sense to me. And "higher logic" doesn't excuse saying things like this. Your words mean, "Jesus could sin, yet Jesus could not sin."

For an example of how we use the word "capable," and to compare it to the verb "can" (or "could"), look at what you said above: "... we are not yet capable of comprehending, though we can achieve some idea...." This makes sense: we cannot yet (or "don't yet have the ability to" or "do not yet have the capability to") [fully] comprehend, though we can (or "do have the ability to" or "do have the capability to") achieve some idea.

But consider this: would it have made any sense if you had said, "We are not yet capable of comprehending this, though we can comprehend it." This clearly makes no sense. (At least, to me it doesn't. Am I the only one??) If we are not capable of something, then it makes no sense to say that we can do it. And if we cannot do something, then it makes no sense to say that we are capable of it. I doubt that you would ever make such a statement about anything else. You wouldn't say, "I can't run that fast, but I am capable of running that fast." You might say, "I can't run that fast, but I am capable of training and eventually running that fast"; but that would be different than saying that you are capable of something, then saying that you "can't" do that very same thing.

Yet, this is what you are saying about Christ. You say, "Jesus was capable of sinning, yet could not sin." This, to me, seems to imply a dual personhood in Christ: one person that could sin, and one person that could not.

The Chalcedonian Creed says taht Christ is "to be acknowledged in two natures, [...] indivisibly [and] inseparably." If Christ's two natures are indivisible and inseparable, then what sense does it make to say that one can do something and another cannot. They act together; they either both can do something, or they both cannot.

The reason I say this is that I don't see how it could be any other way. If Christ had hypothetically sinned (because of His supposed ability to do so), then it would not just be His human nature that sinned but also His divine nature, since they are "indivisible and inseparable." But for His divine nature to sin is impossible; thus, the hypothetical situation of Christ sinning is an impossibility, and thus, it was impossible for Him to sin.

Where am I wrong here?

 

[TSIBHOD]

Actually, it is theoretically possible for a human to be capable of sinning yet to never sin, if said human makes his will match God's Will.

You are falsely equivocating the two.

But while a human's will is "matched" with God's will, he is not capable of sin; to be able to sin, he must first unmatch, so to speak, his will from God's will. The matching of a human will with God's will is mutually exclusive with sinning. When one begins, the other must cease.

Now, since Jesus was always matched with God the Father's will, and since, indeed, He had the will of "God" as intrinsically His own in His own person, He could do nothing without matching God's will. He could do nothing in His human nature without matching His will with His divine nature. I do not believe that one nature of Christ's ever did something that was at variance with His other nature, for this would be against Chalcedonian Christology. Therefore, since both of His natures always acted in unison, there was no possibility that His human nature could have done something that didn't match the will of His divine nature, and both natures were matched to God the Father's will, which means that it was impossible for Him to will to sin, meaning that it was impossible for Him to sin.

I have used reason to show that it was not possible that Christ would sin. Here is His own testimony:

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (John 5:19 ESV)

I don't think it gets much clearer. Jesus could do nothing but what the Father does. Since Jesus existed in one person, this means that it can be said of both of His natures, "The Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing." Jesus couldn't do anything at variance with the Father, and His human nature could do nothing at variance with the Father or with Jesus' own divine nature. Therefore, neither His human nature nor His divine nature could sin.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Christ united two natures, human and divine, in one person. The human nature included our fallen parts. However, He immediately united that fallen nature with the divine nature, allowing them to cooperate. Through this, He eliminated the 'tendencey to sin'.

Thank you for your comments. I think I understand better what you mean. I would like to ask, how do you think it works out that He had two natures in one person? Do you think Christ had two minds, two wills, and so forth? Did His mind contain some human thoughts and some divine thoughts, or were each of His thoughts both human and divine?

 

[PaladinValer]

"Jesus was capable of sinning, yet could not sin." This still makes no sense to me. And "higher logic" doesn't excuse saying things like this. Your words mean, "Jesus could sin, yet Jesus could not sin."

Jesus is Man, thus capable of sinning.
Jesus is God, thus cannot sin.

Welcome to orthodox Christianity.

The Chalcedonian Creed says taht Christ is "to be acknowledged in two natures, [...] indivisibly [and] inseparably." If Christ's two natures are indivisible and inseparable, then what sense does it make to say that one can do something and another cannot. They act together; they either both can do something, or they both cannot.

They are still two separate nations. They didn't merge into one nature; that's a form of monophysitism as well. The only way they "merge" is by the fact that they cooperate with each other in Jesus.

The reason I say this is that I don't see how it could be any other way. If Christ had hypothetically sinned (because of His supposed ability to do so),

1. No one; not I, Philip, or Gitlance, said He sinned. Do NOT put words in our mouths.
2. It is not "supposed" that He is capable of sinning; it IS that He is capable of sinning. Supposed is to deny that he is capable; this is monophysitism as it emphasizes the Divine over the Human. This is heresy, not orthodoxy.

then it would not just be His human nature that sinned but also His divine nature, since they are "indivisible and inseparable."

No.

Two separate natures, not one combined. Together in cooperation, not in dominance-submission.

Where am I wrong here?

Because you are not understanding it can never be one nature. Never; not primarily/wholly Divine, not primarily/wholly Man, and not the two intertwined to form a new whole.

Two separate natures, cooperating together.

In addition, Jesus has only one rational mind, not two. Two suggests the tri-part human makeup of the Apollinarian heresy. Jesus is of two natures and two wills. Not one nature but two wills. Not two natures but one will. Not one nature and one will. Two of both.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Jesus is Man, thus capable of sinning.
Jesus is God, thus cannot sin.

Are those switchable?

Jesus is Man, thus can sin.
Jesus is God, thus not capable of sinning.​

Would that work too?

 

[TSIBHOD]

They are still two separate nations. They didn't merge into one nature; that's a form of monophysitism as well. The only way they "merge" is by the fact that they cooperate with each other in Jesus.

Okay, I've thought up a few more thoughts. Also, I had one other post above that I don't think you replied to, so you may want to look at my thoughts there.

If Jesus' natures "cooperate," then they do things together, right? So if His human nature sinned, then His divine nature would be sinning as well, right? But the latter we know is an impossibility. Isn't the former an impossibility as well, then, since they "cooperate" with each other, and would presumably be in agreement with each other and act together?

1. No one; not I, Philip, or Gitlance, said He sinned. Do NOT put words in our mouths.

I never said you said that. I was bringing up a hypothetical and showing what would have happened if Jesus had sinned. I tried to show that if He had, things would have happened that could not happen. Like God sinning. If Jesus sinned, then God sinned. And that is impossible. Therefore, it was impossible for Jesus to sin. That's all I was trying to show. I wasn't saying that you said He sinned, or anything like that.

Two separate natures, not one combined. Together in cooperation, not in dominance-submission.

Isn't this what I've been saying? "Together in cooperation," so what one does, both do. They cooperate together. What is impossible for one is impossible for the other, as far as doing goes. How it is possible that Jesus' divine nature sin? And how is it possible that His human nature could have sinned without including His divine nature in it, since they are in cooperation?

In addition, Jesus has only one rational mind, not two. Two suggests the tri-part human makeup of the Apollinarian heresy. Jesus is of two natures and two wills. Not one nature but two wills. Not two natures but one will. Not one nature and one will. Two of both.

So you're saying that Jesus had one mind, but two natures and two wills?

 

[Philip]

Do you think Christ had two minds, two wills, and so forth?

I would say yes to these, but I admit that I don't fully understand it. I do accept it as the teaching of the Church.

Did His mind contain some human thoughts and some divine thoughts, or were each of His thoughts both human and divine?

Tough one. This is moving towards some very fundemental metaphysical questions, such as 'What is a thought?'

I think I would favor the second situation. The first sounds almost like somekind of multiple-personality disorder. My guess is either two minds sharing the same thought or two minds with distinct, but identical, thoughts. I will have to consider this more.

 

[Philip]

If Jesus' natures "cooperate," then they do things together, right? So if His human nature sinned, then His divine nature would be sinning as well, right? But the latter we know is an impossibility. Isn't the former an impossibility as well, then, since they "cooperate" with each other, and would presumably be in agreement with each other and act together?

It is a bit late at night for me to process this, but I think it is okay if you include the following: The human nature Christ assumed could (even would) have sinned if it were not in cooperation with the Divine nature. It is wrong to think that Christ had some kind of super-human nature that could not sin on its own. It is also wrong to think that Christ's human nature was so fallen that it had to forced to not sin by the Divine nature. The two natures worked together. The Divine supported the human, but did not dominate or force it.

But doesn't this describe our situation? Our human nature is fallen and we sin. God does not force us to not sin, but He does, by His Grace, give us the strength to overcome sin.

 

[davidoffinland]

FROM FINLAND

There is another point-of-view if we stay with the Gospel texts and Judaism of the 1st CT.

The point is that when Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees and Sadduccees, it was their own "group" intrepretations of the Oral Law whereby they interpreted who were sinners. The Oral Law which defined in detail how one should live and walk really transplanted the Mosiac Law by this time. This is the historical context.

The above postings are the theological arguments.

Shalom,
David.

 

[TheMagi]

But for His divine nature to sin is impossible; thus, the hypothetical situation of Christ sinning is an impossibility, and thus, it was impossible for Him to sin.

Where am I wrong here?

Right here. Obviously, God cannot sin, in the normal sense.
Christ is 100% God. That does not mean he had all the properties of God, for he gave many up by choice. I think we'll agree he wasn't omnipresent; he certainly wasn't impassible (although I don't think God is anyway!); nor was he atemporal in the normal sense, assuming God himself is. Likewise, he was not omniscient:

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

. People will disagree on that too, perhaps - but I am sure everyone will agree on at least one of these.
He gave up, also, his power to resist temptation, except by 'human' means.
Magi