It Was Impossible for Jesus to Sin

[Uber Genius]

I would certainly disagree with that. The first Adam was tempted and it says the 2nd Adam was also tempted. He "humbled himself in fashion as a man" wrote Paul, and the author of Hebrews (also Paul?) said, "he was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Death came into this world by a man and it could only be erased by a man... that is what Paul is saying in Romans 5:12-21. He was God in the flesh, I believe that... but he became a man like us in order to save us. And that means he "could have" sinned. He didn't... he wouldn't, but he could have.

This certainly seems reasonable and is consistent with what I was taught the majority of my life in the Evangelical church.

This is deductive argument you give so I will respond with one:

God, as an essentially perfect being, cannot sin. But Christ is God, the second person of the Trinity. Therefore, Christ cannot sin.

Christology does suggest that Jesus has all the essential attributes of divinity, including the inability to sin (act against his own nature).

The key to understanding these apparent paradoxes is found in the kenosis in Phil 2:6ff. Jesus sets aside conscious access to his deity. The logos (preexisting 2nd person of the trinity takes on a human body and soul). Jesus shows that he doesn't know all things such as the hour and the day of his return. He gets hungry and thirsty. He is embodied and therefore in not able to operate his power in any location in the universe. We see limits to all of his divine attributes and he seems to be limited without trying. So while he does struggle to resist Satan when Jesus is tempted in the desert, theologians since the 4th century have been dubious about Jesus' ability to actually sin (act incongruous to his nature).

A discussion that helped me engage this topic deeper is here:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/temptations-of-christ/

And for deeper understand on how consciousness and incarnation enable tempting and free will of Jesus even though he remains impeccable see:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/freedom-and-the-ability-to-choose-evil

 

[Uber Genius]

Indeed. I don't know any historic Protestant or Catholic that would say otherwise. If people don't like the implications, it's perhaps because grace is not a significant part of their theology. Grace is not just lip-service, it's the work of God. God became incarnate to destroy the power of sin. How could the potential to sin even remain in Christ?

Historically the idea of Jesus being peccable had to do with the him proving that man could freely choose not to sin, which is an extension of Paul's idea in Romans 5 of a new Adam.

Jesus serves as an example to demonstrate that God had not given man a command he couldn't keep freely.

However, in the 3rd and 4th Centuries the depth of knowledge about Christology increased markedly and we realized at highly-nuanced point about impeccability.

 

[Uber Genius]

Then, you could not say that Jesus was tempted like us. It's impossible to be truly tempted if it is truly impossible to fall into that temptation.

So the answer will surprise (or perhaps perplex) you.

We know that God essentially can't be tempted with sin.
We know that Jesus has all the essential attributes of God. Therefore Jesus can't be tempted with sin.

But wait you say, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert.

So we have a conundrum.

Imagine if you will I hooked you up to a machine. This machine gave you two options, A or B. Now the machine was wired into your brain and if you chose A it would recognize that you were choosing A and not do anything. If you chose B, the machine would send a signal that would change your choice to A. In all cases you would be choosing A right?

In the case you freely chose A, you would not be interfered with in any way.

Only in the case of choosing B would you be interfered with or not free.

If option A were labelled, " Not sin," then it could be said that Jesus freely chose to "Not sin," even though there was no way for Jesus to sin due to his nature. He would still get credit for always choosing A it seems.

If you liked this reply ...well that is why I have "genius" in my username (skip reading the next sentence).

If you didn't like this reply or found it baffling it is the brainchild of the philosopher Harry Frankfurt so blame him.

 

[Strong in Him]

You're saying that Jesus did sin?

No of course I'm not.
I'm pointing out the weakness of that particular analogy.

 

[Strong in Him]

No, that's not the scriptural view of what "temptation" means.

As shown in scripture, temptation is an external impulse--something or someone external to one's person is the tempter who exerts a temptation. Jesus was tempted by Satan, not by His own impulses. His own impulses were not a temptation to Him.

So you think Jesus' own impulses, or instincts, in the wilderness would not have been to want something to eat, after 40 days of fasting? Or on the cross his own impulses would not have been to relieve the pain he was in?
Something is not a temptation unless the person themselves wants/desires it. Alcohol is no temptation for me at all; it is an external thing that has no power to exert a temptation. Lock me in a room with a case of wine, I'll probably use it as a coffee table/seat, or ignore it completely.
Chocolate, on the other hand - I may not always feel like eating much of it, but lock me in a room with all my favourite chocolate and tell me I can't have any; bound to be tempting.

Jesus was God, absolutely. But he was also 100% human - as Hebrews says "like us in every way, except that he did not sin."
Did he get hungry? Of course; he was human. So after a period of fasting, the devil tempted him with food. If Jesus had just been eating with tax collectors and sinners, bread would not have been a temptation.
Did he feel pain? What human being wouldn't when they have a nail smashed through their hand so that real blood comes out.
Did he want to go through all that? As a human being, no; that's why he agonised in the Garden of Gethsemane to the point where he sweated blood. But at the Son of God who loved his Father, knew that this was his Father's will and loved both him and us; yes.

 

[drjean]

At what point in Jesus' earthly life did He take on the power of being God also? Did He not struggle with knowing what was before Him, and desire that the crucifixion not be required, but did as He knew the Father needed for our salvation? He took on and used that power for the conquering of death and hell, and for the resurrection.

I think He was sinless because He choose to be perfect, and was able to do so because of His Righteous heritage. Just as the 2 adams in the garden were perfect needing only to continue to eat of the tree of life... until they sinned... that Jesus chose NOT to sin.

He had no blood of the mother in Him. The child receives the blood type of the father only. (Which is why when they are conflicting types, the mother could die and needs assistance at birth.) But because Jesus had a fleshly body, he COULD have used it to sin, which is its nature...through Mary (sorry Catholics, no offense.)

 

[bling]

Does God and Christ have free will?

Can they do otherwise (do they have the power or is the power limited)?

God and Christ do not, did not and will not sin because they have the Love and power to do only what is right and they have chosen to do only that which is right.

Deity will not be involved in sinning, so what is the take away for us?

The application is what is important: If the indwelling Holy Spirit (Deity) is involved in all that you do, you cannot sin, the same as Christ did not sin. Quench the Spirit and you get in trouble.

 

[oldrunner]

Amen.

If Satan isn't the one tempting us, who is?[/QUOTE]

low ranking demons. He is the top dog for sure.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I was reading through Berkhof this evening and came upon this:

"We ascribe to Christ not only natural, but also moral, integrity or moral perfection, that is sinlessness. This means not merely that Christ could avoid sinning, and did actually avoid it, but also that it was impossible for Him to sin because of the essential bond between the human and the divine natures."

I probably did not adequately grasp this before. Because Jesus is God, it was impossible for Him to sin. He did not struggle to be righteous like you and I do. It was the very nature of Christ to be righteous.

I don’t agree with this. The scriptures tell us that he was tempted in the same way we are, but it is not a temptation for if it is not possible to sin.

It’s like being impressed by my ability to resist the temptation to have taken the last chocolate from the box when the last chocolate is a coffee cream.

 

[Tree of Life]

I would certainly disagree with that. The first Adam was tempted and it says the 2nd Adam was also tempted. He "humbled himself in fashion as a man" wrote Paul, and the author of Hebrews (also Paul?) said, "he was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Death came into this world by a man and it could only be erased by a man... that is what Paul is saying in Romans 5:12-21. He was God in the flesh, I believe that... but he became a man like us in order to save us. And that means he "could have" sinned. He didn't... he wouldn't, but he could have.

Jesus was tempted in the sense of being tested. But since he is God he could not possibly have sinned. He was perfectly righteous, having no desire for sin. It was necessary for the redeemer to be both God and man for this very reason.

 

[Tree of Life]

So it seems you're saying he wasn't really human... Everyone else has to struggle with doing right, but along comes someone who claims to identify with us yet doesn't share in some of our fundamental struggles. So he doesn't struggle like we do, and he doesn't know what it means to overcome temptation like we do.

Sin is not essential to humanity. Sin actually diminishes our humanity. You and I are less human because we sin and struggle with sin. Jesus is the most fully human person who has ever existed precisely because he does not struggle with sin.

 

[Tree of Life]

1 john 4:2-3 simply put, it is not biblical to believe that. It negates the sacrifice.

Again, sin is not essential to humanity. Jesus was fully human because he was sinless and did not struggle with sin.

 

[RDKirk]

So you think Jesus' own impulses, or instincts, in the wilderness would not have been to want something to eat, after 40 days of fasting? Or on the cross his own impulses would not have been to relieve the pain he was in?

Something is not a temptation unless the person themselves wants/desires it.

I'm saying that the physical need signaled by the body is not temptation to sin.

For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire (basic physical desire) and enticed. Then when desire hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The signalling of the body that it needs food is not sin. It's not even a temptation to sin. It's nothing but a signalling of the body that it needs food--it is amoral.

It's like the fuel gauge of your automobile signalling that you need to refuel. That has no moral content--it is merely a signal of a physical condition.

Now, when your car signals that it needs fuel, do you immediately make an illegal u-turn and break the speed limit to get to the nearest gas station, regardless of the price of gas at that station?

Or do you note the signal ("Hmm. I'll need to stop for gas soon") and make a rational plan to stop for gas when all other factors are most appropriate?

The temptation is not the signal, the temptation is being dragged away by the signal. The sin is falling into slavish obedience to the signal, rather than merely letting the signal give you advice about the physical condition, subject to your own consideration of other factors.

Have you seen the Gatorade commercials saying, "Obey your thirst!" That would be sin. Merely being thirsty is not sin. If you immediately put the thirst into its place among other priorities and considerations, it's not even temptation. The slippery slope of giving in to the thirst rather than immediately putting it into its place is temptation. Letting the thirst then take control your actions is sin.

Added: When Jesus' body sent Him a signal that it needed food, Jesus was able to note the signal of His body and then set it to one side for an appropriate time to respond to it. He was not slave to His body's needs. That is why He did not sin.

 

[Tree of Life]

The man who always relents to temptation is the one who doesn't share in your struggles. The reed bending in the wind never feels the full might of that wind.

To say that Christ could not have sinned does not mean that he did not feel the temptation. It only means that the temptation had no power over him. Sinning was not in his nature, because he had a power in his character that always tipped the scales in favor of not sinning. Otherwise, he would have sinned.

One cannot claim that he was forever on the tipping point, just a breath away from falling to sin. We know this, because he never sinned. It would be like claiming that dice aren't weighted, when they always roll the same number. If there were no overpowering element in his character that guaranteed sinlessness, then he would have occasionally sinned. If his inclination to sin versus not sin were a ratio of one to one hundred, then we would expect him to sin one percent of the time... and we would expect to go to Hell. The only way for him to have been utterly perfect is for that nature to be infinitely lopsided, in which case sinning was impossible.

Amen!

 

[Tree of Life]

I should probably point out that when I used to be Mormon, they taught us that Jesus could have failed and if he did another would have taken his place. Which is degrading towards Gods divinity, something I see as blasphemy now.

Blasphemous!

 

[Tree of Life]

Interesting.

I'll have to read/study some more BUT, my first inclination is to say that if it were "impossible" for Jesus as God/man to sin then mankind still lacks the mediator between God and man

Being full man does not mean that it must be possible to sin. In glory it will no longer be possible for us to sin, but we will still be fully human. We will be fully human for the first time.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, whether Jesus was peccable or impeccable is an age old question that we probably won't answer on an internet form. But, I say, if he didn't as least desire to sin, it makes no sense to say he was tempted like us.

The desire to sin is itself sin. Jesus never desired to sin.

 

[Senkaku]

Again, sin is not essential to humanity. Jesus was fully human because he was sinless and did not struggle with sin.

What you said goes against the prayer in garden of Gethsemane. His sacrifice was only valid because of his flesh. If his flesh wasn't needed, then there was no reason for Him to come down at all. You're not thinking this through thoroughly. The passage I just gave you is a direct counter to what you are saying, going as far as to say that what you said comes not from God. Also, Hebrews 4:15 shows us the validity of his nature.

 

[Doug Melven]

Being conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), it was impossible for Christ to sin as He didn't have the sin nature in Him. Although, we're told that He was tempted like us in every possible way (Hebrews 4:15), the actual temptations of Christ (Matthew 4:1-11) were on a much higher level. He was tempted to test the Lord, gain worldly power etc., as opposed to what we'd call sins like adultery, lust, etc. Peace in Christ .

Adam did not have a sin nature before he sinned. He chose to sin.
Jesus did not have a sin nature and He chose not to sin.

Even though Jesus was God, He emptied Himself and became just like us.
Now He had to choose not to sin. If He had not emptied Himself, He would not have been able to sin.
He was dependent upon the Spirit for everything. Everything He did was by the Spirit.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

[RDKirk]

Being full man does not mean that it must be possible to sin. In glory it will no longer be possible for us to sin, but we will still be fully human. We will be fully human for the first time.

The problem with comprehending this is in the modern understanding of "human."

You've heard the phrase, "I'm only human" as an admission of failure, particularly moral failure. "Human" in today's parlance means moral failure.

"Human" carries a lot of philosophical baggage today that it didn't carry in the past. When you say "human" to people today, you mean "makes mistakes, burps, swears, has flatulence and smelly feces."

In the past, "human" merely meant, categorically, "not god." Superman, for instance, would have still been "human," whereas Wonder Woman is a "god." It didn't mean "subject to failure" as it does today.

That's why rather than saying Jesus is human I say--and I think this is what scripture means--Jesus is a material being rather than being a ghost. That does not mean that He isn't now and hasn't always been a very special material being.