It Was Impossible for Jesus to Sin

[Ripheus27]

Let's suppose that Christ was tempted in every way. Then let's suppose that there's sometimes a temptation to do something wrong because it is possible to do it (the possibility/ability is itself tempting; sin is a very terrible adversary, after all). Then, if Christ was tempted to do this, He would have judged that He was able to do it. Ergo, He somehow had the ability to sin. But what does this really mean? Does it mean the same thing as, "I am able to sin," means to me? I propose that the peccability of Christ is at least a subtly different matter than ours is, and has to do with things we either have never considered before, or will never be able to consider until the end of the world, if ever at all.

 

[hedrick]

Though fully human, Christ did not struggle like we do, because He was not born with the sinful nature we are born with. Though in the flesh, His flesh knew not sin. So no, the struggle would not be the same, temptation would not be the same.

I don't think the author of Hebrews agrees with you

5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

I don't see how there can be obedience without the possibility of not obeying.

I believe many of the folks here are falling into the trap of starting out with an idea of what God is that comes from generic human ideas, and then imposing it on Jesus. But Christians should proceed the other way: Start with what Jesus shows us, and base our idea of God on that. If this doesn't result in concepts that are a scandal to the Greeks, we're not doing it right.

Rather than saying that because God never struggles, Jesus didn't struggle, we should start with the fact that Jesus struggled and ask ourselves what kind of God could struggle. The answer, of course, is a Trinitarian God, a God who is obedient Son as well as all-powerful creator.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well it's all getting too technical for me.
Jesus was fully man, fully God and was like us in every way, except that he did not sin.
My belief is that he could have sinned, except that his love for his Father and desire to do his will was stronger. Hebrews 4:15 says we do not have a priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses - of course he can; he's been there. The first Adam succumbed to temptation and sinned; the second Adam did not succumb to temptation and did not sin.

If you want to argue that it was impossible that Jesus would have had any thoughts at all of sinning; go ahead. I think that if he had been like Teflon man - nothing bad touching him or affecting him in any way - he would not have been to sympathise with our weaknesses.
But as long as we agree that he didn't commit sin - though he BECAME sin on the cross; that's all that's important.

I think I'll leave you to the debate.

 

[1213]

... It was the very nature of Christ to be righteous.

As it is for all who are born of God:


He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't think the author of Hebrews agrees with you

5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

I don't see how there can be obedience without the possibility of not obeying.

Sorry, but I missed the part about a possibility of disobeying.

I believe many of the folks here are falling into the trap of starting out with an idea of what God is that comes from generic human ideas, and then imposing it on Jesus. But Christians should proceed the other way: Start with what Jesus shows us, and base our idea of God on that. If this doesn't result in concepts that are a scandal to the Greeks, we're not doing it right.

The Biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ is a bit of a balancing act to go through, for going too far one way or the other can potentially lead to a bit of misconception

Rather than saying that because God never struggles, Jesus didn't struggle, we should start with the fact that Jesus struggled and ask ourselves what kind of God could struggle. The answer, of course, is a Trinitarian God, a God who is obedient Son as well as all-powerful creator.

I believe there is struggle involved with temptation with or without the possibility to fall into temptation into disobedience. The implications for the possibility for the prophesied Messiah to fail are too many and too great.

 

[Theo Book]

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.

If Jesus could not sin, how was he tempted to sin?

 

[drjean]

For English reading, it is not sin to be tempted, but to give in to temptation that is wrong/sinful.

The Greek word peirazo is used not just as 'tempted' but as 'tested'...the same as when Moses was tested in offering up Isaac. Jesus was tested those 40 days... though satan tempted/tested Him, He did not give in to the devil. Jesus chose not to eat, chose not to bow to satan....

 

[AFrazier]

Heresy! Jesus did not have a sin nature or a desire to sin. That would make his offering unacceptable to the Father, and it is unthinkable that God would have a sin nature.

I've been in the Word for almost thirty years. If you use the word "heresy" at me again, I'll report you. Understood? If you disagree with me, do so with scripture and sound argument, not name-calling.

Now ... going all the way back to Cain, God said that if he did rightly, he would be accepted, but if he did not do well, sin laid at the door. His desire would be for sin, but he had to master it.

Scripture teaches that Jesus was tempted in all ways, even as we are, but that he was without sin. It's a fact, not an opinion, that a person cannot be tempted by something they don't desire. This is supported in scripture. When we are tempted, we are tempted by our own desires. Jesus was tempted to turn the stone into bread because he was hungry. He wanted bread. But he rejected the evil and overcame the desire, the temptation.

With the knowledge of good and evil comes the desire for the evil. We have to choose the good and reject the evil. It is the very fact that Jesus came, with our same nature and circumstance, and lived up to God's expectations, that he was an acceptable sacrifice.

I'll say again that he was of the seed of Abraham, made of a woman, born under the law. Whatever dogma or doctrine you've convinced yourself of that makes you think I'm wrong, you'll need to prove it with better than name-calling.

 

[FireDragon76]

A thief isn't guilty when they think about stealing, but subsequently refrain from doing it. They are guilty when they actually steal something.

According to traditional Protestant theology, even contemplating stealing is indicative of sin. Sin is more than act, it's also concupiscence or disordered desire.

 

[Tree of Life]

I've been in the Word for almost thirty years. If you use the word "heresy" at me again, I'll report you. Understood? If you disagree with me, do so with scripture and sound argument, not name-calling.

Now ... going all the way back to Cain, God said that if he did rightly, he would be accepted, but if he did not do well, sin laid at the door. His desire would be for sin, but he had to master it.

Scripture teaches that Jesus was tempted in all ways, even as we are, but that he was without sin. It's a fact, not an opinion, that a person cannot be tempted by something they don't desire. This is supported in scripture. When we are tempted, we are tempted by our own desires. Jesus was tempted to turn the stone into bread because he was hungry. He wanted bread. But he rejected the evil and overcame the desire, the temptation.

With the knowledge of good and evil comes the desire for the evil. We have to choose the good and reject the evil. It is the very fact that Jesus came, with our same nature and circumstance, and lived up to God's expectations, that he was an acceptable sacrifice.

I'll say again that he was of the seed of Abraham, made of a woman, born under the law. Whatever dogma or doctrine you've convinced yourself of that makes you think I'm wrong, you'll need to prove it with better than name-calling.

And Pelagius was a Bishop! Heresy!

 

[Doug Melven]

Heresy!

Why not show how I was wrong instead of just calling me and the Apostle Paul heretics.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus didn't sin because He couldn't.

If that is true (it's not) then being the only man to live a sinless life is meaningless and not an accomplishment in the slightest yet the writers of the NT give great praise to such an accomplishment because it is impossible for regular people. This means he could have sinned but chose not to which is self control on a Godly level.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If that is true (it's not) then being the only man to live a sinless life is meaningless and not an accomplishment in the slightest yet the writers of the NT give great praise to such an accomplishment because it is impossible for regular people. This means he could have sinned but chose not to which is self control on a Godly level.

God creating a rock so heavy He could not lift wouldn't be an accomplishment either. Meaningless? Not hardly, His sinless life means He was a sinless substitutional sacrifice (for sins) and the righteousness of His sinless life is imputed to those for whom His substitutional sacrifice applies. What does the possibility (potential) to sin accomplish exactly? How does the possibility of Jesus Christ, the God-man somehow having the capability to sin provide or add to the meaning of the atonement?

 

[exitstageright]

A person needs to have eaten broccoli before they know if they hate it.

I don't hate alcohol, because I haven't tried it, or at least, not all of it.
I just disliked the tiny bit that I did try and have no interest at all in drinking, in the possibility of getting drunk or becoming addicted.

That is why I am a teetotaler. I figured that I cannot become an alcoholic if I do not drink alcohol. But, I wonder. Does Nyquil,the cold medicine, count?

 

[Doug Melven]

How does the possibility of Jesus Christ, the God-man somehow having the capability to sin provide or add to the meaning of the atonement?

Because Christ refused to sin by the power of the Spirit and chose to do God's will, He showed us it can be done.
We, by the power of God's Spirit don't have to sin, but we can do the Father's will.
This is a prophecy of Christ and the choices He would make.
Isaiah 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, andchoose the good.

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[RDKirk]

Because Christ refused to sin by the power of the Spirit and chose to do God's will, He showed us it can be done.

Jesus is God.

Jesus was never not God, not for a moment was Jesus ever not God.

 

[Doug Melven]

Jesus is God.

Jesus was never not God, not for a moment was Jesus ever not God.

Never said He wasn't.
But He did set aside His abilities as God during those years from being born of Mary and through to His Resurrection.

 

[RDKirk]

Never said He wasn't.
But He did set aside His abilities as God during those years from being born of Mary and through to His Resurrection.

Which capabilities did He set aside? Enumerate them, please.

Because you're suggesting that He set aside some part of His holiness to be less holy than the Father.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Because Christ refused to sin by the power of the Spirit and chose to do God's will, He showed us it can be done.
We, by the power of God's Spirit don't have to sin, but we can do the Father's will.
This is a prophecy of Christ and the choices He would make.
Isaiah 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, andchoose the good.

Years ago one of the popular fades among Christians was the catch phrase WWJD? For a time I thought it was clever, an easy acronym to remember from day to day living and walking in the Spirit. But over time, as I thought more and more about it, I asked myself; "can we really walk as Jesus walked?" Can we do a fraction of what Jesus did in His early ministry? This may sound silly but when was the last time a Christian could be found walking on water? Now consider the implications of John 3:34 “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure." Jesus Christ had every gift of the Spirit at all times without measure. He knew people's hearts and minds. Now what really sounds silly to me is the acronym WWJD? The fact is, we will never measure up to God the Son, I do not think we will in Heaven either even in glorified bodies. In the here and now while I agree we "don't have to sin", the naked truth is, despite how we hate to sin, we still do, the Apostle Paul wrote on this in Romans chapter 7. We are so totally reliant and dependent upon the Spirit of God to not sin, and unfortunately, all too often our will does not line up perfectly with the will of God, and we get weary and begin to wonder what the will of God is not only for our life but even in the details. So, I do not dare compare my walk with God to the walk the Son of God had with the Father before ascending into Heaven. To even think I am close or somehow "made it", would be so far from the truth and only serve to prove the extent of pride the extent of arrogance in my heart. I would rather end this response on a more positive note, but unfortunately running short on time. To be clear, I am not saying you are any more or less arrogant than I am, but it is humbling to think on this subject.