It Was Impossible for Jesus to Sin

[Daniel Martinovich]

It's not relevant to God what you concoct in your own mind as what is more or less worthy of praise.

Really? I say mankind is in trouble with God because they reject reason. You say mankind is in trouble with God because they are being reasonable and rational.

Like I said at first. It's why people hate theology. It's evidently stupid and irrational and fake. Its why so many young men are flocking to Jordan Peterson and others rather than church. Because so many churches have rejected reason.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why did satan go and tempt Jesus three different times.

Because Satan hates God. And it was necessary for Jesus to be tempted. That all fell out according to God's plan.

He tried to make him fall just as he did Adam. He failed because Jesus did not give in to him, but Adam did. He did what Adam did not. So he did have the sin nature, but he did not sin.

Sin nature is itself sin. The sin nature is a deep fiber of our being which hates God. You are suggesting that something within Jesus hated God, yet Jesus never acted on it. But this misunderstands both who Jesus is and what sin is.

 

[RDKirk]

Looks like a struggle to me. Worse than anything I have struggled with.
Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

You are mistaking what is happening here. Jesus is not being tested for sin here. Jesus has already asserted, "Not your will, but Thine." This is Jesus being shown the plan of His next 24 hours, as Moses was shown the plan of the tabernacle.

In the next 24 hours, Jesus would have to make "Thy will be done as it is in heaven," and He is in anguish pre-experiencing the will of God that He will do. He is not contemplating disobedience--He has already asserted obedience. He is, rather, contemplating what His obedience will entail.

Do you think you could be shown yourself in anguish on a cross and not sweat?

Or are you arguing that it was Jesus' first intent to disobey the Father?

Is that what you are arguing?

 

[RDKirk]

Really? I say mankind is in trouble with God because they reject reason. You say mankind is in trouble with God because they are being reasonable and rational.

Like I said at first. It's why people hate theology. It's evidently stupid and irrational and fake. Its why so many young men are flocking to Jordan Peterson and others rather than church. Because so many churches have rejected reason.

And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

You are mistaking what is happening here. Jesus is not being tested for sin here. Jesus has already asserted, "Not your will, but Thine." This is Jesus being shown the plan of His next 24 hours, as Moses was shown the plan of the tabernacle.

In the next 24 hours, Jesus would have to make "Thy will be done as it is in heaven," and He is in anguish pre-experiencing the will of God that He will do. He is not contemplating disobedience--He has already asserted obedience. He is, rather, contemplating what His obedience will entail.

Do you think you could be shown yourself in anguish on a cross and not sweat?

Or are you arguing that it was Jesus' first intent to disobey the Father?

Is that what you are arguing?

Your kind of proving a point I made to another a few posts back.
That was not the 1st Dan Martinovich 3:5-7. That was Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.

I didn’t interpret what happened as recorded in Luke. I posted the apostles interpretation of that scene which came as divine inspiration as the word of God to the Hebrews.

The point that your proving is that you would never in a million years choose the wording or phrases the Apostle chose in those verses from Hebrews. Why? They simply can’t be fitted into your doctrine on the subject. So you ignored the apostles words and went straight to your theology\philosophy\psychology and asked me a question couched as an accusation of irrationality.

Not saying your being evil or anything. Just saying perhaps what you believe to be true as far as the nature of things is a bit more of a theory rather than actual workable knowledge.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.

So.....Not to change the subject or anything. How's that there fruit going in your life? Doctrine, true or not bears fruit. Like it or not, good or bad; there is nothing that can stop it from doing so.
I have a few audio teachings on the subject of the nature of sin. They are free, listen on line or downloadable. No begging for donations.
What Is Love And How Can It Become My Nature. That one is a four MP3 series.
The other directly under the series is: The Nature Of Sin.
http://wordservice.org/Audio/Teaching Audio.htm

 

[Childofgodharrison]

Because Satan hates God. And it was necessary for Jesus to be tempted. That all fell out according to God's plan.



Sin nature is itself sin. The sin nature is a deep fiber of our being which hates God. You are suggesting that something within Jesus hated God, yet Jesus never acted on it. But this misunderstands both who Jesus is and what sin is.

Hebrews 4:15 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet he did not sin.
Empathy definition is - the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, …
He was man yet he was also God, but to save mankind he had to come in the same state that man was in. Adam and Eve gave birth to children after the fall, so everyone born after the fall had the sin nature within them. Jesus was born of Mary who had the sin nature. It wasn't that he could not sin, he did not sin.
The devil went to Jesus when he was hungry after fasting for forty days, because the devil knew that he was able to turn the stone into bread. But he didn't. If Jesus would not have been able to turn the stone into bread because it was impossible, the devil would have known that and wouldn't have wasted his time.
We are also able to live this life without intentionally sinning, just as Jesus did.

 

[PastorJoey]

PastorJoey, thank you very much for providing me with a much better example to prove my point!

You said:



So you confirm that you hate black licorice. So do I!

Would you agree that Jesus hates sin at least as much as you hate black licorice? Would you agree that Jesus can resist sin at least as well as you can resist black licorice?

Or are you saying that whereas you would never even contemplate eating licorice, that Jesus did in fact contemplate sin? Are you saying that Jesus is weaker than you are in resisting what you hate?

What you mishandle is the verb "tempt" as scripture uses it. You are using it in a modern way, like this:

"I made a New Year's Resolution not to eat chocolate cake, but when I passed by that bakery and smelled chocolate cake fresh from the oven, oh, man was I tempted to buy some!"

That's how we use "tempt" in today's parlance. But what we mean by "temptation" is that we actually contemplated the act. We thought about it. We imagined ourselves doing it. We considered how good it would feel. But, in the end, we rejected it...with a bit of regret.

That's why we call "temptation" a struggle--because we actually submited in to it within our own minds. We allow the temptation to conceive the sin within our minds. We abort it--and we actually grieve having to abort the sin in order to remain "righteous." That's what we call "temptation"--our grief over having aborted a sin.

But that's not how "temptation" is used in scripture. In scripture, "to tempt" means "to test" or "to assay."

So you say that you hate black licorice. I'm not so sure you hate it as much as you say, so when I know you're hungry, I wave a handful of licorice strips under your nose.

That is temptation. I am tempting you as scripture handles the word. I am testing your claim that you hate licorice.

The fact that the temptation utterly fails does not mean I did not tempt you.

When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, scripture does not record any struggle whatsoever within Jesus. Jesus' rebuke is immediate, without any consideration whatsoever of anything Satan suggests.

Jesus did not struggle with sin. Not for a moment. That was never a fight.

Any more than you fight not to eat licorice.

When you have to start changing the meaning of very basic words like what it means to be “tempted” it may not be the scriptures you’re defending, but your own ideas.

Jesus “suffered” being tempted. If it were as you say merely a “test” (that He could not possibly fail) there would be no suffering involved.

It was His flesh, human nature side that was tempted, tested and tried. Paul said the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Jesus resisted even to the point of death, never yielding to sin.

In the garden He was in “agony of spirit” in resisting temptation to not drink of the cup of death. Peter says He resisted unto blood STRIVING against sin.

And Peter exhorts us...
Hebrews 12:3-4 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

There would be no suffering, no agony, no resisting, no striving if there were no real temptation involved, yet Jesus experienced all of this in being tempted with sin.

 

[AFrazier]

PastorJoey, thank you very much for providing me with a much better example to prove my point!

You said:



So you confirm that you hate black licorice. So do I!

Would you agree that Jesus hates sin at least as much as you hate black licorice? Would you agree that Jesus can resist sin at least as well as you can resist black licorice?

Or are you saying that whereas you would never even contemplate eating licorice, that Jesus did in fact contemplate sin? Are you saying that Jesus is weaker than you are in resisting what you hate?

What you mishandle is the verb "tempt" as scripture uses it. You are using it in a modern way, like this:

"I made a New Year's Resolution not to eat chocolate cake, but when I passed by that bakery and smelled chocolate cake fresh from the oven, oh, man was I tempted to buy some!"

That's how we use "tempt" in today's parlance. But what we mean by "temptation" is that we actually contemplated the act. We thought about it. We imagined ourselves doing it. We considered how good it would feel. But, in the end, we rejected it...with a bit of regret.

That's why we call "temptation" a struggle--because we actually submited in to it within our own minds. We allow the temptation to conceive the sin within our minds. We abort it--and we actually grieve having to abort the sin in order to remain "righteous." That's what we call "temptation"--our grief over having aborted a sin.

But that's not how "temptation" is used in scripture. In scripture, "to tempt" means "to test" or "to assay."

So you say that you hate black licorice. I'm not so sure you hate it as much as you say, so when I know you're hungry, I wave a handful of licorice strips under your nose.

That is temptation. I am tempting you as scripture handles the word. I am testing your claim that you hate licorice.

The fact that the temptation utterly fails does not mean I did not tempt you.

When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, scripture does not record any struggle whatsoever within Jesus. Jesus' rebuke is immediate, without any consideration whatsoever of anything Satan suggests.

Jesus did not struggle with sin. Not for a moment. That was never a fight.

Any more than you fight not to eat licorice.

Jesus was "tempted" the same way we are "tempted," so if his temptation isn't truly valid, then neither is ours. That means none of us really want to do the things we are "tempted" to do. We just do them, despite hating to do them.

In other words, we all hate black licorice, but for some reason, even though we hate it, and don't want it, we nevertheless find ourselves indulging in black licorice feasts due to a temptation for black licorice that isn't a desire, but a compulsion.

Don't kick against the pricks bro. What is, is. You're just twisting words. Jesus was tempted, and that means he wanted those things. He simply chose not to indulge sin.

 

[Tree of Life]

Interesting insight from this thread: If you think that it was possible for Jesus to sin, then you also will think that it's possible for fallen human beings to be righteous.

 

[Ripheus27]

Don't kick against the pricks bro. What is, is. You're just twisting words. Jesus was tempted, and that means he wanted those things. He simply chose not to indulge sin.

Although I believe Jesus could have sinned, I don't think it was because He ever desired to. He might have desired to do things that would have been wrong if done at a particular time in a particular way or whatever, but the general impulse in Him was neither right nor wrong. Fallen humanity, though, might be able to directly desire wrong. Adam, let's suppose, didn't directly desire sin as such, for its own sake, when he ate of the Tree. But it was possible for him to eat of that Tree, and he had only an indirect desire to do something wrong, as it goes (he wanted to eat of the Tree but not because eating of the Tree would be a sin). Something like that...

 

[Theo Book]

So since you are ignoring the whole spectrum of the scripture on the subject and resort to philosophical statements. ( Nothing wrong with philosophy.) Whom then or what is a greater God? The God who cannot sin because of some unknowable to man nature or the God that can yet has always and will always refuse to? Which of the two is the most worthy of praise?
Along the same lines. Which of the two Gods is justified in sending man to hell for eternity? The one who sends them to hell because of what their ancestor did. Because their ancestor gave his descendants some kind of unknowable to mankind sin nature that makes it impossible for them to do anything but sin. Or the God who personally reaches out to every individual and calls them to himself and reproves them for their sin and not heeding the call. Who expects them to heed which is in their power to do and to repent of the evil deeds they are voluntarily involved in? In other words the God who understands the circumstances mankind finds themselves in but sends men to hell who voluntarily choose the path of Adam rather than the path God provides for them.

If there was no list of people who did no sin, other than "sins not unto death," I might agree with your assessment of a "Possible God."

But, since there are several persons named by God, who were "righteous" men, I am reminded of Job's question - "Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?"(Job 4:17)

Several men were righteous -
Gen 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...

Eze 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.16 Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.17 Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the land; so that I cut off man and beast from it:

18 Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves. 19 Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast:

20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

These are not the only "Righteous" Men or Women who are named "Righteous" by God, but these few should serve to illustrate the point.

And while I think of it, when someone reminds you of a verse that says "There is none righteous, no not one..." Remind them that it was a different time and place, because scripture never says "No man has ever been righteous." See the examples I have provided from Ezekiel and others.

 

[Theo Book]

Although I believe Jesus could have sinned, I don't think it was because He ever desired to. He might have desired to do things that would have been wrong if done at a particular time in a particular way or whatever, but the general impulse in Him was neither right nor wrong. Fallen humanity, though, might be able to directly desire wrong. Adam, let's suppose, didn't directly desire sin as such, for its own sake, when he ate of the Tree. But it was possible for him to eat of that Tree, and he had only an indirect desire to do something wrong, as it goes (he wanted to eat of the Tree but not because eating of the Tree would be a sin). Something like that...

If Jesus was "tempted to sin just as we" then he certainly had moments when he lusted for things not righteous. And he controlled the desire, and repented of the unrighteous desire, and He prayed to his Father for forgiveness, and he " 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

 

[Childofgodharrison]

Interesting insight from this thread: If you think that it was possible for Jesus to sin, then you also will think that it's possible for fallen human beings to be righteous.

If it wouldn't have been possible for Jesus to sin (which he didn't) the devil would not have tried to get him to turn the stone into bread when he hadn't eaten for forty days.

 

[Theo Book]

Tragic.

God's Law cannot be kept by fallen man. Jesus was not a fallen man and could thus keep the Law.

Then please explain Rom 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

[com7fy8]

He could be a sign to us, but not an example we could follow.

But Jesus on earth was our example of how to love, and "God is love" (1 John 4:8&16). He was showing how God in a human form can be and love, so we can know that God in us can love so > Romans 5:5, 1 John 4:17-18.

Jesus was here to show how God is. So, He was not concerned mainly with what label we give Him, but that we see how God is. And He was God in the flesh, because He said,

"All things that the Father has are mine," in John 16:15. And He said that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father > He said this while He was still on this earth. And our Father can not sin > James 1:13.

So, this is another thing > if we have seen Jesus, which He said while He was still on the earth, we have seen the Father. And the Father can not sin or do evil or be temped by evil > James 3:13.

And this Jesus growing in us makes it easier and easier for us to refuse to give in to sin things.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then please explain Rom 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

These verses say that the work of the Law (the 10 commandments) is written on the hearts of the nations. Even though they don't have the 10 commandments, they still know that it's wrong to kill, steal, and commit adultery. They still know that they ought to worship God. They have a conscience.

They are not condemned because they violated the Law given to Israel. They are condemned because they've violated their own consciences and the work of the law which is written on their hearts.

 

[Ripheus27]

If Jesus was "tempted to sin just as we" then he certainly had moments when he lusted for things not righteous. And he controlled the desire, and repented of the unrighteous desire, and He prayed to his Father for forgiveness, and he " 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

First, the Bible says that Jesus never sinned. So the word "his" in "first for his own sins" refers back to the high priests of old, not Jesus. Secondly, I am not denying that Jesus might have felt desires for things that happened to be wrong at the time. I am denying that He desired those things for the sake of them as wrong. For example, a hungry man might desire to eat his neighbor. His hunger in and of itself, and his desire not to feel hungry, are not wrong, but the specification of the desire would be wrong to act upon.

 

[Theo Book]

First, the Bible says that Jesus never sinned. So the word "his" in "first for his own sins" refers back to the high priests of old, not Jesus. Secondly, I am not denying that Jesus might have felt desires for things that happened to be wrong at the time. I am denying that He desired those things for the sake of them as wrong. For example, a hungry man might desire to eat his neighbor. His hunger in and of itself, and his desire not to feel hungry, are not wrong, but the specification of the desire would be wrong to act upon.

The bible also says Noah, Daniel and Job "save only their own selves;" but we know Jesus died for their sins as well as for all men. What "SINS" were they accountable for? "SINS NOT UNTO DEATH." unimputed SINS ARE NOT COUNTED AGAINST a person, they are Unimputed.

The emphasis of Heb 7:27 is on the word "DAILY" -
What those priests did DAILY, HE DID ONCE.

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own[color] sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

 

[Ripheus27]

I just don't see why you're so hung up on one ambiguous passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, over against other clear passages in the same letter, and other such passages elsewhere, that state that Jesus never sinned. Especially when the disambiguation of the passage in question can be made to entirely fit with the other ones. The "this" that "he did once" is "to offer up sacrifice," not with the other riders attached to it.

I wish I knew Greek 'cause I'm sure that would settle this matter even more easily.