It Was Impossible for Jesus to Sin

[Ripheus27]

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.

In thy defense...

It occurred to me long ago, that I use my eyes and ears to know what the Bible says. If I can't trust the evidence of my senses, how would I ever trust that I knew what the Bible says (or even that such a book existed)?

 

[Theo Book]

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.

"The works of the law" entailed a whole lot more than 10 commandments. It included annual sacrifices in Jerusalem, Holy Days, and much more.

The 10 commandment law was just an introductory course to law given by God to Moses on the Mountain. "The law" incorporated myriads of instructions and rules over and beyond the commandment stones.

Following is an example of how the New Testament writers, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, understood what constituted "The Law" of the old testament:

Luke 2:23 As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;

Exod 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Deut 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
----------------------------------------------------------
John 12:34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

Psa 89:4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

Psa 89:29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

Psa 89:36-37 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Ezek 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------
John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 35:19; Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

Psa 69:4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.
------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cor 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

Deut 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Isa 28:11,12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Deut 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Deut 21:23 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; for he that is hanged is accursed of God; that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

 

[Theo Book]

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.

But that is not the only verse dealing with the issue. The "imputing" or not imputing of sin has to do with Faith contrasted to works, and whether there is a law in force to be considered; i.,e., no law, no sin imputed.

Paul and James and Peter take great effort to explain how and why sin that is not imputed is counted as no sin at all against the one committing such unrighteousness.

And no, Heb 7:27 is NOT "Ambiguous" - it clearly states the pronouns as applied to the singular "He;" not "They" of "Those priests"

Hebrews 7:27 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.

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.

You don't have to know Greek to understand the scriptures. It does help to acknowledge some verses that do not make sense in the light of certain other verses, but there are books available that point out the obvious mistranslations, like almost any interlinear Greek Testament; and/or a Greek interlinear Old Testament (Septuagint).

Sometimes the translators will put English Jesus Christ where the Greek has "God."

And sometimes the translators will change the tense of the Greek verb from a present active to a past action in an attempt to prove a pre-existing Jesus.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything indicating that Jesus is capable of sin in Romans 5. I do see that He was capable if being tempted but that doesn’t necessarily mean He was capable of sin. Jesus being fully man (who is capable of sin) is also fully God (who is not capable of sin). So it really is a tough one to answer. But God having sent Jesus already knowing that He would overcome sin I maintain that it was in fact impossible for Jesus to sin otherwise it would’ve been possible for God’s plan to fail.

 

[Ken Rank]

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything indicating that Jesus is capable of sin in Romans 5. I do see that He was capable if being tempted but that doesn’t necessarily mean He was capable of sin. Jesus being fully man (who is capable of sin) is also fully God (who is not capable of sin). So it really is a tough one to answer. But God having sent Jesus already knowing that He would overcome sin I maintain that it was in fact impossible for Jesus to sin otherwise it would’ve been possible for God’s plan to fail.

We don't have to agree, ok? But here is how I see it....

The first Adam was sinless, the second Adam was sinless. Both were TEMPTED, the bible uses that word. The first Adam gave into that temptation, the second did not. Thus sin and death enter the realm by one, life and ultimately redemption and perfection through the other. But both were men and both were tempted. Yeshua had to place himself in the same place the first Adam was in order to save us. That means he could have... he didn't, but that power was there.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Rom 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We don't have to agree, ok? But here is how I see it....

The first Adam was sinless, the second Adam was sinless. Both were TEMPTED, the bible uses that word. The first Adam gave into that temptation, the second did not. Thus sin and death enter the realm by one, life and ultimately redemption and perfection through the other. But both were men and both were tempted. Yeshua had to place himself in the same place the first Adam was in order to save us. That means he could have... he didn't, but that power was there.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Rom 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

You make a very good point brother Ken but personally unless I can see undeniable proof in the scriptures I feel that I’m compelled by my love and honor for God to say that I cannot believe Jesus would be capable of sin. I’m not saying your wrong I just can’t believe that your right without more substantial evidence. I believe what you are showing is circumstantial evidence. So I don’t see it as undeniable proof. Because while I do agree that Jesus is fully man I also believe that He is fully God.

 

[FenderTL5]

Read on and you'll find the impeccability of Christ to be the historic, orthodox view.

I know some time has passed - but - I did keep reading..
I maintain the first inclination; that if it were "impossible" for Jesus as God/man to sin then mankind still lacks the mediator between God and man.
That Christ was impeccable is Orthodox, that there was "impeccability" not so.

TRUNCATED from
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
by St John Damascene
Book 3

For neither was there ever, nor is there, nor will there ever be another Christ constituted of deity and humanity, and existing in deity and humanity at once perfect God and perfect man..

Christ is one and His subsistence is one, He also Who wills both as God and as man is one and the same.. ..He in His own person is capable of volition in accordance with both His natures. For He assumed that faculty of volition which belongs naturally to us.

If, then, Adam obeyed of his own will and ate of his own will, surely in us the will is the first part to suffer. And if the will is the first to suffer, and the Word Incarnate did not assume this with the rest of our nature, it follows that we have not been freed from sin.

For God the Word omitted none of the things which He implanted in our nature when He formed us in the beginning, but took them all upon Himself, body and soul both intelligent and rational, and all their properties. For the creature that is devoid of one of these is not man. But He in His fulness took upon Himself me in my fulness, and was united whole to whole that He might in His grace bestow salvation on the whole man. For what has not been taken cannot be healed.

..what benefit would His becoming man have been to us if He Who suffered first was not saved, nor renewed and strengthened by the union with divinity? For that which is not assumed is not remedied. He, therefore, assumed the whole man, even the fairest part of him, which had become diseased, in order that He might bestow salvation on the whole.

 

[Uber Genius]

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.

See https://www.christianforums.com/thr...for-jesus-to-sin.8079557/page-3#post-73125066

The application is a disanalogy.

Jesus does not sin because his essential nature cannot sin.

Humans who follow Christ are said to be indwelled but do NOT take on the essential attributes of God.

To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion we would have to propose that:

All Christians are omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

 

[Ken Rank]

You make a very good point brother Ken but personally unless I can see undeniable proof in the scriptures I feel that I’m compelled by my love and honor for God to say that I cannot believe Jesus would be capable of sin. I’m not saying your wrong I just can’t believe that your right without more substantial evidence. I believe what you are showing is circumstantial evidence. So I don’t see it as undeniable proof. Because while I do agree that Jesus is fully man I also believe that He is fully God.

There is more... Paul saying he humbled himself in fashion as a man and the writer of Hebrews (who I also happen to believe was Paul) said he was "made lower than the angels for the suffering of death." So while God, He clearly set it aside to become like us in order to save us.

Again though, if you don't see it or agree, that's fine. Be blessed and thanks for the kind reply.

 

[Uber Genius]

You make a very good point brother Ken but personally unless I can see undeniable proof in the scriptures I feel that I’m compelled by my love and honor for God to say that I cannot believe Jesus would be capable of sin. I’m not saying your wrong I just can’t believe that your right without more substantial evidence. I believe what you are showing is circumstantial evidence. So I don’t see it as undeniable proof. Because while I do agree that Jesus is fully man I also believe that He is fully God.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...for-jesus-to-sin.8079557/page-3#post-73125066 is your explanation that fits the data of scripture. Jesus chooses freely to obey even though his essential nature does not allow him to sin.

 

[FenderTL5]

There is more... Paul saying he humbled himself in fashion as a man and the writer of Hebrews (who I also happen to believe was Paul) said he was "made lower than the angels for the suffering of death." So while God, He clearly set it aside to become like us in order to save us.

Again though, if you don't see it or agree, that's fine. Be blessed and thanks for the kind reply.

Agreed.
Since I've been reading St John of Damascus.. I insert this quote of his in further support of your previous point:
the blessed Paul the Apostle says, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. But obedience is subjection of the real will, not of the unreal will. For that which is irrational is not said to be obedient or disobedient. But the Lord having become obedient to the Father, became so not as God but as man. For as God He is not said to be obedient or disobedient. For these things are of the things that are trader one's band(1), as the inspired Gregorius said. Wherefore, then, Christ is endowed with volition as man.

 

[bling]

See https://www.christianforums.com/thr...for-jesus-to-sin.8079557/page-3#post-73125066

The application is a disanalogy.

Jesus does not sin because his essential nature cannot sin.

Humans who follow Christ are said to be indwelled but do NOT take on the essential attributes of God.

To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion we would have to propose that:

All Christians are omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

You said:

“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 there is some outside force controlling your choice then, for that choice, you do not have free will.

You are saying: “Christ cannot make a free will choice when it comes to sinning”, but that is not supported by the fact Christ will not ever sin, so what biblical support do you have for such a conclusion?

You may “personally” feel: “to keep from sinning there would have to be some outside force controlling your personal ability to make a choice, but scripture does not support that.

If you can take way Christ’s glory in not sinning, you need to take away our being blamed for sinning.

Christ is not some robot controlled by a “nature” beyond His control, but is allowing that “nature” (The Spirit of Christ) to lead Him, which after we get the indwelling Holy Spirit we can of our free will allow to control us.

You said:

“Jesus does not sin because his essential nature cannot sin.


Humans who follow Christ are said to be indwelled but do NOT take on the essential attributes of God.


To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion we would have to propose that:


All Christians are omnipotent, omniscient, etc.”

You are wrong, since a human does not have to become “Deity” to not sin, but just has to allow Deity dwelling within them to live and work through them 24/7 and not quench the Spirit.

To say: “It was beyond Christ’s power to sin” is to make Deity of less power than deity that is powerful enough to sin and does not sin. The fact that Christ could theoretically sin and will not, make Christ glory and Holiness all the great.

 

[Ken Rank]

Agreed.
Since I've been reading St John of Damascus.. I insert this quote of his in further support of your previous point:
the blessed Paul the Apostle says, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. But obedience is subjection of the real will, not of the unreal will. For that which is irrational is not said to be obedient or disobedient. But the Lord having become obedient to the Father, became so not as God but as man. For as God He is not said to be obedient or disobedient. For these things are of the things that are trader one's band(1), as the inspired Gregorius said. Wherefore, then, Christ is endowed with volition as man.

That's really good, I need to look into that book?

Sin entered the world by a man, and it could only be conquered by a man. But there was no man because after Adam, all were born into a condition that didn't allow them to fix the problem. I love this analogy... imagine a fish tank. Fish swimming, plants... all sorts of life. You pour a cup of acid into the tank and within a short period of time, everything that is alive will die. Moreover, if you want to reintroduce life into the tank... you can't use anything from within the tank because everything within the tank is tainted with acid. So, to introduce like into the tank, the remedy has to come from outside the tank, from a place not tainted.

When Adam sinned ALL of creation was affected. That is why, in Romans 8:22, Paul says that all of creation groans as it awaits its redemption. So if all of creation was affected by sin (and even entropy proves this) then the answer has to come from outside of creation, from a place where there is no sin. And there is only one who is truly outside of it all... God. So at the appointed time, He entered the system as a man (without a human father so no sin condition is passed on to him) and walked with sinning. When he died the grave could not contain him because the grave wasn't designed for perfection, it was design for sin and death. Once he rose, he broke the mold, so to speak... and earned the right to perfect anyone and anything he desires. But he had to first become like us in order to take back that which was lost... the dominion over it all that the first Adam had but lost.

 

[Theo Book]

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything indicating that Jesus is capable of sin in Romans 5. I do see that He was capable if being tempted but that doesn’t necessarily mean He was capable of sin. Jesus being fully man (who is capable of sin) is also fully God (who is not capable of sin). So it really is a tough one to answer. But God having sent Jesus already knowing that He would overcome sin I maintain that it was in fact impossible for Jesus to sin otherwise it would’ve been possible for God’s plan to fail.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is more... Paul saying he humbled himself in fashion as a man and the writer of Hebrews (who I also happen to believe was Paul) said he was "made lower than the angels for the suffering of death." So while God, He clearly set it aside to become like us in order to save us.

Again though, if you don't see it or agree, that's fine. Be blessed and thanks for the kind reply.

Yes brother again that’s a very good point and you may very well be correct. It certainly does appear so. I just won’t dare say Jesus sinned without undeniable proof from scriptures. I wouldn’t want to stand before The Father and have to explain why I agreed that Jesus was capable of sin. I don’t think it’s necessary that I say it as being true. I could see me defense now. Ummm... but... I thought... Romans 5 and Hebrews 2:9... lol God bless brother

 

[Theo Book]

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything indicating that Jesus is capable of sin in Romans 5. I do see that He was capable if being tempted but that doesn’t necessarily mean He was capable of sin. Jesus being fully man (who is capable of sin) is also fully God (who is not capable of sin). So it really is a tough one to answer. But God having sent Jesus already knowing that He would overcome sin I maintain that it was in fact impossible for Jesus to sin otherwise it would’ve been possible for God’s plan to fail.

Think independently for a moment -
Does it make sense for God to make God a priest after the order of a MAN?

 

[FenderTL5]

That's really good, I need to look into that book?

It's in CCEL here.. (Book 1)

Most of this information is in Book three and it's more readily available here

 

[BNR32FAN]

Think independently for a moment -
Does it make sense for God to make God a priest after the order of a MAN?

I’m sorry I don’t understand the question. Can you please rephrase it?

 

[Uber Genius]

If there is some outside force controlling your choice then, for that choice, you do not have free will.

If Christ chooses obedience then his nature never takes over to prevent him from sinning.

His nature is what would be controlling him. So we don't want to deny that we do things based on or nature.

Paul makes this point in Romans that we are influenced by two different natures.

Christ is not influence from without but within.

You are saying: “Christ cannot make a free will choice when it comes to sinning”, but that is not supported by the fact Christ will not ever sin, so what biblical support do you have for such a conclusion?

No I'm not saying that at all. The whole point of the attached discussion was to disprove that assertion. If he chooses A he is freely obeying.

You may “personally” feel: “to keep from sinning there would have to be some outside force controlling your personal ability to make a choice, but scripture does not support that.

None of my arguments are based on personal feelings. Is this some way of creating a strawman you can attack?

Theodore of Mopsuestia introduced or at least wrote most broadly about Dyophysitism found in the Ephesian and Chalcedonian creeds. Theodore insisted that Christ has a complete human nature, flesh and spirit, indwelt by the divine Word. Theodore claimed that the human soul is a source of sin, and so Christ had to assume and redeem it also. Finally, Theodore likened the unity of Christ to the “one flesh” of husband and wife: each spouse is distinct, and yet together they compose a single person. So the two natures in Christ.

His Christology is what is founding my arguments as well as the last two of the seven primary creeds in Christianity.

If you can take way Christ’s glory in not sinning, you need to take away our being blamed for sinning.

No not if Christ chooses option a in my post (which again you seemed to misunderstood)

Christ is not some robot controlled by a “nature” beyond His control, but is allowing that “nature” (The Spirit of Christ) to lead Him, which after we get the indwelling Holy Spirit we can of our free will allow to control us.

So Paul certainly doesn't make this type of distinction when he tells his audience to operate under or new nature not our old one. Robots wouldn't have the option now would they?

There are several misrepresentations and false conclusions drawn from my comments. Before continuing to respond to the rest of your comments please give my position a fair read and ask clarifying questions rather than straw assertions.

The context is the conundrum: Christ has essential attributes of God and of Man.

P1. God can't sin as an essential (as opposed to accidental) property of his nature.

P2. Jesus has all the essential properties of God

A. Therefore Jesus can't sin.

The second premise was developed over the first 350 years by the Church Fathers in their credal formulations.

Theodore of Mopsuestia is one of the most important contributors. However, there are many.

Jesus has a human nature but remember that sin is an accidental (in the philosophical ontological sense) not an essential property of man.

Jesus could have decided not to obey in his human will, but that would have been overridden by his divine nature. If Jesus freely chooses not to sin using only his human nature then he has fulfilled the reformation of man mind, body and soul. But to suggest that Jesus doesn't have the same nature as God is a significant issue.

That will need some justification and may get this conversation moved to a different forum altogether.

 

[Uber Genius]

Think independently for a moment -
Does it make sense for God to make God a priest after the order of a MAN?

Did you copy the wrong quote perhaps?

you seem to be making an argument for Melchizedek (found in Genesis and Hebrews) being non-human but this doesn't seem to intersect with the conversation.