It Was Impossible for Jesus to Sin

[Ripheus27]

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.

So Christ sinned, yet was righteous enough to have His righteousness imputed to Himself, so that His sins are not counted against Him? That doesn't sound right.

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.

I read this as follows:

"He does not need to offer two sacrifices, one for His own sins and then one for the people's. He offered one sacrifice, of Himself." This comports with the NIV translation offered at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7&version=NIV so I would say your point can only be made depending on the pronoun in some, not all, translations of the passage in question.

 

[AFrazier]

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...

I'm not arguing whether or not Jesus could have sinned. I am stating the fact that Jesus was tempted, and a person cannot be tempted by something they do not desire.

 

[bling]

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.

We may be talking past each other using the same word “nature”, but defining it different ways.

Did nature create Deity or did Deity create a spiritual nature?

Can Deity control the spiritual nature He created?

God/Christ will always do what is absolutely the very best thing, so it is “natural” for God/Christ to do the very best thing, but it is still by their choice.

Christ is not controlled by His flesh but He is 100% fleshly human and 100% Spiritual, so it is by choice, the same choice Christians can make by allowing themselves to be controlled by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

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.

But are you saying: Christ does not have the power to control this “nature” and do otherwise, so it was not a true choice.

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

Give me the scripture for Christians ability not to sin, because they cannot choose to sin or do they not have that power?

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.

Christ is not two different personalities within one person, but is one person with two different “abilities” where Christ allows only the spiritual ability to control His every action.

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

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?

Again, it is not a real choice if Christ does not have the power to choose option B.

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.

This statement:

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

This statement gives the only alternatives to God not sinning to be, by His nature or by “accident”, which eliminates by His choice? Why could God not have the power and Love to not sin by choice?

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.

I am not suggesting any human (even Christ) by his own human power and human will can chose to never ever sin. That is not the choice Christ was making nor the choice Christians can make. Christ made the choice and continued to make that choice to be led by the Spirit (24/7) and Christian can make the same choice, but have to do it constantly, to not ever sin again.

Can you explain how “ sin is accidental” even philosophically?

 

[Uber Genius]

We may be talking past each other using the same word “nature”, but defining it different ways.

Did nature create Deity or did Deity create a spiritual nature?

Can Deity control the spiritual nature He created?

we are deep into an area known as systematic theology. It has its own lexicon, just like medicine has it's own technical terms for the medical profession.

Nature has nothing to do with "natural" christologically it means the essential properties of Christ.

Further we know from three centuries of discussions between church fathers that the best explanations of all the data we have about Jesus is the he has two natures , divine and human and they are contained in one person.

What I'm arguing for is that Jesus could have freely engaged his human nature to not sin. He would be refusing to sin just as Adam could have refused.

Give me the scripture for Christians ability not to sin, because they cannot choose to sin or do they not have that power

you are equivocating Christian and Christ. We are not divine in nature, and we are accidentally stained by Adam's original sin. Accidental in that it could have been otherwise. Not in that someone had an accident.

Christ is not two different personalities within one person, but is one person with two different “abilities” where Christ allows only the spiritual ability to control His e

No he is one person with two natures.

Again, it is not a real choice if Christ does not have the power to choose option B.

Reflect on my earlier answer, if Jesus was free to choice sin as a function of his human nature but never chose it not requiring his divine nature to override his choice one time in what way is he not free in the way Adam was free?

This statement gives the only alternatives to God not sinning to be, by His nature or by “accident”, which eliminates by His choice? Why could God not have the power and Love to not sin by choice?

again "accident" is a philosophical term meaning "not essential" you may have the property of having brown hair. We would call that an accidental property of being human since humans have a variety of hair colors that they can obtain.

 

[bling]

we are deep into an area known as systematic theology. It has its own lexicon, just like medicine has it's own technical terms for the medical profession.

Nature has nothing to do with "natural" christologically it means the essential properties of Christ.

Further we know from three centuries of discussions between church fathers that the best explanations of all the data we have about Jesus is the he has two natures , divine and human and they are contained in one person.

What I'm arguing for is that Jesus could have freely engaged his human nature to not sin. He would be refusing to sin just as Adam could have refused.

The divine and human nature are not two separate persons living in one body, like you would have with a husband and wife becoming one, because they do not become one person, but do become one. We can become one with the indwelling Holy Spirit, but the Spirit and us is not one person, but remain individuals.

Human’s on their own including Adam could not keep from sinning, since it takes the Spiritual power found in Godly type Love.

you are equivocating Christian and Christ. We are not divine in nature, and we are accidentally stained by Adam's original sin. Accidental in that it could have been otherwise. Not in that someone had an accident.

Again, Adam with just human ability was going to sin and could not keep from sinning for eternity, so it was no accident.

Humans gained “knowledge” of good and evil, but is “knowledge” a “stain” is knowledge bad in and of itself?

I totally agree we are not “divine” nor do we have a divine nature (from my understanding of “nature”), but Christians have the person of the Holy Spirit living within them and that Spirit cannot participate in sin, so if the person participates (this is a free will choice) with the Spirit in everything he does he will not sin. This is not because the person has become divine.

Reflect on my earlier answer, if Jesus was free to choice sin as a function of his human nature but never chose it not requiring his divine nature to override his choice one time in what way is he not free in the way Adam was free?

The free will choice Jesus is making is in allowing His divine nature to control His behavior, but Christ is deity and has deity’s free will power which is some other controlling force or he does not have divine power so in theory He could choose to not allow His divine nature to control Him, but won’t.

Adam did not have the Divine indwelling Holy Spirit to choose to control his choice.

again "accident" is a philosophical term meaning "not essential" you may have the property of having brown hair. We would call that an accidental property of being human since humans have a variety of hair colors that they can obtain.

That does not address the issue. I can understand how my having brown hair is an accident of nature and not essential.

As a scientist I also realize you can define “natural” as everything that took place so Jesus walking on water was a “natural” event, since it happened.

Does God have free will?

 

[Theo Book]

So Christ sinned, yet was righteous enough to have His righteousness imputed to Himself, so that His sins are not counted against Him? That doesn't sound right.



I read this as follows:

"He does not need to offer two sacrifices, one for His own sins and then one for the people's. He offered one sacrifice, of Himself." This comports with the NIV translation offered at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7&version=NIV so I would say your point can only be made depending on the pronoun in some, not all, translations of the passage in question.

The difference is focused on what the priests did DAILY, Jesus did ONCE.

 

[Theo Book]

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.

Melchizedek was a MAN; MEN are priests, God is not.
God made Messiah a priest after the order of a man, who did not receive his priesthood as inheritance from his Mother or Father.

THAT is the meaning of "Without Father or Mother." Not that he did not have parents, but His PRIESTHOOD was not by inheritance, but was by appointment.

 

[Theo Book]

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

IF Jesus is God, and Jehovah God made Jesus a priest after the order of Melchisedek, it makes no sense that God would make God a priest after the order of a Man.

 

[Maria Sweet]

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 drinking alcohol is a sin, then didn't Jesus sin by drinking wine during the last supper and also when he turned water into wine? Just wondering.

 

[RDKirk]

If drinking alcohol is a sin, then didn't Jesus sin by drinking wine during the last supper and also when he turned water into wine? Just wondering.

Drinking alcohol is not a sin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

IF Jesus is God, and Jehovah God made Jesus a priest after the order of Melchisedek, it makes no sense that God would make God a priest after the order of a Man.

I can’t see that all of Christianity had it wrong for the first few centuries. The teachings handed down from the apostles didn’t teach Unitarianism.

 

[Tree of Life]

IF Jesus is God, and Jehovah God made Jesus a priest after the order of Melchisedek, it makes no sense that God would make God a priest after the order of a Man.

Jesus is a man. This does not mean that he is not also God.

 

[Ripheus27]

IF Jesus is God, and Jehovah God made Jesus a priest after the order of Melchisedek, it makes no sense that God would make God a priest after the order of a Man.

God was acting with humility, was He not? "For though being in essence God, He humbled Himself..."

 

[Theo Book]

Friend, you cannot believe that Jesus had a sin nature and still be saved. You need to repent of this false teaching.

Can you explain Heb 7:27 then?

Hebrews 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;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.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If drinking alcohol is a sin, then didn't Jesus sin by drinking wine during the last supper and also when he turned water into wine? Just wondering.

On internet forums, no one seems to be able to clearly get a simple true understanding because there are so many different (and wrong) views.

For your own understanding, see if you can find the book (small paperback, non-fiction) by David Wilkerson titled "Sipping Saints". (not for discussion here)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm not arguing whether or not Jesus could have sinned. I am stating the fact that Jesus was tempted, and a person cannot be tempted by something they do not desire.

There are things , like lying, that people can be 'tempted' to do, that they never desire to do.
Jesus Himself never desired to sin.
Likewise, children trained in the way they should go do not desire to sin either. (oh, they still sin, being human, and they may or did choose to sin, but that doesn't mean they desired to).
This might just be a miscellaneous case of semantics though, so not to be dogmatic about.

 

[AFrazier]

There are things , like lying, that people can be 'tempted' to do, that they never desire to do.
Jesus Himself never desired to sin.
Likewise, children trained in the way they should go do not desire to sin either. (oh, they still sin, being human, and they may or did choose to sin, but that doesn't mean they desired to).
This might just be a miscellaneous case of semantics though, so not to be dogmatic about.

If someone is tempted to lie, it is because they desire an outcome that can only be accomplished by lying. And if someone has to lie to achieve that specific outcome, then the outcome, or the motive for achieving that outcome, is something sinful.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If someone is tempted to lie, it is because they desire an outcome that can only be accomplished by lying.

This is basically in error. (not true)
I don't know if it can be shown clearly on this thread/ forum or not, from Scripture,
but suffice it to say that , for instance,
even if Jesus were tempted to lie (which He was, as written)
in NO WAY suggests even nor ever that He desired any outcome that required lying.
==========================================

And if someone has to lie to achieve that specific outcome, then the outcome, or the motive for achieving that outcome, is something sinful.

Jesus left the outcome to His Father in heaven, as do His followers. "Go and sin no more" is more in line and is in harmony with His Word and Purpose and Plan ...

So I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Seek His Kingdom (see in Revelation that no liars are found in heaven according to Yahweh's Word).
The outcome desired? >> Salvation.
The message? >> CHRIST CRUCIFIED ! YEAH! HALLELUYAH ! (no lies needed)

 

[AFrazier]

This is basically in error. (not true)
I don't know if it can be shown clearly on this thread/ forum or not, from Scripture,
but suffice it to say that , for instance,
even if Jesus were tempted to lie (which He was, as written)
in NO WAY suggests even nor ever that He desired any outcome that required lying.
==========================================

Jesus left the outcome to His Father in heaven, as do His followers. "Go and sin no more" is more in line and is in harmony with His Word and Purpose and Plan ...

Seek His Kingdom (see in Revelation that no liars are found in heaven according to Yahweh's Word).
The outcome desired? >> Salvation.
The message? >> CHRIST CRUCIFIED ! YEAH! HALLELUYAH ! (no lies needed)

You're being willful here.

You cannot be tempted with something you do not desire. Period. That is scripture.

James 1:14-15 — Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Hebrews 4:15 — For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus, like us, was drawn away and enticed by his own desires, tempted in every way that we are so can understand our difficulty. But unlike us, he chose the good and rejected the evil, and was therefore tempted, but without allowing his desires to bring forth sin.

We can go 'round and 'round about this all day. Scripture is clear as day. Jesus was tempted. Temptation is caused by our own desires. The difference is that Jesus rebuked the temptation and remained righteous.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You cannot be tempted with something you do not desire. Period. That is scripture.

Sorry, no.

You're being willful here.

oops.... false witness here.

James 1:14-15 — Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Hebrews 4:15 — For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was never drawn away of his own lust.... tch tch ....

Jesus, like us, was drawn away and enticed by his own desires, tempted in every way that we are so can understand our difficulty.

Jesus was never drawn away and enticed by His Own desires, tch tch.....

We can go 'round and 'round about this all day. Scripture is clear as day. Jesus was tempted. Temptation is caused by our own desires. The difference is that Jesus rebuked the temptation and remained righteous.

The mis-understanding is profound, or simple. It is true that someone's own desires CAN tempt us,
but it is NOT the ONLY THING that can tempt us,
and Yahweh PROVIDES FREEDOM from our own desires (along with freedom from much else as well).

Jesus may have simply resisted temptation at some/ many / times, as
we are told also "resist the DEVIL, and he will flee"....
See? We are not desiring the devil, nor sin, when we are walking in the LIGHT as HE IS LIGHT. The devil (as an angel of light/ friend/ family/ pastor/ priest/ etc)
can still
and often does tempt ...... and most of the whole world goes along subjected to the devil ! .....
but we don't have to in Christ.