Why could Jesus not have sinned?

[Songsmith]

I don't believe that Jesus sinned, but I've heard it said by many theologians that He was not able to sin. He could not have yielded to Satan's temptations they say. I say that this would not be a true test of faithfulness to the Father. If he could not have sinned then He was still relying on His God nature to keep from sinning. This would not satisfy the need for someone to perfectly keep the law in order to pay the penalty of sin for others. He needed to be able to sin in order for his obedience to the Father to be actual obedience and not the imitations of humanity like an automaton.

 

[James Is Back]

So you're telling me that if Jesus had sin He would have been faithful to the Father? That doesn't make sense since sin is an act against God. By sinning he would have disobeyed God. He would not have been faithful to the Father.

If Jesus had sin then the sacrifice at the cross would have been in vain. Also remember Jesus was God in flesh and God can't sin so He would have gone against His nature to sin.

The cross needed a perfect sacrificial lamb without sin in order to pay for our own sins. The penalty would not have been paid had Jesus sinned. By not sinning He was faithful not only to God but to God's plan for mankind.

 

[Songsmith]

No, I'm not saying that Jesus sinning would have made Him more faithful to the Father. What I'm saying is that without the ability to sin he was less than fully human. I believe that he could have sinned if he had chosen to do so because he was fully human, albeit without the propensity toward sin. His obedience to the Father came not from his God-nature, but from his decision in his humanness be faithful to the Father as an example to us that we can be faithful to God in like fashion if we are willing to be obedient to the extent that Jesus himself was. If he was incapable of sin then the temptations of Satan were not even temptations and Satan would have known that and would not even have tried. The desire to not go to the cross would not have been there either. I'm not saying that Jesus sinned, or that he should have sinned, simply that he could have had he so chosen. It would have ruined the plan of redemption and may have destroyed the very creation, but I believe that he was given the opportunity, in his full humanness, to sin and he those to be faithful to God instead. That history turns on that decision is a scary prospect on one hand, but on the other gives me great confidence in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time.

He was not God side by side with man in human form.

He was not half God and half man.

In theology they call this the "hypostatic union".

Because He was fully God, He could not sin.

Because He was fully man He could be a true representative of the human race - just like the first Adam was.

For Jesus to be able to sin, God would have to be able to sin - which He simply can't do.

 

[Steeno7]

I don't believe that Jesus sinned, but I've heard it said by many theologians that He was not able to sin. He could not have yielded to Satan's temptations they say. I say that this would not be a true test of faithfulness to the Father. If he could not have sinned then He was still relying on His God nature to keep from sinning. This would not satisfy the need for someone to perfectly keep the law in order to pay the penalty of sin for others. He needed to be able to sin in order for his obedience to the Father to be actual obedience and not the imitations of humanity like an automaton.

I agree. To say Jesus was tempted in every way that is common to man, but then say that he could not have succumbed to those temptations, is to deny His humanity. It is to deny that He was fully man. The very words, "yet without sin" clearly indicates that the nature of the temptation was such that it would have led to sin had it not been resisted.

 

[seekingsolace]

Jesus' temptations were tailored to him being fully God and fully Man. It was clear that Jesus felt human emotion - Jesus wept, sighed, rebuked etc. If Jesus did not understand our temptations then His role as High Priest - Intercessor would be inadequate.

 

[Songsmith]

Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time.

He was not God side by side with man in human form.

He was not half God and half man.

In theology they call this the "hypostatic union".

Because He was fully God, He could not sin.

Because He was fully man He could be a true representative of the human race - just like the first Adam was.

For Jesus to be able to sin, God would have to be able to sin - which He simply can't do.

Except for the fact that we know Jesus absolutely divested himself of at least one of the attributes of God, namely omniscience, at least fit a time. He says that he didn't know when his return would be, neither did the angels, only the Father. Does this lack of knowledge make him less God? I don't belts that to be the case.

 

[Job8]

He needed to be able to sin in order for his obedience to the Father to be actual obedience and not the imitations of humanity like an automaton.

You are trying to fathom what is humanly unfathomable. The fact of the matter is that Christ did not have a human father and was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore He was unique. As a result He had no human sin nature, and was consequently SINLESS MAN. As a result, He could not sin, He would not sin, and He did not sin.

Add to that the fact that He was fully God at the same, and you have a Person who is unlike any other human being. At the same time, Christ's submission to the Father was total and absolute. No human can figure that out, so let's stop trying to figure out Christ.

Sin begins with temptation, but it is the "lust" within that responds to temptation. Study James. Satan presented the temptations, but there was nothing within Christ to respond to those temptations.

 

[Job8]

Except for the fact that we know Jesus absolutely divested himself of at least one of the attributes of God, namely omniscience, at least fit a time.

Christ DID NOT divest Himself of His omniscience. Note carefully:

And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (Mt 9:4)

But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. (Lk 11:17)

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; (Jn 13:3)

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? (Jn 18:4)

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (Jn 19:28)

How do Christians end up with ideas which have no support in Scripture? How could Christ be fully God and divest Himself of His omniscience? He did lay aside His glory temporarily to become a man. Had He not done so, every person who saw Him would be either blinded or would have died. When He said "I AM" in the Garden of Gethsemane, the people who approached Him went backward and fell down to the ground, becuase God has spoken those words (Jn 18:6).

 

[Steeno7]

You are trying to fathom what is humanly unfathomable. The fact of the matter is that Christ did not have a human father and was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore He was unique. As a result He had no human sin nature, and was consequently SINLESS MAN. As a result, He could not sin, He would not sin, and He did not sin.

Add to that the fact that He was fully God at the same, and you have a Person who is unlike any other human being. At the same time, Christ's submission to the Father was total and absolute. No human can figure that out, so let's stop trying to figure out Christ.

Sin begins with temptation, but it is the "lust" within that responds to temptation. Study James. Satan presented the temptations, but there was nothing within Christ to respond to those temptations.

Neither did Adam have a sin nature, and yet he still sinned.

 

[muddleglum]

I don't believe that Jesus sinned, but I've heard it said by many theologians that He was not able to sin. He could not have yielded to Satan's temptations they say. I say that this would not be a true test of faithfulness to the Father. If he could not have sinned then He was still relying on His God nature to keep from sinning. This would not satisfy the need for someone to perfectly keep the law in order to pay the penalty of sin for others. He needed to be able to sin in order for his obedience to the Father to be actual obedience and not the imitations of humanity like an automaton.

Jesus had free will. He could have sinned when tempted in the flesh, just as Eve, without a sin nature, did. However, His character was one thing He brought with Him and He loved the Father. Now we get into the meaning of "not able." If a man walks into a church meeting with a rifle some dark, stormy night and stops in the dimness of the back. I suppose your hackles will rise. Say Joe the usher shouts, "Hey, Fred Jones." If you knew the character of Fred Jones your emotions will go one way or another. You know him well enough to know that he was either probably lost while hunting or that he just escaped from prison. Character will tell. Could the good natured Fred shoot up a church meeting? Sure. Just aim and pull. Any hunter could. Would he? Good ol' Fred? You would feel the emotion of relief. If it was the other type, of brutal character, then you figure that everyone would die in a hostage situation.

Please adjust the illustration for your own viewing pleasure.

 

[Job8]

Neither did Adam have a sin nature, and yet he still sinned.

Because He was not the God-Man. The last Adam was "God manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16).

 

[James Is Back]

Neither did Adam have a sin nature, and yet he still sinned.

You're not comparing Christ with Adam are you?

 

[Steeno7]

Because He was not the God-Man. The last Adam was "God manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16).

Your argument was that it is our sin nature that causes us to succumb to temptation, and yet Adam was without a sin nature and still succumbed to temptation.

 

[muddleglum]

Your argument was that it is our sin nature that causes us to succumb to temptation, and yet Adam was without a sin nature and still succumbed to temptation.

This is one of the very simple, logical pieces of Scripture that isn't believed.

I think it's because most people get the sin nature and the flesh nature confused. It is very hard to get them to reset that mindset, too. I remember in one group I would often go to the elder after his sermon to remind him of this truth (of the difference) and he would bring that up in his next sermon, affirm it, and then goof again at another time. It's funny and pathetic how our minds work. Good thing that God knows our frame, that it is dust. And our memories are the dustiest.

You will note that a post or so after you first broached this about Adam I also wrote the same about Eve. She did it first! :-D
So there are two examples, not just one.

 

[Job8]

Your argument was that it is our sin nature that causes us to succumb to temptation, and yet Adam was without a sin nature and still succumbed to temptation.

Adam was created with the capacity to choose obedience over disobedience, though he had no sin nature to being with. All human beings after Adam can also make that choice, but the sin nature within generally responds to temptations and succumbs to them (Jas 1:13-15). At the same time, all human beings have a conscience, and can obey their conscience if they so choose (Rom 2:11-16).

None of this has a bearing on why Christ did not sin. He was unique in every respect, since He was simultaneously FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. This is the Mystery of Godliness (1 Tim 3:16).

 

[muddleglum]

Adam was created with the capacity to choose obedience over disobedience, though he had no sin nature to being with. All human beings after Adam can also make that choice, but the sin nature within generally responds to temptations and succumbs to them (Jas 1:13-15). At the same time, all human beings have a conscience, and can obey their conscience if they so choose (Rom 2:11-16).

None of this has a bearing on why Christ did not sin. He was unique in every respect, since He was simultaneously FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. This is the Mystery of Godliness (1 Tim 3:16).

Your quote of Jas 1:13-15 merely points to our flesh nature, which Adam, Eve, and Jesus all had without the sin nature. We too can escape our sin nature.

Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our
body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to
sin;
Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (ego) who
live, but Christ lives in me;​

Paul doesn't often use the Greek word "ego". N.T. scripture generally reserves it for God.

These two verses build on what Jesus said. John 15:5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he
bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing."

Those who have placed their trust in God's provision of Christ's death and resurrection have no sin nature.

Prior to that, "All human beings after Adam can also make that choice" cannot be true because we are slaves to sin (and just think we are free). See Rom 6:6, last clause, again.

 

[Steeno7]

Adam was created with the capacity to choose obedience over disobedience, though he had no sin nature to being with. All human beings after Adam can also make that choice, but the sin nature within generally responds to temptations and succumbs to them (Jas 1:13-15). At the same time, all human beings have a conscience, and can obey their conscience if they so choose (Rom 2:11-16).

None of this has a bearing on why Christ did not sin. He was unique in every respect, since He was simultaneously FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. This is the Mystery of Godliness (1 Tim 3:16).

Yes, Adam choose to sin, even though he had no sin nature. Jesus had no sin nature and choose not to sin, tempted, "yet without sin". Where the first Adam failed, the last Adam succeeded. Even though Jesus is fully God, it was as a man that Jesus redeemed mankind.

 

[Job8]

Even though Jesus is fully God, it was as a man that Jesus redeemed mankind.

We need to be careful that we do not go beyond Scripture. IT WAS AS THE GOD-MAN (not just as man) that Christ shed His blood for our redemption. Please note carefully (Acts 20:28): Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Whose blood purchased our redemption? THE BLOOD OF GOD.

 

[Job8]

Prior to that, "All human beings after Adam can also make that choice" cannot be true because we are slaves to sin (and just think we are free). See Rom 6:6, last clause, again.

Once again, we should be careful to stay within the bounds of Scripture. The analogy of "slaves to sin" must not be taken beyond what it is meant to be. Notice carefully what Scripture says in Rom 2:14,15: 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: 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...

If the Gentiles were utterly slaves to sin, how could they do the work of the law (the Ten Commandments) "writtten in their hearts"? The same verse tell us that all sinners have a conscience, and that is how sinners can make a choice to sin or not to sin. Every man's conscience reflects the Ten Commandments.