Was it Possible for Jesus to Sin?
The teaching of Scripture and the orthodox position of Christianity is that Jesus Christ never sinned. However, the question of whether or not Jesus could have sinned is entirely different—on this issue the orthodox theologians have been split.
The term ‘peccability’ is a theological word meaning that it was possible for Jesus to sin, while the term ‘impeccability’ means that it was not possible for Jesus to sin. Those who argue against the impeccability of Christ believe that it would render his temptation meaningless. Theologian Charles Hodge wrote, “Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.” This is a very important objection, especially in light of Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” However, before a conclusion can be drawn, another factor must be taken into account.
The solution to this problem must rest on the person and nature of Christ. The historical position is that Jesus Christ had a divine nature and a human nature and each had its own will and desire. The human nature of Christ could be tempted, but his divine nature could not (James 1:13). Even though Jesus had two natures, he was still one person. If Jesus had sinned, God would have sinned, which is an impossibility. Therefore Jesus must have been impeccable.
What, then, is the significance of his temptation? Christ’s impeccability does not render his temptations meaningless; His temptations were demonstrations of his sinlessness. How could we know that Jesus was sinless unless he was tested? Jesus temptations were powerful yet he fully resisted.
We must also determine who better understands the full power of a temptation. Is it the one who yields to temptation, or the one who resists it fully? Surely the one who resists temptation knows better about the power of temptation than the one who submits.
Finally, it must be understood that Jesus chose not to rely upon his divine nature for obedience (Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus submitted himself to his Father’s will (see Matt. 26:39). He met every temptation with his human nature under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit (the very same spirit available to all Christians). Wayne Grudem writes, “The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of ‘backstop’ that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptation…”
Because Jesus was both God and man he was impeccable, however he completely understands the power of temptation having resisted it fully and completely. Since it is impossible to fully explore this question in one article, we will revisit this issue next year.
The term ‘peccability’ is a theological word meaning that it was possible for Jesus to sin, while the term ‘impeccability’ means that it was not possible for Jesus to sin. Those who argue against the impeccability of Christ believe that it would render his temptation meaningless. Theologian Charles Hodge wrote, “Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.” This is a very important objection, especially in light of Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” However, before a conclusion can be drawn, another factor must be taken into account.
The solution to this problem must rest on the person and nature of Christ. The historical position is that Jesus Christ had a divine nature and a human nature and each had its own will and desire. The human nature of Christ could be tempted, but his divine nature could not (James 1:13). Even though Jesus had two natures, he was still one person. If Jesus had sinned, God would have sinned, which is an impossibility. Therefore Jesus must have been impeccable.
What, then, is the significance of his temptation? Christ’s impeccability does not render his temptations meaningless; His temptations were demonstrations of his sinlessness. How could we know that Jesus was sinless unless he was tested? Jesus temptations were powerful yet he fully resisted.
We must also determine who better understands the full power of a temptation. Is it the one who yields to temptation, or the one who resists it fully? Surely the one who resists temptation knows better about the power of temptation than the one who submits.
Finally, it must be understood that Jesus chose not to rely upon his divine nature for obedience (Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus submitted himself to his Father’s will (see Matt. 26:39). He met every temptation with his human nature under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit (the very same spirit available to all Christians). Wayne Grudem writes, “The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of ‘backstop’ that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptation…”
Because Jesus was both God and man he was impeccable, however he completely understands the power of temptation having resisted it fully and completely. Since it is impossible to fully explore this question in one article, we will revisit this issue next year.
posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home