Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?

through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,

Did the Son of God actually, learn, the obedience?

What obedience?

Does this verse state he was, the obedient, because he was God?

Remember in verse 7 he had been crying out to the One who could save him from death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Did Son, learn, and become Phil 2:8 or not?

 

Yes and no.

 

No, not possible. To answer the question of how he could he be then tempted, consider this. There are two types of temptation, from without and from within. From without is when someone tempts you. A woman propositions you with immoral activity, for example. That is a temptation on her part. The second kind is internal, the desire from within to actually commit the sin that the external temptation is proposing.

Of course Jesus was externally tempted. We read about Satan tempting him. But he was not internally tempted. With no sin nature and as God, he never desired to sin. And if he never desired to sin, he therefore could not have sinned.

If you think Christ was internally tempted, that is, that he desired to sin, but did not give in, we would need to then address the fact that such a desire to sin is itself sinful (e.g. lust or coveteousness) and Jesus is a sinner.

 

Jesus was completely God and completely man. If His flesh lacked the ability to sin, then He would not have been completely human. Every human has had the ability to sin. Adam sinned with no sin nature.

 

Jesus was also fully human. Can a human commit sin?

 

Not Biblical.

 

"I THINK IT IS WRONG TO BELIEVE THAT CHRIST’S DIVINE NATURE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIS HUMAN NATURE TO SIN."
—R.C. SPROUL

Augustine said Christ was capable of sinning and He was capable of not sinning.

I am in decent company even though you disagree.

 

In John 10:30 the Christ stated, "I and My Father are one." Obviously, that does not mean that they are the exact same Person, as there are three Persons in the Godhead. But rather, they are One in essence, One in unity. Now, God the Father can not sin, as that is something that is contrary to His nature. So, if they are One in essence, the Christ can not sin, either, as He is God. Just because His deity was veiled by His flesh, that does not change the fact that He could not sin. If He could sin, then so could the Father, as they are One in essence, One being. And if the Father could sin, then the bible becomes worthless, because how do we know that all of it is not a big honking lie?

 

The Incarnation is mysterious indeed, but what we do know is that it involved the Second member of the God-head becoming a man......actually and truly a man..... which is necessary for him to function in our place as the Second Adam.

I fear that some essentially undermine that truth with the implication that Christ was simply God in a costume.
That is little different than Zeus taking on the form of a swan.
That is NOT the doctrine of Incarnation. The Incarnation was far more than simply "veiling" his deity behind a mask or a charade. Jesus wasn't God simply dressed up in a human costume. He was the God-man.

The mediator between God and man is not God-in-costume, it was the man Christ Jesus.
God didn't pay the price for man's sins, God punished man for man's sins.
God cannot sin, but God also cannot die.
God did not die for man's sins either. A man died, in my place.

 

Jesus had fleshly body. His fleshly body could die. Since He and the Father were one, does that mean The Father had a fleshly body and could physically die? You take things past what scripture actually says. Jesus was fully human. His fully human flesh was capable of sin.

 

Thank you both for your answers. I have to admit they are weighty responses.

However, the Christ is forever the God-man and was not merely God with a human costume, as HoS astutely stated. But by Him not giving in to those temptations proved is the very Christ. If the Christ could have sinned, then God the Father could sin, too.

 

Thanks for the discussion S.G.
By your logic though (insisting that if Christ could sin, then the Father could too) then you would similarly have to say that if Christ could die, then the Father could die as well.

Certainly we can't deny that Christ died. Thus, we need to understand Incarnation in such a way that we don't simply compound properties and transfer them in their totality from one member of the God-head to the other.

Maybe we could say that Christ took upon himself uniquely human properties that the other members of the God-head did not such as flesh itself, mortality, human frailty, and the capacity to learn and grow.....all of which are Biblical and certainly were never possessed by the Father or Spirit.

Given such a model, it is perfectly fair to say that it is not sufficient to argue impeccability simply by appealing to Christ's Divine nature.
Of course, his Divine nature could do no such things, much like the Father and Spirit, but human nature certainly can.

Thanks for the thoughts S.G.

 

We both agree that the Christ did not sin.

Now, to you point that God can not die. Well, if you mean die as in cease to exist, then He can not do that. But God did in the form of the God-man, the Christ. Ppl like Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer(I am not lumping you and Reynolds in with them, btw) reasoned that God could not take on sin and die upon a cross, so they stated that the Christ ceased to be God based upon those assumptions.

The Christ, in His humanity, still knew ppl's thoughts and hearts, was able to heal from far away, was able to forgive ppl of their sins, raise ppl from the dead, &c.,so it shows that He was fully God and fully human.

 

I never define "die" as "cease to exist"....I think that is, for numerous reasons, a bad definition.
Christ very much did die, but he never ceased to exist.
But the point was, that by your logic (that if Christ could sin than God could) then we would either also have to deny that he died, or assert that God is mortal.
It was a Reductio argument.

Also, I believe it can be argued that it was Christ's continuous communion with the Holy Spirit by which he was victorious over sin and had power to heal and work miracles etc...
Reading the gospels, Christ regularly prayed to the Father for miracles and called upon the Spirit in his ministry. He prayed to God to raise Lazarus, he cast out Demons through the Spirit and it was blasphemy against the Spirit (not the Son) to claim he did so through the power of Baalzebub. Christ even argued to his accusers "If I cast out demons by Baalzebul, how then do your sons cast them out?"

I do not believe he had miraculous powers simply kept in reserve and utilized at all times with merely a whim. That is the very thinking which resulted in the view that Christ's suffering on the cross was merely apparent which, is rightly rejected.
However, I do not see how it would not logically follow that his suffering was only apparent if we view his Incarnation incorrectly. I fear that Impeccability, so argued from merely his nature would imply that suffering was only apparent, even his death, perhaps, only apparent.
That would simply be God in a costume.

I believe, rather, that the person, the entity that was the second member of the Trinity became a man and took upon him flesh that could no more live perfectly or perform miracles or know everything than any other flesh. I believe all three members of the God-head were always intimately involved in the economy of Salvation, with Christ as it's central figure.
In this manner Christ truly serves as an example to be emulated by us.
We can look at his life and work and know we have (through the Spirit) the tools necessary to become more and more like him through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
We can know he was truly tempted and tested in all ways exactly like us, yet without sin, and that that temptation was not an orchestrated charade.
It removes from us the possibility of making the excuse that since we are not God, we can't be victorious over sin.

Once again, thanks SG!

 

Jesus as 100% man had the Spirit of God; Jesus spoke the true and perfect Word of God, He did not receive the Spirit by measure, but was also fully God. He came from above in the nature of God and all things were given in His hand. That said:

On one hand Omnipotent God “could” and did truly come to earth in the nature of a man, in the Person of Jesus Christ, 100% flesh and blood man, and “could” as a truth be tempted to sin in this nature of a man, as this is a truth of the nature in which man exists from creation. (Something to look at is Jesus existed before creation as God, but not as a man. ("eternal")) Although, this subject (mystery) easily begins going beyond my comprehension; Jesus limited Himself in becoming man in order to truly fulfill the law, and Jesus Christ in His righteousness did fulfill it as a 100% man for this to be truth, but He did it IN the Spirit/Nature of God. It seems if to say Jesus “could not sin” it might be mistaken as a denial of Him being truly 100% man.

On the other hand, Jesus was also 100% God and therefore “would not sin” as that is the true nature of God, (that He is only Good.) and part of the truth is Him having the 100% Spirit of God in the nature of a man. In that light, He would be incapable of sinning, and therefore, with the two natures combined I feel it could also be properly said that He “could not sin.”

1) Could Jesus sin? Yes and no, or maybe both. (One Person having two natures is a mystery to me, but true none the less.)

2) Would Jesus sin? No!

Bottom line there is internal, external and eternal factors involved that all have to be taken into consideration, but, I agree with what I’ve heard concerning the hypostatic union in Jesus' nature, said, “That to deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.”

 

Good responses on here:
One thing I tend to avoid (just to nit-pick) is that it is probably not helpful to use phraseology such as Christ being 100% God and 100% Man.
I think such terminology can lead to confusion.

I do think "truly" God and "truly" man as found in Chalcedon was brilliantly crafted verbiage.
Although Baptists are non-creedal, I believe Chalcedon captured it as perfectly as man could.
I supply this for any curious readers:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

taken from: https://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

 

I believe this also, I consider being "Chalcedon Compliant" as very important and the "orthodox" definition. In fact, I'd look upon opposition to these definitions as heresy.

Of interest, such as:

Monophysitism challenged the orthodox definition of faith of Chalcedon and taught that in Jesus there were not two natures (divine and human) but one (divine).

Monophysitism - a Christian heresy of the 5th and 6th centuries that challenged the orthodox definition of the two natures (human and divine) in Jesus and instead believed there was a single divine nature

 

Indeed and IMO there is another line of reasoning with the inclusion of the temptation in the wilderness..

To give us a deeper view into the persona of Satan by witnessing his mode of attack against Jesus that we may be forewarned and forearmed against his attack by our Lord's responses.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

That is an assumption from scripture. That is not directly stated in scripture. No one understands how Christ who is fully God also became fully man. To say if Jesus could have sinned The Father could have sinned is a leap of logic that The Scripture does not directly state. I support the view, held by many theologians, that if Jesus were not capable of sin(at least in the theoretical sense) then He was not fully human.
As Augustine said, He was " posse peccare" and "posse non peccare".

The reason I use the term "was" is because His current glorified flesh lacks any human ability to sin.

 

I provided two biblical examples, lust and coveteousness. Those are sinful desires to sin.

Give me an example where it is perfectly ok for Christ to have wanted to sin. Do you think he did want to sin?