Could Jesus have sinned?

Interesting question and here is one similar to it... Could Adam have not sinned?... Brother Glen & Sister Charlotte

 

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Jesus couldn't sin because His Father could not.

His temptations were allowed to prove this fact.

HankD

 

More sound doctrine from Best (same book):

The apostle John placed great importance on the correct concept of the incarnation:

...Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God... (I John 4:2, 3).

The Greek word eleluthota is a perfect participle of the verb erchomai which means to come. Thus, the perfect participle means "having come" in the flesh, a past completed act with continuing results. The force of the perfect denotes the oneness of His Divine-human Person as an abiding certainty. To confess Jesus Christ "having come in the flesh" is to confess the Godhead dwelling "bodily" in the second Person in the divine Triunity. The word "flesh" is sarki, locative singular of sarx, which refers to Christ’s human nature. The negative clause in the Greek does not use the name "Christ." (Best uses Eclectic Text, Harald) John used "Jesus" with the definite article to stress that it was "the Jesus" whom the apostles preached that the spirit of antichrist rejected.

Confessing that Jesus Christ has come to the inhabited earth in human nature involves a very important subject. Was Christ’s human nature peccable or impeccable? The verb "confesseth" is homologei, present active indicative of the verb homologeo, which means to confess, speak in accordance with, or adopt the same terms of language. One who believes that Christ’s human nature was impeccable speaks in accordance with Scripture which says: "...he was manifested [ephanerothe, first aorist passive indicative of phaneroo, which means to be personally manifested, Col. 3:4; I Pet. 1:20; I John 3:5] to take away our sins; and in him is no sin" (I John 3:5). The word "sin" is a noun, and it means that Jesus Christ was not personally manifested in a sinful nature.

Persons who teach that Christ was peccable do not speak in accordance with or adopt the language of Scripture. They believe He could sin; therefore, they are not of God. The Holy Spirit does not apply the work of a "peccable christ" to the hearts of men. Furthermore, He does not lead unregenerate men to embrace a peccable savior in what religionists call "a salvation experience."

Truth never appears without its counterfeits. Tares are found mixed with wheat; hypocrites are found among Christians; false teachers are found working among true ones; and the antichrist will mimic Jesus Christ. Many false prophets had gone out into the world in the days of John’s ministry. Therefore, he was led by the Holy Spirit in his general Epistle to warn believers: "BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). He said the church in Ephesus had tried them who said they were apostles and found them to be liars (Rev. 2:2). There were many false prophets in John’s day, but their number has increased since that time.

END OF QUOTE


Harald

 

Hardsheller. Re your brief comment I just wanted to say what I said to some of you folks on the Iraq war forum earlier; I am no liberal or socialist, and disagreeing with some re the war does not make me one. I may disagree with some of you americans as to this particular war and its justness and the reasons for it, but the Christ who converted me was then and is now and will forever be an impeccable Jesus in His humanity, and needless to say in His eternal Deity.


Harald

 

One theologian or writer's opinion, is just that; another opinion. It does not invalidate other opinions.

Cheers,

Jim

 

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. " (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV)

Jesus was the perfect sacrificial "Lamb of God!" If not, then we're all doomed!

 

Hardsheller. The book's name is "Christ could not be tempted". I once found it online and downloaded to the harddrive, also have it in my library. It is online still. Suggested searchwords (Yahoo):

"Christ could not be tempted" & W E Best

It should not be too hard to find a paperback copy of it in the USA, if you prefer that. A used copy would be below $5.00 if you searched via ABEbooks.com. I recommend it for such an one who is interested in serious Christological teaching.


Harald

 

I think what has been paraphrased "the temptation of Christ" would be better understood if it were "the attempt to tempt Christ!" Satan was at his temptation game, but Jesus wasn't playing!

 

Yes. Jesus could have sinned.

The Bible tells us that He was tempted "In every way as we are" and temptation is meaningless if one doesn't have the free will to give in to it.

Not to get too off the subject but I tried (unsucessfully) to discuss Christ with Mormons on another forum.

Mormonism believes Jesus was a man who was exalted to godhood by keeping the Father's laws so, evidently, they believe that He not only could sin, but did sin. This also begs the question, if Jesus could be exalted to godhood by keeping the Father's laws, why can't we but that's another topic.

Word of Faith folks believe that Jesus took on a sin nature on the cross and had to be born again in Hell to redeem Himself before He could redeem us.

 

Mike. It is quite evident that you twist the Scriptures with respect to Jesus, or the Jesus you are referring to is "another Jesus", 2Cor. 11:4. THE Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible could not have sinned, He came in impeccable flesh.

The Jesus of God says - "the prince of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in me", freely quoted from memory. How can you then say Jesus could have sinned?


Harald

 

I didn't twist anything. I simply have another opinion on a non-essential of the faith, which you and I have the liberty to disagree on.

Nothing I've said impugns Christ's nature, His Lordship, His rolw, or His gospel so I really don't see what II Corinthians 11:4 has to do with anything. Oh, wait! Yes I do. It's your usual tactic of demonizing anyone who disagrees with your narrow, often goofy, views.

He did come in impeccable flesh but it was flesh, nonetheless and, thus, He could have sinned but did not.

Very easily. Please read my previous post.

We have the liberty to discuss whether or not it was possible that Jesus was capable of sinning although, ultimately, He did not.

 

My view:

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.

Feeling 4834 sumpatheo {soom-path-eh'-o}
• 1) to be affected with the same feeling as another, to sympathise with 2) to feel for, have compassion on

He knows first hand the wiles of the evil one and knows that at any moment, if left alone we would succumb to satan's temptation.

Let's not forget that Christ is perfect humanity, holy, sinless with no inclination to sin. We are fallen, imperfect, sinful and inclined to sin.

That He could not sin does not disqualify our high priest from being able to sympathize with us as he lived among us and was Himself subjected to satan's temptations.

He is "touched" with the feeling of our infirmities, He is not subject to them.

His reaction to satan's temptation was one of repulsion, satan found nothing in Him concerning sin but revulsion and rebuke.

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.

The Incarnate Christ was/is intrinsically holy from His earthly conception…
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Satan was unable to find any place to put his hooks into Christ.
John 14: 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

The Son could not/cannot sin because the Father could not/cannot sin.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him

HankD

[ April 22, 2003, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

If I am tempted, I have a choice to say yes or no, other wise the temptation is not a temptation at all.

Define the word "temptation".

In our meagre understanding of the God-Man, we fail to comprehend the absolute divinity and the absolute humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The first Adam was created in purity, but had the ability to chose, and brought down the whole future race with him.

Jesus, as the God-Man, not two separate entities, but a union of both, could not sin, but had the faculties to be tempted as are we, and the possibility is there. What a strange and difficult dichotomy, but it is and must be there if the temptations are to be true. At least in my mind.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The temptation of Christ came from without. In James 1, we are told that we are drawn away by the lust that is already in our heart.

Christ had no such lust in his heart for sin. His temptation came from without. Satan did all he could, but in the end, he was no more than a BB gun to a battleship.

Was the temptation real? Yes.

Could God ever sin? Never.

 

Brother Jim, perhaps as been suggested, the temptations were real and jesus was subjected to them to prove just who He is/was: The Holy One of God (the Logos) who could not sin though He came in the flesh (sarx).

Yes, strange and difficult dichotomy indeed!
The Scripture calls it a mystery...

1 Timothy 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh (sarx), justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

HankD

 

When Satan tempted Jesus what happened? Jesus was hungry, just like we are hungry. The solicitation to fullfill that God given desire in a God forbidden manner (temptation) was there, just as it is with us. Jesus fully well realized that the options were to follow Satan or follow his Heavenly Father, just as we know the options. In all this he was tempted just like we are but here is where the difference lies. We actually WANT to fullfill that desire in a God forbidden manner and our struggle is whether or not to follow through with it. Jesus never had this struggle because the mere fact that it is God forbidden ends any decision making possibility on his part. The only reason I have a problem with temptation is because I am sometimes willing to fullfill a desire in a God forbidden manner. Jesus could not have sinned. It just wasn't in his nature or character or spirit. He felt the hunger but not the hesitation of whether not to succumb.

 

I just want to say that I think that Jesus could have sinned but chose not to. In verse 53 of the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus at least implies that He could have aborted His Father's mission. Now, if He had done that, with His Father's approval, would that have meant that God Himself had adopted a sinful nature? Maybe that is a topic for another thread.

Roy

Matthew 26:

"51": And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

"52": Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

"53": Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

"54": But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

 

Yes He could have and it wouldn't have been a sin.

God owes us nothing.

But in fact it was the undefiled nature of His love which kept Him from asking for the 12 legions of angels.

HankD

[ April 23, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Jesus states..."not my WILL but thy WILL be done" when he was in the garden prior to being taken by the roman gaurd. He had a will of his own to choose and he always chose the WILL of GOD. His nature was such ,because he was born of the seed of GOD just as we are. we have a choice when we are tempted.

He was tempted from within as a man he was hungry. Not in his spirit but in his flesh. Because his spirit was full he could resit the tempter and put the flesh under subjection.Meaning the pangs of hunger raging in his belly.