Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?

No, it was not possible. As God he is unchanging, and to sin would be a change in his sinless nature.

 

1 John 1: 5 Pretty much gives to us the biblical answer...

 

Zactly!

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13

 

If it were not theoretically possible for Jesus to sin, the Bible would not say Jesus experienced temptation. You probably can't be tempted to do something that is inherently impossible for you to do. And if Jesus couldn't sin even theoretically, why did Satan waste his time trying to tempt Jesus when it was impossible? Satan is an opportunistic predator; he wouldn't bother working on people he doesn't think he can capture. We are talking only about what could have happened, since Jesus never actually sinned.

I admit I find it very, very difficult to visualize even a hypothetical scenario of Jesus actually giving in to temptation; but that's okay. Since He didn't, I really don't think God requires me to think about it anyway.

 

Here's a thought from J. Vernon McGee in his commentary on Hebrews:

"Again I ask the question: Could Jesus have sinned? The answer is no, He could not have sinned. What then was the purpose of the testing? I feel that I can answer that best with an illustration....Jesus, you see, was tested to prove that He was who He claimed to be. That is very important. Actually, if Jesus of Nazareth had sinned, it would not have proven that God in the flesh could sin. Rather, it would have proven that Jesus of Nazareth was not God in the flesh. The testing proved that He was God in the flesh. Because of who He is, He cannot sin. And the writer of the Hebrew epistle adds that He was tested in all points like we are, yet was without sin (see Heb. 4:15)."

McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 1-7) (electronic ed., Vol. 51, p. 52). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

In light of this… If Paul hadn’t said it the way he did, I’m sure everyone would be yelling, “Blasphemy!” about anyone who would say God could become sin, and would be even more outraged at the idea that he became sin.

 

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."[2 cor. 5:21]

He became sin when He was imputed our sins. When He ingested the cup of His Father's wrath, He was dealt with as if you or I was standing before the Father.

 

And NO!! The Christ could not have sinned. " I and the Father are one.”[John 10:30]

This does not mean the Son and the Father are the exact same Person, but that they are One in harmony, One in essence. If God the Father can not sin...and He can not...then God the Son can not sin, either. The Christ taking on human form did not change that.

 

And yet there is one who here who is doing this. Repeatedly.

 

Denying impeccability is not to deny the Divinity of Christ.

It is just as easy to argue that asserting impeccability is Docetism.
Neither one is truly heretical.
One's inability to grasp how something can be true which seems to deny a Cardinal rule of our own Theological constructs doesn't make it false.
It means our Theology doesn't always easily reconcile something rather confusing.
Join the club.

Apparently, according to most here, the sainted R.C. Sproul they so admire is an heretic.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

Maybe Jesus was impeccable, although I see no Biblical evidence for it. I see plenty of Theological Constructs against it, but we shouldn't confuse a confession or a System of Thought for Biblical evidence.
Neither view is necessarily heretical and both at least seek to be true to Scripture.

I.M.O.
One view takes the testimony of Scriptures related to the topic more at face value and seeks to reconcile it with what we know about God's nature, and construct a Theology around it.
One view takes a Theology and presses Scriptures which are not related to the question into service to explain away the ones which are related.

 

RC Sproul was off his rocker concerning this, imo. And yes, its only my opinion. My opinion and $0.50 will get you a thimble full of java at Starbucks.

 

lol...Starbucks is overrated anyway.
That's a fair position, but the question which we must answer is whether he is "off his rocker" because our Theological presuppositions prevent the possibility or because the most relevant texts imply it?

In other words which is driving and shaping which?

 

Please remind us what Docetism is. I've been taught the heresies, but have some memorized better than others--never mind, I looked it up. Oh. Docetism: erroneously believing Christ was not both fully divine and fully human, only fully divine.

 

It means that whatever makes the father to be God, jesus has that very same quality/essence!

 

Jesus was fully God, so can God actually commit a sin?

 

In thinking of what the sinless Son of God suffered for our sakes, I’m just now reminded of an old Rod Serling Night Gallery episode entitled “The Sins of the Fathers.” It was an excruciating take on an ancient funeral ritual called sin-eating, involving a first-timer no less. I’m not recommending anyone try to find it and watch it, as it’s rather horrific. But it makes me think all the more how humanly impossible to imagine what Jesus suffered in being made sin for us.