Was Jesus human like us or a different kind of human?

[Baptist Believer]

"Class, was Jesus not able to sin or able not to sin?"

Able? Yes, but doing so would have been completely against His character and inclinations. Why would He want to do such a thing?

I am able to jam a knife into my eye socket any time I want to do so, but I don't because the idea of doing so is so contrary to what I want to do that I would not even consider it.

One of the primary goals of character transformation in Christian discipleship is to develop such a relationship with Christ that sin can be seen for what it is -- destruction and evil against humanity and God.

 

[JonC]

Able? Yes, but doing so would have been completely against His character and inclinations. Why would He want to do such a thing?

I am able to jam a knife into my eye socket any time I want to do so, but I don't because the idea of doing so is so contrary to what I want to do that I would not even consider it.

One of the primary goals of character transformation in Christian discipleship is to develop such a relationship with Christ that sin can be seen for what it is -- destruction and evil against humanity and God.

Exactly!

It is one thing to say that it was impossible for Jesus to sin and yet another to say it was impossible that Jesus would sin. The first denies his omnipotence; the second affirms his nature.

Jesus could have refused to die on the cross (it was within his power). But it was certain that Jesus would lay down his life because of his faithfulness (this is his nature, he is righteous).

 

[HankD]

Able? Yes, but doing so would have been completely against His character and inclinations. Why would He want to do such a thing?

I am able to jam a knife into my eye socket any time I want to do so, but I don't because the idea of doing so is so contrary to what I want to do that I would not even consider it.

Some have done so and even worse.

One of the primary goals of character transformation in Christian discipleship is to develop such a relationship with Christ that sin can be seen for what it is -- destruction and evil against humanity and God.

Then it is within the possibility in your reckoning that Jesus could have sinned.

He therefore could not be God.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

 

[Baptist Believer]

Then it is within the possibility in your reckoning that Jesus could have sinned.

He therefore could not be God.

I understand the point you are making, but I'm making effectively the same point from the other direction. God does not sin (do evil) because it is out of the realm of his character. He has the power and ability to do it, but does not possess the will to act in that way.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

That makes my point. Evil is no temptation because it is out of His character. However, that does not mean He does not possess the ability to do so.

 

[HankD]

I understand the point you are making, but I'm making effectively the same point from the other direction. God does not sin (do evil) because it is out of the realm of his character. He has the power and ability to do it, but does not possess the will to act in that way.


That makes my point. Evil is no temptation because it is out of His character. However, that does not mean He does not possess the ability to do so.

If He has not the will then He can't.
Two questions.

1) Is Jesus Christ God?
2) Can God sin?

So you see my point that the questions which arise from The Impeccability of Christ engender contention and condemnation of one another..

If He couldn't sin He wasn't human.
if He could sin He wasn't God.

Stalemate, then comes the condemnation.
We should end it with just the contention.

i keep looking for a third possibility and I will say that yours is as close as one that I have seen.

 

[poor-in-spirit]

A slightly different perspective:

But He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin
Who among us has resisted unto blood, striving against sin? If it had been impossible for the Son of Man to sin, then it would have been impossible to tempt Him also. Why would He have needed to resist temptation so hard that He sweat great drops of blood, with an angel needed to strengthen Him (that certainly indicates the commission of sin was possible). Had sin been in an impossibility as He was the Son of Man, why would He have to resist it so hard.

Luke 22: 41-44 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

This is why:
For the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all Judgment to the Son, giving Him authority to execute Judgment because He is the Son of Man.

The entire exercise would be moot if it had been impossible for Him to sin.

In regards to a sin nature: Adam was created as a complete man (3:1) yet he was tempted and sinned. Lucifer was created by God as perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him.

It is obvious that the commission of sin has never been relegated to a "sin nature". Neither Lucifer nor Adam had a "sin nature". Yet the Lord refers to Lucifer as the father of lies. God created all His angels and all people with their own absolute free will. Logically then with His creatures having their own hearts and minds, the possibility of their wills not matching His Will has always been present (anything not of faith is sin).

Please don't get me wrong, I am not pretending to understand the science of how the Word became flesh as God and Man but I do strongly believe They did it in a way in which final Righteous Judgment would be dealt out to both the Just and the unjust.

 

[Aaron]

"Class, was Jesus not able to sin or able not to sin?"

Is it possible for God to lie?

 

[Aaron]

The corruption with which we are plagued is not what makes us human. It, in fact, dehumanizes us.

Isa 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob...​

Your sin does not complete you, and thinking that Christ lacking corruption, or His incorruptibility makes Him less human is a lie of the mind.

 

[JonC]

If He has not the will then He can't.
Two questions.

1) Is Jesus Christ God?
2) Can God sin?

So you see my point that the questions which arise from The Impeccability of Christ engender contention and condemnation of one another..

If He couldn't sin He wasn't human.
if He could sin He wasn't God.

Stalemate, then comes the condemnation.
We should end it with just the contention.

i keep looking for a third possibility and I will say that yours is as close as one that I have seen.

I believe @Baptist Believer 's position is not only the third possibility for which you looked, but it is the biblical position. It legitimizes the temptations Christ suffered where the idea Christ lacked the ability to truly be tempted or to freely choose denies that He was tempted as we are. It also affirms Christ's own righteousness as God and man (i.e., Jesus willingly chose to obey the Father).

The truth of his position comes out more when we apply it to Paul's command that we have the "mind of Christ", or that we "walk in the Light". When faced with temptation we can choose not to sin because we are "in" the One who choose obedience where we previously failed. Although we often stumble we can follow His example of obedience. Sin is an issue of volition.

 

[1689Dave]

If you stick with the historic creeds, Jesus was one divine person (God) with two natures. One fully human, and the other fully Divine. Some make the mistake of saying Jesus was fully man and fully God. But he did not have two persons. He had one person (God) and two distinct natures. One fully human nature and one fully divine nature.

 

[HankD]

Is it possible for God to lie?

Of course not

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

[JonC]

If you stick with the historic creeds, Jesus was one divine person (God) with two natures. One fully human, and the other fully Divine. Some make the mistake of saying Jesus was fully man and fully God. But he did not have two persons. He had one person (God) and two distinct natures. One fully human nature and one fully divine nature.

I believe problems arise when we leave "nature" undefined. Personally, I don't see Scripture lending itself to the idea that Jesus had two distinct natures (one human and one divine). Instead, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that God (the Logos) became flesh (one nature) and this by submission to the Father. So that would be one person and one nature, setting aside the glory (positional in relation to man and God) for a time.

 

[HankD]

I believe problems arise when we leave "nature" undefined. Personally, I don't see Scripture lending itself to the idea that Jesus had two distinct natures (one human and one divine). Instead, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that God (the Logos) became flesh (one nature) and this by submission to the Father. So that would be one person and one nature, setting aside the glory (positional in relation to man and God) for a time.

That Jesus had only one God-man nature is the position of the Greek Church as opposed to the Latin Church which held to two natures.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[1689Dave]

I believe problems arise when we leave "nature" undefined. Personally, I don't see Scripture lending itself to the idea that Jesus had two distinct natures (one human and one divine). Instead, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that God (the Logos) became flesh (one nature) and this by submission to the Father. So that would be one person and one nature, setting aside the glory (positional in relation to man and God) for a time.

The problem with this is that it denies Jesus Is God in person with a fully divine nature having all of God's attributes. And then taking on a fully human body and soul (mind) in the incarnation. That is, we are body, soul, and spirit. Jesus is body, soul, and God (Spirit).

 

[JonC]

The problem with this is that it denies Jesus Is God in person with a fully divine nature having all of God's attributes. And then taking on a fully human body and soul (mind) in the incarnation. That is, we are body, soul, and spirit. Jesus is body, soul, and God (Spirit).

It would except that it holds Jesus "set aside" those attributes rather than lost them. Jesus was/is God. However He did not see equality with God as something to be grasped and humbled himself in obedience to the Father. One person, one nature, in humble obedience to the Father even to the death of the cross.

 

[1689Dave]

It would except that it holds Jesus "set aside" those attributes rather than lost them. Jesus was/is God. However He did not see equality with God as something to be grasped and humbled himself in obedience to the Father. One person, one nature, in humble obedience to the Father even to the death of the cross.

Jesus did not set aside (stop being God) as stated in the Kenosis theory. He sometimes acted as God in his omniscience, and sometimes acted as man. He is body, soul, and Spirit (capital S). Not body, soul and spirit (small s).

 

[HankD]

Jesus did not set aside (stop being God) as stated in the Kenosis theory. He sometimes acted as God in his omniscience, and sometimes acted as man. He is body, soul, and Spirit (capital S). Not body, soul and spirit (small s).

hmm, to which "Kenosis" theory are you referring Dave?

...any theory that supposes that God the Son could cease to be what He ever has been and ever will be is error of the first magnitude.

Systematic Theology, Lewis Sperry Chafer;Vail-Ballou Press,1971; Volume I, pg.374 (The Kenosis).

 

[HankD]

I once heard this - The Kenosis can be viewed as a military stripping/lowering of rank.

When he came down from heaven He went from general to private.

He set aside his prerogatives of deity and used them at the will of the Father.

Philippians 2
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2 7 does not say that the father "emptied" Him but that He "emptied Himself" - It was voluntary.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Jesus did not set aside (stop being God)

True. But He also started being human as well.

He sometimes acted as God in his omniscience...

A careful reading of the gospels demonstrates that Jesus was not omniscient. He did not know the day or the hour of the final judgement, for instance. He operating in the gifting of the Spirit for knowledge beyond mere human capacity.

...and sometimes acted as man.

He always acted as a man.

 

[1689Dave]

True. But He also started being human as well.


A careful reading of the gospels demonstrates that Jesus was not omniscient. He did not know the day or the hour of the final judgement, for instance. He operating in the gifting of the Spirit for knowledge beyond mere human capacity.


He always acted as a man.

Jesus as the second person of the trinity did not know all that the Father knew. But remained omniscient because you cannot divide God into parts.