Was it possible for Jesus to sin? or, What makes a valid temptation?

[ServantofGod]

In my hermenuetics class last year, we discussed whether or not it were possible for Jesus, as the God-man, to have sinned. If it was, how can we reconcile this with Jesus' Divine Nature, if it was not, how were His temptations valid, in the sense that, can Someone who cannot be swayed by temptations, One who cannot(impossible to) sin, actually be tempted to sin. Our Biblical tension revolved around Christ's Divine nature and these two passages:

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.

Hebrews 2:17,18- Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.


What is temptation then?

 

[Gage Browning]

We have to somehow square Christ' impeccability when we do Christology.

He "did no sin" (1 Pet. 2:22), "in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8), He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21), He was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).

It is objected to the truth of Christ's impeccability that it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is argued, cannot be tempted to sin. As well might one reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked. "Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as His natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation, excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But His peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by these temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which He was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable" (W.G. Shedd, 1889).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

For a temptation to be "real" it should be sufficient that it has an apparent advantage or attraction. So, for example, Satan suggests to Jesus the opportunity to "inherit the world" but in a way that avoids the very real agonies of the cross. How could this not have obvious attraction?

If it be objected that Jesus knew there was a better (best) option available by obedience to God, therefore no other options held any attraction--I suggest that this view does not give due weight to the full Human Nature possessed by Jesus. The same objection could have been raised to Adam's sin. The same objection can be raised to the Christian's sin today. And even (to a much less degree) to the unregenerate in those cases where the "right" thing is plain and obvious, but people still choose the sinful option over one better.

No one who falls to temptation ever knows its "full" weight. Only those people who successfully resist a temptation know that temptation's full power. For they have exhausted its strength, and resisted. Jesus NEVER lost a battle.

 

[moral necessity]

Jesus' faculties of the mind, will, and affections, had an absolute zero bent towards anything other than the will of God. The only principle driving him was that of the Holy Spirit. He had no principle of sin driving his faculties in a contrary direction. His humanness allowed him to experience the "weakness of the flesh", (ie. hunger, thirst, tiredness, dislike of pain, etc...). But, he did not, nor could not, have had any fraction of his mind, will, or affections bent towards sin or temptations to sin. For, that would make him be an impure person, driven in two directions by two contrary principles, and therfore an impure sacrifice. For, purity extends to the depth of the principle that drives us; and Christ was only driven by one principle, unlike us, who are driven by two.

Blessings!

 

[Raj]

Was it possible for Jesus to sin? I want to learn on this too.

Yes or No? why please.

 

[Grymir]

Ravi Zacharias does a great job explaining this. I don't remember the name of the series he did on this (it's late, I'll try to find it and link here). He talks about how Jesus couldn't even think about doing it, as He would not be God if He did. This is a simplified statement, but the philosophy behind it is intriguing.

 

[Archlute]

I think that several persons in this thread are failing to appreciate the real interaction of Christ's human and divine natures. It is clear that, due to Christ's divinity, he could not actually fall into sin, but this does not mean that in his humanity he was a stoic victor. The orthodox view of Christs two wills (dyothelite) is clear in showing the struggle that Christ's person had in his human will, while yet being ultimately guided by his divine will. If Christ could not be tempted in a real and true way against which he had to put up a real internal struggle, then the author to the Hebrews could not be correct in stating that he actually suffered in temptation and can sympathize with us, having been tempted in every way that we are yet without sin (Heb. 2:18, 4:15). Being tempted as a true human means that he at least struggled with a contemplation of the "benefits" set before him of going outside of the will of the Father. If this were not so, he would have never wavered in the garden of Gethsemane.

For what it's worth, Ravi is an apologist, and not a theologian.

 

[moral necessity]

I think that several persons in this thread are failing to appreciate the real interaction of Christ's human and divine natures. It is clear that, due to Christ's divinity, he could not actually fall into sin, but this does not mean that in his humanity he was a stoic victor. The orthodox view of Christs two wills (dyothelite) is clear in showing the struggle that Christ's person had in his human will, while yet being ultimately guided by his divine will. If Christ could not be tempted in a real and true way against which he had to put up a real internal struggle, then the author to the Hebrews could not be correct in stating that he actually suffered in temptation and can sympathize with us, having been tempted in every way that we are yet without sin (Heb. 2:18, 4:15). Being tempted as a true human means that he at least struggled with a contemplation of the "benefits" set before him of going outside of the will of the Father. If this were not so, he would have never wavered in the garden of Gethsemane.

For what it's worth, Ravi is an apologist, and not a theologian.

Respectfully responding, two wills implies two people. We have one will, just as we have one mind and one heart (affections). The nature of man is made up of these three faculties, of which we have one of each, not two. Jonathan Edwards is very good at describing this in his Freedom of the Will. I'm not convinced that a two-will theory is orthodox. Perhaps a two-principle theory is what is meant by it. The nature is governed by a principle, or principles. This is where the difference resides between us and Christ, for he was only driven by the principle of the Spirit, and not a principle of sin; whereas we are driven by both. The similarity between us and Christ resides in his taking on flesh, yet his is Adam's flesh, as Adam had before he was governed by the principle of sin. Hence he is called the second Adam. His temptation was in regard to these weaknesses that accompany the flesh, just as Adam was tempted due to the same weaknesses. Yet his temptation was not like ours in its entirety, for we are not only tempted by having a weakness of flesh, but also by having a driving principle of sin within us. Chirst did not have this principle of sin within him, otherwise he would not have been a pure sacrifice, nor would he have been a second Adam. So, he was tempted in all ways like us, yet without sin (ie. not "without sinning"); meaning, yet without having the sinful principle within him that we have within us.

Blessings!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Respectfully responding, two wills implies two people... I'm not convinced that a two-will theory is orthodox.

No. Two wills implies two natures. "Persons ACT. Natures ARE." There is nothing strange about two wills acting in harmony. Your will and my will can be two wills acting in harmony. If your will is subservient to my will, or is guided by my will, that doesn't make it any less your will. The unique thing about Jesus is that it was one Person having two wills, each according to its nature: one human, the other divine.

That is orthodoxy. And for your conviction that it is so, may I suggest reading a competent historian on the Monothelite controversy/heresy of the early church?

Peace.

 

[Gryphonette]

No, He couldn't have sinned.

In my hermenuetics class last year, we discussed whether or not it were possible for Jesus, as the God-man, to have sinned. If it was, how can we reconcile this with Jesus' Divine Nature, if it was not, how were His temptations valid, in the sense that, can Someone who cannot be swayed by temptations, One who cannot(impossible to) sin, actually be tempted to sin. Our Biblical tension revolved around Christ's Divine nature and these two passages:

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.

Hebrews 2:17,18- Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.


What is temptation then?

Unless one believes that people - including Christ - are born with a neutral will, so that one becomes a sinner through sinning, then no, Christ could not have sinned, for He did not possess a sin nature.

The general Reformed position is that we sin because we are sinners, i.e. possessing a sin nature, as opposed to being sinners because we sin. Sin wells up from inside of us.

As James said, "Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" Jesus was a pure spring, being the perfect reflection of His perfect Father.

Unless the Father possesses a desire to sin, then His Son cannot possess a desire to sin.

There are two ways to be tempted:

1. desiring something we do not currently possess
2. having something held out to us as a lure

I love chocolate. Love it. Yum. I'm especially fond of dark-chocolate pecan turtle candies. Double yum! Sometimes I'm almost incoherent with longing to eat them, and am tempted to go buy a box. I don't possess them, but I want them.

OTOH, you can "tempt" me with shrimp cocktail, but since I loathe shrimp, it doesn't operate on me as a temptation by creating a sense of longing and/or deprivation. Still, I've been tempted in the sense that someone used shrimp cocktail as "bait."

Those times when Jesus felt temptation, you may be sure the object of His temptation was not sinful. Doesn't mean it wasn't strong, however! He could be hungry, thirsty, tired, and so on, and find the means to fulfill those desires most attractive.

But to "tempt" Him with a sinful action was a waste of time, as sin was abhorrent to Him. Someone could try to "tempt Him" with one, but the temptation never triggered a desire within Him to sin.

 

[moral necessity]

Respectfully responding, two wills implies two people... I'm not convinced that a two-will theory is orthodox.

No. Two wills implies two natures. "Persons ACT. Natures ARE." There is nothing strange about two wills acting in harmony. Your will and my will can be two wills acting in harmony. If your will is subservient to my will, or is guided by my will, that doesn't make it any less your will. The unique thing about Jesus is that it was one Person having two wills, each according to its nature: one human, the other divine.

That is orthodoxy. And for your conviction that it is so, may I suggest reading a competent historian on the Monothelite controversy/heresy of the early church?

Peace.

Thanks for the response and the suggested book. I'd enjoy reading it. In my mind, I have seemed to view each person having one nature, comprised of it's respective faculites of the mind, will, and affections. You've opened a new door, however, in my understanding and research of this. I stand corrected, for the two-will theory is orthodox, as it was agreed upon since the Council of Chalcedon. I read some on it after seeing your post. It explains the incarnation of Christ, for him to be both fully man and fully God. The concept of it seems to be still debated, however, yet agreed upon as the best explanation of something that is hard to grasp, namely the incarnation of Christ. If the two-will theory is true, it brings up a lot more questions in my mind to now resolve. First, I would think it ought to be properly called the "two-nature" theory. For, if the nature is comprised of the faculites of the understanding, will, and affections, then the will is not the only thing that Christ has two of. He also had two understandings and two affections. Yet, none of those of his human nature would have been corrupted with sin. Also, since Peter says that we have become partakers of the divine nature, I guess we have two natures now also. Yet, there are scriptures that tell us to "renew our minds", as if we have one mind or understanding that we are to work on restoring and renewing. And, if we have two minds, it would seem to make more sense to me that Paul would rather tell us to not renew the old, but to build up the new. I have much to think on. In the mean time, see if you agree that the nature is comprised of faculties, of which the will is one. And, if Christ had two natures, then he had more than just two wills. He would also have two of all of the other faculties that comprise the nature.

Blessings!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Indeed, there was an earlier controversy regarding the two natures of Christ. It was earlier than the Monothelite, and in some respects the latter was an outgrowth of it.

We refer to the earlier controversy, or rather its settlement, under the terms of the Chalcedonian Creed, which includes an expression that goes something like the WCF's language: "two natures, in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion, forever." (See WCF 8.2, and WSC 21, WLC 36).

 

[Amazing Grace]

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


The Roman Catholic Church Condemned Pope Honorius I as a Heretic

Here are good articles about this heresey.