|
THE
IMPECCABILITY OF JESUS CHRIST
Dr. O.M. Samuel
Could Jesus Christ Sin? All evangelical scholars
affirm that Christ did not Sin. But the question is whether He
could have sinned. The problem centres on the question of
Christ’s susceptibility to Sin. Theologically the question is
whether the Saviour is posse non peccare (able not to
sin) or non posse peccare (not able to Sin).
Peccability refers to Christ’s being liable to or prone to sin
and impeccability speaks of his being not liable to sin and
being incapable of sinning.
During the Arian controversy of the fourth century
two Greek words were brought before the religious world. They
were homo ousion (the same substance) and homoi
ousion (of similar substance). The only difference between
the two words was one Greek letter I (Iota) but what a
great difference it made in the Biblical concept of the person
of Jesus Christ. Arianism, a heretical doctrine taught by
Arius, was the doctrine that Jesus Christ was not of the
substance or essence with the Father. Athanasius on the other
hand declared that Jesus Christ was of the same substance with
the Father. Constantine the Great was so moved by the
controversy that he authorised a council to consider the
question of Christ’s person. A synod was convened in
Alexandria for the examination of Arianism. Arius was
condemned and expelled by nearly 100 pastors and bishops.
There is another controversy over the person of
Christ in the twentieth century. It too involves two words:
impeccability and peccability. Impeccability means Christ
couldn’t Sin and peccability means He could
Sin.
 [Back
to Top]
A. Arguments for
Christ’s Peccability
Three arguments are given in support of the
peccability of Jesus Christ. Since Christ temptations were
genuine He had to be peccable, since Christ was truly human he
had to be peccable, and since Christ as the second Adam
corresponds to the first Adam he had to be peccable.
[Back
to Top]
1. The temptation of
Christ
The Scriptures make it clear that the Saviour was
indeed tempted. “The Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the
wilderness to be tempted by the devil” (Matt. 4:5); “For we do
not have a high priest who cannot sympathise with our weakness
but one who has been tempted in all things as we are yet
without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Therefore on the basis of the
reality of His temptations some conclude that for the
temptations to be genuine He must have been capable of
sinning. If a person has no susceptibility to sin or if sin
has no appeal for Him the temptation is a farce.
Several answers may be given to this argument.
Firstly, the Greek word to tempt does not mean to induce evil.
The word peirazo means to try, make a trial of put to
test. According to Homer the basic idea is to make proof. Thus
the word came to signify the trying intentionally with the
purpose of discovering what of good or evil of power or
weakness was in a person or thing (Matt. 16:1; 19:3; 22:18; I
Kings 10:1). God tried Abraham (Heb. 11:17; Gen. 22:1) but he
did not tempt Abraham. The word tempt of Gen. 22:1 should be
tried or tested because God cannot be tempted with evil.
Because of this Job could declare in the midst of his
temptation “But he knows the way I take when he has tried me I
shall come forth as gold (Job 23:10). Surely the Saviour was
proven assayed tested in all the circumstances and ways in
which man is tested and he was shown to be impeccable.
Secondly, temptation to sin does not necessitate
susceptibility to sin. As Walvoord stated “It is possible for
a row boat to attack a battleship even though it is
conceivably impossible for the row boat to conquer the
battleship.” The idea that temptability implies susceptibility
is unsound while the temptation may be real, there may be
infinite power to resist that temptation and if that power is
infinite the person is impeccable. Certainly the temptations
of Jesus Christ were real and strenuous. While His temptations
were similar to those of ordinary human beings they were
infinitely greater in magnitude. When an object is tested to
determine its strength or character the testing ends once the
point of breaking is reached. As the Almighty One, Jesus would
have endured beyond what frail weak men can even
comprehend.
Thirdly, temptatbility does not rule act one’s
ability to sympathise with others. Could Jesus associate with
man’s weaknesses if he had no possibility of succumbing to his
temptations? Hodge who believed that Christ
could sin says no: “If from the constitution of His person it
was impossible for Christ to sin then His temptation was
unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathise with His
people.” However the ability to sympathise is unrelated to
susceptibility to sin. A person not involved in some sin can
give help and compassion to another person in that sin. In
fact he can do so more capably than someone who has been
enticed by it. If one is drawn into sin he is less able than
others to comfort and succor. Thus Christ is the only one who
can most adequately and completely aid and console believers
where they face attacks by Satan.
Must Christ in order to sympathising with man be
inwardly polluted by sin? Certainly not because Scriptures
affirm both His sympathising ability (Heb. 4:15) and His total
absence of any taint of sin. Though he was a man he was not
sinner (Rom. 8:3). He was without sin (Heb. 4:15); He knew no
sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and in Him there was no sin [darkness] (I
John 1:5). Man is tempted when he is carried away and enticed
by his own lust (James I:14) but such was not true of Christ.
To suggest that Christ had to have an inward struggle with
lustful desires that reside within sinful man is totally
foreign to the Scriptures.
[Back
to Top]
2. The humanity of Christ
Those who believe Christ was capable of sinning
seek to support their view from His humanity. Hodge states
“This sinlessness of our Lord however does not amount to
absolute impeccabiltiy. It was not a non posse peccare.
If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. In
responding to this argument one must first be careful to
establish and maintain the Biblical teaching concerning the
humanity of Christ. The Scriptures do provide abundant
testimony that he was genuinely human and was there by subject
to the sinless limitations that are associated with true
humanity. He grew (Luke 2:25), hungered (Matt. 4:2), slept
(Matt. 8:24-25), was tired (John 4:6), thirsted (John 19:28),
had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), and died (I Cor.
15:20).
However, one must remember that the Scriptures also
affirm His deity. In the incarnation the eternal son of God
was inseparably united to an unfallen human nature. Thus He is
unique from all other men not only in that He was kept from
the consequences of Adam’s sin in His perfect humanity but
also in that He was the God-Man. Christ’s holy human nature
was not peccable. How could it be peccable since it was wholly
the work of God? One may argue that Adam was solely the work
of God but he fell. Adam was created upright but mutable. One
must never think of Adam’s human nature apart from the
mutability of his person. On the other hand the human nature
of Christ was immutable. Thus we have the mutability of Adam
versus the immutability of Jesus Christ. Further more we have
the difference between man and the God-Man. The foundation of
Christ’s person was His divine nature not His human nature. He
was the God-Man and not man-God.
It is divine nature and not the human which is the
basis of Christ’s person. The second trinitarian person is the
root and stock into which the human nature is grafted. The
wild olive is grafted into the good olive and partakes of its
root and fullness. He is from everlasting to everlasting,
conscious of himself as distinct from the Father and from the
Holy Spirit. He did not acquire personality by union with a
human nature. The incarnation was not necessary in order that
the trinitarian Son of God might be self-conscious. On the
contrary the human nature which He assumed to Himself acquired
personality by its union with Him. Therefore statements one
may make about what the humanity of Christ could or could not
do must always be determined by his understanding of the
theanthropic person. This understanding of the person of Jesus
Christ is essential to evaluate adequately the argument that
since Jesus Christ was human he had to be peccable. Succumbing
to sin or susceptibility to sin is a reality for a person but
not for a nature. It is the person, the rational being, who
sins against God. Man is a sinner and therefore sins. The
person, not just a nature within the person, is held
accountable for sin. Thus it is wrong in suggesting that
Christ could sin because he possessed a human nature. Instead
one must ask what the person of Jesus Christ can do. He
possessed a genuine sinless human nature and as a person He
was impeccable. To state anything else is to impugn the
character of God. As Chafer stated “Since this bond of union
which unites Christ’s two natures for He is one person
is so complete the humanity of Christ could not sin. Should
His humanity sin God would sin.”
[Back
to Top]
3. The headship of
Christ
A third argument used to support the peccability of
Jesus Christ is his correspondence with Adam. Some argue that
since Christ the second Adam corresponds to the first Adam, He
had to be peccable.
The Scriptures do state the Jesus Christ has a
correspondence to the first Adam. Yet that correspondence does
not imply nor demand peccability. Adam was the head over all
humanity and Christ is the head over the redeemed humanity.
Adam was created in holiness without the inward compulsion
toward sin that now characterises his progeny and so Jesus
Christ came in holiness without any taint of sin. Adam was
given every natural faculty which constituted him human as one
reflecting the image of the true God also. Christ possessed
every natural faculty of true humanity as on perfectly
manifesting God himself. But those promoting Christ’s
peccability add that for Jesus Christ to be a true
representative for man He also had to be free to choose
between good and evil. They say if He were impeccable, He
would have no real choice and He would thereby no longer be a
proper substitute for man. Thus from this theological
perspective it is implied and only through a mutable will is
one able to be free in his choice or actions. Therefore it is
argued that Jesus Christ had to be peccable.
The error in such an argument involves more than an
evaluation of Christ’s impeccability. It is also reveals a
misunderstanding of true moral freedom and the operation of
man’s will.
Moral freedom is not based on opportunities to
choose between good and evil or right and wrong. Rather it is
found in the ability to determine what is good and right
without any coercion toward evil. In an ultimate sense this
God alone is free. He alone has neither taint of sin within
nor in word compulsion urging him away from what is good.
Obviously that is not so with fallen men. They are carried
away by their own lust (James 1:14) and because of sin within
they are unable to do the good they know they should perform
(Rom. 7:18-20). If the Son sets a man free he is free indeed
(John 8:32). Thus moral freedom for the saviour does not
necessitate Peccability.
Those believing in peccability reason that if He
were impeccable He could not be a moral agent in the same
sense as man, since His will was infallibly inclined to
holiness. Yet is such an evaluation valid? Is it not also true
that the freedom of man’s volition is seen only in
relationship to external pressures? The will cannot be free
from an individual’s basic constitution. All men exercise
their wills in accordance with their moral nature. Thus though
their choices are free, they are still determined with
certainty based on men’s character. In the same way God
Himself while immutable is a moral agent. It is the same with
the Lord Jesus Christ. His moral actions were based on the
uncoerced decisions of His will acting within the confines of
His impeccable nature. As God, Christ is certain to do only
good and yet He is a moral agent. He need not have the
capacity to sin.
[Back
to Top]
B. Arguments
for Christ’s impeccability
1. His
deity
The Scriptures by affirming Christ’s deity also
affirm His impeccability. As God Himself it is not possible
for him to sin.
He cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13). In fact sin it
self is abhorrent to him. He finds only
holiness and righteousness his chief delight
(Ps. 45:6-7, Heb. 1:1-3).
[Back
to Top]
2. His unique
person
The uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ
establishes His impeccability. He was the eternal Son who took
to Himself a perfect human nature (Is. 9:6; John 1:1-14; Heb.
1:1-6; 10:5; I John 1:1-3). This hypostatic union of the
divine nature and the human nature welded them together in an
inseparable bond within His one person without altering His
essential essence. Thus the God-Man always expressed the
determinative will of the eternal word and thereby was
impeccable.
[Back
to Top]
3. His Omnipotent
desire
The chief desire of the Lord Jesus Christ with His
omnipotent capability to perform that desire assures his
impeccability. His chief desire was to do the will of the
Father. “Then I said, behold I have come (in the roll of the
book it is written of me) to do thy will O God (Heb. 10:7).
The Psalm from which this quotation was taken emphasises that
the Saviour not only was determined to do the Father’s will
but also delighted to do it “I delight to do thy will, O my
God, thy law is within my heart” (Ps. 40:8).
Jesus declared that he always does the Father’s
will. For example “My food is to do the will of Him who sent
me and to accomplish His work” (John 4:34). The desires’
delights and motivations of the Lord Jesus Christ would also
have a determinative power over His will as is true with any
moral creature. In His case since His motivation and delight
were eternal, he would be impeccable. He had no inner desire
for or compulsion toward sin.
[Back
to Top]
4. His submission
to the divine will
God’s eternal plan assures the impeccability of the
Saviour. The Father’s will for the Son was His sacrificial
death to secure the eternal salvation of mankind. He
experienced sorrow and suffering but not sin (Is. 53:2-3). As
Shedd states “The Logos could consent suffering in a human
nature but not to sin in a human nature.” The God man was
commissioned to suffer (John 10:18) but was not commissioned
to sin. In contrast to sinful and helpless man the Saviour
must be sinless and mighty in order to keep His people from
stumbling and to present them before the throne of His glory
without any spot or taint of sin (Jude 24). Thus the eternal
plan of God assures that Christ must be impeccable.
[Back
to Top]
5. His personal
declaration
Christ himself declared that
He was unable to sin. When he healed the
paralysed man he demonstrated his ability to do
what only God can do, namely forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12). While
addressing the nation at the Feast of Tabernacles He asserted
his
righteousness: “he who speaks from himself seeks his own glory
but he who is seeking the glory of the one who sent him, he is true and there
is no unrighteousness in Him (John 7:18). As He was debating
with the religious leaders He affirmed his righteous
character and also his distinction from
sinful man. He said, “He who sent me is with me; he has not left me
alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him” (John 8:29); “If
I say that I do not Know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but
I do Know him,
and keep his
word” (John 8:55). Then speaking to Thomas concerning eternal
life he said “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one
comes to the father but through me (John 14:6). He was a
witness to truth and also truth itself. Yes, He is none other
than the infallible, inerrant, invincible truth of God which
cannot be broken nor rendered void. He is the impeccable
Saviour who saves his people from their
sins.
[Back
to Top]
Conclusion
Could Jesus Christ have sinned? When a child of God
asked that question he can take comfort in the fact that the
Scriptures declare that the God-Man is an impeccable Saviour.
Because he as
God was incapable of sinning. he is able to save
completely all who came to God through him (Heb. 7:25). When
on earth He was the same as He was in eternity past-the
sinless eternal Son of God. Therefore he is able to keep
those who trust him. As the lamb of God He is
worthy to receive all praise, honour, glory and power (Rev.
5:13).
[Back
to Top] | 
