|
 
         
|
|
V. Impeccability of Christ
Could Christ Sin Or Even Be Tempted?
[Who Do You Say I Am? by Edward E. Stevens]
One person who has doubts about the Deity of Christ
raised this objection, Since Jesus was really tempted, he could not be God, because
God cannot be tempted. This is a very important observation that obviously does have
a direct bearing on Christs Deity. In response, we must suggest that if Jesus could
really be tempted, it would seemingly imply that it was possible for Him to sin. And if it
was possible for Him to sin, Satan would absolutely have found a way to make him. No mere
man has ever been able to resist the temptations of the flesh. Since Jesus lived sinless,
it implies that it was impossible for him to sin. This is what we call the doctrine of
impeccability. Christ was impeccable. It was not possible for Him to have sinned. I know
how this sounds the first time a person hears it. It is startling, but nevertheless true
and necessary. If Jesus was peccable (fallible, able to sin) then he was not God, and
therefore was a creature prone to sin. And He certainly would have sinned like all other
humans have. A sinless life speaks volumes about WHO Christ is.
The questions we need to address here are: Does man just have a tendency or weakness
toward sin, or is it actually impossible for him not to sin because of the sin nature? Is
it really possible for any man to completely overcome temptation and never sin, or is it
guaranteed that every man will fall? How does the sin nature affect mankind? Did Jesus
have a sin nature? Was He subject to this weakness to temptation and sin that all other
men have?
The key factor in a study of the temptation of Christ is the virgin birth. What does
the virgin birth tell us about the nature of Christ? In what way does the virgin birth
define Jesus nature? And how does this nature affect His exposure to temptation and
sin? Was His temptation any different than ours as a result of the virgin birth?
It was already predicted that Christ would overcome sin and death. He could not fail.
It was impossible for Him to sin. There was never any possibility that Jesus could have
sinned. Temptation did not have the same effect on Christ as it does for us, because Jesus
was more than just a man. Temptation was different for Christ, because Christ was
different than other men. The question is, in what way is Christ different? Is it because
it was impossible for Jesus to be tempted, or is it rather because it was possible
for Him to resist the temptation and refuse to be affected by it as well as completely
overcome it. Which of these two ideas is the better explanation? It seems clear that
Jesus was tempted, but the question is how and at what level?
Did Christ have something to overcome temptation that we did not have, or is it just
that he did not have what we have (a sin nature) which makes it impossible for us not to
sin? In addition to not having a sin nature Christ did have something that we dont
have. This explains why He could be tempted and yet not be affected by it. He already knew
what was coming at Him and what He was going to do. But this didnt lessen the pain
He would feel. This didnt make His physical body any stronger. His flesh was weak,
but His spirit was not only willing but impeccable and absolutely in control and unable to
give in, even though He felt the whole fury of it and dreaded it just like any human
would. He knew what He was going to do, but that doesnt mean He didnt feel it
in all its reality and understand what humans go through. He suffered through it. He knows
what we go through. He is a God who really understands and cares. Oh, what a Savior!
Jesus had something in place of what we get from our earthly fathers. Not only did he
NOT have the weak sin nature that all other men get, but He had the Divine nature that
none of us have. And all because He had a Divine Father and not an earthly father. The
virgin birth provides the basis for this. This explains why Jesus could not sin. Christ
lacked the fleshly nature that would have made Him vulnerable to temptation, and had
instead the Divine Nature which is totally impeccable and unaffected by temptation. Only a
God-man could accomplish this.
The problem we must face is, if Jesus COULD sin, He most assuredly would have. No mere
human subjected to temptation has ever been able to resist. The spirit is willing, but the
flesh is weak. Temptation reigns in that area. No man has escaped. But since we know Jesus
did not sin, the only logical implication is that He was not exactly like us in every
respect, especially in the are of our sin nature. There was some way in which He was
different (Heb. 4:15; John 14:30), because if He was like humans in every respect and was
nothing more or less than human, then He WOULD have fallen prey to the full effects of
human temptation (sin). No mere human is able to resist it. But all of us would agree that
Jesus was not just a mere man. We all know He was different. The question is in what way?
But, one does not have to sin or even be able to sin in order to feel the force of
temptation. The word translated temptation just means to test or try. Just because an army
is unbeatable doesnt mean it wont be tested. And there would be fools who
would try to tempt/test/try Jesus to see if they could make Him stumble. Not only Satan,
but the Pharisees, Sadducees and rulers and the people of the Jews were constantly testing
Jesus, even though He knew what they were thinking and what they were up to. There was
never the slightest chance of Him giving in. But just because He could not sin
doesnt mean He could not feel the heat of their incessant and intense testing. His
fleshly body sweat drops like blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, and felt the slice of the
whip, the sting of the slap, the blows to the body, the sleeplessness, the torture of the
crucifixion and the ridicule of the crowds. God can feel all those things, but He is not
overcome by them the same way we are. Jesus knew what He had to do. His flesh may have
been just as weak as any mans, but His Spirit was more than just willing, it was
overwhelmingly invincible and impeccable, because His Spirit was not just a mere human
spirit.
These two passages clearly affirm that Jesus was sinless:
(Heb. 4:15) For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses,
but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
(John 14:30) "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is
coming, and he has nothing in Me;
And these passages show why Jesus could live a sinless life and did:
(John 5:19) Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say
to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the
Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like
manner.
(Acts 2:24) And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death,
since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
If Jesus was truly only following exactly (in like manner) what He saw
the Father doing, and doing nothing of Himself, then He could not
sin. But what mere man or created being could do that? Only someone who had the same
nature and attributes as God could live sinlessly like that. It was impossible
for Hades to hold Jesus because He was sinless it was impossible for Him to sin.
The term impeccability of Christ refers simply to the inability of Christ
to sin. The doctrine of impeccability teaches that Christ lived a sinless life in the
flesh because it was impossible for Him to have sinned. He was impeccable. Aside from the
significant amount of scripture which teaches it, there is a strong and well-developed
belief in Christs impeccability throughout the early church. But it is not uncommon
for saints today to be confused on this issue, so it doesnt surprise me when I
receive letters from those who deny the Deity of Christ asserting that Christ was
able to sin. Their argument is basically as follows: (emphasis mine, ees)
We know God cannot sin, so if Jesus is God, he could not have sinned. We know he
didnt sin, but that doesnt tell us whether it was possible for him to sin or
not. If it was possible for him to have sinned, then he could not be God, because it is
impossible for God to sin. So, the Deity of Christ turns on whether it was possible for
Christ to have sinned. And it seems like Jesus must have been able to sin, because the
Gospels do record a temptation of Christ by Satan. How could Jesus be tempted in any
real sense if it was impossible for him to sin? He must have been able to give in to that
temptation, or it would not have been a real temptation. Since we know he was really
tempted, he must have been able to sin, and therefore could not have been God (since God
can neither sin nor even be tempted).
This argument sounds good at first hearing. And it does pinpoint one of the crucial
issues involved in the Deity of Christ. If it could be proven that Jesus was able to sin,
the doctrine of the Deity of Christ would indeed have to be reconsidered. But on the other
side of the coin, if it can be proven that Christ could NOT have sinned, then He has to be
God (since God is the only one who cannot sin, man is NOT impeccable). So, the Deity of
Christ does indeed turn on this issue. And, fortunately there is a lot of Biblical
material to help us in our examination of it. It is an undeniable Biblical fact that Jesus
did not sin. This necessitates the idea that He therefore was unable to sin.
The querist above makes at least two assumptions which must be challenged, which are:
The word temptation only has one meaning, and that meaning is to
lure and bait someone to do something that is wrong.
Temptation is not a real temptation unless the person being tempted is able to
sin. If someone is really tempted, then it is possible for them to sin. If they cannot
sin, they can never really be tempted.
The Meaning of
Tempt
The basic meaning of the words translated
tempt in the Bible is to test or try. In both the Hebrew (OT)
scriptures and the Greek (NT) scriptures there are at least two different words which are
translated tempt. The OT Hebrew words are bachan (usually rendered dokimazo
in the Septuagint) and nasah/masah (always rendered by peirazo or one of its
compounds in the Septuagint). Nasah/masah is the more common of the two which means to
test by the smell or subject it to testing in order to try it or prove its
quality or nature. Bachan similarly means to examine, try, scrutinize. The NT
uses peiro (and derivatives) and dokimazo. Peiro is more commonly used. Its
root meaning was to pierce or search into, make an experience of, attempt. It
gradually came to mean to intentionally try to discover what of good or evil, of
power or weakness, existed in a person or thing. Dokimazo is not always synonymous
with peirazo, but it usually means testing in order to approve. The test or
trial is given intentionally in order to prove the strength, quality or value
of someone or something. So, it is easy to see that these words do not always (nor even
mostly) mean to lure and bait someone to do something that is wrong. They are
used more often to mean simply a test or trial of someone to
discover their character or nature. The temptation, test or trial does not
necessarily imply anything about whether something is infallible or not. So, the first
assumption listed above is obviously incorrect.
The fallacy of the second assumption can be seen in the simple illustration of an
impregnable fortress. Just because a fort is unassailable doesnt mean no one will
ever attack it and test it to see. There will always be a fool to try. So Jesus can very
well be infallible, but Satan either didnt know that, or wasnt convinced of
it, so he had to try. The purpose of the test (or temptation) is to find out the strength,
character or nature of someone. It makes no assumptions about whether it will pass the
test or not. The person giving the test may strongly desire his subject to flunk the test,
and may even believe that the subject will buckle under trial, but that doesnt mean
the subject will fail just because someone else believes he will and wants him to. And we
can safely assume that Satan tried his best to get Jesus to fall. Satan obviously believed
Christ could sin, or he would not have tested him. And it is just as obvious that Satan
didnt know what kind of person and character he was dealing with. Satan tried to
lure and bait Jesus into sin. Had he known that Jesus was God, he would never have tempted
Him. And if Jesus was just a man or created being He would surely have succumbed to
Satans temptation. It wasnt just luck or an unusual amount of moral character
that enabled Jesus to resist the temptation. If Jesus had not had the nature of God, He
would never have been able to resist temptation. Satan threw everything he had at Jesus.
So, the second assumption made by our querists above is also invalid.
But all we have proven here is that it is possible for Christ to be infallible and
impeccable Deity, even though Satan will try to test Him. We still have not shown why the
temptation is an argument for the Deity of Christ instead of an argument against it. Since
no mere human can resist temptation, the fact that Jesus successfully resisted and
overcame temptation, demands that he must be God.
And we cant use Satans ignorance and delusion as evidence for Christs
fallibility. So, the temptation of Christ was a very real attempt by Satan to lure and
bait Jesus into sin, but it was an ignorant and delusionary attempt. Satan just did not
understand Who he was dealing with. It was simply a testing and discovery process. Satan
was trying to find out the character of the Person he was dealing with, and trying to make
the Messiah sin and be under Satans domain.
What is interesting here is that man has attempted to lure and bait God into doing
things against His will before, but from Gods perspective it was not a temptation to
Him in the slightest. He cannot sin. The temptation has no effect. There is nothing that
could even remotely tempt Him to change His will. But that doesnt mean men
wont try. And just because they try doesnt mean it is possible for Him to sin.
Men have tested and tried and tempted God on many occasions, but by His very nature God is
absolutely unaffected by those tests. He cannot sin. The temptations against Jesus fell
flat to the ground. No mere man could have resisted, but Jesus did resist, so He must be
more than just a mere man. In fact, He must be Deity in some direct sense in order to
never sin.
Because of His Divine conception and virgin birth, Christ did not have a sin nature. He
was not vulnerable to Satans temptations. Or, as Christ Himself said it, ...for
the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. (John 14:30,
emphasis mine, ees) Satan had no way to get inside Christ. All temptations of Christ
merely bounced off on the outside. They never touched Him inside like they do to all other
humans (cf. Jas. 1:13-15). This must have been very bewildering to Satan. This was the
first human being he could gain no mastery over. And you can guarantee that if Jesus was
able to sin Satan would have found a way to bait and lure Him into it. Jesus had fasted
for forty days, during which time Satan had already been constantly tempting Him. At the
end of that period, just when Jesus was at His weakest and most vulnerable time
physically, Satan threw out the most powerful and compelling temptations a man could ever
face. Jesus didnt hesitate, or have to think about it and get back to Satan
He immediately composed His rejections of Satans offers in scripture quotations.
There was never the slightest hint of hesitation or of being influenced by Satans
bait. Satan had no advantage over Him whatsoever (John 14:30). No man can make that same
claim. Jesus was definitely different.
But, it was a real temptation from Satans perspective. Satan made a real effort
to lure Jesus into sin. And Jesus humanity made it possible for Him to feel the
temptation on the outside without being affected by it on the inside. Jesus lack of
a sin nature and the advantage of a Divine Nature enabled Him not to be vulnerable to
Satans lures, and totally able to remain sinless. It was impossible for Christ to
sin because it is impossible for Him to be tempted on the inside like we are. There was
nothing inside Christ that Satan could leverage against Him.
Robert Bowman had this to say about Jesus temptation: ...Jesus was tempted.
But Trinitarians do not believe that his temptation derived in any sense from his divine
nature, but rather was a result of his living as a human being in a corrupt world where
temptations abound. Thus God, as God, cannot be tempted: but Jesus, who is both God
and man, as man and living in a fallen earth, was tempted. (Why You Should
Believe In The Trinity, by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Page 75)
The passages which say no one has seen God at any time (John 1:18) and
no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven (John 3:13)
state very clearly that Jesus is the only one who has done those two things. This not only
affirms a pre-existence with the Father, but necessitates the idea of pure sinlessness
in order to be in the presence of God originally and in order to ascend back into the
presence of God after His incarnation. Only God has that kind of sinlessness and holiness.
Yet Jesus was worthy! (cf. Rev. 5) Jesus was impeccable just like His Father.
The Day Satan Met
Jesus Summary of the Book
One of the best and briefest treatments of the
doctrine of the impeccability of Christ is found in the book, The Day Satan Met Jesus,
subtitled The temptation of Christ cast, action and effects of the wilderness
drama, written by William L. Banks. Below I have summarized some of the more
relevant material in the book.
The Devils Description from Scripture
Satan is a real person and is a deceiver, provoker, enticer,
adversary, enemy, opponent, resister, accuser, tempter, etc. He really exists. But he is
not omniscient, nor is he on a par with God. He is just a creature, finite and limited. He
knew no more about the redemptive plan of God than the Jews did. There is no proof Satan
understood the nature of Jesus. He did not understand who he was dealing with.
The Devils Intentions
Satan was not trying to keep Christ from the cross, but
rather was trying to put Christ on it. He thought by killing Christ one more son of David
would die childless without fulfilling the Davidic promises. But God used Satans
desire to kill Christ to accomplish the plan of redemption. Satan didnt realize the
cross would defeat his own cause. From the Garden of Eden he had known there would be a
seed of woman who would defeat him. Satan never forgot Gods promise to crush his
head, but he evidently never quite grasped just how God would do it. Every time a likely
seed appeared on the scene, Satan immediately sought to either corrupt or kill
him. From the way he went about having Cain kill Abel and throwing stumbling blocks in the
way of the rest of the Messianic seed line to make them sin and fall, it is apparent that
Satan knew some things about what God was trying to do. But how much did he know?
Satan knew that a Holy God had to punish sin, and so if he could make men sin he could
at least slow down or hinder Gods plan of redemption. He opposed Gods plan all
the way through Biblical history. And he must have suspected something related to the
scheme of redemption was happening when virgin Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
But evidently Satan did not understand the nature of the virgin born Son of God. He knew
Jesus was to be the Messiah, but how well he understood what the nature of that Son of God
was to be is not so clear. This was a new unique thing. Nothing like Christ had ever
appeared before. Satan did not know who he was dealing with. And it must have confused him
when Jesus didnt fall for fleshly and materialistic temptations like all of
Davids other sons had. Satans intentions were always to hinder the plan of God
to restore man back to His fellowship. But just how ignorant of Gods real intentions
and methods was he?
Satans Ignorance
Satan is not God, so he is not omniscient. There were many
things he did not understand until after they happened. Unless something was written down
or verbalized or demonstrated in some observable way, Satan did not know what was going on
in the heart of a man. He cannot read our minds like God can. And he certainly didnt
know what was going on in the mind and plan of God. Those things were hidden from the
foundation of the world so Satan could not discover them. Only those who were taught of
the Lord and who were spiritual in their appraisal of things were able to discern some of
what God was doing and how (1 Cor. 2:11-16). And Peter said it was still difficult (2 Pet.
3:16). It seems certain therefore that Satan did not know that Jesus was God incarnate. It
was a mystery (1 Tim. 3:16) neither expected nor even suspected by him. There
are certain things he could probably forecast as likely, but he seems never to have
suspected that he was dealing with Someone who could not sin. You would think he would
have learned something from the temptation, but the text says that Satan only departed
from him until another opportune time. Satan rushed headlong trying at every opportunity
to kill or seduce or discredit or disqualify Christ to no avail. When enticing Christ by
materialistic wealth and power didnt work he tried to frighten Christ by the
prospect of the cross. He kept on trying, believing to the very last that he could somehow
trip Christ up and make Him sin. When he couldnt make Him sin, he decided to just
kill him instead. Satan was directly involved in Judas betrayal of Christ (Lk. 22:3;
Jn. 13:2, 27). If Satan even had the slightest idea that the cross was in the plan of God
he would never have set the crucifixion up. The cross must have been one of the most
gleeful moments in his sadistic career, until he realized that he had nothing
on Christ (Jn. 14:30). That meant Christ was not bound by Satan. Christ could invade
Satans domain and rob him of everything and go right back out again untouched,
taking all of Satans captives with Him (Mt. 12:29; Lk. 11:21,22). The death of
Christ was the doorway into the strong mans house, and Jesus plundered it all. That
was definitely an enlightening event in his dark domain. Hes still reeling from the
impact. He will be scratching his head for eternity trying to figure out why he
didnt realize Who Jesus was. He should have known that no mere man could resist
every temptation for a whole lifetime and never sin. He should have realized it at the
temptation in the wilderness. He should have realized that the only way for Jesus to have
not fallen into sin was by having a Divine nature. Satan tempted Jesus, not because Jesus
was able to sin, but because Satan was ignorant of how God was working out His redemptive
plan.
The Holy Spirits Role in the Temptation
The Holy Spirit was fully involved in every aspect of Jesus
life from the conception in Marys womb (Lk. 1:35), the baptism in the Jordan by John
(Lk. 3:22), to the death on the cross and the resurrection (Lk. 23:46; 1 Pet. 3:18). Luke
says that after his baptism by John, Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from
the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness. (Lk. 4:1) The spirit
was with Him during the whole time during His fast in the wilderness. This was a much more
direct influence on His life than the indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit ever
was for the early church after Pentecost. The Holy Spirit had overshadowed Mary and caused
her to conceive Jesus. The Holy Spirit (God Himself) was in Jesus life in a direct
way. The virgin birth proves the power of the Holy Spirit was there in a much more direct
and powerful way than anyone else ever had. And it was this fact of Jesus nature
that made Him invulnerable to temptation and impeccable to sin. We just have the
Spirits help to help our spirits. But Jesus very spirit was the Holy Spirit of
God. That is the meaning of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary in the miraculous
conception. And because Jesus Spirit was the Holy Spirit, Jesus was impeccable just
like God is. Jesus lacked the fallible and weak human spirit, and instead had the very
Spirit of God.
on to Chapter 6 . . .
Who Do You Say I Am? - Table of Contents
Articles
IPA Home
|
|