Was it Possible for Jesus to Sin?

by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@attbi.com

Introduction

Was it possible for Jesus to sin? Some might contend that such a question is pointless to ask in light of the fact that Jesus did not sin. Although it is not the most pressing of questions we might need to consider, nevertheless, it is important for our understanding of the person of Christ, specifically to what extent He identified with us in our humanity.

It must be pointed out that we are approaching this issue from a theoretical perspective, not a Biblical perspective. This is not to say that our examination of the issue ignores the Biblical data, but it is to say that the Bible does not address this question. Understanding these limitations, let us proceed with an examination of the question.

The Reality of Christ's Temptations

We can be sure that Jesus was tempted, and that His temptations were genuine. It is said that Jesus "has suffered being tempted" (Hebrews 2:18), and He "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). When considering His death, Jesus is said to have been "troubled" and "distressed" (John 12:27; Luke 12:50). Truly Jesus' human mind was feeling the weight of the impending doom and desired to do other than the will of God. The ultimate expression of this was Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane when He prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36). Jesus was tempted to not go to the cross.

The gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was "led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil" (Matthew 4:1). Jesus' encounter with Satan was not some facade or charade that was not necessary, or did not truly effect Jesus. There would have been no point for the Spirit to lead Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if Jesus could not have been truly tempted to sin. The Spirit led Him there so that He could overcome the temptation through reliance upon God. God was preparing Jesus to be our High Priest; a priest who stood in solidarity with the people He represented. Because Jesus felt the power of temptation He can sympathize with those who feel its power and lose the battle.

Temptation is not Sin

Some believe that to feel temptation is sin, and thus conclude that Jesus did not really experience temptation. This is a misunderstanding of temptation. Temptation is not sin. Sin only occurs when we act on a temptation. James made it clear that temptation only becomes sin when the lust that brought the temptation is conceived (James 1:15-16). It is possible to be tempted and not sin, as many godly individuals can testify. Through reliance on the Holy Spirit we can overcome temptation. When we overcome temptation, not submitting to its luring power, this does not make that temptation powerless or not real. It was strong, but not as strong as the power that resides in us. If godly people can face temptation without sinning, then surely Jesus can do the same. But this still does not answer the question as to whether or not it was possible for Jesus to sin.

Could Jesus Have Sinned?

Jesus was sinless (John 8:46; II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; I Peter 2:22; I John 3:5). In this respect, Jesus differs from all other humans. This does not make Him less than human, however, for Adam was also sinless at one point and he was fully human. As such, Adam is the closest parallel to Jesus. Even in his sinless condition it was possible for Adam to sin, and indeed he did sin. This demonstrates the fact that sinlessness does not preclude the possibility of sinning. Does it follow, then, that Jesus possessed this same ability?

On the one hand, to say that Jesus could not sin seems to deny the reality of His complete and genuine humanity, because real humans not only have the ability to be tempted, but also the ability to succumb to the temptations. It could also be argued that if Jesus could not sin temptations were meaningless. What point was there in Satan tempting Christ if He could not sin? It would seem to turn Christ's temptation into a mere charade. On the other hand, if it was possible for Jesus to sin, then it was also possible that the eternal plan of God could have been thwarted. If Jesus had sinned, we realize that He could not have been the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and hence no one would be saved. This gives us little assurance as to God's ability to ensure that His divine plan was accomplished.

In desiring to affirm the authenticity of Christ's temptations many believers maintain that it was theoretically possible for Christ to have sinned, but acknowledge that He never did. When asked how it would have been possible for Christ to have sinned if He was truly God, it will often be answered that Christ could have only sinned in His human nature, not His divine nature.

This theory is attractive because it avoids the absurd notion that God was tempted (James 1:13). Those who explain Christ's temptations in this way recognize that if it was not for Christ's human nature He could not have been tempted. The desire, then, is to assign Jesus' temptations to His human nature, excluding them from His divine nature altogether, so that we do not have God being tempted. The problem with such an explanation is threefold:

1. It separates Christ into two "parts," where one of His parts is doing one thing while the other is not. It is no longer the person, Jesus, being tempted, but one of His parts.
2. It gives Christ's humanity independent personhood from God. Jesus' human nature is mistaken for a human person. Jesus, rather than being God existing as man, is reduced to a divine person and a human person sharing one body.
3. It denies the unity of Christ's person and ultimately His deity. To say that Jesus or His human nature could have sinned but not God suggests that Jesus' humanity has a separate existence from God. Jesus, then, is not God. He is just a man indwelt by God in a special way, differing from us only quantitatively, not qualitatively. For further reading see the section entitled A Denial of Christ's Essential Deity and of a True Incarnation in my article Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism: The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between Father and Son.

Why Jesus Could not Have Sinned

I believe we must conclude that while Jesus' temptations were genuine, ultimately He could not have sinned. Such a conclusion is based on Christ's identity. While Christ is true man, He is more than just a man--He is also God.1 The difference between Jesus and all other men lies in the fact that we are man existing as man, while Jesus is God existing as man. Both the reality of Jesus' temptations and His ultimate inability to succumb to those temptations becomes clear when we understand that the incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a man, but God coming to be man.2 The incarnation did not bring into being a separate human person, but rather it was God Himself taking on a new manner of existence as man.

Jesus is More than a Conglomeration of Parts

To say that Jesus could have sinned in His human nature, but not in His divine nature mistakenly views Jesus as a conglomeration of parts. Jesus' "divine side" is perceived as doing one thing while His "human side" does another. It is always God knowing and acting as God, man knowing and acting as man, or God and man knowing and acting in conjunction, but never Jesus as Jesus acting and knowing. But Christ's two natures are not two parts, one divine and one human, simply joined together in locale and external appearance, each performing their own actions independently of the other. Jesus is one person who performs His own actions through His human mode of existence. When we reduce Christ's actions to His natures rather than His person we lose the unity of His person and end up with a Nestorian Christ.

There is Only One Person in Christ

To say Jesus' human nature could sin, but not His divine nature also suggests that there are two persons in Christ, one who is God and one who is man. This is impossible in light of a true incarnation of God. Jesus is God existing as man, not God and a man existing together in one geographical locale; not a divine person and a human person coexisting side-by-side. Because Jesus is God existing as man, of necessity there can only be one personal subject in Christ, not two. God is that personal subject. Just as we are the subject of all our acts, likewise God is the subject of all Christ's acts. Jesus is not God acting and knowing as God, and man acting and knowing as man in conjunction with one another, but God acting and knowing as man through His human mode of existence.

A Nature is not a Person

To say that Christ could have sinned in His human nature but not in His divine nature falsely assumes that Christ's human nature is a separate human person. There can be no equivocation of a nature and a person, however. A nature is the generic substance that is common to all men, being that which makes humanity what it is; a nature is a set of essential characteristics or properties which mark off what sort of thing an individual is. A person, however, is immaterial conscious substance, a personality, a self; a person is a particular individual who consists of a certain nature, or the particularization of a generic substance. The nature/person distinction might be compared to a cookie cutter and a cookie. A nature is a cookie cutter before it has cut anything out (generic substance), while a person is the cookie that has been cut out of the dough by the cookie cutter (particular self).

God came to exist as man by assuming human nature into His divine person, not by uniting Himself to an existing human individual person. Because He assumed a human nature and not a human person, Jesus' humanity is not a person in itself.

It should be obvious enough that natures cannot be tempted-people are tempted. It requires a personal subject to be tempted, and the only personal subject in Christ is God. It would be impossible for Christ's temptations to be explained as only occurring in His human nature for such an explanation assumes that Christ's human nature has individual personhood apart from God, able to perform the functions of a person. When we can grasp the fact that there is only one personal subject in Christ, God, and that the humanity God assumed is not a person, we will understand why it is impossible for only Christ's human nature to be tempted.

Was God Tempted?

If God is the lone personal subject in Christ, and only persons are tempted, is this not to say that God is tempted? Not exactly. Because God came to exist and be conscious as man in the incarnation, Jesus' temptations are not God being tempted as God, but God being tempted as man through His human mode of existence. God was tempted insofar as he is man, not insofar as He is God, for God is the subject of Christ's acts only insofar as He is man, not insofar as He is God.3

As God came to exist as a genuine man, complete with a genuine human consciousness/mind, He had the ability to experience temptation. He experienced the same temptations all men experience (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus was not tempted because He was God, but because He was man. If it was not for Christ's genuine human existence He could not have experienced temptation, for God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). In His divine mode of existence God cannot be tempted, but in His human mode of existence He can be and was tempted. In a human way, and in a genuine human existence Jesus was tempted as are all men. Christ's temptations are rooted in His human existence, not His divine existence.

While God cannot be tempted as He exists in Himself as God, God can be tempted in His human mode of existence as man. If God can be tempted in His human mode of existence could He also sin in His human mode of existence? No. God cannot sin in His existence as God or in His existence as man because of His holy nature. It is because Jesus is God existing as man that ultimately we must conclude that Jesus could not have sinned. Jesus, being God Himself, could not go against His own holy nature. If Jesus would have sinned, then God would have sinned in His human mode of existence, not just a man.

This might be compared to a righteous man or woman who is so opposed to a certain sin that, though they may be tempted by it from time to time, they will never submit to that temptation because it goes against their holy spirit. In the same manner, the God-man's nature was holy, and as such, would not go against His own holy nature. The temptations were real, and were considered by Christ, but ultimately He overcame them because of His holy hatred for sin, and complete reliance on the Holy Spirit. Had Jesus ever reached the point that He was willing to succumb to a particular temptation and commit sin, His divine identity would have intervened, not permitting Him to do so.

Does the Inability to Sin Lessen the Force of Temptation?

The question we must ask, then, is whether Jesus' ultimate inability to succumb to temptation lessens the force of His temptations, or makes them void altogether? This does not seem to be the case. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. When one resists temptation without succumbing to it, they feel the full force of it. Jesus successfully resisted temptation, and thus felt its full force. We, on the other hand, often give into temptation prematurely and thus do not feel its full force.

Conclusion

Regardless of Jesus' capacity to sin, the fact remains that He did not. That is what is most important. Adam sinned because He allowed His human will to stray from the will of God, pondered the temptation, and gave in to its influence. Jesus succeeded where Adam failed. Jesus did not sin because His human will and mind was perfectly submitted to the will and mind of God. He always did those things that pleased the Father (John 8:29), thereby accomplishing salvation on our behalf.

Footnotes

1. As it pertains to Christ's humanity He was like us in every respect, except sin. He is the last Adam, but unlike the first Adam who was made in God's image, Jesus is God's image (Colossians 1:15). He is the visible expression and image of who God is in His essential being (Hebrews 1:3).
2. God's "coming to be man" does not imply a transmutation of God into a man. God remained who He was both in and after the incarnation. If God had changed into a man He would cease being God, or at least cease being the same God He was prior to the incarnation. This would take away any meaning to the notion that "Jesus is God" because the God who became man ceased being God when He became that man, and thus the man He became is no longer God, but man. Even Jesus' humanity could not be considered to be completely human, because it would have experienced changed through its association with deity. Any transmutation of God into man would demand that Jesus is a third something (tertium quid) that is neither fully God nor fully man, but some hybrid of the two.
3. Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Change?: The Word's Becoming in the Incarnation, Studies in Historical Theology, Vol. IV (Still River, MA: St. Bede's Publications, 1985), 31.

Email IBS | Statement of Faith | Home | Browse by Author | Q & A
Links | Virtual Classroom | Copyright | Submitting Articles | Search