THE IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST...recovering the reverence of God in ministry

The sinless God-Man was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Not only did He not sin, but He was not able to sin. There was never a time nor the possibility afforded through any circumstance or situation where He could have ever sinned. He could not have and did not sin in thought, word, deed, desire, whim, impluse, dream, motive, etc. Every fiber of His being was always in strict conformity to His holiness; and never strayed from the perfection of His holiness.

The Lord Jesus Christ was fully man, but fully God; tempted as we are, and not able to sin...

A.W. Pink unfolds this profound doctrine in his excellent article. May it encourage you afresh in your worship and service to the Spotless Lamb of God!

Sola Deo Gloria,
Steve
Heb. 7:26


by Arthur W. Pink

We are living in a world of sin, and the fearful havoc it has wrought is evident on every side. How refreshing, then, to fix our gaze upon One who is immaculately holy, and who passed through this scene unspoiled by its evil. Such was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate. For thirty-three years He was in immediate contact with sin, yet He was never, to the slightest degree, contaminated. He touched the leper, yet was not defiled, even ceremonially. Just as the rays of the sun shine upon a stagnant pool without being sullied thereby, so Christ was unaffected by the iniquity which surrounded Him. 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).

But not only was Christ sinless, He was impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning.
No attempt to set forth the doctrine of His wondrous and peerless person would be complete, without considering this blessed perfection. Sad indeed is it to behold the widespread ignorance thereon today, and sadder still to hear and read this precious truth denied. The last Adam differed from the first Adam in His impeccability. Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it. Necessarily so, for He was 'the Almighty' (Rev. 1:8). True, Christ was man, but He was the God-man, and as such, absolute Master and Lord of all things. Being Master of all things—as His dominion over the winds and waves, diseases and death, clearly demonstrated—it was impossible that anything should master Him.

The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability,
or incapability of sinning: 'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever' (Heb. 13:8). Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. Herein we behold again His uniqueness. Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin's womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.

The omnipotence of Christ proves His impeccability.
That the Lord Jesus, even during the days of His humiliation, was possessed of omnipotence, is clear from many passages of Scripture. 'What things so ever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise... For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will' (John 5:19, 21). When we say that Christ possessed omnipotence during His earthly sojourn, we do not mean that He was so endowed by the Holy Spirit, but that He was essentially, inherently, personally, omnipotent. Now to speak of an omnipotent person yielding to sin, is a contradiction in terms. All temptation to sin must proceed from a created being, and hence it is a finite power; but impossible is it for a finite power to overcome omnipotency.

The constitution of Christ's person proves His impeccability.
In Him were united (in a manner altogether incomprehensible to created intelligence) the Divine and the human natures. Now 'God cannot be tempted with evil' (James 1:13); 'it is impossible for God to lie' (Heb. 6:18). And Christ was 'God manifest in flesh' (1 Tim. 3:16); 'Immanuel'—God with us (Matt. 1:23). Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been 'made in the likeness of men' (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.

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).

Probably there were many reasons why God ordained that His incarnate Son should be tempted by men, by the Devil, by circumstances.
One of these was to demonstrate His impeccability. Throw a lighted match into a barrel of gunpowder, and there will be an explosion; throw it into a barrel of water, and the match will be quenched. This, in a very crude way, may be taken to illustrate the difference between Satan's tempting us and his tempting of the God-man. In us, there is that which is susceptible to his 'fiery darts'; but the Holy One could say, 'The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me' (John 14:30). The Lord Jesus was exposed to a far more severe testing and trying than the first Adam was, in order to make manifest His mighty power of resistance.

'We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, without sin' (Heb. 4:15). 'This text teaches that the temptations of Christ were 'without sin' in their source and nature, and not merely, as the passage is sometimes explained, that they were 'without sin' in their result. The meaning is not, that our Lord was tempted in every respect exactly as fallen man is-by inward lust, as well as by other temptations—only He did not outwardly yield to any temptation; but that He was tempted in every way that man is, excepting by that class of temptations that are sinful, because originating in evil and forbidden desire.

'The fact that Christ was almighty and victorious in His resistance does not unfit Him to be an example for imitation to a weak and sorely-tempted believer. Because our Lord overcame His temptations, it does not follow that His conflict and success was an easy one for Him. His victory cost Him tears and blood. 'His visage was so marred more than any man' (Isa. 52:14). There was the 'travail of His soul' (Isa. 52:14). In the struggle He cried, 'O My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me' (Matt. 26:39). Because an army is victorious, it by no means follows that the victory was a cheap one' (W.G.T. Shedd).

One other objection may, perhaps, be noted,
though we hesitate to defile these pages by even transcribing the filthy exhalations of the carnal mind. If the humanity of Christ was, because of its union to His Divine person, incapable of sinning, then in view of its being Divinely sustained how could it hunger and thirst, suffer and die? and seeing it did, then why was it incapable of yielding to temptation? It is sufficient answer to this impious question to point out that, while the Mediator was commissioned to die (John 10:18), He was not commissioned to sin. The human nature of Christ was permitted to function freely and normally: hence it wearied and wept; but to sin is not a normal act of human nature.

To be the Redeemer of His people, Christ must be 'mighty to save, traveling in the greatness of His strength' (Isa. 63:1).
He must have power to overcome all temptation when it assails His person, in order that He may be able to 'succor them that are tempted' (Heb. 2:18). Here then is one of the solid planks in that platform on which the faith of the Christian rests: because the Lord Jesus is Almighty, having absolute power over sin, the feeble and sorely-tried saint may turn to Him in implicit confidence, seeking His efficacious aid. Only He who triumphed over sin, both in life and in death, can save me from my sins.

Taken from Studies in the Scriptures, Sept. 1932.

FULLY GOD, FULLY MAN...the Lord Jesus Christ is Son of God and Son of Man; one Person, two natures

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. For it was indeed fitting that we should 

have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, 

and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, 

to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins 

and then for those of the people, 

since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 

-Hebrews 4:15; 7:26-27

The Hypostatic Union is a mystery, but an essential of the Christian faith and foundational truth as to the nature and person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Simply it states that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God. He had two natures - the human and divine. He did not have a divine humanness nor did He have a humanized divinity. He was both fully man (the human nature) and fully God (the divine nature) in one Person.

As the Council of Chalcedon rightly affirmed in the year 451:

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us." (emphasis mine)

IOW, we believe that Jesus is verus homus, verus Deus ~ truly man, truly God. At Chalcedon, they went on to set necessary boundaries for how we're to think about the way in which these two natures relate to each other. Importantly, they said "that these two natures are in perfect unity, without mixture, division, confusion, or separation."

To reiterate, when we think about the Incarnation, as Sproul has said, "we don't want to get the two natures mixed up and think that Jesus had a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature. We can distinguish them, but we can't tear them apart because they exist in perfect unity." 

There is the mystery.

This biblically can be found in John 1:1-18. The Word was with God and was God; the Word became flesh; and is the only begotten from the Father. Son of God and Son of Man.

To deny this great truth of His two natures in one Person would be to embrace (even unwittingly) variations of some of the early heresies which spread through the first few centuries of the early church.

One of those heresies is called Ebionism. This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature just a man, denying his divinity altogether. The Ebionites were an offshoot of the specifically Jewish form of Christianity, which was a potent force in the apostolic age.

Another would be the heresy known as Adoptionism. This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature a man who became the Son of God by Adoption; that is, that Jesus was virtuous man that God adopted and constituted him as His Son. The earliest extant writing that expresses this view is the Shepherd of Hermas, which is thought to be written by the brother of the bishop of Rome about A.D. 150. It taught that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Mary and Joseph; at his baptism the Spirit or Christ descended upon Jesus and at his crucifixion the Christ departed, leaving the man Jesus to suffer alone.

Or the heresy known as Docetism. This heresy is the view that Jesus was in nature divine, eliminating his humanity. The name Docetism (Greek, dokein = "to seem") indicated the distinctive thesis of it that Christ's man hood, hence his sufferings, were unreal, phantasmal, appearing only to be human. It claimed that Christ only appeared or seemed to be a man. This view clearly shows the Graeco-Oriental assumption the divine impassability and the inherent evil nature of matter.

Or the most widely known heresy called Arianism. This heresy is the view that Jesus was not fully divine although still related to God as a son to a father. He was created, but not eternal; and made divine but not of the same substance as the Father.

Or the heresy called Apollinarianism. This heresy was the view of Jesus that when the Logos (a perfect divine nature) assumed a human body in Jesus, it took the place of his human mind or soul. This was the view advanced by Apollinaris (c.310-c.390 A.D.), Bishop of Laodicea, in opposition to the doctrine of Arianism. Both views were held to be unorthodox and Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.

Or the heresy of what is known as Nestorianism. It says that Jesus existed as two persons with two distinct natures and denying they existed in unity.

Or to embrace what came to be known as Monophysitism which originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

It is very important and crucial that we get our Christology correct beloved. To reiterate, the biblical and orthodox view is that Jesus was one person with two natures. He was fully human, but yet fully divine in one person (Phil. 2:5-11).

Solus Christus,

Steve
Heb. 1:1-3

YOUR WEEKLY DOSE OF GOSPEL...by R.C. Sproul

28. THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST
When we speak of Christ’s sinlessness we generally refer to His humanity. It is unnecessary to plead the sinlessness of Christ’s deity, as deity by our definition cannot and does not sin. The doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness has been free of any fundamental controversy. Even the most crass heretics in history have not denied this of Christ.

The sinlessness of Christ does not merely serve as an example to us. It is fundamental and necessary for our salvation. Had Christ not been the “lamb without blemish” He not only could not have secured anyone’s salvation, but would have needed a savior Himself. The multiple sins Christ bore on the cross required a perfect sacrifice. That sacrifice had to be made by one who was sinless.

Christ’s sinlessness had negative and positive aspects to it. Negatively, Christ was completely free of any transgression. He broke none of God’s holy law. He scrupulously obeyed whatsoever God commanded. Despite His sinlessness, Christ even obeyed Jewish law, submitting to circumcision, baptism, and perhaps even the system of animal sacrifice.

Positively, Christ was eager to obey the law; He was committed to doing the will of His Father. It was said of Him that zeal for His Father’s house consumed Him (John 2:17) and that His meat was to do the will of His Father (John 4:34).

One difficulty concerning the sinlessness of Christ is related to Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” If Christ was tempted as we are, how could He have been sinless? The problem becomes even greater when we read James 1:14-15: “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

James describes a kind of temptation that arises from sinful desires within us. These desires are already sinful in nature. If Jesus was tempted as we are tempted it would seem to suggest that He had sinful desires. Yet this is precisely the point of the qualifier “yet without sin” in the book of Hebrews. Jesus had desires. But he had no sinful desires. When He was tempted by Satan the assault came from the outside. It was an external temptation. Satan tried to entice Jesus to eat during His period of fasting. Jesus surely had physical hunger; He had a desire for food. Yet there was no sin in being hungry. All things being equal, Jesus wanted to eat. But all things were not equal. Jesus was committed to obeying the will of the Father. He had no desire to sin.

It was by His sinlessness that Jesus qualified Himself as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. However, our salvation requires two aspects of redemption. It was not only necessary for Jesus to be our substitute and receive the punishment due for our sins; He also had to fulfill the law of God perfectly to secure the merit necessary for us to receive the blessings of God’s covenant. Jesus not only died as the perfect for the imperfect, the sinless for the sinful, but He lived the life of perfect obedience required for our salvation.

Summary

1. The sinlessness of Christ is necessary for our salvation.
2. Jesus made atonement as the Lamb without blemish.
3. Christ was not tempted by sinful desires.
4. By His perfect obedience Jesus supplied the righteousness (merit) we require to be saved.

Biblical passages for reflection:

• Matthew 3:15
  
• Romans 5:18-21
  
• 2 Corinthians 5:21
  
• Hebrews 7:26
  
• 1 Peter 3:18
  

The above study is taken from 

"Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" by R.C. Sproul

GLORY IN THE HOLINESS OF CHRIST... "He knew no sin"

by Robert Murray M'Cheyne
Let us go over these three things, and let us take the last first. The ground of the embassy which God hath sent his ministers on: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21).

There are three things contained in this:

1. 'He knew no sin';
2. 'He hath made him to be sin for us';
3. The object he gained by this - 'That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'

Observe the description here given of Christ—'He knew no sin.'
I believe it is the most remarkable description of Christ you will find in the Word of God. We are told that at his birth he was holy. The angel said to his mother, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee; therefore also that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). And he was holy in his life: 'Such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners' (Hebrews 7:26). And we are told that he was perfectly holy in his death: 'Who, through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God' (Hebrews 9:14). But observe, brethren, in this passage we are told it in a different manner—'He knew no sin', that is, he did not know what it was to have sin in his bosom.

Learn from this, dear friends, what a lovely person Christ is. You know it is said in Canticles 5:16, 'He is altogether lovely.' It is this that ravishes the heart of seraphs when they sing, 'Who shall not fear thee, and glorify thy name, for thou only art holy' (Revelation 15:4). This is the bloom of beauty on the Rose of Sharon-

'He knew no sin.' Do you love Christ because he knew no sin? There are many among you who detest the name of Christ. And why? Just because he knew no sin. Learn, again, from this, what a suitable Saviour Christ is—'Such an high priest became us.' He was suitable because he was man. But ah! this is the main thing - 'He knew no sin.' This is the thing that makes him infinitely suitable- 'He knew no sin.' He was a high priest that knew no sin. Observe how God dealt with him—'He hath made him to be sin for us'. This is described in the Bible in a great many different ways. In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah it is said, 'All we like sheep have gone astray.., and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all' (verse 6); and verse 10, 'it pleased the Lord to bruise him', etc. The same thing is described by Peter: 'Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24).

But in this passage you will observe it is described in a far more dreadful manner. God heaped upon his Son all our sins until there was nothing but sin to be seen. He appeared all sin; nothing of his own beauty appeared; God took him as if he were entirely made up of sin. You know that unconverted men are all sin. You say you have many good things about you; you are sometimes light in your walk, and take a glass occasionally; 'but I'm a good fellow after all'. Ah, you do not know that you are one mass of sin; your mind, your understanding, your affections, and your conscience. Brethren, look at the love of Christ, that he should be willing to be made sin for us - this was his love.

Observe what the object was that he gained by this. 'That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' They are remarkable words. You know, brethren, that the pardon and justification of sinners is spoken of in different ways in the Bible. In Romans 3:24, it is said: 'Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.' Again, in Romans 5:19: 'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' But observe that these words express it more fully. I think it means that those of you who have come to the Lord Jesus, his righteousness shall cover you, that you will appear one mass of righteousness. And, brethren, observe what a provision is here for sinners - for the chief of sinners; for it matters not how great or how small a sinner you are; if you come to Christ, his righteousness will cover you so that none of your sin will be seen. O my friends, is not this a gospel worth preaching.9 May you now say as Luther used to do,

'Thou art made my sin, 

and I am made thy righteousness.'

Secondly, the message contained in these words, which we are sent on: 'Now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.'
When Christ came into this world, he was an ambassador from God. He is the great messenger that came not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him. He came as the messenger of God to man; but when he was about to ascend up on high, he came to his disciples and said unto them, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel' (Mark 16:15). And so they were ambassadors for Christ.

Learn from this, how we should preach, and how you should hear. We do not come in our own name, but in Christ's. We are to do as the disciples did when they received the bread from Christ. We are to receive our message from him and give it unto you; so, in one sense, it is immaterial to us whether you receive the truth or not.

Observe, we are to speak with authority. Many of you are not pleased at what we say; you say we might have spoken less severely; you quarrel at our words; but ah! if you look into your own heart, you would see, that it is not us you quarrel with, it is with Christ.

Observe, still farther, that we are ambassadors; we must speak tenderly. God is love. Christ is love. I am afraid it is here we err, and show that the vessel is earthly. When Christ came into the world, it was a message of love he brought; what love is in these words, 'O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever' (Deuteronomy 5:29). What words are these: 'O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments, then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea' (Isaiah 48:18). But how has our message been received?

Thirdly, I come now to the last thing to be considered, and that is the message itself.' 'Be ye reconciled to God.'
Observe what it is you are invited unto; you are invited into union with God. We are told, when we come to men, to call that they may be reconciled to God. O brethren, you are invited into reconciliation this day; you have been long in sin. Is it not time to be reconciled to God? Be reconciled, sinner. 0 come, come, old sinner! 0 come, young sinners! Remember you are beseeched to come. I beseech you, brethren, to come. If you had been at Mount Sinai when the law was delivered, would you not have listened? Brethren, it is God that beseeches you now. It is God beseeching; it is Christ beseeching you, sinner. Had you heard his gracious words to the multitudes that came around him, or had you heard him at the last supper saying, 'Let not your hearts be troubled', brethren, would you not have listened?

Brethren, it is Him still.

Sinner! Sinner! if you do not listen, how will you meet a beseeching God? God beseeches you; Christ beseeches you; and the Holy Ghost beseeches you. Brethren, you will see him soon, and if you hearken not now to his voice, he shall say, 'Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh' (Proverbs 1:24-26).

Amen.

Your Weekly Dose of Gospel...the impeccability of Christ; He could not haved sinned

...a quote, a statement, and a conversation

A Quote
Here is a very helpful quote on Jonathan Edwards's view on this important issue of the impeccability of Christ.

It is in Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will (1754) that he reconciles impeccability and freedom of the will in the human soul of Jesus Christ, even when Jesus is in a state of trial. But how does he shape a synthesis between these two attributes without duplicity, and at the same time avoid theological and Christological barbs, whether Arminian or Hobbist, Nestorian or Apollinist? For Edwards, the Son of God did not surrender impeccability when he undertook to fulfill – in human nature, and in a state of trial – intra-Trinitarian promises, promises made not only by the Father to the Son, but by the Son to the Father. Edwards views the habits of the heart of Jesus Christ progressing in holiness from the moment of his incarnation. He understands the excellencies that the Son of God brought to the human nature in the incarnation in no way to have added to nor to have diminished the impeccable holy disposition of his person. A key to interpreting the holy habits of Jesus’ heart is, according to Edwards, to view the source of the impeccability of the soul of Jesus as lying in its essence, not in a cause outside his person; it lies in the very disposition of his heart.

SOURCE: Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will and his defense of the impeccability of Jesus Christ, by Philip J Fisk. Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 60, Is. 3 (article is not online).

A Statement

"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."
-Hebrews 4:15

Puritan theologian, Charles Hodge, holds to a different position where he affirms the peccability of Christ. He says:

"This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. 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 sympathize with his people.”

While Hodge is one of my favorite authors and theologians, I respectfully disagree with his assertions.

I believe that the identification the writer of Hebrews is making between Christ and His people was not in “the possibility of the sinning” but in “the commonality of being tempted.” Jesus was tempted (cf, Luke 4:1-12); but there was nothing in Him that was temptable--that could ever succumb to sin; nothing in Him that could ever be seduced or swayed in respect to temptation. He was not temptable — possessing the possibility of sinning. “He knew no sin...” nor was there any “sin in Him.” He was “holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners...” (Heb. 7:26)

I do rejoice in the comfort of Heb. 4:15: that though tempted, He, as the God-Man – could not sin. He took on flesh, but not my sin nature. He is fully God and fully man. The First Adam could not help but sin. We are conceived in sin, born with a nature to sin and are sinful (Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:1-3; Roms. 3:10-18). We cannot do and be otherwise. We are sinners; not because we commit acts of sin but because we are sinful by nature. And our sinful nature will always fulfill its desires in that which strays from the perfection of His holiness and the standard of His Law (1 John 3:4; Roms. 3:19-20).

But the Last Adam (Roms. 5:12-17), Christ Jesus the Righteous, could not help but not to sin. He could do no other. It was His nature not to sin.He was not only "able not to sin" (sinless), but he was also “not able to sin” — impeccable. Thus was His perfect estate, even in incarnation (John 1:14-18). He moved among unholy people, but remained perfectly holy, righteous, and undefiled. There was nothing in Him that was susceptible to sin, prone to sin, possessing the capacity to sin, or venerable to sin. I do agree with Charles Hodge in this respect, that when temptation is applied and spoken of in regards to fallen man, it always implies "the possibility of sin." It is a moral and spiritual certainty. Why? Because that is what sinful people by nature will do... We will sin. And this will manifest itself in various ways, in varying degrees, and in differing situations—but sin we must and sin we will.

But Christ was not like us in that regard. No matter what situation He was in; no matter what degree the devil tried to tempt Him; no matter what way sin presented itself before Him – He could not sin; it was not in Him nor part of Him to do so. It was consistent with His nature (both human and divine) not to sin.

To suggest that Jesus Christ in the flesh could have sinned but chose not to, must also imply that in incarnation He willfully resisted the impulse of or even the thought to sin. IOW, He wrestled continually with the possibilty of sinning until His bodily resurrection from the grave. To asset that there was this battled dualism raging within Him – a conflict between His too natures in regards to transgressing the Law and giving Himself to acts of iniquity and lasciviousness is inconceivable to me. But I do want to remain teachable: so can anyone show me biblically where Jesus wrestled with this possibility of sinning? Where Scripture, either prophetically, in the gospel narratives, or in any of the epistles where this is a clear certainty and not one of biblical speculation? Was it ever contained in holy writ that there was to be a “testing of the Son of Man” to see if He could withstand "the world, the flesh and the devil" and thus prove that He was sinless? I can find none. He is in the flesh none less than the Lord (God and Sovereign)... Jesus (Savior and Redeemer)... Christ (Messiah and Lamb).

A Conversation
A reformed forum friend and minister named Tim and I have been emailing "offline" about this important discussion on the peccability or impeccability of Jesus Christ the Lord. The issue being discussed comes down to this: does the possibility exist that Jesus could have sinned while in the flesh on earth or couldn't He have sinned? It's an important question as to the nature and character of our Lord.

Here is part of this conversation of faith that Tim and I have had which originated on a private reformed baptist forum. We both thought this might be helpful to others who are asking these same questions and acording to forum rules, mutually gave permission to post this here at COT. I appreciate this brother greatly and the spirit in which we interacted. Though it only represents a part of the greater convesation we had, it is our prayer that it can encourage you to further search the Word of God on this theme.

Tim's comments are in blue (which include some initial comments of my own marked by the >); and then my follow up responses.

> He was tempted in all things as we are—yet without sin. IOW, He was not >temptable—having the ability to sin.

This makes no sense to me. Jesus was not temptable, yet he was
tempted? That seems to set the meaning of the words on their heads.

Being tempted is not a sin in and of itself. “And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil.” (Luke 4:10-2a). But being temptable means that there is something in that individual that could succumb to sin and surrender to its influence. Such did not exist with Christ. He was tempted to be sure; but He was not temptable—He was holy, sinless, separate from sinners and there was no sin in Him. He had no sin nature to make Him venerable to sin.


> We are in a very limited and temporal sense "peccable" - "able not to sin."

Assuming that Steve meant "impeccable" here, again it represents a playing with words to make them fit. To be impeccable is not "able to not sin", it is "not able to sin." This side of glory we are in no way impeccable. We are able not to sin and that is it.

I actually did mean peccable. As I explained in the post, we don’t give ourselves to every kind of vice and sin out there. We are, in a limited and temporal sense, able not to sin—peccable. You are right on how you defined impeccability; impeccability only applies to the Lord Jesus Christ – not to us.


> But not our Lord... In incarnation He was tempted and never temptable;He even declared >about Satan in the gospel of John that "he has nothing on me."

This has been assumed and short of redefining words it is yet to be proven. This really is just a restatement of the question, not a proof of the answer.

I would humbly submit that the burden is on those who claim that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the God-Man, had the capacity, venerability, and nature to sin, but chose not to. To me that makes the Lord out to be “spiritually schizophrenic.” “Able” but “not able.” Conflicted between two natures. That dualism doesn’t seem to be consistent with Scripture.


> So we could say the basis of the Impeccability of the Divine Christ was his perfect holiness >and the inability to change.

While this is absolutely of his divine nature, but his human nature most certainly changed, see Luke 2:52 for example. It seems that Steve's presentation in this post rests upon a confusion of the two natures of Christ.

This goes to immutability. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forevermore.” There is no confusion of the two natures: he was Son of Man AND God the Son. He was in all points tempted as we are, but He is not completely as we are in person or nature. You cannot separate the two natures of Christ and apply the human nature that existed in Him as a one to one corollary with us. We were not virgin born, He was. He was not born with a sin nature, we were. He was not conceived in sin, we were, etc.


> We must also consider James who states that sin first begins in the mind before it manifests >in our actions, so that in order for Christ to be temptable He would have had to have already >given his mind over to thoughts of sin.

This is an interesting observation! However, I think it may be being (unintentionally) misused. In it, James is speaking of how one gives in to sin and he explains it beginning with temptation. James is admonishing us to stand and not sin and then he traces the path from temptation to sin. If he is not, it would seem that just being tempted is sinful and that isn't right.

Again, as stated above, being tempted does not equate committing sin. But the point being made here is that sin both begins in the mind and spirit—it is cognitive and desired. For our Lord to have even been tempted to the point where He was venerable to sin, but chose not to, it seems that some here might be implying that in thought and desire He had the capacity to sin. But again, Scripture nowhere speaks of Him wrestling with the temptation of sin as to be tempted to sin. He was not temptable for there was nothing in Him that could sin. He was the sinless Son of God from all eternity come in the flesh; and who remained sinless and without ability to sin by virtue of who He was.


> This is why the Lord equates lust in the mind with adultery, because no one commits >adultery who did not first consider doing it.

There is a difference between temptation and lust.

Exactly. But what you are suggesting, IMHO, is that Jesus had the capacity and predisposition to lust but chose not to. Help me further understand your position here: what would the Scripture be for that claim?


> To even consider sin as an option which is the basis of temptation (as we are tempted: note >to Hebrews) is to consider rebellion against God an option.

I am concerned here that Steve is equating temptation with sin and that is wrong.

No I am not; and my apology if my words didn’t communicate that more effectively. The basis or goal of temptation is to cause another to sin... AND, would you not affirm that all sin is rebellion against God... Christ had not the capacity for either. For He, being God, could not rebel against His Father’s will for they were one in essence, will and purpose. It was the very fact that Christ could not sin that He became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. It wasn’t that He conquered some earthly test where He wrestled with sin, but did not choose to and ultimately was victorious over sin.

What is your response to this quote, this statement, and to this conversation and topic?

His Unworthy Servant in His Unfailing Love,
Steve
2 Cor. 5:21

The Peccability and Impeccability of Christ...able not to sin; not able to sin

Heb. 7:26 ¶ For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest,
holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners
and exalted above the heavens;

Heb. 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things,
so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Introduction:
There are two Latin phrases that help us understand the nature of Christ in incarnation, and thus in temptation, regarding the great doctrine of the impeccability of Christ and the sinlessness of Christ. They are: posse non peccare and non posse peccare. It is important for us to understand the difference between the sinlessness and the impeccability of Jesus Christ - for a right understanding of these things goes to the very nature of our Lord and ultimately why the gospel, God's saving plan for man, is unique to Jesus.

Sinlessness refers to the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was without sin in deed, in word, and in being. Theologically it is represented by the first of these Latin phrases means posse non peccare; meaning "able not to sin." Through His experiences of life, He never once fell into sin--He was "able not to sin." He was, by virtue of His own holy character, sinless. There are a few passages that speak to this fact:

1 John 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

1 Pet. 2:22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

2 Cor. 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Notice the words I have bolded: in Him there is no sin; He committed no sin; and He knew no sin. He was sinless. So when we speak of the Lord Jesus Christ, we can rightly say that He was "able not to sin." He was sinless.

But the impeccability of Christ is a bit different.

Man is tempted and sins and very rarely resists temptation; though on occasion, we resist. We sin and do so with great enthusiasm, enjoyment, reckless abandon, and surety. And though none of us succumb to every kind of sin all the time. In that sense we are "able not to sin" to certain vices (peccable), but we are never "not able to sin" (impeccable). IOW, though we are totally depraved, our depravity is never realized to its fullest extent by fulfilling all the fathomless depths of all iniquities, continually in our flesh. By various sins we are tempted, but we do not "give in" nor do we submit to every manifestation of sin. But, rest assured, we will surrender to some sins, in varying degrees, because we are sinful by nature, conceived in sin; and therefore we are in no way "not able to sin."

Not so with Christ.

Our Lord Jesus Christ was fully man; and therefore in His human nature He was temptable--though He remained sinless in deed, in word, and being. But the last Adam is not like the first in all respects. He, Jesus, was at the same time sinless in regards to all sin; but also it was impossible for Him to sin. He was sinless - "able not to sin"; but at the same time, He was also impeccable - "not able to sin." Why? Because He was not only fully man in incarnation, He was fully God as well. He has a human nature, but also a divine nature. The human nature could be tempted, and He was (heb. 4:15), and He remained sinless in deed, in word, and in being. BUT the strength of the divine personality IS "not able to sin" and so it was in the perfection of His life, death and resurrection. Fully God, fully man; Son of God and Son of Man; having a human nature (sinless) and a divine nature (impeccable). IOW, the divine nature cannot desert the human nature when it comes to matters of sin. Such is the mystery of the God incarnate, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

This great truth is summed up in the second of our Latin phrases speaks: non posse peccare - meaning "not able to sin." He was not only sinless (the absence of sin); but He was also, "not able to sin" (the inability to sin). It was impossible for our Lord Jesus Christ to ever commit sin and nor did he ever sin.

We read in Hebrews 6:18. "so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,..." God is impeccable--He is unable to lie; not just He hasn't lied, but He is absolutely incapable of any lie at anytime. (He has not and He could not).

The writer of Hebrews speaks again to this reality when saying: 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.

As the Scriptures clearly teach that at no time did our Lord commit any sin, nor was He ever able to sin. This is very important, for the impeccability of Christ means that He alone could be the sin-bearer for our sin. If He were not impeccable, He could not be our divine substitute for our sin, for it would mean He was not God.

The following article by A.W. Pink will help to understand this great truth and I commend to you to highly. May the end result cause you to glory in Him afresh and do what in time what we will do in all eternity: worship Him forever.

Grace and peace,
Steve
John 1:1, 14, 18

by Arthur W. Pink

We are living in a world of sin, and the fearful havoc it has wrought is evident on every side. How refreshing, then, to fix our gaze upon One who is immaculately holy, and who passed through this scene unspoilt by its evil. Such was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate. For thirty-three years He was in immediate contact with sin, yet He was never, to the slightest degree, contaminated. He touched the leper, yet was not defiled, even ceremonially. Just as the rays of the sun shine upon a stagnant pool without being sullied thereby, so Christ was unaffected by the iniquity which surrounded Him. 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).

But not only was Christ sinless, He was impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning.
No attempt to set forth the doctrine of His wondrous and peerless person would be complete, without considering this blessed perfection. Sad indeed is it to behold the widespread ignorance thereon today, and sadder still to hear and read this precious truth denied. The last Adam differed from the first Adam in His impeccability. Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it. Necessarily so, for He was 'the Almighty' (Rev. 1:8). True, Christ was man, but He was the God-man, and as such, absolute Master and Lord of all things. Being Master of all things—as His dominion over the winds and waves, diseases and death, clearly demonstrated—it was impossible that anything should master Him.

The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability, or incapability of sinning:
'Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever' (Heb. 13:8). Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. Herein we behold again His uniqueness. Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin's womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.

The omnipotence of Christ proves His impeccability.
That the Lord Jesus, even during the days of His humiliation, was possessed of omnipotence, is clear from many passages of Scripture. 'What things so ever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise....For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will' (John 5:19, 21). When we say that Christ possessed omnipotence during His earthly sojourn, we do not mean that He was so endowed by the Holy Spirit, but that He was essentially, inherently, personally, omnipotent. Now to speak of an omnipotent person yielding to sin, is a contradiction in terms. All temptation to sin must proceed from a created being, and hence it is a finite power; but impossible is it for a finite power to overcome omnipotency.

The constitution of Christ's person proves His impeccability.
In Him were united (in a manner altogether incomprehensible to created intelligence) the Divine and the human natures. Now 'God cannot be tempted with evil' (James 1:13); 'it is impossible for God to lie' (Heb. 6:18). And Christ was 'God manifest in flesh' (1 Tim. 3:16); 'Immanuel'—God with us (Matt. 1:23). Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been 'made in the likeness of men' (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.

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).

Probably there were many reasons why God ordained that His incarnate Son should be tempted by men, by the Devil, by circumstances. One of these was to demonstrate His impeccability. Throw a lighted match into a barrel of gunpowder, and there will be an explosion; throw it into a barrel of water, and the match will be quenched. This, in a very crude way, may be taken to illustrate the difference between Satan's tempting us and his tempting of the God-man. In us, there is that which is susceptible to his 'fiery darts'; but the Holy One could say, 'The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me' (John 14:30). The Lord Jesus was exposed to a far more severe testing and trying than the first Adam was, in order to make manifest His mighty power of resistance.

'We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, without sin' (Heb. 4:15). 'This text teaches that the temptations of Christ were 'without sin' in their source and nature, and not merely, as the passage is sometimes explained, that they were 'without sin' in their result. The meaning is not, that our Lord was tempted in every respect exactly as fallen man is-by inward lust, as well as by other temptations—only He did not outwardly yield to any temptation; but that He was tempted in every way that man is, excepting by that class of temptations that are sinful, because originating in evil and forbidden desire.

'The fact that Christ was almighty and victorious in His resistance does not unfit Him to be an example for imitation to a weak and sorely-tempted believer. Because our Lord overcame His temptations, it does not follow that His conflict and success was an easy one for Him. His victory cost Him tears and blood. 'His visage was so marred more than any man' (Isa. 52:14). There was the 'travail of His soul' (Isa. 52:14). In the struggle He cried, 'O My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me' (Matt. 26:39). Because an army is victorious, it by no means follows that the victory was a cheap one' (W.G.T. Shedd).

One other objection may, perhaps, be noted, though we hesitate to defile these pages by even transcribing the filthy exhalations of the carnal mind.
If the humanity of Christ was, because of its union to His Divine person, incapable of sinning, then in view of its being Divinely sustained how could it hunger and thirst, suffer and die? and seeing it did, then why was it incapable of yielding to temptation? It is sufficient answer to this impious question to point out that, while the Mediator was commissioned to die (John 10:18), He was not commissioned to sin. The human nature of Christ was permitted to function freely and normally: hence it wearied and wept; but to sin is not a normal act of human nature.

To be the Redeemer of His people, Christ must be 'mighty to save, travelling in the greatness of His strength' (Isa. 63:1). He must have power to overcome all temptation when it assails His person, in order that He may be able to 'succour them that are tempted' (Heb. 2:18). Here then is one of the solid planks in that platform on which the faith of the Christian rests: because the Lord Jesus is Almighty, having absolute power over sin, the feeble and sorely-tried saint may turn to Him in implicit confidence, seeking His efficacious aid. Only He who triumphed over sin, both in life and in death, can save me from my sins.

Taken from "Studies in the Scriptures", Sept. 1932.