To many, the question of whether or not the Lord Jesus Christ was impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning, is a non-issue. “He did not sin,” they say, “Why quibble over whether or not he could have?”
Others flatly state that Christ could have sinned. A recent runaway best-seller in Christian bookstores across North America asserted that not only was it possible for the Lord Jesus to sin, but without the help of the Holy Spirit He likely would have. It is hardly comforting to know that tens of thousands of ostensibly Bible-believing Christians apparently read such a statement without batting an eyelash.
Modern-day Christianity is not renowned for its doctrinal discernment. Shallowness and sentimentality rule the day. So perhaps it is not surprising that in the popular theology of the day, many evangelicals would nod approval to the notion that our Lord was capable of sinning.
But then, such a view of things does seem rather harmless, doesn’t it? As long as we know that He did not sin, doesn’t it give us a warm feeling to know that our Lord has struggled with temptation in the same way we have? Doesn’t it help us to identify with Him as “really human”? As long as we are clear that He did not sin, surely we haven’t lost anything fundamental by saying that He could have sinned.
Or have we? It seems harmless enough, perhaps. But a closer look reveals that this teaching is a seedbed in which innumerable pernicious doctrines lie waiting to sprout. It strikes, in principle at least, at nearly every fundamental doctrine of the Word of God.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that those who teach that Christ could have sinned are right, and then follow this teaching out to its logical consequences. I hesitate to even put on paper such thoughts as follow, but if by so doing we may show the true nature of this false teaching, then perhaps it will not be without profit.
To begin with, if Christ could have sinned, nearly all of His divine attributes fall by the wayside. He is not omnipotent if He might have been overpowered by temptation. He is not omniscient if He was capable of being deceived by the tempter. He is not changeless, if He, the spotless Son of God, could have become a common sinner. And of course, His holiness would prove neither genuine nor divine.
Furthermore, His credentials as Saviour are called into serious question. Could one who, even for a split-second, is attracted by the thought of bowing in worship to Satan be the Saviour of sinners? Would not such a one need a saviour of his own? Yet this is the Christ we are offered by those who insist that our Lord “struggled” with temptation.
The fact is, every fiber of His holy being recoiled in utter horror at the very idea of bowing to Satan! Will any true lover of the Lord Jesus Christ deny this? And while this temptation was no doubt the most brazen appeal of the tempter, surely the least suggestion to stray ever so slightly from the path of perfect obedience was equally vile, and similarly abhorrent to His holy soul.
But let us go still further and ask those who assert the peccability of Christ: Since you say that Christ could have sinned, have you considered the consequences if He had? Again, it is awful to even think such thoughts, much less to record them. But since some are so insistent that Christ was capable of sinning, we find it expedient to ask, what if He had?
First, all the glorious promises and prophecies of the Old Testament immediately prove obsolete, false, and less than worthless. The truthfulness of God falls. The great plan of redemption collapses in dismal disarray, as the last Adam proves a greater failure than the first. The scriptural doctrine of the Triune God sinks into a hopeless shambles of confusion, and there is civil war in the Godhead, for the Son is now at enmity with the Father. God becomes the laughing stock of a rebel universe–for as long as the universe could thus endure.
Unthinkable, yes. Inconceivable, surely. But simply assert that Christ could have sinned, and you are asserting that it could have happened. Surely it is more than theological hair-splitting to insist on the impeccability of Christ.
Can we doubt, then, that this friendly little heresy is a favorite with the devil? For by it he is able to get a foot in the door with many who would never stand for more obvious false doctrine. Many who would never stand for a direct assault on the deity of Christ, for instance, will embrace this seemingly harmless teaching that, in principle, denies it. The adversary, who delights above all in lowering men’s estimation of Christ, must derive keen pleasure from seeing otherwise sound Christians embracing in seed form what they would hotly repudiate in full bloom.
But it is sometimes asked, could Christ be fully human if He could not sin? The answer, of course, is yes. Our Lord took on Himself a true humanity–body, soul, and spirit–and that human nature He will retain throughout eternity. But the humanity that He took was not a fallen humanity, like ours, nor even an innocent humanity, like Adam’s, who was initially without sin but, as we well know, had the capability of sinning. Rather, our Lord took on Himself a holy humanity.
His humanity was “that holy thing” born of a virgin. There was no taint of sin on it, nor possibility of sin in it. Only so could it be inseparably joined to His divine nature in one glorious, spotless, unspeakably holy Person.
But then, it is objected, the temptations were not real if there was no possibility of Him sinning. Ah, think again. If I am selling you a diamond that I know to be genuine, and we take it to the jeweler to have it inspected for your benefit, is there any possibility that it will fail the test? None. Is the test real? Of course. But what is the purpose of the test? Not to show whether or not the diamond is genuine–I already know that–but to demonstrate that it is genuine.
And this was so with the temptation of Christ. Was the test real? Certainly. But was there any possibility of Him failing it? None, for His pristine holiness shines a millionfold more brilliantly than earth’s most flawless diamond. The test was real, but its purpose was not to see whether or not He would fail, but to show that, unlike the first Adam, He would not and could not fail.
Does it not do our hearts good, brethren, to think of it in this way? He is not called the “second Adam,” but the “last Adam,” for there would be no need of another. The eternal counsels of God hung by no thread of contingency, for the work of redemption was now in hands that could not fail.
But how can Christ sympathize with us in our temptations if He were incapable of sinning? The truth is, though some may be sorry to hear it, He most assuredly does not sympathize with our sinful inclinations, if that is what we mean by temptations. A holy God can never sympathize with sin. The cross proved that. Rather, He “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).
Our Lord, as a great High Priest, sympathizes with our infirmities. He was a “man of sorrows.” He knows what it is to be tired, and hungry, and rejected. He understands physical pain and the deeper pain of a grieved heart. He has felt the sting of bereavement and wept at a loved one’s grave. Yes, He sympathizes with our infirmities and testings, but never, never with our inclinations to evil.
This is a vital point, for those who are eager to have a Saviour whose experience in temptation precisely mirrors their own, fail to grasp that in order for this to be, Christ must have possessed a sinful nature. James 1:14 is crystal clear that, for us, temptation involves an appeal to the lusts of our sinful nature. Shall we stoop to the depths of claiming that our Lord knows by experience what that is like? Perish the thought!
Hebrews 4:15 tells us that the Lord Jesus was tempted, or tested, in all points like as we are, “yet without sin,” or literally, “apart from sin.” The phrase is the same one used in Hebrews 9:28, where Christ is spoken of as offered once to bear the sins of many, but soon to appear a second time “apart from sin.” That is, at His second coming, unlike His first, sin will not be the matter in question.
Likewise, when we read that He was tempted in all points like as we are, “apart from sin,” we know that in His tempting, or testing, sin was not in view. He endured all manner of testing, but there was never any question of inclinations to evil or the possibility of sin.
And how could there be? For He was, and is, and ever shall be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, the One to whom the seraphim in Isaiah’s day thrice ascribed absolute holiness, God manifest in flesh–our glorious, impeccable Saviour.