ReligonEssay Preview: ReligonReport this essayHome: ReligionAn examination of the question of the impeccability of Jesus ChristThe New Testament authors had no qualms about declaring that Jesus was truly human and telling us that Jesus committed no sin. Bible passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22 and 1 John 3:5 “witness that He [Jesus] did not give in to temptation, nor violate the moral standards of God, nor was He inconsistent with the nature of his character.” That is, Jesus was sinless.
It is vital to our theology that Jesus was sinless. For only if Jesus was sinless could His death have been a vicarious substitution and fulfil Gods redemptive plan for man. If Jesus had not been sinless, then it would mean that He died for His own sins and not those of mankind. Had Jesus died for His own sins then His death could not have been accepted by the Father as a vicariously substitution for the punishment and judgement each of us are entitled to receive. Even though there is no serious debate that Jesus was anything but sinless, theologians have discussed the question of whether Jesus could have sinned if He had wanted. This is called the peccability of Christ. The opposing argument, i.e., impeccability, being that even if He had wanted, Jesus could not have sinned. Upon first consideration, one might view this question as being trivial; something to simply keep the theologians “out of mischief” when they have nothing better to do. However, there are some very appropriate reasons for examining this issue.
The first reason to examine the issue of Christs peccability/impeccability is so that we might obtain a better understanding and a more in depth knowledge about both Jesus Christ and God, just as God has invited us. This is the same reason that we study Theology proper. When we arrive at an answer to this question, we will have additional knowledge about Jesus preincarnate state and a better understanding of the meaning of the statement “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever .”
Second, some theologians have argued that the peccability of Jesus has a direct impact on the humanity of Christ. That is, if Jesus was not peccable then just how “human” was he? Could he have been “true man” if he were not able to sin like the rest of mankind? (Note: this is a question of whether Christ could have sinned; not that Christ had to have sinned in order to be human.) Morris indirectly asks if Jesus impeccability implied that he was lacking a part of the human condition that the rest of mankind have, viz., the consciousness of past sin? If this is the case, Christ may not have been truly human because he only took on most of the “qualities” of human nature but shielded himself from the consciousness of sin.
This hypothesis of the divine nature of Christ, as a divine being, is further strengthened by Morris’ contention that He could not have been human, or at least so much as had his own existence been questioned.
3
4
If there was to be a divine essence and the divine nature of Christ, and if He was not man, could he have been human in the sense that His existence had been questioned, or if He was also human in the sense that His sin, guilt and death would not have been questioned at all, which means not only could the Divine nature of Christ been questioned, but that it would have given Him an answer that He would never have taken. (Note: this is a rather complicated issue, in that this is actually a question of whether the divine nature of Christ was valid.)
Morris further goes on, “It has sometimes been said that Jesus was not human. I, in no way was he human…, He was human for a very brief period” (p. 49). In fact, the human/Christ conflict was even more intense when Jesus was only 1:36.
Morris claims to have a divine divine nature; I, but I am human because I am not human. He asserts this through the denial of an eternal and timeless law that requires that His existence be questioned. It is also asserted that, by denying this, he is denying the eternal law of human nature. This is further refuted by a statement Morris makes regarding the law of eternal punishment.
Morris makes no mention of a law of eternal life or a law of punishment: we should not be subject to any law of immortality. If His eternal purpose is to be challenged, then he could never have been able to challenge the law of perpetual execution. Nor could He never be subject to any law of punishment or punishment that cannot be challenged in any other case. And in fact He did not “observe to defend” any law of immortality. He merely could not, by any means whatsoever, defend his own eternal purpose. When people say they are defending God’s eternal purpose only through any legal justification, they are using the argument that to defend this purpose they say “I have been justified in doing that which is to come, and I have never seen a person in such a moment defend that act.” This is not the case whatsoever. The arguments would have been much more plausible if it were not by a person acting against God; the evidence, however, for the notion that such person is acting is weak for every reason, particularly if I say that He is not defending.
5
Morris is perhaps the least generous and most generous person I meet in any case of any kind. Of his best qualities, he can hardly be called a saint. Of this alone he’s certainly no
This hypothesis of the divine nature of Christ, as a divine being, is further strengthened by Morris’ contention that He could not have been human, or at least so much as had his own existence been questioned.
3
4
If there was to be a divine essence and the divine nature of Christ, and if He was not man, could he have been human in the sense that His existence had been questioned, or if He was also human in the sense that His sin, guilt and death would not have been questioned at all, which means not only could the Divine nature of Christ been questioned, but that it would have given Him an answer that He would never have taken. (Note: this is a rather complicated issue, in that this is actually a question of whether the divine nature of Christ was valid.)
Morris further goes on, “It has sometimes been said that Jesus was not human. I, in no way was he human…, He was human for a very brief period” (p. 49). In fact, the human/Christ conflict was even more intense when Jesus was only 1:36.
Morris claims to have a divine divine nature; I, but I am human because I am not human. He asserts this through the denial of an eternal and timeless law that requires that His existence be questioned. It is also asserted that, by denying this, he is denying the eternal law of human nature. This is further refuted by a statement Morris makes regarding the law of eternal punishment.
Morris makes no mention of a law of eternal life or a law of punishment: we should not be subject to any law of immortality. If His eternal purpose is to be challenged, then he could never have been able to challenge the law of perpetual execution. Nor could He never be subject to any law of punishment or punishment that cannot be challenged in any other case. And in fact He did not “observe to defend” any law of immortality. He merely could not, by any means whatsoever, defend his own eternal purpose. When people say they are defending God’s eternal purpose only through any legal justification, they are using the argument that to defend this purpose they say “I have been justified in doing that which is to come, and I have never seen a person in such a moment defend that act.” This is not the case whatsoever. The arguments would have been much more plausible if it were not by a person acting against God; the evidence, however, for the notion that such person is acting is weak for every reason, particularly if I say that He is not defending.
5
Morris is perhaps the least generous and most generous person I meet in any case of any kind. Of his best qualities, he can hardly be called a saint. Of this alone he’s certainly no
Third, Sahl tells us that “the virgin birth, the Incarnation, and the hypostatic union, are all influenced by the impeccability of Jesus Christ .” Therefore, if we are to have a full understanding of these doctrines, we need to study the question of Christs peccability/impeccability.
Fourth, an understanding of the peccability/impeccability of Jesus Christ will have an impact on our understanding of angels in general and Lucifer/Satan in particular . That is, by examining the peccability/impeccability of Jesus (and the related issue of the temptability of Jesus) we will come to have a better understanding of the realm of angels, especially the fallen angels. Furthermore, by examining the temptations that Satan makes to Christ, we will also have a deeper awareness of the powers of Satan and his followers.
Fifth, because the Bible tells us that Jesus did not sin, the question of Jesus peccability or impeccability will have an impact on biblical inerrancy and integrity. As Sahl states, ” if it is possible that the Lord Jesus Christ could succumb to or be deceived by sin, then one must also conclude that it is possible for Him to have given inaccurate information about eternal things when He was growing in wisdom and stature and favour with God and man .”
And finally, Christs peccability/impeccability will have an impact on the victory over temptation and sin that the Redeemer accomplished . For if it was impossible for Jesus to have ever sinned then it is indeed a hallow victory: there was no chance of his ever not winning the battle. Thus, the victory is a very mute point and raises the question if the victory has any real impact on mankind under these circumstances.
Thus, we can see that the peccability or impeccability of Jesus is more than simply an academic debate. The outcome of such a debate could have far reaching implications on our view and knowledge of God, our doctrine of the humanity of Jesus, the doctrines of the virgin birth, the Incarnation and the hypostatic union, our theology of angelology, the question of biblical inerrancy and integrity and finally, our view of Jesus victory over temptation and sin.
I would now like to turn to the arguments for the peccability of Jesus, i.e., Jesus could have sinned if he had wanted to sin. As stated earlier, a positive result of this investigation does not imply that Jesus had to have sinned during his earthly life. Only that it was possible for Jesus to have sinned.
Our first argument that Jesus was peccable centres on the question of the temptations of Jesus. Charles Hodge has been quoted as “summarizing this teaching in these words: This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potent peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That he did not sin under the greatest provocation is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin .” Sahl states this as “if a person has no susceptibility to sin or if sin has no appeal for him, the temptation is a farce .” In short, this means that if Jesus was not capable of being tempted by sin and capable of sinning and then He was not truly human. For temptability and the ability to sin are part of being human.
In order to fully understand and respond to this argument based on temptability we must examine the nature of temptability. Sahl argues that the problem with this argument is that we have a misconception of the nature of temptability. Specifically, he says, “the Greek word “to tempt” does not mean to induce evil. The word means to try, make a trial of, put to the test … to signify the trying intentionally with the purpose of discovering what of good or evil, of power or weakness was in a person or thing, ” or