Within Protestantism, that being liberal and non-liberal, there rests two beliefs concerning the person and work of Christ. The controversy gets its full argument over the terms peccability and impeccability. Peccability states that Christ “could sin,” and impeccability says “He could not sin” (Best 3). One source tells us in his treatment on this doctrine that “Impeccabilitas is a Latin word literally saying no sin-ability” (Culver 525). The question remains but one: did Christ have the ability to sin? Along with many other biblical writers and teachers, I am taking the position that Christ, in absolutely every way, could not sin because He, being fully God and fully man possessed full deity in bodily form (Col. 2:9).Careful study of the person and work of Christ through Scripture makes it plain that Christ was “not able to sin” (Ryrie). There are three arguments why I take the position of Christ being impeccable
The first reason why Christ was not able to sin is because He had no sin nature. The doctrine of the incarnation of Christ through the Virgin Mary is instrumental in several aspects to this position. According to Scripture, Jesus was born through a virgin named Mary who was told by an angel “The Holy Spirit will come upon you.” (Luke 2:35) This virgin birth testifies that Jesus was not a natural man. W.E. Best points out that if Christ had a “nature that was capable of sinning, He was not free from depravity and actual sin (6). Christ was totally free from any sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “He who knew no sin became sin.” Jesus’ humanity through Mary does not give license to say that He could have sinned. Within the incarnation there exists two natures, the human and divine. I see in the Scripture’s, verses that prove He was sinless, but to have a divine nature, all logic and rational thinking says that Christ was incapable of sinning. Christ had no sin nature because Christ had no human father. All of us are “in” Adam, whereas Christ is not from Adam, but from God (Romans 5). It is amazing that Christ was fully human and yet had no sin nature; this is only capable through the beauty of the incarnation. This is only obtainable through an understanding of how the divine and human (hypostatic union) nature work.
The second reason why Christ was not able to sin is due to Him being God. There are many claims in the Scriptures that tell us Christ and others people in fact said He was God. John 20:28 says, “Thomas answered him and said, “My Lord and my God.”” Also John 8:58, “…before Abraham was, I am.” Christ was the God that was incapable of sin. Even James 1:13 pointed to this when he said, “God cannot be tempted with evil.” Again, rational and logical conclusions would say that because Christ is fully God, He cannot sin. Who would want a sovereign God that had the ability to sin? There is no argument behind the argument for this teaching.
The third reason why Christ was not able to sin is because He is the “infinite” sacrifice for sin. I see in light of the Word of God that Christ was holy, righteous, and morally pure in every way. His whole person and nature are captivated by so much pure beauty that sin cannot even approach His holiness. These attributes were never laid down at any time before, during, or after His earthly ministry. He was, is, and always will be incapable of sin. Sin is against God, and Christ “who was found in the form of a servant, humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8). The “infinite” substitution for sin, as W.E. Best puts it was “unlimited, immeasurable, and incomprehensible” (8). To think that Christ, who was with the Father before the foundation of the world and now has come to earth to “bear the sins of many,” and then to say that Christ could have sinned, is to say He could have sinned “with the glory that He had with the Father before the world was.” (John 17). The whole notion and thought process concerning this cannot point to the fact the “infinite” God-man could have sinned. “The doctrine of peccability stabs the very heart of Christ and His redemptive work” (Best 9).
Holding to Christ’s not able to sin, and then to approach the temptations that He faced raises some questions. Were Christ’s temptations really legitimate? I take the position that says Christ’s temptations were in fact very legitimate because as a man, Jesus Christ could be tempted. Again, this goes back to the reality of the incarnation. Scripture verifies this in Hebrews 4:15, “…but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 2:18 says, “For because He Himself has suffered when tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted.” God, according to James 1 could not be tempted, but the man nature of Jesus could. One writer said, “His temptations were not really to see if He could sin, but to prove that He could not” (Ryrie). Now if Christ’s human nature had the sin nature within it, as I have, then Christ would have had the ability to sin, but this is not the case. The temptations that Jesus went through such as those in Matthew 4 and Gethsemane were real and tempting situations that His human nature would have had to rely on the Father and Holy Spirit to help Him through. Wayne Grudem says, “He did not rely on the strength of the divine nature to make it easier for him to face the temptations…” (539). Jesus had a special task given to Him through these temptations to trust His Father and display who He really was, the Son of God. Robert Stein said the “Gospel writers give no hint that the “temptation” was simply a matter of play-acting on the part of Jesus” (110). However, Stein claims that the writer of Hebrews “seems to have understood the life of Jesus as one in which sin is a real possibility” (110). If I understand Steins meaning correctly, there is no way the sin had a “possibility.” Christ, although He went through huge temptations to sin, could not sin in the temptations, but only showed that He saw something more attractive, more beautiful, namely, His Father. F. Pieper noted that there are many critics who say that if Christ was not able to sin this would “exclude” His temptations, making all of this a joke. Jesus did possess a huge war within the His soul. Yet we never had to worry about what Jesus would do. Even the most lushes, attractive enticement would not have made Jesus circum to the horror of sin, as real as they were (qtd. in Culver 527).
Christ could not sin in any way, shape, or form. Christ was the “exact imprint and nature of His Father (Heb. 1:3). I cannot ignore the doctrine of impeccability anymore than I can ignore the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ’s very being is made up of all Truth. And that Truth is He is God in the flesh without the capability of sin. Christ even said, “I am the light of the world…” (John 8:12). These claims point to the fact that we are not dealing with just a human side. We are dealing with the Son of God, the Holy One of Israel who never sinned, nor could He ever sin, and this is what our hope rests in, Christ’s perfect work alone.
Works Cited
Best, W.E. Studies in the Person & Work of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1975.
Culver, Robert. Systematic Theology. Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2006.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester and Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press and Zondervan, 1994.
Ryrie C.C. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Stein, Robert. H. Jesus the Messiah. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, USA, 1996.