Jesus and Sin

[Guest]

The question has arisen in a previous thread about Jesus and sin. Specifically - could Jesus, while on earth, sin?

Before we get down to an answer as to whether Jesus COULD sin - I believe some ground work needs to be laid first:


1) Did Jesus ever commit a sin - a sin of either comission or omission?

and

2) Is Jesus fully divine - is Jesus God?

I realize that there is an ongoing discussion/debate about the divinity of Jesus and there are those here on this forum that deny the Divinity of Christ. I believe we all agree on fact that Jesus was human

For me personally, I believe that Jesus Christ COULD NOT sin on the basis that Jesus WAS and IS divine (ie: God) and that Jesus DID NOT sin (either of omission or comission).

For now, I would like to get the ball-rolling and see what the rest of you have to bring to this discussion, I will provide my Scriptural evidence later.

 

[stranger]

The question has arisen in a previous thread about Jesus and sin. Specifically - could Jesus, while on earth, sin?

Before we get down to an answer as to whether Jesus COULD sin - I believe some ground work needs to be laid first:


1) Did Jesus ever commit a sin - a sin of either comission or omission?

and

2) Is Jesus fully divine - is Jesus God?

I realize that there is an ongoing discussion/debate about the divinity of Jesus and there are those here on this forum that deny the Divinity of Christ. I believe we all agree on fact that Jesus was human

For me personally, I believe that Jesus Christ COULD NOT sin on the basis that Jesus WAS and IS divine (ie: God) and that Jesus DID NOT sin (either of omission or comission).

For now, I would like to get the ball-rolling and see what the rest of you have to bring to this discussion, I will provide my Scriptural evidence later.

Here is one reference that comes to mind:

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)

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

 

[Heidi]

The question has arisen in a previous thread about Jesus and sin. Specifically - could Jesus, while on earth, sin?

Before we get down to an answer as to whether Jesus COULD sin - I believe some ground work needs to be laid first:


1) Did Jesus ever commit a sin - a sin of either comission or omission?

and

2) Is Jesus fully divine - is Jesus God?

I realize that there is an ongoing discussion/debate about the divinity of Jesus and there are those here on this forum that deny the Divinity of Christ. I believe we all agree on fact that Jesus was human

For me personally, I believe that Jesus Christ COULD NOT sin on the basis that Jesus WAS and IS divine (ie: God) and that Jesus DID NOT sin (either of omission or comission).

For now, I would like to get the ball-rolling and see what the rest of you have to bring to this discussion, I will provide my Scriptural evidence later.

Yes, Jesus is divine. No, Jesus is not God the Father. He is God, the Son. Jesus makes a distinction betwenn himself and his Father all throughout scripture. "For the Father is greater than I."

 

[Quath]

Personally, I believe that Jesus was just a human preacher similar to David Koresh. He convinced some followers he was in touch with God and they added and expanded the religion he started.

I think that Jesus hoped to be the Son of Man and believed he would be. I don't think Jesus thought he was the literal offspring of God. He was a son of God in the Hebrew sense that he was a good man trying to do God's work.

I think many of the followers that came after Jesus wanted Jesus to be the literal offspring of God. They were use to pagan ideas where the gods mated with humans to produce a demi-god who would do great things. Jesus was cast into that role.

But even if you discount all of that as nonsense, there is the idea that for Jesus not to sin, he has to obey all of his rules. If he is God then he should live up to his own rules otherwise he is a hypocrit. Jesus tends to encourage people to ignore some of the laws. Two examples are that he has a more lax stance on working on the Sabbath and he tries to stop people from stoning the adulterous woman. If anything, these actions are saying that God didn not clearly lay down these rules and they are causing needless harm. For Jesus to try to modify or lighten them implies they are not perfect laws.

The Bible also says that Jesus sacrifices himself. However only a Levi priest may do that. If Jesus does this, then he breakes a promise God made to the Levi priests.

Make of this what you will. Just wanted to toss out yet another opinion.

 

[stovebolts]

The Bible also says that Jesus sacrifices himself. However only a Levi priest may do that. If Jesus does this, then he breakes a promise God made to the Levi priests.

Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice in accordance with the will of the Father. I believe there is a difference Quath for what was given and shown to Moses, was simply a pattern of heavenly things (Exodus 25) and the purpose was for communion with YHWH.

As far as “Only a Leviâ€Â, that was in the previous Covenant from Sinai with Moses and the Israelites. Prior to Sinai, we hear about Abraham offering sacrifices and we even hear about a fellow that was called Melchisedec. Abram wasn’t a priest and Melchisedec wasn’t a Levi simply because the Levites were one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Now, Abraham had two sons. Ishmael and Isaac (Ishmael became the nation we refer as Muslem). Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. (Esau became the Edomites). Jacob, in his eyes wrestles with YHWH and is called Israel (the one who overcomes), for he has struggled with man and with God and has “Over Comeâ€Â. Jacob / Israel has 12 sons and each of them become the 12 tribes of Israel, which the tribe of Levi is later assigned (like by about 400 years)the task of keeping the tabernacle in order.

In the gospels Quath, Jesus speaks of putting new wine into old wineskins or sewing a new piece of cloth on an old garment. Neither are good ideas and both will fail. You see Quath, new wine must be placed in new wineskins and this is referring to the fulfillment of the new covenant with Christ. (Jer 31:31 Mt 26:27-28). This concept is further explained in a very well written book called the book of Hebrews and if I could point you to chapter 8, it may assist you in coming to a better understanding in this matter.

Hope that helps put the picture together a bit better for you Quath. Take care and say hi to the wife and kids for me!

As far as Jesus being able to sin, I believe since Jesus was also fully man and he could be fully tempted, then the potential to sin was certainly there. That being said, he was without blemish which counted for a perfect atonment.

 

[Quath]

Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice in accordance with the will of the Father. I believe there is a difference Quath for what was given and shown to Moses, was simply a pattern of heavenly things (Exodus 25) and the purpose was for communion with YHWH.

Well, God could have just forgiven without sacrifice as well. So if God was going to make a special case, he could have made the special case to just forgive without any ceremony.

As far as “Only a Leviâ€Â, that was in the previous Covenant from Sinai with Moses and the Israelites. Prior to Sinai, we hear about Abraham offering sacrifices and we even hear about a fellow that was called Melchisedec. Abram wasn’t a priest and Melchisedec wasn’t a Levi simply because the Levites were one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Now, Abraham had two sons. Ishmael and Isaac (Ishmael became the nation we refer as Muslem). Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau. (Esau became the Edomites). Jacob, in his eyes wrestles with YHWH and is called Israel (the one who overcomes), for he has struggled with man and with God and has “Over Comeâ€Â. Jacob / Israel has 12 sons and each of them become the 12 tribes of Israel, which the tribe of Levi is later assigned (like by about 400 years)the task of keeping the tabernacle in order.

So you are talking about the time before God made the deal with the Levi, or did I misunderstand you? However, once God makes a promise, he should not back down from it.

Hebrew 7 sees this issue and tried to reconcile it. But it looks shoddy. It basically says that God just breaks his promise to the Levis and allows for a new priesthood just for Jesus. Now God could have done this. But if God is going to change ceremony, it seems he would just skip the sacrifice all together and just forgive without the ceremony.

Hope that helps put the picture together a bit better for you Quath. Take care and say hi to the wife and kids for me!

Hope you are doing well. It has been awhile. I miss some of our chats.

See you later.

 

[Guest]

But even if you discount all of that as nonsense, there is the idea that for Jesus not to sin, he has to obey all of his rules. If he is God then he should live up to his own rules otherwise he is a hypocrit. Jesus tends to encourage people to ignore some of the laws. Two examples are that he has a more lax stance on working on the Sabbath and he tries to stop people from stoning the adulterous woman. If anything, these actions are saying that God didn not clearly lay down these rules and they are causing needless harm. For Jesus to try to modify or lighten them implies they are not perfect laws.

Make of this what you will. Just wanted to toss out yet another opinion.

Quath, from reading some of your, posts it is clear that you have read and perhaps even studied the Scriptures. Has I pointed out in another thread, I believe there are two ways to study the Bible - one to seek truth and one to seek contradictions.

Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17)

If you study the Scriptures to seek the Truth and understanding, you will see that there are no contradictions - rather the seamless Truth that is thread throughout the Scriptures.

I seek not to quarrel or argue with you - and I realize that my logic will not convince you - but that is not my responsibility or job. My job is to speak and testify to the Truth - it is God's responsibility to convince. I have learned that He is much better at it than I.

Blessings....

 

[Quath]

If you study the Scriptures to seek the Truth and understanding, you will see that there are no contradictions - rather the seamless Truth that is thread throughout the Scriptures.

My experience is that you can not show a contradiction to a believer of their own religion. They tend to believe their religion is perfect. Try to argue with a Hindu or a Muslim and you can easily see this. No matter what you show of their holy book, they can show there is no contradiction. There are a lot of games you can play to convince yourself there are no errors. If your Bible beloned to another religion, I am sure you could easily see the same issues I see.

For me, I study the scriptures for several reasons. I grant you that one part is to find contradictions. But I also like mythology, so another part is for the story. I also want to understand what people were thinking back then and how much the writing reflected their perspectives. I don't approach it from the perspective that it is all correct. Any book you apprach that way will turn out to be correct for you.

I seek not to quarrel or argue with you - and I realize that my logic will not convince you - but that is not my responsibility or job. My job is to speak and testify to the Truth - it is God's responsibility to convince. I have learned that He is much better at it than I.

If God ever reveals himself to me, I will believe. So I guess until then, I will have to stay skeptical.

Until later.

 

[Guest]

My experience is that you can not show a contradiction to a believer of their own religion. They tend to believe their religion is perfect. Try to argue with a Hindu or a Muslim and you can easily see this. No matter what you show of their holy book, they can show there is no contradiction. There are a lot of games you can play to convince yourself there are no errors. If your Bible beloned to another religion, I am sure you could easily see the same issues I see.

For me, I study the scriptures for several reasons. I grant you that one part is to find contradictions. But I also like mythology, so another part is for the story. I also want to understand what people were thinking back then and how much the writing reflected their perspectives. I don't approach it from the perspective that it is all correct. Any book you apprach that way will turn out to be correct for you.

Quath - I did not ask or suggest that you should approach the Bible as "all correct". Rather, I ask or suggest that you approach it to find Truth.

I would suggeset that if you approach a book seeking contradictions, that is what you find - if they exist or not.

If God ever reveals himself to me, I will believe. So I guess until then, I will have to stay skeptical.

Until later.

Then that will be my prayer for you, friend.

Blessings.....

 

[DM]

I think the topic this thread is seeking to explore is an important one.

If Jesus cannot sin because he is God, then he was in fact, never tempted to begin with. God cannot be tempted by evil (cf. James 1:13), whereas Jesus was tempted just as we are (cf. Hebrews 2:18 / 4:15) yet was without sin.

This is one of the most clear Scriptural demonstrations that should cause trinitarians to re-think their understanding of who Jesus is. He is the Son of God, not "God the Son" (an extra-biblical phrase like many others that trinitarian theology must resort to).

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to trinitarians by saying that, but I would encourage any trinitarian to question their reasonings based on the aforementioned passages.

Peace in Him.
David

 

[Quath]

If Jesus cannot sin because he is God, then he was in fact, never tempted to begin with. God cannot be tempted by evil (cf. James 1:13), whereas Jesus was tempted just as we are (cf. Hebrews 2:18 / 4:15) yet was without sin.

I think that is a good point. If Jesus is God and if God is perfect, then Jesus is unable to be tempted or to act imperfect.

This probably opens up other theological issues. For exaple, when Jesus was faced with a decision, he has no choice. He can only make the most perfect choice. That could imply a lack of "free will."

 

[stranger]

Hi,

The garden of Gesthamane - Jesus said if it be possible let this cup pass from me but Thine will be done. The drops of blood suggest a struggle of immense proportions.

 

[Guest]

Hi,

The garden of Gesthamane - Jesus said if it be possible let this cup pass from me but Thine will be done. The drops of blood suggest a struggle of immense proportions.

I am not sure it shows an immense struggle, but a gripping reality. Jesus predicted and told his disciples what He must do - therefore, I do not think that Jesus was thinking twice about it - rather Gesthamane shows us Jesus who was not questioning the will of the Father, but confirming with it.

Look at how all of humanity has changed because of his Death!

 

[francisdesales]

I think the topic this thread is seeking to explore is an important one.

If Jesus cannot sin because he is God, then he was in fact, never tempted to begin with. God cannot be tempted by evil (cf. James 1:13), whereas Jesus was tempted just as we are (cf. Hebrews 2:18 / 4:15) yet was without sin.

David,

Why couldn't Jesus' humanity been tempted to create bread to eat? Or what about changing His mission to be more dramatic, rather than the hidden and meek Messiah? The final temptation, no doubt, would have been sinful, which is when He excused Himself and sent Satan away, but what about the first two? God certainly could have saved mankind in the manner of the second temptation, and eating in of itself is not sinful.

Regards

 

[Guest]

David,

Why couldn't Jesus' humanity been tempted to create bread to eat? Or what about changing His mission to be more dramatic, rather than the hidden and meek Messiah? The final temptation, no doubt, would have been sinful, which is when He excused Himself and sent Satan away, but what about the first two? God certainly could have saved mankind in the manner of the second temptation, and eating in of itself is not sinful.

Regards

The question of the first two - isn't if the act in and of itself is sinful, but the context around the act would make it sinful.

 

[francisdesales]

The question of the first two - isn't if the act in and of itself is sinful, but the context around the act would make it sinful.

This is all a difficult question because of the hypostatis of the Logos, two joined natures in one person. We know that Jesus had two wills. His divine will could not sin, because to sin is to do something against God's will. Being God, how could He do something against His own will? There are not two divine wills! Thus, the Father and the Son's will were one. Literally.

On the other hand, does this mean that Jesus' divine nature overriden everything that He did as a man? To what degree? The Church teaches that both natures were joined but not mixed. We do know that Jesus did not have access to ALL that the Father knew - such as the time of the end of the world. Thus, somehow, some knowledge of the divine was not accessible to Jesus the person. This might be a good place to start to reflect on this theological question.

Regards

 

[Guest]

What we are forgetting here is that Jesus was fathered by God. Therefore, his human nature was not compromised, like ours. There was no sin nature in His humanity. Therefore, I believe Jesus was able to align his human will with his Godly will.

 

[Quath]

What we are forgetting here is that Jesus was fathered by God. Therefore, his human nature was not compromised, like ours. There was no sin nature in His humanity. Therefore, I believe Jesus was able to align his human will with his Godly will.

How do you know there was no sinful nature? If he had a human mother who had inherited original sin, where did that inheritance go? Maybe you can say that the God part of him destroyed the inherieted sin, but that is guesswork.

 

[francisdesales]

What we are forgetting here is that Jesus was fathered by God. Therefore, his human nature was not compromised, like ours. There was no sin nature in His humanity. Therefore, I believe Jesus was able to align his human will with his Godly will.

And Jesus was "mothered" by a human woman. Last time I took a biology class, both the mother and the father contribute to the child's makup... If neither had sin, then the child did not inherit sin.

Jesus took on the flesh of human nature. But it is not part of human nature to sin - it is our tendency to sin. When God created man, man was not created as a sinner or with sin as part of his nature.

IF sin was part of man's nature, then Jesus did not take on human nature.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

The Impeccability of the Lord Jesus Christ
Mark 1:12-13

by John A. Kohler, III



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The purpose of the temptation of the Lord Jesus Christ was not to determine whether or not He would sin, but to demonstrate the fact that He would not and could not sin.

I. God cannot be tempted (Jas. 1:13-14).

A. He does not directly or immediately tempt or entice human beings to sin.

B. He Himself cannot be tempted from within His own divine nature.


II. God Incarnate could be and often was tempted (Mat. 4:1-11; 26:36-44; Lk. 22:28,39-46; Heb. 2:16-18; 4:14-16).

A. He suffered being tempted or enticed to sin (Heb. 2:18).

B. He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet He had no sin nature as we do (Heb. 4:15).

C. Since He had no sin nature within (Lk. 1:35; I Jn. 3:5), He had to be tempted totally from without.


III. God Incarnate was able not to sin because He was not able to sin.

A. In His divine nature, He was not able to be tempted or to sin. In His human nature, He was able to be tempted and to sin. Since His divine nature and human nature were united in one Person, His divine nature controlled His human nature. Before the Fall, Adam had a sinless human nature, but he did not have a divine nature that would control his human nature.

B. The fact that He was not able to sin does not mean that He was not able, in His human nature, to be tempted to sin. Just because something is an utter impossibility does not mean that it cannot be hardily attempted.

C. The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability (Heb. 1:12; 13:8). If He was able to sin while He was here on earth, then He was able to sin before He came to earth, and He is able to sin now that He has left the earth.

D. The omnipotence of Christ proves His impeccability (Mat. 28:18). His human nature was not omnipotent and was, therefore, temptable and peccable, but His human nature was controlled by His omnipotent divine nature, which was neither temptable nor peccable.

E. The omniscience of Christ proves His impeccability (Jn. 2:25). Since He had a controlling, omniscient divine nature, He was not able to be deceived or tricked into sinning and could clearly see the consequences of sin.

F. The deity of Christ proves His impeccability (Jn. 1:1). If He had been a man only, then He could have sinned, but He was the God-man.

G. The authority of Christ proves His impeccability (Jn. 10:18). Since He had authority over life and death, surely He had authority over sin.

H. The absolute sovereignty of God proves Christ’s impeccability (Isa. 46:9-10). In eternity past, God had not only decreed as a part of His eternal plan that Jesus would be tempted, but that He would be victorious over temptation. He had also decreed Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, second coming, Millennial reign, and eternal glory. If Jesus could have sinned, it would have totally ruined God’s plan for the ages.

Both God the Father (Acts 15:10; I Cor. 10:9; Heb. 3:9) and God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9) were tempted from without by men. Yet, no one suggests that they were able to sin. Why should anyone believe, then, that God the Son was able to sin just because He was able to be tempted?

I do not totally agree with everything this man wrote (ie Millennial reign,etc), but he does bring up good points to consider.
Grace, Bubba