In short, it was logically impossible for Jesus to sin. Jesus is able to be sinless because although the Bible teaches that everyone has sinned (Rom. 3:23), sin is not necessary. Recall the possibility of a world that does and does not have sin (used in the problem of evil):
There is a possible world in which all free creatures willingly and freely choose to do right.
There is a possible world in which all free creatures willingly and freely choose to do evil.
Thus it is possible that every world God could create containing free creatures would be a world with sin and evil.
This does not mean that Jesus is created (outside of the biological human complexity that exists in the physical body). This is in relation to Jesus as a free agent, even more so due to humans having the notion permission. The two natures exist eternally and are not created. In this logic, we can see that human righteousness is not dependent upon sin (just as we have a rational soul in our human nature, we can choose to do right without necessity of wrong). So it is possible for Jesus to be genuinely tempted (in His human nature), while still maintaining His divine nature. Jesus’ human nature was able to feel the draw and lure of temptation but would not be able to sin because of His divine nature. God cannot feel the draw and lure of temptation, thus it was His human nature that was tempted. To sum this point up, righteousness is not contingent upon sin.
June 19, 2012 at 14:13
Great post. Very interesting…. follow up question. Is it POSSIBLE for a human being to live a sinless life? Let’s say… starting after the age of accountability.
Any thoughts?
June 20, 2012 at 08:47
I think it’s *possible* but it’s infeasible that one could be sinless. If we make sinlessness not-possible I think we have the problem I’m trying to avoid. By infeasible I mean that given sin (imputed, etc) that we *would* always choose to sin. We don’t have to but we would and will. At what point this happens, I don’t know. I don’t like the age of accountability phrase but I wouldn’t deny it. I think when one is counciously aware and capable of understanding moral and natural revelation I believe that’s when God holds them ‘accountable.’ I have a problem with, say, an infant, dying and being held accountable for something they were cognitively and morally incapable of processing or understanding.
June 21, 2012 at 15:14
The only reason I asked was because apparently there is an evangelist out there (that Vicki was telling me about the other day) who was telling Preston Jr that it’s possible to be sin free. I disagree and would argue that it might even be a sin (depending on your heart attitude) to make such a claim.
By saying “age of accountability” I am essentially saying the same thing you said above. I don’t believe it’s the same for everyone. Only God truly knows each person’s heart and what they can and cannot comprehend and understand.
June 19, 2012 at 14:18
A couple of comments here, Max.
First: I’m not exactly sure what to make of this claim: “The two natures exist eternally and are not created.” This is certainly true of the divine nature since God, as a person (or three), exists eternally. I’m not sure this is true of “human nature,” Are you referring to here the possibility that the idea of a human nature eternally exists in the mind of the godhead? If so, I suppose it could be true that human nature exists eternally. If you don’t mean that, though, then I’m not sure what to make of it. I don’t know that “human nature” per se has any existence outside of particular human beings (and here I tip my hat to Aristotle and away from Plato).
Second: Natures aren’t tempted. Persons are tempted. This is one of the difficulties with our doctrine; but it is what it is. Jesus, as a person, was tempted. It was by virtue of his human nature that he was tempted, but it wasn’t a temptation to a particular nature–natures can’t so much as suffer or experience. People do that. Jesus, though, is eternally God and cannot so much as sin. Here it’s helpful, I think, to think about temptation in facts of the matter rather than phenomenology. It seems to me that many questions think that Jesus suffered, in a phenomenological sense, temptation in the wilderness. I’m not sure that’s accurate. In fact, I think that’s wrong. But, the fact of the matter is that Satan tempted Jesus. For example: I could be tempted in this way..
Jack: Hey, JT. I want to take that 100$ bill that fell out of Jim’s pocket. Go get it.
That’s a temptation. In other words, it’s just a fact that Jack is tempting me to do something. But, I don’t think it follows from that that I must ‘feel’ tempted. In other words, I don’t know that I have to war with the decision to act or not act. I could just as easily say “Jack…get bent!” and be done with it. All of this could happen, I think, without so much as any hesitation or any phenomenological first person ‘feeling’ of temptation. Though, I think it’s true that if someone said “Jack tempted JT” and “JT was tempted by Jack” that they’d be telling two true statements.
So, I think Jesus’ temptation was largely l like that. There isn’t any need for a possibility of sinning required in temptation. Tempting is just trying to manipulate someone to do something whether wrong or right (or amoral, I guess).
So say I, anyway.
JT
June 19, 2012 at 14:20
By “many questions think that Jesus suffered” I, of course, mean “many CHRISTIANS think…”
ugh..
June 20, 2012 at 08:41
1. Perhaps my verbiage was not the best. What I was trying to avoid was the thought that any part of Jesus was not created. I have Platonic tendencies when it comes to personhood and I think that’s a bit of Habermas’ influence. Dr. Beck and I have gone back and forth on these types of things but I think you make a great distinction.
2. I understand what you’re saying but how do you reconcile the fact that God cannot be tempted? If Jesus is one person, God, how can he be tempted? I think if we predicate temptation to the nature and the person is aware of that it solves the aforementioned problem. Thoughts?
June 21, 2012 at 15:01
Well, here is a semantic difference. Instead of saying “Jesus’ human nature was tempted” it is, I think, more proper to say “Jesus was tempted with respect to his human nature.”