photo #7818416

THE "IMPECCABILITY" OF CHRIST Why Jesus COULD Have Sinned, but Didn't This isn't worth fighting over, but I have a question for anyone who believes in the impeccability of Christ. As commonly defined, this is the belief that Jesus could not have sinned since He was God. Naturally, that seems like the right position to take, but I believe it diminishes the work of Christ. There is far greater honor in not sinning when you CAN sin than in not sinning when you CAN'T sin. Biblical statements like He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15) don't carry as much weight, if Jesus couldn't have sinned anyway. For a man to walk a mile on a sunny day and not get wet is no big deal, but doing so in a thunderstorm is quite an accomplishment. Abiding by the speed limit when all you have is a skateboard is no accomplishment at all, but doing so in a Corvette is rather impressive. Jesus, having free will, COULD HAVE sinned, but He didn't. The emotional, knee-jerk reaction to this is usually something like, "No way! My Saviour is GOD, and GOD can't sin!" Yeah, got it, but that's beside the point. The issue isn't whether or not GOD could have sinned. The issue is whether or not JESUS could have sinned. "But Jesus was God!" That's an incomplete statement. Jesus was also man. He was both Son of God and Son of Man. God doesn't hunger and thirst, yet Jesus did (Luke 4:2; John 19:28). God doesn't learn anything, yet Jesus did (Heb. 5:8). God doesn't say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" yet Jesus did (Mat. 27:46). Had Jesus been God only, then He couldn't have sinned, nor could He have even been tempted (James 1:13), but He wasn't God only. He was "God MANIFEST IN THE FLESH" (I Tim. 3:16) for the very purpose of willfully living above sin and then giving Himself as a perfect sacrifice for sin. This, of course, is called a "mystery" in the word of God, so I suppose that a full understanding is not even possible. But it does seem logical, at least to this preacher, that it's more correct to say . . . "Jesus COULD have sinned since He was a man, but He DIDN'T sin since He was God." He could have, but He chose not to. This gives full respect to BOTH natures of Christ rather than wholly embracing one nature while practically ignoring the other. If you disagree, that's fine, but I do have a question: If Jesus could not have sinned "because He was God," then how could He have DIED? Did God die? You see, that requires THINKING, and most Christians only FEEL like they're thinking. I suspect that I will hear replies like, "No, God didn't die! It was Christ the MAN that died." True, but then why can't it be that Christ the "MAN" COULD HAVE SINNED, but chose not to sin because He was also God? That is, why respect the two natures of Christ in His death, but not also in His temptations and in His incredible victory over sin? As already stated, there's more honor for Jesus if He COULD have sinned than if He could NOT have sinned, and I believe a proper respect of His two natures balances this perfectly.