Eternal Perspectives

Carla Rolfe at Reflections of the Times asks a pair of interesting questions in her post The Impeccability of Christ before embarking on an important doctrine concerning the nature of the God-man, Jesus Christ. First I’ll answer the two questions, the second of which will turn to a discussion of the Incarnation. Carla asks,

Can you deny the impeccability of Christ, and still be a Christian?

Is believing the impeccability of Christ, a non-essential?”

Unless one is willing to relegate such people as E.F. Harrison and Charles Hodge to hell (since they both believed in peccability), then it would seem that the obvious answer to to Carla’s first question is “No”: belief in the impeccability of Christ is not necessary. Of course, the eternal state of any individual cannot be the basis for one’s theology: the teaching of Scripture is the final arbiter in any and all such discussions. But without adducing proof-texts to make my point, suffice it to say that nowhere in the New Testament is belief in the impeccability of Christ a necessary condition for salvation.

The second question, however, is far more interesting and less easily resolved, for in one sense the matter of Jesus’ peccability or impeccability is important and thus an essential truth; the implications, in fact, in one instance of peccability is determinative regarding our Christology, Soteriology, and Anthropology.

First, however, a definition of terms is required. The matter of peccability or impeccability has to do with whether Jesus was able not to sin or was not able to sin; in Latin, this is expressed as posse non peccare versus non posse peccare. The first states that though it existed as a possibility, Jesus was able not to sin; the second that He was not able to sin no matter what the temptation.

What often stirs the debate is the question of temptation: if Jesus was not able to sin, then His temptation was not legitimate and He is not truly a High Priest who can identify with our weakness since He has been through it Himself (Heb 4.15):

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” – Heb 4.14-16 (NASB, emphasis mine)

Many, if not most, of the arguments supporting impeccability argue from analogy at this point. For example, it has been said that, simply because a single ant cannot crush a tank, that does not mean that it is impossible for the ant to attack and make the attempt. The reasoning, therefore, is that just because it was impossible for Jesus to sin does not mean that temptations could not have been put before Him.

The problem with such reasoning, apart from it being an argument from analogy, is that it views the attack from the vantage point of the attacker. The ant (or Satan) may indeed attack the tank (or Jesus) and have the experience of having attacked. But it says nothing about the experience of the tank (Jesus). Does the tank “feel” attacked if it knows it cannot be crushed? Hardly. Neither would Jesus, knowing that it were impossible for Him to sin, truly be tempted or experience temptation by whatever efforts Satan might make.

If Jesus were simply (!) able not to sin, then the temptations are real and He is a qualified High Priest. But the possibility of the second member of the Godhead being capable of sin raises all kinds of theological difficulties, not the least of which are in the nature of the Triunity of God. Peccability solves the problem of validating temptation but raises other issues even more troubling.

My question, in contrast to either of Carla’s, is this: Was Jesus peccable or impeccable during His incarnation, i.e., was He able not to sin or not able to sin? And my answer is, “Both.”

In a mystery not yet revealed to us, the blending of Jesus’ divine nature with His human nature resulted in a Person without sin. At the end of the day, this is the most critical and – I would argue – a truly non-negotiable point: Jesus did not sin, whether it was due to posse non peccare or non posse peccare. In order to be a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world, it was required that Jesus be without sin. And sinless He was, as Heb 9.1-7 makes clear:

9.1 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place.
3 Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,
4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;
5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,
7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.” – (NASB, emphasis mine)

It was necessary for the high priest under the old covenant to offer blood for the covering his own sins as well as the sins of the people. But Jesus did not take with Him into the divine Holy of Holies the blood of bulls or goats in order to atone for His sins as well as the sins of the people:

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” – Heb 9.11-14 (emphases mine)

Jesus was sinless and thus His blood was efficacious for the atoning for the sins of the world (however you wish to define “world”). The issue of peccability vs. impeccability does not enter into this discussion: the important fact is that Jesus the Christ was pure and undefiled, totally without stain or blemish, lacking even the scent or rumor of sin in Him. He was – and remains – sinless.

But how, as I have stated above, can the answer to the peccability/impeccability discussion be, “Both”? My belief is this:

1. As God, as an eternal member of the Godhead, it is impossible that the Son of God could sin. With regard to His divine Spirit, He was non posse peccare: not able to sin.

2. As a human, albeit a perfect human and without a sin nature, it was possible for Him to sin. That is, with regard to His human spirit, He was posse non peccare: able not to sin.

The second statement makes sense of Jesus being a perfect High Priest in that He genuinely experienced, through His human spirit, temptation. Thus, when He prayed in the garden that another way be taken if at all possible, He was wrestling with a real possibility: to obey the will of God or not to obey it. Of course, His response was to submit Himself to God.

How was Jesus able not to sin? By living the totality of His life in complete dependence upon the Holy Spirit who indwelt and empowered Him. This is also what makes Him an example for us to follow: we, just like Him before us, have the choice of yielding to the Holy Spirit and following God or resisting and sinning. Jesus chose at every point to yield and not to sin. In His human nature, He lived in complete submission to the will of the Father through reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

Could Jesus, though, lacking a sin nature – for He did not have a sin nature as do we – have been able to sin? Well, did Adam possess a sin nature prior to the Fall? No, and yet he was able to choose to do the evil rather than the good: Adam chose to submit and yield to the external temptation and sin – present in the already-fallen Satan. Even in His sinless, human nature Jesus could have chosen to sin but His total reliance on the Holy Spirit – to do only the things He sees His Father doing and to say only that which the Father says – made it possible for Him not to sin.

Although I have spent the bulk of this discussion on peccability, the case for impeccability is no less strong or important. It is simply easier, I think, for us to comprehend the impeccability of God than it is get our minds around peccability. But both are true and both are equally important.

Jesus was not able to sin because He was and is God; Jesus was able not to sin because He only lived and functioned through the power of the Holy Spirit (this is very similar to John’s argument in his first epistle, i.e., that no one living in the power of the Holy Spirit can sin).

To summarize, then:

1. Belief in the impeccability of Christ is not a necessary condition for salvation.
2. Belief in the sinlessness of Christ is an essential doctrine.
3. Belief in the peccability and impeccability of Jesus can both be affirmed although not logically reconciled: it is a mystery (1 Tim 3.16).

I found a series of exchanges at Carla’s to be interesting and, perhaps, to add some thoughts to what I have already written. Here are some of the comments (mine are in italics), but go to Carla’s for the entire post and all comments.
_______

‘David says:
“Jesus could not sin because he was God.”

‘I couldnt agree more.This is NOT about what Christ did NOT have but what He DOES have as far as attributes.What I would really like to see is someone explain the “fact” of peccability co-existing with the FACT of the hypostaic union.

‘As far as Adam……Adam did not have the advantage of having the nature of God as did Christ. This is a comparrison that is not apples to aples.Adam was w/o sin before the fall as was Christ but Christ was God as well as man.

‘Now when we get done with the hypostaic union, we can deal with another positive aspect that makes the impeccability of Christ not only a possibility but a necessity.
GB
BB

‘P.S. I do NOT agree that one can be a “Christian Theoligian” and deny impeccability. Neither Christian NOR Theologian.’
Anonymous | 01.23.06 – 6:08 pm |
_______

‘Some of your commenters – especially the anonymous ones, I guess – would do well to realize that just because you say something forcefully does not make it true. And, while it is true that this topic has a bearing on the hypostatic union and the kenosis, it is not as simple as we might like it to be.

‘In short, it isn’t as simple as it seems and godly men and women are to be found in both camps.’
Mike | Homepage | 01.23.06 – 6:54 pm | #
_______

‘Mike
You will never convince me of anything by quoting presbyterian “theologians”. I’m a Baptist and have no use for such non-sense.
BB’
Anonymous | 01.23.06 – 7:13 pm | #
_______

‘Mike
What part of immutability do you not understand?
BB’
Anonymous | 01.23.06 – 7:15 pm | #
_______

Anonymous:

‘In fact, I would encourage Carla not to allow anonymous commenters: it breeds irresponsibility and encourages unsubstantiated cheap shots, especially among the unstable.’
Mike | Homepage | 01.23.06 – 8:09 pm | #
_______

‘To say that Christ was peccable is to say that He is mutable which is to say that He is not God and no Christian can make that claim.To say that Christ could have sinned, no matter what the cause, is to say, not only that He is mutable but can become less than Holy, which is to say that He is not God which no Christian can claim.

‘To say that Christ could have sinned (is peccable) is to deny the unity of His person, which is to say that, His Deity could be in conflict with His humanity, which also is to attribute mutability (ability to change) to Him, which again says that He is not God.
Deity necessitates impeccability.Christ as a person necessitates unity in His person.
Michael W. Ray
A.K.A. BB’
Anonymous | 01.23.06 – 8:10 pm | #
_______

‘Mike

‘I have always exercised not only decency towards, but reverence for Christ, when discussing His person.Im not much into philosophy.
Michael W. Ray
A.K.A. BB’
Anonymous | 01.23.06 – 8:12 pm | #
_______

‘Michael:

Related Tags: Jesus, Christology, hypostatic union, peccability, impeccability