I heard a question come up in an ordination council a while back. “Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin?” At first I didn’t understand the difference in the two phrases “able not” and “not able.” Then it became clear. The issue concerned the impeccability of Christ – is Christ’s impeccability only practical in that Christ never committed a sin or was it fully actual in that it was impossible for Christ to even commit a sin.
Charles Hodge proposed the notion that though Christ could have sinned, He didn’t. He said, “This sinfulness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability…If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning.”[1] This ignores the fact that Christ did not have a sin nature nor a propensity to sin as the natural man has. The virgin birth made that possible. Though Christ was fully human, He was not born a sinful human.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ never committed a sin. Passages like 2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22, and 1 John 3:5 clearly teach that Christ never committed a sin. But since He was tempted, does that mean He could have sinned? Does temptability mean susceptibility? Is it more correct to say that He was able not to sin, or that He was not able to sin? Rationally speaking, if Christ was susceptible and able to sin, what does that say about His deity? Diminishing Christ’s full impeccability is to diminish His full deity. If Christ could have sinned, that would be the same as saying God could have sinned. Some try to separate the 2 natures of Christ and say that in His deity sin was not a possibility while in His humanity there was a possibility. But Christ is the God-man. One nature affects the other. You can’t separate His natures at will. At times, one nature might be emphasized over the other, but Christ is always the God-man.
A passage to consider is 1 John 3:5. There it does not specifically say that Christ committed no sin. Literally, it reads “sin is not in Him.” The fact that the word “sin” is without the definite article supports the idea of the sin nature as it does in 1 John 1:8. Christ does not have the sin nature that humans are born with. His nature was one where “sin is not in Him.” The context of the verse supports this. Verses 1-3 detail how we “will be like Him.” The entire context deals with the idea that when we receive glorified bodies, we will also no longer have a sin nature. Therefore, since Christ had no sin nature, there would be no compulsion towards sin.
John 8:29 sheds some light on the situation. Christ declares that He can only do things that please the Father. If the Father is not pleased with sin, then Christ was not able to commit a sin. How would it be possible for Christ to do something that is completely opposite to His holy nature and character? There is a song which says that Christ could have called thousands of angels down from heaven while He was on the cross. While that might be true concerning His authority, it is false since Christ will only do the Father’s will. Whatever is not the Father’s will is a sin. Therefore, Christ could not call thousands of angels down from Heaven.
The concept of temptability implying susceptibility is not supported by Scriptures either. The logic is based on the concept that since we are tempted and susceptible to sin, then it must stand to reason that the same is true of Christ. But Christ doesn’t have the same nature that humans have. He has a sinless nature whereas humans have a sinful nature. Walvoord writes, “It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for a rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”[2] To split hairs with Walvoord, resistance may not be the proper word since Christ’s nature does not even incline Him towards sin. Christ does not have to “resist” temptation if He was tempted to do something that is the opposite of His nature and that which He hates – sin. Christ never even considered sinning. He is not inclined to do that which is opposite of His nature. There was not a moral struggle. It was only natural for Christ to do what was holy. There was no real resistance to temptation.
In some eyes, that might seem to weaken the temptation of Christ. Yet the temptation was real. The tempter was real. The tempted was real. What makes the temptation of Christ (with full and actual impeccability) great was that though Satan tried to make Christ sin, Christ did what was only natural for Him to do, that which is right. Christ gives believers a model for combating temptation – use Scripture!
In conclusion, what does it say about orthodoxy when people believe that it was possible for Christ to sin? If holiness is the foremost attribute that God wishes to proclaim for Himself (just look at the 2 throne scenes in Isa. 6 and Rev. 4), then how could the God-man go contrary to that attribute? It just isn’t reasonable. To answer the question, “Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin;” I answer resoundingly that Christ was not able to sin! Christ was neither susceptible to temptation nor able to even commit a sin.
Charles Hodge proposed the notion that though Christ could have sinned, He didn’t. He said, “This sinfulness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability…If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning.”[1] This ignores the fact that Christ did not have a sin nature nor a propensity to sin as the natural man has. The virgin birth made that possible. Though Christ was fully human, He was not born a sinful human.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ never committed a sin. Passages like 2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22, and 1 John 3:5 clearly teach that Christ never committed a sin. But since He was tempted, does that mean He could have sinned? Does temptability mean susceptibility? Is it more correct to say that He was able not to sin, or that He was not able to sin? Rationally speaking, if Christ was susceptible and able to sin, what does that say about His deity? Diminishing Christ’s full impeccability is to diminish His full deity. If Christ could have sinned, that would be the same as saying God could have sinned. Some try to separate the 2 natures of Christ and say that in His deity sin was not a possibility while in His humanity there was a possibility. But Christ is the God-man. One nature affects the other. You can’t separate His natures at will. At times, one nature might be emphasized over the other, but Christ is always the God-man.
A passage to consider is 1 John 3:5. There it does not specifically say that Christ committed no sin. Literally, it reads “sin is not in Him.” The fact that the word “sin” is without the definite article supports the idea of the sin nature as it does in 1 John 1:8. Christ does not have the sin nature that humans are born with. His nature was one where “sin is not in Him.” The context of the verse supports this. Verses 1-3 detail how we “will be like Him.” The entire context deals with the idea that when we receive glorified bodies, we will also no longer have a sin nature. Therefore, since Christ had no sin nature, there would be no compulsion towards sin.
John 8:29 sheds some light on the situation. Christ declares that He can only do things that please the Father. If the Father is not pleased with sin, then Christ was not able to commit a sin. How would it be possible for Christ to do something that is completely opposite to His holy nature and character? There is a song which says that Christ could have called thousands of angels down from heaven while He was on the cross. While that might be true concerning His authority, it is false since Christ will only do the Father’s will. Whatever is not the Father’s will is a sin. Therefore, Christ could not call thousands of angels down from Heaven.
The concept of temptability implying susceptibility is not supported by Scriptures either. The logic is based on the concept that since we are tempted and susceptible to sin, then it must stand to reason that the same is true of Christ. But Christ doesn’t have the same nature that humans have. He has a sinless nature whereas humans have a sinful nature. Walvoord writes, “It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for a rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable.”[2] To split hairs with Walvoord, resistance may not be the proper word since Christ’s nature does not even incline Him towards sin. Christ does not have to “resist” temptation if He was tempted to do something that is the opposite of His nature and that which He hates – sin. Christ never even considered sinning. He is not inclined to do that which is opposite of His nature. There was not a moral struggle. It was only natural for Christ to do what was holy. There was no real resistance to temptation.
In some eyes, that might seem to weaken the temptation of Christ. Yet the temptation was real. The tempter was real. The tempted was real. What makes the temptation of Christ (with full and actual impeccability) great was that though Satan tried to make Christ sin, Christ did what was only natural for Him to do, that which is right. Christ gives believers a model for combating temptation – use Scripture!
In conclusion, what does it say about orthodoxy when people believe that it was possible for Christ to sin? If holiness is the foremost attribute that God wishes to proclaim for Himself (just look at the 2 throne scenes in Isa. 6 and Rev. 4), then how could the God-man go contrary to that attribute? It just isn’t reasonable. To answer the question, “Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin;” I answer resoundingly that Christ was not able to sin! Christ was neither susceptible to temptation nor able to even commit a sin.
Timothy L. Decker
[1] Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 2. Pg 457.
[2] Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Pg 147.
