COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED? (HEBREWS 4:15; JAMES 1:13)

Hebrews 4:15b: “...we have one who in all ways has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning.”

This verse and its companion in Hebrews 2:18 (“Because he himself was tempted by what he suffered, he can help others who are being tempted”) are difficult to understand since if Christ was wholly God, how could he be tempted? Isn't this a contradiction with the statement in James 1:13 that God can't be tempted?

To try to answer these questions, let me start out by quoting some of Peter Davids' comments regarding the Hebrew passages:

    “Actually, these verses are difficult because they involve two issues, the nature of temptation and the nature of Christ. The first we have experience with; with the second we as human beings have no experience, and we must rely on the simple statements of Scripture.”

    “One point, however, Hebrews makes crystal clear: whether Jesus could sin or not, the issue in the end is academic. He did not sin.”

    And in terms of the classic credal statement – Christ was wholly God and wholly man – he remarks, “While the creeds are not Scripture, they safeguard what the author of Hebrews has attempted to express.”

Let's first deal with the issue of the word “tempt.” It is well known that the Greek word peirazein can mean tempt or trial, depending on the context in which it appears. Thus, Buchanan explains that it “can mean to put to trial by torturing, to seduce, attempt, or experiment.” So that in Hebrews 4:15 it “probably referred to hardships Jesus faced, including the crucifixion. They were the same kind of tests which later Christians had to face.” Ellingworth concurs with this appraisal and says that the word should be translated in this verse as “tested” rather than “tempted,” in terms of Christ's suffering and death on the cross. This is also the translation utilized in the NEB and NRSV versions. By contrast, the same word is better rendered as “tempted” in James 1:13. (Ward)

In a similar vein, Gibson writing on the secular use of the Greek words at the time says that “this evidence raises the question of whether Gentile readers or hearers of New Testament writings would have understood the use of peirasmos and peirazein...in terms of the notion of enticement to sin...it seems more likely that these readers or hearers would have taken the terms as signifying only tests of faithfulness or integrity.” Thus, the “weaknesses” mentioned in Hebrews 4:15 “are those due to our finite creaturely existence, e.g. weariness, shrinking from pain, etc.” (Stibbs)

As if the difficulty were not enough of deciding whether the root Greek word here is best translated as test or tempt, there is the additional problem that arises from the fact that the particular form of the verb in James 1:13 is found nowhere else in the New Testament. L.T. Johnson explains: “By etymology, the expression apeirastos kakon could equally mean “inexperienced in evils,” or “untested by evil people,” or “incapable of being tempted by evils” or even “ought not to be tested.”

Peter Davids opts for this last meaning and explains that “this translation shows that James is drawing upon an important theme in Jewish theology: people in tight places tend to turn and challenge God, and they ought never to do so (for it is unfaith). This then is summed up in the deuteronomic command, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah' (Dt. 6:16)...” Not coincidentally, you may remember that this is the very verse that Jesus quotes to Satan when he was being tried in the wilderness.

If Johnson and Davids are correct, then as the latter author says, “This...solves the problem of Jesus' testing (or temptation), for he was in fact tested by an evil being, which this translation allows to be possible, even if it is a sinful act.”

If you do not buy either of the two good explanations above, there is even a third option for removing the apparent contradiction between the Hebrews passages and James 1:13.

Hawthorne starts out by stating the problem and admitting, “This question of the possibility of Christ's sinning has been debated for centuries and is not yet resolved to everyone's satisfaction...Nevertheless, assuming that it was impossible for Him to sin because of the nature of His person, yet it is possible to assume that he did not know that was the case.” Copan continues from that point: “To share in our struggle with temptation, Jesus did not engage in playacting but rather gave up having access to the knowledge that sinning for him as God was impossible, just as he gave up other items of knowledge. We can furthermore argue that temptation does not have to involve the possibility of sin.”

In conclusion, there are three good options for resolving the question posed at the start: (1) Jesus was never tempted to sin, just tested, (2) James 1:13 does not say that God can't be tempted, just that He shouldn't be tempted, and (3) Jesus, in his human state in which he no longer possessed total omniscience, did not know at the time that he was incapable of sin.