WAS JESUS PECCABLE?

Before you go to your dictionary to see what in the world I am talking about, let me explain that the word “peccable” merely means “capable of sinning.” I must admit that I had never run into that word until recently when I was skimming through H. Wayne House's interesting book Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. One of the charts in the book compares the two possibilities concerning Jesus in his life on earth: He either was or was not capable of sinning.

But first consider the points on which most theologians are agreed:

    1. Christ did not sin.

    2. Christ experienced a struggle.

    3. Christ's temptations were real.

Each of these is worth some discussion.

For most Christians, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the first point. Just consider the following passages: II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15;7:26; James 5:6; I Peter 2:22; 3:18; and I John 3:5. They are all unanimous in affirming Jesus' sinless life. For skeptics, however, there are incidents in Jesus' life in which they see less than sinless actions on his part. In my post “Immoral Teachings in the Bible” I addressed some of these supposed sins, which included:

    Jesus' endorsement of the death penalty for what we would consider minor offenses.

    Jesus' support for the system of slavery, including corporal punishment by the master.

    Jesus' cruel teaching of eternal punishment for unbelievers.

    Jesus' withering of the fig tree.

    Jesus' exorcism which resulted in the slaughter of a herd of pigs.

    Jesus' racism in condemning the Jews.

    If any of these issues concern you, see the rebuttals in the above mentioned post.

Others who do not understand the concept of righteous indignation might point to Jesus' cleansing of the temple as another example. But personally speaking, the only possible “sin” I would ever accuse him of actually occurred before or at what the Jews considered the age of accountability. That was when he became separated from his parents who were visiting in Jerusalem and went to the temple. His parents blamed him, possibly rightfully so, for not letting them know where he had been. His reply was certainly a little less than apologetic. But we much keep in mind that the Scripture specifically says that from that point on “he was obedient to them.” (Luke 2:51)

The second issue on which most agree is that Jesus expressed struggle against temptation. For that contention, see Matthew 26:36-46 in which his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane is described.

The third issue is a little more debatable. Hebrews 4:15 is quite definite is stating that Jesus “in every way has been tested/tempted as we are, yet without sin.” But that still leaves some room for further definition and discussion. Regarding this passage, Blomberg clarifies that it “does not mean that he underwent every conceivable temptation but that he experienced every major kind.”

And Hendricksen says, “Heb. 4:15 cannot mean, however, that the psychological process involved in being tempted was exactly the same for Jesus” He explains that when we are tempted it is a process involving two factors: an outward force urging one to sin and an inward desire. With Jesus “the inner evil incentive or desire to co-operate with this voice from without was not [present]...Nevertheless the temptation – that is, the sense of need, the consciousness of being urged by Satan to satisfy this need, the knowledge of having to resist the tempter, and the struggle to which this gave rise – was real even for Christ.”

Plummer agrees when he says that “the fact that the solicitations came wholly from without and were not born from within, does not prevent that which was offered to Him being regarded as desirable.”

So getting on to the ongoing debate among Christian theologians regarding Christ's peccability or impeccability, here are four of the arguments in favor of the first possibility, as expressed by House. I will follow each of these contentions with opposing comments from House and other scholars:

Temptation implies the possibility of sin.

Shedd explains, “A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot be tempted to sin. This is not correct...Temptability depends on the constitutional susceptibility while impeccability depends on the will...Those temptations were very strong, but the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they...Christ, while having a peccable, human nature in His constitution, was an impeccable Person. Impeccability characterizes the God-Man as a totality, while peccability is a property of His humanity.”

“Those who support impeccability point out that it relates to the union of the divine and human natures into the one Person so that even though the human nature was peccable, the Person was impeccable. It could not be otherwise with a Person who has all power and a divine will.” (Ryrie)

If Christ was not able to sin, then the temptation was not real and he cannot sympathize with his people.

House counters this by saying, “Although Christ's temptations are not always exactly parallel to our own, he was tried through his human nature as we are.”

Blomberg says, “Whether or not Jesus could have sinned is a question that has historically divided Christians. Some argue that it was impossible even in his human nature for him to have sinned. Others believe that in order for him to be truly human he had to have a sinful nature, but that unlike the rest of humanity he never yielded to that nature in committing a sinful action. A mediating and more convincing alternative is that Jesus could have sinned but never did and that like Adam and Eve before the fall he had a sinless human nature.”

Somewhere or other I ran across another possibility, namely that although it was impossible for Christ to sin, while in His earthly existence that fact was hidden from Him so that Christ's struggle was just as real to him as ours are.

If Christ is impeccable, then his temptations were slight.

“Jesus experienced temptation more strongly than anyone else because he never gave in and sinned. The temptation always remained before him.” (Blomberg)

“Being committed to the way of God in the world does not exempt one from the struggle. In fact, it is those who are most engaged in the way of God who seem to experience most intensely the opposition of evil. If Jesus struggled, who is exempt?” (Craddock)

Wescott states that “only the sinless can know [a temptation] in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last strain.”

Jesus did not do as we do, give up “before [we] recognized the whole of such attractiveness [of temptations].” (Geldenhuys)

If Christ could not sin, then he had no free will.

“Christ manifested his free will by not sinning. Christ was free to do the will of the Father. Being of one will with the Father, he was not free to go against that will. “ (House)

The above debate demonstrates, at least for me, that some issues which theologians take extremely seriously cannot help but appear to those of us on the outside as a mere quibbling over words concerning matters on which we humans are probably in no position to offer firm opinions. At least that is my jaundiced opinion.