Could the Lord Jesus have sinned when here on earth in the days of His flesh? This is an oft recurring question which admits of but one answer - an unequivocal negative. But not all agree with this. Some feel that such an answer destroys the reality of the temptation through which He passed and that, if He could not sin, this temptation was meaningless. Others say that He could sin, but would not, or that as man He could sin but as God He could not sin. Now all such answers are a serious perversion of the truth and a grave aspersion on the impeccability of the Lord.
That He was able to do anything is not true. Being God, either before His incarnation or since it, He had the attribute of omnipotence but that does not exclude the moral impossibility of His doing anything contrary to His being or to any relative position which He occupied. He was the creator of the universe, and all things were made by Him, but that He could make bread out of stones at such a time when the devil made the suggestion to Him was an utter impossibility. So that it is incorrect to say that He could but He would not.
We must never divide the person of Christ and speak of Him doing this as God or doing that as man. The union of the two whole and perfect natures of deity and humanity in Him, which commenced at His incarnation, was such that whatever He said or did was the utterance or deed of one who was indivisibly God and man. He had experiences which are common to all men because He was man, so that He ate and drank, slept, thirsted, hungered, and suffered pain. But sin was no part of humanity: it was an invader and is not an integral part of human nature. It is a baneful intruder. Moreover, He did things which only deity could perform so that He wrought miracles but He never acted at one time as man and at another as God. It is a grave mistake to attempt to divide or dissect the person of Christ. Our natural reason will never lead us into the knowledge of the Son. Only the Father knows Him fully (Mt 11.27). The great marvel is that "God was in Christ". "God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8.3), not in sinful flesh. The flesh that He took was not the likeness of Adam's flesh prior to the fall but the likeness of sinful flesh which became so after the fall. But He Himself was free from all the taint of sin.
What is temptation? The word itself means to test, to try, to prove, to examine, and James discusses the matter at length. His view of temptation is not that of Genesis 22.1 in which the one who tempts or tries is God. Nor is his view of temptation that of Matthew chapter 4 (recorded also in Mark and Luke) for that trial came from the devil. James defines his view in chapter 1 verses 14-15: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin". Note also particularly what James adds: "God cannot be tempted with evil" (v.13). We have but to ask the question whether the Lord Jesus is God and if the answer is, as it must be, "Yes", then we have here a clear affirmation that the Lord Jesus could not sin, for He could not be tempted in this sense. There was in Him no lust to answer to the external object, so that when lust and object unite sin is brought forth. "The prince of this world cometh", He said, "and hath nothing in me" (Jn 14.30).
In what sense was He tempted then, for in Hebrews 4 we are informed that He was tempted in all points like as we are, sin apart? Does this mean that the temptation resulted in no sin, or that He was not tempted to sin? The writer to the Hebrews uses the word (tempted) not as an allurement or enticement to sin but as a testing or proving which resulted in the fact that it showed He did not sin.
1 John 3.9 affirms that "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin", or "does not practice sin" (JND). That it is the continuous tense makes no difference to the fact: John makes this ruling statement that it is utterly impossible for the one born of God to sin. If it be objected that this verse does not, in the context, speak of the Lord Jesus, reference may be made to 1 John 5.18 where the phrase "begotten of God" is certainly used of Him. And what is stated, therefore in chapter 3.9 must apply to the one spoken of in chapter 5.18. That our Lord Jesus was born of God is plain from the records of the incarnation. That He could not, therefore, sin is plain from the statement in John's epistle.
What shall we say then of the wilderness temptations through which He went? We should not overlook the fact that He was tested of the devil. Why did the devil test Him? Testing or tempting in this sense is a move taken with the view of ascertaining an unknown or uncertain quantity. God had declared at His baptism, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mt 3.17). The devil doubted the truth of this and took steps to put Him to the test with the view of checking on the accuracy or otherwise of the statement. Luke 4.34 records a statement made after the temptation when the verification of the assertion of the Sonship of the Lord Jesus had been made: "I know thee who thou our art; the Holy One of God".
Therefore, the threefold temptation of the Lord was no movement springing from without but answering to an inward urge to comply with the wrong suggestions. It was a test, put not by God, for "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (James 1.13). It was put by the devil, the prince of this world, and he found nothing in the Lord Jesus to respond to his evil suggestions. It demonstrated in the result that not only was He able not to sin but that it was not possible for Him to sin. To say that He could sin, no matter what supplementary statements may be made, is to impute the principle of sin within Him, thus denying the holiness of His being and, in consequence, denying His true deity. The simple question need only be asked, "Can God sin?".
What, then, it may be enquired, does the phrase mean, "in all points tempted like as we are (Heb 4.15)? It is plain that the circumstances in which the Lord Jesus was found throughout His earthly course differ in many details from those of ours. But as merchandise is classified into a number of groupings for the purpose of trademark registration so the trials of life may be classified and in every such class He was tested. He knew a test in the food class, for He hungered and thirsted; in bereavement, for Lazarus died; in physical pain and bodily tiredness. But we repeat, He knew no test in which He was allured by an external attraction to sin, such allurement finding a response within. The angled fish is caught by the hook because of the desire within the fish for the external object, the bait, but it was not so with Christ.
Paul says the Lord knew no sin (2 Cor 5.21), that is, He did not know it experimentally. Peter says that He did no sin (1 Pet 2.22). And John says that in Him is no sin (1 Jn 3.5). We must remember that these are not the opinions about Him expressed by mere men but they are the words of the Spirit through those writers.
But, it may be said that if the Lord Jesus were truly and fully man He must experience the temptations which men in general experience and He must be liable to fall as they were. This is not so. That He was truly and fully man we do not deny: we rather affirm it. But we repeat that sin is not an integral part of humanity. The Lord Jesus was unfallen man, all others are fallen men. In the perfection of His being He felt the full force of the subtlety of the suggestions of the devil in a way that no fallen creature could ever do.
It may be asked, is not free will an integral part of humanity and, if so, did not the Lord Jesus have a free will? Yes! Free will was given to Adam and he misused it; the last Adam, Lord Jesus, being perfect man, had free will but He said, "Not my will, but thine be done" (Lk 22.42); "I came…not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (Jn 6.38). That He could use it wrongly was altogether impossible, for, unlike Adam who was a creature, He was the creator. Adam was man but Christ is God. Yet He could say, "I do nothing of myself" (Jn 8.28). It was a moral impossibility for Him to take independent action apart from His Father. There is no independency in the Godhead, not even when Christ was here in the days of His flesh. Liddon has written, "The highest liberty does not imply the moral capacity of doing wrong. God is the one perfectly free Being, yet God cannot sin".
Concluded.
