There are a growing number of Christians today who do not understand the sinless humanity of Christ. They believe that Christ could have sinned when He was here on earth, but they affirm (rightly) that He didn't.
However, even thinking that Christ was capable of sinning shows that some people are not clear (doctrinally) as to the sinless perfection of His humanity. In many cases, if these same people were asked, "Do you believe in the sinless humanity of Christ?" They would reply, "Yes, I certainly do." But they almost always think that you are asking whether they believe that the Lord did or did not sin in His life—which they rightly affirm that He didn't. But that is not really the point in question; all Christians unanimously agree that Christ did not sin in His life. One verse of Scripture would settle this: "Christ...who did no sin" (1 Peter 2:21-22). The subject of Christ's sinless humanity deals with something deeper; it addresses Christ's nature as a Man. The sinless humanity of Christ and the sinless life of Christ are not identical, though related.
The question that would be more to the point is: "Did Christ have a nature capable of sinning?" Most Christians would say that He did have a nature that could sin, but thankfully, He didn't. They don’t realize it, but what they are saying is derogatory to Christ’s impeccable Person and is a serious doctrinal error. Scripture teaches that Christ did not have a nature that could sin.
The Nature of Christ's Humanity
When Christ came into the world (His incarnation), He took manhood (a human spirit, a human soul, and a human body) into union with His Person. This union of the divine and human natures is inscrutable to the human mind (Matt. 11:27). In doing so, He did not take the innocent human nature that Adam had before he fell. That nature was without sin, but it didn't have the knowledge of good and evil, and it was capable of sinning—which Adam sadly demonstrated (Rom. 5:12). Christ couldn't have taken that nature because it no longer existed in its innocent state at the time of His coming into the world. It had been corrupted by Adam's disobedience and was fallen. Nor could Christ have taken into union with Himself that nature in its fallen state, for in doing so, He would have taken sin into His Person, and thus, He would have ceased to be holy. Had He done that, He would have ceased to be God, because holiness (the absence of evil) is one of the essential attributes of deity! (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8) The Bible indicates that God prepared for Him a "holy" humanity—spirit, soul, and body (Luke 1:35; Heb. 7:26; 10:5). Being holy, the Lord Jesus had a human nature that could not sin.
Now, since Adam's fall, when we speak of a person sinning, regardless of who it might be, it immediately brings into the discussion the possession of the sin-nature that would necessarily produce those sins. Sins, as we know, are the product of sin (the nature). Hence, to say that the Lord Jesus could sin (though He didn't) implies that He had the fallen sin-nature! This is a terribly mistaken assumption which the Word of God most surely does not support.
Scripture References That Show Christ Did Not Partake in Fallen Humanity
The following references show that Christ did not partake in fallen humanity in any way:
1 John 3:5 says, "In Him is no sin." This single statement from the Word of God ought to settle the question as to whether Christ could sin. It tells us that He didn't have the sin-nature in Him, therefore, He couldn't possibly commit sins.
In Luke 1:35, in connection with the Lord's incarnation, the angel that came to Mary said, "That holy thing which shall be born unto thee shall be called the Son of God." This tells us that the essence of His nature as a Man is "holy." This could not be said of any other man. We were not born holy (Psa. 51:5).
In Luke 3:23, when tracing the Lord's lineage down from Adam, Scripture says, "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." The phrase "as was supposed" is inserted in the text here by the Holy Spirit to show that the Lord was not the natural son of Joseph; He was only his legal son. He was "conceived" by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph (Matt. 1:20). The fact that Scripture notes that Joseph had nothing to do (biologically) with the Lord's conception, shows the care that God takes in guarding against any thought that Christ inherited the fallen sin-nature by having it passed down to Him through the descendants of Adam.
Romans 8:3 says, "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh." Here again we see that Scripture is careful in guarding Christ's humanity, stating that His coming into Manhood was "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Thus, He did not have "sinful flesh," but was only in the "likeness" of it. That is, from all outward appearances, He looked like any other man (Heb. 10:20), but inwardly, He did not have the sin-nature.
Hebrews 2:6 says, “What is man that Thou art mindful of Him?” This is a quote from Psalm 8. The Psalmist wonders at the grace of God that would take up with men. The word here for “man” in the Hebrew is “Enosh.” It denotes man’s weak, frail state—implying a fallen and degenerated condition. We are indeed very thankful that God has been mindful of our fallen race, for He could have "thought only of Himself, and gathered unto Him His spirit and His breath, and all flesh would perish together" (Job 34:14-15). God would have been just in doing this, but we would be lost forever. The psalm goes on to say, “ ... Or the son of man that Thou visitest him.” This refers to God's visit to the human race in the Person of His Son (Luke 1:78). Instead of thinking only of Himself and leaving us to perish in our sins, "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting [eternal] life" (John 3:16). Note: on this occasion, the psalmist uses a different word for “man” in the Hebrew from what he had previously used. Here it is “Adam,” which does not carry the connotations of “Enosh.” This means that when Christ would visit mankind, in becoming a Man, it would not be in the degenerated “Enosh” state. Thus, He would partake in manhood (spirit, soul, and body), but not in fallen manhood.
Hebrews 2:14 says, "Since therefore the children partake of blood and flesh, He also, in like manner, took part in the same." Here again, Scripture carefully guards the sinlessness of Christ's humanity. It uses two different words in the Greek to distinguish between fallen men taking part in humanity and Christ taking part in humanity. The first word (koinoneo) translated "partake" refers to a full, common sharing in something. It is used in this verse to denote the kind of sharing in manhood that all in Adam's race have. Being that it is a full sharing, it would necessarily include partaking in the fallen sin-nature. The other word (metecho) translated "took part" refers to taking part in something without specifying how far the sharing went. It is used in this verse to denote the sharing that Christ had in humanity. He took part in humanity, but not to the point of partaking in the fallen sin-nature, which all other men have. (See the footnote in J. N. Darby's translation on this verse.)
In Hebrews 4:15, regarding the Lord's testing and temptations in His earthly pathway, the writer says "We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tested like as we are, yet without sin [sin apart]." Unfortunately, reading this verse as it is in the KJV (and in many modern translations), it looks as though it is saying that the Lord didn't commit any sins in His life. But this is not the point in the verse. The phrase "yet without sin," should be translated "sin apart." Sin apart, means that His temptations were not in the classification of temptations having to do with the sin-nature. As we know, there are two classes of temptations to which men are subjected. There are outward temptations and testings (holy trials) whereby one's faith and patience are tested, and there are inward temptations that result from having a sin-nature (unholy trials). See James 1:2-12 and James 1:13-16. The writer of Hebrews is simply stating that the Lord was tested in every way that a righteous man could be tested, but not in the class of temptations that are connected with the indwelling sin-nature. The reason for this is obvious—He didn't have a sin-nature.
J. N. Darby said, "There are two kinds of temptations; one is from without, all the difficulties of Christian life; Christ went through them and He has gone through more than any of us; but the other kind of temptation is when a man is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Christ, of course, never had that" (Notes and Jottings, p. 6).
In John 8:46 the Lord said to His detractors, "Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" No one could prove that He had a fallen nature, because no one could point to a single sin that He had committed.
In John 14:30, the Lord announced to His disciples, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me." He was referring to Satan's coming to harass and terrify Him, but He assured them that there was nothing "in" Him (i.e. the sin-nature) that would respond to his attacks.
James 1:13 says that "God cannot be tempted with evil." Thus, holiness is an intrinsic attribute of God (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). If, when God in the Person of His Son became a Man (1 Tim. 3:16), He thereby became capable of being tempted to do evil, then He relinquished one of His essential attributes in deity. Hence, if the doctrine that Christ could have sinned is true, then Christ ceased to be all that He was as God in becoming a Man! This is blasphemy!
1 John 3:9 says, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." This verse is speaking about the believer having a new nature (resulting from new birth) which cannot sin. John explains that this is so because, being begotten of God, we have "His seed" in us. It confirms what every Christian knows already—that God's "seed" (or life) cannot sin. Building on this fact, since Christ is "God manifest in flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16), then it naturally follows that He could not sin—because God cannot sin! What could be more clear than this?
Old Testament Types of the Sinless Humanity of Christ
The Ark of God which was used in the tabernacle, and later in the temple, is a type of Christ (Ex. 25:10-16; Heb. 9:4). Everything having to do with the materials and its construction speak of Him. It was made of "shittim wood" and overlaid with pure "gold." Trees and wood are used many times in Scripture to typify men or manhood (Psa. 1:3; Psa. 92:12-14; Amos 2:9; Isa. 10:16-19; Luke 3:7-9, etc.). Pure (fine) gold in Scripture speaks of what is divine—deity. Hence, these two things typify the union in Christ of the divine and human natures. It is interesting and significant that "shittim wood" is translated "incorruptible wood" in the Septuagint (a Greek version of the Old Testament (Ex. 25:5, 10, etc.). This suggests the sinlessness of Christ's nature as a Man.
Another type of Christ's sinless humanity is the "red heifer" that was offered for the purification of the people (Num. 19:2). There were two things that it had to be before it could be used for this purpose—"without spot, wherein is no blemish [defect]." Outwardly it had to have no spot. This would speak of Christ's outward life before men—"He did no sin" (1 Peter 2:22). But it also had to have no defect inwardly. This would speak of Christ's sinless nature—"In Him was no sin" (1 John 3:5). Compare 1 Peter 1:19.
Three Main Objections Answered
There are three main objections to this truth:
Robbing Christ of His Glory
1) Those who hold that Christ could have sinned, but didn't, think that we are robbing the Lord of His glory of obedience by saying that He couldn't sin. They say that if what we teach were true, then Christ gets no credit (thus no glory) for His life of perfect obedience to His Father, because He couldn't do anything but what was right.
To human reason it might look as though these things concerning Christ's Manhood are robbing Him of glory, but really, to teach that He could sin attacks the impeccability of His Person and sullies His glory. We are not wiser than the Word of God; when our human reason leads us to conclusions that are in collision with Scripture—which this doctrine does—then we must lay down our thoughts and accept what Scripture says as the final authority, for it is God's infallible Word (Psa. 12:6; John 10:35).
Temptations of the Lord in the Wilderness
2) Those who hold that Christ could have sinned, but didn't, point to the temptations of the Lord in the wilderness, and ask, "What was the purpose in having Christ pass through those temptations when He couldn't fail?" The answer is that they were not for God to find out whether Christ would or would not sin. He knew of His sinless perfection and pronounced His approval upon Him—"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"—before He was tempted (Matt. 3:17–4:11). If the temptations were for the purpose of discovering whether or not Christ would sin—then God's pronouncement would have been after He went through the testing. It would be, so to speak, His "stamp of approval" on Christ's perfect obedience. But these temptations were not for God; they are for us to see and know, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Christ couldn't sin. If He had any tendency in Him to sin whatsoever, it would have come out under such intense testing—but there came forth nothing but moral perfection. Thus, the temptations prove that Christ couldn't sin!
Where many are confused as to this, is in thinking that "tempted" (Matt. 4:1) loses its meaning if it doesn't involve the possibility of sinning. But this is a mistake. Tempt means to test, and not all tests imply the possibility of failure. Suppose I had a valuable object in my hand that was made of 100% pure gold. But you dispute it and insist that it is made of Pyrite (so-called "Fool's Gold"). So, to prove what I already know that it is, I say to you, "Let's take it to a jeweler and have it tested." And sure enough, it comes back just as I said it was—100% pure gold. Why did I have the object tested? I didn't need it; I knew all along that it was 100% pure gold. Obviously, the test was for you; it proved to you what it was really made of. Likewise, with the temptations of the Lord, all such testing only proved what was true of Him—that He could not sin. They are recorded in Scripture for us so that we would know this blessed fact concerning the Son of God.
Definition of True Manhood
3) Some of those who hold that Christ could have sinned, but didn't, say that there could be no true manhood without a person having the capability of sinning. They will say that we are teaching that Christ was not a real man, because we say that He didn't have the thoughts and temptations to sin as other men do. They believe that this robs Christ of the ability to sympathize with us in our temptations of lust and sin.
The truth is that there are many things that we experience in life as men that the Lord never experienced, but this does not mean that He wasn't a real Man. Nor does it disqualify Him from being our High Priest. For instance, we experience infirmities (sicknesses), but the Lord never did. We have experienced the joy of forgiveness, but the Lord was never forgiven. He never married, nor fathered children, yet He was (and is) a real Man. Why would we think that He had to have temptations of lust and sin before He could be considered as being a real Man?
Hebrews 4:15 is often quoted to support this mistaken idea. It says that the Lord was tempted "in all points like as we are," which (in their minds) would include the temptation to sin. However, those who say such things have overlooked the fact that the writer of the epistle qualifies these temptations by saying, "sin apart"—which means that the Lord's temptations were not those in the category pertaining to sin. Had they read this verse more carefully, they also would have seen that the writer is referring to trials in connection with our "infirmities," which are bodily sicknesses (Matt. 8:17; John 5:5; Rom. 8:26; 2 Cor. 12:5). Infirmities are not temptations to sin. Let us note that even though the Lord did not have infirmities personally (He was never sick), the verse says that He is able to sympathize with our infirmities. This shows that it is a false assumption that Christ could not have been a true man without experiencing everything that we experience.
Likewise, it is the same with other things that we, as a race, have inherited through sin entering the world— including the temptation to sin. These are not essential to being human, but they are sad degenerations that have come in through sin. It is, therefore, terribly wrong to think that the Lord had lustful thoughts because we have them, and that they have enabled Him to sympathize with us in our temptations to sin. Let us be clear about this: the Lord did not have lustful thoughts. Nor does He sympathize with our lustful thoughts, but rather, He exercises our consciences as to our need of judging ourselves for allowing sin to be conceived in our hearts (James 1:14-15). Those who think that the Lord sympathizes with our lusts clearly do not understand what sin in the flesh is. They seem to think that sin is only wrong actions, but Scripture plainly teaches that sin can be committed in a person's mind without the person doing any act (Matt. 5:28; James 1:14-15; Prov. 24:9). All such is iniquity, and the Lord does not sympathize with it.
Does 2 Corinthians 5:21 Teach That Christ Took Sin into His Person?
Being that Christ had a sinless human nature, He could not have taken sin into His Person and still be holy. In view of this, some might wonder about 2 Corinthians 5:21. This verse seems to say that He did take sin into His Person when He was on the cross. It says, "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
A closer look at this verse shows that the words "to be" are in italics in the KJV translation, which means that they are not part of the Greek text, but have been inserted by the translators to help (as they think) in the reading of the text. Unfortunately, in this case, they have inserted something that is somewhat misleading. The point in the verse is that the Lord stood as our Substitute (which "for us" indicates) in the place of sin, and as a sin-offering, bore our judgment. It does not mean that He mystically became sin, or that there was a union of sin with His Person. Scripture says our sins were "laid upon Him" (Isa. 53:6) and that He "bore our sins" (1 Peter 2:24), but Scripture does not say, that in doing so, He took sin into His Person. Hence, He had sins on Him, but not in Him.
All thy sins were laid upon Him,
Jesus bore them on the tree;
God who knew them laid them on Him,
And, believing, thou art free."
(#35 L. F. )
The Ramifications of Christ Sinning
The logic of these blasphemous ideas is absurd. Think of the ramifications of Christ being able to sin. If He could sin when He was on earth, He could sin now in heaven—for Scripture says that He is "the same yesterday, and today, and forever!" (Heb. 13:8; Acts 1:11) And (far be the thought), if He were to sin now, He would surely be expelled from heaven, as Satan once was! And what would happen to us? We would lose everything—our Saviour, our salvation, and all our blessings—because everything we have is "in Christ!" If this bad doctrine were true, then we are not eternally secure, as Scripture teaches (John 10:27-28). Moreover, if Christ did sin, what part of Him would go to hell? Because in His incarnation, there was a union of the human and divine natures that will never be dissolved.