The Impeccability of Our Lord Jesus Christ

To say Jesus Christ had to be capable of sinning in order to be tempted as we are would require the belief that Jesus Christ inherited the sin nature from Adam, which he did not, Romans 5.

Correct. There was nothing within Jesus of Nazareth to respond to any temptations. So while the temptations were real, they had no impact on Christ who is fully God and fully Man. Also the word "tempted" can be translated as "tested". So Christ was "tested" and found to be perfect.

he became flesh , the flesh is what is tempted to sin

Merriam -Webster defines impeccable as "not capable of sinning or liable to sin". The question then arises, how are we to understand the following verse? -

"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18 KJV)

The NRSV translates it "tested" rather than "tempted"; and the Revised English Bible translates "Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test. (Heb 2:18 REB)

I hold to a highly pure view of Jesus Christ in that He had no inner sin nature to which the temptation could attach itself, so he could not sin. Merriam-Webster defines tempt as "to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain". There is another verse to consider on this -

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" (Jas 1:13 KJV)

On James 1:13 the NRSV and REB keep to the word "tempt" rather than "test".

Orthodox Christianity insists upon the impeccability of Jesus Christ. The Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

To say Jesus Christ had to be capable of sinning in order to be tempted as we are would require the belief that Jesus Christ inherited the sin nature from Adam, which he did not, Romans 5.

The NRSV and REB change to test is the better understanding of Hebrews 2:18. I believe to deny the impeccability of Jesus Christ drags one into a blasphemous system of belief.

You are simply confused because the word "flesh" has two meanings: (1) the human body (flesh, blood, and bones) and (2) the indwelling sin nature within the soul. Of course Christ has a human body, but He did not have a sin nature. Had that been the case, He could not have paid for the sins of the whole world.

If Jesus was not capable of sin, then the temptation in the desert was a sham. Arguing that the word should be translated "tested" is playing with semantics. If He could not fail the test, the test was meaningless.

I hold that Jesus was indeed capable of sin in His human nature. That He did not sin is the victory; He overcame sin because He did not submit to it.

This in no way implies that He inherited a sin nature from Adam; rather, He likely had the nature that Adam had prior to the fall.

Merriam -Webster defines impeccable as "not capable of sinning or liable to sin". The question then arises, how are we to understand the following verse? -

"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18 KJV)

The NRSV translates it "tested" rather than "tempted"; and the Revised English Bible translates "Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test. (Heb 2:18 REB)

I hold to a highly pure view of Jesus Christ in that He had no inner sin nature to which the temptation could attach itself, so he could not sin. Merriam-Webster defines tempt as "to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain". There is another verse to consider on this -

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" (Jas 1:13 KJV)

On James 1:13 the NRSV and REB keep to the word "tempt" rather than "test".

Orthodox Christianity insists upon the impeccability of Jesus Christ. The Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

To say Jesus Christ had to be capable of sinning in order to be tempted as we are would require the belief that Jesus Christ inherited the sin nature from Adam, which he did not, Romans 5.

The NRSV and REB change to test is the better understanding of Hebrews 2:18. I believe to deny the impeccability of Jesus Christ drags one into a blasphemous system of belief.

This was an enjoyable post to read. I too agree with your points and say Amen.

The true understanding of "Impeccability", in Jesus Christ, is to understand that both His divine nature and human nature were/are perfectly Holy. While Jesus Christ had two natures He was one being. Therefore, for the two natures to be able to coincide as one, they must be Holy.

Jesus was born that "holy thing", (Luke 1:35), and did not share in the fallen nature which came through Adam.

I agree with you, that Jesus could not be "tempted" because He did not possess a temptable nature. Therefore, I have maintained for years, that when the Greek word: πειράζω or it's variants, is encountered in the Text, it should be translated "test or tested" or "trial or tried", when it comes to our Savior. Only when the word is applied to mankind should it be translated "temp or tempted".

I too, become uncomfortable when one argues that Jesus could be tempted but did not sin.

If Jesus was not capable of sin, then the temptation in the desert was a sham. Arguing that the word should be translated "tested" is playing with semantics. If He could not fail the test, the test was meaningless.

I hold that Jesus was indeed capable of sin in His human nature. That He did not sin is the victory; He overcame sin because He did not submit to it.

This in no way implies that He inherited a sin nature from Adam; rather, He likely had the nature that Adam had prior to the fall.

This was an enjoyable post to read. I too agree with your points and say Amen.

The true understanding of "Impeccability", in Jesus Christ, is to understand that both His divine nature and human nature were/are perfectly Holy. While Jesus Christ had two natures He was one being. Therefore, for the two natures to be able to coincide as one, they must be Holy.

Jesus was born that "holy thing", (Luke 1:35), and did not share in the fallen nature which came through Adam.

I agree with you, that Jesus could not be "tempted" because He did not possess a temptable nature. Therefore, I have maintained for years, that when the Greek word: πειράζω or it's variants, is encountered in the Text, it should be translated "test or tested" or "trial or tried", when it comes to our Savior. Only when the word is applied to mankind should it be translated "temp or tempted".

I too, become uncomfortable when one argues that Jesus could be tempted but did not sin.

If Jesus was not capable of sin, then the temptation in the desert was a sham. Arguing that the word should be translated "tested" is playing with semantics. If He could not fail the test, the test was meaningless.

I hold that Jesus was indeed capable of sin in His human nature. That He did not sin is the victory; He overcame sin because He did not submit to it.

This in no way implies that He inherited a sin nature from Adam; rather, He likely had the nature that Adam had prior to the fall.

So this bothers you ?

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

do you think the Bible should change what it says because it bugs you ? Before any semantics begin though it says he was tempted at every point we are tempted so trying to say “ the word tempted isn’t really the right word “ sort of loses any credibility

...yet without sin...

If Jesus was not capable of sin, then the temptation in the desert was a sham. Arguing that the word should be translated "tested" is playing with semantics. If He could not fail the test, the test was meaningless.

I hold that Jesus was indeed capable of sin in His human nature. That He did not sin is the victory; He overcame sin because He did not submit to it.

This in no way implies that He inherited a sin nature from Adam; rather, He likely had the nature that Adam had prior to the fall.

Come on Dino, think of what you wrote for a minute. You certainly do not mean that. So God the creator and Adam the creation had the same nature before the fall? I believe Adam was created holy, not just neutral and innocent; but I certainly don't think Adam's nature was that of God. God is infallible, but Adam was fallible.

This little phrase is what should be clearly understood. It literally means "yet without the sin nature",
since the book of Hebrews says that Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and SEPARATE FROM SINNERS".

This little phrase is what should be clearly understood. It literally means "yet without the sin nature", since the book of Hebrews says that Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and SEPARATE FROM SINNERS".

The reason that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Ghost is that he would be fully Sinless Man (and fully God at one and the same time). He would be without the sin nature inherited from Adam. So while His temptations were real (externally) there was absolutely no internal response.