02.04. Christ Was Tested Apart From Sin

4. CHRIST WAS TESTED APART FROM SIN

During the Arian controversy of the fourth century, two Greek words were brought before the religious world. They were homoousion, the same in substance, and homoiousion, of a similar substance. The only difference between the two words was one Greek character, “i” (iota), but what a great difference it made in the Biblical concept of the Person of Jesus Christ. Arianism, a heretical doctrine taught by Arius, was the doctrine that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance, essence, or nature with God the Father. Athanasius, on the other hand, declared that Jesus Christ was of the same substance with the Father.

Athanasius declared for 47 years Christ’s homoousion. He was driven into exile five times. His enemies slandered him, and death threatened him. But he continued to declare Christ’s homoousion, “the same in substance, equal in power and glory,” at the expense of having his pulpit undermined. Constantine the Great was so moved by the controversy that he authorized a council to consider the question of Christ’s Person. Hence, a Synod convened in Alexandria for the examination of Arianism. Arius was condemned and expelled by nearly 100 pastors and bishops.

There is another controversy over the Person of Christ in the twentieth century. It, too, involves two words, impeccability and peccability. Impeccability means Christ could not sin, and peccability means He could sin. Some uninformed “church members” (religionists) may not feel that the controversy is serious enough to cause divisions. However, God’s elect who have been led by the Spirit of regeneration to embrace the impeccable Savior in a true conversion experience are responsible to cry out against the heresy of peccability. In fact, they, like Athanasius of old, cannot keep quiet when the Person of their Savior is being questioned.

Peccability is related to temptability. This means that man is tempted to outward sin by inward sin. Inward sin is the fruit of depravity. The aim of temptation is to persuade man to outwardly manifest inward sin and to bring him to the guilt of his inward and outward sin before others. No person can be tempted to sin without a sinful propensity. Thus, the difference between sin and temptation is revealed. The Bible defines sin as transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Man is subject to certain desires which are essential to human nature. However, these desires are to be gratified in God’s appointed ways. Adam failed to do this. Therefore, he fell and all his posterity fell in him. Temptation is outward allurement. It suggests to inward depravity the advantage of succumbing to the outward attraction. Thus, man’s inward weakness is influenced to some object of natural desire. Without the restraint of the fear of God (Jeremiah 32:40), a man will submit to fulfilling his inward evil desire.

Those who embrace the doctrine of peccability say the impossibility for Christ to sin would destroy the whole meaning of temptation in the life of Christ. Their opinion is that although Christ was without sin, He was not without the susceptibility to temptation. Furthermore, they claim that the area of testing and the potential for falling were in His humanity. They conclude that since He was fully human, He could have made the wrong choice.

Peccability teachers have sought to explain Christ’s temptation of Hebrews 4:15 - “...was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” - in the following way: Imagine a father in days of great poverty who has the opportunity to take some money belonging to another person. He was not guilty of stealing the money, but the thought of a starving family made him feel the temptation. Furthermore, imagine a Christian sentenced to die if he does not renounce Jesus Christ. The love of life would make the Christian feel the temptation. It is therefore conceivable that although Christ was without sin, He was not without susceptibility to temptation. The preceding explanation is false and the truth of Hebrews 4:15 should be considered. The infirmities (astheneiais, dative plural of astheneia, weakness) did not refer to sin. They cover the frailties of human nature. Christ’s human nature was subject to limitations and trials with the one exception that He could have no experimental knowledge of sin. He did not possess a sinful human nature. His human nature was only made in the likeness of sinful nature (Romans 8:3). Christ’s conception and birth protect His human nature from defilement with depravity. “Like as we are” is the translation of kath homoioteta, ablative singular of homoiotes, which means in a similar way, not in the identical way that we are tempted. This form of the Greek word for “likeness” is used only here and in Hebrews 7:15. There, it is translated “after the similitude [likeness] of Melchisedec.”

There is a more profound truth than “yet without sin” or “without committing sin.” The Greek word choris is an adjective which means apart from, without, on a distinct footing from, or independently of. The most common interpretation of choris hamartias is “without yielding to sin,” but it has a stronger meaning. In Christ’s statement, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), the Greek word for “without sin” is anamartatos (used only here), which means without sin or guiltless. In this case, it means he who has committed no sin. However, choris is stronger in meaning than anamartatos. The Greek word choris is used as an adjective with the ablative of separation in every place with the exception of John 20:7. There, it is used as an adverb. Christ was completely separated from sin because there was no sin in Him to be aroused by temptation. The Lord Jesus did not sin because He could not sin. He was impeccable. Therefore, He remained undefiled in a world of sin.

Impeccability is united to holiness. This is in direct opposition to peccability which is related to temptability. While no human being is beyond the possibility of temptation because of inward depravity, Christ had no inward depravity with which to struggle. His human will was always subservient to His divine will. He always pleased the Father (John 8:29). Christ’s holiness was one of equality with the Father. Holiness, which is God’s chief attribute, is spoken of more frequently than any other of His attributes. In conclusion, the following are arguments against the heresy of peccability. If Christ could have sinned, He would have been able to sin only by a completely free opposition of His will to the divine. However, that was impossible. The managing possessor of the human will was the Divine Logos. Hence, God would have had to apostatize from Himself, which is ludicrous. To argue that Christ’s human will must be free to choose or He could not have won the moral victory is to make His will mutable. A perfectly free will is determined to act according to its character. Christ’s will could not act contrary to His character: “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26). On the other hand, the sinner cannot act contrary to his character: “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children” (2 Peter 2:14). Now, who will be bold enough to say Christ was peccable? The inner incapacity for sin in Jesus Christ resulted from the fact that the “I” of the human nature is the Divine Logos. Thus, it is not a human but a Divine self who is responsible for the deeds performed through the Divine will.