The Sinlessness of Jesus

It is, of course, generally agreed among Christians that Jesus was sinless. Any other view of the Son of God would be, by definition, less than Christian. What is not so generally agreed, however, is the manner of his sinlessness - or what distinguished Jesus from other humans to enable his sinlessness. How, in fact did Jesus escape the inevitable consequence of the fall?

John F. Walvoord puts the situation like this:

A question has been raised, however, by orthodox theologians whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a peculiar character because of the presence of the divine nature. In a word, could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could he have sinned as Adam sinned? [Italics mine] While most orthodox theologians agree that Christ could be tempted because of the presence of a human nature, a division occurs on the question as to whether being tempted he could sin.

Walvoord's own conclusion is that

While the person of Christ could therefore be tempted, there was no possibility of sin entering the life of Him appointed from eternity to be the spotless Lamb of God. ( Jesus Christ Our Lord, John F. Walvoord, Moody Press)

Such a view raises serious problems both logical and theological.

Logical Objection

It is totally illogical to speak of the possibility of Christ being tempted but, at the same time, the impossibility of his sinning. If it were impossible for a person to sin then temptation would be totally meaningless for temptation is, by its very nature, a strong urge to do that which one ought not to do or an equally strong urge to leave undone that which one ought to do. It is no temptation at all to be urged to do that which it is impossible to do. It is, according to Scripture, impossible for God to lie. There is no scriptural reference to God being tempted to lie and to overcoming that temptation for God - in His non-incarnational person - is incapable of sin so he is incapable of being tempted. Only a being who can sin can be tempted.

Theological Objections

Walvoord, along with others, would argue

If sin were possible in the life of Christ, the whole plan of the universe hinged on the outcome of His temptations. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God would forbid any such haphazard condition. (ibid)

There are two points here. The second will be answered first
1. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God is in no way lessened by his ability to give Jesus the choice to sin any more than it is lessened by giving that choice to Adam or to the children of Adam. God is still God and he is still sovereign when he chooses, by his sovereign will, to bestow free agency upon his creatures. How much less will he lose sovereignty when he bestows free agency upon his only begotten Son, in the sure knowledge that his Son will not betray that trust.
2. What an insult we do to the persons of both the Father and the Son if we suggest that God could not trust his Son with such an important burden. Of course "the whole plan of the universe hinged on the outcome of Jesus' temptations"! It was necessary that it should be so. If Jesus had nothing to overcome then there was no virtue in his victory.
If sin were impossible in the life of Christ then Jesus could not be a substitutionary sacrifice for sinful man. Indeed, he would not actually be human at all but a God with merely the appearance of humanity. This is the heresy known as Docetism.
The Scripture refers to Jesus in terms which suggest a likeness to Adam.

Since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (I Cor 15:21-22)

There is a clear relationship here between Adam and Christ. Adam was the Prototype of Man and he sinned. Christ is the Prototype of the New Man and he did not sin. There would be no point in such a contrast if, in this respect, they were totally different. One might as well declare a bird to be superior to man because man cannot naturally fly - we are comparing creatures that are totally unlike.
Hebrews 4:15 - 16 says

We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence.

If Christ were unable to sin could he really sympathise with our weaknesses? He might pity us for them and have compassion on us because of them but he could not sympathise because he has not felt those weaknesses himself. But the truth of Scripture is that he has, indeed, felt the weakness and overcome it.
The argument that Jesus could have been tempted but without possiblility of sin, as well as being illogical, makes a nonsense of the words which say he was tempted "in every way, just as we are". If he could not sin then his temptations were utterly different from ours and his lack of sin was no virtue any more than it is a virtue if an alarm clock goes off at the time it is meant to.
This being so I could have no confidence in approaching the throne of one who was so much above sin that he could have no concept of my weakness.
Walvoord also argues

Peccability (the ability to sin) always implies weakness on the part of the one tempted; he is weak to the extent that he can sin. (Walvoord - op cit)

This is like arguing that the ability to feel fear is cowardice. That is not true for the true hero is the man who knows fear yet overcomes that fear. The man who feels no fear at all is not brave - just unimaginative. The virtue of the true hero is his ability to overcome fear. The virtue of Christ's sinlessness lies in his overcoming temptation rather than his inability to sin.

The sinlessness of an impeccable person would have no virtue for my salvation.

N.B.
It would be gross negligence on my part not to point out that I have not given the whole of Dr. Walvoord's argument and that if the reader wishes to give his doctrinal stance a fair hearing s/he should read the relevant section of "Jesus Christ our Lord".

Dr. Kevin J. Conner's "Foundations of Christian Doctrine" (Sovereign World) also argues the case for Christ's inability to sin. Both writers are evangelical theologians of high standing.