Why was it impossible for Jesus Christ to sin, called impeccability? Was it his lack of a sinful nature, holiness, hence there was no contact point for a temptation to cause sin? Yet, Adam had no sin nature either and was created holy, yet he sinned. The 19th century Baptist theologian James P. Boyce has a good discussion on this point, and it involved man's fallibility. Jesus as the God-man was infallible, being truly God, so could not sin. Dr. Boyce's discussion is found in two places:

The end of chapter XX, part VI -
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/boyce/aos/chapter20.htm

Then more fully discussed in chapter XXII -
http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/boyce/aos/chapter22.htm

A verse that comes up opposing the impeccability of Christ as found in 3 modern translations:

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15, ESV2011)

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15, NRSV)

"For we do not have a high priest not being able to sympathize with our weaknesses but One having been tried in all respects according to our likeness, apart from sin." (Heb 4:15 Jay P. Green LITV)

tempted? tested? or tried? To my mind "tempted" seems to include the idea that the subject has a quality where a temptation can connect, where "tested" or "tried" seems better. Thoughts?


Ned