Within certain Christological
circles, predominately Trinitarian, there is a debate as to whether Christ
could have indeed sinned. We know from Scripture that he was tempted in all
things, but, unlike us, did not sin (Heb 2:17), and as a result, "is able to succour them that are tempted" (Heb 2:18). There are those who would argue
that it was only the human “nature” of Christ that was tempted, but that the
person of Jesus (being 100% man and 100% God, á la the Hypostatic Union) was
not tempted, nor was it possible for the person of Jesus Christ to sin.
Ultimately, this approach is theologically flawed, as it ultimately “splits”
Jesus into two persons (it is more akin to Nestorian ideals than Trinitarian
theology); moreover, one cannot help but notice a Docetic Christological
assumptions stemming from this approach, as it severely undermines the true
humanity of Jesus. This “splitting” of the alleged two natures of Jesus is not
an uncommon approach, however—it is how Trinitarians tend to defend the
Hypostatic Union in light of Jesus’ claim that he did not know when the
parousia would be (Mark 12:32)—the claim is that Jesus was speaking only from his
human nature, but that his divine nature knew infallibly when the parousia
would take place! However, to claim that the person of Jesus Christ was not
truly tempted, for instance, when in the wilderness with Satan (Matt 4:1-11) is
to engage in anachronistic eisegesis, reading into the text a later
Christological development that would be dogmatised in 451 C.E.
It is with this preface that I
present the following quote I recently came across which succinctly summarises
LDS Christology and its understanding of the reality of Christ’s temptations,
and one that does not entail a Nestorian and/or Docetic Christology:
It is
important to remember that Jesus was capable of sinning, that he could have
succumbed, that the plan of life and salvation could have been foiled, but that
he remained true. Had there been no possibility of his yielding to the
enticement of Satan, there would have been no real test, no genuine victory in
the result. If he had been stripped of the faculty to sin, he would have been
stripped of his very agency. It was he who had come to safeguard and ensure the
agency of man. He had to retain the capacity and ability to sin had he willed
so to do. (Howard W. Hunter, The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 4)
