ath and resurrection. However, Christ was obedient in the sense that He accepted the divine will and accepted the will of the Father. This passage does not relate to the whole life of Christ, but merely to a single episode.. Therefore, this passage is not supportive of the peccability theory.In summary therefore, we have seen that the question of the peccability of Jesus, i.e., Jesus could have sinned if He had wished to sin, cannot be supported by appealing to the following arguments:a) that in order to have a true human nature Jesus had to be able to sin;b) that in order to be really tempted as man is tempted Jesus had to be able to sin;c) that temptability necessitates susceptibility to sin;d) that if Jesus were a true man he would have to be able to sin because sin is part of the human condition;e) that if Jesus were really the Second or New Adam he had to have been able to sin;f) that Jesus statement in Luke 18:19, Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17 (?None is good but God alone?) implies that Jesus had to have been able to sin;g) that Jesus? baptism by John the Baptist implies Jesus? sin nature and hence the ability to sin; andh) that Biblical passage of Hebrews 5:7-8 implies that Jesus was notalways obedient and thus, able to sin.Therefore, we can conclude that there is no argument that would require us to admit or concur with the peccability of Jesus.Having determined the lack of evidence to support the peccability of Jesus, I now wish to examine the arguments in support of the impeccability of Jesus.The first argument to support the impeccability of Jesus is based on Jesus? divine nature. Towns tells us ?Jesus was unalterably God ? and to back up this statement he presents nine proofs. Sahl tells us that it is precisely because Jesus is God that ?it is not possible for Him to sin ?. Pannenberg explains this more fully, saying, ?if sin is essentially life in contradiction to God, in self-centred closing of our ego against God, then Jes...
