Topical - Humanity of Christ
Introduction
The teaching on the person of Christ can be summarized as follows:
Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one person, and will be forever.
I. The Virgin Birth
A. The Virgin Birth Proven by Scripture:
1. Gen is 3:15 is referred to as the protevangelium since it is the first prophecy about Christ. The phrase “her seed,” rather than “his seed” is unusual and points to the fact the Messiah was ultimately born of Mary alone, thus predici8ng the virgin birth.
2. Matt 1:18 Mary was pregnant before she had been with Joseph.
3. Matt 1:18 Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit.
4. Matt 1:20 Joseph was told by the angel that Mary’s child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
5. Matt 1:22-23 The virgin birth was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.
6. Matt 1:24-25 Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. Mary was clearly a virgin
7. Luke 1:34 Mary herself, and she would be the first to know, that she had not been with a man.
8. Luke 1:35 The child was the result of the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
9. Isaiah 7:14: The Hebrew word here is almah which can mean a young maiden, but the word used by the LXX and the N.T. is parthenos which can only refer to a virgin. The word almah in the O.T. can, and often does refer to a virgin as seen in Gen 24:16. According to Gleason Archer in Encyclopeida of Bible Difficulties (pp. 266-288) the term virgin (Heb. almah) “never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity.”
10. The Greek term for begot (gennao) is used in Matt 1:2-15 and is in the active form, but there is a deliberate change in verse 16 to the passive form (egennethe). The translation “by whom was born Jesus” draws this point out in the English. Also the Greek uses (hes) a feminine relative pronoun (instead of hou which is masculine) here to emphasize that Jesus was born without Joseph’s participation. The point is that Joseph did not beget Jesus: The whom in verse 16 is a reference to Mary and not Joseph.
11. The Greek term used of Mary for virgin in Matt 1:23 (parthenos) clearly refers to a virgin. According to Arndt and Gingrich’s Lexicon, it could have no other meaning (see p. 627)
12. Gen 3:15 is referred to as the protevangelium since it is the first prophecy about Christ. The her seed is a reference to Mary and supported by the fact the phrase in Matt 1:16 “by whom” (Greek hes) is a feminine relative pronoun. These two passages point to the fact Jesus was born without the participation of Joseph.
13. Two other possible references are Mark 6:3 where the townspeople refer to Jesus as “the son of Mary,” where you would expect them to say son of Joseph. When a man was identified by his mother, it was only due to the fact that his paternity was unknown. Also, John 8:41 the Pharisees say, “We were not born of fornication,” where the ameis is emphatic, thus suggestion they are accusing him of this point.
B. The Importance of the Virgin Birth
1. The Scriptures claim that it happened, thus to reject this doctrine would also be to reject the authority of the Bible. ARGUMENT FROM THE LESSER TO THE GREATER: If we cannot trust the Bible on this subject, how can we trust it in relation to eternal life.
2. It guaranteed the sinless of Christ, without which His sacrifice on the cross would have been worthless (2 Cor 5:21). Luke 1:34-35 refer to the fact the offspring would be holy, thus showing us that somehow the Holy Spirit did not allow the human nature of Jesus to be polluted with sin! Karl Bath, (CD 1956, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 151-155) suggests that Jesus took upon Himself the same depraved human nature that we possess, and that His sinlessness is that He didn’t commit actual sin. The problem is that this view is that it fails to recognize the sin nature as sin itself. He also believes that the sin nature was passed on by the man and not the woman (Credo pp. 70f.) Brunner says that he is not interested in it at all and rejects the idea.
It makes it possible for Christ to be completely human and not inherit a sin nature (Rom 5:12ff):
a. Every person born inherits Adam's sin, which constitutes a sinful nature, guilt, death, condemnation and corruption (Rom 5:12-21). Every person inherits the guilt and moral corruption which we call original sin.
b. The fact Jesus did not have a human father partially broke this line from Adam.
c. Lk 1:35 clearly states that the child to be born was holy.
3. Without it, there would be no union of God and man (Tert- Ag Marc 4. 10). Carl Henry writes, “It may be admitted, of course, that the Virgin Birth is not flatly identical with the Incarnation, just as the empty tomb is not flatly identical with the resurrection. The one might be affirmed without the other. Yet the connection is so close, and indeed indispensable, that were the Virgin Birth or the empty tomb denied, it is likely that either the Incarnation or Resurrection would be called in question, or they would be affirmed in a form very different from that which they have in Scripture and historic teaching. The Virgin Birth might well be described as an essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” (“Our Lord’s Virgin Birth,” CT, 7 Dec 1959, p. 20).
4. It proves that salvation must ultimately comes from God: Salvation must be from the work of God and not man as prophesied in Gen 3:15. Jesus spoke of the two types of births in John 3:3-5. See also John 1:13. Salvation is from the Lord alone, man is not even able to introduce the very first step in the process of introducing the Savior into the world. It demonstrates the need for and expresses the work of the Holy Spirit.
5. God is at work among us and not a by-stander- immanence vrs. a deist mentality.
Think of the other possibilities: Jesus would not seem to be fully God, if He was born in the exact same manner as us; or, He would not appear to be fully human, if He merely descended from heaven as a man.
Objection: Didn't Jesus inherit a sinful nature from Mary?
Answers:
The Roman Catholic View:
1. Mary was free from sin and thus Christ was not touched by sin due to this fact.
2. They refer to this as the immaculate conception, that is, Mary was conceived in her mother's womb free from inherited sin. On Dec 8th, 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed, "The Most Holy Virgin was, in the first moment of her conception ......... in view of the merits of Christ..... preserved free from all stain of original sin."
3. The Church also teaches that "in consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life."
4. Millard Erickson describes this viewpoint as “Catholics interpret the virgin birth as meaning that Jesus was not born in normal fashion. In their view, he simply passed through the wall of Mary’s uterus instead of being delivered through the normal birth canal, so that Mary’s hymen was not ruptured. Thus, there was a sort of miraculous Caesarean section.” (p. 741).
5. A fourth century formula described Mary “as ante partum, in partu, et post partum” (before in and after birth).
6. They would explain the brothers and sisters of Jesus as either cousins or children from a previous marriage of Joseph.
The Protestant View:
1. Scripture nowhere teaches that Mary was free from sin.
2. Lk 1:35 Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and was thus described as holy.
3. The work of the Holy Spirit in Mary somehow prevented the transmission of the sin of Mary.
4. Remember: Nothing is impossible with God (Lk 1:37).
Church History Support
1. Tertullian in Against Marcion 4. 10 also support the need for the virgin birth of Christ in relation to the incarnation.
2. Celsus (a Greek Philosopher) who wrote an anti-Christian polemic (177-180) describes Jesus as the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera and that Jesus Himself had invented the story of His virgin birth (see Against Celsus 1. 28, 32, 69.). According to the informant of Celsus the mother of Jesus was a poor seamstress, and engaged to a carpenter, who plunged her into disgrace and misery when he found out about her unfaithfulness.
3. Against Celsus 1. 28: born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgraceful gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.”
4. The Talmud also refers to the Lord as a son of a “pndira.”
5. The Apostle’s Creed, produced in Gaul in 5th or 6th cent yet it roots go back much further, the virgin birth is affirmed. This document probably has its roots in an old Roman baptismal confession. By the early second century the early form was already in use and Tertullian in North Africa and Irenaeus in Gaul and Asia Minor.
6. Ignatius, writing approx 117, referred to the virgin birth as one of the “mysteries to be shouted out” (See Eph 18.2-19.1).
7. Opponents Celsus, Cerinthus, Carpocrates and the Ebionites. YET, we do not have one person who would be labeled as orthodox as denying this truth.
II. The Incarnation
A. The Term (John 1:14)
1. The term itself literally means “in flesh,” thus showing that God the Son took upon Himself an additional nature, humanity through the virgin birth.
B. The Two Genealogies
1. The line in Matt 1:1-16 traces the line through Joseph’s lineage (v. 16) back to David, thus proving His rightful claim to the throne of David through the line of the father.
2. The line in Luke 3:23-38 traces the line through Mary’s lineage, thus connecting Him to the predicted seed of the woman in Gen 3:15.
3. Both lines trace back to David, thus proving His rightful claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32-33).
Note: An important work on this issue is Jesus’ Title to the Throne of David by W.W. Barndollar.
Proof of His Humanity
A. Jesus Had A Human Body (Luke 2:7,40)
1. He had a body just like ours as proven by the fact He became:
a. He got tired in Jn 4:6.
b. He got thristy in Jn 19:28.
c. He got hungry in Matt 4:2.
d. He got physically weak Lk 23:26.
e. He died in Mk 15:37.
f. In His resurrected body he has flesh and bones (Lk 24:39), He ate (Jn 20:17) and ascended to heaven in His body (Acts 1:9). Before and after His resurrection, His body was still a physical body.
B. Jesus Had A Human Mind (Luke 2:52,Heb 5:8)
1. The Greek says he kept increasing!
C. Jesus Had a Human Soul and Human Emotions (Jn 12:27,13:21,Matt 26:38)
1. The word troubled (tarasso) was used to describe strong human emotion. It was used to describe:
a. The disciples when they saw Jesus walking on the water and thought He was a ghost (Matt 14:26).
b. The fact King Herod was troubled when the wise men showed up (Matt 2:3).
c. The time Zecharias encountered an angel who suddenly showed up in the Temple (Lk 1:12).
2. He marveled at the faith of the Centurion (Matt 8:10).
3. He wept at the sorrow of Lazarus' death (Jn 11:35).
4. He prayed with tears and cries (Heb 5:7).
5. He was tempted in every way as we are (Heb 4:15) yet without sin.
D. People Near Him saw Him Only as a Man (Matt 13:53-58)
Jesus will be a Man Forever
After the Resurrection:
1. He had the nail prints in His hands (Jn 20:25-27).
2. He had flesh and bones (Lk 24:39).
3. He ate food (Lk 24:41-42).
4. In Rev 1:13 Jesus still appears as "one like the Son of Man."
5. In Rev 5:6 He appears as a Lamb who has been slaughtered.
Why Jesus' Full Humanity Was Necessary
A. For Representative Obedience Rom 5:18-19
1. Paul refers to Christ as "the last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45), and calls Adam the "first man" and Christ the "second man" (1 Cor 15:47).
2. As the first man failed in a perfect environment and sinned against God, the second man triumphed over sin and the devil in the wilderness under the condition of fasting for forty days and nights.
3. Christ completely represented man.
B. To Be a Substitute Sacrifice (Heb 2:16-17)
1. The word expatiation or propitiation means satisfaction.
2. Since Christ was fully man, He could die in our place as a substitute.
3. Berkhof (p. 319) suggests the following three reasons:
“(1) He might bring a sacrifice of infinite value and render perfect obedience to the law of God; (2) He might bear the wrath of God redemptively, that is, so as to free others from the curse of the law; and (3) he might be able to apply the furits of His accomplished work to those who accept him by faith.”
C. To Be the One Mediator Between God and Man (1 Tim 2:5)
1. We needed a mediator who could represent us to God and who could represent God to us.
2. The only one who could do this is the God-Man, Jesus Christ.
D. To Fulfill God's Original Purpose for Man to Rule Over Creation (Gen 1:28)
1. Jesus is now crowned with glory and honor (Heb 2:9), has been given all authority in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18), all things have been put under His feet (Eph 1:22), and in the future we will rule and reign with Christ (Rev 3:21).
E. To Be Our Example and Pattern in Life (1 Jn 2:6,2 Cor 3:18)
1. We are to follow the Lord in suffering (1 Peter 2:21)
2. We are to look to Jesus who is the "author and perfecter of our faith" (Heb 12:2)
3. We are to look to the Lord when we grow tired from suffering at the hands of others (Heb 12:3)
F. To Be the Pattern for our Redeemed Bodies (1 Cor 15:42-44,1 Cor 15:23,Col 1:18)
1. Christ's body is the firstfruits (1 Cor 15:23) and He is the first-born of the dead (Col 1:18)
2. We shall bear the image of the man of heaven (1 Cor 15:49)
3. We shall be like Christ (1 Jn 3:2)
G. To Sympathize as our High Priest (Heb 2:18,4:15-16)
1. Think about it, we now have Christ who has infine power and infiine compassion as our helper.
2. Rom 8- He makes perefect intercession on our behalf.
H. To Destroy the Works of the Devil
1. Through death, which only a man can experience, He destroyed the one who had the power of death (Hebs 2:14).
I. It made possible the uniting of the full humanity and full deity in one person (Jn 3:16,Gal 4:4).
J. To reveal God to man.
1. John 1:14-18, 14:7-8.
False Views of Christ
Gnostics
1. The Gnostics believed that all matter was evil and that God was pure spirit.
2. A lower emanation from God created this evil matter since the true God would not create matter. This was the Demiurgos or the God of the Jews.
3. Jesus did not have a real physical body since mater is evil.
4. Salvation consisted of being freed from this physical body and returning to the realm of pure spirit.
5. Gnostic teaching on the body of Jesus can be divided as follows:
Docetism:
a. Jesus’ body was a “phantasm body,” or body which only appeared to be a real human body.
b. Jesus was not born nor did he ever suffer or die.
c. He was born of the virgin Mary but only passed “through” her where this “ethereal” body came through. Thus the creeds mention that Christ’s body was not per (through) Mary but ex (out of) Maria virgine, which means out of the same substance as Mary. The Chalcedononian creed communicates this by using the term consubstantial with us in relation to our humanity.
d. Thus the Greek term dokeo means to seem or appear has been applied to this sect.
e. Some taught that he has a real body but it was not material.
f. They did teach the deity of Christ.
g. Refutation: 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 7.
h. Major Church Fathers: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Eusebius.
Cerinthus:
a. He made a distinction between Christ and the human Jesus.
b. A man by the name of Cerinthus who was alive during the N.T. era.
c. He evidently had contact with the apostle John. Eusebius writes in History of the Church, p. 138:
"He {Irenaeus} states on the authority of Polycarp that one day John went into a bathhouse to take a bath, but when he found that Cerinthus was inside he leaped from the spot and ran for the door, as he could not endure the same roof. He urged his companions to do the same, calling out, "Let us get out of here, for fear the place falls in, now that Cerinthus, the enemy of truth is inside."
He made a distinction between Jesus and the Christ:
a. Jesus was the man and the Christ was a spirit.
b. The Christ “spirit” ascended upon Jesus at His baptism and left right before the crucifixion, it returned to heaven and left Jesus to suffer alone on the cross.
c. Emphasized angles, principalities and speculations.
d. This is why the Gospel of John and especially I John are so Important.
a. I John refutes Gnosticism to a degree (see Jn 14:1,20:31,I Jn 2:22,4:2,15,5:1,5:6,2 Jn 7).
b. Paul refutes this same concept in the book of Colossians.
Ebionites
1. 2nd century.
2. A Jewish form of Christianity which viewed Jesus as a mere man, the normal son of Mary and Joseph, who was set apart from other men by his holiness and extraordinary endowments.
3. Christ had the spirit after his baptism and he was not preexistent.
4. Stressed the need for the continued obedience to the Law of Moses.
5. Refutation: Only a divine Christ is worthy of worship (John 1:1, 20:28 and Hebs 13:8).
Nararenes
1. A Jewish form of Christianity which held to the His miraculous birth, viewed him as the Son of God in a unique sense but was still a mere man. He was an elevated man.
2. Stressed the need for the continued obedience to the Law of Moses.
Arians (4th century- approx 325)
1. Presbyter of Alexandria.
2. Major Church Father: Athanasius and condemned at council of Nicea.
3. See handout for further details.
Apollinarian
1. Apollinaris was a distinguished Bishop of Laodocea in 4th century.
2. He denied the completeness of his humanity.
3. He made a distinction between the soma, pshche and pheuma. He taught that Jesus had a true body (soma), a true soul (psuche) but not a rational spirit (pneuma) or mind (nous). The Logos replaced the mind or spirit of Jesus.
4. They tried to explain how tow natures could be one person and ending up diminishing both sides.
5. Their doctrine was condemned at the Council of Antioch 378, 379 and Council at Constantinople in 381.
6. Major Church Fathers: Basil, Theodosius, Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa, Vitalis, Pope Damascus,
Nestorius (5th century)
1. A presbyter in Antioch and bishop of Constantinople in 5th cent.
2. He denied the unity of person.
3. Cyril of Alexandria was the chief opponent and had this doctrine condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 ad.
4. Carried the distinction of natures too far: His teaching denied the unity of the person which amounted to believing in two persons.
5. He tried to distinguish the human Jesus who could die and the Divine Son who could not.
6. Passage Acts 20:28.
7. The human aspect was completely controlled by the divine.
8. The unity of person needs to be held to.
Eutychianism (5th century also referred to as Monophysite)
1. Eutychius was a presbyter of Constantinople.
2. There was only one nature in Christ, the divine and the human formed a third nature.
3. The human nature was swallowed up by the divine side to from a third nature (tertium quid). An absorbtion of the human nature into the divine.
4. Before the incarnation there were two natures but after there was only one. The human was changed into the divine where the humanity was ignored. Even his body was divine.
5. Condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 405 and 451 ad.
6. Major Fathers: Flavian of Constantinople, Theodoret, Pope Leo, Eusebius of Dorylaeum.
Monotheletic: 7th century battle from 633 to 680 (the one-will controversy)
1. Did Christ have one will or two wills?
2. Dyotheletic- two wills of Christ: One human and one divine.
3. Basic issue goes back to two natures or one nature in Christ which was settled as Chalcedon.
4. Attempt to preserve the impeccability of Christ in guarding against the flesh battling the Spirit.
5. Two will Passages: Matt 26:39, Lk 22:42, John 6:38. Human Will: Lk 2:51, Phil 2:8, John 1:43, 17:24, 19:28, Matt 27:34. Divine Will: Lk 13:34, John 5:21.
6. 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 680. They added this phrase to the Chalcedonain Creed:
“And we likewise preach two natural wills in him (Jesus Christ), and two natural operations undivided, inconvertible, inseparable, unmixed, according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers; and two natural wills are not contrary (as the impious heretics assert), far from it! But his human will follows the divine will, and it is not resisting nor reluctant, but rather subject to the divine will according to the wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of the God Logos, so is also the natural will of his flesh the proper will of the logos, as he himself says, “I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the Father who sent me’ (John 6:38).
………Therefore we confess two natural wills and operations, harmoniously united for the salvation of the human race.”
Reformed View (1500’s): Adopted all the decisions of the first six general councils taught and condemned.
West Confession of Faith
“So that the two, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.” (chap viii, 2).
Luther
1. The attributes of one nature are communicated to the other: The divine essence is communicated to the human. Thus the humanity of Christ is omnipresent and omniscient.
2. Hodge: “The human is as truly divine as the eternal essence of the Godhead.” (p. 407-408).
3. The divine receives nothing from the human.
4. Yet they confess all the points of the Reformed view, keeping the natures distinct, yet add this peculiar twist.
Modern Day
1. No historical Jesus.
2. The Jesus seminar.
3. J.P. Morland and Mike Wilkins- The Search for the Historical Jesus.
4. Or: Jesus was a good moral teacher or one of the ways to God.
I. Orthodox View
A. Expressed in the Creed of Chalcedon in 451 and stated no Better (Read It)
1. It is not an easy doctrine: Great is the mystery of godliness (1 Tim 3).
2. Berkhof (p. 321) “We are simply told what Jesus is, without any attempt to show how He became what He is.” “A mystery which defies explanation”
Point #1 Two Natures Yet One Person
1. “Not a fusion of natures where you have a sort of divine-human nature.” (Berkhof)
Point #2 NO ESSENTIAL CHANGE IN THE DIVINE NATURE
1. -God is immutable (Mal 3:6, James 1:17).
2. Berkhof
(p. 323) “This also means that it remained impassible, that is, incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance, and insusceptible to weakness and temptation.”
….“The divine nature assumed human flesh.” And due to the incarnation, “the divine savior could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted, and could suffer and die, not in His divine nature, but derivatively, by virtue of His possession of a human nature.”(p. 323-324)
Point #3 The Human Nautre Did not Become Divine
1. Berkhof: p. 324 “We must be careful not to understand the term to mean that anything peculiar to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature, or vice versa; or that there is an interpenetration of the two natures, as a result which the divine is humanized, and the human is deified (Rome). The deity cannot share in human weakness; neither can man participate in any of the essential perfections of the Godhead.”
II. The Kenosis
A. Main Scriptures Phil 2:6-8 mainly and 2 Cor 8:9 and John 17:5.
1. Key Passage Phil 2:7 ekenosen (from kenow) American Revised Version as “emptied huimself.”
2. Many interpret this to mean that Jesus “laid aside” the actual or independent use of the divine attributes.
3. Dr Warfiled refers to this as a mistranslation.
4. Verb is found only in four others places- Rom 4:14, 1 Cor 1:17, 9:15 and 2 Cor 9:3 and means “to make void, of no account, of no reputation.”
5. Thus Christ made Himself of no reputation, he did not assert His divine perogative, but took upon Himself the form of a servant.
6. Berkhof: (p. 328)
“Now what doe His becoming a servant involve? A state of subjection in which one is called upon to render obedience. And the opposite of this is a state of sovereignty in which one has the right to command. The being on equality with God does not denote mode of being, but a state which Christ exchanged for another state.”
7. Arndt and Gingrich- “of Christ who gave up the appearance of his divinity and took on the form of a slave.” (p. 428).
8. (p. 329) “The Christ of the Kenotics is neither God nor man. In the words of Dr. Warfield His human nature is “just shrunken deity.”
Hodge
A. Hypostatical Union
1. The two properites are incompatible. Like oil and water.
2. If the properties of one is mixed or confused with the other, than a change has occurred.
3. Hodge p. 392
“Whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the person.” Whatever is true of His humanity can be applied to Him: (p. 392) “so we may say of Christ that He is finite and infinite,; that He is ignorant and omniscient; that His is less than God and equal with God; that He existed from eternity and that He was born in time; that He created all things and that he was a man of sorrows.”
4. Walvoord, (Jesus Christ our Lord, p. 116)
“Christ as the same moment has seemingly contradicotory qualities. He can be weak and omnipotent, increasing in knowledge and omnipotent, finite and infinite.”
Key: What is true of either nature is true of the person, thus the following pasages:
B. Four Sets of Scripture
Set #1
The Whole Person: King, Lord, prophet, priest, Shepherd (not of Logos, Son or man) but as the God-man
Humbled himself, head of the Church, exalted over all principalities, at right hand of God, will come to judge and is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
Set #2
True only of the divine nature:
John 8:58
Thou Lord in the beginning laid the foundation of the world….Hebs 1:10
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
Set #3
True of the Human Nature
I thirst
My soul is sorrowful unto death
Jesus wept
Walking, eating, sleeping, being handled
Mark 12:32 the time
Set #4
Not true of the divine nature but true of the God-man
Son subject to the Father
The Father is greater than I (H, p. 394) “The Father is not greater than the Son, for they are the same in substance and equal in power and glory.”
Hebs 1:2-3 contains all these aspects
Systematic Theologies
Henry Thiessen Lectures in Systematic Theology Premil, Pretrib Postions
Millard Erickson Premil, Post-Trib
Charles Hodge 3 Vos set- Systematic Theology (Amil- Reformed)
Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology (8 vol set)
Guy Duffield, Nathaniel Van Cleave Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Life Bible College)
III. The Sinlessness of Christ
A. The Sinlessness of Christ is taught often in the Scriptures
1. Jn 8:46, 2 Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1 Pet 1:22
2. Jn 8:29: Jesus said, "I always do what is pleasing to the Father."
3. He is called the Holy One or Righteous One in Acts 2:27,3:14,4:30,7:52,13:35
Question: Could Jesus Have Sinned????????????????????????????????
Two Viewpoints:
View #1. The Impeccability of Christ: This view holds that Christ was not able to sin due to the fact the word impeccable means "______________________________."
1. The Scripture clearly teaches that Christ never sinned (2 Cor 5:21).
2. Christ experienced real temptations (Luke 4:2). Christ "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15).
3. God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13).
4. Christ did not have a sin nature as us, so His temptations were entirely different than ours (James 4:1-2).
5. Since Christ was fully God, it was impossible for Him to sin.
6. Jesus had the Spirit without measure (Jn 3:34).
View #2. The Peccability of Christ: This view is just the opposite and teaches that Christ was able to sin.
1. The main strength of this view is the objection that, if Christ could not sin, how was He truly tempted as we are? (Heb 4:15)
2. Heb 4:15 says that Christ was tempted "as we are."
Wayne Grudem writes the following about this point:
"....it seems appropriate to conclude that Jesus met every temptation to sin, not by His divine power, but on the strength of His human nature alone (though, of course, it was not "alone" because Jesus, in exercising the kind of faith that humans should exercise, was perfectly depending on God the Father and the Holy Spirit at every moment). The moral strength of His divine nature was there as sort of a "backstop" that would have prevented Him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for Him to sin.), but He did not rely on the strength of His divine nature to make it easier for Him to face temptations."
Question: Were the temptations real?
Answer: Actually those who resist a temptation to the end, in reality feel the power and impact of that temptation to the greatest degree.
Question: What about James 1:13?
Answer: It is possible that Jesus' human nature could be tempted with evil, just as Adam and Eve, who had no sinful nature, could be tempted. (Remember: Jesus was fully human as well as fully God.)
Hebs 4:14-16