Trinitarianism, Part 7

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This the final discussion of the Person of Christ not only concludes the section in Systematic Theology bearing upon Trinitarianism, but it concludes the entire consideration of Theology Proper which has appeared in successive articles in BIBLIOTHECA SACRA during the past four years. The Trinitarianism discussion would not be complete apart from a contemplation of the Person of the Holy Spirit; but, in view of the exhaustive treatment of this theme in these pages by Dr. Walvoord, the subject will not be introduced again.

Beginning with the October-December issue and continuing for two or three years, a series of articles on Angelology, Satanology, and Demonology are to be presented by the same author.]

IX: The Hypostatic Union

Introduction.

The term Hypostatic is derived from hypostasis, which word, according to the Standard Dictionary, means “The mode of being by which any substantial existence is given to any independent and distinct individuality.” Thus it follows that a union of hypostasis is a union of natures that are within themselves independent and distinct. The expression Hypostatic Union is distinctly theological and is applicable only to Christ in whom, as in no other, two distinct and dissimilar natures are united. History records no instance of any other being like Christ in this respect, nor will any other ever appear. He is the incomparable Theanthropic Person, the God-man, the Mediator and Daysman (cf. Job 9:32, 33). There need be no other for every demand, whether it be for divine satisfaction or for human necessity, is perfectly answered in Christ. This unique Person with two natures, being at once the revelation of God to men and the manifestation of ideal and perfect humanity, properly holds the central place in all reverent human thinking, as His complex, glorious Person has engaged the disputation of past centuries. He is not only of surpassing interest to men, but in Him and in Him only is there any hope for humanity in time or eternity. He is God’s Gift, God’s one and only solution for a lapsed race. Within man, there are no resources whereby he might provide a daysman whose right and authority are both perfectly divine and perfectly human. Nothing that man could produce could redeem a soul from sin or could provide the essential sacrificial blood which alone can satisfy outraged holiness. The pity is that the trend of theological discussion regarding the unique Person of Christ has been metaphysical, theoretical, and abstract; while so little attention has been directed toward the truth that His wonderful Person is mediatorial, saving, and satisfying forever. The study of the controversies of past centuries over the Person of Christ is a discipline in itself and is not to be included in the plan of this work on Systematic Theology, other than from this line of historical truth certain warnings as to disproportionate emphasis may be drawn. The specific theme, the hypostatic union, is to be approached under two main divisions, namely, (a) the structure of the doctrine, and (b) the relationships of the Theanthropic Person.

1. The Structure of the Doctrine.

Four vital factors constitute the structure of this specific doctrine: (a) His Deity, (b) His humanity, (c) the complete preservation of each of these two natures without confusion, or alteration of them, and (d) the unity of the Theanthropic Person.

a. His Deity.

The proofs already adduced in a previous section of this thesis are depended upon at this point as a declaration of the Deity of Christ. That evidence demonstrated the truth that Christ is not only an equal member in the Godhead before His incarnation, but that He retained that reality in “the days of His flesh.” It remains, however, to be seen that this experience of the incarnation by which two natures are united in one Person belongs only to the Son. The Father and the Spirit are seen to be associated and active in all that concerns the Son; but it was the Son alone who took upon Him the human form and who is, therefore, though glorified, a Kinsman in the human family. As complex and difficult as it may be to human minds, the original trinitarian unity abides as perfectly after the incarnation as before (cf. John 10:30; 14:9, 11).

b. His Humanity.

Similarly, a former section of this thesis has demonstrated that by the incarnation Christ assumed a complete and perfect humanity. This He did not possess before, and its addition to His eternal Deity has resulted in the God-man which Christ is. Though His Deity is eternal, the humanity was gained in time. Therefore, the Theanthropic Person—destined to be such forever—began with the incarnation. It is also revealed that though the assumption of His humanity was first a condescension and afterwards a humiliation, through His death, resurrection, and ascension He acquired a surpassing glory. There was a joy which was “set before him” (Heb 12:2), and, because of the obedience manifested in the cross, God “hath highly exalted him” (Phil 2:9). Reference is thus made to a glory and joy exceeding every glory and joy that had been His before. His condescension and humiliation were not relieved by a dismissal of His humanity, but by its glorification. A glorified man whose humanity has not been renounced is in heaven. As such He ministers in behalf of His own who are in the world, and as such He is seated upon the Father’s throne expecting until, by the authority and power of the Father committed unto Him, His enemies shall be made the footstool of His feet (Heb 10:12, 13) and the kingdoms of this world are become “the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15).

Therefore, it is to be recognized that the Theanthropic Person is very God and very man, and that His humanity, perfect and complete, is as enduring as is His Deity.

c. The Complete Preservation of Each of His Two Natures without Confusion or Alteration of Them.

The present effort is not one of defending either the Deity or the humanity of Christ, separately considered; that endeavor having been made on previous pages. It is rather one of defending the truth so evidently taught in the New Testament, that undiminished Deity—none other than the Second Person, who He eternally is—incorporated into His Being that perfect humanity which He acquired and ever will retain. Of these two natures it may be affirmed from the evidence which Scripture provides, that they united in one Person, and not two; that in this union, that which is divine is in no way degraded by its amalgamation with that which is human, and, in the same manner and completeness, that which is human is in no way exalted or aggrandized above that which is unfallen humanity.

The reality in which undiminished Deity and unfallen humanity united in one Theanthropic Person has no parallel in the universe. It need not be a matter of surprise if from the contemplation of such a Being problems arise which human competency cannot solve; nor should it be a matter of wonder that, since the Bible presents no systematized Christology but rather offers a simple narrative with its attending issues, that the momentous challenge to human thought and investigation which the Christ is, has been the major issue in theological controversy from the beginning to the present time. On the supernatural verities the greatest and most devout minds have pondered, the greatest theologians have written, and the most worthy of God’s prophets have proclaimed. The ordering and systematizing of truth relative to the Theanthropic Person not only could not be avoided, but became at once the greatest burden resting upon those who exercised leadership in the Church of Christ. The creeds of the Church are easily read and professed; but it is well to remember the white heat of controversy out of which these priceless heritages have been forged. The Word of God counsels men to give heed to doctrine (1 Tim 4:13, 16), and here, concerning Christ, is a limitless field in which priceless treasures are hid and truths are discovered which not only determine the destiny of men, but awaken every human capacity for meditation, worship, and praise. The greatest divine objective and the supply of the greatest human need are dependent for their realization upon the Theanthropic character of the Christ of God. If the hypostatic union of two diverse natures in Christ is subject to superficial gloss, it is rendered ineffectual at every point, the purpose of God is thwarted, men are still in their sins and doom, Christianity becomes only a refined paganism, and the world is without hope. To repeat: it is not a matter at this point of a correct view as to the Deity or the humanity of Christ separately considered; it is a matter relative to the God-man-what He is, being the incarnate Theanthropic Person. It is with reverence that it is said that the Deity which Christ is could not, unaccompanied, save the lost, nor could the humanity which Christ is, acting solitarily, redeem. The issues involved are as great as the eternal purpose of God and as imperative as the need of all lost souls combined. So delicate is the adjustment of these two natures in Christ that to emphasize one at the expense of the other is to sacrifice the efficacy of all. It is natural to estimate that divine nature in Christ as so far transcending the human nature in dignity, eternal Being, and intrinsic glory, that the importance of the human nature all but disappears. Whatever may be the rightful disparagement between Deity and humanity when severed and standing each as a representation of its own sphere, it must be observed that manifestation, redemption, and much future glory reside to a large degree in the humanity of Christ.

It is equally natural to suppose that the divine nature would be injured to some extent if combined with that which is human, and the human nature would be exalted out of its precise limitations if combined with the divine. The teaching of the Scriptures serves to save the reader from such natural conclusions. The Deity of Christ is unimpaired by its union in one Person with that which is unfallen human nature; and the unfallen humanity retains its normal limitations. The confusion and uncertainty that would follow if these natures were subject to problematical alterations is beyond estimation.

It is natural, also, to conclude that the presence of two natures must result in two personalities. This could not be true, for Christ is ever represented as one Person, though He be the coalition of two so widely diverse qualities. On this deeply important phase of this theme, Dr. B. B. Warfield has written with his accustomed clarity: “There underlies, thus, the entire literature of the New Testament a single, unvarying conception of the constitution of our Lords’ person. From Matthew where He is presented as one of the persons of the Holy Trinity (xxviii.19)-or if we prefer the chronological order of books, from the Epistle of James where He is spoken of as the Glory of God, the Shekinah (ii.1)—to the Apocalypse where He is presented as declaring that He is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (i.8, 17; xxii.13), He is consistently thought of as in His fundamental being just God. At the same time from the Synoptic Gospels, in which He is dramatized as a man walking among men, His human descent carefully recorded, and His sense of dependence on God so emphasized that prayer becomes almost His most characteristic action, to the Epistles of John in which it is made the note of a Christian that he confesses that Jesus Christ has come in flesh (1 John iv.2) and the Apocalypse in which His birth in the tribe of Judah and the house of David (v.5; xxii.16), His exemplary life of conflict and victory (iii.21), His death on the cross (xi.8) are noted, He is equally consistently thought of as true man. Nevertheless, from the beginning to the end of the whole series of books, while first one and then the other of His two natures comes into repeated prominence, there is never a question of conflict between the two, never any confusion in their relations, never any schism in His unitary personal action; but He is obviously considered and presented as one, composite indeed, but undivided personality. In this state of the case not only may evidence of the constitution of Our Lord’s person properly be drawn indifferently from every part of the New Testament, and passage justly be cited to support and explain passage without reference to the portion of the New Testament in which it is found, but we should be without justification if we did not employ this common presupposition of the whole body of this literature to illustrate and explain the varied representations which meet us cursorily in its pages, representations which might easily be made to appear mutually contradictory were they not brought into harmony by their relation as natural component parts of this one unitary conception which underlies and gives consistency to them all. There can scarcely be imagined a better proof of the truth of a doctrine than its power completely to harmonize a multitude of statements which without it would present to our view only a mass of confused inconsistencies. A key which perfectly fits a lock of very complicated wards can scarcely fail to be the true key.”[1]

The truth concerning the complex Person which Christ is is set forth in the New Testament. It is the work of the theologian to discover its proper order and to discern its precise meaning. This will not be the result if human opinion is allowed to intrude. To reach a correct estimation of the Person of Christ has been the aim of the greatest scholars whose conclusions have been crystallized into creeds. The Chalcedonian symbol has been the norm of orthodox thinking since its drafting in the fifth century. It reads: “We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”[2] The declaration made in the Westminster Confession of Faith is true to this Chalcedonian creed, though stated in different language. There it is written: “The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, 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.”[3]

There is little question on the part of devout men but that the Deity of Christ is ever present and abides. The humanity, originating in time, is subject to many suppositions, and only the infallible Word of God is to be followed. A brief quotation from Dr. Cunningham is full of meaning: “The distinctive constituent elements of a man, of a human being, of one who is possessed of perfect human nature, are a body and a soul united. Christ took to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and He retained, and still retains them in all their completeness, and with all their essential qualities. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, ‘of her substance,’ as is said in the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism; these words, ‘of her substance,’ being intended as a negation of an old heresy, revived by some Anabaptists after the Reformation, to the effect that He was conceived in Mary, but not of her; and that He, as it were, passed through her body without deriving anything from her substance; and being intended to assert, in opposition to this notion, that she contributed to the formation of Christ’s human nature, just what mothers ordinarily contribute to the formation of their children. Having thus taken a true body, formed of the substance of the Virgin, He continued ever after to retain it, as is manifest in the whole history of His life, of His death, and of the period succeeding His resurrection; and He has it still at the right hand of God. He took also a reasonable soul, possessed of all the ordinary faculties and capacities of the souls of other men, including a power of volition, which is asserted in opposition to the error of the Monothelites. We see this clearly manifested in the whole of His history, both before and after His death and resurrection; and the proofs of it might very easily be drawn out in detail in a survey of the whole record which God has given us concerning His Son.”[4]

Dr. John Miley has done a real service in tracing the development of Christological thought through the early centuries. Though of some length, a portion is here reproduced: “In Christianity, even from the beginning, Christ was the great theme of the Gospel and the life of Christian experience and hope. Therefore he could not fail to be the subject of much thought. Nor could such thought limit itself to merely devotional meditations, but inevitably advanced to the study of his true nature or personality. For the deepest Christian consciousness Christ was the Saviour for whose sake all sin was forgiven, and in whose fellowship all the rich blessings of the new spiritual life were received. For such a consciousness he could not be a mere man. It is true that in the history of his life he appeared in the fashion of a man and in the possession of human characteristics; still, for the Christian consciousness he must have been more than man. But how much more? And wherein more? Such questions could not fail to be asked; and in the very asking there was a reaching forth of Christian thought for a doctrine of the person of Christ. In such a mental movement the many utterances of Scripture which ascribe to him a higher nature and higher perfections than the merely human would soon be reached. Here it is that a doctrine of the person of Christ would begin to take form. He is human, and yet more than human; is the Son of God incarnate in the nature of man; is human and divine. Reflective thought could not pause at this stage. If Christ is both divine and human in his natures, how are these natures related to each other? What is the influence of each upon the other on account of their conjunction or union in him? Is Christ two persons according to his two natures, or one person in the union of the two? Such questions were inevitable. Nor could they remain unanswered. The answers were given in the different theories of the person of Christ which appeared in the earlier Christian centuries. It is not to be thought strange that theories differed. The subject is one of the profoundest. It lies in the mystery of the divine incarnation. The divine Son invests himself in human nature. So far the statement of the incarnation is easily made; but the statement leaves us on the surface of the profound reality. With a merely tactual or sympathetic union of the two natures, and consequently two distinct persons in Christ, the reality of the divine incarnation disappears. With the two distinct natures, and the two classes of divine and human facts, how can he be one person? Is the divine nature humanized, or the human nature deified in him? Or did the union of the two natures result in a third nature different from both, and so provide for the oneness of his personality? The Scriptures make no direct answer to these questions. They give us many Christological facts, but in elementary form, and leave the construction of a doctrine of the person of Christ to the resources of Christian thought. Soon various doctrines were set forth. In each case the doctrine was constructed according to what was viewed as the more vital or determining fact of Christology, as related to the person of Christ. Opposing views and errors of doctrine were the result. More or less contention was inevitable. The interest of the subject was too profound for theories to be held as mere private opinions, or with indifference to opposing views. The strife was a serious detriment to the Christian life. Hence there was need of a carefully constructed doctrine of the person of Christ; need that the construction should be the work of the best Christian thought, and that it should be done in a manner to secure the highest moral sanction of the Church.

“The state of facts previously described called for some action of the Church which might correct, or, at least, mitigate existing evils. Certainly there was need that errors in Christology should be corrected and contending parties reconciled. A council which should embody the truest doctrinal thought of the Church seemed the best agency for the attainment of these ends. The Council of Chalcedon was constituted accordingly, in the year of our Lord 451. The Council of Nicea was specially concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine constructed clearly and strongly asserted the true and essential divinity of Christ, but expressed nothing definitely respecting his personality. For more than a century this great question still remained without doctrinal formulation by any assembly properly representative of the Church. The construction of such a doctrine was the special work of the Council of Chalcedon. The subject was not a new one. Much preparatory work had been done. Many minds were in possession of the true doctrine, which was already the prevalent faith of the Church. There was much preparation for the work of this Council. Indeed, the notable letter of Leo, Pope of Rome, to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, so accurately and thoroughly outlined a doctrinal statement of the person of Christ, that little more remained for the Council than to cast the material into the mold of its own thought and send it forth under the moral sanction of the Church.”[5]

2. The Relationships.

A practical approach to the right understanding of the Theanthropic Person is through the major relationships He, as God-man, sustained while here on earth. These are:

a. To the Father.

On the divine side of His Being, the Christ of God always occupied the exalted place of fellowship with the Father on the ground of equality—notably His High Priestly prayer as recorded in John 17:1–26; and every reference to His Deity implies this equality and oneness. On the human side of His being, that which is inherently the creature’s relation to the Creator is expressed to perfection, namely, perfect submission to the Father’s will. The complete obedience of Christ to the Father has been made the occasion of doubt as to His equality with the Father. Strong emphasis is needed at this point which enforces the truth that His subservient attitude is altogether the function of His humanity. There was that in His own divine nature which was first willing to be the obedient One. He willingly left the glory, and that exercise of His volition preceded His incarnation (Heb 10:4–7). In like manner, He will exercise authority in all future ages by the appointment of the Father. He reigns forever and ever, but on the ground of the truth that all authority is committed unto Him of the Father (Matt 28:18; John 5:27; 1 Cor 15:24–28).

b. To the Spirit.

Another difficult aspect of revelation concerning the relationship of the God-man is resident in the truth that He did His mighty works by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is written that the Spirit generated the humanity of the God-man (Luke 1:35); He descended upon Christ (Matt 3:16); He filled Christ without measure (John 3:34; cf. Luke 4:1); Christ asserted that His works were wrought by the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:28); and He offered Himself to God by the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14). This dependence of Christ upon the Holy Spirit is a theme which must have its full treatment under Pneumatology. It may suffice to observe at this point that the humanity of Christ is again in view. Being equal to the Spirit, it was wholly within His own power to minister in every mighty work; but this would most evidently complicate the inner relationships of His own Being and remove Him from the position of One who is an example to His followers. Christians are privileged to serve in the power of the Spirit, and so the Christ of God served, but only within the sphere of His humanity. It may be observed, likewise, that the cooperation of the Persons of the Godhead may form some basis of these relationships. Over against the truth that Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit, is the corresponding truth that the Spirit was subject to Christ, for Christ sends the Spirit into the world (John 16:7), which is a divine prerogative; and the Spirit originates no message of His own, but speaks only what He hears, namely, the message of Christ (John 16:13).

c. To Himself.

Unceasing discussion has continued and many and varying opinions have been expressed as to what Christ’s own consciousness could have been. How could He know and sense the might and wisdom of infinity and yet preserve that which is normal human weakness and limitation? How could He know and not know? How could He be the source of all power and yet be prone and exposed to human frailty? If two personalities were predicated of Him, it is conceivable that one, being divine, might be conscious of things belonging to that realm while the other, being human, might be conscious of things which are restricted. The Word of God lends no sanction to the idea of a dual personality in Christ. Whatever His varied abilities and qualities may be, He remains an individual Person.

Consideration is naturally directed toward the problem as to when in His development from babyhood to manhood He became conscious of His Deity and thus assured of His limitless resources. This question has been before all generations and seems to appeal to those even who evince little interest in more vital features of Christological study. One writer has recently suggested, and it is not a new notion, that at the time of the incarnation Christ’s Deity passed into a state of coma from which there was a gradual recovery as the years progressed. However sincere such a writer may be, such a proposal is nothing short of an insult to the Deity of Christ. No truth could be more established than that which declares that Deity, being immutable as to every feature that enters into divine existence, could never be subject to the slightest experience of unconsciousness. It is no more a problem as to how conscious Deity can combine with human babyhood than it is as to how Deity can combine with humanity at all. On the divine side of His being—even when He existed as a fetus in the virgin’s womb—He could have spoken the word of command and dismissed all material things back to nothing from which He had once called them forth. The field of contrast between the two natures of Christ is widened, as it appears to finite minds, when the Creator of all things is contemplated as a helpless infant in a human mother’s arms. The mystery is that of the incarnation itself and is a problem of faith and not of understanding.

Christ was far from being a normal child. It must be believed of Him that He never sinned in childhood any more than He sinned in manhood. For a child to reach the age of maturity having never sinned in that absolute sense in which Deity cannot sin is hardly normal from the human viewpoint. Mary had many things to “ponder” and the purity of her child was one of them. The approach to this complexity is too often wholly wrong. It is assumed that Christ was first a human infant who sometime in His experience took on the consciousness of Deity. The truth is that He was God from all eternity with a divine consciousness which can never be dimmed, and, in the unchangeable experience of Deity, He took on or entered into the realms common to a human body, soul, and spirit. Evidently, in some minds, Christ was more anthropotheistic than Theanthropic. In His childhood, as in the period of gestation, He awaited the hour of a fuller manifestation; but He was ever the conscious Logos of God who was present. Whatever may have been the solution of the problem of two wills—the divine and human—in the one Person, the problem of the divine and human consciousness in one Person is still more baffling. It is only one of many enigmas. How could He be tempted when God cannot be tempted? How could He die when God cannot die? These are problems the finite mind cannot solve. Certainly there is none other to compare with Him. He is “God manifest in the flesh,” the only Theanthropic Person the universe will ever behold. Why, indeed, should man be surprised if he cannot understand God? To be surprised thus is to be amazed at the revelation that God is greater than man.

d. To Angels Unfallen and Fallen.

A very wide field of relationship is indicated in the Bible between the unfallen angels and the Lord of Glory. They evidently attended Him and observed Him from His birth to His ascension. The incarnation of their Creator and the events incident to a perfect redemption were of greatest moment to the holy angels.

In respect to the fallen angels, there arises a relationship which is more or less paradoxical. One line of testimony concerning Him is that He commanded the evil spirits with complete divine authority. They never resisted His sovereign will. They even anticipated His coming judgments upon them when they declared, “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matt 8:29). Yet, on the other hand, He Himself was tested by Satan. This testing was wholly within the sphere of His humanity and concerned issues which had to do with the Father’s will for Him. In the one instance, His Deity is acting in ways which are divine. In the other instance, His humanity, being what it was, is subject to that peculiar form of temptation. The answer is all sealed in the truth that He is the Theanthropic Person—the God-man.

e. To Humanity.

Sufficient emphasis upon the truth of Christ’s humanity has been given in an earlier portion of this theme. He is Immanuel—God become man, a member of this race. It is not one who was God, or who ceased to be God, who became flesh; it is God manifest in the flesh. Had He ceased to be God, or had He failed to become man He could not have been the Kinsman Redeemer. No greater honor was ever conferred on the race as such than that disclosed in the word Immanuel.

f. To Sin and the Sin-Nature.

In this relationship all is negative so far as the Person of Christ is concerned. A very great theme, belonging to Soteriology, is introduced, quite foreign here, when it is declared that He became “sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21). Regarding His Person, it is as true that His humanity was as sinless as His Deity. As the unfallen man He is free from a sin-nature; but it is equally true that He never sinned. As to the sin-nature, He was announced by the angel, even before His birth, to be “that holy thing” (Luke 1:35), and in all points He was tempted as a man apart from those temptations which arise from the sphere of a sin-nature (Heb 4:15). As to the fruit of a fallen nature He fearlessly challenged His enemies, saying: “Which of you convincteth me of sin?” (John 8:46). And none in any succeeding generation has been any more successful in laying any sin to His account. Though living among men as one of them for thirty-three years, He retained the holiness of Deity in every respect.

(1) The Impeccability of Christ.

A serious question, quite hypothetical, yet vital, arises as to whether Christ, being human, had the ability to sin.

Was He peccable or impeccable? Here the fact of the unity of His Person is involved and becomes in a large measure the key to the solution of the problem. There are those who, desiring to accentuate the reality of Christ’s humanity, have taught that He could have sinned, and, apparently, without due regard for all that is involved. Some have taken the ground that, because of His infinite wisdom and power, He would not sin. Others contend that, being God, He could not sin. In the course of the argument which this problem engenders, it is essential to recognize that, as demonstrated in the case of the first Adam, an unfallen human being may sin; and from this it may be reasoned, were there no other factors to be considered, that the unfallen humanity of Christ could have sinned. It is at this point that error intrudes. If isolated and standing alone, it is claimed, that the humanity of Christ, being unsupported, could have willed against God as Adam did. The misleading fallacy is that the humanity of Christ could ever stand alone and unsupported by His Deity. With Adam there was but one nature and it could stand in no other way than unsupported and alone. The humanity of Christ was not, and could not be, divorced from His Deity, nor could it ever be in a position of uninvolved responsibility. Dr. Shedd has used the illustration with good effect that a wire may be bent by human hands, but, when welded into an unbendable bar of steel, it cannot be bent. If it be argued that Christ’s humanity seemed to act separately in matters of knowledge, human weakness, and limitations, this may be conceded; yet not without a reminder that though His humanity might seem to act independently in certain ways which involved no moral issues, because of the unity of His Person, His humanity could not sin without necessitating God to sin. From such a conclusion all devout persons must shrink with holy fear. In God is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5), nor is there in God so much as a shadow cast by turning (James 1:17). This vexing problem is thus reduced to the simple question as to whether God could sin; for Jesus Christ is God. If it be admitted that God cannot—not merely would not—sin, it must be conceded that Christ could not-not merely would not-sin. It remains only to observe that, since He is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb 13:8), had He been capable of sinning on earth, He is still capable of sinning now. In such a situation, the believer’s position and standing in Christ must ever be in jeopardy. It is a question as to whether the One Theanthropic Person could sin. When thus viewed, there could be no ground for further discussion on the part of those who honor the Son as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

The impeccable Person of Christ is well set forth by Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg: “First of all, the hypostatic union gave the world an impeccable Person. This predicates of Christ, mark you, not only anamartesia, but impeccability. It is not just a matter of posse non peccare, but of non posse peccare. It is not enough to say Christ did not sin; it must be declared unequivocably that He could not sin. To entertain for a moment the thought that Christ could sin, would involve issues that call for a radical revolution in our conception of the Godhead. To say that Christ could not sin is not tantamount to maintaining He could not be tempted. Because He was man He could be tempted, but because He was God He could not sin, for there was no sin principle in Christ that could or would respond to solicitation to sin. When Satan tempted the Last Adam in the wilderness, He was tempted and tested in all points (1 John 2:16) like as the first Adam, and the human race ever since, yet in His case without sin. Sin as an inherent nature or as an outward act was foreign to Christ. Luke records that the angel disclosed to Mary that of her would be born that holy thing which was to be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). The hereditary sin nature that Mary had received mediately from Adam through her progenitors was not transmitted to Christ because of His miraculous conception through the operation of the Holy Spirit of God. Christ could later challenge, not His friends, mind you, but His enemies to convince Him of sin (John 8:46). He knew that when the prince of this world was come, he would find nothing in Him (John 14:30). Paul says of Him that God made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21). Though tempted in all points as we are, He was nevertheless without sin (Heb 4:15); indeed, we are told, He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners (Heb 7:26). In short, the combined testimony of Scripture reveals that in Him is no sin (1 John 3:5).”[6]

g. To those who are saved.

All that Christ is to the Christian may be classified as either benefit flowing from His Deity, or as benefit flowing from His humanity. In the sphere of redemption and all that accrues to those who are saved through Christ’s blood, the humanity and Deity are too closely related to be easily separated. As to the pattern, ideal, and example which Christ is, all originates in His humanity. No human being is asked to imitate God; he is asked to be Christlike which relates to Christ’s adorable and perfect human perfections. In this respect the believer should be holy since God is holy. All this is made possible in the Christian through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion.

It is the work of the Spirit of God to take of the things of Christ and to show them unto men. Apart from this revelation, Christ must ever be a confusing mystery. A liberal writer has said: “He was at the same time humble and proud, acute-minded and weak-minded, clear-sighted and blind, sober-minded and fanatical, with profound knowledge of men and no self-knowledge, clear in his insight of the present, and full of fantastic dreams of the future. His life was, as Lipsius strikingly said, ‘a tragedy of fanaticism.’” Far removed is this declaration from the honor which inspired apostles who lived with Christ ascribed to Him. This is not the adoration of the martyrs who died out of sheer devotion to their Saviour, nor is it the voice of the worthy saints and scholars throughout the history of the Church on earth. From the days of the apostles, the Theanthropic Person has been recognized and adored in His complex two natures. Dr. Warfield gathers up this theme in characteristic manner: “The doctrine of the Two Natures supplies, in a word, the only possible solution of the enigmas of the life-manifestation of the historical Jesus. It presents itself to us, not as the creator, but as the solvent of difficulties—in this, performing the same service to thought which is performed by all the Christian doctrines. If we look upon it merely as a hypothesis, it commands our attention by the multiplicity of phenomena which it reduces to order and unifies, and on this lower ground, too, commends itself to our acceptance. But it does not come to us merely as a hypothesis. It is the assertion concerning their Lord of all the primary witnesses of the Christian faith. It is, indeed, the self-testimony of our Lord Himself, disclosing to us the mystery of His being. It is, to put it briefly, the simple statement of ‘the fact of Jesus,’ as that fact is revealed to us in His whole manifestation. We may reject it if we will, but in rejecting it we reject the only real Jesus in favor of another Jesus—who is not another, but is the creature of pure fantasy. The alternatives which we are really face to face with are, Either the two-natured Christ of history, or—a strong delusion.”[7]

A further word from Dr. Feinberg is of especial value: “To recapitulate, then, we have pursued our discussion on the hypostatic union along several lines—creedally, noting the course of Christological thinking to show its use as a basis for later theological thought; prophetically, showing the union to be a definite subject of prophecy; historically, setting forth the scriptural representation of the union as an indisputable matter of history; critically or analytically, calling attention to the implications of the doctrine; and finally, functionally, making clear the consequences or benefits that flow from this union. In conclusion, we stand amazed in the presence of this great thing which God hath brought about—the hypostatic union with all its unfathomable mystery yet superabounding benefits—and when we recall that this God-man is the center of God’s two-fold purpose wherein He determined ‘That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth,’ we proclaim with Paul: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!...For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen’ (Eph 1:10; Rom 11:33, 36).”[8]

To all this may be added the words of the inspired Apostle: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Tim 3:16); “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope” (1 Tim 1:1).

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Biblical Doctrines, pp. 206, 207.
2. Creeds of Christendom, Schaff, Vol. II, pp. 62, 63.
3. Chap. viii., sec. 2.
4. Historical Theology, William Cunningham, D.D., Vol. I, p. 313.
5. Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 5, 6, 7.
6. Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 92, pp. 422, 423.
7. Christology and Criticism, B. B. Warfield, pp. 309, 310.
8. Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 92, pp. 425, 426.