Part 11

Indeed, for Him to use the powers of God would detract from the promises of the disciples to be able to do miraculous things via the power of the Holy Spirit. They are given Christ as an example yet He can do miracles without the Holy Spirit. This is not a good example of what the disciples could do.

Also, it seems to be a detraction from the ministry of the Holy Spirit if one is to attribute some of the miracles of the Lord to His own divine nature. The Spirit ministered in and through Him as He does in and through us.

There might be another position that would give some food for thought. The idea that God was limited by the fact of His humanity. He could only see as far as normal man could see so there was nothing he could do other than get close enough to see what He wanted to see. He was limited in brain power and storage capacity so was not omniscient as such. He was in a body that knew fatigue so could do only so much. He was in a human form that was limited in physical strength so could not do superhuman things. Etc.

It seems to me that He voluntarily set aside some of these attributes so that He could be wholly an example to the apostles and us that follow. This principle is derived from logic and thought, rather than the Philippians text.

1. If you hold to the position of Walvoord, or to the self-imposed nonuse of attributes you are on very good ground scripturally. Any other position will find problems. The idea of nonuse seems to have many things going for it.

Walvoord concludes his discussion with the following from Strong: "Our doctrine of Christ's humiliation will be better understood if we put it midway between two pairs of erroneous views, making it the third of five. The list would be as follows:

(1) Gess: The Logos gave up all divine attributes;

(2) Thomasius: The Logos gave up relative attributes only;

(3) True View: The Logos gave up the independent exercise of divine attributes;

(4) Old Orthodoxy: Christ gave up the use of divine attributes;

(5) Anselm: Christ acted as if he did not possess divine attributes."14

Strong uses the terms "gave up the independent exercise of" which indicates that He did not use them while Walvoord mentions the idea of use them but "restrict" the use of them. I'm not sure he isn't miss-using Strong in this quote.

Indeed, Strong makes the statement,

"In the continuous surrender, on the part of the God-man, so far as his human nature was concerned, of the exercise of those divine powers with which it was endowed by virtue of its union with the divine, and in the voluntary acceptance, which followed upon this, of temptation, suffering, and death." He also mentions, "In the submission of the Logos to the control of the Holy Spirit...."15

Strong is not clear to me just what he means, but it seems that he saw Christ as limiting use, as in, nonuse of the attributes.

2. The Philippians text really does not discuss the nonuse, veiling etc. of Christ's attributes. It deals with status or position.

3. View Christ as perfectly divine and perfectly man and you have the thought that you need. We have shown this in our studies on His deity and His humanity.

4. Because the Lord was relying on the Holy Spirit for all of His knowledge and miracles, then we truly have an example to follow.

If you do not feel that His relying on His own divine attributes at times detracts from His being an example to you then that position is quite good. The question is this, When did He rely on His own powers and when did He rely on the Spirit? Did He rely on His own divinity during the wilderness testing? And, we might add who is to determine when He was functioning in the divine and when He was functioning in the servant?

5. The Kenotic theology is barely based on scripture any way you view it. It is not good to build theology on one verse that is highly disputed. The idea is to try to explain how God and man can be one so very completely without a conflict of interest lawsuit.

6. We have noted that some authors contradict themselves at times in their different writings.

Let us think of this for a few moments. I do not say that I know what is going on in their lives. I think that we may draw some possible answers to these contradictions, and see that they are not necessarily sloppy writers or theologians.

a. They were trained by some very strong personalities. They may have soaked up their teacher's theology and bought everything that was handed them. They may in later life have taken time to study some of the recent church fathers and the Bible and realized that their teachers were not infallible. It is normal to do this, and I trust that you will realize that you may have done the same thing yourself in reading this material, or maybe at your home church.

We need to check all we hear with the Scripture and see if it really fits. I had a Dallas man in one of the colleges that I attended, for a president. His messages were fantastic. I took notes plus more notes and loved his messages. I went back through his message notes one time and tried to relate what he said to the scripture passage and it just was not there. I

finally over time threw most of his notes away because they were not really scriptural. Nothing erroneous but not based on the texts he used.

b. Some writers have had serious struggles through their years of preparation, and may not have had time to seriously check out their own thinking on all that they believe.

c. It is normal to change and redefine your thinking as you age and mature in the Lord. I would encourage you to be very patient with people that are teaching what you would term "false doctrine" until you have fully understood their thinking, and you have completely studied the text, or teaching on your own.

Many times I have felt that a persons teaching was incorrect until I took time to understand what they were saying, and took time to study the topic on my own.

In conclusion to our study of the Kenosis, Ryrie agrees with me in his "Survey Of Bible Doctrines" when he states, "What is included in a proper statement of the true doctrine of the kenosis? The concept involves the veiling of Christ's preincarnate glory (John 17:5), the condescension of taking on Himself the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), and the voluntary nonuse of some of His attributes of deity during the time of His earthly life (Matthew 24:36). His humanity was not a glorified humanity and was thus subject to temptation, weakness, pain and sorrow. Choosing not to use His divine attributes is quite different from saying that He gave them up. Nonuse does not mean subtraction."16

END NOTES

1. Dr. Miller, Theology class notes, Western Baptist College

3. Henry C. Thiessen, "Lectures In Systematic Theology," Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 295

5. Thiessen, p 298

6. Thiessen, p 296

11. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, 1986, p 261

12. Berkhof finish and add him to book list.

13. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 262

15. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907, p 703

HANDOUT

THE KENOSIS

The idea of the Philippians text leaves five basic interpretations: (The titles of these theories come from A.B. Bruce. 2 )

1. The "absolute metamorphic"

2. The "absolute dualistic"

3. The "absolute semi-metamorphic"

4. The view that Christ laid aside some of His attributes

5. The view that Christ voluntarily limited His use of His attributes

This position of the voluntary setting aside of attributes, has some very nice characteristics.

a. You have a divine person in the fullest sense of the word and He remains fully divine throughout eternity past, the incarnation, and eternity future. This fits best with the phrase that He is the "same yesterday, today and forever."

b. You have a perfect example for man to follow in their spiritual life. He was a man of like nature that was tested and tempted in like manner as we. He was fully relying upon the Holy Spirit for His strength.

c. You have the perfect union of both divine and human. He was just as much God as if He had never been man and He was just as much man as if He had never been God.

The Term used in the Philippians text is used in four other texts:

a. Romans 4:14

b. 1 Corinthians 1:17

c. 1 Corinthians 9:15

d. 2 Corinthians 9:3

IMPECCABILITY

Impeccability =

"1. Free from error, fault, or flaw.

2. Incapable of doing wrong; unerring."1

From Latin "in" or not, and "peccare" which means, to sin.

This would mean that the word itself means only, not sinning. The thought of theologians, when using the term would follow the dictionary meaning of unable to sin.

Enns mentions that impeccability comes from the Latin phrase, "non potuit peccare" which means not able to sin, while peccability comes from "potuit non peccare" which means able not to sin. (Taken from: "The Moody Handbook Of Theology"; Enns, Paul; Copyright 1989, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 236) Able not to sin, allows for the possibility of sin, yet He did not.

Another term that we need to deal with that is related to this discussion is the Hypostatic Union.

This is the union between the divine and human natures of Christ and the relationship between the two natures.

Hypostatic is ".....of or relating to substance....." according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary."2

Hypo has the idea of under while static has the idea of standing or nonchanging, or in relation to Christ we speak of his nonchanging position as God coming DOWN to man. It is that union of God from above with man here on earth.

Concerning the hypostatic union we must remember: The two natures were integrated. He isn't God and man. He is the God-man. One nature cannot operate independently from the other.

The question of whether some of the Lord's attributes were limited or not is related to this thought. The question of whether only the man was

tempted and not God, is also related to this thought. Before we go further let us consider why this is important for us to study.

If Christ could have sinned, some suggest, then He could have messed up the entire plan of the ages to provide salvation for man. If a sin could do that then the plan was defective in the beginning. The plan was laid by a perfect God thus it must have been a perfect plan — ungoofable, unblowable, not even problematic.

Let us look at some views:

Liberal View: This view holds that Christ was able to sin. He was mere man and he did what we humans do best — sin. I suspect however that some liberal views that hold Christ as a highly moral man might well hold to the lack of sin, if not inability to sin.

Orthodox View: Within the impeccability controversy there are two main views of thought within orthodoxy. We will look at these main two views and one radical view, which classes all but the impeccable side of the controversy as heretics.

The orthodox thought holds that Christ was totally God and totally man, He did not sin, and He could not have sinned and completed His work on the cross, yet within these parameters are three views.

I think that you will find some of all of these in Fundamental circles. The emphasis would definitely be on the "did not" and the "capable of not" side of things. All would see an impeccable Christ, but with different approaches to how He was impeccable.

Ryrie mentions "conservatives" in his discussion as holding to the peccability as well as the impeccability. All would hold to the ultimate fact and need of impeccability as the final result of Christ's life.

a. Impeccable: That Christ was unable to sin in any situation or any form. This inability is based on the fact that Christ was God and God cannot sin — it is against His very nature.

His hypostatic union would not allow it. His two wills may have differed. His human may have been tempted to sin, but His divine definitive will

would not allow it. Some of those that hold this position: Ryrie, Walvoord, Dr. Myron Houghton, Shedd, and Chafer.

I will include some comments by Enns in end note number 13, that details this position. I will also give some comments to consider with it.

b. Peccable: That Christ was able to sin but did not sin due to His divine nature. Houghton mentioned that DeHann held to peccability. Enns also on page 236 mentions that both M.R. and Richard DeHann teach the peccability of Christ.

Hodge seems to be in this slot. "The sinlessness of our Lord does not amount to absolute impeccability. As a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation, which when He was reviled He blessed, which when He suffered He threatened not, that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of His person it had been impossible for Christ to sin, His temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with His people." 3

c. ______________: I'm open for titles for this one.

I considered several but don't like them. Pnemapecare, pnempeccable, pecpnema etc. This position teaches that Christ was capable of sin but did not sin due to His total and perfect reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

I don't know of anyone holding this position, other than some first year classmates of mine in Bible college. We thought that it sounded quite good.

I have not personally run across any writer that mentions this position much less holds it. But remember, just because there are no current authors that hold the position, which doesn't mean it is wrong.

This thinking stemmed from a further application of a statement by Chafer which tells that the Lord relied upon the Spirit in total.

"Though this specific theme will be introduced more fully under Pneumatology, it demands some consideration at this juncture. Again it should be stated that Christ's dependence upon the Holy Spirit was within the sphere of His humanity. As respects His

Deity, there was no occasion for Him to cast in dependence upon either the Father or the Spirit; and though He could as God have ministered to His own human needs as fully as did the Spirit, that arrangement would have moved Him from the position occupied by all believers, to whom His life is a pattern. Christians cannot call upon any such resource within themselves; so they are, as He was, cast utterly upon the enabling power of the Spirit. The New Testament asserts throughout — even from His conception through the generating power of the Spirit to His death through the same eternal Spirit — that Christ lived and wrought on a principle of dependence upon Another. No attentive student can fail to observe this truth (cf. Matthew 12:28; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:14, 18; John 3:34). The truth that Christ — and to the end that He might demonstrate the effectiveness of life that is lived wholly in reliance upon the Spirit — was Himself dependent upon the Spirit, should not be allowed to engender any failure to recognize the absolute Deity of the Savior."4

The implications of Christ relying upon the Holy Spirit in the area of temptation are not considered in Chafer's work that I have found thus far.

To apply what he has stated, it would be simple to suggest that the Lord was in total reliance upon the Spirit to say no to sin, just as we of this age.

Bancroft in his "Christian Theology" p 107-108 mentions a similar thought, but based his ideas on the premise that the divine attributes were absorbed by the human side of Christ.

These divisions of thought are somewhat misleading for all of these feel that Christ Did Not Sin & That He Could Not Have Sinned And At The Same Time Completed The Work God Had Sent Him To Do.

All of these positions teach the same ultimate end of impeccability.

Ryrie states the problem of these positions in this manner: "One says that he was able not to sin while the other states that He was not able to sin. In either case He did not sin, though one viewpoint involves the possibility that He could have. That idea is usually held because it is hard to understand how His temptations could have been real if He could not have

sinned. That He did not sin and that He was tempted are facts agreed on." 6

I would like to adapt some information from Dr. David Miller's class notes for our study. He was an advocate of the "couldn't sin and impeccable" position.

a. Christ was tempted, yet did not sin: 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21.

b. He was unable to sin — impeccabile.

c. Because He of His divine, His human was unable to sin.

d. His human side, if left alone was temptable and peccable.

e. Due to the union, however He was only temptable.

f. Christ's temptation was directed toward His human side, and was tempted in all points as we. James 1:13; Hebrews 4:15.7

This position normally suggests that if Christ could have sinned, then He could sin today and be kicked out of heaven, thus we could have no eternal security.

Let's apply that logic to ourselves when we are glorified. We can sin now in this life so we can sin when we get to heaven and we can get kicked out of heaven thus having no eternal security. Not correct. Unacceptable.

The Glorification process relates to the fact that we are eternally secure. We will not sin before God in the eternal state, and there is no way that Christ could sin there either since His glorification. This does not hinder His being able to sin while on earth and is a false argument.

Walvoord mentions that peccability here means peccability there. This is the same situation worded differently. There is no basis for that thought. He also uses the fact that Christ is the same yesterday, today etc. but that also is false in that there are some aspects of Christ's earthly time that Are Not true of eternity past nor eternity future. Body for one, glory for two, etc.

SOME FACTS

1. Christ had no sin nature. Some suggest that this is proof that He could not sin.

2. The sin nature is not required for sin to occur. Example: Adam and Eve pre fall.

3. The sin nature is not required for temptation to occur. Example: Adam and Eve before the fall.

4. It is true that sin in the life of Jesus would have upset the plan of providing salvation.

Some might suggest that there may well have been another plan in the wings that would have taken care of this failure. There is one problem with that. Christ the Lamb was ordained before the foundation of the world. The Lamb of God would have eternally been imperfect and unable to die for the sins of the world. Not acceptable.

5. This was God. How can God sin? He cannot.

6. The statement, "Peccability then means peccability now in heaven" is not a valid statement. It is not provable nor logical. There are a number of things that changed when Christ was glorified and this was one of them. Body, Glory, etc.

7. Peccability does not require less than deity. It holds to full humanity and full Deity as well.

SOME VERSES TO DEAL WITH

1. Luke 4:22,

"And all bore him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?"

They were unable to tell that He was God from His outward appearance. Those around Christ viewed Him as man and not God.

2. John 17:5,

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the

glory which I had with thee before the world was."

It would seem that there was a limitation of glory in the Lord Jesus while He was here on earth. Indeed, it would seem, since creation. It seems that Christ took a step out of the glories of heaven to work among men as the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.

3. John 18:6 mentions that the people fell back when they were confronted with Christ stating He was Christ in the garden. Most feel that they were shocked or knocked back due to who He was. This is not provable.

4. James 1:13,

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of god; for God

cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man;"

This verse has two sides to it for our discussion. a. God cannot be tempted. b. God does not tempt man. Now, let us think of that verse. Jesus was the God-man. He was God, the one James states can't be tempted, and He was man, that which God does not tempt.

Christ was tempted in the wilderness, by statement of the Scriptures, thus we must assume that it was the human side of Christ that was tempted. If we take that one step further, we must admit that if Christ was impeccable, His impeccability must be based on His deity and not His humanity.

If then He be totally man as we say, He was then peccability on the part of the man Jesus seems to be the logical conclusion.

This would seem to be why we have two lines of thinking on the subject.

Ryrie presents in his Survey of Bible Doctrine an alternative to the problem of the possible to, or impossible to question.

He translates Hebrews 4:15 thusly, "...having been tested according to all, according to likeness, apart from sin." He then states, "The phrase 'according to likeness' apparently means that He could be tested because He took the likeness of sinful flesh. 'Apart from sin' means that, having no sin nature, He could not have been tested from that avenue, as we can and usually are."

He further suggests, "It [Hebrews 4:15] does not say that Christ was tempted with a view to succumbing to sin. He was tested with a view to proving He was sinless. It does not say that He was tested in every particular specific test that man can be put to. It does say that His tests were in all the areas in which a man can be tested: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. The particular tests within those areas were entirely different for Him from the ones for us." "His temptations were really not to see if He could sin, but to prove that He could not."8

I am not sure he answers anything. He just calls for more answers to questions that he has raised.

Yes, Christ was tempted in the three areas in the wilderness however there is the thought in Luke 4:13 that the devil came again for further testing. "And when the devil had ended all the testing, he departed from him for a season." We don't know if we have an account of this or not. The garden before the cross may well have been further testing. There could have been other testing as well.

Cambron also presents his thoughts well.

"That age-old question may now be raised: 'Could the Lord Jesus have sinned had He wanted to?' The question is thrown aside by stating, 'He could not have wanted to, being the Son of God.' But, someone may add, if He could not have sinned, then why the temptation? If He could not have sinned, then the temptation was a mockery. That is exactly the answer. For He was not tested to see if He would sin, but He was tested to show (to prove) that He could not sin."9

Note should be taken to show that Cambron feels that He "would not sin," which indicates that there was a choice. "Could not" shows no choice while "would not" shows choice on His part?

Hodge makes the statement,

"If from the constitution of His person it had been impossible for Christ to sin, His temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with His people."3

This raises the question, "Can there be temptation if there is no possibility of sin?"

Hodge brings up a good question. Most would say YES, while he states that it really isn't temptation without the possibility of sin.

I would ask another question to seek out the answer to this one. "Is it possible that Adam and Eve could have been tempted and resisted temptation and remained as they were?" YES.

Bancroft in his Elemental Theology suggests the position that Christ had two natures — a human nature and a divine nature. Because the divine was true and complete holiness then the human could not go against that which is by nature holy.

The human apart from the divine we must assume could have sinned. This is the crux of the argument.

He, as man could sin and could be tempted as we, however He is inescapably tied to the divine and holy nature. The divine and holy nature could not sin, the human nature could not submit to sin. The divine was the determinative will, or nature and the human always submitted to that determinative divine will.

"His human nature could not have sinned without the consent of His unique Person." Thus Christ "would not" or "could not" sin. The question must be asked. Bancroft goes on to tell us that it was "could not."

"Since the personality of our Lord Jesus Christ is the personality of God, it was impossible for Him to consent to sin. Since His personality could not consent to sin, it was impossible for Him in His human nature (seeing that human nature was inseparably joined to His personality) to have sinned."10

We must address the question, which Walvoord raises in his following statement: "...that in any case the temptation of Christ is different from that of sinful men." (Taken from: "Jesus Christ Our Lord"; Walvoord, John F.; Copyright 1969, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 146) Do we dare say that, in light of His being our example and being tested in all points as we?

Why would this be the case? James 1:13 tells us on the one hand that God cannot be tempted with evil. Christ had no sin nature. Thus we must assume that He was tempted HOW? They were tempted the same way Adam and Eve were tempted. They had no sin nature but were tempted. If we are to say that His temptation was different from that of sinful man's, then we may say yes because He had no sin nature. However His temptation was just as Adam and Eve's, pre-fall.

Was He tempted in all points as we? In the sense that we fell with Adam, and He did not fall in this particular situation, we must assume that He was. This of course ignores the divine nature and it's relationship to that temptation.

Since God cannot be tempted, we must assume that the human side of Christ was tempted and not the divine.

Since the divine and the human are completely inseparable we must assume that any "not sinning" would have to have come from the divine side — OR — from a complete reliance upon the Holy Spirit to not sin.

And this is the boiled down view of the question. He did not sin. He could not sin, and complete the work of God. Was it through His own divine nature that he was able to say no to sin? Was it through His leaning on the Holy Spirit that he was able to say no to sin? Was it that He could not sin?

LET US CONSIDER THIS AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND AN ANSWER

1. He did some miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:28; Luke 4:14-18. He was relying on the Spirit's work at those points.

2. He seems to have voluntarily decided not to use some of His attributes.

3. His glory was not that of heaven.

We are left to hold that the man Jesus was capable of sin, but did not because of one of two reasons.

a. The man Jesus was totally submissive to the divine Christ in all that the God-man did while on earth and thus He never sinned.

b. The man Jesus was totally and perfectly reliant upon the Holy Spirit for help in refraining from sin. Christ's divine attributes having been in a state of voluntary nonuse did not assist the man Jesus to withstand the wiles of the Devil, but only that reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

Which you hold is up to you and how you feel about the fact that Christ was tempted in All Points As We. It also relates to His understanding our struggle with sin. If you feel that Christ can accomplish these as statement "a" suggests, then position "a" is adequate. If you feel that Jesus was so closely related to the Holy Spirit that He was able to say no to sin, then "b" is the better position.

1. A word of warning on this doctrine as you read different authors.

a. They assume all but themselves incorrect and argue from that basis.

b. They assume that they know what others think.

c. They assume that the laws of logic are required for everyone but themselves.

d. This is a field that there is little Scripture to build on, so they make rash statements that really have no foundation as if they were fact.

e. Look at what they say and think logically to see if what they say be true.

2. Ryrie mentions some items that are of good thought.

"The Results Of Christ's Testings

a. Sensitivity. He became sensitive to the pressure of testing. He experienced it with emotions and powers we cannot understand.

b. Example. He furnishes us an example of victory over the severest kinds of tests.

c. Understanding. He can offer sympathetic understanding to us when we are tested.

d. Grace and power. He can also provide the grace and power we need in times of testing."11

3. This statement may rattle some cages but here goes anyway. I don't think that there is any way Biblically, to prove the discussion either way. I think there are good men on both sides of the fence. The main thought that must be held and usually is — The Lord did not sin. The Lord could not have sinned and fulfilled the work that He had been given to do. The Lord was totally God and totally man.

I think that those that hold to peccability would agree to all of these statements as well as all of those that hold to impeccability.

The verse in James one which tells us that God cannot be tempted leads me to believe that the Lord was tempted in His humanity as we are. This could have been accomplished in one of three manners. The fact that He was relying on the Holy Spirit perfectly can answer the how of His not sinning. The fact that He was in submission to the will of the divine will, can answer the how of His not sinning. The fact that He was incapable of sinning can answer the how of His not sinning.

I have been chewing on this one for many years and have had some very good discussions concerning it. I convinced a class of students that I was correct in the Holy Spirit theory a number of years ago, much to the dismay of the instructor that disagreed to the point of being beet red in the face and hollering about my false ideas.

I, however realize that the majority of recent and current church fathers do not discuss this possibility.

The incapable of sinning, would be the prominent view among conservatives today, I'm fairly sure. Indeed, I have not run across any current writers other than DeHann that hold to the other view.

I personally see only a semantic difference between capable of not sinning and unable to sin. Both are predicated on the divine nature and both see the end result as impeccable. Indeed all orthodox views see an end result of impeccable. They arrive there in different ways.

4. I would like to close with a comment from Ryrie's introduction to his discussion on the topic. This Shows Our Example.

"Sinlessness in our Lord means that He never did anything that displeased God or violated the Mosaic Law under which He lived on earth or in any way failed to show in His life at all times the glory of God."

He goes on to mention, "...at every stage of His life, infancy, boyhood, adolescence, manhood, He was holy and sinless."12

ENDNOTES

1. "Funk And Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary" revised edition, New York: Funk and Wagnalls Pub., 1976

2. By permission. From Webster's Third New International Dictionary copyright by Merriam-Webster Inc., publisher of the Merriam-Webster (registered) Dictionaries.

3. Charles Hodge, "Systematic Theology," Abridged Edition, Edward N. Gross, editor; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988, p 364-365

4. Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Systematic Theology," Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, Vol. V. p 80

5. W. E. Best, "Christ Could Not Be Tempted," Houston, TX: South Belt Grace Church, 1985, p 19

7. Dr. David Miller, Theology notes, Western Baptist College, Salem, OR

9. Mark G. Cambron, D.D., "Bible Doctrines," Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954, p 86

11. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 265

12. Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 263

"Christ's peccabilty could relate only to His human nature; His divine nature was impeccable. Although Christ had two natures, He was nonetheless one person and could not divorce Himself of His deity. Wherever He went, the divine nature was present. If the two natures could be separated then it could be said that He could sin in His humanity, but because the human and divine natures cannot be separated from the Person of Christ, and since the divine nature cannot sin, it must be affirmed that Christ could not have sinned."

Mark Enns lists the following arguments. I will list his topics and summarize his comments, and then comment on his comments.

"(1) The immutability of Christ (Hebrews 13:8)."

Christ is unchangeable. If He could sin while on earth then He could sin now in heaven.

Christ is truely unchangeable in nature and essence, yet is quite changeable in other ways. For example he had no human body or humanness before the birth. If we apply the same logic then we have to assume that Christ never was incarnate for He could never have a body.

In relation to His deity, yes it is very true that GOD Cannot sin.

"(2) The omnipotence of Christ (Matthew 28:18)."

"Christ was omnipotent and therefore could not sin. Weakness is implied where sin is possible, yet there was no weakness of any kind in Christ."

Is sin related to all powerful? I think not. Weeping indicates weakness, being tired indicates weakness, yet they are not indicative of Christ's

attribute of omnipotence. There are some that would argue with the fact that the omnipotence is an issue in relation to the incarnate Christ. They would view this as one of the attributes that He gave up the free use of.

"(3) The omniscience of Christ (John 2:25)."

"Christ was omniscient and therefore could not sin. Sin depends on ignorance in order that the sinner may be deceived, but Christ could not be deceived because He knows all things...."

Again, the thought of omniscience is debatable in the incarnate Christ. The line of thinking presented seems a bit flawed however aside from that Mark Enns says that we can't sin unless we are ignorant of things. So how come so many of us know all there is to know about a particular sin and we chose to walk right straight into it with our eyes wide open.

"(4) The deity of Christ."

He restates what is contained in the quoted paragraph above about the fact that the man Jesus could have sinned if He were separated from God.

"(5) The nature of temptation (James 1:14-15)."

"The temptation that came to Christ was from without. However, for sin to take place, there must be an inner response to the outward temptation. Since Jesus did not possess a sin nature, there was nothing within Him to respond to the temptation. People sin because there is an inner response to the outer temptation."

So, why did Adam sin if Mark Enns is correct?

Not having a sin nature seems to be irrelevant to me. Man responds from within to outward temptation. The man Jesus would also have responded had He not also been God.

"(6) The will of Christ."

He holds to two wills and the human will was ALWAYS subservient to the divine will. He mentions something that might be of interest to consider.

"If Christ could have sinned then His human will would have been stronger than the divine will."

"(7) The authority of Christ (John 10:18)."

"In His deity, Christ had complete authority over His humanity. For example, no one could take the life of Christ except He would lay it down willingly (John 10:18). If Christ had authority over life and death, He certainly had authority over sin; if He could withhold death at will, He could also withhold sin at will."

Much of what Mark Enns mentions is good if you agree with all of his other theology. For one that views some of Christ's attributes as nonfunctioning Mark Enns is lacking.

I suspect from his final statement that he misunderstands the people that believe in the peccability.

Of course deity can withstand temptation and keep sin from happening.

HANDOUT

IMPECCABILITY

Impeccability

"non potuit peccare" "potuit non peccare"

Hypostatic

LIBERAL VIEW

ORTHODOX VIEW

a. Impeccable: That Christ was unable to sin in any situation or any form. This inability is based on the fact that Christ was God and God cannot sin — it is against His very nature.

b. Peccable: That Christ was able to sin but did not sin due to His divine nature.

c. ______________: I'm open for titles for this one. That Christ was capable of sin but did not sin due to His total and perfect reliance upon the Holy Spirit.

RADICAL VIEW

Some facts:

SOME VERSES TO DEAL WITH

1. Luke 4:22

2. John 17:5

3. John 18:6

4. James 1:13

OLD TESTAMENT

VIEW OF CHRIST

In this section we want to see that Christ is not just a person, or being of the Gospels and the church age, but that He was an active participant in the Old Testament economies as well.

Let it be said first of all that the Lord Jesus does not appear in the Old Testament by name — as Jesus, or Christ or Messiah — because He had not been born of Mary as yet.

This does not negate the fact that He could be in the Old Testament in his divine existence, nor does this negate the fact that He is mentioned in prophecy.

Christ's appearances in the Old Testament are called Christophanies. There is also the term theophany which relates to "God's" appearances in the Old Testament. The question of whether the Theophanies were always Christ is subject to research. The terms may well be synonymous.

I. CHRIST IN PROPHECY

Genesis 3:15 was the first indication of one to come. In retrospect, we of the church age, can understand that He is mentioned many times throughout the Old Testament as the coming Messiah. The Jewish people were always looking for the Messiah that would one day come.

It is suggested by some that this may well be a part of God's thinking in his command to Noah and his family to multiply and fill the earth in Genesis 9:1. Had the occupants of the ark not multiplied in the physical realm, there could not have been a Messiah or savior for mankind.

We will not dwell on the point of Christ being the Messiah, and that He is in view often in the Old Testament for this is a well-known fact.

The Messiah in the Old Testament was prophesied and the Messiah in the New Testament is revealed.

II. CHRIST IN ACTION

A. THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

I will list this information in quick, outline order, because most of it is quite self explanatory.

1. The Angel of the Lord had physical attributes:

a. He could speak. Genesis 16:7,8

b. He could be seen. Genesis 16:13

c. He could eat. Genesis 18:1,8

d. He could see. Genesis 18:16

e. He could move. Genesis 18:16

f. He was limited or limited Himself. Genesis 32:24,25

g. He was limited in time. Genesis 32:26

2. The Angel of the Lord had Divine attributes:

a. He made great promises that only God could make and keep. Genesis 16:8 A promise to multiply the seed of Hagar.

b. He foretold the future. Genesis 16:12 We have our modern day prophets, but none that can foretell the future perfectly, each and every time an attempt is made.

c. He was compassionate. Genesis 18:23-32

d. He could deal in judgment. Genesis 18:1-33 We deal in judgment at times don't we. We can judge a person in this life, yet we have no power to judge in the next life and that is where judgment tells the REAL tale.

e. He had access to heaven. Genesis 22:11

f. He could prosper individuals. Genesis 24:7,40

g. He could appear in dreams. Genesis 31:11

h. He was omnipresent. Genesis 31:12

i. He kept men from evil. Genesis 48:16, "An angel who redeemed me from all evil...."

j. He could do the supernatural. Exodus 3:1-4

k. He wasn't confined to the human form. Exodus 3:1-4; Exodus 13:21 mentions the cloud of smoke was the Lord; Exodus 14:19 mentions this is the Angel of the Lord.

l. He could keep believers. Genesis 28:20, Jacob; Exodus 23:20

m. He could draw people to places. Exodus 23:20

n. He could kill enemies. 2 Kings 19:35

o. He could kill Israelites in Judgment. 1 Chronicles 21:15-18

p. He was sent by God. 1 Chronicles 21:15,26 This also shows the Angel of the Lord is not God the Father.

q. He could be concerned in the delay of judgment. Zechariah 1:12-14

r. He was worshiped. Exodus 3:1-5. Angels of the normal kind, do not allow worship. Revelation 19:10; 22:8,9

3. The Angel of the Lord had eyewitness accounts:

a. Abraham Genesis 18:1-33; Genesis 22:11-18

b. Hagar Genesis 16:13, "she called the name of the Lord who spoke unto her"

c. Jacob Genesis 31:11-13; 48:16

d. Moses Exodus 3:1-5; 13:21 cf 14:19

e. Joshua Joshua 5:13-6:2

f. Others 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chronicles 21:14-18; Daniel 3:15-28; Zechariah 1:12-14

4. The Angel of the Lord gave personal testimony of His being God:

"And the angel of God spoke unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are striped, speckled, and spotted; for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred." Genesis 31:11-13 cf

"And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on." Genesis 28:19,20

5. The Angel of the Lord had to have been Christ pre-incarnate.

a. The Angel of the Lord must be God if he has the attributes of God.

b. The Father is not the Angel of the Lord. (The Angel of the Lord was sent by the Father.)

c. The Holy Spirit is never mentioned as appearing except at the coming of Christ and we have no indication that he has ever appeared other than that.

d. The Son has appeared, and this is consistent with the thought that no man has ever seen God. John 1:18 Colossians 1:15, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;"

Christ is the visible part of the trinity due to His becoming man. God in all of his glory has not been seen. Christ mentioned that anyone that had seen Him had seen the Father. (John 14:8-9)

e. The Angel of the Lord is not in the New Testament thus it can be assumed that it was Christ as well, for he was incarnate.

f. The Father sent both the Angel of the Lord, (I Chron. 21:15; and Christ, (John 4:34).

g. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 that the Lord Jesus was in the wilderness with the Israelites. This was the Lord pre-incarnate. He was there (Exodus 13:21 cf 14:19) thus there is no reason that the Angel of the Lord could not be Christ pre-incarnate.

Misc. texts of interest: Judges 13:15-18 cf. Isaiah 9:6; 28:29 Malachi 3:1

You might find a study of the term "LORD" in the Old Testament interesting. It is the word for Jehovah and is related to the Angel of the Lord. Jehovah is the Angel of the Lord, is LORD, is Christ, is Messiah. Bancroft in Elemental Theology has a section on the Jehovah of the Old Testament revealed in the New Testament. (p 145ff)

Might we draw some application from our study thus far?

1. Everything we know of the Angel of the Lord is directly transferable to God.

His power, His compassion, His leading, His care, His keeping of the believer, and all these concerning Christ we know from the Bible and experience. All of the Old Testament texts further prove all these things about Him as well. Both testaments give witness of these attributes of our Lord.

2. We tend to see God the Father as the God of the Old Testament and Christ as God of the New Testament. NOT SO. Christ is ALWAYS, New and Old, the manifestation of God to mankind, be it before or after the incarnation.

3. Much of what we've seen of Christ pre-incarnate show him ACTIVELY involved in the lives of God's people. In this age we have that involvement via the Holy Spirit.

4. Some of the Old Testament saints had a personal meeting with God. What an awesome thought, to have a meeting with God. The pillar of fire and smoke — not just fire and smoke but God. All the time in the wilderness knowing that every time you walked out of the tent, you would know that God was watching over you.

B. THE ROCK

1 Corinthians 10:1-12. When Paul was speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness, he mentions the food that they ate and the water that they drank. That water came from a rock we remember from the Old Testament. Paul says of this rock, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they

drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."

From this text we can draw the fact that not only was Christ the Angel of the Lord, and the Cloud of smoke and pillar of fire that led them in the wilderness, but that He was also the rock that provided water for them in the wilderness.

Indeed if you check into some of the following references, you will find that the Lord is mentioned many times as a rock: Exodus 17:1-9, Numbers 20:12, Numbers 27:14, Deuteronomy 32:3,4, Deuteronomy 32:51, 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:2,3, Psalm 18:2,46, Psalm 106:33, Isaiah 8:13-14, Isaiah 17:10, Isaiah 26:4.

And for some sermon material try the following: Daniel 2:34, Matthew 21:42-44, Matthew 7:24ff, John 4:13, John 6:35, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:1-10, 2 Peter 2:8.

III. CHRIST IN SONSHIP

Some today suggest that Christ was not the Son of God until He became man. This thought suggests that there was no "Son" relationship until Mary bore Christ.

Logically then would there be no "Father" relationship? Proverbs 30:4, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"

MacArthur states that this reference is looking forward to when Christ would be the Son, but that the son ship did not begin until the incarnation. "As was noted, Son is an incarnaional title of Christ. Though His sonship was anticipated in the Old Testament (Proverbs 30:40), He did not become a Son until He was begotten into time. Prior to time and His incarnation He was eternal God with God. The term Son has only to do with Jesus Christ in His incarnation. It is only an analogy to say that God is Father and Jesus is Son — God's way of helping us understand the essential relationship between the first and second Persons of the Trinity." (Taken from: "New Testament Commentary: Hebrews"; MacArthur, John;

Strong speaks of the eternal generation of the Son, "Not a commencement of existence, but an eternal relation to the Father, --there never having been a time when the Son began to be, or when the Son did not exist as God with the Father."

Romans 8:3 Tells us,

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak

through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh,"

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Begotten Son...."

1 John 3:8 "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

This seems to indicate that He was the Son before He was manifested to man. Hebrews 13:8 also indicates this fact. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever."

The use of the term with the Father and Holy Spirit in the baptismal formula and elsewhere would be curious if the term Son is only for the incarnation as MacArthur mentions. One might decide that the term Father was also for the incarnation only. Indeed, the Holy Spirit's name might also be for the incarnation only.

Indeed, to follow MacArthur's logic we might suggest that the Holy Spirit is a name to allow us to understand the Holy Spirit. His name is actually not Holy Spirit, but God. That makes the Baptismal formula "The God and of The God and of the God."

Technically the eternal generation of the Son deals with His eternality. It was a doctrine that was formed as a result of some of the thinking of Arius and his idea that Christ was created.

The only, known to me, Old Testament reference to God as Father is in Isaiah 9:6 which speaks of the "Coming" Messiah. However, it seems that

it would be difficult to view three persons of the trinity running around not having names for one another and then in 33 AD deciding that one would be The Father, and one would be The Son and one would be The Holy Spirit. Especially when the Spirit is called the Spirit before the incarnation. Genesis 1 for example.

Since Christ was slain from the foundation of the world in God's mind it would be consistent to view Christ as the Son at least at that point. (Hebrews 4:3; 1 Peter 1:19-20; Ephesians 1:4) A study of the decree's in relation to this might be of interest as well.

Walvoord mentions that the eternal Father Son relationship has been the thought of the Church Fathers since the Council of Nicaea. (Taken from: "Jesus Christ Our Lord"; Walvoord, John F.; Copyright 1969, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 39)

HE LISTS SEVERAL POSITIONS

1. He mentions that Wardlaw placed the idea that Christ became the Son at the time of the incarnation into existence.

"...sonship is inseparably linked with the incarnation and, while Christ existed from eternity past, He was not a Son until the incarnation." (P 39 of Walvoord quoting Ralph Wardlaw, Systematic Theology, II, 32-60)

2. Some mention that the sonship came only after the Father declared Him his beloved Son at the baptism.

3. Some have suggested that Romans 1:4, "And declared to be the Son of God with power...." shows that the relationship came at the resurrection.

4. Some suggest that the son relation came at the exaltation. Hebrews 1:3 is given as evidence. The problem is that He is called a Son long before this in His incarnation.

5. The eternal sonship position presents the following references:

Galatians 44, "But, when the fulness of the time was come, God

sent forth his Son, made of woman, made under the law."

John 316-17, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only

Begotten Son ... For God sent not his Son into the world...."

Isaiah 9:6 mentions that a son will be given and it is clearly speaking of Christ.

Psalm 27, "I will declare the decree The Lord hath said unto me,

Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

This seems to tie not only the sonship, but the idea of begotten, to the decree. This would place both in eternity past.

Walvoord states, "According to this passage, [Colossians 1:15-19] Christ is declared to be the Son of God and begotten in the day of the eternal decree. This is, in effect, a statement that Christ is eternally the Son of God as the decree itself is eternal." (Taken from: "Jesus Christ Our Lord"; Walvoord, John F.; Copyright 1969, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission.)(See also, Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5)

HANDOUT

OLD TESTAMENT VIEW OF CHRIST

I. CHRIST IN PROPHECY

II. CHRIST IN ACTION

A. THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

1. The Angel of the Lord had physical attributes:

a. Genesis 16:8

b. Genesis 16:13

c. Genesis 18:8

d. Genesis 18:16

e. Genesis 18:16

f. Genesis 32:24,25

g. Genesis 32:26

2. The Angel of the Lord had Divine attributes:

a. Genesis 16:8

b. Genesis 16:12

c. Genesis 18:23-32

d. Genesis 18:1-33

e. Genesis 22:11

f. Genesis 24:7,4

g. Genesis 31:11

h. Genesis 31:12

i. Genesis 48:16

j. Exodus 3:1-4. Exodus 3:1-4; Exodus 13:21, cf Exodus 14:19 Exodus 23:20

k. Exodus 23:20

l. 2 Kings 19:35

m. 1 Chronicles 21:15-18

n. 1 Chronicles 21:15,26

o. Zechariah 1:12-14

p. Exodus 3:1-5 cf Revelation 19:10; 22:8,9

3. The Angel of the Lord had eyewitness accounts:

a. Genesis 18:1-33; Genesis 22:11-18

b. Genesis 16:13

c. Genesis 31:11-13; 48:16

d. Exodus 3:1-5; 13:21 cf. 14:19

e. Joshua 5:13-6:2

f. Others 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chronicles 21:14-18; Daniel 3:15-28; Zechariah 1:12-14

4. The Angel of the Lord gave personal testimony of His being God: Genesis 31:11-13 cf. Genesis 28:19,20

5. The Angel of the Lord had to have been Christ pre-incarnate.

MISC. TEXTS OF INTEREST

Judges 13:15-18 cf. Isaiah 9:6; 28:29 Malachi 3:1

B. THE ROCK

1 Corinthians 10:1-12 — Exodus 17:1-9 — Numbers 20:12 — Numbers 27:14 — Deuteronomy 32:3,4 — Deuteronomy 32:51 — 1 Samuel 2:2 — 2 Samuel 22:2,3 — Psalm 18:2,46 — Psalm 106:33 — Isaiah 8:13-14 — Isaiah 17:10 — Isaiah 26:4

And for some sermon material try the following: Daniel 2:34, Matthew 21:42-44, Matthew 7:24ff, John 4:13, John 6:35, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:1-10, 2 Peter 2:8.

III. CHRIST IN SONSHIP

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST

I did not include this section in my prior teaching on the Doctrine of Christ due to the fact that few of the writers really concentrate on the topic. They mention the subject in passing, but not as a specific study.

There has in recent days come to my knowledge some error in the area of the conception and birth of the Lord, so I have decided to include a more specific look at the subject.

It should also be realized that there have been no writers that I have found that even speak to the thought of the conception of the Lord.

We have this situation today due to the fact that it has never been an issue before. In our day the "Virgin Birth" and the "Virgin Conception" may well become very important, as we are deluged with the modern scientific breakthroughs that were not in place when most of the Theologians were writing.

We have only begun to deal with the ramifications of surrogate motherhood which could well reflect upon the thinking of people as they view the virgin birth. (a surrogate mother is one where an egg of some woman is fertilized with the sperm of a man and placed into the body of a third party for gestation.) More on this later.

We need to look at a few items of interest before we begin. The Roman Catholic church follows our thinking to a certain point, but then their theology takes a drastic turn, and we find that it teaches a completely different idea concerning the conception and birth of the Lord than does Protestantism.

We want to look at this thought as we begin. Though the Catholics would agree with us that the Lord was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, the Roman church submits the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to explain the part of Mary in the process. The immaculate part relates to Mary. God in His omnipotence made her pure so that she could be the mother of God.

Louis Matthews Sweet in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, takes exception to the immaculate conception: "'Immaculate conception' is of course manifestly a blunder due to the confusion of one idea with another."2

Mary is over the United States due to the fact that Mary was made the patroness of the United States. The many statues of Mary are due to her worship in this country.

The Roman church believes that Christ was born of the virgin Mary and that He had a human body and soul. They further hold that His human nature was derived from only His mother.

This will come into play in a few moments when we discuss the conception of the Lord. They will be found to be in line with most Protestants on the point that his humanity came from Mary.

Let me quote to show their position: "The Blessed Virgin was Christ's mother as man, but not as God." "Christ had no human father." They add a point that we would differ on, "The Blessed Virgin remained a virgin all her life."4

Walvoord mentions of the birth of Christ, "In the Incarnation Jesus Christ was perfect God and became perfect man being all that God is in His deity and all that man is apart from sin."5

This does not speak to the birth of the Lord, but sets for us the requirements of the outcome of that birth that was unique to Christianity. All other founders of religions write of their finding the divine, while Christ is the divine coming to find man.

Walvoord goes on with a paragraph that is a good summation of the person of Christ. "Christ was born into the human family and possessed His own identifiable body, soul, and spirit. He was not simply a man indwelt by God, but God who took on a human nature as a part of His person."6

I would restate that last phrase a bit differently for effect. He was not simply a man indwelt by God, but God that dwelled with man as man.

Let us look at some information in outline form. It is self explanatory.

I. THE EVENT PROPHESIED

A. HE WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN

Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22-23; Luke 1:35

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin

shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14

B. HE WAS DESCENDED FROM DAVID

Isaiah 11:1; Luke 1:32

C. HE WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM

Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:4-6

D. HIS BIRTH WAS CONNECTED TO THE SLAUGHTER OF CHILDREN

Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18

E. HE WAS TAKEN TO EGYPT AND RETURNED

Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15

II. THE EVENT DETAILED

Matthew 1:18 gives clear declaration that there was no human father involved.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Just what is meant by "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost?" This is what we want to think about in this section. Let's take a few moments to view the theories of the conception.

A. THE WHOLE THING THEORY

There are some that suggest God formed and placed the entire fetus within Mary's body. This would be the first reference in Scripture to Surrogate motherhood. This view would see a complete fertilized egg being prepared in heaven and being placed within Mary for the growth and birth process. This allows nothing of Mary to be imparted to Jesus, except the physical food and water nourishment that is normal in the pregnancy process.

PROBLEMS

1. This does not make Christ a descendant of David. He has no descendency. He is totally of God, and even if He were human in form there would be a lacking of the reality of the son of Mary.

2. This requires God to go back into the creation business to create this totally new man. Does this allow for the Lord being man as we? Does this allow for the Lord being our brother? Etc. I don't think so.

3. This could just as well have been a total creation of Jesus as an adult and eliminated the growing and maturing years.

4. There is no indication that this is the case in the Word, on the contrary the Gospels seem quite specific that there was a union of the Holy Spirit and Mary in the process. What that union, or overshadowing was is a question that we will probably not explain, yet both parties seem to be a part of the God-man Jesus.

B. THE MIRACLE THEORY

I ran into a self styled theologian that explained it this way. Mary and a man had relations. He did not get into the details of the father which was a bit of a problem to me. A Savior born of a fornicator. Not to appropriate. At any rate, he suggested to that conception, God added or changed something to keep the sin nature from being passed on to Jesus.

PROBLEMS

1. So how does deity enter the picture? By ZAP, or by osmosis?

2. So how do you answer the fornication question?

3. So why was Jesus special enough to die for our sins?

4. So, is that a proper sacrifice according to the Scriptures? NO.

C. THE PARTIAL THEORY

This would be where most of Protestantism is, I think. Mary was an integrated part of the conception, supplying to the unique person of Christ His manhood, while the Lord supplied, or moved in such a way as to supply the divine part of this person Jesus.

How did that happen? We will discuss the conception later.

PROBLEMS

1. Most suggested problems arise from a rejection of the Scriptural account of the virgin birth and usually a rejection of the Word of God, both of which are based on a lack of belief and faith in the Word of God. To this unbelief and lack of faith we have no answer, short of the Holy Spirit working in the heart of that person that rejects God and His revealed Word.

2. The position has no scientific, moral, or historical proof. Moral proof is lacking however the position is more moral than the thought of God creating everything and implanting it, or as the other position suggests that Jesus is the offspring of fornication. Historical proof is abundant. The church fathers held to the virgin birth with no attempt to explain it away through theories of creation and/or illicit sex.

We should remember that the conception as well as the birth were involving a virgin. The virgin conception requires only the mother to be involved. Indeed, the virgin conception is the key to the discussion.

III. THE EVENT ANNOUNCED

We won't go into these passages, but both Matthew and Luke detail the account for us. They both deal with the genealogies and there is an abundance of writing on the genealogies so we won't tackle that question today.

IV. THE EVENT PROCLAIMED

Again this is given much coverage in the gospels in that the Magi and the shepherds were told of the birth of the Lord.

1. Can you imagine a bit of the mental activity in Mary's brain after the announcement of the angel? Conceive without a husband? What will I tell people? How? Is this for real? An angel? Me? Is this what Isaiah 7:14 talks about? Am I the one that will give Israel her king? Just To Name A Few Possible Thoughts. I suspect that she had a little food for thought for a few days.

2. Do not mistake my attempts to make Jesus as much man as I can, nor to make Him as much like us as I can for if He were truly man as we preach, He must be like us.

It is not an attempt to lower our view of Christ, rather to increase our view of Christ. He is totally God, and totally like us, except for sin, which He suffered for, on the cross.

We must know how human He was to appreciate all that He did for us. He was not some super man of deity that suffered and died on the cross. He was a man as you and I and He allowed Himself to be crucified for us. He suffered as we would suffer plus a little due to carrying the burden of sin.

He had the same mental anguish over the loss of His life as we do. He suffered more due to the fact that He knew many misunderstood Him, and His life. Many would, and were rejecting what He was doing on the cross. He hurt as we would hurt.

3. A few thoughts on the virgin birth and those that reject it.

a. Christ in Luke 2:49 was about His father's business. He was in the temple not in the carpenter shop.

b. Christ did not refer to Joseph as His father yet referred to God as His father many times.

c. The angel announced John The Baptist's coming birth to the father, yet announced Christ's birth to the mother. That should indicate something.

d. Peter viewed Christ as the Son of God which not only indicates deity, but indicates Fatherhood of God. Christ mentioned to Peter that God had revealed this to Peter. If Christ was the son of Joseph, why would God have to reveal anything to Peter?

e. Paul showed his belief in the virgin birth in Galatians 4:4 when he stated,

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his

Son, made of a woman, made under the Law,"

f. The person that rejects the virgin birth is left with many problems.

1.) How did the union of God and man come about if both man and woman were involved. How was the sin nature eliminated from the offspring?

2.) How do you explain the Scriptural references to the virgin birth, or how do you explain the fact that Mary conceived before she and Joseph had come together as man and wife?

3.) How do you explain the problem of Joseph's family line being broken? To have the requirements of the Messiah fulfilled there was only one way with Mary and Joseph being involved and that is a virgin birth without the father Joseph. (If you go back into the Old Testament God cut off the direct line of Joseph). Scroogie mentions: "In Jeremiah 22:24-30, it is predicted that Coniah (Jehoiachin) would be childless, therefore he could not have been the father of Salathiel, but it is possible and probable that he adopted the seven sons of Neri, the twentieth from David in the line of Nathan."7 This would make the Matthew genealogy a legal line of Christ, while the Luke genealogy a blood line of Christ. With a break in the direct line there is no blood connection, but by adoption there would be the legal connection. This is another reason for the virgin birth. 4.) Why has the Christian church, as well as the Roman church for that matter, held to this doctrine for so many generations if it has no validity?

↑ Back to top