The Doctrine of the Cross

Transcription

1 The Doctrine of the Cross Definition and Description The crucifixion of the impeccable humanity of Christ is an historical fact. It took place in Jerusalem in the Jewish month of Nisan (April) 30 A.D. He suffered through 7 trials with the last 1 being before the Supreme Court of Heaven as He received the imputation of the sins of the entire world by the justice of God the Father. The 1st 6 trials preceding His crucifixion were before: (1) Annias (2) Caiaphas (twice) (3) Herod (4) Pilate (twice). The Lord Jesus Christ died 2 deaths on the cross: (1) Spiritual (2) Physical. Our Lord first died spiritually during the last 3 hours on the cross and then He died physically after He had accomplished His Finished Work (John 19:30). He died physically of His own volition and not through asphyxiation or exhaustion. Our Lord s substitutionary spiritual death on the cross accomplished 3 things: (1) Defeated Satan in the angelic conflict by disproving Satan s claims that God lacks integrity and does not love His creatures. (2) Provided salvation for all mankind as well as angels. (3) Fulfilled righteous requirements of the Mosaic Law. The Cross of Christ is the central point in all of angelic and human history since it resolves the angelic conflict, which is the reason why mankind was created. The greatest suffering the humanity of Christ endured on the cross was not the physical and mental torture of the cross but rather when He received the imputation of the sins of the entire world by the justice of God the Father and was separated from the Father during the last 3 hours on the cross. Crucifixion in the Ancient World It seems that the Persians invented or first used this mode of execution. The historian Herodotus ( B.C.) writes that the Persian king Astyages ordered Magian interpreters to be "impaled" for giving him poor counsel (The History, Book I 128). Also, King Arxes ordered Sataspes "impaled" for not following his orders (The History, Book IV 43). The Persians probably invented it in order not to defile the earth, which was consecrated to Ormuzd, by the body of the person executed. Later the cross is used by Alexander the Great, the Diadochoi princes and especially the Carthaginians. The Romans acquired crucifixion from the Carthaginians. They seldom executed Roman citizens by this method of punishment. Usually only slaves and the most serious criminals such as traitors, perjurers were crucified. In Greece this punishment was restricted to slaves and 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1

2 was never considered for free Greeks. Only barbarians crucified free men (Hdt. I, 128; IV, 43). In Rome it was already a mode of executing slaves even in the days of the republic. In the imperial period it was regarded as servile supplicium but was also used on aliens who were not Romans citizens. It could not be imposed on citizens (Cicero Verr. II, 5, 62, ). But autocratic governors ignored this. In the Roman provinces the penalty of crucifixion was one of the strongest means of maintaining order and security. Governors imposed this servile punishment especially on freedom fighters that tried to break away from Roman rule. Josephus mentions innumerable crucifixions-mass executions of rebels-in Judea. The Maccabean king Alexander I, when he had captured the rebellious city of Bethome, had the prisoners brought to Jerusalem and he crucified 800 men (Jews) (Josephus Antiquities 13, 380). Punishment by crucifixion was seen as a disciplinary measure for the maintenance of existing authority, intended more as a deterrent than as a means of retribution. This explains why the instrument of execution was set up in a public place. Contemporary writers condemned this form of execution as excessively cruel and disgraceful (Cicero, In Verrum, 64, 165 and often; Tacitus, Historia, 4, 3, 11; Josephus, War, 7, 203). The Jewish Historian Josephus ( A.D.) described crucifixion as a "most miserable death" (Wars Book 7, 203). Tacitus the historian described it as the most pitiful of all means of death. The one to be crucified experienced the ridicule and mockery of his executioners; onlookers participated in this too, as did the judges (Matt. 27:27-31, 39-44; Mark 15:16-20; 29-32; Luke 23:35-39). The site of execution, outside the town gate, was itself a place of disgrace (Heb. 13:12-13) and because of this understanding; a crucified Messiah caused many Jews to disbelieve (1 Cor. 1:23). Crucifixion Procedure First, there was a legal conviction and only in extraordinary cases, such as in times of war, did this occur at the place of execution itself. After sentencing, the criminal was stripped and scourged, itself a punishment so painful and horribly debilitating that some died from it. This took place either immediately after the sentence was pronounced or en route to the execution site. In Jesus case the scourging probably took place before He was sentenced, perhaps in the hope that the crowds might have compassion on the exhausted bleeding Man from Galilee ask Pilate to release Him (Luke 23:16; John 19:1). That His punishment was so severe may explain why Jesus did not have to bear the cross the last steps to Golgotha (Matt. 27:32) William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2

3 If the execution took place at somewhere other than the place of sentencing, the condemned man carried the patibulum to the spot, which was usually outside the town. The expression to bear the cross (stauros) which is a typical description of the punishment of slaves has its origin here. Ordinarily the criminal was forced to carry the crossbeam all the way to the execution site. The upright stake was usually left in place at the crucifixion site. Then on the ground he was bound with outstretched arms to the beam by ropes, or else fixed to it by spikes. Jesus was nailed to the crosspiece (John 20:25). The beam was then raised with the body and fastened to the upright post. About the middle of the post was a wooden block, which supported the suspended body. There was no foot-rest in ancient accounts. The height of the cross varied. It was either rather more than a man s height or even higher when the offender was to be held up for public display at a distance. On the way to the execution a tablet was hung around the offender stating the causa poenae, and this was affixed to the cross after execution so that all could see (Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). The charge was displayed above the criminal on a board or a tablet in black or red letters. In Jesus case the charge was written in 3 languages: (1) The language of Judea: Hebrew (2) The language of the occupying force from Rome: Latin (3) The common language of the day: Greek. Mental and Physical Torture of Crucifixion To die upon a cross meant excruciating pain. Death came slowly after extraordinary agony, probably through exhaustion or suffocation. The terrible open wounds from scourging and spikes in the hands and feet, the agonizing thirst and hunger, the hemorrhaging of the blood vessels in the head and heart, the scorching heat of the sun by day or the cold of the nights gradually robbed the victim of all strength. He became insane from the pain. Medical studies show that death itself was caused by asphyxiation. Ordinarily the crucified person lived for some time, frequently lasting more than 24 hours and sometimes as long as 48 hours. Some records exist of crucifixions lasting from 3 to 6 days. At times the legs of the victim were broken to put an end to the suffering of the victim (John 19:32). Thus Pilate was surprised when he was told that Jesus died within 6 hours (Mark 15:44f). The condemned person was exposed to mockery. Sometimes he was stripped and his clothes were divided among the executioners, thought this was not the common rule. Crucifixion took place publicly on streets or elevated places. Usually the body was left to rot on the cross to provide food for predatory animals and carrion crows. There is evidence that the body was occasionally given to relatives or acquaintances. The physical and mental 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3

4 sufferings, which this slow death on the cross involved, are unimaginable. Crucifixion as a capital penalty was ended only by Constantine the Great. In June 1968 an ossuary was discovered on Ammunition Hill, north of Jerusalem, containing the bones of a young man who had plainly been crucified, about the beginning of the 1st century A.D. One nail had been driven through each of his forearms, and a third, which was still in situ, through both his ankles together. His legs were broken like those of the 2 criminals on either side of Jesus (John 19:32). Crucifixion of Christ The crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ is a historical fact and attested to by secular historians. Tacitus writes, Christus, from whom the name (Christians) had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular (Annals XV, 44). Josephus writes, Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities Book 18, chapter 3). The apostle Paul declares to King Agrippa that the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ had not been done in a corner (Acts 26:26). On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter declares to the Jews the well-known fact that in Jerusalem the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and then rose from the dead (Acts 2:22-25). Christ crucified is said to be a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22-25). The Mosaic Law pronounced a curse on anyone who was hung on a tree (Deut. 21:22-23). The cross is called the power of God and foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18). We are reconciled to God and now have peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ death on the cross (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 1:20-22). The cross dealt with man's sins, which have all been forgiven and have been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:13-14) William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4

5 The Cross is the central point of all human and angelic history for the Lord Jesus Christ won a great strategic victory over Satan and the kingdom of darkness (John 12:31-33; Col. 2:15). The Cross defeated Satan who had the power of death over the human race (Heb. 2:14-15). The Chronology of the Crucifixion of Christ The procession arrived at Golgotha (Matt. 27:33). The Lord Jesus Christ was offered a stupefying drink of vinegar and gall, which He refused (Matt. 27:34). Jesus was crucified between 2 thieves (Luke 23:32-33), followed by the 1st cry on the Cross, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34). The soldiers gambled for His clothes, as was the Roman custom (Matt. 27:35-36). The Jews began to mock Him (Matt. 27:39-43). The thieves began mocking Him, but one of them believed (Luke 23:39-43). The 2nd cry on the Cross, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise (Luke 23:43). The Lord made sure His family was taken care of, this was His 3rd cry, Woman, behold your son (John 19:26-27). Noontime, darkness covered the earth (Matt. 27:45). This was followed by the 4th cry, Eli, Eli, lama Sabachthani (Matt. 27:46). The 5th cry, I thirst. Christ thirsted so that we might never thirst. (John 19:28). The 6th cry, It is finished (John 19:30). The 7th cry, Father, into your hands I commit my human spirit (Luke 23:46). After this our Lord dismissed His human spirit (Matt. 27:50). Spiritual Death of Jesus Christ Our Lord s spiritual death is recorded in Matthew 27:46. Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI? that is, MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? (NASB95) When the Lord Jesus Christ cried out My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? He was experiencing spiritual death meaning that in His human nature he was separated from His Father. In John 19:30, the Lord triumphantly said It is finished while He was still alive and which statement refers to the payment of our sins. John 19:30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. (NASB95) Therefore, it was His spiritual death that was the payment for our sins and not His physical death since the consequences of the human race possessing a sin 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 5

6 nature and committing personal sins is spiritual death. In His sinless human nature, our Lord suffered the loss of fellowship with the Father during those last three hours of darkness on the Cross so that we might never suffer the second death in the eternal lake of fire, which is eternal loss of fellowship with God. Therefore, God the Father considers Christ s spiritual death to be the believer s since this death dealt with the believer s problem of real spiritual death. Every person that is born into the world is physically alive yet spiritually dead and possesses a sin nature as a result of God imputing Adam s sin in the Garden of Eden to his posterity, i.e. the human race. This sin nature and spiritual death manifest itself in the life of a human being through the function of the volition in obeying the desires of the sin nature. The fact that our Lord s spiritual death was the payment for our sins and not His literal blood is illustrated in Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53:10 But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities. (NASB95) Anguish of His soul refers to the intense suffering of our Lord s human soul as a result of being separated from the Father on the Cross and experiencing spiritual death as a perfect sinless human being. This suffering no angel or man will ever be able to identify with since no angel or man has kept themselves experientially sinless. Notice that Isaiah says that the anguish of the Son s soul while experiencing spiritual death satisfied the Father, which refers to propitiation. This passage further substantiates that it was the Lord Jesus Christ s spiritual death that propitiated the Father and not His literal blood. The greatest suffering the humanity of Christ endured on the cross was not the physical and mental torture of the cross but rather when He experienced separation from His Father during those last three hours on the Cross as a result of receiving the imputation of the sins of the entire world by the justice of God the Father. The physical suffering that our Lord endured through the scourging and beatings at the hands of the Jews and Romans as well as the crucifixion itself were in fact part of His bearing the judgment for our sins. Remember, the unbeliever will suffer eternity in the Lake of Fire in a resurrection body according to Daniel 12:1, Romans 2:7, Revelation 20:11-15 and many other passages. This suffering is not only spiritual death but also physical 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6

7 suffering. Thus, since our Lord died spiritually so that no human being will be separated from God for all of eternity in the Lake of Fire so Christ suffered the physical torture so that no human being will suffer physically forever in the Lake of Fire. Our Lord s loss of fellowship with His Father in His humanity during those last three hours in darkness on the Cross was infinitely more painful to our Lord than the physical suffering He had endured and was enduring. Our Lord s loss of fellowship with His Father in His humanity during those last three hours in darkness on the Cross was valued infinitely more by the Father than the shedding of His literal blood or His physical suffering. This is not to say that the Father did not value the physical suffering of His Son, or His literal blood, which was sinless, He did, but literal blood though sinless cannot resolve man s problem of separation from God under real spiritual death. A sinless human being suffering the loss of fellowship with the Father was the penalty that had to be paid in order to redeem human souls from the curse of Adam sin of disobedience and real spiritual death. Our Lord died spiritually and was separated from His Father during those last three hours on the Cross so that we might never be separated from God for all of eternity due to sin. During the last three hours on the cross, God the Father imputed every sin in human history-past, present and future to the impeccable humanity of Christ in hypostatic union. Consequently, Christ voluntarily suffered the penalty for this imputation as our Substitute, which was spiritual death. 2 Corinthians 5:21 He (Christ) who never knew sin experientially (Christ was impeccable), on behalf of us (as our Substitute), was made (the representative of) sin in order that we might become the very righteousness of God in Him. (Author s translation) Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE. (NASB95) This spiritual death served as the propitiation for these sins, the reconciliation of the world to God, the redemption of the entire human race out of the slave market of sin and the basis for the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation. Imputation is the function of the justice of God in crediting something to someone for cursing or for blessing. There are two categories of imputations: (1) Real: crediting to a person something which belongs to him (2) Judicial: crediting to a person something which does not belong to him William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 7

8 A real imputation has a target or a home whereas as a judicial imputation has no target or home, and emphasizes the Source, the justice of God. To complete a judicial imputation divine justice must immediately pronounce a verdict, cursing or blessing. Judicial Imputations: (1) Imputation of human sin to Christ (2) Imputation of divine righteousness to sinful mankind through faith in Christ. Sin is any thought, word or action that is contrary to the will and holy character of God and is thus disobedience to the commands and prohibitions of God. Therefore, during the last three hours on the cross, God the Father imputed every sin in human history-past, present and future to the impeccable humanity of Christ in hypostatic union. During the last three hours on the Cross, God the Father credited to the impeccable humanity of Christ something, which did not belong to Him, namely the sins of the entire world-past, present and future! When the sins of mankind were imputed to the impeccable humanity of Christ, the justice of God took action and pronounced a guilty verdict. Therefore, when Christ was receiving the imputation of the sins of the world, God was not projecting into the soul of the human nature of Christ the sins of the world, nor does imputation put Him into contact with sin. This imputation made the Lord a curse for us and set Him up to receive the penalty for our sins, which is spiritual death, i.e. separation from God. When Christ cried My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? He was suffering the consequences for our sins, which was separation from the Father and was not coming into contact with our sins, nor was He becoming literal sin. Christ could not experience or come into contact with sin unless He Himself chose to sin. You cannot experience or come into contact with sin unless one chooses to sin. Therefore, there is no way possible that the Lord could come into contact with our sins or experience them. Furthermore, the imputation of every sin in history to Christ does not mean that Christ became literal sin, which is a heretical statement. If the Lord did become literal sin then He would no longer be qualified to be our perfect Substitute. Therefore, Jesus Christ died spiritually meaning that in His human nature, He was separated from His Father in the sense that He lost fellowship with His Father during those last three hours on the Cross. He suffered this spiritual death so that no member of the human race should have to. Thus, the believer is identified with our Lord s spiritual death since this death spared the believer from the second death in the eternal lake of fire William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 8

9 Physical Death of Jesus Christ The physical death of our Lord is recorded in the Gospels (Matthew 27:47-50; Mark 15:22-40; Luke 23:33-49; John 19:16-30). The Lord Jesus Christ did not die from suffocation or exhaustion, nor did He bleed to death, or die of a broken heart but rather He died unlike any person in history, namely by His own volition. Remember what our Lord said in John 10:18. If He had bled to death, He would have fainted. The Lord Jesus Christ was in total control of His faculties and was totally and completely alert throughout all His suffering on the cross. Our Lord s voluntary physical death was another indication to those observing Him at the Cross that He was indeed the Son of God. He died like no other man in history, namely, of His own choosing. This is why the centurion stated that our Lord was the Son of God. Matthew 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. (NASB95) Yielded up is the aorist active indicative form of the verb aphiemi, to dismiss, to release, to let go. The aorist tense of the verb is a culminative aorist, which views an event from its existing results, the Lord Jesus Christ's physical death. The active voice expresses the fact that the Lord Jesus died of His own volition since the active voice indicates that the subject produces the action of the verb. The Lord is the only human being in history to dismiss His own spirit from His body. Every human being that dies physically as a result of a sovereign decision of God but here the Lord chooses to die physically. Our Lord s voluntary physical death was another indication to those observing Him at the Cross that He was indeed the Son of God. He died like no other man in history, namely, of His own choosing. Our Lord s burial is recorded in John 19: The perfect sinless humanity of Christ was born trichotomous: (1) Body (2) Soul (3) Spirit. Therefore, our Lord s physical death was unique because it was a trichotomous separation: (1) His physical body went to the grave (Luke 23:50-53). (2) His human spirit went to heaven (Luke 23:46; John 19:30). (3) His human soul went into Paradise a compartment of Hades (Luke 23:43; Acts 2:27; 2:31; Eph. 4:9). The Lord was brought back from the dead by three categories of divine omnipotence: (1) Omnipotence of God the Father sent back our Lord s human spirit to the body in the grave (Acts 2:24; Rom. 6:4; Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Pet. 1:21). (2) Omnipotence of God the Holy Spirit sent back our Lord s human soul to the body in the grave (Rom. 1:4; 8:11; 1 Pet. 3:18). (3) 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 9

10 Omnipotence of God the Son raised His physical body from the grave (John 2:20-23; 6:39-40, 54 10:17-18). The Lord Jesus Christ died physically in order to deal with the problem of the sin nature in the human race, which is located in the physical body of a person as a result of God imputing Adam s sin in the Garden of Eden to every person at the moment of physical birth. Therefore, the Christian s problem with his indwelling Adamic sin nature is resolved when he is identified with Christ in His physical death through the baptism of the Holy Spirit the moment they were declared justified through faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior (Romans 6:1-10). The Blood of Christ The blood of Christ redeemed sinful humanity. Ephesians 1:7 In whom (the Beloved) we have the redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace. (NASB95) 1 Peter 1:17 If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth, 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (NASB95) The blood of Christ does not refer to the literal blood of Christ but is part of a representative analogy between the physical death of the animal sacrifice in the Mosaic Law and the spiritual death of Christ. The animal blood was the means of teaching the doctrine of redemption in the Old Testament (Ex. 12:7; 12-13; Heb. 9:22). The animal sacrifice is a representative analogy in which the physical death of the animal on the altar represents the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. The animal sacrifice is also a real analogy which would be a literal death compared to a literal death. The physical death of the animal is compared to the physical death of Christ. A representative analogy is the physical death of the animal on the altar representing the spiritual death of Christ on the cross. A real analogy is that the physical death of the animals is compared to the physical death of Christ. The analogy requires that the blood of Christ be taken figuratively and metaphorically. Webster s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines figurative, representing by a figure or resemblance: emblematic; of or relating to representation of form; expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous: metaphorical William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 10

11 The term the blood of Christ is a metaphor. Webster s defines metaphor, a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them. Animal blood was used to represent the figurative blood of Christ. This was done from Genesis 3:21 to the Levitical offerings of Leviticus 1-5. The blood of the animal is the seat of animal life (Lev. 17:10-14). The blood of the animal was used to represent redemption to Old Testament believers (Heb. 9:18-22). The animal was real and literal but it did not represent the literal blood of Christ shed on the cross. The animal blood represents the spiritual and physical deaths of Christ on the cross (Col. 1:20; Heb. 10:19; 13:20; 1 Pet. 1:2). The blood of the animal sacrifices were merely a shadow pointing to the reality of the cross (Heb. 9:12-24). Therefore, the phrase His blood refers to our Lord s substitutionary spiritual and physical deaths on the Cross as our Substitute. The blood of Christ is analogous to: (1) Redemption (2) Reconciliation (3) Propitiation. Our Lord was still alive on the Cross-when He finished making the payment for our sins (John 19:30). Our Lord did not bleed to death like the animals in the Mosaic sacrifices. He didn t pass out on the Cross-from loss of blood, but in fact was in total command and was totally alert when He said, It is finished. He didn t die like ordinary men who die involuntarily, but instead, He did voluntarily (John 10:17-18). Therefore, the blood of the animal sacrifices were merely a shadow pointing to the reality of the Christ s spiritual death on the Cross (Heb. 9:12-24). So the Lord s spiritual death on the Cross was the payment for our sins and not His physical or shedding of his literal blood. His physical death dealt with the sin nature. Impeccability of Jesus Christ The Father accepted Jesus Christ s spiritual and physical death as a substitute for the entire human race because He was impeccable. If He was not sinless and perfect, the Father could not accept His spiritual and physical death as the solution to the human race s problem with being enslaved to the sin nature and the devil. He could not accept these deaths as the solution to the human race s problem with being condemned by a holy God for not keeping His law perfectly if He was not impeccable. The term impeccability refers to the fact that Christ could not sin or in other words, there was never any possibility or potential of our Lord ever sinning. The term peccability denotes that our Lord could have sinned meaning that there was a potential for Him sinning William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 11

12 In regards to our Lord s deity, both views contend that Jesus Christ is infinite and eternal God (John 1:1-2; John 8:58; 10:30a; Col. 2:9a; Rev. 1:8). They agree that He has the same divine essence as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. They agree that our Lord possesses all the attributes of deity: (1) Sovereignty (Matt. 28:18a; Col. 2:10b). (2) Perfect righteousness (John 8:46a; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 2:21b). (3) Justice (John 8:16a; 2 Tim. 4:8; Ps. 9:8; Deut. 32:4; Rev. 15:3b). (4) Love (John 13:34; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 3:19; 1 John 4:9-10). (5) Eternal life (1 Tim. 1:17; 1 John 5:11). (6) Omniscience (Luke 11:17; John 2:24-25; John 6:64). (7) Omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; Prov. 15:3) (8) Omnipotence (1 Cor. 1:23-24; Rev. 1:8). (9) Immutability (Heb. 13:8). (10) Veracity (John 1:14; 14:6a). Both views are in agreement that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (Col. 1:16-17), that He has authority to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6). They agree that the Lord Jesus Christ has the power to raise the dead (John 5:21; 6:40) and that all judgment belongs to Him (John 5:22), and that He receives worship from both men and angels (Ps. 99:5; Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:13-14). The peccability view and the impeccable view both agree that in His Deity, Jesus Christ always occupied a place of equality and fellowship with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. They both agree that as God, He is equal with the Father (John 10:30, 37-38; 14:9; 17:5, 24-25). In regards to our Lord s humanity, both the peccable and impeccable view are in agreement that our Lord was totally free from sin, which means He was perfect or flawless. They both agree that Christ remained free from all three categories of sin in the human race: (1) Old sin nature (2) Adam s original sin (3) Personal sins. The peccability view and impeccable view both agree that the Lord Jesus Christ has a human body like ours but without a sin nature (John 1:14; Heb. 10:5; 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:2-3), that He has a human soul (Matt. 26:38a; Isa. 53:11a) and a human spirit (Luke 23:46; John 13:21; 19:30). These two views are in agreement that because of the virgin birth our Lord did not have an old sin nature like every human being born in Adam. They agree that He did not have an old sin nature because He did not have a human father (Luke 1:35). The peccable view and the impeccable view both agree that the Lord Jesus Christ was found to be without sin in His humanity (John 8:46a; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). They agree that in His humanity that our Lord was tempted in all things as sinful humanity (Heb. 4:15). They agree that in His humanity, He was tempted to act and live independently from God the Father s plan for His life (Luke 4:1-4; Matt. 16:21-23) and that He was tempted not to go to the cross (Luke 22:39-44) William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 12

13 Therefore, both views are in agreement that our Lord did not sin, but the peccability view contends that He could have sinned. They say that there was a potential of Him sinning. While on the other hand, the impeccability view contends that our Lord could never have sinned meaning there was absolutely no potential of Him ever sinning once because He had a divine nature. Documentation John 8:46a, Which one of you convicts Me of sin? 2 Corinthians 5:21, He (Christ) who never knew sin experientially (Christ was impeccable), on behalf of us (as our Substitute), was made (the representative of) sin in order that we might become the very righteousness of God in Him. Hebrews 4:15, For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Hebrew 7:26, For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens. 1 Peter 1:19, But with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 1 Peter 2:22, Who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth. 1 John 3:5, And you know that He appeared in order to take sins; and in Him there is no sin. Definition of Impeccability Most orthodox theologians agree that Jesus Christ never committed an act of sin. Walvoord writes, This seems to be a natural corollary to His deity and an absolute prerequisite to His work of substitution on the cross. Any affirmation of moral failure on the part of Christ requires a doctrine of His person which would deny in some sense His absolute deity (The Person and Work of Christ Part VII, The Impeccability of Christ). There has been debate regarding whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a unique character because of His divine nature. Could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could He have sinned as Adam sinned? Was there any potential of Him sinning once? Most theologians who are orthodox agree that Christ could be tempted 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 13

14 because of the presence of a human nature, but there is great division as to whether being tempted He could have sinned or was there the potential of Him ever sinning. The term used to describe the teaching that there was a potential that Christ could sin is called peccability. The term used to designate that there was no potential of Christ sinning is called the impeccability of Christ. Those who adhere to peccability and impeccability are in agreement that Christ did not sin. However, those who are proponents of peccability contend that He could have sinned meaning that there was a potential that He could sin. On the other hand, those who declare the impeccability contend that He could not sin meaning that there was no potential whatsoever that He could sin because of His divine nature. The impeccability position has been challenged. Can an impeccable person be tempted in any proper sense? Since Christ had a human nature that was subject to temptation, does this mean that He could have sinned? The point of view of those who believe that Christ could have sinned is expressed by Charles Hodge, he writes, This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; 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 was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, 457) John Walvoord makes the following comment in response to Hodge, he writes, The problem that Hodge raises is very real, and, judging by our own experience, temptation is always associated with peccability. Hodge, however, assumes certain points in his argument which are subject to question. In order to solve the problem as to whether Christ is peccable, it is necessary, first of all, to examine the character of temptation itself to ascertain whether peccability is inevitably involved in any real temptation and, second, to determine the unique factor in Christ, i.e., that He had two natures, one a divine nature and the other a sinless human nature. It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation. It must be admitted by Hodge, who denies impeccability, that in any 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 14

15 case the temptation of Christ is different than that of sinful men. Not only is there agreement on the fact that Christ had no sin nature, but it is also agreed on the other hand, that as to His person He was tempted. This is plainly stated in Hebrews: For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (4:15 ). It is also clear that this temptation came to Christ in virtue of the fact that He possessed a human nature, as James states: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man (1:13 ). On the one hand, Christ was tempted in all points except through that of a sin nature, and on the other hand His divine nature could not be tempted because God cannot be tempted. While His human nature is temptable, His divine nature is not temptable. On these points all can agree. The question is, then, can such a person as Christ is, possessing both human and divine natures, be tempted if He is impeccable? The answer must be in the affirmative. The question is simply, is it possible to attempt the impossible? To this all would agree. It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for the rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable. It will be observed that the same temptation which would be easily resisted by one of sound character may be embraced by one of weak character. The temptation of a drunken debauch would have little chance of causing one to fall who had developed an abhorrence of drink, while a habitual drunkard would be easily led astray. The temptation might be the same in both cases, but the ones tempted would have contrasting powers of resistance. It is thus demonstrated that there is no essential relation between temptability and peccability. Hodge s viewpoint that temptation must be unreal if the person tempted is impeccable is, therefore, not accurate. Temptability depends upon a constitutional susceptibility to sin, whereas impeccability depends upon omnipotent will not to sin. (The Person and Work of Jesus Christ Part VII: The Impeccability of Christ) Shedd writes: It is objected to the doctrine of Christ s impeccability that it is inconsistent with his temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot be tempted to sin. This is not correct; any more than it would be correct to say that because an army cannot be conquered, it cannot be attacked. Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as his natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But his peccability, or the possibility of being 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 15

16 overcome by those temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which he was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of his holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce him to sin, and he would be impeccable. And yet plainly he would be temptable. (William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, 396) Therefore, the doctrine of the impeccability of Christ acknowledges the reality of the temptations of Christ due to the fact that our Lord had a human nature which was temptable. Our Lord might have sinned if His human nature had not been sustained by His divine nature. Adam sinned because he was not sustained by divine power, nor did he have a divine nature to sustain him of course. However, there is absolutely no possibility or potential that Christ could have sinned since He was infinite and eternal God, having a divine nature. Walvoord makes another insightful comment that helps understand the relationship between our Lord s divine and human nature, he writes, The ultimate solution of the problem of the impeccability of Christ rests in the relationship of the divine and human natures. It is generally agreed that each of the natures, the divine and the human, had its own will in the sense of desire. The ultimate decision of the person, however, in the sense of sovereign will was always in harmony with the decision of the divine nature. The relation of this to the problem of impeccability is obvious. The human nature, because it is temptable, might desire to do that which is contrary to the will of God. In the person of Christ, however, the human will was always subservient to the divine will and could never act independently. Inasmuch as all agree that the divine will of God could not sin, this quality then becomes the quality of the person and Christ becomes impeccable. (The Person and Work of Christ Part VII: The Impeccability of Christ) The concept of peccability in the person of Christ is refuted by the attributes of immutability and omnipotence. For example, the immutability of Christ (Hebrews 13:8) supports the impeccability of Christ in the sense that since Christ was infinite and eternal God in eternity past, it is absolutely essential that this divine attribute as well His others be preserved unchanged eternally. Therefore, our Lord must be impeccable since He is immutable. It is ridiculous to think that God could sin in eternity past, thus, it was impossible for God to sin in the person of Christ incarnate. The nature of His person forbids susceptibility to sin. To say that He could have sinned, you would have to separate the deity of Christ from His humanity. Also, the omnipotence of Christ makes it impossible for Him to sin. We must remember that peccability always implies weakness on the part of the one tempted 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 16

17 in the sense that He is weak to the extent that He can sin. However, with our Lord, this was impossible. It is true that if the human nature of Christ was left to itself, He would have been both peccable and temptable, but since His human nature was permanently united to an omnipotent divine nature, this made our Lord impeccable. The infinite quality of our Lord s omnipotence makes it clear that Christ is impeccable. One final comment from Walvoord, It is rationally inconceivable that Christ could sin. It is clear that Christ is not peccable in heaven now even though He possesses a true humanity. If Christ is impeccable in heaven because of who He is, then it is also true that Christ was impeccable on earth because of who He was. While it was possible for Christ in the flesh to suffer limitations of an unmoral sort such as weakness, suffering, fatigue, sorrow, hunger, anger, and even death none of these created any complication which affected His immutable holiness. God could have experienced through the human nature of Christ these things common to the race, but God could not sin even when joined to a human nature. If sin were possible in the life of Christ, the whole plan of the universe hinged on the outcome of His temptations. The doctrine of the sovereignty of God would forbid any such haphazard condition. It is therefore not sufficient to hold that Christ did not sin, but rather to attribute to His person all due adoration in that He could not sin. While the person of Christ could therefore be tempted, there was no possibility of sin entering the life of Him appointed from eternity to be the spotless Lamb of God. (The Person and Work of Christ Part VII: The Impeccability of Christ) In his great work, Systematic Theology, volume 5, chapter 5, Lewis Sperry Chafer makes the following comment, which though long is well worth reading, he writes, At least twenty-seven incidents or references are recorded in which it is said that God has been or might be tested; but these are always to be considered in the light of the assurance that God cannot be tempted in the way of evil, nor does He so tempt any man (James 1: 13-15). The divine testings extend to each Person of the blessed Trinity. Of the Father it is said with respect to the imposition of the Mosaic Law upon perfected believers, Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15: 10). To those who, perhaps in ignorance, teach that the Mosaic system is a rule of life for the believer already perfected in Christ, the warning which this Scripture advances should be effective. There are no elements of piety in the act of imposing the Mosaic system upon the Church; rather it is a dangerous and awful provoking of God. It is significant that, of all the wickedness in which Christians may indulge, only this one high crime against God is mentioned as the cause of His testing from believers. Thus, also, the Spirit may be tested. In this 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 17

18 there is a similarity with the preceding, since but one incident of the Spirit s testing is recorded. This experience was brought to pass by a falsehood uttered by two early Christians, which falsehood was declared to be against the Holy Spirit. It is written: And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband (Acts 5:8-10). Of the temptation of Christ the Son more Scripture is written--cf. Luke 4:1-13; Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15. The discussion of these important declarations will be considered in the following section. Chafer goes on to say, When declaring, as above, that the testings which came to Christ were in the sphere of His humanity and not addressed directly to His Deity, not only is the truth asserted that He, being God, could not be solicited respecting things evil, but the whole problem, which may be extended into infinity, concerned with the relations of His two natures to one another is introduced again. There is general agreement that, had Christ sinned, the lapse would have arisen wholly from His human nature; but in all the discussion respecting His impeccability the truth is too often ignored that Christ was wholly free from a sin nature and all that the sin nature generates. Some theologians, much as heathen philosophers might do, have based their speculations on the acknowledged limitations of fallen men. It is argued that no man is free from sin and, since He was a man, Christ was solicited to evil even as other men. In his discourse on the problem of Christ s personal relation to sin, Bishop Martensen writes (Christian Dogmatics, pp ): The fact that the Second Adam experienced all temptations--enticements to sin, threats and tortures of body and mind--is to be explained upon the ground, not of His moral freedom only, nor of the progressiveness of His nature, but of both these combined. The propositions, potuit non Peccare, it was possible for Him not to sin, and non potuit peccare, it was impossible for Him to sin, so far from being distinct or contrasted, may be said to include and to presuppose each other. The first, which means that sinlessness was only a possibility for Christ, implies that He experienced temptation as an actual power; for while it came upon Him from without, it must, if it were not a mere pretence, have excited some corresponding feeling within Him; through which alone He could have been really tempted. And as the contrast between the cosmical and the sacred--the natural and the spiritual--was necessary in the Second Adam in order to a twofold influence upon the will;--as the Second Adam cannot be viewed as Monotheletic, which would be in fact to consider Him 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 18

19 Monophysite, but Duotheletici---the same principle must have been active in Him which made the fall of the first Adam possible. The possibility of evil existed in the Second Adam; but this possibility never became active, was never realized; it served only as the dark and obscure background to show forth His perfect holiness. This was guaranteed, not by the force of virtue or innocence, which the very idea of temptation makes uncertain and doubtful, pending the trial, nor again by the force of the Divine nature as distinct from the human, or the human as distinct from the Divine, but in virtue of the indissoluble union of the divine and human natures in Him; that bond which might indeed be strained and shaken to the greatest apparent tension and contrast of the two natures, but which never could be broken. This is expressed in the second proposition non potuit peccare, it was impossible for Him to sin. Though the temptation itself and the conflict against it were not apparent merely but real and sternly earnest, the result could never have been doubtful; for the bond between the Divine and the human natures, which may be severed in the creature, was indissoluble in Him who is the Mediator between the Father and all His creatures. This bond may be broken only when the connection of the divine with the human is merely relative and representative; never when it is essential and archetypal, as in Him, in whom the counsels of the Father were comprehended before the foundation of the world. Dr. Martensen here, along with many theological leaders, sustains a very high regard for the theanthropic: Person, but his implications are that Christ suffered those temptations which belong to a fallen nature; still, Christ could not have possessed a sin nature without having par- taken of the fall, since that nature does not belong to unfallen humanity. Naturally, the only examples of this form of human existence are restricted to Adam before he fell and to Christ. If Christ had been Himself a fallen Being, He could not have been the uninvolved Kinsman- Redeemer that was demanded. Perhaps some fail at this point to realize that the saving work of Christ extends as much to the sin nature of those He saves as to their individual transgressions. Had Christ been Himself a fallen man, He would have needed to be saved and could not have saved Himself or another. If, on the other hand, He was unfallen and theanthropic in His Being, He had no solicitations to evil such as arise out of a sin nature. It is intrinsic divine holiness which is predicated of Him (Luke 1:35). It has been declared on previous pages and is reasserted here that Christ was impeccable in the non potuit peccare sense; that is, it was impossible for Him to sin. That which creates doubt in many devout minds is the obvious fact that, as illustrated by Adam, an unfallen human being is capable of sinning. Tragic indeed, in this instance, is the failure to recognize that the first Adam was unsupported in the hour of his testing, but that the Last Adam though equally possessed of an unfallen human nature was--as Dr. Martensen so well 2014 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 19