02.06. Jesus Christ Is The Unique Person

6. JESUS CHRIST IS THE UNIQUE PERSON The truth concerning Jesus Christ is infinite. This unique Person was conceived in the womb of Mary thirty years before Peter’s confession: “...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Hence, He was conceived in the womb of the virgin before He was conceived in the mind of Peter. His conception in the mind, however, is as necessary to salvation as His conception in the virgin. The Holy Spirit is the Author of both conceptions, in the womb and in the mind. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

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. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18-20). And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 16:17).

Since the Holy Spirit could not conceive a peccable Person in the womb of the virgin, He cannot conceive a peccable Christ in the mind of a person whom He regenerates. Everything God does is perfect. Therefore, peccability is out of the question in God’s work. Those who believe in peccability are forced to deny the miraculous conception in the womb of Mary, the virgin. Furthermore, they are forced to deny that salvation is wholly of God. They must acknowledge that man had not only something to do with Christ’s human nature but he has something to do with the conception in the human mind.

Objections to the impeccability of the unique Christ will be answered. Opponents of the impeccability of Jesus Christ say the humanity of Jesus was no different from the humanity of Adam before the fall. They claim that the difference came only by the fall of the first Adam and the victory of the second Adam. The humanity of both Adam and Jesus Christ cannot be apprehended apart from their persons. Adam was a mutable person; Christ is the immutable Person. Adam was a peccable person; Christ is the impeccable Person. Adam’s peccability gave him the capacity to sin; therefore, he fell. Christ’s impeccability made it impossible for Him to sin; therefore, He was never tempted to sin. There is no capacity to sin in infinite perfection. Hence, there was a definite difference between the natures of Adam and Christ. The eternal Son of God was responsible for all that would be done through the instrumentality of the assumed human nature. Thus, everything done through the instrumentality of the assumed nature is attributable to the one Person of the God-Man. Since the Divine nature is the foundation of Christ’s Person, anyone who says Christ could sin says God could sin. Guilt could not be confined to the human nature but would encompass the whole theanthropic Person. To say that Christ’s human nature could have sinned without involving the God-Man is senseless. There is no such thing as a fallen nature. The word “fallen” is applied not to nature but to the Person. Christ’s human nature is undefiled, but that His nature was fallen must ever be disputed. An unusual view of impeccability is that Christ’s Divine nature controlled His human nature. Therefore, Christ had a peccable human nature, but He was an impeccable Person. Although this view affirms the impeccability of Christ, the statements about Christ’s human nature are unscriptural.

Christ’s holy human nature was not peccable. How could it be peccable since it was wholly the work of God? One may argue that Adam was solely the work of God, but he fell. This has already been answered by showing that the humanity of both Adam and Christ cannot be apprehended apart from their persons. Adam was created upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29) but mutable. One must never think of Adam’s human nature apart from the mutability of his person. On the other hand, the human nature of Christ - “that holy thing” - was immutable. Thus, we have the mutability of Adam versus the immutability of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we have the difference between “man” and the “God-Man.”

One theologian has denied the impeccability of the God-Man, although he believes in the sinlessness of Christ. He says this does not add up to absolute impeccability because if Christ was truly human, He had to be capable of sinning. The possibility was there. If it was not there, then His sympathy with His people is rendered impossible. The hypothesis that Jesus could have sinned had He chosen is based on mere supposition. It comes from a false understanding of the Person of Christ. To say that Adam fell even though he was perfect as he came from God and had no weakness for sin is a misunderstanding of Adam’s perfection. Adam’s perfection cannot be equated with Christ’s. One is finite and the other is infinite. Infinite perfection is untemptable. The Lord Jesus never felt temptation because He could never be induced to evil. He was tried apart from sin.

Building an argument on a supposition is like trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation. To suppose Christ could have sinned is to be suppositious without any Biblical foundation.

Another argument against the impeccability of Christ states that if it were impossible for Jesus to yield to temptation, there would be an excuse for Adam. The question is raised, Why did not God make Adam so that he too could not sin? It is far more wonderful for Jesus to resist temptation than to be immune from its power. Amazingly, many fail to distinguish the difference between the finite and the Infinite. The finite has the capacity to sin, but the Infinite does not. How could it be more wonderful to trust a Savior who could sin but did not than one who could not? If Christ could sin but did not, what about His being the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)? Trusting an airplane that cannot fall makes more sense than trusting one that can but does not. At this point, it is appropriate to investigate some of Christ’s attributes in their relationship to His impeccability. Christ’s holiness is established (Acts 3:14;
Mark 1:24; Hebrews 7:26-27). Holiness is positive virtue which has neither room for nor interest in sin. Moreover, holiness is not only an active attribute which has no interest in sin, but it must take retributive action against sin. Holiness, therefore, is not just a passive freedom from iniquity.

Christ is not only holy but He is immutable (Hebrews 13:8). An immutable person is one who “cannot” not “does not” change. Jesus Christ cannot move from one good to another because all good eternally resides in Him. He cannot change from good to better since that would imply improvement. He cannot change from good to bad because of absolute holiness. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not one who was able not to sin, but He could not sin. According to the teaching of those who embrace peccability, if Christ could have sinned during His first advent, He had to change from who He was eternally. But that cannot be. “For I am the LORD, I change not...” (Malachi 3:6).

Christ is omnipotent. “All things were made by Him...” (John 1:3). Paul spoke of “Christ the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24). “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist”
(Colossians 1:16-17). Christ not only created all things but “by him all things consist.” The word “consist” is sunesteken, perfect active indicative of sunistemi, which means to place together or to hold together. Hence, Christ is the controlling and unifying power in the universe. Providence is under His control. To say that Christ could have sinned is to admit that a finite power is capable of overcoming infinite power.

Christ is omniscient. He said to the scribes whose thoughts He knew: “...Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?” (Matthew 9:4). Again, when the Pharisees said, “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the
prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts...” (Matthew 12:24-25). God has infinite knowledge (Psalms 147:5). It has been said that omniscience is infinite awareness. God cannot learn because He knows. Therefore, God’s eternal awareness could not be caught off-guard.

Another argument against Christ’s impeccability states that there is not a Scripture which says that Jesus could not sin, but many state that He did not sin. Those who believe in peccability say the human Jesus, not His deity, was involved in temptation. They believe Jesus chose to overcome temptation as a man. This argument presents a serious view concerning the Person of Christ. He is not two persons, but one Person with two natures. Jesus Christ possessed only one purpose. Thus, the Divine nature, which is immutable, determines and controls the human nature. This means the human nature never acts independently of the Divine.

Many regard Christ’s inability to sin as a threat to His humanity. They say that His temptation cannot be viewed as real if the proposition that Christ cannot sin is true. They fail to understand that the subject of Christ’s impeccability must proceed from His holiness. The negative aspect of holiness is taught
(2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). The positive aspect of Christ’s holiness is taught (Acts 3:14; Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30; Luke 1:35; John 6:69). Therefore, Christ asked, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8:46).

Peccability advocates say the power of sympathy does not depend on the experience of sin but on the experience of the strength of temptation to sin, which only the sinless can know in its full intensity. They say temptation implies the possibility of sin. They further state that if it were impossible for Him to sin, He could not sympathize with His people. Their so-called proof text is Hebrews 2:18 and Hebrews 4:15.

Christ’s testing has some help in it for the elect: “For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted”
(Hebrews 2:18). The verb “suffered” is peponthen, perfect active indicative of pascho, which means to suffer or to be afflicted. “Being tempted” is peirastheis, first aorist passive participle of peiradzo, to test, try, or tempt. Hence, the text could read, “For in that he suffered, having been tested.” The Greek word for “succour” is boethasai, first aorist active infinitive of boetheo, which means to run to the aid of those who cry for help. Those who are being tested have someone who can bring them help.

Temptation in all points like His people was not necessary for Christ to sympathize with them. “In all points” is a restricted statement, as has already been shown. The unrestricted idea of peccability advocates carried to its logical conclusion would mean that Jesus Christ felt the sin of concupiscence. That would be blasphemy. The fullness of the Godhead (theotetos means the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood) dwells bodily in Christ (Colossians 2:9). Such fullness (pleroma, those perfections and qualities which fill up the Divine nature) cannot dwell in mere human nature. Christ’s two natures have the same subsistence. In Christ are “hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Therefore, He can represent to Himself how sin affects His people without having been tempted by sin. Christ who was separated from sinners could not be tempted by sensual lust, pride, envy, gluttony, drunkenness, etc. Such temptations would be too wicked to imagine.