You are on page 1of 21

Who & What was Jesus Christ

A Christological Study
by

Joe Robinson

" He was despised and rejected by people, One who experienced pain and was
acquainted with illness; people hid their face from Him, He was despised, and
we considered Him insignificant. But He lifted up Our illnesses, He carried
Our pain, even though we thought He was being punished, attacked by God,
and afflicted for something He had done.
He was wounded because of Our rebellious deeds, crushed because of Our
sins; He endured punishment that made Us well, and because of His wounds
We have been healed." Isa.53.3-5 NET Bible

Thesis Objective

The objective of this Thesis is to reassert the "High Christological" view and understanding of
the Person of Jesus Christ as the "Monogenes- one of a kind" Son of the only God.

In order to accomplish this objective I must explortheological concepts of the Impeccability


Christ's Nature Union of dual nature as God/Manand address the confict between the two as
a result of the tendency to over-interpret the Chalcedonian formulation resulting in an
inadvertant denial of Christ's impeccability.

In their relevent sections I propose theroms as solutions to 1) Christ's impeccability in view of


His "temptations" and 2) the true meaning of Christ's "likeness" to humanity in respect to His
hypostatic Union.

First I will give the historical background of the Christological controversies as they
developed leading up to Chalcedon. Then I will define the terms pertnient to this thesis and
apply the scriptural foundation for my arguments as I explore the thesis that Jesus, far from
being enticed by Satan in the wilderness and in keeping with His impeccable nature did in
fact triumph over sin, untouched and untempted,

and;

That Christ, Logos incarnate, while hypostatically sharing in humanity's body of flesh and
therefore subject to all of humanity's physical limitations, nevertheless kept His own divine
spiritual nature, having been born in a completely different mode than fallen man and came
as God's divine representative of man and for man, in order to redeem and transform
humanity's nature.

The Historical Background

"Those of us who grew up leaming how to distinguish homoousios from


homoiousios in Patristic debate may have come to feel that such tasks, however
important both in their time and as an abstract exercise in thinking clearly and
Christianly, are not strictly relevant to contemporary attempts to bring the
gospel to the world. But we cannot retreat from the challenge that faces us in
our own day, a challenge to grasp and articulate a Christologically redefined
monotheism over against the paganism, the polytheism, and also the resurgent
dualism within our own culture and church life. Paul discovered that the gospel
of the crucified and risen Jesus contained "the power of God, and the wisdom of
God" (I Corinthians 1:24). We in our generation would do well to rediscover it
too."
NT Wright "One God, One Lord, One People."

"A heresy often starts out as the vehement assertion of an authentic but partial aspect
of revelation which, developed unilaterally, soon becomes deformed and compromises
the balance of theology as a whole." (Jean Danielou & Henri Marrou, The First Six
Hundred Years, p. 250.)
325 to 451; The first 4 Ecumenical Councils

In the late third and early fourth centuries the unity of the Church was disturbed by diverse
views of the person of Jesus Christ. There were three primary doctrines at the root of the
upheavals; the doctrines of Arius who taught that Christ was not pre-existant and therefore
not fully God, and two forms of Monotheism; Modalistic Monarchism, a doctrine held by
Sabellius which states that God appears to man in three modes as Father, Son and Spirit, and
Adoptionism, the doctrine that Jesus the man was adopted into deity when annointed by
God'sSpirit at His baptism.

The Doctrine of Arianism


Arius was born in Libya and educated in Antioch by Lucian who taught that Christ was
subordinate to God and so was less than God. He interpreted Scripture strictly allegorically
rather than historically or with any literal sense.
In 312 Lucan's martyrdom leant more credibility to his teaching which Arius carried forward
in his place. Arian doctrine began as a reaction against Sabellianism just as Apollinarius later
opposed Arianism by emphasizing the Dignity and Divinity of the Son.

In 318 he heard his Bishop, Alexander of Alexandria make a comment on the word
"homoousios"
(a term originating with Origen in theological concepts) and which the Sabellians apparently
used and which to his understanding detracted from the Dignity of "God the Father" as the
source of all existence including at some point in eternity the creation of the "Son". Beause of this
belief he attacks the "homo-ousios" theology.

Arius focused on two key texts:


1.) Prov. 8:22--"The Lord possessed (or formed) me in the beginning of his way."
2) John 14:28--"The Father is greater than I."

He asserted the Father alone is eternal and since Jesus was "begotten" or created, then there
was a point in time when he did not exist therefore the Father alone is the true God while the
Son is pre-eminent over all creation, having been "begotten" in eternity long before any other.

Arius was not alone,there were many Bishops especially in the east who subscribed to this
Christology. The divisions were the seed that would eventually become the east and west
theologies in the rivalry between Antioch and Alexandria.

As this particular controversy grew the passions even engendered popular slogans on both
sides.
· 1) "There was when he was not!"
· 2) "There was not when he was not!"
· 3) "Begotten, not made!"
· 4) "Homoousios" vs. "homoiousios" (homo = same; homoi = similar).

Athanasius
Athanasius who was to succeed Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in 328 was the chief
advocate for the Trinitarian Homoousios view against the Arian, so much so in fact that he
paid a signiicant cost throughout his life including five banishments from His episcopal
offices. Eafter Nicaea's condemnation of the doctrine,Arianism had many adherents and deep
roots which never erdicated and sometimes the succeeding Emperors including Constantine
himself in spite of his affirmation of the Nicene decisions.

At Nicaea Athanasius' defense of what is now Orthodoxy emerged victorius after two months
of debate and the formulation of the foundational statement of Orthodox Christology was
crafted;

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God
from True God, Begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father through Whom
all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and became
incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose on the third day, And ascended into
heaven, And is coming with glory to judge living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But
those who say, There was when the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten he
was not, and that he came into being from things that are not, or that he is of a
different hypostastis or substance, or that he is mutable or alterable--the Catholic and
Apostolic Church anathematizes."

The statement "Being of one substance with the Father" or homoousios affirmed Jesus'
identical nature and essence with God the Father. In John 1.1c we are told "...and the Word
was fully God" (Bible); the NEB more perfectly states," what God was the Word was."

In Tillich's words this unequivicable statement of doctrine accomplished the final defeat of
gnostic heresy and syncretistic religion (includesmoremodern positions liberal theorist on the
historical Jesus.)
" The main possible Christian heresy was overcome. Christ is not one of the many half-Gods;
He is not a hero. He is God Himself appearing in Divine essence within a historical person. –
This was the definite negation of paganism. In Arius, paganism again raised its head after it
was defeated in the anti-Gnostic struggle, and it raised its head very strongly – Christ, one of
the many powers of being – this would have made Christianity one of the many possible
religions." Tillich "A History" ( Lecture 12)

This victory of "Orthodoxy" was only temporary since as every action has an opposite and
equal reaction so do theological uncertainties swing from one extreme to the other.
The history of Ecumenical decrees and anathema's reveal this tendency in Christianity. In
Nicaea we have Orthodoxy defined with an emphasis on the equality of Christ with God the
Father over against the Arian subordination of Christ's divinity.
In the next three Ecumenical councils assembled each will be in response to the oscillating
theologies of Christology.

Three Christological Controversies

Apollinaris
(Emphasis of Christ's Divinity in reaction to Arianism) Alexandrian influence= Eastern. Condemned at
second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople 381
Nestorius
(Over emphasis of humanity of Christ) Also refused to call Mary "Theotokos" (Mother of God)
Antiochian influence= Western. Condemned at third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus 431.
Eutyches
(Over emphasized Co-mingling of human with Divine) Altogether new Hypostasis. Condemned at
fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon 451.

Constantinople 381

Constantinople like most ecumenical Councils was called for more than one reason and
usually for more than one "heresy." The second council of Constantinople would address the
position of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son as well as anathematize
Apollinaris's doctrine for it's over-emphasis of Christ' divine nature in Hypostasis with His
humanity.

Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390)


Apollinaris was a close friend of and influenced by Athanasius whose doctrine on the nature of the
Incarnation of the Word maintained that in the same way that God is immutable so is Logos (who is
homoousios with God) immutable so that the "Word" was made flesh without any taint of human
mutability. [Logos-sarx vs. Logos-anthropos]
This is the foundation of Apollinaris' doctrine. He was also a friend and anti-arian ally with
Basil the Great (333?-379)who died before the "controversy" which culminated at
Constantinople in 381.
The Cappadocian Bishop, Gregory of Nyssa (335-394+) the younger brother of Basil wrote
"Anti-rrheticus" against Apollinaris after Constantinople in 382-83 in which he refutes
Apollinaris' views on the pre-existent "humanity" of Christ.

There are strong scriptural grounds for most of Apollinaris' position even if not for all such as
his belief, like Origen in the pre-existence of souls. His was a just reaction against the true
heresy of Arianism which was so prolific in that period. Even today as the Church is
confronted with the modern day Arianism of the Jehovah Witness doctrine the Church per se
isolated compared to the late 4th century.

For the purpose of maintaining unity and holding that Nicaea was the full expression of the
Faith, Constantinople did not re-write Nicaea nor declare a new creed except for adding the
clause, "of whose kingdom there shall be no end".
In the end Apollinaris was condemned by Constantinople in spite of his strong stand against
Arianism and friendships with Athanasius and Basil.

Ephesus 431
The ecumenical council of Ephesus was called to address the doctrine of Nestorius, Bishop of
Constantinople and his followers who taught that Christ was a man inhabited by the Logos
and so had two separate and independent natures or Hypostasis. This meant that Mary was
the mother of a man inhabited by the Logos and could not be called "Mother of God" but
rather she should be called "Mother of Christ."

Nestorius over-emphasized the humanity of Christ at the expense of the Divine and since he
refused to call Mary, "Mother of God" he fell out of favor with the Alexandrian school who
held a more Apollanarian Christology. Antiochian (west) influence against Alexandrian (east).

Since his writings are not extant we must base our understanding of his theology fromthe
history of this Council and the documents preserved from it.

Pope Leo appointed Cyril of Alexandria President of the Ephesian council and Cyril had the
Alexandrian (Eastern) disposition to oppose any definition that would over emphasizea
human nature. His letters to Nestorius show a clear "high " view of Christology with
Apollinarian overtones.
"...since, for us and for our salvation, he (Christ) personally united to himself an human
body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for
he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down
and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure
a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account
we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own
nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature
is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had
become his own body suffered in this way, lie is also said to suffer for us; for he who is
in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, an union of persons; for
the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that
he was made flesh. This expression, however, "the Word was made flesh," can mean
nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his
own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his
generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he
was.

Now this is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox
Bishops, both East and West, agree:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible,
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father,
that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very
God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things
were made, both those in heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our
salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, and rose
again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to judge
both the quick and tile dead. And in the Holy Ghost: But those that say, There was a
time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made
of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence;
and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration1; those the Catholic and
Apostolic Church anathematizes."

"But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the
holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man; for although the Word
tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ "dwelt all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily"; but we understand that be became flesh, not just as he is said to
dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to

1 Thus affirming the Fathers firm belief in Christs impeccability or immutability


equality. But being made and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such
a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body."

(Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 14, Council of Ephesus, "The XII
Anathematisms of St. Cyril against Nestorius.")
Chalcedon 451
In 451 the Council of Chalcedon was called to address the teaching of Eutyches and his
Bishop Discorus (Bishop of Alexandria after Cyril) who supported him.

Eutyches taught that Christ's humanity was absorbed by the Logos and was in fact a new
Hypostasis, neither fully divine nor man, but flesh made God, in opposition to God made
flesh. This would result in Christ having only one nature, the flesh having been transformed
into something other than human.

His declaration of faith was;

"After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature-the nature of God Who
took on flesh and became man"; "I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before
[their] union, and after [their] union I confess one nature."

He boldly proclaimed;

"He Who was born of the Virgin Mary is perfect God and perfect man, but does not
have flesh which is consubstantial with ours."

In 448 He was condemned but managed to have a new hearing in 449 because of his influence
with the Emperor Theodosius. This Council became known as the "Robbers Council" because
it was composed entirely of Eutyches's supporters who overturned his condemnation and
reinstated him as an Orthodox Priest of the Church. This only lasted until the death of
Theodosius in 450 when the change of government to Marcian a true Orthodox believer who
called for a new council. This was the Chalcedonian Council, convened in the year 451.

The Chalcedonian declaration

1) "Therefore, following the Holy Fathers, we all with one consent teach men to confess
one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, the same complete in Godhead and also
complete in manhood."

2) True God, and at the same time true man, of a reasonable soul and body.

3) He is consubstantial with the Father, according to His Godhead, and consubstantial


with us according to His manhood – in all things like unto us, apart from sin,

4) He is begotten of the Father both before all worlds, according to His Godhead, and
also in these latter days, on account of us and our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, the
God-bearer, according to His manhood.

5) One and the same Christ, Lord, only begotten, is to be acknowledged in two natures,
but these natures must not be confused. And they are natures without any change,
without division, without separation.

6) The distinction of natures, being in no way annulled by the union, the characteristic
of each nature being presented and coming together to form a person and a substance.
It is not parted nor is it divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only
begotten God. . . . the Lord Jesus Christ.

The result of Chalcedon is summed up by Robert L. Reymond;

In A.D. 451, as a response to the Robber Council of A.D. 449, the Emperor Marcian
convoked the Council of Chalcedon. (Chalcedon) argued against the Docetist that Christ
was "perfect in manness," against Paul of Samosata that the Logos was 'begotten of the
Father before the ages' and had a "personal subsistence," against the Sabellians that the
Son and the Father are distinct persons, against the Arians that the Lord was "perfect deity,
truly God, and consubstantial with the Father," against Apollinarius "that Jesus had a
rational soul that is a spirit," against Nestorius that Mary was theotokos, and Christ is one
divine person "not parted or divided" and "whose natures are in union," and against the
Eutychians that "in Christ were two natures without confusion and without change, the
property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person."
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1998/Satisfaction and Chalcedonian Christology by
© Mark J. Peterson-Quodlibet Journal: Volume 2 Number 4, Fall 2000

The next Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 affirmed all the previous
Councilar judgements in their condemnation's with the addition of Origen who previously
had been held in high esteem as an opponent of heresy.

"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris,


Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other
heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally
anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in
holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be
anathema."

The Doctrine
"... but as regards the holiness of His Spirit was decisively proved by His Resurrection to be
the Son of God. (Romans 1:4)

"the Prince of this world is coming. And yet in me he has nothing; but it is in order that the
world may know that I love the Father, and that it is in obedience to the command which the
Father gave me that I thus act." (John 14:30-31)

I want to state right off that this is a study that I think will necessarily be ongoing for as long
as Christ's return is delayed since each succesive generation must study the theology of
Christianity for itself and no matter how much we learn, He is more than we can know "in the
flesh" and whatever Jesus Christ was--(was uniquely declared to be the "monogenes" (one of a
kind) Son of God born of a virgin with no human father)--He was definitely not the "same" as
us other than in His flesh where He was made "like" us.. Those who need an exact replica of
humanity to pay the price of propitiation will not find that in Jesus Christ since there is no-
one and no thing ever born in such a manner or for such a purpose as He, said purpose
reaching far beyond earths boundary.

The history of theological debate on Christology orbits primarily around the following three
terms, Impeccability, Hypostasis and Kenosis. I will define and apply these terms to the
historical and on-going discussion of Christ's Nature.

1. Impeccability -pertaining to mutability and immutability, trope and atropetos.

Impeccability can be defined as "immutable sinlessness" "Jesus Christ, the same today,
yesterday, Forever!" and as such is the doctrine that even though Christ endured temptation
it was entirely impossible for Him to sin or to even be enticed by temptation. (John 14:30,
James 1:13b-14)

2. Hypostasis- Just what was Christ's Nature and what did it consist of?

Hypostatic Union is a theological term which describes the concept of Christ's divine and
human natures subsisting in one person. The greek word hypostasis is translated as "that
which stands beneath" and means "ground of being" or "foundation of existence" and was
adapted for use in the Orthodox Christological formula by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria in the
mid 400's.

3. Kenosis - meaning "to empty"


The Greek verb "ekenosen" and it's various tenses/derivatives has an early Christological
doctrine as well as a more modern usage. For the Orthodox the "Ekenosen" of Christ was His
obedience to His Fathers will and His leaving "glory" for flesh.

The trend in German theology in the late nineteenth century which asked the question "why
did Christ appear to be limited in His 'divinity' unless He was limited some fashion?" re-
focused and re-defined "Ekenosen" for contemporary theology. Phil. 2:6-8, Romans 8:3 and
John 1:14 all speak to this issue.

The question is; of what did He empty Himself and how was He limited?

The Impeccability of Christ

Impeccability is a theological term that, like the term Hypostatic Union is nowhere found in
scripture. Instead it is derived and exegated indirectly through other foundation doctrines of
a more certain nature. Following is a prime example;

"God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one. But each one is
tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires." James 1:13b-14

On the other hand we have the gospel accounts of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness;

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil...ff"
(Matt. 4:1-11)

The doctrine of impeccability states that not only that Christ could not sin, but He could not
be enticed or tempted to even consider sin since it would violate His divine nature to be able
to do so. Even though, when dwelling in "the flesh" of humanity He would necessarally suffer
as any human would in that he felt pain and sorrow and hunger and thirst, Christ was
nevertheless incapable of sin because as the Son of God, begotten by the Spirit, He always
kept His "un-created" nature-a nature exactly the same as (homoousios) God's nature, as such
He could only do as God would do, and since the definition of sin is doing "not" the will of
God, i.e. not doing what God would do, Jesus could not sin.

A difficulty is found in Heb. 4:15 and 2:14-17 where it seems that He Himself suffered
temptation in the same fashion as mankind. This would seem to mean that He must have had
the "choice" to sin when "tempted" since He was made in every respect like man (Hebrews
2:17-18.)
The reasoning is that since the "Perfect" man, Adam, who was created in an "Unfallen"
condition was able to sin, then Jesus must also have been able to choose to sin (even though
He did not), as Adam did.
Additionaly there is the thesis that if Christ did not share our tendency to sin He would not
be qualified to be the substitute for our condemnation.

This ignores the mutually exclusive characteristics of human mutability (trope) and Divine
immutability (atropetos). When viewed from this perspective it is easily seen that Jesus as the
"Word" of God, eternally pre-existant would also be eternally immutable or unchangeable
and that being God Himself He would only choose as God.

While Adam was formed in the image of God, he did not possess the 'substance' of God
within himself, as Christ did. In other words man was created with his own nature, a nature
of "createdness and mutability", a unique nature in the "image of " but different from God's,
since to be created, by it's very nature precludes one from sharing in the "un-created and
immutable substance" as God, (and Jesus as God)
Since man cannot share in Jesus' "un-createdness or His immutability" being a created being-
though created perfect,manhas his own volition or attribute of choice which choose other
than His Creators will.
It should be noted that Adam was, unlike his progeny, sinless and uncorrupted at this time.
His will was unblemished and unshackled. In other words Adam had in human terms, a true
free will, free from sin and slavery to his flesh until he chose sin by choosing to listen to Satan,
this was when sin and death for man was conceived James 1:14.

And finally, the fact that Christ was confronted with the enticements of Satan in the
wilderness, does not infer that He was in fact "tempted" within Himself to succumb to the
enticements, it is just a statement of fact that Satan attempted to entice Him to do so.
When we see Jesus confronting temptation we see Him immediately rebuking the "tempter",
never considering the possibility of not doing His Father's will. And in the garden, when we
see Him agonising over the trial ahead, not the brutalization by men but the spiritual
corruption He was about to "become" (2 Cor. 5:21) and subsequent rejection by His Father,
though momentary this was the true test of His unwavering submission to His Father's will.

Another and more orthodox interpretation of these events is that as the annointed sin-bearer,
Christ was "driven" out into the wilderness to be tried by Satan as proof of His qualification
as the perfect sacrifice for man's redemption in that He could not be tempted and in fact that
Christ triumphed in every way over Satan then as well as in every further attempt to prevent
Him from accomplishing His purpose.
Hypostasis-What does it mean?

"And for this purpose it was necessary that in all respects He should be made to
resemble His brothers, so that He might become a compassionate and faithful High
Priest in things relating to God, in order to atone for the sins of the people. For
inasmuch as He has Himself felt the pain of temptation and trial, He is also able
instantly to help those who are tempted and tried" Heb.2:17-18. Weymouth

The Hypostatic Union of Christ was formalized at Chalcedon in reaction to a horde of


theories about the nature of Jesus Christ. The mystical tendencies of eastern christologies
clashed with the more greek influenced philosophic western theologians which caused some
(on both sides) to be declared heretics when in fact they were merely struggling for
understanding. At Chalcedon the west won out with the following;

The Chalcedonian declaration

1) "Therefore, following the Holy Fathers, we all with one consent teach men to confess
one and the same Son of God, Jesus Christ, the same complete in Godhead and also
complete in manhood."

2) True God, and at the same time true man, of a reasonable soul and body.

3) He is consubstantial with the Father, according to His Godhead, and consubstantial


with us according to His manhood – in all things like unto us, apart from sin,

4) He is begotten of the Father both before all worlds, according to His Godhead, and
also in these latter days, on account of us and our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, the
God-bearer, according to His manhood.

5) One and the same Christ, Lord, only begotten, is to be acknowledged in two natures,
but these natures must not be confused. And they are natures without any change,
without division, without separation.

6) The distinction of natures, being in no way annulled by the union, the characteristic
of each nature being presented and coming together to form a person and a substance.
It is not parted nor is it divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only
begotten God. . . . the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since the Reformation the Orthodox tradition has carried Chalcedon as the definition of
Christology as evidenced by Dr. James Boyce in the nineteenth century in his refutation of
Apollinaris;

"...we might press the arguments of the ancients against Apollinaris and his followers;
as, how can the Scripture he justified in calling Christ a man and in representing his
humanity as a qualification for his work of righteousness and atonement, if he had but
a human body only? Does the body alone constitute humanity? If the body alone
suffered, how then are the souls of men healed?...Was it the body only of mankind that
had sinned and was condemned, and did the soul need no redemption?" Further he
writes; What then gave occasion and power to the tempter in the wilderness except the
bodily desire arising from the previous forty day fast? ...In his temptation, too, what
was tempted by his bodily hunger? Was it God? Was it the divine nature which had
taken the place of a human soul? The apostle James declares (1:13, 14) "God cannot be
tempted with evil." In the face of a declaration so positive, and so unqualified--written,
too, after the temptation of Christ, and with a full knowledge of all its facts--we must
believe that the intellectual and spiritual nature of Christ then tempted was not divine,
and, therefore, must be human.
*Rev. James Petigru Boyce, D. D., LL. D., Joseph-Emerson-Brown Professor of
Systematic Theology Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Published 1887

A more modern Reformed view is voiced by Wayne Grudem;

"When we examine the New Testament, as we did in the sections on Jesus' Deity and
Humanity, there are several passages that seem difficult to fit together How could
Jesus be omnipotent and yet weak?.......How could He learn things yet be omniscient?
As the Church struggled to undertand these (things) it finally came up with the
Chalcedon definition, which spoke of two distinct natures in Christ that retain their
own properties yet remain together in one person."

A little further he writes;

"At this point someone may object that if we say that Jesus had two centers of
conciousness and two wills, that requires that He was two distinct persons, and we
have really fallen into the error of Nestorism. But in response, it must simply be
affirmed that two wills and two centers of conciousness do not require that Jesus be
two persons. It is mere assertion without proof to say so." Wayne Grudem; "Systematic
Theology"
As these arguments show, if the doctrine of Christ's Hypostatic Union are taken to the
extreme limit the consequence is that they refute and nullify the doctrine of Christ's
impeccability.

When Dr. Boyce asks "What then gave occasion and power to the tempter in the wilderness
except the bodily desire arising from the previous forty day fast?" and "... what was tempted
by his bodily hunger?", he compromises the impeccability of Christ. In the same section
where he quotes James and states that "God cannot be tempted with evil" he insists that Jesus
Christ as man must have been able to be tempted.

If this is the case then the doctrine of Impeccability must be modified to state that "while
Christ could have sinned as a man, He did not through the power of the Holy Spirit, thus
remaining spotless and 'Impeccable' before God."
But even this does not answer how Jesus being God could be tempted. For one to tempt
another is far different from actually being tempted. For sin to be appealing to one, one must
have a base nature or else like Adam before his fall a nature "not identical with" God's
(Homo-Ousias).

Impeccability denies that Christ has either a base nature or an unfallen nature not identical
with God's. Whether intentional or not, to insist on the accepted formula of Jesus' hypostatic
union violates His impeccability. Conversely, the doctrine of Impeccability requires by it's
very nature an adjustment to the extreme interpretation of the "Hypostatic Union" of Christ
since "Impeccability" means that even though attempts were made by Satan to tempt Him,
and the restrictions and feebleness of human flesh meant He felt pain and sorrow and hunger
and thirst, Christ was nevertheless incapable of sin, since this would violate the Holy Nature
or Substance which He Shares with the Triune Godhead - a nature incapable of violating it's
own holiness.

The words Kenosis and Likeness

Phil. 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3 both speak to the nature of Christ's incarnation.

In the clause in Phil. 2:7-8 "being made in the likeness of men" or "schemati eurethei' O'
anthropos" word "schemati" to the design or model of humanity. A schematic is a visible
representation and design of a "thing" and so when the Apostle say's Christ came in the
"schemati" of "anthropos" he is saying that Christ came in the "likeness" of man. This is
emphasized in Verse eight;
"And being found in outward guise as man, He stooped very low, having become
obedient (to God the Father) to the extent of death, even such a death as that on a
cross."(Wuest translation)

The NASB reads "being found in the appearance as a man" and is clearly the same as meaning
"in outward form" or "guise" of a man.

*Note: The word "schemati" above is derived from Hort & Westcott who base their text on the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Texts and is generally believed to be the most authoritive. The
Alexandrian, Byzantine and Textus Receptus all omit the clause "in the likeness of man" but
use the word "Homoimati" or homoioma in Strongs, for "form" of servant, a word with
essentially the same meaning but some additional connotations

Romans 8:3;
" For what was impossible to the Law--powerless as it was because it acted through
frail humanity--God effected. Sending His own Son in a body like that of sinful
human nature as a sacrifice for sin, He pronounced sentence upon sin in human
nature;" (Weymouth)

In other translations this phrase is "in the likeness of sinful flesh", but unlike "Schemati" in
Phil. 2:7, the word translated "Likeness" here is "homoi-mati" from the word from the root
"homoi" which is translated as "similar" and "representation" rather than "same or homo".

This is the same word used in the Septuagint in Gen. 1:26 where it is written " And God said,
"let us make man in Our image and Our likeness" where man is made in the "likeness" of God
but is nevertheless only "similar" to God and as "the representative of God" on earth, bearing
authority and dominion as caretakers in the Name of God as the subsequent verses in the text
make clear in the Divine mandate. Therefore, the phrase "en homoiomati sarkos hamartias"
means that Christ was sent in a body similar to (homoi) rather than identical (homo) with
sinful flesh (sarkos hamartias), which we should expect in light of the miraculous nature of
His conception.

A further exegesis could state that as man was created as God's representative (homoiomati)
on earth, so Christ became man's representative on earth and in heaven.

Synthesis of Conflicts

The questions before us are


1) just what is meant by the hypostatic union? And
2) how does an extreme or overarching interpretation of Chalcedon's formulation modify the
doctrine of Impeccability?

Does it mean that Jesus was the incarnation of God as Logos, or does it mean that the man
Jesus was inhabited by the Logos? In other words was Jesus God come in the flesh or God
indwelling the man Jesus with a human soul and spirit that was subject to human passions
along with human susceptibilities?

The former is in complete compatibility with impeccability while the second violates His
impeccability.

While it is clear that Christ came in the flesh, it is not so clear that Christ, God's Annointed,
Only Begotten-"One of a Kind" Son, inhabited a typical human body with a separate human
soul and spirit.

From the start He was atypical, concieved by the Holy Spirit, born of a Virgin under the
shadow and protection of the Holy Spirit. (Lk. 1:35)
We are told little of His youth, but there are hints of His special uniqueness in the narrative of
His visit to Jerusalem at age 12, where by His own declaration He was about His Father's
business, and also by the mysterious statement that His mother "kept these things hid in her
heart." Luke 2:48, 51.

From His baptism, the descension of the Holy Spirit, and the Heavenly annunciations at both
His baptism and "the transfiguration", as well as every other moment of His manifestation on
earth, His uniqueness is constantly demonstrated. Yes He came in the flesh, but in the flesh
He was the "visible representation of the invisible God", (Col. 1:15) and the One in Whom "all
the fulness of God's dwells bodily". (Col. 2:9)
Even His baptism is an insrutable act in light of His sinlessness. This act is strikingly similar
to passing the sins of the people onto the "scapegoat" before sending it out into the
wilderness, symbolically carrying the sins of the people away.

The following verses sum up the sinlessness and impeccability of Christ while showing how
He nevertheless could suffer as the One who was made into all the sin of which man was
guilty, bearing it in His flesh to the cross and that having fully obeyed His Father and having
completed that work, He has taken His place as our High Priest and Heavenly Mediator with
His Father on our behalf.
"Since then the children referred to are all alike sharers in perishable human nature, He
Himself also, in the same way, took on Him a share of it, in order that through death
He might render powerless him who had authority over death, that is, the Devil, and
might set at liberty all those who through fear of death had been subject to lifelong
slavery." Hebrews 2:14

And;

"He has made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us, in order that in Him we may
become the righteousness of God." and "Although He was God's Son, yet He learned
obedience from the sufferings which He endured; and so, having been made perfect
(having completed the work), He became to all who obey Him the source and giver of
eternal salvation." 2 Cor. 5:21 and Heb. 5:9

When Dr. Boyce refutes Apollinaris he askes the questions "If the body alone suffered, how
then are the souls of men healed? ...Was it the body only of mankind that had sinned and was
condemned, and did the soul need no redemption?" The answer is clearly that the
"Impeccable" sinless Christ, provided the "more perfect" sacrifice and taking on flesh tasted
death for every .

" He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, seeing that
He ever lives to plead for them.
Moreover we needed just such a High Priest as this--holy, guileless, undefiled, far
removed from sinful men and exalted above the heavens;" Heb. 7:25-26

And again in Hebrews 9:11-14 (Wuest Translation)

"But Messiah having appeared on the scene, a High Priest of good things, through the
instrumentality of the greater and more complete tent(tabernacle) not made by hands,
that is to say, not of this creation, nor even through the intermediate instrumentality of
the blood of goats and calves, but through that blood of His own, He entered once for
all into the Holy of Holies, having found and procured eternal redemption. For if, as is
the case, the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling those who
are in a state of (ceremonial) uncleaness, set that person apart with reference to the
purity of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Messiah, who by virtue of
the intermediate instrumentality of His (Eternal) Spirit (His Divine essence as deity,
thus by His own volition as a member of the Godhead) offered Himself spotless to
God, purge our conscience from dead works to the serving of the living God."
The answer then to "What then gave occasion and power to the tempter in the wilderness
except the bodily desire arising from the previous forty day fast?" is that Satan or his
enticements had no power over Christ in the wilderness. Far from it for it is clear from
scripture that Christ triumphed over Satan in every way and at evey turn, thereby "proving"
His election by God as sinbearer and Son.

Romans 8:3; " For what was impossible to the Law--powerless as it was because it acted
through frail humanity--God effected. Sending His own Son in a body like that of sinful
human nature as a sacrifice for sin, He pronounced sentence upon sin in human nature;"
(Weymouth)

This verse also speaks to the "Ekenosen" or Christ's "emptying" Himself.

As demonstrated "homoi-marti" is the same word used in the Septuagint in Gen. 1:26 where it
is written " And God said, "let us make man in Our image and Our likeness" and here is used
to describe the sorry condition and poor position The Lord poured Himself into as He
"emptied" Himself of His glory thereby showing that Christ came as God in flesh, (in a body)
man's representative for judgement.

A Scriptural Portrait of Jesus the Christ and Son of God

1. He came in the flesh;


"And the Word came in the flesh, and lived for a time in our midst (tabernacled with us), so
that we saw His glory--the glory as of the Father's only Son, sent from His presence. He was
full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The test by which you may recognize the Spirit of God is that every spirit which
acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come 'In flesh' is from God, and that no spirit is from God
which does not acknowledge this about Jesus. Such is the spirit of the anti-Christ; of whose
coming you have heard, and it is already in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)

2. He possessed the fullness of God's nature which dwelt within Christ (the monogenes', one
of a kind Son of God) as the "visible representation of the invisible God" during His earthly
ministry as stated in Col. 2:9-10 and 1:15 and seen in His Transfiguration where His glory was
witnessed and attested to in Matt.17:2, Mk. 9:2, Lk. 9:29, John 1:14 and 2 Peter 1:16:17.
3. He possessed the nature of eternality, immutability and un-createdness and even though
He was God, being in the "form of God from the beginning" (morphen Theos en) because of
God's love for us (John 3:16), He was obedient to God's will and willingly vacated His exalted
position and "emptied"* Himself (ekenosen), by taking on the "form of a servant" (morphen
doulous) and being made into the "likeness"(schemati) of humanity for the purpose of
reconciling mankind to Himself through the Cross. The perfect offering acceptable to God as
ransom for the iniquity of the world. : Acts 3:13, Phil. 2:6-7, 1 Tim. 2:5-6, Heb. 2:14-18, 7:26-27
*Compare with 2 Corinthians 8:9- "although rich Christ became poor in order that you may
become rich through Christ's poverty."

Scripture References Used in Thesis & Research

Genesis 1:26
Isaiah 53:3-5
Matt. 4:1-11, 17:2
Mark 9:2
Luke 1:35, 2:48,51, 9:29
John 1:14, 14:30, 8:44-46
Acts 3:13
Romans 8:3
2 Cor. 5:21, 8:9
Phil. 2:6-8
Col. 1:15, 2:9
1 Tim. 2:5-6
Hebrews , 2:14-18, 2:25-27,4:15, 5:9, 9:11-14
James 1:13b-14
1 John 4:2-3
2 Peter 1:16:17

You might also like