The
Creator-creature Distinction in the Incarnation
A.
The Incomprehensibility of the God-man
It is at
once apparent that any attempt at comprehending the fullness of the
Creator-creature distinction in the incarnation be utter failure on the part of
the creature. The creature, in his finite limited faculties, attempts the
impossible, to fathom the being of the Creator, in all His infinite unlimited
faculties. There is suddenly a chasm so great that the intellectual spiritual
mind must bow in humble adoration to his Maker. None can fathom Him, none can
define Him, nor can any encapsulate Him in His fullness. He is as the Bible
describes Him, incomprehensible (Job 38-41; Isa. 40:13-31; Rom.
B.
The Necessity of Adopting Biblical Presuppositions
What
is a presupposition? A presupposition is your most basic fundamental beliefs.
It is the basic worldview that lies behind one’s axioms or premises from which
he reasons further. No individual is free of presuppositions. They are like
baggage that every individual possesses and inevitably reveals in conversation.
Presuppositions run so deep and are so fundamental that, if one is logical to
his presuppositions, they determine from the start one’s conclusions. Where we
start determines and colors everything we believe. Thus, it is not surprising
that the Bible exhorts believers to structure our basic presuppositions
according to Christ rather than the elementary principles of the world.
Colossians 2:8 strongly warns believers to avoid setting their categories
according to human tradition and the natural world, and exhorts the believer to
set his presuppositions according to Christ.
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy
and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the
elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
The elementary principles of the world
are the stoichea or basic categories
or principles. In the day of Paul the basic categories inherited from the Greek
culture were earth, water, air, and fire, and would have been understood as
such. The basic categories today, in our supposedly advanced technological
society, are no different from the ancient categories; solid (earth), liquid
(water), gas (air), and vapor (fire). Paul warns us to not be taken captive by
these false categories! There are, therefore, ultimately only two ways a human
can structure the world around him. He can structure categories according to
nature and the traditions of men or he can structure categories according to
Christ. As Bible believing Christians we need to be aware of the far-reaching
consequences of our presuppositions. The Bible provides basic presuppositions
which are contrary to the depraved mind’s imagination. The Bible exhorts
believers to structure their basic categories or presuppositions according to
Christ and Christ alone. Why? Because out of one’s basic presuppositions comes
his basic view of reality.
C.
Two Basic Views of Reality
Many
people believe that there are hundreds of worldviews, any of which, one may
choose and adhere to. They are thought to be fundamentally different,
fundamentally equal, and fundamentally subjective. In a detailed analysis of
the various worldviews in respect to creation, there results a striking
observation. That observation being; all
worldviews, outside of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, perceive ‘all of
reality’ as existing on one level only. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,
see ‘all of reality’ as existing on two levels. Therefore, there are
fundamentally two categories of worldviews. Every worldview will fit into
either of these categories (i.e. there are no other views). For ease of
discussion we will call these two basic worldviews Divine View Point (DVP) and
Human View Point (HVP). Figure 1 illustrates.
DVP HVP
Christianity Hinduism
Judaism Buddhism
Islam Confucianism
Zoroastrianism
Atheism
Agnosticism
Naturalism
Taoism
Figure
One: In respect to creation, there are only
two possible worldviews. DVP posits that all reality exists on two levels, the
Creator and His creation. HVP posits that all reality exists on one level,
creation.
Paganism (HVP) teaches that there is only
one level of reality. The pagan view of one level of reality resulted from
a distortion of Biblical truth. The one level view of reality (as portrayed in
Figure 2 below) is a presupposition accepted by most men. Most men throughout
history knew this view as the Chain or Continuity of Being. The modern
evolutionary worldview, formally introduced by Charles Darwin (1850, Origin of Species), is the modern day
form of this doctrine. Contrary to popular belief, Charles Darwin’s theory is
not a modern view, but rather a ‘dressed up’ ancient idea. By way of proof,
note the quote by Henry Fairfield Osborne, director of the
When I began the search for anticipation of the
evolutionary theory…I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and
basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated as far back as the
seventh century, B. C.[1]
The “basic features” Dr. Osborne is
referring to is the one-level view of all reality. What Dr. Osborne discovered
is that the Doctrine of the Chain of Being formed the mental furniture for all
of the great pagan thinkers of the past (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Marcus
Aurelius, etc…). The doctrine teaches that all of life, including God, man,
animals, plants, rocks, etc… are linked in a chain of life, as pictured below.
God
Man
Animals
Plants
Rocks
Figure
Two: For centuries paganism has viewed ‘all
of reality’ as existing on one level or plain. The distinctions between
the different aspects of reality are suppressed,
while the relationships between different aspects of reality are imagined. All things are ‘boxed in’
indicating limitation and gradations.
The Chain of Being doctrine claims that
the differences in the particulars of reality are merely quantitative. Different aspects of reality are not seen as wholly
different ‘kinds’, but rather are seen as ‘gradations’ on a scale of being.
God, if He exists, is perceived merely as being a superhuman, or a being with a
super high IQ, but He is certainly not perceived as being wholly other. This
false concept colors the unbeliever’s entire approach to reality. For example,
a pagan attack on the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible presupposes this
false view of God in relation to His creation. They reason that if God is
merely a step higher on the evolutionary scale then it logically follows that
the human authors, being fallible, must have introduced errors and prejudice
into the Bible. It also colors their political views, economic views,
philosophic views, and logical reasoning processes. In fact, it colors their
entire view of reality. When it comes to sharing who Jesus is, they interpret
Jesus out of this pagan framework, resulting in the view that Jesus was just
another man, or, at best, deified humanity.
The Bible (DVP) teaches that there are two
levels of reality. The Biblical viewpoint (DVP) preceded the pagan view
historically, but the carnal mind distorted this truth into the pagan HVP
spoken of previously. The Bible makes clear that there are two levels of
reality, the Creator and His creation (Figure 3).
Creator
creation
Figure
Three: This diagram represents the
two level view of reality as presented in the Bible (Gen. 1:1; Job 38-41). The
Creator is symbolized by an open box, indicating His unlimited nature. The
creation is symbolized by a closed box, indicating physical, mental, and
spiritual limitations.
In the DVP, the Creator is outside of and
wholly other than His creation. He alone is self-contained and independent. He
can also transcend His creation at will. This is precisely what happened in the
incarnation. This view was later distorted by the pagan mind which is at enmity
with God (
This truth
of the Creator-creature distinction provides further implications in respect to
the relationship between the Creator and His creation. There are no areas
in which the Creator’s qualities overlap with the creature’s qualities. Creature
qualities are never identical to Creator qualities, rather they are analogous
to Creator qualities. For example; God is Sovereign, and man has choice, God is
omniscient, and man has limited knowledge, God is omnipresent, and man is
localized, God is omnipotent, and man has energy. Figure 4 outlines the vast
differences between Creator qualities and creature qualities.
Creator
Qualities creature
qualities
Sovereign C choice
Righteous conscience
Just H moral
judgement
Loving love
Omniscient A knowledge
Omnipresent localized
Omnipotent S energy
Immutable mutable
Eternal M temporal
Figure
Four: The creature has qualities that are
analogous to, but not identical to Creator Qualities. The creature qualities
are derivative of the Creator Qualities, but are merely a dim reflection. The
DVP sees the Creator and creation as separated by a vast unbridgeable chasm.
The Creator cannot be blended or mixed
with His creation as the HVP mythological stories attempt to do. In DVP, the
categories are not blurred, but are distinct. God is not the creation, and the
creation is not God.
These
two views form the basic presuppositions which one comes with when evaluating
the Person of Christ. Is Jesus Christ the Creator? Surely the Scriptures
proclaim this fact undoubtedly (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2). Is Jesus
Christ a creature? The Scriptures proclaim this fact undoubtedly as well (Gen.
3:15; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matt.
D.
Historical Development of the Hypostatic
Several
heresies have arisen as to the person of the incarnate Christ. By definition a hypostasis is two natures residing in
one person. Each of the following heresies was attempted during the period of
the early church. Each heresy was also condemned at different Councils or
Synod’s during the churches attempt to systematize the Biblical doctrine of
Christ. It took the church 400 years to meander their way to a proper
understanding of Christ. Though many men attempted to put all the Scriptural
data together into a coherent whole, it did not happen until the Council of
Chalcedon in 451AD. The time and difficulty required by previous men’s attempts
at understanding the God-Man should alert the student to remain cautious when undertaking
such a study. With that said, we will embark on the early heretical views only
to realize that they have often been resurrected in later history under new
terminology. The primary views to be presented are; Modal Monarchianism,
Dynamic Monarchianism, Docetism, Ebionism, Arianism, Apollinarianism,
Nestorianism, and Eutychianism (i.e. Monophysitism), and Monolethitism.
Modal
Monarchianism was founded by Sabellius (c. 200AD). Sabellius reasoned that
since God is one then He cannot be three at the same time. Thus, God could only
manifest Himself in one of the three forms at any given time. The word Modal indicated that God manifested
Himself in three different modes, namely, the Father, the Son, or the Holy
Spirit. The word Monarchianism
indicates that God is one. Thus, Modal Monarchianism teaches that God, at
various times manifested Himself in each of the three persons. This was the
first major denial of the triunity. While Sabellianism was more popular in the
east, another similar heresy called Patripassianism was more popular in the
west. Patripassianism taught that the Father was crucified rather than the Son.
In modern times the “local church” of Witness Lee held to a form of this
ancient heresy.
Dynamic
Monarchianism, mainly represented by Paul of Samosata,
teaches a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, the Father being
truly God and the Son being less than God. They reasoned that since God was in
one person then both the Father and the Son could not be this same person.
Thus, they concluded that the Father was the real God and the Son was a mere
man. They claimed that the Son was born of a virgin and upon receiving John’s
baptism He received a divine power called Christ. Modern day Liberalism and
Unitarianism hold to a modern form of Dynamic Monarchianism.
Docetism
was taught during the latter half of the first century by Marcion
and the Gnostics. Marcion and the Gnostics believed
that the material part of man was inherently evil, while the immaterial part of
man was good. Reasoning from this presupposition, they taught that Christ only
appeared to be a man. Docetism attempted to see physical history and the true
humanity of Christ as mere illusions. This heresy denied the true humanity of
Christ while accepting His deity. Those who are Extreme Calvinists tend to
downplay the importance of history, thus leaning toward a modern form of this
ancient heresy.
Arianism
was developed by Arius in the 4th century. Arius transferred the
Greek philosophy of the Ideal to Christ. By doing so he logically concluded
that nothing truly perfect could enter into the physical realm. Thus, Christ
could not have been undiminished deity. Arianism purported that the phrases
“first born of all creation” and “only begotten”, as applied to the Son, meant
that Jesus was “created”. The Arian heresy taught that the Sons subordination
to the Father was one of essence. This teaching gained much popularity
in its day and has recapitulated in the modern Jehovah’s Witness cult.
Apollinarianism
mingled the natures of Christ denying the Creator-creature distinction. Apollinarius taught that Christ had a human body and a
human soul, but that He did not have a human spirit. This arose because of his
presupposition that the human spirit was the seat of sin. He taught that in
order for Christ to avoid sin He had to replace the human spirit with the
divine Logos. This heresy reduces the true humanity of Christ while affirming
His undiminished deity.
Nestorius
began his understanding of Jesus by questioning how the divine nature united
with the human nature after His humanity had already come into existence! By
doing so Nestorius presupposes a pre-established history which God somehow must
fit into. This caused Nestorianism to make such a sharp distinction between the
two natures of Christ that He ultimately became two distinct persons. The human
nature had the appearance of God, while the divine nature took on the form of a
servant. The result was Jesus. Thus, this heresy forces God to adhere to some
pre-established history causing the Biblical incarnation to be impossible.
Modern day Neo-Orthodox views of Christ are similar to the Nestorian heresy.
Eutychianism
(i.e. Monophysitism) swung in the opposite direction of Nestorianism claiming
that Christ had only “one nature”. Their basic view was that prior to the
incarnation the Son had two natures. Eutychianism taught that in the
incarnation the human nature and divine nature came together forming one new
nature. This new nature was neither divine nor human; rather it was a smearing
of the two natures into a new third nature. This heresy obviously denied the
Creator-creature distinction, the most fundamental truth in the Bible (Gen.
1:1). Modern attempts to claim that pagan oriental incarnations are parallel to
the incarnation of Christ are merely new forms of this ancient Monophysitist
heresy.
Each
of these heresies arose because of non-Biblical presuppositions that led to
heretical understandings of Christ. In essence each heresy presupposed a
non-Trinitarian system. The result was an imbalance in the relation of the
Divine nature to the human nature in Christ. This analysis should warn us all
of the following statement: if one starts
with non-Biblical presuppositions then he is doomed to come to the wrong
conclusion assuming he is consistent to those basic presuppositions. The
orthodox view of the person of Christ can only be reached by presupposing the
Triunity of God. The heretical views forced the church to continue
attempting to reconcile all the Biblical data referring to the person of
Christ. The Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, succeeded in formulating a creed that
states the orthodox view of the person of Christ. The creed declares Christ,
To be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly,
unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of the natures being in
no wise taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being
preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or
divided into two persons.[2]
In summary,
E.
Defining “Nature” and “Person”
A
definition of exactly what is meant by the terms “nature” and “person” are
necessary when attempting to understand the composition of Jesus Christ.
Berkhof has clarified the issue well,
The term “nature” denotes the sum-total of all the
essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a
substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a
substance. The term “person” denotes a complete substance, endowed with reason,
and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions…A person is a
nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality.[4]
Essentially, what Berkhof is
communicating is that prior to the incarnation, God the Son was a Person with a
divine nature. At the incarnation God the Son, took to Himself an additional
nature, a human nature. Jesus’ human nature had all the ‘essential qualities’
of a true human. Christ did not become a Person in the incarnation, but rather
the eternal Person took upon Himself a human nature. The divine nature of
Christ was unaffected in the incarnation. The relation of the nature to the
person is illustrated in Figure 5.
Person
nature
Figure
Five: The nature contains the necessary
components of humanity including consciousness and a will which are common to
all men. The person contains the nature, plus additional components such as
individuality and personality which differ among men.
The
human nature was not impersonal, but in-personal. Although a “nature” has no
existence on its own, this does not mean that the human nature is impersonal.
However, the human nature is not self-sustaining, thus it only became personal
when it came into constitution with the divine Son of God. The Christ took a
human nature to Himself resulting in the human nature being in-personal, that
is in the person, rather than impersonal (see Figure 5).
God
the Son had a divine nature from all eternity, but assumed a human nature in
time. In this truth we see how and when God came to dwell with man. For all eternity
God the Son was the Creator with a divine nature. This can be pictured as
follows:
Creator
(Divine nature)
In the incarnation, the Creator took to
Himself the human nature of a creature.
Creator
(Divine nature)
Creator
Creature creature
(human nature)
God the Son, in the incarnation, took to
Himself an additional nature that He did not have in eternity past. Chafer
notes this fact of history,
This [perfect humanity] He did not possess before, and it’s
addition to His eternal Deity has resulted in the God-man which Christ is.
Though His Deity is eternal, the humanity was gained in time. Therefore, the
theanthropic Person-destined to be such forever-began with the incarnation.[5]
Thus, the triunity of God has forever
been changed from that moment forward, not in terms of a subtraction, but in
terms of an addition for humanity’s sake. Christ today has glorified humanity.
He appears as a man (Ezekiel
F.
The Relationship of the Human and Divine Natures
When
the early church fathers determined that Christ was composed of two natures,
they necessarily questioned how these two natures were related to one another.
If the early fathers had rested the revelation of Christ on the revelation of
the Creator-creature distinction taught in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:1; Job
38-41; Isaiah 40:13-31) then they would have had no trouble formulating the
doctrine. However, many men rested on Greek philosophy and tradition when they
approached the question. The result, as discussed earlier, was that many
heretical views arose and subsisted for over 400 years. It is true that Christ,
at times, operated out of His humanity. It is equally true that Christ, at
times, acted out of His deity. However each act was an act of the Person and
not a “specific nature” alone. Furthermore, the qualities of one nature are
never transferred to the other nature, “both natures belong to the one person
without mixing the natures or dividing the person”.[6]
G.
Christ Demonstrated Creature Qualities
Jesus, though fully God, revealed His
humanity and full submission to God the Father in many respects. Jesus’ submission to the Father was not a
subordination of essence, but rather a submission of will. For Jesus came,
not to do His own will, but to do the will of the Father (Luke
In Jesus’
physical humanity He became thirsty (John
H.
Christ Demonstrated Creator Qualities
Christ
proclaimed and revealed that he possessed the same essence as the Father. Such
passages as John 10:30 portray this truth when Christ says, “I and the Father
are one essence.” And again in John 17:5 where Jesus says, “And now, glorify
Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee
before the world was.” The author of Hebrews claims that Christ, “is the
radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb. 1:3).
At moments during Christ’s ministry, His deity unmistakably flashes forth. His
miracles were primarily an attestation of His deity. Christ did not give up any
aspect of His deity in the incarnation, rather He is one with the Father in
essence. In the NT Christ displays all the attributes of God.
Christ
displayed sovereign authority as expressed in John 10:17-18,
17For this reason the
Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18No
one has taken it from Me, because I lay
it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority
to take it up again.
Christ
claimed perfect righteousness and justice as shown in the story where the
scribes and Pharisees accused a woman of adultery. Christ challenged those who
tested Him by claiming to be a righteous Judge. In John 8:7-11 He says,
14Even if I bear witness
of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am
going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going. 15You
people judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. 16But
even if I do judge, My judgement is true;
for I am not alone in it, but I and He who sent Me.
Christ felt a loving compassion
toward the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-22.
21And looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him, and said to
him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor,
and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.
Christ
displayed omniscience, that is, Christ knew all things actual and possible. In
Matt. 11:20-24, Christ presents an if-then scenario of history. How could
Christ do this if He were not omniscient?
21Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you,
Christ
displayed omnipotence in the fact that He forgave people their sins! The
Scriptures proclaim that no one but God can forgive sins, therefore, Christ
displayed His omnipotence and deity by proclaiming forgiveness of sin (Matt.
9:2)
And behold, they were bringing to Him a paralytic, lying on
a bed; and Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Take courage, My
son, your sins are forgiven.”
Christ
displayed omnipresence in both space and time as displayed in John 8:58. Here
Jesus picks up the OT eternal name of God, I AM, and applies it to Himself both
spatially and temporally.
Jesus
said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.”
The term “I AM” is a technical name of
God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. It is said to be the eternal name of God,
and it emphasizes ‘existence or being at that moment’. Thus, when Christ
applies this name to Himself, the implication is that at that very moment He is
spatially and temporally located before Abraham. Bible expositors cannot stop
merely at a claim of eternality. This claim encompasses much more than
eternality alone.
Christ
claimed immutability. Immutability means that His character never changes. If
Christ gave up some aspect of His divine nature in the incarnation then by
implication He is no longer immutable. A change in the divine nature of Christ
would have caused a change in His essence, thus the thing which claimed to be
God, could not be God. Christ claims immutability by claiming to be without sin
in John 8:45-46.
45But because I speak the
truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts Me of sin?
If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
Christ also claimed to be “The way the
truth and the life…” (John 14:6). If Christ spoke one error, then His essence
would no longer be immutable and Christ would be a mere man, unable to redeem
mankind.
Christ
claimed eternality. This means that Christ has always existed. This does not
mean that Jesus has always existed. Jesus is a human name and is applicable
only from the time of the incarnation forward. However, Christ is a divine name
and therefore, Christ has existed forever (John 1:1).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
The Logos pre-existed the creation, thus
making Him eternal and equal with God. However, in the incarnation Christ
claimed that equality with God was not a thing to be grasped! Thus, this brings
us to the nature of the kenosis, or
‘emptying’ of Christ. What did Christ ‘empty’ Himself of?
I. Kenosis of Christ
Kenosis is a
Greek word translated as “emptied’ in Philippians 2:5-8. Ryrie defines
perfectly what is meant by this word.
In the kenosis
Christ emptied Himself of retaining and exploiting His status in the Godhead
and took on humanity in order to die.[7]
Philippians
2:5-8 clearly portrays some type of subordination of Christ to God.
Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in
appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of
death, even death on a cross.
Contrary to popular heresy, Christ’s
subordination is not a subordination of essence. Christ gave up no aspect of
His divine essence. The emptying was
not a subtraction of deity, but rather an addition to Himself of four things.
Christ took to Himself, 1) the form of a bond-servant, 2) the likeness of men,
3) the appearance of a man, and 4) a humble obedience unto death. Other
expositors have rightly exclaimed that, “Christ merely surrendered the
independent exercise of some of his relative or transitive attributes”.[8]
In other words, He only exercised them when the Father willed Him to use them.
Christ gave a perfect example of how the Christian ought to subordinate his
will to the Spirit’s will in every area of life and at all times. In each of
the passages mentioned in this section Christ was revealing His deity and
operating out of that sphere of His Person within the will of the Father.
Figure 6 below illustrates Christ’s Creator qualities and His creature
qualities.
Creator
Qualities creature
qualities
Sovereign C choice
Righteous conscience
Just H moral
judgement
Loving love
Omniscient A knowledge
Omnipresent localized
Omnipotent S energy
Immutable mutable
Eternal M temporal
These observations show us how Jesus
Christ could be both Omniscient, and yet learn; how He could be both
Omnipotent, and tired; how he could be Omnipresent, yet localized; how He could
be Eternal, yet within time. These
mysteries are only solved when one properly recognizes that the
Creator-creature distinction applies even in the Person of Christ.
J.
Temptation of Christ
But what
about the temptation of Christ? How did Christ deal with temptation and from
what sphere? James 1:13 teaches us that God cannot be tempted, thus Christ
could surely not be tempted in His divine nature, He had to be tempted in His
human nature. The nature of Satan’s temptations came in the form of tempting
Jesus to utilize His divine nature to override His human nature in dealing with
temptation. However, Hebrews 4:15 militates against the idea that Christ ever
used His divine nature to overcome sin,
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.
Jesus conquered sin out of the sphere of
His humanity, just as we are exhorted to overcome sin. We certainly could not identify
with Christ if He got to cheat by using His divine nature to overcome sin. The
chasm that Christ came to bridge could not be bridged if Christ did not
overcome sin by His human nature. More so, the Scriptures teach clearly that
His divine nature could not even be tempted (James
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by
God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil,
and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Yet, in His human nature He could surely
be tempted just as we are. Respecting the fact that Christ was never tempted
from the avenue of the sin nature, which He did not possess due to the virgin
birth (Isaiah
If the human nature had been unsustained as in the case of
Adam by a divine nature, it is clear that the human nature of Christ might have
sinned. This possibility, however, is completely removed by the presence of the
divine nature.[9]
Of course, Christ did not sin, but His
way of dealing with sin was certainly not one of overriding the human nature
with the divine nature. Ryrie charges that Walvoord may have come to this
conclusion by his view that Christ had only one will.
If will is defined as the resulting moral decision as
Walvoord does, then the person of Christ always made only one moral decision;
hence one will. However, it seems to me that every single decision stemmed from
either the “will” of His divine nature or the “will” of His human nature or a
blending of both, making it proper to think of two “wills”.[10]
K.
Impeccability of Christ
The issue of
Christ’s sinlessness is not debated in conservative theological circles. The
issue that is questioned is whether Christ was ‘able not to sin’ or ‘not able
to sin’. The position that Christ was ‘able not to sin’ is known as
peccability, while the position that Christ was ‘not able to sin’ is known as
impeccability. The difference is that peccability emphasizes the ability of Christ to sin and
impeccability emphasizes the inability
of Christ to sin. I would agree with Ryrie on this point that Christ, in His
human nature, was peccable, but in His divine nature, was impeccable. As a
total person, Christ can only be seen as impeccable.
…there was a major difference between His humanity and
ours. He was “without sin.” He had no sin nature and He never committed a
single sin. Still that does not mean that His humanity was impeccable. It was
peccable, though it never knew sin. But the person of the God-man was
impeccable.[11]
Peccability seems to be a property of His
human nature while impeccability is a property of the Person as a whole.
L.
Conclusion
The
God-man is ultimately incomprehensible. A study of the data concerning Christ
rests on basic presuppositions that one carries. Therefore, one must structure
his categories according to Christ, as Paul exhorts in Col. 2:8. Any other
starting point causes a distortion of the God-man in some aspect. The
Creator-creature distinction remains intact in Christ Jesus. His Creator-hood
never mixed with His creature-hood. He operated out of both spheres defeating
sin out of His human sphere and dying a death of infinite value. He submitted
His will to the Fathers will in every aspect, even to point of death on a cross
(Isaiah 53:9). Christ was peccable in His human nature and impeccable in His
divine nature. As a total person Christ was nothing less than impeccable.
Helpful Christological Resources
Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology (Bath: The Bath Press, 1998), 305ff, 321-325.
Chafer, Louis Sperry, Systematic Theology: Vol. I (Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1993), 382-395.
Clough, Charles, A Framework for Basic Christian Doctrine:
Part V. Confrontation with the King (Lubbock Bible Church: 1980), 41-43.
Couch, Mal, Fundamentals of the Twenty-First Century (
Enns, Paul, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989),
227-229.
Ryrie, Charles C., Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 287-324.
Walvoord, John F., Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 112-122, 148ff.