HUMANITY OF CHRIST
SIGN UP GET FREE POWERPOINT BIBLE STUDY TEMPLATES AND FREE VIDEO FOOTAGE.
In our last study we found in the Scripture that the truth about the human nature of Christ. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh of the seed of David according to the flesh and was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin. In this study we will explore the tomes of manmade creeds on the question of Christ’s humanity and compare it with Scripture. First we will explore dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church as defined in the Catechism…
- Christ’s Humanity in the Catholic Catechism vs. the Bible
- Mariology and Immaculate Conception
To understand the Catholic creed on Christ’s humanity we need to review the creed of original sin.
“404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.”
Notice the Catechism teaches that all men are implicated in Adam’s sin. In other words they believe that original sin is a fallen state transmitted by propagation, it is a sin contracted not committed. They do not apply the Biblical standard that “sin is not charged where there is law” (Romans 5:13), so original sin is charged to all the descendants of Adam. However, Christ could not save us from sin if He was born with the sin of Adam.
This creates an unusual problem that requires an unusual solution. The Answer is the Immaculate Conception…of Christ? No, the immaculate conception of Mary; the earthly mother of Jesus.
“The Immaculate Conception
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135
Listen to this is commentary from newadvent.org.
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
The Bible says nothing about Mary being the second Eve…
“The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.[1]
“…was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin…”[2]
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.[3]
“…by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.”
The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin.[4]
The assertion made in this dogma is that Mary was granted a singular privilege and grace was exempt from original sin. Where is any of this taught in the Scriptures?
“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer.”[5]
The principal texts employed are…“ Genesis 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary.” [6]
Another Scripture used is…
Luke 1:28 “And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace! The Lord is with you. You are blessed among women!”
Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6.8) and Paul said he received grace (Romans 1:5). In Judges 5:24 we are told about Jael “Most blessed among women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. She is blessed among women in the tent.
CITATIONS: [1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm [2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.ht [3] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[4] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm [5] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm [6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
It would seem that Jael might have also qualified to be exempt from original sin. No, the Catholic dogma holds that Mary was unique…
”The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.[1]
In addition to Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 the Catechism employs Ephesian 1:3,4
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love“.[2]
The problem with using Ephesians 1:3, 4 is that the context applies those blessing to all believers. If we are true to the passage, we can all claim Immaculate Conception. However, the passage speaks nothing about original sin, Mary or the Immaculate Conception.
CITATIONS: [1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm [2] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
In other words, if all the disruption of the transmission of original sin through Mary’s Immaculate Conception was not sufficient to keep Him from sinning Christ’s divinity so completely subjected His humanity to His divinity that His body served as an instrument. This comes close to Docetism which teaches that Christ appeared to be human but was in reality spirit.
“His humanity appeared as “sacrament“, that is, the sign and instrument, of his divinity and of the salvation he brings: what was visible in his earthly life leads to the invisible mystery of his divine sonship and redemptive mission”
Christ’s human body is presented like a sterile & asceptic puppet in the hand of a flawless performer and Mary is like Eve before the fall.
Is the Catholic view consistent with what is written in Scripture?
Heb 2:14 Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might cause to cease the one having the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:16 For indeed He does not take hold of angels, “but He takes hold of” “the seed of Abraham.” Isa. 41:8, 9 Heb 2:17 For this reason He ought by all means to become like His brothers, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things respecting God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of His people.
The Evangelical Protestant view has no doctrine about the Immaculate Conception of Mary, however the majority teaches the impeccability of Christ and a small minority teach that Christ was peccable.
This is an answer from GotQuestions.org regarding the question, “Could Jesus have sinned?”
Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.
Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning.”[1]
The truth is that, not only is God incapable of sinning, He cannot be tempted: “For God is not tempted by evils, and He tempts no one. (James 1:3). They assert that because of Christ’s divinity He could not sin, but if His divinity prevent Him from sinning it had to also prevent Him from being tempted. Yet Christ “was in all points tempted just as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb 4:15). Clearly Christ’s divine nature did not constantly run interference with His human nature. After the incarnation He really did become the Son of Man which means He was made “a little lower than the angels” (See Hebrews 2:8,9 & Psalm 8:4,5)
Human nature, whether unfallen or fallen can be tempted, but the verse does not say that Christ was tempted in all points as Adam before the fall, it says He was tempted in all points as we are…”we” in fallen nature, tempted as we are not as Adam was.
Furthermore He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3). The seed of David is fallen, not unfallen. If you read 1 Samuel through 2 Kings it is quite evident that the seed of David was capable of sinning. Of course no one in that lineage could choose to be born of the Spirit before coming into the world; Christ is the only one in that lineage who is pre-existent. That is Christ’s advantage.
However at the incarnation Jesus did not appear as an avatar, He did not escape falling into sin by pushing an easy button to shield His humanity by relying on His own divinity. No the Bible says Jesus relied on His Father…
Joh 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do. For whatever things He does, these also the Son does likewise.
Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say, and what I should speak. Joh 12:50 And I know that His command is life everlasting. Therefore whatever I speak, even as the Father said to Me, so I speak
Heb 5:7 For Jesus, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong cryings and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared, Heb 5:8 though being a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. Heb 5:9 And being perfected, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him,
Jesus acted and spoke exactly as the Father told Him to act and to speak. Jesus did not employ His divine nature, in the days of His flesh He offered prayers with strong crying and tears and He learned obedience through suffering. Why all this because He was truly made of the seed of David according to the flesh and was tempted as we are not as Adam was, but as we are.
Unfortunately the article digs deeper into an avatar-like view of Christ’s nature and asserts… “…He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.”[2]
That is contrary to Scripture, not only Romans 1:3, Heb 2:14 but James 1:13,14…
James 1: 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
And Romans 8:3…
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
He came in the likeness of sinful flesh not in the unlikeness of sinful flesh.
An evangelical-quasi-Protestant Professor Luke Stamps at gospelcoalition.org writes…
“According to the “Definition” issued at the Council of Chalcedon, there are two distinct but inseparable natures (divine and human) hypostatically (that is, personally) united in the one person of the Son. But how could the infallible Son of God be joined to a morally fallen human nature? Would this not call into question the divine Son’s impeccability, that is, his inability to commit sin? Or would one need to posit two persons in Christ, and hence the heresy of Nestorianism, in order to preserve both the impeccability of the Son and the fallenness of Jesus Christ? These Christological conundrums can be avoided if we also avoid the FHN [Fallen Human Nature] view (again, see Crisp’s essay for more reflections in this vein).”[3]
Unfortunately Professor Luke Stamps refuses to subject His view of sin and his view of Christ to the examination of Scripture. Chris was born of a woman, of the seed of David according to the flesh. David’s seed can only sow a natural body that is weak, corrupt and dishonorable but only Christ was born of the Spirit. Essentially all these teachers deny that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh and professor Stamps, like most Christians, they relies on human institutions, creeds and councils to define his beliefs. The Bible does NOT teach that the sin of Adam became the sin of all his descendants, it says that sin entered the world through Adam, but we are not guilty of transgressions of our fathers see Deu 24:16, 2Ki 14:6, 2Ch 25:4, Jer 31:29, 30 and Eze 18:20.
Paul does talk about the problems with his flesh but he never speaks about the guilt of his ancestry. On the contrary he writes… “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man may sow, that he also will reap. For the one sowing to his flesh will reap corruption of the flesh. But the one sowing to the Spirit will reap everlasting life from the Spirit.” Galatians 6:7-8
Christ never sowed anything in His flesh
Professor Stamps says we can avoid these Christological conundrums if we avoid the FHN view, but by following his advice we would have to avoid Scriptures like Heb 2:14-16, Rom 1:3; 8:3 etc… No, the Biblical way is to ignore the Council of Chalcedon, reject the un-Biblical view of original sin and embrace the evidence of Scripture
CITATIONS [1] https://www.gotquestions.org/could-Jesus-have-sinned.html [2] https://www.gotquestions.org/could-Jesus-have-sinned.html[3] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-asked-did-jesus-assume-a-fallen-human-nature
One final question for the theologians. How is it that Christ never sinned?
“On the human side it is obvious that Christ could be tempted, and the human nature by itself could sin. But when the human and divine natures were united in Christ, that left the person of Christ in a situation where the Person could be tempted but where the Person cannot sin because of the presence of the divine nature.”[1]
Sin is by nature an inward response to outward temptation (James 1:14-15), and Jesus had no inward sinful nature that could respond to outward temptation. Jesus possessed a singular will, to do the will of the Father (Matthew 26:39; John 5:30, 6:38, 10:37). In the incarnation, the divine Son of God had complete authority over His humanity (e.g., John 10:18).[2]
This sounds a lot like the Catholic view without the Mariology and her Immaculate Conception. Christ’s divine nature nullified His human nature so that it was impossible for Christ to sin. If it is impossible to sin, then the temptations are artificial and best characterized as annoyances not temptations.
My cat eats her vomit, I am not tempted by my vomit or anyone else’s vomit therefore it is impossible for me to eat vomit. If I became a cat I could be truly be tempted to eat my own vomit, but if I simply find a way disguise myself to look like a cat then I will never eat vomit, because as a human I’m not truly tempted by vomit. My human side could stop my cat side from eating vomit. Thus the temptations of Christ are a mere roleplay to demonstrate what we already knew about the divine nature.
When we embrace the council of the faithful and true Witness (Rev 3:14) and then we can really believe Christ when He says, ” Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he with Me. Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame and have sat down with My Father in His throne.” (MKJV)
Christ does not ask the impossible; we do not have to fly after superman we can abide in Him and walk even as He walked ( John 15:4 & 1 John 2:6). If we have faith in Him all things are possible and we can do whatever He asks. We can walk with Him just as He asked Peter to walk on the water, but if we doubt His word we will sink. How is this possible? He gives the gift of His Spirit to overcome. “…not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5).
CITATIONS: [1] http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=64863&columnid=5434 [2] http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=64863&columnid=5434
