02.09. Teachers Of Impeccability Not Guilty Docetism

9. TEACHERS OF IMPECCABILITY ARE NOT GUILTY OF DOCETISM (PART 1)

Jesus Christ was not able to sin during the days of His first advent on the earth. Many professing believers say that all the references to Christ’s temptations prove that He was able not to sin. Thus, the issue is between the often heard and read statement of whether Christ “was able not to sin” or “not able to sin.” To some this may seem to make little difference, but the difference is between heresy and truth. The issue could be stated differently. Was there a superior incapacity for sin in Jesus Christ, or did His overcoming of constant temptation prove Him to be the holy One of God? The major point in the life of Christ was the fact that He could not sin. There is unanimity among various denominational creeds concerning the fact that Jesus Christ did not sin, but the Biblical fact that He could not sin is controversial. Diligent students will find great differences of opinion expressed in theological works. Those differences are also found in Reformed works. The fact that Christ could not sin must be approached from Christ’s Person rather than from His human nature.

Approaching a study of the Person of Christ by beginning with His human nature is a manifestation of humanism. Does the Bible begin with creation or with the Creator? The Bible begins with God: “IN the beginning God created...” (Genesis 1:1). This statement is neither history nor invention. It is not history because no one was present to record the events for posterity. Furthermore, it was not the work of man’s imagination. Therefore, it had to be a revelation. Humanism starts with a question, but the Bible begins with an assumption. Moreover, the deduction from the assumption is that all truth is a revelation from God, and God does not prove Divine principles to depraved minds. The Person of Christ is a Divine revelation. As the fact of God’s existence is not causally grounded upon the abstract laws of human logic, the impeccability of Christ is not grounded upon humanism. Thus, the subjective idea of God is less a reality than the objective fact. To put it simply, God has more of existence than the thought of Him has existence. As a perfect and infinite Creator cannot be derived from imperfect and finite minds, the absolutely perfect and impeccable Savior cannot be understood by depraved subjectivism. Hence, the heresy of those who argue from what they call the reality of temptation to the ability to sin is evident. They conclude by saying the sinless One associated Himself with the sins of the world.

Those who believe Jesus Christ was peccable accuse all who believe He was impeccable of Docetism. There are different forms of Docetism. These forms range from believing Christ had only a phantom body to speaking of Christ’s human nature in such a way as to discredit it from being truly human. Promoters of peccability accuse promoters of impeccability of teaching the latter. The accusation by persons who think Jesus Christ was altogether one as themselves is not difficult to understand.

Man’s humanistic concept of God is nothing new. The Psalmist was inspired to testify against Israel:

Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God....thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes (Psalms 50:7; Psalms 50:21).

Since the fall of Adam, man has been impersonating God by saying, “Let us make God in our image, after our likeness.” While those who say Jesus Christ was prone to sin accuse us of speaking incorrectly about Christ’s humanity, the fact is they speak incorrectly about Christ’s Person. The Scriptures will settle the issue.

Scripture clearly teaches the following:

...Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God... (1 John 4:2-3).

Christ’s “flesh” (human nature) was not a phantom-an appearance without material substance. Christ was not a ghost walking among the sons of men for more than thirty years. His birth, development, hunger, thirst, and death were not ghostly appearances or apparitions. John spoke not only of seeing but handling the Word of life (1 John 1:1). Christ was seen as the Word in His oneness with the eternal Father. He was not only seen but handled in His human form as the revealer of the Father (John 1:18).

Christ’s human nature was in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3) because the form of a servant which He assumed “was made in the likeness of men”
(Php 2:7). The Greek word for “likeness” in both verses is homoioma, which means likeness or resemblance. This noun is used in other Scriptures (Romans 1:23; Romans 5:14; Romans 6:5; Romans 8:3; Php 2:7; Revelation 9:7). Does this word mean that Christ’s human nature was exactly like man’s fallen human nature, or did it have the resemblance of fallen human nature? Opponents to Christ’s impeccability argue that if His human nature was only similar, it was not a true human nature. One might as well argue that fallen man is not truly man since the fall because fallen human nature is not exactly what it was before that fall. Human nature does not have to be fallen to be real. Furthermore, Christ’s human nature, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin, was real even though it was not brought into existence the same way as that of Adam.

Jesus Christ shared the flesh and blood of human nature in the incarnation, but He did not share human nature’s depravity. Christ’s sharing nature’s “flesh” was that He might be “put to death in the flesh” (1 Peter 3:18). His sharing nature’s “blood” was for the purpose of redemption (Romans 3:24-26; Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews 10:10-14; Revelation 1:5). On the other hand, if Christ had shared nature’s depravity, He would have been disqualified as the redeemer of the elect. There is a great difference between the descendants of Adam coming into the world “in sinful flesh” and the eternal Son of God coming into the world “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” One must know the difference between words with the prefixes homo (same) and homoi (like). This reminds us of the truth proclaimed by Athanasius and the heresy by Arius.

Docetism is the proclamation of a Christ that was incapable of being the
Mediator between God and men because He would not be the “man Christ Jesus [anthropos Christos Hiesous]” (1 Timothy 2:5). Peter’s message on the day of Pentecost was “Jesus of Nazareth, a man [andra] approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs...” (Acts 2:22). Unlike those who embrace Docetism, those who embrace the heresy that Jesus Christ was peccable proclaim a “Jesus” who is incapable of being Savior because he himself was in need of salvation. Hence, both views are heretical because they fail to proclaim the Biblical view of the one Mediator between God and men. The true Mediator must possess two absolutely holy natures in order to represent both God and man. Those who teach Docetism deny the incarnation, and those who teach peccability deny Christ’s holy human nature.

Opponents to the impeccability of Christ can get no comfort from quoting Hebrews 4:15 - “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are....”
The Greek word for “tempted” is a perfect passive participle of the verb peiradzo, which means to test, try, or tempt. Since Jesus Christ cannot be tempted, because the word has an evil connotation, the perfect passive participle can be translated “having been tested or tried.” The word that must not be overlooked is the Greek word homoiotes, which means “likeness.” Hence, Christ was tested in the “likeness” (in a similar manner) but not in exactly the same way we are. Proof of this is seen in the fact that we have been “planted together in the likeness [homoioma]” of Christ’s death. This means that our death “to” sin is not identical with Christ’s death “for” sin. Furthermore, the statement that it was necessary for Christ “to be made like [homoioo] unto his brethren” of Hebrews 2:17 does not mean that He was made exactly like His brethren.

Those who believe Christ was susceptible to sin teach that He was “made like unto His brethren” when it comes to a nature capable of sinning. Furthermore, they say He was tempted in the same way that fallen men are tempted. To say Jesus Christ was made a sinner like depraved men is blasphemy. Furthermore, to say that Christ could not sympathize with us unless He was tempted as we are is also blasphemy.

Jesus Christ must partake of flesh and blood in order to die. Moreover, He must be the “seed of the woman” to be our kinsman Redeemer (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 4:4), the “seed of Abraham” to inherit the promises (Galatians 3:16), and the “seed of David” to claim the theocratic throne (1 Chronicles 22:10; Luke 1:30-35). Does this sound like Docetism?