02.10. Teachers Of Impeccability Not Guilty Docetism
TEACHERS OF IMPECCABILITY ARE NOT GUILTY OF DOCETISM (PART II)
Docetism can never yield to the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ. Scripture is clear concerning the importance of the incarnation. Thus, the human nature of Jesus Christ cannot be considered as something unimportant in God’s purpose of redemption. Humanism is nowhere so strongly condemned as it is in the Biblical facts of the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Two holy things were united in the incarnation. Clearly, two unholy things cannot make a holy thing. Furthermore, one holy thing and one unholy thing cannot make a holy thing. This brings us to consider two important verses in the study of the incarnation: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost
(Matthew 1:20). And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
Both participles in “conceived in her” of Matthew 1:20 and “born of thee” of Luke 1:35 are from the verb gennao, which means to beget or to generate. The Greek word gennethen of Matthew 1:20 is a first aorist passive participle which means “having been begotten.” The Greek word gennomenon of Luke 1:35 is a present passive participle, which means “being begotten.” The passive voice means the subject is acted upon rather than acting or participating in the action. The angel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive in her womb and bring forth a Son: “...behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:31). The verb “conceive” is future middle indicative of sullambano, which means to conceive or become pregnant. The middle voice means that Mary participated in the conception. There is no contradiction between this verse and Matthew 1:20. Matthew used the word for “begotten” and Luke used the word for “becoming pregnant.” Mary would not only conceive a Son but carry Him during the period of gestation and give Him birth. The Greek word for “bring forth” is future middle indicative of tikto, which means to bear or bring forth. Furthermore, when Mary would give birth to her unique Son, she should call His name Jesus. The Greek word for “call” is future active indicative of kaleo, which means to call. Hence, Mary would call His name Jesus. The conception by Mary did not violate biological law. The Holy Spirit begat, and Mary conceived. The same Greek verb (sullambano) is used when speaking of not only Mary but her cousin, Elisabeth, who “...conceived a son in her old age...” (Luke 1:36). The angel could not tell Mary that the “holy thing” would be “begotten” by her, but he could tell her that the “holy thing” would be “conceived” by her. In the biological sense, the impregnation of Mary was miraculous. The begetting by the Holy Spirit and the conception in Mary’s womb produced “that holy thing.” In biological conception, the male sperm is received by the female ovum. There is no question as to the holiness of the sperm provided by the Holy Spirit. But what about the ovum provided by Mary, who spoke of Jesus Christ as her Savior? (Luke 1:46-47). God brought the first man into the world without either a male sperm or a female ovum. Therefore, it is not unbelievable that God could bring the God-Man into existence without a human male sperm. (See Romans 5:15-19; 1 Corinthians 15:47.) In order for two holy things to be united in conception, Mary’s ovum had to be made holy by the Holy Spirit. This was accomplished by the Holy Spirit coming upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her. The verb for “overshadow” is the future active indicative of episkiadzo, which means to overshadow or shed influence upon. This verb is used in connection with not only the impregnation of Mary but the “overshadowing cloud” on the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:5). The sperm and the ovum were both holy before they came together in conception. Hence, God united what the Holy Spirit produced with what Mary produced by her sanctified reproductive organs thus forming the God-Man. From this point, faith must venture no further, but God-given faith rests its case with the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit upon the virgin, Mary.
Without His incarnation, there could have been no crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God, for the sins of the elect (Acts 2:22-23). God with man in the Person of the God-Man condemns humanism. He will be “with us,” the elect, until the end of the age because He was with us in His sacrifice on the cross. Thus, He reconciled us to God by His satisfaction of Divine justice. This Biblical view of the incarnation and crucifixion is as far removed from Docetism as light from darkness.
Job asked a question and immediately answered it: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one” (Job 14:4). Job had a sense of the need to be clean, but he also knew that neither he nor any other man could make him clean. Bildad asked the same question with a more direct reference to the subject of the incarnation: “...how can he be clean that is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4). Bildad was concerned about how man could be justified with God. He asked, “How then can man be justified with God?” No doubt Bildad knew that man might be justified with man but not with God. He knew the importance of man being justified with God. When man is justified with God, no man can condemn him (Romans 8:33-34). God’s justification of man is on the basis of the impeccable Savior’s word (Romans 3:24-26). The important question is not what man can do to be justified with God but what the eternal Son had to become and do in order for man to be justified with God. We know that a Divine Person had to be united to a human nature
(Hebrews 2:11-14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Galatians 4:4; Romans 1:3-4; Romans 8:3; Romans 9:5). That human nature is called “that holy thing” (Luke 1:35). The question is often asked, why is the participle gennomenon (being begotten) neuter? The only answer that can be given is that it refers to the nature. Thus, to gennomenon hagion is translated “the holy thing which is being begotten” shall be called the Son of God. The eternal Son was not “being begotten,” but the nature He was assuming was. Jesus Christ was the “only begotten Son” (John 3:16) before His human nature was begotten for the “only begotten God” (John 1:18 NASB) to assume. The Person of Jesus Christ is one, but His Divine and human natures are distinct. This is not difficult to understand. For example, man has material and immaterial natures. The material is not the immaterial and vice versa. Therefore, the God-Man has two natures, but the natures are preserved without disorder, and His Person is complete without division. Hence, the God-Man may be designated by either Divine or human titles-Son of God or Son of Man. Furthermore, attributes of one nature are attributed to Jesus Christ while His Person is designated by a title applying to the other nature. Divine titles and human actions are attributed to Him:
...feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
(Acts 20:28); ...they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8); God...gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16); He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all... (Romans 8:32); And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest...(Luke 1:31-32). On the other hand, Divine attributes are ascribed to Jesus Christ who is designated by human titles: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13); What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (John 6:62); Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen (Romans 9:5); ...Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory,
and blessing (Revelation 5:12).
Jesus Christ was no less God-Man when He died, and He was no more than God-Man when He performed His miracles. There was never any conflict between His two natures. The attributes of both natures were accredited to the one Person, but it must be emphasized that what was peculiar to one nature was never attributed to the other. For example, hunger, weariness, sleep, and death could never be assigned to the Divine nature. Furthermore, walking on water, stilling the storm, and raising the dead could never be ascribed to the human nature. These are actions of the one Mediator between God and men performing acts that pertain to both natures. This is not dualism.
Christ’s actions as Mediator are in both His Divine and human natures. Some actions involve the attributes of the Divine nature and some the human nature. Whatever actions He performed in either nature could never conflict with His essential nature as the Holy One of God. Therefore, the actions involving the Divine nature are performed in conformity to the inherent principle and power of His Divine nature. Moreover, His actions involving the human nature were performed in conformity to the inherent principle and power of His human nature. Thus, the one Person of the God-Man performed the actions of both natures. Understanding this Biblical fact, one sees the heresy of both Docetism and the belief that Jesus Christ was peccable.