All right, in that verse in John
8 and 46, our Lord Himself hurls a challenge at the Pharisees
and enemies, and He asks them this question in John 8 and verse
46. Which of you convinces me of
sin? And if I say the truth, why do
you not believe me? Then in John chapter 14 and verse
30 in that chapter, hereafter I will not talk much with you,
for the prince of this world comes and hath nothing in me. And then in chapter 15 and verse
10, if you keep my father's commandment, you shall abide in my love even
as I have kept my father's commandment and abide in his love. Now, one of the great aspects
of biblical theology concerns our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We call it Christology, the study
of the person and the work of Christ. And when I say that,
I mean the theanthropic person of the Lord Jesus Christ, not
just the divine nature and not just the human, but the theanthropic
person of our Lord, that he is God and he is man. And also, that it is this distinction,
that it is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, that
assumed humanity in the incarnation. It was not the whole Trinity
that assumed humanity or was incarnate. But only the Son,
by God's appointment and purpose, became incarnate. Now the subject
of the theanthropic person of Christ is a deep, a weighty,
and a complex matter as we study it in the Scripture. The Trinity
beyond our comprehension. three persons in the Godhead,
three persons in the Godhead in unity, and yet one of them,
the Word, is made flesh. John 1 and verse 14, and assumed
flesh and blood in a very unique union with human nature as he
came into the world. John 1.14, and he assumed flesh
and blood as it says in Hebrews chapter 2, verse 16 and verse
17. Now, as to the person of Christ,
let's inch our way into this. I want to make a statement and
also make a caution. For as to the person of the Lord
Jesus Christ, it is true that one can confess very much and
one can seem as if they make a fair proclamation. fall into
a grievous error concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. For many,
for example, many do confess that Jesus is the Son of God
and they do confess the Holy Trinity and they may take and
adamant stand for the inspiration of the scripture and for the
virgin birth of our blessed Lord, that the Holy Spirit of God did
cause Mary to conceive in her the humanity of the Christ, and
that his body was not created in fashion like unto Adam, nor
did he bring it from heaven with him, as some of the Docetists
have claimed. But this humanity was conceived
and was born of a woman. Furthermore, these same people
may believe in his blood atonement and insist on it with their last
breath, and believe in his resurrection, and believe in his ascension,
and profess his deity, indeed, that he is God and the Son of
God. And they may confess all of that,
and still they may err on an important aspect of our Lord
Jesus. For there are many that confess
these things, many of them, or most of them, and they still
believe that it was possible for our Savior to sin. So, as William G. G. Shedd wrote, And the air here is like a dead
fly in precious ointment. For you may confess all, come
down here, break off the last inch, and be like a dead fly
in precious ointment, as Solomon said in Ecclesiastes chapter
10 and verse 1. Now this is a part of the Lord's
person that we must consider. And it has a very strong bearing
on the personality of our Savior and the saving work. Now what
I've said, you can believe a lot and still err at this point. I'd like to use an illustration.
I don't do that very often, but I'd like to illustrate something
this morning. Imagine you want to buy a house. And the real estate agent takes
you out to a real nice neighborhood, quiet, serene, tree-lined street. And she tells you that this was
designed by the architect Robespierre, and one of the world's most famous.
That it was built by a carpenter who had 40 years of experience. She might point out to you that
the roof is just six months old. It's in good shape. That it has
been painted inside and outside. And that it has been well upkept. and that the carpet in the house
is brand new. And then that real estate agent
may say to you, however, it is possible that there are termites
in the foundation of this building. Now, can you see how the two
are parallel in a way? The belief that our Lord might
have sinned is called peccability, and that means that one is capable
of sinning, that it is possible for them to sin, that they have
the ability, certain things being as they are, to commit sin, that
their makeup is such that it is possible for them to sin. Now, many in Christendom have
the view have this view of Christ and put him in that category. And you know, I think it's ironic
that some people who believe that Jesus might have sinned
also believe that they might reach perfection in this life,
if that isn't something. So the belief that the Lord was
totally immune from sinning will be our position today. In fact,
Our Lord was, is, and still is incapable of sinning in any manner. And this we call impeccability. That one is incapable of sinning. For them to sin, it is not possible. And this is the view of Christ
that I intend to set forth before you today, that not only did
Christ not sin, but not only did he not sin, but it was impossible
for our Lord to sin. Not only did he resist temptation,
but he could not be overcome by it. in any manner whatsoever. But first of all, I want to go
back to those, here is what most who think the Lord was peccable,
here's how they handle this issue of whether our Lord could sin
or not. Here's how they handle it in
their mind and give themselves a satisfactory answer. They say
this, He resisted, and with this kind
of reasoning, they closed the issue and are satisfied with
their answer. He could have sinned, but good
for us that he didn't. Now please, if you would, pardon
a couple of personal experiences real quick. Number one, when
we were on the radio, had the broadcast, for some 20 years,
I had more resistance on the subject of the impeccability
of Christ than anything else. It is downright offensive to
some people who call themselves a Christian. for some reason
that escapes me completely, they prefer a savior who could sin
but did not to a Christ in whom there is no possibility of sinning. That he possesses absolute in
a full holiness beyond measure and beyond diminishing. And he
possesses all of that as to his nature. Somewhere these people
feel or want to feel a kinship unto our Lord to make him more
like themselves, that he had the very same ones that they
have. One might have sinned, but he
didn't, and we're thankful for that. And they're satisfied with
a Savior who is or was a potential sinner. And that, my friend,
is sad. Now, the second little experience
that I'd like to share with you, I remember once asking my neighbor,
longtime friend, neighbor, an acquaintance, and I said to him
one day, do you believe that Jesus could have sinned? He didn't bat an eye. He said,
yes, if he wanted to, he could have. And boy, hold everything. Wait a minute. What in the world
could have given Jesus the desire to want to? What in the world
could have moved in our Lord to make Him want to sin? What was it that could produce
a want or a desire in our Lord like that? Who is it or what
is it that could incline Him in their direction? For I find
everyone that wants to sin, they do sin. Now again, wherein lies
the possibility of Jesus sinning? Frankly, both notions are open,
blasphemy, and nothing short. And it is doubtful as to the
spiritual condition of that person who in the end denies the great
glory of our Lord that he was impeccable. So before we go further,
let's ask ourself the question and move little by little. Did the Lord himself have anything
to say about that would indicate whether he was peccable or impeccable. On the other hand, did the Father,
did the Holy Father say anything about our Lord that would indicate
whether he was peccable or impeccable? First of all, the Father God,
Isaiah 53, verse 11. refers to him as my righteous
servant. And this is my beloved son in
whom I am well pleased. Three times at least in the gospel. Now, look at John 8 and verse
46 that we read a little bit ago. Consider this, the challenge
which the Lord put to his enemies. which of you convinces or convicts
me or proves me to be of sin? And we need to look at the larger
context and what it is that caused our Lord to raise that question
or issue with them. To raise the question, J.C. Ryle noted in John chapter 8,
quote, we find the Jews pluming themselves on their natural descent
from Abraham as if that covered all of their deficiencies." Unquote. Such things they said. We'd be
Abraham's seed. We're true Jews. We're real Jews. Abraham is our father. We have
one father, even God. We are not born of fornication. We're Jews indeed. We're the
circumcision. We're the children of God. We're
the covenant people of God. And on and on they went. But
here in this chapter, in verse 13, they called the Lord a liar. They called him a Samaritan and
a demon-possessed man in verse 52. And in John chapter 9, verse
24, they called the Lord a sinner. And in verse 16, they denied
that he was of God. This man is not of God. As for the context here in John
chapter 8, and the question, which of you convinces me of
sin? Now the word means to prove guilty. or to convict, or to bring a
charge. And what the Lord is doing in
John 8 and verse 46, defending himself as a faithful minister,
and messenger, and witness of God's truth. That is Gilro, they
cannot prove any deceit in his doctrine or teaching, any corruption
in his doctrine, nothing contrary to the word and the way of God
in the context of our Lord. And yet they did not believe
him. They couldn't prove him wrong,
and yet they didn't believe him. Then there's that verse in John
14 and 30. The prince of this world comes
and has nothing in me. By which the Lord assures his
little flock, his death would not be a victory for Satan or
scandalize his death, for Satan had no power over him beyond
which the Lord caused him to submit unto. Now coming to now,
to consider the impeccability of the Lord, beginning with the
observation that the majority of those who believe that Jesus
was peccable, two things are usually true of them. Number one, they base his peccability
upon his humanity. that sin would proceed, if it
did, in and through his human nature. Surely to God they would
not contend that the divine nature of our Lord was capable of sinning. And secondly, usually such people
have somewhere, someplace, a faulty view of Jesus Christ the God-man. They do too much humanize the
Lord Jesus Christ and too much neglect his deity. They over-emphasize
the humanity until they've made him almost one like themselves. So let's re-estate the theanthropic
person of Christ. And of course, theanthropic means
that One is both human, or divine, and human, having both natures,
which we believe that the scripture teaches about our Lord, that
Christ the Son, the second person in the Godhead, assumed not a
human person, but a human nature, a human body and soul, flesh
and blood, And as to his humanity, it was made of a woman, Galatians
4 and verse 4, however, not at all in the ordinary fashion of
procreation. He was not begotten by a man. His humanity was begotten in
her by a supernatural spiritual act of the Holy Spirit. We read
that in Luke 1 and verse 31 through 35. And Matthew chapter 1 verse
18 through verse 23. That what is born of you is of
the Spirit of God. That holy thing shall be called
the Son of God. And this gives reality to three
necessary things concerning our Lord as head of the covenant. Three things there are that flow
out of this necessary. Number one, he would be indeed
true seed of the woman as described in Genesis chapter 3 verse 16. Matthew 1.1 calls him son of
Abraham. son of David, and that he is
by this incarnation. Number two, he would have the
necessary kinship to the elect in order that he might be their
Boaz kinsman redeemer. You know, a kinsman redeemer
had to have a special kin to those that he was redeeming,
and Christ took that kinship when he partook of flesh and
blood. And number three, and so it's
qualified to be the one mediator between God and man, that he
is the God-man, therefore the mediator between God and man. Now, in the Theanthropic Person
of Christ, which nature, I ask, was the foundation of the person,
the person of Christ in the incarnation. Which foundation would you say
was actually, which was the foundation, which nature, I'll get it right
in a minute, was the foundation of the person of Christ? Which
was dominant? Which assumed and which was assumed
in the incarnation? William G. T. Shedd wrote some
good things about the person and about the impeccability of
Christ and that in the incarnation he said, and I quote, a human
nature was united with the divine nature in order that the resulting
person might have a human form of consciousness as well as divine
Unquote. And the human nature was capable
of things which the divine nature was not. Now don't misunderstand
me there. It was capable of being conceived,
of being born, to grow, to learn, to eat, to drink, to grow tired
and weary, to suffer, and even to die. Yet, not to sin. Not at all to sin. The divine
nature is not incapable of any of these things, they were not
strictly speaking the acts of the divine nature apart from
that of the human. And we just said the divine nature
is the base and the foundation of the God-man person of Christ.
So now we can add something else, I believe, that the divine nature
is the dominant nature in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. That the divine is the dominant
one. These were some, they were some
of old. Heretics, every one of them. Some of their names I copied
down. Marcellus and Photinus. They taught that Jesus was a
deified man and that the human nature was the base of the complex
person of Christ. But let us transition to the
question of whether the Lord manifest in the flesh was peccable
or impeccable. And let's begin with these questions. Let these come up in our mind. And that is when Was the theanthropic
union formed? Had you thought of that? It's
beyond our comprehension. But when was the theanthropic
union formed? Was it in the womb when our Lord
was conceived as to his humanity? Or when he was but in embryo
stage? Or was it at birth when he was
yet an infant or a baby? Was it at his baptism when God
testified mightily that he was his son? Was it in the beginning
of his ministry and he came forth as the one sent from God? and
forerunned by John. Now, to my satisfaction, the
best answer is at the conception, as soon as the Holy Spirit caused
Mary to concede. Consider again Luke 135. That
holy thing born of you shall be called the Son of God. Again in Matthew 1 and 18, the
holy thing begotten. She was found with child of the
Holy Ghost. Matthew 1.20, that which is conceived,
literally begotten in her, the angel said to Joseph, is of the
Spirit of God. Gill wrote of two things that
occurred at the conception of Christ humanity. Number one,
his human soul took being to dwell in his human body. Number
two, in that instant the body was begotten. Did the Son of
God assume the whole human nature and take it in union with his
divine person? Now, if this is true, then it
is true also that when the infant Jesus lay in the manger wrapped
in swaddling clothes, the union was intact at that very time
so early. He was body and soul, he was
divine, and he was human. Again, when the angels announced
his birth in Luke 2 and verse 11, unto you is born this day
in the city of David a Savior which is Christ the Lord then
the union was intact. Luke 2 and 21 through 34 when
they presented our Lord before the Lord God in the temple The
union was intact, and witness was born to him that he is the
salvation of God. In Luke 2, 24 through 52, at
the age of 12, when he said, I must be about my father's business,
the union was intact at that time. Although I can't explain
that, and neither can you, it still is a wonderful truth of
the blessed and holy scripture. I can't explain this either,
that during the time on the cross and his death and burial in the
tomb the Union held irrevocable even at that time. As the commentator
Hooker once wrote, From the moment of their first combination, the
divine and the human nature have been and are forever inseparable."
Unquote. We read of Jesus in Luke 2, 51
and 52. Jesus was subject to Joseph and
Mary. And he grew in wisdom, that is,
and statue, that is, in age. Our Lord grew in wisdom and in
age. In verse 40, He grew and waxed
strong. and spirit filled with wisdom
and the grace of God was upon him. This is the humanity of
our Lord as it is reaching maturity and manhood. Now this is a point
to ponder and it takes us beyond what we're able to comprehend. But during the developing years
of the humanity of Jesus. I want to say that again. During
the developing years of the humanity of Jesus, the Lord was God manifest
in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3 and 16. But the divine nature, though
present, was veiled somewhat until manifested about the age
30 to a great degree. A veil was upon this inscrutable
work of God. And I think it's by purpose that
the scripture tells us nothing of the secret and unseen things
here in Mary and in the quiet period of our Lord's early life. Only as an infant and only as
12 do we have a mention of Him. And then at age 30, the revelation
of our blessed Lord. Now the question is this. Was
the humanity of the Lord capable of sinning? If so, why and how? If not, why and how? And let's reemphasize, it is
not sufficient to say the question is not. Since he did not sin,
so the question is moot. That's not the question. The
question was, is the person of our Lord capable of sinning? For it yet remains that some
teach that he could have sinned even though he didn't. So we
must raise the question. Wherein is the possibility or
the capability of the God-man sinning? As we raised the question,
how or why would Jesus want to sin? Now we want to raise the
question, How was he capable of sinning? What could be the
reason that he might sin? It indicates some defect in him,
does it not, if he might have sinned? And we can be more definite. We assume that those who hold
that Jesus could have sinned would place the possibility again
only in the human soul and body. of the Lord and not in the divine
nature. For anyone is certainly a heretic
beyond measure who thinks the divine nature might have sin. Think of this, the seed thought
I got from William G.T. Shedd in reading his book. There
is nothing, and I mean not a word, anywhere in the Gospels or in
the Epistle. There is not a word in the teaching,
the words, the prayers, or the conversation of the God-man that
would tell us that he felt sinful or attracted unto sin or tempted
by sin or pulled by sin in any way. you won't find a single
mention in the words of our Lord indicating that at all. Shedd put it this way, quote,
there is an utter absence of personal confession of sin in
any form whatsoever." He had no sense of indwelling sin. The Lord never had a sense of
indwelling sin. He had no sinful longings or
inclination or lust. He did not have that warfare
that Paul describes in Romans chapter 7 of himself and of us,
or in Galatians chapter 5 of the lusting of the flesh against
the spirit. That's not found in our Lord. In John Gill's excellent Body
of Divinity, page 386, because of the union of the two natures,
even the human is quote, perfect holiness and impeccability, unquote,
with neither original sin or actual sin in any way in our
Lord. Gill, quote, it is not conscious
of any sin, never committed any, nor is it possible that it should,
unquote. There was nothing in Christ for
sin to make its appeal to. Nothing. Think about that. What
is there, was there, in Christ that sin might make an appeal,
that it might entice? Unlike us mortals, in which there
is much for sin to work upon, the impeccability of the humanity
of Jesus now, I want to tell you something, is more than sinlessness. Impeccability is not fully developed
by sinlessness, the fact that he did not sin. But impeccability
goes further and says it was not possible for him to have
sinned. He did not only overcome the
temptation that he endured, but number one, he successfully resisted,
and number two, it was certain that he would. Now, I know people
say, oh, well, why was he tempted if he couldn't sin? How about
to prove that he couldn't sin and to confirm him to be the
son of God? Not only did our Christ have
no consciousness of sin in him, but when we come to the apostolic
writing, they bear witness of his impeccability also, the epistle. For example, Hebrews 7, 26 and
verse 27, he is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,
made higher than the heaven, who needs not, as those high
priests, to make an offering for sin, first for himself and
then for others. He did not make a sacrifice for
his sin as Aaron had to when he went to the tabernacle. So
let's notice that those three words, separate from sinners,
in that passage of the scripture. How so? How is our Lord, or was
our Lord, separate from sinner? In what way? Well, he received
sinners and he ate with them, we find in the scripture, Luke
15 and 2. He actually came to call sinners
to repentance, Matthew 9, 13. He interacted with a sinful woman
of Samaria in John 4. and a woman accused of being
taken in adultery in John chapter 9 without lust. He associated
with lepers and he touched corpses. without contracting defilement
as under the law. He knew no sin, 2 Corinthians
5 and 21. He did no sin, neither was guile
found in his mouth, 1 Peter 2 and 22. He was without spot and without
blemish, 1 Peter 1, verse 19. He was without sin, Hebrews 4,
and verse 15. He was manifested to take away
our sin, and in him is no sin, 1 John 3, and verse 5. And he is the same yesterday,
and today, and forever. Hebrews 13 and verse 8. He was not even sinful when he
was made sin for us upon the cross of Calvary, else he would
have fallen under its curse. And this is the right time, I
believe, and perhaps the right place to raise the question. If Christ should have sinned,
no he didn't, but they say that he could have. So if Christ should
have sinned, what would have been the result? If Christ could
or should have sinned, what would have been the result? First I
want to give you a couple of examples. Remember Adam when
he sinned? Driven out of the garden, a corrupt
nature. Remember the angels when they
sinned in heaven? Cashed down to hell, reserved
there forever. So, remember them. Even if the
sin were committed by the human nature, what effect would it
have upon the divine nature of our Lord? For they are one theanthropic
person. two persons, or two natures,
rather, in one theanthropic person. What would it have been the effect
on the divine nature, if any, if our Lord had sinned? It's
nothing short of blasphemy, I say, to say that our Lord could have
sinned. I shudder to discuss it. I feel
unclean discussing a matter like that, but they believe it. since
some or many teach it, they ought to consider the consequences
of such a thing. I wonder if they have, especially
since the union is permanent. The union is permanent. So that
he might have sinned Then, what about now? The same yesterday,
and today, and forever. The sinning nature would have
become corrupt and guilty, would it not, if it had sin? For sin
brings condemnation. Then who shall save our Savior,
if that should have been the case? God's whole purpose would
be destroyed. The impeccability of Christ's
humanity is secured by its union to the divine nature. And the
humanity of the Lord never had a solitary, separate, independent
existence and never will from that great nature. As one said,
the impeccability of Christ is owing to, quote, the omnipotent
and immutable holiness in the logos in his person." Thus, though
the God-man could be weary in the flesh, he could hunger, he
could tire, he could thirst, and he could even be taken and
crucified and put to death and buried in a tomb, but he could
not be sinful or guilty. Could not. It is impossible. He could bear the sin of others. and not sin and not become sinful. So the conclusion today is this,
Christ was both sinless and impeccable. It's not just that he didn't
sin, it's that he's impeccable and could not sin. He did not
sin and he could not sin and the latter is the reason for
the former. because he is impeccable, therefore
he could not sin. He is the impeccable Holy One,
tempted in all points like as we are. With the exception of
sin. With the exception of sin. God can't be tempted with sin.
James 1.13. So the Lord neither. Thank God.
I believe this is the final glory, the crown to the person of our
Lord. Yes, he came. Yes, he was incarnate.
Yes, he's the son of God. He's impeccable. Thank God.