Before I read that Word of the
Lord, let's go to the Lord in prayer as I lead us. Father,
we stand as if we are on holy ground as we consider this great
subject. We thank You, Lord, for it. We
thank You that You have opened our hearts to it. We are thankful
that You have given us a High Priest and a Savior meet for
our needs, that He is exactly the kind that we need, that He
meets our every need as our great High Priest, and for that we
thank you over and over. We pray that our study this evening
may be profitable. We ask that you may help us to
understand the impeccability of our Lord, and that you also
help us to understand the importance of our Lord being an impeccable
One as He served as our High Priest Mediator and our Redeemer. We ask that You bless Your Word
to our heart. Open all of our hearts and understandings,
Lord, that we here this evening might hear and might understand
these things to the good and edification of our soul and to
the glory of Christ our Savior. For it is in His dear name that
we ask it all. Amen. Alright, I've directed
you to these two passages of Scripture. Hebrews chapter 2,
verse 14 through verse 18. Watch it very carefully. We're
going to have to come back here again to chapter 2 for a reason
later in our study. For as much then as the children
are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took
part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them
who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage. For verily he took not on the
nature of angels, but he took on the seed of Abraham. Wherefore, in all things it behooved
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God,
to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that
he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor
them that are tempted. Now, flipping to chapter 4, and
this time verse 14 through 16, seeing then that we have a great
high priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of
God, let us hold fast our profession. 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, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly
unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find
grace to help us in time of our need." Now, we may pick up where
we left off, and I hope that our minds are able to do that.
The question whether or not the humanity of our Lord was peccable
or impeccable, meaning simply, could He or could He not have
sinned? Was it possible, peccable, for
our Lord to have sinned, or was it impossible, Him being impeccable,
to sin while He dwelt here in our flesh? In that study we saw
that the humanity, that is the body of the Lord, the flesh body
of the Lord, was conceived not in the ordinary way, but in an
extraordinary and a supernatural way. And that was that the Holy
Spirit of God, the blessed third person in the Godhead, conceived
the humanity of Christ in the womb of the chosen vessel Mary. But let us not forget the doctrine
of the impeccability of Christ's humanity is established by the
Constitution, that is, the way that He is made up in His theanthropic
person. Three things that we ought to
remember. Number one, Christ is very God. Even wearing our flesh, Christ
is very God. Equal and one with the Father. And He said that Himself. So
the first thing, Christ is very God. And the second thing that
we notice about His theanthropic person is that Christ is true
man. That is, He was born of a woman,
made of a woman, He hath real and true humanity. Thirdly, and
this is important, Christ is both God and man. He is true God and true man. And He is true God and true man
in one and the same person. Having two natures, but being
one person in that, in the incarnation, He is Son of God and Son of Man,
because He is both God and Man. One of the great mysteries concerning
the Incarnation is the constitution of the theanthropic person of
the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, that He is God and Man. Many
consider Jesus to be a man, but they do not consider him to be
very God, nor honor him as such. Some deny a hypostatic union
of the two natures, human and divine, in the one person of
the God-man, and they even sometimes confess that the Word of God
worked mightily through the man Christ Jesus who came into the
world. They deny the union, however,
some do, of the two natures so that God worked through him just
like God works through believers, that Jesus was just somebody
that God worked through or gave great power or a great measure
of the Holy Spirit. John Owen was good on the subject
of the hypostatic union. And I've always loved for years
to read John Owen on behalf of Static Union. He wrote, and I
quote, the Son of God assumed our nature into the personal
subsistence with Himself whereby all the mediatory acts were the
acts of that one person who was both God and man, unquote. Oh, and emphasizes two things
in the constitution of the person of the God-man. A. One thing
that Christ did, He assumed our nature. The assumption of our
nature. And that, according to Hebrews
2 and verse 16, He took on the seed of Abraham. In Philippians
chapter 2 and verse 7, He took upon Him the form of a man or
a servant. And in Colossians 2 and verse
9, Paul writes that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily. So he's talking about the incarnate
Christ. 1 Timothy chapter 3 and verse
16, God was manifest in the flesh, and he's talking, of course,
about the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said that He had seen the
Father. John chapter 14 and verse 9. Now what is that but a claim
of deity made by the Lord Himself? And then the second thing is
union. Not only did Christ the Son assume
our nature, but He took that nature in union with Himself
hypostatically Therefore, tying the knot in that hypostatic union,
where the two natures are in union, the gods and the human,
the divine and the human, they are in union, but they are not
co-mingled. And I think that's important
for us to remember. That is, one did not bleed over
into the other and such like. so that neither one of them bleeds
over into the other. The union does not lower the
divine nature down to be only a human nature, nor raise the
human nature so that it becomes in turn divine. Thus, each nature
in our Lord, both natures in our Lord, the divine and the
human, number one, retain its own distinct unique property. The divine nature of our Lord
retains that own unique nature. Secondly, each nature, the divine
and the human, acts in accordance with its own unique properties
in the operation of the God-man. For example, the humanity of
Christ. His humanity could sleep. We never think of the divine
as being able to do that. Matthew 8 and verse 24, our Lord
went to sleep. The humanity of our Lord could
become hungry. Matthew chapter 4 and verse 2
and 21 and 28. The humanity of our Lord could
also become weary. John chapter 4 and verse 6. And of course, the humanity of
our Lord could be tempted, it could suffer, and it could die
and lay in a grave. But the human, or rather the
divine nature, is incapable of any of these things, for it is
very God. Now returning to the question
of whether the humanity of our Lord was peccable or impeccable,
that is, whether the Scriptures teach us that Christ might have
sinned, or whether Christ was immune from sinning. That as
the Scriptures teach us, Christ was tired and thirsty and hungry,
and He was tempted of the devil in Matthew chapter 4. Being tempted,
He suffered in Hebrews 2 and verse 18. Tempted in all points
like as we are Hebrews 4 and verse 15. Now, in Matthew chapter
4, we have the record of Christ being tempted by the devil. I say Matthew chapter 4, but
it's also included in the Gospel of Mark and included in the Gospel
of Luke. In Luke chapter 4 and in Mark
chapter 1. Now, the temptation of our Lord
by the devil in the wilderness occurred following closely, evidently,
upon the baptism of our Lord at the hands of John. when the
Spirit descended and gave witness, and the Father said, This is
My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And remember that
the Lord fasted forty days before the temptation of the devil began. The temptation was threefold. As you read it in the Scripture,
first though, let us consider the meaning of the word tempted. Our Lord was taken into the wilderness,
driven into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, used
here in the temptations of our Lord and of our Savior. And it's interesting to look
at this word and be very careful in applying it and understanding
it. First of all, the word is is
pirazo, and means to try. It means to put to the test. It means to prove. We'll say
more about that in just a minute. But on the words, to be tempted,
in Matthew chapter 4 and verse 1. They are the translation of
one word out of the Greek, to be tempted. one word only, and
in English they are brought over, of course, into thee, to be tempted. Linsky, in his commentary and
comments on Matthew chapter 4 and verse 1, Linsky is pretty good
on the tensions of the Greek and such like. So he said in
his commentary on Matthew 4 and verse 1, quote, this infinitive,
tempted, denotes purpose, and eros denotes completeness. So he went to be tempted and
that completely. And he was tempted and brought
there to be so by the devil. In other words, we could say
it like this, in the English, he was tempted to the finish. Our Lord was tempted, I guess,
all that he could be tempted, and the devil left and went upon
his way. It is interesting how that same
word, tempted, is translated in other texts in the New Testament,
at least in the King James Version, which I am reading from today.
Such as there are at least seven other places where the word is
translated another way besides the word, tempt. As in John 6
and verse 6, when the Lord, seeing the great gathering of people
said unto Philip in verse 5, Whence shall we buy bread, that
these may be fed? And verse 6 explained, This he
said to prove him, for he knew what he would do. There the word
is translated prove. In Acts 16 and verse 7, the same
word is translated assayed. In Acts 24 and 6, it is translated
has gone about. Again, in 2 Corinthians 13 and
verse 5, the word, examine yourself, is the same word that we have
tempted here. That means to try or to prove. And it had reference to the supper
of the Lord. Before eating, try yourself,
prove yourself, test yourself out. Hebrews 11 and verse 17,
we see the word again. It says, of Abraham, when he
was tried. And there is that word again. You remember in Genesis 22 and
verse 1, it came to pass that God did tempt Abraham. That is, He tried him. He tested
him. He proved him, which is the meaning
as seen by God's words to Abraham in Genesis 22 and verse 12. Now
I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld
thine only Son from me." So who would interpret Genesis 22 and
verse 1 to say that God did solicit Abraham to commit a sin? No, it is the word God tried
him. God tested him. God proved him. Again, the Lord uses a word in
Luke 4 and verse 12 in answering the devil saying, it is written,
you shall not tempt the Lord thy God. A reference to Deuteronomy
11 and 7 probably, or perhaps Deuteronomy 6 and 16. And the Lord uses a word here
that is a little bit different. He uses the word, but with a
prefix, ekperazo, ekperazo, meaning to test thoroughly and completely,
to test out. Marshall's has it like this,
Thou shalt not over-tempt the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not
overly test the Lord thy God. Now the Lord put Job twice in
the hands of Satan, and the Lord Jesus faced a threefold temptation
of satanic wiles during his ministry. He rebuffed them. He proved himself
the impeccable God-man, for he entered the temptation full of
the Holy Spirit and having a divine nature, and in that, our mighty,
mighty Samson overthrew every vile that the devil brought against
him, and was proved to be the Christ of God." That test proved
him to be the Christ of God. Now, notice the things Satan
used to try on the Lord. Or rather, see the things he
does not use to test or tempt our Lord. He proposes to Him
none of the sins of the flesh. He brings none of those before
our Lord in the temptation. Those that so easily beset the
children of men and the children of God. For there is nothing
in Christ for those sins to appeal to. In fact, they would be abhorrent
to the holy God-man Himself, nor would He appeal to the lust
of the flesh, or the lust of the eye, or the pride of life
in tempting our Lord. They are absolutely out of their
mind who think that our dear Lord was tempted by any of the
female gender. That ever a lustful look or thought
ever entered into His mind is blasphemy. Never a covetous thought,
never an illicit desire, never even so much as a single thought
it bears with a will or with the law of our God." So let's
repeat, there was nothing in Christ's nature that was capable
of finding any sin appealing unto Him. Absolutely nothing
in Him found sin appealing or attractive. His temptation at
the hands of Satan were not to see if he would sin, but to prove
him to be the very Son of God, the very God-Man in our flesh. Now, one of the main arguments
of the proponents of peccability, one of the first and main arguments
that they will bring forth who believe that our Lord could have
sinned has always been, if it was not possible for Him to sin,
then the temptation was not real, is their argument. And you hear
that probably first of all argument. Those that insist that though
Jesus did not sin, but that He could have sinned, must agree
to one of two things. You say, Jesus didn't sin, but
He could have, then one of two things must be possible. And
that is, number one, either He had a corrupt nature, some corruption
in him for sin to make an appeal to, or two, that he had a mutable
holiness. A holiness not immutable, not
unchangeable, but mutable, which might be diverted into sin. One or the other you must choose.
Which will it be? I would guess that most would
choose the latter. And then, have they considered
the consequences? that such a sin would not be
restricted to the humanity of our Lord, but as William G. T. Shedd put it, it would attach
to the whole theanthropic person by virtue of the union of the
two natures in the one God-man." Now, there are two texts in the
book or epistle of Hebrews concerning Christ and His temptation. The first one is Hebrews 2.18,
in that he himself suffered being tempted, he is able to help the
tempted ones. Now notice the part, he suffered
being tempted. I agree with Gil that it was
not done by stirring up sin in him, for he had none in him,
nor by putting any sin in him, because that could not be done. so that Satan could find nothing
in him to work upon that he might draw him away into sin. The Lord
said in John 14 and verse 30, the prince of this world comes
and has nothing in me. That's a very interesting statement
from the Lord. The prince of the world. Satan,
the prince of the power of the air, comes and he has nothing
in me." David Brown wrote, glorious saying, quote, unquote, so it
was. The prince of this world, meaning
Satan, the prince of the power of the air, as he is called,
comes against Christ with all manner of hostile intent, no
doubt, referring to the coming assault against Christ. has nothing in me. He is coming and has nothing. Not anything. The assault would
be a complete failure. He has nothing in me. Nothing
in my character. Nothing in my nature by which
he might get the victory. Nothing will he find in me. On another occasion, I'm just
showing you that the Lord declared His impeccability as well. On another occasion, the Lord
challenged a group of Jews in John 8 and verse 46. Which of you convinces me of
sin? He'd been in a squabble with
them. They had disagreed. Which of you convinces me of
sin? In other words, which of you
can reprove me of a sin? Which of you can convict me of
having sinned. Which of you can lay a sin unto
my charge?" Now, they often did or tried. It wouldn't stick.
They called him a blasphemer. They called him a wine-bibber,
an imposter, an enemy of Moses and the law. But they could not
make these things stick to our Lord Jesus. And in searching
the teachings, of the prayers of the Lord, the Lord's prayers
that are recorded in the Bible. We find not the slightest hint
when our Lord is at prayer that He was conscious of any depravity
or indwelling sin in Himself. There is no confession of sin
in His prayers, not even close. None in His conversation. Never did He speak a word. that
would lead us to think that the Lord felt the ravages of inward
depravity. None as He speaks of His relation
to the Father, or details the work which the Father had given
Him to do. Our Lord declared Himself to
be impeccable. Now, with that in mind, consider
something. Do you find it odd? Do you find
it even absurd and highly ridiculous that people who teach that a
Christian might reach sinless perfection. And there have been
such as Finney and the Westleys and such like who have taught
that a Christian might actually reach sinless perfection. And
those same people teach at the same time that the Holy God might
have been brought to sin. Isn't that odd? Isn't that an
anomaly that here the Holy Son of God might be brought to sin
and they, sinful men, might come to where they are perfect in
this life and in this world? One time I asked a neighbor,
a friend of mine who lived close to us, knew him well. He and
his wife were regular faithful attendees at a Baptist church. And one day we were talking out
at the yard or driveway like neighbors do, I said to him,
do you believe that Jesus could have sinned? And he didn't bat
an eye. He said, yes, if he had wanted
to. And that was his answer. And
that's how people look at that. But let's come to the other text,
if we might. Hebrews 4 and verse 15, and especially
the part that says, He was tempted in all points like as we without
sin. In all respects, in reference
to all things, many will take this to mean that He was tempted
exactly in every point as we are. And how are we tempted? We are tempted to lie, to steal,
evil thoughts pervade our mind. Whatever way we may be tempted,
He was tempted, but He made it through without sinning, is what
they say. Just lucky, good for us that
Jesus Could have sinned, but he didn't. He made the entire
obstacle course without falling into sin. Now, before we consider
the meaning of the words, without sin, in that Hebrew verse, let's
put this into its historical setting. I insist upon that. Let's put it in its historical
setting since it is doubtful if we can get it right without
considering this in its historical setting, such as those that he
was speaking to, the reason why he says such things unto them,
their situation at the time. And the first intended recipients
of this epistle were first century Jews who lived in the transition
period. They were Jews who lived in the
transition period. That is, they lived in that time
when the old covenant was passing away and the new covenant was
being established in the place of the old. And many of those
Jews professed Christ and the gospel, and they were persecuted
for it greatly. And they stumbled at the fact. They had no priest among them
as they worshiped upon the earth. They had no priest among them.
as they were used to and had had for centuries, while Jesus
is in heaven and is exalted high and is beyond our reach, and
He is of another class of being altogether. And the Jews thought
or acted as if they were deprived of the services and the benefit
of a high priest. They had none among them. And
what might they expect of a high priest? beyond making a sacrifice
for their sin. For this he did often. This discussion
continues over into chapter 5 of the book of Hebrew. Let's read
chapter 5 of Hebrew, verses 1 and 2. For, and that connects it,
for every high priest is taken from among men, ordained for
men, in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts
and sacrifices for sin, who can have compassion on the ignorant,
on them that are out of the way, for that he himself also is compassed
with infirmity." Now we have that passage of the Scripture
for our consideration. We notice verse 2, the high priest
is a man and he is called by God. He's called by God to offer
sacrifices for sin. We also notice in verse 2, who
can have compassion on the ignorant and them that are out of the
way, are erring. Margin has it. Who can reasonably
bear with those who are ignorant and misguided. With the ignorant
and the erring. And this is the only time that
this word translated compassion is used anywhere in the New Testament. I find it rendered this way,
being able to feel in due measure for the ones not knowing and
being led astray. And why could the Jewish high
priest reasonably bear with the people? Why could he reasonably
bear with the ignorant and the erring? Why could he sympathize
with those who were in such a state? Why could he enter into their
feelings? Why could he have the capacity
to sympathize and to feel empathy towards the people? It's because,
in Hebrews 5 verse 2, the last part, that he also is compassed
with infirmity, the Jewish high priest. have infirmities like
unto those that he ministers for. He is set round about with
weaknesses or infirmities because, Hebrews chapter 7 and verse 28,
the law makes men high priests which have infirmity, including
them being sinners and dying. And this was the only kind of
priest available taken from among men that he might serve in their
behalf." Now, dropping back to Hebrews 4 and 15 again, in verse
14 it is said, we have a priest. We have a priest that has entered
into heaven itself. We have a priest, and that priest
is the very Son of God. However, look at verse 15, our
high priest is not unable to be touched with a feeling of
our infirmity. We have a high priest, he is
glorious, he is the Son of God, and he is in heaven, in the presence
of God. But we do not have a high priest
which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmity because
he has been tempted, he has been tested, he has been tried in
all points. in all respects, in every way,
in all things, because our Lord entered into the human condition. He was a man, but not a sinful
man, for He need not be. Remembering again in Hebrews
2 and 17, it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren
that He might be a merciful high priest. John Brown wrote, He
became like His brethren. He partook of flesh and of blood
in order to experience suffering and be tempted that He might
sympathize with His saints when they are trialed and their temptations,
especially those that they encounter in serving and being faithful
unto God. There is an amazing statement
in Hebrews 5 and verse 8 which I only read in passing and without
comment. The reason being, I don't know
exactly how to exegete it. But here is the statement in
chapter 5 and verse 8. It says there, Though he were
a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Back to Hebrews 4 and 15, and
the words there, without sin. Does it mean, number one, that
he was tempted by sin, but he did not heal? Or does it mean,
number two, that he was sinless and without sin, and could not
be brought to sin? Two points, both found in Hebrews. First of all, A, the Hebrew epistle
teaches us that Jesus was without sin. The Hebrew epistle teaches
us that Jesus was a sinless High Priest, in that, as the High
Priest, He did not need to offer a sacrifice for His own sin like
Aaron did, Hebrews 7 and 27, because He had no sin. And Hebrews
7 and verse 26 calls Him holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate
from sinners." Now, the last phrase, separate from sinners,
cannot mean only that he avoided contact with sinners, that he
kept his distance from them and went not around them since Luke
9, 15 and 2. This man receives sinners and
eats with them, they said, Luke 19 and 7. He has gone to be guests
with a man that is a sinner. they said, of Nicodemus. And
he let a sinful woman, if you remember, bathe his feet with
ointment and wipe with her hair. And then B, the words without
sin in Hebrews 4 and 15 are the very same words that we meet
with in Hebrews 9 and verse 28, the sermon a couple of weeks
ago, shall appear the second time without sin. unto salvation." They're the
same words that we found here. Apart from sin. Having nothing
to do with sin. And it is His temptation like
ours. Sin is accepted. In His temptation,
certainly what Satan suggested that He do would have been a
sin. Especially to have fallen down
and to worship Satan. But such held no allure for Christ. None at all. It was totally repulsive
to the very Son of the Father. It was not the least bit desirable
unto Him. He never for a moment considered
it. He found no inclination toward
it whatsoever. Sin was never a temptation to
the Lord. He was never tempted unto the
many sin that tempt us and do so daily. Now, let's close. Let us consider A quote from
the excellent commentary that I referred to by John Owen. Quote, He neither was tempted
by sin, such was the holiness of his nature, nor did any temptation
produce sin, such as was the perfection of his obedience. Unquote. The exception is absolutely,
totally absolute, without sin. Our Lord came close enough to
bear our sin, close enough to die for sin, but not close enough
to become sinful. That was an impossibility. Had that been the case, then
all things had fallen down. God's purpose, God's will, God's
intention had Christ been drawn to sin. It is blasphemy. Utter blasphemy. to think that
Christ could have sinned. I remember an article from Billy
Graham. I kept it until it was raggedy
and I couldn't read it anymore. Someone wrote and asked him the
question, how do you handle those lustful desires that spring up
in the Christian? His answer was the example of
Jesus. Jesus didn't dwell on He went
on to other things. He put his mind to other things.
That's blasphemy. To think, if that be the case,
our Lord did sin if He had that impure thought that some ascribe
unto Him. That would have been sin on the
part of our Lord. By His own teaching in Matthew
chapter 5, it would have been sin on the part of our Lord. There are a lot of people today
who don't think that thoughts are sin. They don't worry about
thoughts. Thoughts are not sinful, they say, so long as you don't
act upon them. Thoughts are that which gives
birth, a lot of times, to actual sins. And our Lord had not one
thought at variance with His holy nature, with the law, the
purpose, or the will of God. He was absolutely impeccable,
our Lord was. One more next Lord's Day, I think.
if the Lord be willing.