Luke 1 and verse 35 for our text
today is one of the great texts in the New Testament. And the
angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, 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." Or some might put it like this, that Holy One
born of thee shall be called the Son of God. I'm going to begin with an introduction
to work our way into our study of the morning by saying that
the most pure and the most precious ore that is to be mined in the
Scripture is that of the doctrine and the work and the person of
the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the most pernicious
and the most deadly and the most damning errors are those concerning
the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. To err at the person
of Christ, to stumble over this precious stone which God has
laid, which is Christ, is to suffer great harm. For one cannot
be in error on the person and the work of Christ and have the
sound hope of salvation by Him. For the one who denies the Lord
Jesus Christ altogether has not the Father and has not the Son. So they that deny Christ do not
have the Father, nor do they have the Holy Spirit. Now concerning
the person of Christ, first and up front, I want to say that
there are some eras about Christ that are open and obvious, though
they have been held by many down through history. But some errors
concerning Christ are immediately recognizable. The heresy is so
outstanding that many, yes we would count it, a perversion
of the truth of God. And here are some errors concerning
the person of Christ that have prevailed in different places
and times during the course of church history. A. There have been those who teach
that Christ Himself was a created being. There have been those
that have held, in days gone by, that Christ is not absolutely
eternal, but that He is a created being, and therefore, like the
Sassanians who held this, deny the eternality of Christ and
the eternal Sonship of Christ. Then be, there have been those
who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, saying that there are
not three persons in the Godhead, but that there is one. Such as
hell this doctrine was Sebelius and the Sebelians that followed
his way. Also known as Monarchianism,
also called Patriopacianism, because they denied the three
persons in the Godhead, or in the Trinity, and they thought
that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply names
of the one manifestation of the person in the Godhead, and go
so far as to say that it was actually the Father who suffered
and died, but He did so under the name of the Son. And then
see, the doctrine which says that Jesus is not God, He is
the Son of God. Now if you think that's sound,
think about it again. He is not God, but He is the
Son of God. And indeed, there's the doctrine
that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but that He is a
Son by the Incarnation. Incarnate Sonship is how they
might refer to it, or as some heretics date His Sonship from
His resurrection, that He was born again when He came out of
the grave. I believe that's the doctrine
of the Jehovah Witnesses. And then there is the era of
those known as the docetists. And these are the ones who denied
that our Lord had a real, literal, actual human body. They say He
had only a phantom body and not a real body at all. But what
is amazing is that it is possible to hold the orthodox view, to
have sound views, of the person of Christ, and yet fall into
error on a final point. Since one may hold that Christ
is the eternal Son of God, they may hold that He was born of
a virgin, they may hold that He did indeed live a sinless
life, that He died for sinners, that He was buried in a grave,
that He rose again They may hold all of this and still hold to
an error concerning the person of Jesus Christ. For there is
yet the question beyond His Godhood and His Sonship and His virgin
birth and His death and His resurrection, there is yet the question Was
Christ peccable or impeccable as to His humanity? In other
words, could He have sinned or could our Lord not have sinned? Could Jesus have sinned while
He were here in the flesh? Or in some way, was it impossible
and was He immune from sinning? And if He could have sinned,
Wherein lay the possibility that our Lord might have sinned? If He could not sin, what then
is the cause why He could not sin? Well, there must be something
behind either one of those positions. Reading William G.T. Shedd this
week has a rather long article on the impeccability of Christ,
and he wrote in that article, The doctrine of Christ's person
is not complete without considering the subject of His impeccability."
Let's say that again. The doctrine of Christ's person
is not complete without considering the question of His impeccability. That after one has confessed
the Sonship of Christ and the virgin birth and His sinless
life, and His death upon the cross, His burial in a tomb,
and His resurrection from the dead, there still hangs over
them the question, peccable or impeccable was the person of
Christ. Now the question is not, did
Christ sin or did He lead a sinless life? That's not exactly our
question this morning. Most will acknowledge that Christ
led a sinless life. Most that I've known, even in
the Arminian circles, confess and acknowledge that Christ lived
a sinless life, that He did not sin while He lived in the flesh
upon the earth. Not many, except for the rankest
of heretics, will lay to His charge any sin. though some have
inadvertently impugned His impeccability in their ignorance. But even
the rankest of Arminians will surely say that the Lord lived
among men all of those years upon the earth without sinning. And I'm sure some of them would
go so far as to take offense at the suggestion that the Lord
was guilty of any sin while He lived among men on the earth. And yet, their arguments are
based only upon the fact, only upon the fact that He did not
sin, and their arguments are not based upon the truth of the
fact that He could not sin. Their argument goes no further
than that he did not sin. But it does not take into account
the fact that he could not sin. He was immune from sinning. They might then be willing to
say, well, the question about whether Christ was peccable or
impeccable is now moot and irrelevant since he did not sin. Since he did not sin, they say,
Let us put the issue aside. Let us put it under rest. Why
make it an issue, since the Lord Jesus Christ indeed lived without
sinning. It is enough, they say, that
He lived among men without sinning. And that in addition to that,
He was tempted of the devil himself. He was tempted in all points,
as we are, without sinning, as Hebrews said. He saw much sin,
but He never sinned. For such this might be the end
of the issue for them. He did not sin, put aside therefore
the question." Now, should we press them even further, even
though they believe that Jesus did not sin, yet it is true that
many of them would still say that He might. have sinned, they
will say, it was possible that the Lord might have sinned. That He might have, under certain
circumstances, have sinned. That He might have actually committed
some sin while He dwelt in the flesh among men upon the earth. But we say to them, wait a minute. Hold on. This is not the end
of the matter. For we demand to know of them
how Christ might have sinned. We demand to know what is it
about Christ that might have made it possible for Him to have
sinned. By what possible means could
the Lord have sinned? Had he a corrupt nature? Had
he original sin lurking within him? Why, such would be absolute
blasphemy to attribute such unto our Lord. What would have been
the result if the Lord had sinned, perished the thought out of our
mind forever, but still not being convinced They are content to
root the matter only in the fact that Christ did not sin. However, as one commentator wrote,
the holiness of the God-man consists in more than sinlessness. Unquote. Let's get that. The
holiness of the God-man consists in more than sinlessness. For Adam was once without sin
himself, and then he sinned and he fell. And all the holy angels
were once without sin, and then some of them sinned and they
fell. Who can deny the far-reaching
consequences if the Lord Jesus had sinned in our flesh? And to answer those who think
that Christ might have sinned, I think that we ought to consider
the consequences should our Lord have sinned. Have those who take
that position ever followed it out to the consequences and unto
the end? What would be the effects to
the human nature of our Lord if He had a sin? Would it affect
then the whole theanthropic person of our Lord, then would sin pass
also into the divine nature, for there was a union of the
two in Him." Our premise will be that not only did Jesus not
sin, but that it was actually impossible that He sinned. Not
that He could sin, but he didn't by his strict obedience, but
that it was impossible for the God-man to sin, that his humanity
was impeccable because and by its relationship or its union
to the divine nature which he possessed before he became incarnate. So let's bring in that text in
Luke 1 and verse 35, and worked from it for a while this morning. I'm looking now at the part that
said, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God. Look at it again. That holy thing,
that holy one, that holy being, that holy person. Of course,
this is the part of the angelic announcement unto the virgin
Mary, that she would bear a special child, that his name would be
Jesus, and that he would be great. The angel, of course, was Gabriel. Mary was a young Jewish maid,
a virgin in Luke 1 and verse 27, a spouse or engaged to marry
Joseph, who was of the house of David. Now the angel said
to Mary in Luke 1 and 31, you will conceive in your womb and
bring forth a son and call his name Jesus, Joshua, our Savior. It is evident. If you read the
Scripture, Luke 1 and Matthew 1, It is evident that both Mary
in Luke 1.34 and Joseph in Matthew 1 and verse 19 knew that they
had not conceived a child together. They had not been intimate. And those two verses say that
to protect the virgin birth. How then will this young maiden
bear such a son? Luke 1.35, the Holy Ghost, our
Spirit, shall come upon you, and the power of the highest
shall overshadow you. Very quickly, let us remember
that when Mary was found with child in Matthew chapter 1, before
Joseph took her to wife, Matthew 1 and verse 18, she was found
with child And the author said, and that by the Holy Spirit. Mary was found with child, unmarried. She was found with child of the
Holy Spirit. Now the teachings of the Scripture
is that the humanity of the God-man, Jesus, was conceived in the womb
of a vessel of God's choosing by a supernatural act of the
Holy Spirit of God. We must consider what Luke writes
there. The Holy Spirit, he said, will,
three words, come upon you, or thee. This has no resemblance
to anything at all in the likeness of any conjugal coming. Not at all. But it is akin to
what the Lord promised the disciples In Acts 1 and verse 8, you will
receive power after that the Holy Ghost is, three words, come
upon you. The same verb is used in both
places, where the Holy Spirit would work a special work, one
being the imparting or the bestowing of divine power in Acts, the
other one being the conception of the humanity and body of the
Lord in the virgin's womb. For after all, we remember that
our Lord was made of a woman. Galatians chapter 4 and verse
4. One of my interlinears that I
have in my study renders it this way, quote, becoming of a woman,
unquote. And another has it, quote, come
of woman. That is, he came or was born
or made of woman. Now, I admit, Paul's emphasis
in Galatians 4 and 4 is not upon the supernatural virgin birth
per se, but upon the fact of the fullness of the time of God. God sent forth His Son to redeem
them that were under the law. But in sending Him forth, to
answer that in two things were true of him. Number one, he was
born of a woman. Galatians 4 and verse 4. Number two, he was made under
the law. He was born of a woman. He was
made under the law. So that he was not only man,
but being born of a woman, a Jew by birth and nationality. By the way, did you notice that
Paul does not glorify Mary in any way in this matter? In fact,
he does not mention the woman by name. He was born of a woman. No epistle glorifies her. No later writer whatsoever lifts
her up. None of them ever say that Mary
was also immaculately conceived, or that she remained a perpetual
virgin, or that she was without original sin, or that she ascended
into the heaven as some have taught over the years. The holiness
of the God-man is in no way depending on or derived from Mary. He was not that holy thing on
account of Mary bearing him into the world. He was that holy one
because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God. And not only conceived by the
Holy Spirit of God, but hypostatically in union with the divine nature,
the divine nature. He was born of woman. that he
might be a true man, have real and true human nature. And he was conceived without
man so that he might be free and clear of any depravity. And the way that this was done
was by the Holy Spirit conceiving his human body or flesh or humanity
in the womb of the Virgin. with anything to argue from this
standpoint. How can he be clean that is born
of a woman? Scripture tells us this is not
possible. Job 25 and 4. Job 15 and 14. What is man that he should be
clean and by which he is born of a woman that he should be
righteous? What of David's confession? In
Psalm 51 and verse 5, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and
in sin did my mother conceive me. And the Lord's words to Nicodemus
in John chapter 3 and verse 6, That which is born of the flesh
is flesh. So how could Jesus be born of
a woman and still be clean free of original sin, when all others
that are born of women, even of saintly women, come from the
womb stained with corruption and original sin." Now, let's
make two points here. Number one, in each Scripture
that we have just cited, they were born by natural procreation
or propagation. That is, of two human parents. All of these in Job and David
and that born of the flesh, all of these are true of those who
were born of a father and of a mother, a man and a woman,
begotten by a man and born by a woman, which, by the way, is
altogether different from the birth of Jesus, the God-man. The second thing that we might
remember is this. David does not attribute his
original sin to any whoredom on the part of his mother. Nor
is he calling himself illegitimate, as some have interpreted that
scripture. Nor is David speaking of any
sinfulness in the act of his parents in coming together to
conceive him. This is how some seek to dodge
the doctrine of total depravity and original sin. That's how
they interpret David's words, taking them completely out of
their meaning and sense. David, in that Scripture, is
tracing his actual sins, which were filthy, to his original
foundation, or their original foundation. He was sinful from
the first moment of His existence. And He sinned because He was
sinful. Yea, He was born and conceived
in sin. But though Jesus had a human
mother who birthed Him, yet He was not begotten of man, therefore
His nature was not depraved and corrupted as is ours." Contrary
to what some might say, Mary was a common, ordinary, even
a fallen woman. She was not any different from
others. And yet, Jesus was born of her,
free of depravity, so that He is called that holy thing. Matthew 1.21 He is called that. That which is conceived in her
is of the Holy Ghost, as well as being born of a woman. He
would be called the Son of God. What was born of Mary, the one
that was born out of Mary, would be called the Son of God, for
He was begotten of and by the Holy Spirit. of God Himself. Not that He is the Son of the
Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit conceived Him, but He
is the Son of the Father, but conceived by the Holy Spirit. For example, if that is a problem,
if you say, why then is He not called the Son of the Holy Spirit
since the Spirit conceived Him? For example, the Holy Spirit
inspired the Scripture. The Holy Spirit led, inspired,
guided men to write them. And yet they're not called the
Word of the Holy Spirit. They are called the Word of God. So the Holy Spirit conceived
the humanity of Christ. He is called the Son of God. And though He is born of a woman,
yet is He holy. And his humanity was assumed
then in union with the divine nature, so that as to his person,
he was true God and true man, both in one person. He was one person, not two persons,
one person with two natures, a divine and a human. And the divine nature of our
Lord was certainly the predominant one in the constitution of the
theanthropic person of our Lord. I'm going to Hebrews 2. We'll
be back there again in the evening service. But in Hebrews 2, I
just wanted to read a few verses. Hebrews 2, verses 14-18. 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 being the devil, and deliver them who through all of their
lifetime were subject unto bondage. For verily he took not the nature
of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore,
in all things it behooved him to be made like 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 also that are tempted." Now, we'll be back here in the
second service, but note that the author had stated earlier
in this chapter why it is that Jesus was made for a little while
a little lower than the angels. And that's in verse 9 of Hebrews
2. It was for the suffering of death,
to taste death for every one. That is, sons in verse 10. the sanctified brethren in v. 11, my brethren in v. 12, the children which God hath
given me in v. 13, the children in v. 14, the seed of Abraham in v. 16, and brethren in v. 17. In all of those places there
is that kinship unto the Lord. Now, in order for our Lord to
take a proper kinship to the seed of Abraham to deliver them
by his death, he must become a partaker of human nature. In that verse 14, as the children,
the ones he would bring to glory, are partakers of flesh and blood,
since they have partaken of flesh and blood, And what condition
or state does this describe? Flesh and blood. What does it involve to say flesh
and blood? What is the meaning? What's said
here by these words? The children have partaken of
flesh and of blood. Let's recall where this same
phrase is used in several other places in the Scripture. They're
in Matthew 16, And verse 17, flesh and blood have not revealed
this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. There in
1 Corinthians 15 and 50, flesh and blood shall not inherit the
kingdom of God. They are again found in Galatians
1 and 16 where Paul said, I conferred not with flesh and blood. with regard to the revelation
of the glorious gospel. And you have it a final time
in Ephesians 6, in verse 12, we wrestle not against flesh
and blood, but against principality. So, then in verse 14 and 17,
it says, the Lord took part of the saint, that is, flesh and
blood, He was made like unto his brethren. He too partook
of flesh and blood. He entered into their condition.
Most sound Calvinistic expositors are of the opinion that that
refers to the humanity or the human condition that is flesh
and blood, human nature. John Eady wrote on the phrase
in Ephesians 6 and verse 12, quote, the terms do not necessarily
point out humanity as its sinful and fallen state, but in the
original form, from what kind of flesh and blood therefore
was He and we partakers of. Now what we learn here in Hebrews
chapter 2 is that there is a constituted such a union between Christ and
His children. All these verses establish that
very fact. There is constituted such a union
between Christ and His children, which God had given unto Him,
such a union that might be legal, just, and effectual, that two
things result from it. From the Lord being made a partaker
of our nature, or partaking of flesh and of blood, two things
are necessary and evident here. Number one, that having assumed
that nature, he might suffer and die. We have that in Hebrews
14, verse 14, the last half, and verse 15, the first part.
He partook of the same, that through death he might destroy
him that had the power of death, the devil, and deliver them who
through fear of death were formerly enslaved or in bondage. Now,
the second thing that is there in verse 17 is, he ought to be
made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and a
faithful high priest in things regarding God, and to make reconciliation
for the sins of the people. Now, basically, we'll look at
this further in the second study. For our last question in this
study, let's consider this question or the question. How close did
Christ come to our human nature? He was made flesh. He was born
of a woman. He dwelt among us. How close
then did Christ come to our nature? How far did the likeness extend? between Him and His people. How
much like us was He in the flesh? Was He so much in our likeness
that one sin were in Him? Or was He so much in our likeness,
number two, did our likeness require that He be capable of
sinning? Did He assume a nature, though
not sinful, yet capable of sinning if put in the right circumstances? You might be surprised and you
might be shocked to know how many in Christendom today believe
that although Jesus did not sin, yet He was capable of it as He
walked about in our flesh. And that many prefer Christ to
be a potential sinner. Why? I cannot know. They prefer
Him to be a possible sinner rather than an impeccable one. So back
to the question. How close did Christ come unto
us? What kind of a kinship did He
take with His people? We are sinners. We have fallen
natures. Must Christ experience depravity
to rescue us from our depravity? First of all, how close did He
come? Well, he was to be the seed of
the woman. Genesis 3 and verse 15. He came close enough to be born
of a fallen woman. Close enough to lay in her womb. He was not created, you know,
after the fashion of Adam or Eve full grown at the time. But he began with conception
and was born in the blood of birth and was a suckling child. As a man, he was made in the
likeness of men, and listen to this, he was found in fashion
as a man. Philippians 2, verse 7 and verse
8. He had a human soul. As to his appearance, Isaiah
53 and verse 2, he has no form nor comeliness And when we see
Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. And here,
listen more carefully than ever, He was even made in the likeness
of sinful flesh. Not in sinful flesh, but in the
likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8 and verse 3. And that
word likeness there protects His impeccability and His purity. We took on the form of a man
and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet was He not
sinful, but in the likeness of sinful flesh. This tells us,
I believe, how close the Son came to us, even being in the
likeness of sin's flesh. The Puritan Thomas Manton dealt
with that question and he wrote something like this, he, that
is Christ, came as near as need be and as possible, so as to
not take infection, so as to not be polluted. He came close
enough to be tempted. He came close enough to suffer.
He came close enough to hang upon a cross and die. but not
close enough to be a partaker of our depravity, which is passed
along by natural propagation. We all, like David, were born
in sin and conceived in iniquity, so that all that issue out of
both a human father and a human mother are born in sin or depraved
or sinful. But the Christ of God was born
of a woman. but not begotten by a man, or
not a son of Adam. The Spirit of God conceived wonderfully,
in a mysterious way, the humanity of our Lord in a woman, and called
that, that holy thing, or that holy being, holy one. And in
Him is no sin. Now the doctrine that Christ
was peccable, that He could have sinned, actually spoils the whole
person of Christ entirely. You might lay all else to Him
and then come up with this, and it would spoil the person of
Christ entirely, because it is an insulting teaching, and it
is blasphemy against God's blessed and holy One, and would be the
end of any hope of salvation should he whom God sent have
fallen into sin. That holy thing shall be called
the Son of God. Those two natures united into
one person, the Son of God. The Son of God, that which is
born of Mary. Not the divine nature, but the
human born of a woman. Well, we'll finish that, God
willing, after our lunch and fellowship. So if we might stand
together for a word of prayer.