Impeccability

Yet another theologica-inspired posting here, but one that fits nicely into my own recent studies.

When we speak of Christ, we say that his nature was impeccable, that is, that he had no ability to sin. It is not that he could have sinned and chose not to, but that in fact that it was impossible for him to sin—he did not have a sin nature, and he did not have the ability to sin.

I think those who argue against the impeccability of Christ do so because they think he was somehow "cheating" or that his temptations were meaningless unless he could sin. It may also be that they feel he cannot so well identify with our failures this way.

I'm not sure how well I'd be able to address each of those objections, and answering them is somewhat different than discussing the arguments in favor of the orthodox position, which is really what I'd rather discuss.


It strikes me that the argument against impeccability breaks down eschatalogically because we expect (rightly so) that we will not be able to sin in heaven. This is a part of what we look forward to, to finally be rid of this dying and dead body, to be placed in a celestial one without the capacity for sin.

It is in this we see that we are conformed to the image of Christ; we will be like him in his glory. We will finally be truly human.

It is a depressing view of humanity that sees it as flawed, and a high one that sees in Christ the redemption of humanity, the restoration of humanity to what it properly should be and was created to be.

(Hopefully it's obvious that this is also part of the consequences of "man fully alive." I'm told to look for this in On the Incarnation, too, but that will come later.)

The Deity of Christ

This post has been sitting in draft for a fairly long time. My apologies for the delay.

In an abortive thread on Theologica this past week, a question was asked about the necessity of the Trinity. This is a sharp dividing line between Christians and those who claim to be Christian—Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, while the Mormons deny the unity of the Godhead, for example.

Iraneaus' quote naturally has some bearing on the Trinity, as he assumes the deity of Christ when he says, "... God, who cannot be grasped, comprehended or seen, allows himself to be seen, comprehended and grasped by men, that he may give life to those who see and receive him."

It struck me during the thread that if Jesus Christ is not, in fact, God a very God, then I cannot know God, who is hidden from mankind by his holiness. The deity of Christ is what makes it possible to know God. (We may insert here that Christ, being confined by his human form, is no longer here; but it is his Spirit dwelling in us who reveals God to us. This is yet another argument for the Trinity and the personhood, as it were, of the Holy Spirit.)

It seems that we might also draw a similar conclusion about our own humanity. I cannot know myself unless Jesus Christ is also fully human, a very man. In coming in the flesh, becoming "man fully alive," he gives us the hope of our own perfection, one we anticipate along with all of creation. When I turn inward and examine myself apart from Christ, I see what is fallen and ugly—a flesh whose hallmarks are sin and depravity. But when we look to Christ's person and work, suddenly our own self-perspective can legitimately change. I cannot become human on my own, but when I am finally conformed to the image of Christ, this body of death will at last be cast off, and I will be free.

The New Adam

Truthfully, I think this is where Romans 5 (and 1 Corinthians 15, probably more explicitly) hit the concept of man fully alive more explicitly (we arrived round-about through suffering in our Bible study discussion, but I'd like to put that off for a little while).

We read:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: ... 18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

In this passage the relative consequences of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are examined. It is somewhat beyond the scope of my writing (and understanding) to discuss this exhaustively, the idea of federalism is important here. Both Adam and Christ represent the race (not as mere examples, contra some expositions of Pelagianism). Adam is a representative of fallen humanity—and his headship results only in death (Ro 5.12). But Jesus Christ, by contrast, is the representative of redeemed humanity, and his headship results in "justification of life." As we read in 1 Corinthians 15:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is impossible to think of ourselves as "men fully alive" without first contemplating the "aliveness" (as it were) of Jesus Christ. "In him was life, and the life was the light of men." It is impossible, too, I think, to really think of our own life as somehow separate from his own. (So Paul writes in Galatians, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.")