2. The Sinlessness of Christ's Human Nature.

2. The Sinlessness of Christ's Human Nature.

human beings have been sinners since Adam's fall, ovk é'ottv dikatos ov 6& gic, Rom. 3:10; mavtec Huaptov, Rom. 3:23, Christ is without sin according to his human nature: apwaptiav ovK émoinoev ovdé evpé9y SdA0c SdA0¢ EV TO otopatt avtov, Petr. 2:22. The fact of sinlessness is clearly taught in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: Isaiah 53:9: 7Q772 X87) nivy on-N? rap [HEBREW]; Dan. 9:24: 722772 wij? [HEBREW]; Luke 1:35 to aytov; Joh. 8:46: Tic s& vpwv eréyyet pe mepi apaptiac; 2 Cor. 5:21: 6 wn yvove apaptiav; 1 Petr. 1:19: apvdc apopos Kat GomtAoc; Petr. 2:22: apaptiav ov émoinosv KtA.; Hebr. 7:26: 60106, akKaKOG, ALiAVTOG, KEYMPLOLLEVOS Ad TOV OLAapToAdV; Hebr. 4:15: mEetEipacnévov dé Kate mavta Ka8’ OLoOLOTHTA YOPic Apaptios. But Scripture teaches not only the fact, but also the necessity of Christ's sinlessness for the orientation of the work of redemption. Hebr. 7:26-27: TOLOVTOG Tliv EmpEemEv EMPETEV APYLEPEVG SOLOG, aKaKos KTA. The redemption that happened through Christ is based on this, 1 Petr. 1:19: €Av8p@tnte... aiLwatt > &LUVOV GLOLOV Kai GomtAov Xpiotov. When Christ confesses sin and guilt (Ps. 69:6 '!® and feels it in his conscience (Matt. 27:46; 26:37-38), this is not his own sin but the sin of the world ascribed to him (peccatum imputatum), as Scripture again expressly declares, Isaiah 53:6: "The Lord threw all our sins upon Him", and 2 Cor. 5:21: tov tn yvovta Guaptiav bmép

Jamjam futurae nuncium interrogat: quomodo erit istud? agnoscens, naturaliter impossibile esse hoc, ut ipsa, virum non cognoscens, concipiat tamen et pariat; angelus autem Mariae in eo consentit et simpliciter ad Dei omnipotentiam respiciendum esse docet. [Google] (Comp. Il, 29.) As far as the "laws of nature" are concerned, God is not bound to them, but the laws of nature find themselves bound to God, because the laws of nature find nothing else but God's activity in and through creatures. Cf. Gen. 1:11-12; Ps. 104:13-14.

debts are not hidden from you") to Christ, one can only have objections as long as one does not get serious about the scriptural concept of substitution. The details at the Doctrine of Christ's Work. NUOV Apnwaptiav émoinosv. The cause of sinlessness is not the preservation of a massa sancta in Israel," nor is it an evolution from the unholy to the holy, as if by means of natural or spiritual striving a sinless individual of the human race had gradually and finally developed from sinful ancestors,!') nor the sinlessness (immaculata conceptio) of Mary, which Pius IX decreed on December 8, 1854, but the fact that Mary ex mvebpatoc ayiov became the mother of Christ according to human nature, Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" etc.; 616 Kai To YEevvM@pEévoV GyLOV KANSHoOETAL VLOG Seob. Of course, sin does not belong to the nature of human nature. Luther: Sunt peccatum et mors mala separabilia [Sin and death are separable evils]. ‘13) But the separation of sin from human nature is not a thousandth part of the power of man, but is merely a work of the grace and omnipotence of God. Thus also the separation of the holy human nature of Christ from the sinful human nature of the Virgin Mary is a work of God the Holy Spirit. Luther carries this out powerfully. He rejects the human idea of the procreation of a massa sancta in Israel. All ancestors of Christ, including the Virgin Mary, belonged to the sanguis corruptus [corrupt blood]. It was only at the moment of conception that the Holy Spirit separated a sacred human nature ex sanguis corrupto. At the same time, Luther points out the consolation that lies in the fact that Christ assumsit carnem sive naturam humanam ex carne contaminata et horribiliter polluta for frightened sinners, and that among Christ's human ancestors, Scripture also mentions those who stained themselves with gross sins. ''4) — On the discussion of sinlessness

virgin, who was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah, could not suddenly be born in the sinful generation; she was, although not without sin, but the purest of that generation... Just as in the development of mankind we see individual generations in growing sin and wickedness, so we also find tribes in which the noblest germs of life are nurtured and cared for from generation to generation." (Kommentar I, 42.) Quite different Luther. (See below.)

Bericht iiber die Siinde Judas, 1 Mos. 38) ad Messiam et nativitatem Filii Dei, quae est principalior causa. Nam hunc lapsum oportuit fieri Christ's two questions still remained unanswered: 1) Was Christ also free from hereditary guilt according to his human nature? 2 Was Christ, according to his human nature, also taken from the possibility of sin? It has been found difficult to clarify how Christ, if he was a true man, remained free from hereditary guilt (reatus peccati Adamitici), which according to Rom. 5:12 ff. burdens all men: 61 evéc napantmHpatos sic Aavtac av'SpamtovG lg KATOKPILA... SU THS AAPAKoOr s TOV TOV EVO AVEPATOV ALAPTMAOL KATEOTASN OAV OL TOAAOI TOAAOI, V. 18. 19. First of all it must be said: Even if we could not clarify the how, the fact that Christ was also free from hereditary guilt for his person is clearly testified in Scripture. It is in illa ipsa linea, in qua nasciturus erat Filius Dei. Summus patriarcha Iuda, pater Christi, hunc infandum incestum commisit, ut nasceretur Christus de carne excellenter peccaiite et turpissimo peccato contaminata. Nam ex scorto incestuoso, nuru sua, generat geminos, unde postea ducitur linea Salvatoris.[Google] This is what Christ must become in sua carne peccator, as shameful as he can ever become. Caro Christi oritur ex incestuoso concubitu, similiter et caro Virginis, matris eius, et totius posteritatis Iudae, ideo, ut significaretur ineffabile illud consilium misericordiae Dei, quod assumsit carnem sive naturam humanam ex carne contaminata et horribiliter polluta. Disputant enim doctores scholastici, utrum natus sit ex carne peccatrice, an munda, an servaverit Deus a condito mundo aliquam puram guttulam carnis, ex qua Christus nasceretur. Respondeo, ergo, Christum vere natum esse ex vera et naturali carne et sanguine humano, qui corruptus fuit originali peccato ‘in Adam, sed sic, ut posset sanari. Sicut nos credimus et speramus, qui sumus circumdati carne peccati, futurum, ut in die redemptionis nostrae ea purgetur et separetur ab omnibus infirmitatibus, morte et ignominia. Sunt enim peccatum et mors mala separabilia. Itaque cum ventum fuit ad virginem vel guttam illam sanguinis virginalis, impletum est, quod dixit angelus:,, Spiritus Sanctus veniet super te et obumbrabit tibi. [Google] Non quidem natus est Messias virtute carnis et sanguinis, sicut Ioh. 1, 13 dicitur:,, Non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate viri etc., sed tamen ex massa carnis et ex isto sanguine corrupto voluit nasci. In illo autem puncto conceptionis virginalis Spiritus Sanctus purgavit et sanctificavit massam peccati, et extersit venenum Diaboli et mortis, quod est peccatum. Etsi mansit mors in ea carne propter nos, tamen fermentum peccati expurga tum est, et facta est purissima caro per Spiritum Sanctum purificata, et imita cum divina natura in una persona. Est igitur vere natura humana non alia quam in nobis. Et Christus est filfus Adae et de semine et carne eius, sed, ut dictum est, Spiritu Sancto obumbrante, operante et purgante, ut apta esset ad hanc conceptionem innocentissimam, et mundam ac sanctam nativitatem, qua nos purgaremur et liberaremur a peccato. [Google] already contained in the scriptural statements that explicitly remove Christ from the number of sinners, Hebr. 7:26: key@plopévoc O20 TOV ALAPTOABV. But also just Rom. 5:18-19, where Adam is presented by his fall (mapdantwmpa) as the author of the judgment of condemnation passed on all human beings (katé«pyia), Christ does not appear to be burdened with this guilt and with this judgment of condemnation, but on the contrary as the author of the general judgment of justification passed on all human beings. But the fact that Christ did not naturally descend from Adam, but was received through supernatural, divine intervention, namely through the action of the Holy Spirit, throws some light on how Christ the man is free from the hereditary guilt. Above all, however, it must be pointed out that the human nature of Christ never existed as a person in its own right, but belonged to the person of the Son of God from the very first moment of existence. But the person of the Son of God is above Law and guilt, Matt. 12:8: Kbptdc EoT1 Ka TOV 6 TOV Vidc Tov av9pamov [The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day].'!) Also the possibility of the sin of Christ is to be decidedly denied. Not because of the sinlessness of Christ's human nature per se, for Adam, although he was created sinless, fell "in" temptation, but because Christ's human nature did not exist for itself, as a person in its own right, but formed a person with the Son of God. If we wanted to admit the possibility of sinning for the human being Christ, we would also have to admit the possibility of sinning for the Son of God, with whom the human being Christ formed a person. Those who accept the possibility of sinning in the man Christ give away eo ipso, consciously or unconsciously, the incarnation of the Son of God, the unio personalis of God and man.

hereditary guilt in this way: Massam illam sanguinis Mariae, ex qua Adyog sibi templum constructurus erat, Spiritus Sanctus ab omni peccati labe ac tabe purgavit. Nec reatus peccati Adamitici Christum involvere potuit, quia non fuit in lumbis Adami ex sequela naturae, sed ex promissione, non ut widdv3pornos, sed ut JeavSparoc et per consequens dominus legis, quem nulla lex obligare potuit. (Theol. pos.-pol., pars altera, p. 165.)

we would, in a very abstract way, consider him only as a human being, and the God- man would be lost to us; for if we thought that this possibility had become reality, the bond would be more personal 77] They replace the unio personalis with a unio mystica. It has been objected that when it is impossible to sin, the temptation of Christ is reduced to a mere appearance. Only, Matt. 4:1 ff. does not describe a sham fight, but a real fight. Then, even under purely human conditions, the objection does not hold water. In a fight the victory of one part can be certain, without the fight for the victor sinking into a mere mock fight. Thus also the temptation of Christ, although the outcome was not doubtful, was a real fight, in which the devil not only apparently but really penetrated Christ's soul with temptation and irritation, and Christ not only apparently but really fought, namely by faithful seizure and handling of the Word of God (yéypaztat) did not let the temptation and irritation that approached him from outside!!) gain a hold on his own soul. Against the assertion that the concept of "freedom" always includes the possibility of sin, it must be said that this establishes a mistaken concept of freedom. The saved in heaven cannot sin. Yet they are not unfree, but in the state of perfect freedom. If the Arminian Episcopius observed Nisi Juisset in Christo potentia peccandi, diabolus foret absurdissimus [If it had not been in Christ the power to sin, the devil would be most absurd], then it can be said that (1) someone can run into a rock in senseless rage, and that (2) the futile running against Christ in the desert is not the only proof of the devil's folly. '!®) We therefore hold on the basis of Scripture that Christ neither sinned nor could sin (Christus sacerdos impeccabilis). — The consequences of the sinlessness of Christ. A direct consequence of the sinlessness of Christ's human nature is its immortality, because according to Scripture death is merely a consequence of sin. '!?) Christ died because he wanted to die. Joh. 10:18: No man taketh it (my life) from me, but I lay it down unity between the son of God and the man of Jesus. The potuit non peccare applies to the first Adam, the non potuit peccare to the second Adam, because the second man is the Lord from heaven, 1 Cor. 15:47 (Glaubenslehre IV, 1, p. 150 f.)

(Das Evangelium des Matthdus, 6th ed., p. 123) argue with the wisdom of the devil against the historicity of the temptation report.

of myself, namely as the redemption of men for the payment of their, men's, sin.. 1 Cor. 15:3: Xpiotdc anéOavev drép TOV aunaptidv Hudv. '2 The dying of him who was immortal for his person is the ransom (Avtpov, Matt. 20:28; avtiAvtpov, Tim. 2:6), with which all mortals are bought with life. — As a result of the personal sinlessness (&vayaptynoia inhaesiva) the human nature of Christ undoubtedly also received greater natural gifts, e.g. greater natural wisdom, Luke 2:52, because the disturbing and destructive effect of sin was not in him. The glorious natural gifts in an unfathomable human nature are preserved in Adam before the Fall.!?!’ Luther rightly observes that only the first man before the Fall deserves the name of a philosopher in truth. '7?? — There has been much speculation about the outward appearance of Christ. One has given Christ partly an exceptional physical beauty based on Ps. 45:2 ("Thou art fairer than the children of men"), partly an exceptional physical ugliness based on Isaiah 53:2 ("He hath no form nor comeliness"). But no passage says what was been found in it. Ps. 45:3 describes Christ in his Redeemer beauty (Luther: grace beauty), Isaiah 53:2 in his suffering form. The Gospels tell us of the bondage of Christ's words,') but no special beauty of the outer form. There is no doubt that Christ, as the sinless one, would have been of extraordinary physical beauty, since all deformity is the consequence of sin, if he had not entered the state of humiliation, and thus of the consequences of the sins of men. The state of humiliation meant that he could enjoy the use of both his divine glory and the privileges of his

libera voluntate, seu, quia natura immortalis erat, voluntate se mortalem constituit, Toh. 10, 17. 18.... Mortale corpus Christi fuit ab extrinseco et secundum voluntariam o1xovoyiay, ita tamen, ut in libere suscepta morte incorruptibile fuerit. [Google]

quod Adam et Heva omnes omnium animalium affectus, sensus et vires omnes intellexerunt?... Si igitur volumus praedicare insignem philosophum, praedicemus primos nostros parentes, cum adhuc essent a peccato puri. [Who can think of this as a portion of the divine nature, that Adam and Eve understood all the feelings, senses, and powers of all animals?... Therefore, if we wish to preach a remarkable philosopher, let us preach our first parents, since they were still pure from sin..]

sinless human nature. In this state the outward appearance of Christ was like that of other people, as Scripture explicitly reports Phil. 2:7-8: €v Ouo1mpatt aVvOpOnOV yEVvOLLEVOS Kai OYHLATL EvpEDEic Wc KvOpamoc, and even more clearly Rom. 8:3: év Opotmpatt capKdc &Laptias [in the likeness of sinful flesh’]. Christ was without sin for his person, but his outward appearance was not that of man before the Fall, but that of man after the Fall. Kromayer: Verba textus (Rom. 8:3) habent, quod missus fuerit in similitudine carnis peccatricis, propter infirmitates scilicet assumtas, quae fluunt in nobis ex peccato, a Christo autem, qui segregatus fuit a peccatoribus, libere kat' oiovoiay (for the orientation of the work of redemption) fuerunt assumtae. Similitudo itaque non ad ipsam carnem, sed ad hoc accidens, quod propter assumtas infirmitates peccatrix visa fuerit [Google]. '°* It was discussed what quantity and what kind of human weaknesses and infirmities Christ had assumed. It must of course be noted that Christ, with all the sins, has also taken upon himself and removed all the punishments of sins. That is why we also read Matt. 8:17 with reference to bodily sufferings that Christ healed: Adbtis tic do0eveiac HLdv &aBEv Kai tis vVooouc &Baotacsv. '2> To avoid the wording of this passage, it has been objected that Christ then had to take upon himself extensively all infirmities and all diseases that exist among men for our redemption. That does not follow. Just as Christ, in a temporally limited suffering, took upon himself the eternal torments of hell due to men, because the temporally limited suffering of the Son of God had infinite value,!*® so also in the infirmities, limited in number and nature,

carrying of the guilt and the consequences of sin, which is why it is also used in the New Testament in this double relationship: from carrying the guilt 1 Petr. 2:24, from carrying the consequences of sin Matt. 8:17. Meyer understands Isaiah 53:4 is only guilty of bearing the sins and therefore says that the passage Matt. 8:17 is not quoted "in the historical sense of the basic text". The discussion of the relationship of Matt. 8:17 to Isaiah 53:4 has caused a whole literature to roar among the older exegetes, which is quoted by Kécher, Analecta in 4 evangelia, p. 188 sq.

majestate et excellentia personae compensatum est. (Synopsis theol. Zach., P. I, c. 8, § 168.) which we actually perceive in his person, Christ bore all the infirmities and diseases of men. We cannot determine what quantity and what kinds of weaknesses were necessary to create a fully valid ransom (Aitpov) according to God's account, but we must take them from the statements of Scripture. The old teachers have roughly hit the right note when they say that in Christ we perceive the weaknesses that are common to all people after the Fall (infirmitates communes), such as hunger, thirst, tiredness, crying, etc., but not personal infirmities and defects (infirmitates personales), such as blindness and individual illnesses.!7