Doctrine to Be Rejected # 5: “That Christ’s nature was immaculate”.
Introduction
This is the second of the numbered doctrines that was added by Robert Roberts after the first statement, which was written sometime before 1871. The Doctrine to be rejected is #5 in the 1883 edition: That Christ’s nature was immaculate”. In common with #4, That Christ was born with a “free life”, it is also hard to understand in the 21st Century. Also in common with #4, it had its roots in the controversy generated by Edward Turney, as we discussed last month.
This doctrine to be rejected can be restated in a positive way:
Through his birth, Christ inherited a nature sin-affected, and destined to death, being mortal, as are all others
“Immaculate”
The major problem with this phrase is that, in normal usage, the word “immaculate” is largely used of a person’s dress or behavior. From a dictionary you find it defined in such terms as:
- Completely clean; extremely tidy, such as “his clothes were immaculate”
- Completely flawless, etc., such as “an immaculate rendering of the symphony”
- Morally pure; free from sin or corruption, such as “immaculate conception”
- Biology: of only one color, with no spots or markings
However, if you hunt through Christadelphian literature, it is almost always the third definition that applies.
Robert Roberts, during the heart of the dispute, wrote about one of the questions put to him by Edward Turney:
QUESTION 32. — If Jesus was neither a sinner by constitution nor an actual transgressor, in other words, if free from sin, was he not therefore immaculate?
Answer. — This question is founded on premises not conceded in the foregoing answers. Jesus certainly was not immaculate, if by that is meant incorruptible in nature; or, a nature free from impulses in a sinful direction. He was not an actual transgressor. All the desires of the Adamic nature, which he had in common with ourselves, were kept in absolute subordination to the Father’s will. But he partook of the flesh of sin (English version — sinful flesh); and if this is what is meant by “a sinner by constitution,” then he was a sinner by constitution. His mission required that he should be in the nature of the transgressing race. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, because they had nothing to do with the transgression. The nature of angels had nothing to do with the transgression. Therefore, ‘he took not on him the nature of angels;’ but the seed of Abraham was of a transgressing and condemned nature. Therefore, he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made, in all things, like unto his brethren (Heb 2:17)”1
In this he was only reflecting the views of John Thomas before him, for in 1856 Bro. Thomas wrote:
“But if the human nature of Christ were immaculate (excuse the phrase, O reader, for since the Fall we know not of an immaculate human nature) then God did not ‘send Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh’; he did not ‘take hold of the seed of Abraham’, he did not ‘become sin for us’; ‘sin’ was not ‘condemned in the flesh’; and ‘our sins’ were not ‘borne in his body upon the tree’. These things could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of that physical principle styled ‘sin in the flesh’. Decree the immaculateness of the body prepared for the Spirit, Psa 40:6, Heb 10:5, and the ‘Mystery of Christ’ is destroyed, and the gospel of the kingdom ceases to be the power of God for salvation to those that believe it.”2
False teaching — its ancient origin
The false teaching about this matter goes back to the 5th century, to the Council of Chalcedon, which was a church council held from October 8 to November 1, AD 451, at Chalcedon (a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor). The judgements and definitions of divine nature issued by the council marked a significant turning point in the Christological debates that led to the separate establishment of the church in the Western Roman Empire during this century.
Many Anglicans and most Protestants consider it to be the last ecumenical council. These churches, per Martin Luther, hold that both conscience and Scripture preempt doctrinal councils and generally agree that the conclusions of later councils were unsupported by or contradictory to Scripture. The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Emperor Marcian, with the reluctant approval of Pope Leo the Great, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, which would become known as the “Latrocinium” or “Robber Council.”
The Council issued the ‘Chalcedonian Definition,’ which repudiated the notion of a single nature in Christ, and declared that he has two natures in one person and hypostasis; it also insisted on the completeness of his two natures: Godhead and manhood. His begettal by the power of the Holy Spirit gave Jesus qualities that can only be described as divine: thus, according to the Council, his nature was “immaculate”, i.e., he could not sin in any way.
The truth
Jesus was his Father’s Son, and shared many of His characteristics. He knew His Father’s will instinctively, where the rest of mankind needs to learn it, by laying “precept upon precept,” it was therefore due to his Sonship that Jesus repelled, with a ready recourse to his Father’s Word, each temptation as it arose. This unique quality that marks Jesus out as God’s Son was shown prophetically when Isaiah recorded about the Christ: “The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him … and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord” (Isa 11:2 & 3).
Jesus had not only a closeness of relationship to his Father, born out of his unique Sonship, but “he took on him (the nature of) the seed of Abraham” (Heb 2:16). He was therefore both Son of God and Son of Man at one and the same time in the unity of his nature. His character displayed his unique relationship to God, but like all who are “made of a woman, (he was) made under the law” of sin and death (Gal 4:4). It is not helpful when attempting to understand Jesus’ nature to separate these two aspects of his being.
Jesus was a whole and complete character. He brought his closeness to God to bear upon the problems all human beings receive as sons of Adam, and overcame them. He could only do this if he truly shared these same characteristics. The established church’s view of Jesus as a divine being in an envelope of human flesh (what they define as the Incarnation) utterly fails to provide an answer to this need. Jesus’ compliance with God’s will could not have benefited the rest of mankind unless he had overcome in himself the temptation to sin, which he shared with all mankind, and which they struggle with every day of their lives.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One