Pilate’s words, recorded in John 19.5, echo through the centuries since the Lord Jesus stood before him. "Ecce Homo", drew the attention of the mob to a man who had been beaten and mocked by the soldiers. Pilate had not the least doubt that this man was fully and completely human. He bled like other men and would, he believed, die like them also should he, Pilate, so choose.
His true humanity
Though there were some things about the Lord that set Him apart, and though His subsequent death seemed to occur with unusual speed, there was no real reason for the Governor to change his mind. Despite this there have been those who have denied that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (1 Jn 4.3).
For some who denied the true humanity of the Lord it was an attempt, as they saw it, to defend His absolute sinlessness. Since they believed that "flesh" is inherently evil then He could not have been truly a "partaker of flesh and blood" (Heb 2.14). It is true that Scripture regularly uses the term "flesh" in a context that contrasts it with "spirit" and brands it as sinful. Yet Scripture is also careful to explain that while the Lord who is "the Word" was made "flesh" and lived among us, He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8.3). Possessed of true humanity yet without its sin, He was, and is, unique.
One can trace the special character of the Lord from His conception. The Gospel narrative is unambiguous: Mary was a virgin (Lk 1.27,34; Mt 1.18,25). The child she bore was conceived as a consequence of the Holy Spirit’s "coming upon her" and "the power of the Highest" that would overshadow her (Lk 1.35). However, the description that follows leaves little doubt that, while the conception was supernatural, the progress of the pregnancy and birth were no different for Mary than for any other woman. They would again be experienced by her when she bore children whose father was Joseph and whose conception was completely natural. That the Lord Jesus was truly human is emphasised by the prophetic word that He would be the "seed" of the woman (Gen 3.15). Further He is the true "seed of Abraham" (Gal 3.16), and His lineage flows from Abraham down through the children of Jacob "for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda" (Heb 7.14).
His deity
The child born was normal but different! Since Scripture makes clear that the child who was born was "God manifest in flesh" then this real human child was possessed of two natures, humanity and deity. But these two natures were combined in one person. He did not have two distinct personalities; He was and is the one Lord Jesus. As man He lived on earth knowing what it means to have a human body; hunger, thirst, weariness were among the experiences He shared with us (see for example Jn 4.6). He grew, He slept, He bled and, of course, He died. Having a body of flesh and blood meant that should He so will there could be a cessation of the processes of respiration that maintains bodily life.
At the same time, as God He had complete knowledge of the thoughts of those around Him; He was aware of men at a distance from Him and so was not constrained by physical location (Jn 1.48). He was able to do astonishing acts of power as signs for those who had eyes to see that He was, and is, the Son of God (Jn 20.30,31). That He was, and is, one person yet with two natures is the claim of the Scriptures. It is not explained, but it is demonstrated in the Gospels and so is to be believed on the basis of the evidence given.
His sinlessness
A subject of controversy that still resurfaces is whether the Lord could sin. The question is not whether He did sin. There has been wide agreement that He did not do so and Scripture is clear on this. Not only is it true that He "did no sin" (1 Pet 2.22), but "in him is no sin" (1 Jn 3.5). This latter reference itself denotes the complete absence of sin from His nature. But, nonetheless, could He have sinned? I take a very simple view of this. If He is one person and not two and that person is both God and man, then since God cannot sin neither can He. "God that cannot lie" is Paul’s note to Titus (1.2). The Lord Jesus then not only did not lie, He could not lie. The obvious conclusion is that He did not sin and that He could not sin.
Was the temptation of Christ "real" if He could not sin? First it was a clear demonstration of His sinlessness. That He was able to be a sacrifice without any moral imperfection and that He was holy not only at His birth but as He died at Calvary is without question. The tests put to Him by Satan were real enough but there was nothing in Him that meant He was attracted by them. It was not that He struggled to refrain from making stones bread, or to keep from throwing Himself from the pinnacle of the temple, or to turn from the vision of the world empire offered to Him. He was not in the least like some contemporary of Achan who might have coveted but not taken. There was no sin in His nature to respond to the pull of evil desire. It was not that He felt nothing when sin presented itself. For the Lord there would be revulsion not attraction in temptation to sin.
In Gethsemane He was "in an agony" (Lk 22.44). This could not have been a reaction to the physical suffering that lay ahead, however dreadful it was. The martyrdom of Stephen as described in Acts 7 illustrates that physical suffering has no ultimate terror for one who rests in God. It was surely the Lord’s recoil from the experience to be endured as "an offering for sin" and being "made sin for us" that caused His agony of soul. While He never became sinful, He "bore our sins. These dealings with sin and its judgment must have been abhorrent to Him and explain in part at least the depths of His anguish in the Garden.
He made Himself of no reputation
A variant on the argument that the Lord could sin comes from an interpretation of Philippians 2.7. The phrase "made himself of no reputation" can be translated as "emptied himself". This has been taken to mean that the deity of the Lord was not complete when He was here. Usually known as the "kenosis" theory from the Greek word for emptying, it is equivalent to saying that He was fully man but, since attributes of deity were absent, not fully God. While some who have held this theory might object to this characterisation of it, there is little doubt that this is its practical meaning. Scripture states that in Him does dwell "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2.9).
It might be argued that this was because He reclaimed His full deity at His resurrection or ascension. But deity is not divisible into discrete parts any more than is humanity. The "emptying" is best explained by remembering that, for example, He is the one who "though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor" (2 Cor 8.9). Does this not refer to the experience of one who could say that "the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Mt 8.20)? Poverty did not mean the abandonment of any aspect of His deity. Neither did His other human experiences.
At His death He remained one person. When a man dies it never means the end of existence. Rather the body ceases to be alive but the spirit continues forever for good or ill. For the Lord it meant "Paradise" where one of those crucified with Him joined Him; for the other, one cannot but think with dread that "he opened his eyes in hell".
A man in resurrection
When the Lord rose from the dead was He still a man? The answer must be, "Yes". He was careful to explain to His disciples that, though free from the physical restrictions we experience, He was the same Jesus whose company they had shared for the previous three years and was still "flesh and bones" (Lk 24.39-43). When John saw Him in glory described as "The lion of the tribe of Juda" he turned and saw the very one that the Baptist had declared as "the lamb of God", awful in His majesty but familiar as the one on whose bosom He had leaned (Rev 5.5,6).
That the Lord was fully human is important. For Him to be able to take man’s place at the cross He had Himself to be man. Likewise it was essential to enable Him to be the High Priest we need to represent us in our infirmities before the Father. He is faithful and sympathetic as the writer to the Hebrews declares (4.15). He is The Man.
To be continued.
