Featured Erickson on the incarnated Christ

I know the formula. But when we speak of supernatural acts some say this is Jesus acting in his divine nature. When we speak of human acts, some say this is Jesus acting in his human nature. The reasoning is often something along the lines of "God is Spirit, God can't experience death, God can't learn", or "Jesus in his divine nature raised the dead, healed the blind, etc.". Do you see the difficulty with such a dualistic way of thinking? The ultimate and inevitable conclusion, if followed out with any consistency, is that God can't become man because God can't change, God is not man, God cannot learn, ect.

My point is not to dispute that Jesus is not 100% God and 100% man. I also believe this to be true. My point is one of highlighting my own ignorance and failure to reconcile what you so comfortably hold. To me Jesus is fully God and fully man in the way that He is my Lord and Savior (rather than my Lord and my Savior). I do not understand how, except as a tool for discussing the topic, one can believe that Jesus possessed two separate natures in a way that exceeds the form of our two natures (our physical nature turned in to our physical desires and needs, and our spiritual natures, being alive in Christ and seeking the will of God above our own).

How do you define "nature" in the context of Jesus having two of them?

 

I disagree, mostly because Jesus said that all he did was the will of the Father and this through the Spirit (every miracle can be viewed as an act of Jesus, the will of the Father, and the power of the Spirit....the Father and Spirit are witnesses of the work performed by Christ).

But did you also not tell me that God is unable to die (to experience the dying of a human body)? God can't change, learn, grow, be born, be injured, be tempted, have the need to eat, sleep, ect. Sin is not a matter of ability - it is not that God lacks the power to do evil, or that Jesus did not have the power to sin, but that God will not do evil (God will not act contrary to his own nature, will, and word).

 

What miracle did Jesus perform that was foreign to the Disciples? You have the feeding(s) of the multitude. But the Disciples, following in Jesus' footsteps and by the power of the Spirit healed people. When Tabatha died, Peter raised her from the dead.

Please understand - I am not minimizing the miracles of Jesus by saying that these are human actions and abilities. They are not. They are works of God, works of the Spirit. Too often in our theologies we tend to isolate Jesus from the Trinity. But our redemption is dependent on the triune work of God. Jesus was not exercising his divinity when he performed those miracles. As Scripture testifies, the Holy Spirit rested on Jesus, who did nothing of his own accord but accomplished the will of the Father.

 

Exactly. Peter walked on water by his faith in God (Jesus) and through the power of the Spirit. Jesus did all through faith in God (the Father) and through the power of the Spirit.

 

I've been thinking about your post for awhile, and I still struggle to reconcile the dualistic approach that Jesus "acting in His humanity" seems to imply (that Jesus was either not acting as God, should not be considered as God, or was not God during those events).
I think the problem we encounter here is in defining nature (what is inherent in being human). If it is our nature to sin, then sin is not contrary to our nature. I think, perhaps, this is not the case. Our nature is to do what is right (which is why we have expectations of justice and laws to govern behavior in society). The problem is that we do not do what is right.

What if, rather than our natures becoming such as to necessitate that we sin, instead it was that through Adam’s sin death was introduced and that death spread to all men because all have sinned (all are guilty of acting contrary to proper human nature)? Perhaps our impulses and instincts are not in themselves sinful, at least not at the start, but births sins when we surrender to temptation (either physically or mentally).

If this is the case, then Jesus had exactly the same human nature as you or I. The difference is not the nature but the will. Unlike you and me, Jesus humbled himself in obedience to God. Where we would selfishly act upon wrong impulse or instinct Jesus governed himself in accordance with the will of the Father

For example, in the wilderness Jesus hungered but set aside his desire and instinct to satisfy that hunger in faithful obedience to the Father. It is not a sin to eat, nor is it to satisfy the physical need or even want for food. It would have been a sin to eat if that were contrary to God’s will (e.g., if you were fasting for a period prescribed by God).

If this is the case, then we can honestly say that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but without sin. We cannot say this if Jesus had a nature that was not like ours. The difference may be the will and not the nature itself. Depending, of course, on how you define nature.