The Human Nature In Jesus Christ

[Martin Andrews]

To me, the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most difficult subjects that one could study. And I feel that it is far too dangerous for us to probe too deep into these doctrines. It is important for us finite beings, to accept that there are some areas that must remain a mystery. No human mind can ever understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which teaches that there is one God, and at the same time Scripture teaches that there are Three Persons, Who are clearly Deity. The only way for us humans to understand this, is defined by the term "Trinity", where the Three Persons, Who are distinct, and yet possess the same "essence". Nor can anyone ever comprehend the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, though He remained Almighty God, yet by the working of God The Holy Spirit, was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, and derived from her His "human nature", which was sinless by God the Holy Spirit, and became the God-man! The Gospel of Luke clearly tells us (1:35);

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God”

And Matthew also informs us of the conception of Jesus Christ in Mary (1:18);

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit

It is because man has gone too deep into these great mysteries, that he has fallen into many damnable heresies. Like the Holy Trinity, which clearly is a Biblical teaching, yet our human limited minds can never comprehend this, because it is a “mystery”. The Incarnation and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially being God-Man, that is not “logical” to our finite minds, but must be accepted on the basis of Scripture testimony.

The doctrine of the two natures in Jesus Christ, is the subject of our present study. I must stress at this point, that our human language in far too inadequate, to describe our Great God.

Jesus Christ, after He took human nature from Mary, became, not a human being, nor, half God and half man, nor, a righteous man in whom God dwelt; but, the God-Man, Who is fully God, and fully man at the same time, known as "theanthropos” ("the", from "theos",=God; and "anthropos",= Man). This Person of Jesus Christ, has been an endless matter of debate, and speculation, both, within and outside the Church. It must be borne in mind at all times, that our only guide in such matters, is the Holy Word of God, and what it reveals to us, by God the Holy Spirit, Who alone leads into the truth!

The subject that we are looking into (as far as we are permitted to), deals with the "human nature" in the one Lord Jesus, and not His "divine nature". The aspect of which our study involves, is the "extent" of the human nature which Christ "took on" (our language fails us!). The two words of this study, 'anhupostasia' and 'enhupostasia', deal with the human "personality" in Jesus Christ. The former of the two words, describes that our Lord's human nature did not have a "Personality" of its own, and is therefore "impersonal". The second word, which is very similar to the first, begins with the letter "e", instead of "a" (an "a" prefix to a word in the Greek, denotes a "negative", "im-personal"), and teaches "in-personality"; that it, our Lord's "human nature" has its personality in the "divine nature". These are two "theories" that have been put forward by the Church, to understand the "human nature" in the Person of Jesus Christ. The second one is generally the more accepted by the Church. It is evident, as we shall see, that both theories are wrong, and must firmly be rejected. It should be understood, that, at the Incarnation, Jesus did not unite Himself to a “human person”, but with “human nature”. Thus, at the same time being fully God, and fully man.

The first theory, that the "human nature" in Jesus Christ is "impersonal", teaches that His "human nature" is incomplete. For, how can someone be said to have complete "human nature", and at the same time have no "personality"? It is not a difficult theory, but an impossible one. The "personality", is the means by which we express ourselves, without which we are left emotionless beings! It has been said that "human nature" consists of "human characteristics and attributes" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.294); and "intelligence and free-will" (P Schaff; History of the Christian Church; vol.II, p.758). The latter of whom admits, that "it is true we cannot, according to our modern way of thinking, conceive a complete human nature without personality" (ibid; emphasis mine). The "human nature", we are also told, consists of "thought, feeling, and will" (H P Liddon; The Divinity of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, p.23).

In effect, this "theory" lands us into the hersey of "Docetism", which from earliest times taught, that our Lord's body was not real, but only "seemed (from the Greek, 'dokeo',= "to seem") to be; which also included that the sufferings of our Lord upon the cross were unreal, as they were not "felt" by Him!

Are we to understand from a denial of the human personality in Jesus, that what He thought, willed, felt, belonged solely to His divine nature? In other words, when he felt hungry, tired, etc. it was in His divine nature? When Paul tells us in Hebrews, that Jesus was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (4:15); was this as a human, or as God? If the former, then we have to acknowledge human personality in Christ; if the latter, then all that He felt for us, was done so as God! The tempations of Jesus Christ were as real as they are to us, and it was felt (personally) by Him as a human, and not as God; as God cannot be tempted! When Jesus is said to have “suffered for our sins” (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 1 Peter 3:18), is this something that pertains to His divine nature? This “suffering” (pain), is something that He felt in His “body”, which can only have reference to His “human nature”. Or else we are landed in to the heresy that the “divine nature” of Jesus Christ “suffered” for our sins, and by extension, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit also “bore our sins”. It is the body of Jesus Christ which was on the cross, and which died for our sins. And what reference we have in passages like Isaiah 53, which speak of the Suffering Servant, are completely true to the fact that He alone “bore our sins in His body” on the cross, and truly felt the full force of the righteous punishment which should have fallen on us, on His own body. It is an impossibility to say that Jesus Christ, in His “human nature”, felt absoultely nothing on the cross when He suffered, but only did no in His “divine nature”. There is a “gospel” which goes under the name of “Peter”, which clearly is a heretical work of the 2nd century. In here we read of Jesus Christ on the cross, of which we are told, that He “kept silence as one feeling no pain”. This of course goes againt the clear teaching as found in the Holy Bible. It would support the theory that Jesus’ “human nature” was “impersonal”.

The doctrine of the 'enhupostasia', seems to me even more dangerous, than that of the 'anhupostasia'. Of this we are told, that;

"the human nature of Christ had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine; it had no existence at all before the incarnation, but began with this act, and was so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality, as to find in this alone its own full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage oif its development. But the human nature forms a necessary element in the divine personalit" (Schaff, ibid)

The doctrine of the 'enhupostasia' teaches (but is denied by its proponents), that in some way the human nature was altered. This is clearly seen by the fact, that the divine nature is said to have "permeated" (to penetrate through) the human nature; in which case we here do not have a true human nature, but one that has been raised to the divine level! I feel that this is very dangerous language to use, and should be rejected. It is the Biblical position, that Jesus Christ is always Almighty God, something that even He cannot ever (not even for a split-second) cease to be. At ( and not before or after) His Incarnation, He took upon Himself, "out of" (εκ) the virgin Mary complete human nature, except sin. Therefore, at this time, He ceased to be only divine in nature, as He (added) to this human nature; after which He is known as the God-Man. Both natures retain their common properties, and are in no way altered, either by change, or by mixing, or by being obsorbed. As far as we can tell from Scripture (which is our only guide) there is no place where the two natures ever meets, so that the one " penetrates" the other. This is not Biblical, and rests purely upon speculation; and is, in my opinion very dangerous.

 

[Yeshua1]

To me, the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most difficult subjects that one could study. And I feel that it is far too dangerous for us to probe too deep into these doctrines. It is important for us finite beings, to accept that there are some areas that must remain a mystery. No human mind can ever understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which teaches that there is one God, and at the same time Scripture teaches that there are Three Persons, Who are clearly Deity. The only way for us humans to understand this, is defined by the term "Trinity", where the Three Persons, Who are distinct, and yet possess the same "essence". Nor can anyone ever comprehend the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, though He remained Almighty God, yet by the working of God The Holy Spirit, was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, and derived from her His "human nature", which was sinless by God the Holy Spirit, and became the God-man! The Gospel of Luke clearly tells us (1:35);

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God”

And Matthew also informs us of the conception of Jesus Christ in Mary (1:18);

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit

It is because man has gone too deep into these great mysteries, that he has fallen into many damnable heresies. Like the Holy Trinity, which clearly is a Biblical teaching, yet our human limited minds can never comprehend this, because it is a “mystery”. The Incarnation and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially being God-Man, that is not “logical” to our finite minds, but must be accepted on the basis of Scripture testimony.

The doctrine of the two natures in Jesus Christ, is the subject of our present study. I must stress at this point, that our human language in far too inadequate, to describe our Great God.

Jesus Christ, after He took human nature from Mary, became, not a human being, nor, half God and half man, nor, a righteous man in whom God dwelt; but, the God-Man, Who is fully God, and fully man at the same time, known as "theanthropos” ("the", from "theos",=God; and "anthropos",= Man). This Person of Jesus Christ, has been an endless matter of debate, and speculation, both, within and outside the Church. It must be borne in mind at all times, that our only guide in such matters, is the Holy Word of God, and what it reveals to us, by God the Holy Spirit, Who alone leads into the truth!

The subject that we are looking into (as far as we are permitted to), deals with the "human nature" in the one Lord Jesus, and not His "divine nature". The aspect of which our study involves, is the "extent" of the human nature which Christ "took on" (our language fails us!). The two words of this study, 'anhupostasia' and 'enhupostasia', deal with the human "personality" in Jesus Christ. The former of the two words, describes that our Lord's human nature did not have a "Personality" of its own, and is therefore "impersonal". The second word, which is very similar to the first, begins with the letter "e", instead of "a" (an "a" prefix to a word in the Greek, denotes a "negative", "im-personal"), and teaches "in-personality"; that it, our Lord's "human nature" has its personality in the "divine nature". These are two "theories" that have been put forward by the Church, to understand the "human nature" in the Person of Jesus Christ. The second one is generally the more accepted by the Church. It is evident, as we shall see, that both theories are wrong, and must firmly be rejected. It should be understood, that, at the Incarnation, Jesus did not unite Himself to a “human person”, but with “human nature”. Thus, at the same time being fully God, and fully man.

The first theory, that the "human nature" in Jesus Christ is "impersonal", teaches that His "human nature" is incomplete. For, how can someone be said to have complete "human nature", and at the same time have no "personality"? It is not a difficult theory, but an impossible one. The "personality", is the means by which we express ourselves, without which we are left emotionless beings! It has been said that "human nature" consists of "human characteristics and attributes" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.294); and "intelligence and free-will" (P Schaff; History of the Christian Church; vol.II, p.758). The latter of whom admits, that "it is true we cannot, according to our modern way of thinking, conceive a complete human nature without personality" (ibid; emphasis mine). The "human nature", we are also told, consists of "thought, feeling, and will" (H P Liddon; The Divinity of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, p.23).

In effect, this "theory" lands us into the hersey of "Docetism", which from earliest times taught, that our Lord's body was not real, but only "seemed (from the Greek, 'dokeo',= "to seem") to be; which also included that the sufferings of our Lord upon the cross were unreal, as they were not "felt" by Him!

Are we to understand from a denial of the human personality in Jesus, that what He thought, willed, felt, belonged solely to His divine nature? In other words, when he felt hungry, tired, etc. it was in His divine nature? When Paul tells us in Hebrews, that Jesus was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (4:15); was this as a human, or as God? If the former, then we have to acknowledge human personality in Christ; if the latter, then all that He felt for us, was done so as God! The tempations of Jesus Christ were as real as they are to us, and it was felt (personally) by Him as a human, and not as God; as God cannot be tempted! When Jesus is said to have “suffered for our sins” (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 1 Peter 3:18), is this something that pertains to His divine nature? This “suffering” (pain), is something that He felt in His “body”, which can only have reference to His “human nature”. Or else we are landed in to the heresy that the “divine nature” of Jesus Christ “suffered” for our sins, and by extension, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit also “bore our sins”. It is the body of Jesus Christ which was on the cross, and which died for our sins. And what reference we have in passages like Isaiah 53, which speak of the Suffering Servant, are completely true to the fact that He alone “bore our sins in His body” on the cross, and truly felt the full force of the righteous punishment which should have fallen on us, on His own body. It is an impossibility to say that Jesus Christ, in His “human nature”, felt absoultely nothing on the cross when He suffered, but only did no in His “divine nature”. There is a “gospel” which goes under the name of “Peter”, which clearly is a heretical work of the 2nd century. In here we read of Jesus Christ on the cross, of which we are told, that He “kept silence as one feeling no pain”. This of course goes againt the clear teaching as found in the Holy Bible. It would support the theory that Jesus’ “human nature” was “impersonal”.

The doctrine of the 'enhupostasia', seems to me even more dangerous, than that of the 'anhupostasia'. Of this we are told, that;

"the human nature of Christ had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine; it had no existence at all before the incarnation, but began with this act, and was so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality, as to find in this alone its own full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage oif its development. But the human nature forms a necessary element in the divine personalit" (Schaff, ibid)

The doctrine of the 'enhupostasia' teaches (but is denied by its proponents), that in some way the human nature was altered. This is clearly seen by the fact, that the divine nature is said to have "permeated" (to penetrate through) the human nature; in which case we here do not have a true human nature, but one that has been raised to the divine level! I feel that this is very dangerous language to use, and should be rejected. It is the Biblical position, that Jesus Christ is always Almighty God, something that even He cannot ever (not even for a split-second) cease to be. At ( and not before or after) His Incarnation, He took upon Himself, "out of" (εκ) the virgin Mary complete human nature, except sin. Therefore, at this time, He ceased to be only divine in nature, as He (added) to this human nature; after which He is known as the God-Man. Both natures retain their common properties, and are in no way altered, either by change, or by mixing, or by being obsorbed. As far as we can tell from Scripture (which is our only guide) there is no place where the two natures ever meets, so that the one " penetrates" the other. This is not Biblical, and rests purely upon speculation; and is, in my opinion very dangerous.

His twin natures are never co mingles, or partaking of each other, but He is still One person, as he is not at times now God, nor man, but both at same time!

 

[Martin Andrews]

His twin natures are never co mingles, or partaking of each other, but He is still One person, as he is not at times now God, nor man, but both at same time!

Did I say somewhere that the two natures in Jesus Christ "co-mingled"? I am very clear to the fact that Jesus Christ is ONE Person, 100% God and 100% Man, as to His natures. But, each "nature" is complete, with the exception of sin in His human nature. The Person of Jesus Christ is one of the greatest mysteries, and no one will ever understand this. How He can be ONE Person, and yet have TWO complete natures, without being TWO Persons, is not explainable humanly.

If there is any part of my study that seems not right to anyone, I would really appreciate it if they could please mention this, as I do not claim to know very much on this important subject, and would very much like to get it Biblically right.

 

[Darrell C]

Did I say somewhere that the two natures in Jesus Christ "co-mingled"? I am very clear to the fact that Jesus Christ is ONE Person, 100% God and 100% Man, as to His natures. But, each "nature" is complete, with the exception of sin in His human nature. The Person of Jesus Christ is one of the greatest mysteries, and no one will ever understand this. How He can be ONE Person, and yet have TWO complete natures, without being TWO Persons, is not explainable humanly.

If there is any part of my study that seems not right to anyone, I would really appreciate it if they could please mention this, as I do not claim to know very much on this important subject, and would very much like to get it Biblically right.

I am out of time so don't have the opportunity to give the OP the time it deserves, and will just mention one thing for the time being. It may help you to better grasp this if instead of seeing Christ as a "separate" (and I know you aren't saying that, just the easiest way to describe what I'm saying) Person from the Son of God, and in effect, God Himself. Rather, understand that God took upon Himself the flesh of man, and there was no change in His Nature when that took place, any more than you and I change natures when we put on a coat. It's a little more complex than that, lol, but that holds the basic perspective I view this as.

Look at Genesis 18, where we also see God take on human form. When we read that passage we do not think that He is or has become Someone different, but we understand that this is God, in human form, interacting with Abraham. The difference between that flesh, and the flesh created in Mary's womb is that we suppose that when God was done interacting with Abraham, that flesh did not continue, unlike the flesh of the Incarnation, in which Christ was born, lived, died, and resurrected. He is in that same flesh today, howbeit glorified.

When we understand that, I think, we can understand how He can be Human and God at the same time.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did I say somewhere that the two natures in Jesus Christ "co-mingled"? I am very clear to the fact that Jesus Christ is ONE Person, 100% God and 100% Man, as to His natures. But, each "nature" is complete, with the exception of sin in His human nature. The Person of Jesus Christ is one of the greatest mysteries, and no one will ever understand this. How He can be ONE Person, and yet have TWO complete natures, without being TWO Persons, is not explainable humanly.

If there is any part of my study that seems not right to anyone, I would really appreciate it if they could please mention this, as I do not claim to know very much on this important subject, and would very much like to get it Biblically right.

I was just saying that to support what you are saying here, as we can use the Bible to support that Jesus is both God/Human, fully both, with twin natures/wills, but that he is still One person in that he is always in a single accord and agreemnet, never arguing within Himself...

 

[Martin Andrews]

I am out of time so don't have the opportunity to give the OP the time it deserves, and will just mention one thing for the time being. It may help you to better grasp this if instead of seeing Christ as a "separate" (and I know you aren't saying that, just the easiest way to describe what I'm saying) Person from the Son of God, and in effect, God Himself. Rather, understand that God took upon Himself the flesh of man, and there was no change in His Nature when that took place, any more than you and I change natures when we put on a coat. It's a little more complex than that, lol, but that holds the basic perspective I view this as.

Look at Genesis 18, where we also see God take on human form. When we read that passage we do not think that He is or has become Someone different, but we understand that this is God, in human form, interacting with Abraham. The difference between that flesh, and the flesh created in Mary's womb is that we suppose that when God was done interacting with Abraham, that flesh did not continue, unlike the flesh of the Incarnation, in which Christ was born, lived, died, and resurrected. He is in that same flesh today, howbeit glorified.

When we understand that, I think, we can understand how He can be Human and God at the same time.


God bless.

Thanks for taking the time to share. can you please expand on "It may help you to better grasp this if instead of seeing Christ as a "separate" (and I know you aren't saying that, just the easiest way to describe what I'm saying) Person from the Son of God, and in effect, God Himself."? I can't see in my note anywhere that I said Christ is a "separate" Person from the Son of God?

Jesus Christ is ONE Person, 100% God and 100% Man, as to His natures. But, each "nature" is complete, with the exception of sin in His human nature. The Person of Jesus Christ is one of the greatest mysteries, and no one will ever understand this. How He can be ONE Person, and yet have TWO complete natures, without being TWO Persons, is not explainable humanly.

 

[Martin Andrews]

I was just saying that to support what you are saying here, as we can use the Bible to support that Jesus is both God/Human, fully both, with twin natures/wills, but that he is still One person in that he is always in a single accord and agreemnet, never arguing within Himself...

Yes, One Person, two natures/wills, in complete agreement and harmony, as Jesus is the Perfect God-Man.

 

[Happy]

To me, the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most difficult subjects that one could study. And I feel that it is far too dangerous for us to probe too deep into these doctrines. It is important for us finite beings, to accept that there are some areas that must remain a mystery. No human mind can ever understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which teaches that there is one God, and at the same time Scripture teaches that there are Three Persons, Who are clearly Deity. The only way for us humans to understand this, is defined by the term "Trinity", where the Three Persons, Who are distinct, and yet possess the same "essence". Nor can anyone ever comprehend the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, though He remained Almighty God, yet by the working of God The Holy Spirit, was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, and derived from her His "human nature", which was sinless by God the Holy Spirit, and became the God-man! The Gospel of Luke clearly tells us (1:35);

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God”

And Matthew also informs us of the conception of Jesus Christ in Mary (1:18);

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit

God NEVER CHANGES. God is HOLY, natural mankind is not. Yet God has devised a WAY for Him to communicate with mankind, WITHOUT compromising His Holiness AND, WITHOUT annihilating mankind, via the brightness of His Glory. (ie Light).

Holy God communicates with natural mankind, VIA, a COVER sometimes called a VEIL.

And all of Gods VEILS are intended for man to KNOW, he (the man) is in the presence of God.

God has devised and used several COVERS; ie visions, dreams, clouds, trees, tent veils, burning bush, dove, angel, man, and in the last days, a body in the likeness as a man, God said, to call Him JESUS, the Son of God.

It is because man has gone too deep into these great mysteries, that he has fallen into many damnable heresies. Like the Holy Trinity, which clearly is a Biblical teaching, yet our human limited minds can never comprehend this, because it is a “mystery”. The Incarnation and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially being God-Man, that is not “logical” to our finite minds, but must be accepted on the basis of Scripture testimony.

No. Not too deep into Gods mysteries.
Yes. Man relying on "logic" and "natural mindedness", in an attempt to understand God.

Scripture teaches; Gods Wisdom is infinite. No one can search their mind, philosophies of men, books, anything written and FIND Gods Understanding. Gods Understanding IS Unsearchable!

Scripture teaches; Knowledge. It does not teach Gods Understanding.

Knowledge is what it is ~ information revealed.

Understanding is WHAT the knowledge means.

Almost ALL of Scripture has TWO meanings;
One ~ that ANY man can read and use his MIND, to ponder, deduce, weight, figure, Logically conclude.
Two ~ that is Gods Understanding.

And in most ALL cases ~ A mans Natural understanding AND Gods understanding are Completely different. (And in many cases, men have Different natural understandings from other men).

Knowledge is revealed in Scripture for any who desires can read. They can TRUST God and believe it or not. Thus, a man with Trust, will believe the knowledge (without understanding) and a man without Trust, will doubt the knowledge being revealed.

This is exampled in Jesus' own teachings. via Parables. Jesus spoke with ONE speech, to mixed crowds. Some Trusted to believe and follow along. Others doubted and could not Trust to believe, and departed from hearing.

A natural meaning of a Parable is; a fictitious story.
Spiritual understanding of Jesus speaking in a fashion called a Parable, was precisely three fold;
1) to fulfill Scripture, that He would open His mouth in Parables.
2) that those who do not trust, would doubt and separate themselves from following along.
3) that His Parables would reveal Mysterious Truths, not before given in Knowledge.

Things that were COVERED ~ God, His mysteries, His Truths, His Knowledge ~ Have been uncovered.
ie KNOWLEDGE once hidden, NOW revealed.

The Cover ~ The Veil IS JESUS.
JESUS is God in the flesh likeness as a man ~

JESUS was revealed to mankind AS a humble Servant, without Reputation and Teacher by Example.

LATER while JESUS was on earth, Serving, Teaching (by example), it was revealed, what He "reputation" IS.

Bit by bit, we discover His Reputation, left in Heaven, coming to Him on earth ~ Wisdom, Power, Authority, etc.

It is then, it is ALSO revealed, WHO Jesus is ~ ie CHRIST ~ who is God and possesses the FULL attributes of God Himself ~ omnipresent ~ omnipresent ~ omniscience.

I do not agree in mankind's assessment and language defining JESUS as "fully man and fully God".

God is Supreme. He never changes. He does not become His own creation. Mankind is a creation.

God is Supreme. His KIND of thing IS NOT a created KIND of thing.

God is Supreme. He can APPEAR in any FASHION that pleases Him.

God Appearing "AS" a "natural man", an "angel", a "dove", or anything else, does not CHANGE God into those things.

God being CALLED such things, does not make God such things.

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for taking the time to share. can you please expand on "It may help you to better grasp this if instead of seeing Christ as a "separate" (and I know you aren't saying that, just the easiest way to describe what I'm saying) Person from the Son of God, and in effect, God Himself."? I can't see in my note anywhere that I said Christ is a "separate" Person from the Son of God?

That is why I said "I know you aren't saying that," lol.

But it is something we have a tendency to do, and in truth there is good reason for that, because, as I said, Jesus Christ has a point in time when He came into being in the Incarnation, whereas the Son of God has existed eternally. At first glance that may sound like heresy, but it is what Scripture teaches.

Jesus Christ is ONE Person, 100% God and 100% Man, as to His natures. But, each "nature" is complete, with the exception of sin in His human nature. The Person of Jesus Christ is one of the greatest mysteries, and no one will ever understand this. How He can be ONE Person, and yet have TWO complete natures, without being TWO Persons, is not explainable humanly.

It is explainable in human terms.

The Son of God donned a body of flesh just as you and I might don a coat. When we put that coat on we do not become a different person. That the Son of God has the ability to don humanity as we might don a coat is easily understood...He is God.

He can do that kind of thing.

When we are glorified, my friend, we will go through the same process that Jesus Christ went through, we will be glorified. But, that does not mean we will be equal to the Lord in Eternity, nor He equal to us. Because He is still God.


God bless.

 

[Billx]

It seems to Jesus as the second Adam was born without corruption consequently he as tempted as was Adam before sin. Adam made the decision to sin thereby corrupting himself and his progeny or son passed from Adam to all. Augustine used seminal transmission and a number of other notions to explain the origin of the OSN. He delves into
The reason for the virgin birth and these are worthy to be read. For me the second Adam gave me the ability make the right decision, to choose Christ and his righteousness and thereby be declared righteous by the love of God in Christ.
Augustine is worthy of reading but in trying to explaining the whys he become mechanical at tims afar from reality and in so doing loses the simplicity of the biblical word of God. It is not productive to try to understand God but to accept his offer and make the right decision to accept Jesus. By grace we have the help Gods on spirit and Angels beyond number

 

[Yeshua1]

That is why I said "I know you aren't saying that," lol.

But it is something we have a tendency to do, and in truth there is good reason for that, because, as I said, Jesus Christ has a point in time when He came into being in the Incarnation, whereas the Son of God has existed eternally. At first glance that may sound like heresy, but it is what Scripture teaches.



It is explainable in human terms.

The Son of God donned a body of flesh just as you and I might don a coat. When we put that coat on we do not become a different person. That the Son of God has the ability to don humanity as we might don a coat is easily understood...He is God.

He can do that kind of thing.

When we are glorified, my friend, we will go through the same process that Jesus Christ went through, we will be glorified. But, that does not mean we will be equal to the Lord in Eternity, nor He equal to us. Because He is still God.


God bless.

Before he was born, was just God the Son, since that, is the Son of God.Son of Man!

 

[Billx]

The trinity is quite incomprehensible and beyond Our logic. Jesus is the express image of the father and I might say only image. Putting on the flesh I think is what made Arianism so attractive, it fit our logic. The Angel said this same Jesus will return. He had a glorified redirection body and we shall have such a body. He laid aside his royal robes to come. When he came back from the grave did he assume his royal robe? So was his preoncarnation like his post reserrection body. This is fairly dangerous ground because John says flesh was a type of temple vail and he says God is spirit thus no body. There are ways interpreting imago dei where the image man as the image may not be a physical material body. I confess my obvious ignorance and any insight would a worthwhile read.

 

[Billx]

It seems to Jesus as the second Adam was born without corruption consequently he as tempted as was Adam before sin. Adam made the decision to sin thereby corrupting himself and his progeny or son passed from Adam to all. Augustine used seminal transmission and a number of other notions to explain the origin of the OSN. He delves into
The reason for the virgin birth and these are worthy to be read. For me the second Adam gave me the ability make the right decision, to choose Christ and his righteousness and thereby be declared righteous by the love of God in Christ.
Augustine is worthy of reading but in trying to explaining the whys he become mechanical at tims afar from reality and in so doing loses the simplicity of the biblical word of God. It is not productive to try to understand God but to accept his offer and make the right decision to accept Jesus. By grace we have the help Gods on spirit and Angels beyond number

YES, father, son and Holy Spirit as said hear O Israel is one God.

 

[Billx]

Yes, One Person, two natures/wills, in complete agreement and harmony, as Jesus is the Perfect God-Man.

To me, the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most difficult subjects that one could study. And I feel that it is far too dangerous for us to probe too deep into these doctrines. It is important for us finite beings, to accept that there are some areas that must remain a mystery. No human mind can ever understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which teaches that there is one God, and at the same time Scripture teaches that there are Three Persons, Who are clearly Deity. The only way for us humans to understand this, is defined by the term "Trinity", where the Three Persons, Who are distinct, and yet possess the same "essence". Nor can anyone ever comprehend the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Who, though He remained Almighty God, yet by the working of God The Holy Spirit, was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, and derived from her His "human nature", which was sinless by God the Holy Spirit, and became the God-man! The Gospel of Luke clearly tells us (1:35);

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God”

And Matthew also informs us of the conception of Jesus Christ in Mary (1:18);

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit

It is because man has gone too deep into these great mysteries, that he has fallen into many damnable heresies. Like the Holy Trinity, which clearly is a Biblical teaching, yet our human limited minds can never comprehend this, because it is a “mystery”. The Incarnation and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially being God-Man, that is not “logical” to our finite minds, but must be accepted on the basis of Scripture testimony.

The doctrine of the two natures in Jesus Christ, is the subject of our present study. I must stress at this point, that our human language in far too inadequate, to describe our Great God.

Jesus Christ, after He took human nature from Mary, became, not a human being, nor, half God and half man, nor, a righteous man in whom God dwelt; but, the God-Man, Who is fully God, and fully man at the same time, known as "theanthropos” ("the", from "theos",=God; and "anthropos",= Man). This Person of Jesus Christ, has been an endless matter of debate, and speculation, both, within and outside the Church. It must be borne in mind at all times, that our only guide in such matters, is the Holy Word of God, and what it reveals to us, by God the Holy Spirit, Who alone leads into the truth!

The subject that we are looking into (as far as we are permitted to), deals with the "human nature" in the one Lord Jesus, and not His "divine nature". The aspect of which our study involves, is the "extent" of the human nature which Christ "took on" (our language fails us!). The two words of this study, 'anhupostasia' and 'enhupostasia', deal with the human "personality" in Jesus Christ. The former of the two words, describes that our Lord's human nature did not have a "Personality" of its own, and is therefore "impersonal". The second word, which is very similar to the first, begins with the letter "e", instead of "a" (an "a" prefix to a word in the Greek, denotes a "negative", "im-personal"), and teaches "in-personality"; that it, our Lord's "human nature" has its personality in the "divine nature". These are two "theories" that have been put forward by the Church, to understand the "human nature" in the Person of Jesus Christ. The second one is generally the more accepted by the Church. It is evident, as we shall see, that both theories are wrong, and must firmly be rejected. It should be understood, that, at the Incarnation, Jesus did not unite Himself to a “human person”, but with “human nature”. Thus, at the same time being fully God, and fully man.

The first theory, that the "human nature" in Jesus Christ is "impersonal", teaches that His "human nature" is incomplete. For, how can someone be said to have complete "human nature", and at the same time have no "personality"? It is not a difficult theory, but an impossible one. The "personality", is the means by which we express ourselves, without which we are left emotionless beings! It has been said that "human nature" consists of "human characteristics and attributes" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.294); and "intelligence and free-will" (P Schaff; History of the Christian Church; vol.II, p.758). The latter of whom admits, that "it is true we cannot, according to our modern way of thinking, conceive a complete human nature without personality" (ibid; emphasis mine). The "human nature", we are also told, consists of "thought, feeling, and will" (H P Liddon; The Divinity of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, p.23).

In effect, this "theory" lands us into the hersey of "Docetism", which from earliest times taught, that our Lord's body was not real, but only "seemed (from the Greek, 'dokeo',= "to seem") to be; which also included that the sufferings of our Lord upon the cross were unreal, as they were not "felt" by Him!

Are we to understand from a denial of the human personality in Jesus, that what He thought, willed, felt, belonged solely to His divine nature? In other words, when he felt hungry, tired, etc. it was in His divine nature? When Paul tells us in Hebrews, that Jesus was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (4:15); was this as a human, or as God? If the former, then we have to acknowledge human personality in Christ; if the latter, then all that He felt for us, was done so as God! The tempations of Jesus Christ were as real as they are to us, and it was felt (personally) by Him as a human, and not as God; as God cannot be tempted! When Jesus is said to have “suffered for our sins” (Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 1 Peter 3:18), is this something that pertains to His divine nature? This “suffering” (pain), is something that He felt in His “body”, which can only have reference to His “human nature”. Or else we are landed in to the heresy that the “divine nature” of Jesus Christ “suffered” for our sins, and by extension, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit also “bore our sins”. It is the body of Jesus Christ which was on the cross, and which died for our sins. And what reference we have in passages like Isaiah 53, which speak of the Suffering Servant, are completely true to the fact that He alone “bore our sins in His body” on the cross, and truly felt the full force of the righteous punishment which should have fallen on us, on His own body. It is an impossibility to say that Jesus Christ, in His “human nature”, felt absoultely nothing on the cross when He suffered, but only did no in His “divine nature”. There is a “gospel” which goes under the name of “Peter”, which clearly is a heretical work of the 2nd century. In here we read of Jesus Christ on the cross, of which we are told, that He “kept silence as one feeling no pain”. This of course goes againt the clear teaching as found in the Holy Bible. It would support the theory that Jesus’ “human nature” was “impersonal”.

The doctrine of the 'enhupostasia', seems to me even more dangerous, than that of the 'anhupostasia'. Of this we are told, that;

"the human nature of Christ had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine; it had no existence at all before the incarnation, but began with this act, and was so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality, as to find in this alone its own full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage oif its development. But the human nature forms a necessary element in the divine personalit" (Schaff, ibid)

The doctrine of the 'enhupostasia' teaches (but is denied by its proponents), that in some way the human nature was altered. This is clearly seen by the fact, that the divine nature is said to have "permeated" (to penetrate through) the human nature; in which case we here do not have a true human nature, but one that has been raised to the divine level! I feel that this is very dangerous language to use, and should be rejected. It is the Biblical position, that Jesus Christ is always Almighty God, something that even He cannot ever (not even for a split-second) cease to be. At ( and not before or after) His Incarnation, He took upon Himself, "out of" (εκ) the virgin Mary complete human nature, except sin. Therefore, at this time, He ceased to be only divine in nature, as He (added) to this human nature; after which He is known as the God-Man. Both natures retain their common properties, and are in no way altered, either by change, or by mixing, or by being obsorbed. As far as we can tell from Scripture (which is our only guide) there is no place where the two natures ever meets, so that the one " penetrates" the other. This is not Biblical, and rests purely upon speculation; and is, in my opinion very dangerous.

Er... what is a two seed in the spirit Baptist?

 

[reformed_baptist]

I think the first thing i would point out in this study is that you seem to use the name "Jesus" to refer to the preincarnate son, for example you say:

Jesus Christ, after He took human nature from Mary

Prior to the incarnation there was no Jesus Christ, their was the Son. The person of Jesus Christ is the result of The Son becoming a man.

Next you say:

became, not a human being, nor, half God and half man, nor, a righteous man in whom God dwelt; but, the God-Man

Now, whilst I think I know what you mean it would be better to say, "mere human being" John 1:14 is key here.

Now, in and of themselves these points might seem that important but we are about to embark on a study in the mystery of the person of Jesus and to my mind these two points speak to the veracity of that study - great care is needed in the wording (as yourself seem to admit) and great care is needed in Biblical exegesis.

Furthermore, when you state the follow it gives me great concern:

The subject that we are looking into (as far as we are permitted to), deals with the "human nature" in the one Lord Jesus, and not His "divine nature".

Could we study the nature of God by leaving one person of the trinity out I wonder?

The hyperstatic union demands that we understand that whilst Jesus Christ is both God (and man and that his human and divine natures are distinct) he is, at the same time one person. And those two nature are united - hence we cannot say ever that his human will and divine will were at odds with each other (anymore then we can say the Son and the Father have ever disagreed on anything).

Now, I might have missed it but I all I see in your study is what you disagree with, what are proposing as a solution?

One area to think about is the relationship of the God-man yo sin, was he posse non peccare (as Adam) or was he (non posse peccare) as God is?

If we go for the later, as I believe we must, then the only viable explanation for that perfection is that the divine nature lifted the human nature to something greater then even the state of Adam in the garden. Now, you seem to suggest that can't be the case when you write:

This is clearly seen by the fact, that the divine nature is said to have "permeated" (to penetrate through) the human nature; in which case we here do not have a true human nature, but one that has been raised to the divine level! I feel that this is very dangerous language to use, and should be rejected.

In those statement you seem to assume more then most theologians say in your rejection of this position - it is not the divine nature elevated the human nature to divinity and therefore the human nature stopped being human. Ask yourself this my freind, will we still be human in the eternal state?

That is a state in which we will be non posse peccare as God is, does that mean we will be divine or does it mean that human nature can, by the design and grace of God, transcend this fallen human condition that we find ourselves in?

Anyway just a few thoughts to get your thinking

 

[Darrell C]

Before he was born, was just God the Son, since that, is the Son of God.Son of Man!

I don't think I would phrase it as He "was just the Son of God."

And that He is the Son of Man is more for our benefit, rather than His.

And I would agree that "Son of God" has more application to the Incarnation than His Eternal Existence.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think I would phrase it as He "was just the Son of God."

And that He is the Son of Man is more for our benefit, rather than His.

And I would agree that "Son of God" has more application to the Incarnation than His Eternal Existence.


God bless.

Before he became Jesus and dwelt among us, he was just in Deity, hence God the Son!

 

[reformed_baptist]

Before he became Jesus and dwelt among us, he was just in Deity, hence God the Son!

I wonder if you know just close to heresy your careless phrasing sometimes makes you appear?

 

[Yeshua1]

I wonder if you know just close to heresy your careless phrasing sometimes makes you appear?

Jesus was Him when he took on human flesh, so was he not Jesus God alone as to His nature before His incarnation?

 

[reformed_baptist]

Jesus was Him when he took on human flesh, so was he not Jesus God alone as to His nature before His incarnation?

I'm sorry - I have tried reading that - I know what all the words mean but I can't make 'head nor tail' of what it means when they are put to together in that order. I speak as someone whose written English is bad myself so i'm not being critical - but I need help there!

Now to be clear I was not saying I disagreed with what you are trying to say - rather, the way your saying it is not good. You are quite correct to make the point that prior to the incarnation there was God the son, and that in the incarnation the God Man Jesus Christ was born and it is therefore not just anachronistic, but also theological error, to refer to the pre-incarnate person of the Son as Jesus - however to say Jesus was 'in deity' is to make God a pool that can be dipped into and pulled out of - the son was not 'in deity' he was fully God, equal with the father in every respect.