Hypostatic union

[agedman]

NASB - And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, ​

Who is 'He' & 'His' ?
IMO - And the Son is the radiance of His Father's glory and the exact representation of His Father's nature,

the exact representation of His Father's hypostasis,

How does that impact on the "hypostatic union" ?

Not certain what target your point is trying to hit.

Representation is different then hypostatic union.

Christ did not represent God and represent humankind. He was fully both.

 

[agedman]

No-one changed their vote to 'other' ?

Jesus appeared in human form before his incarnation -
.e.g as Melchizedek, Gen. 14, the LORD, God most high.

That was a physical presence, where he handled food & wine, blessed Abram, & received the spoils.

Hebrews has a lot to say about his eternal priesthood.

7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
​

How does that impact on the "hypostatic union" ?

It doesn’t.

 

[Covenanter]

John - your input would be appreciated.

Consider. If Christ came spiritually in AD 70, but did not come physically, then the hypostatic union of Christ as 100% human and 100% God is not true. This doctrine was formulated way back in 325 at the first Council of Nicea in opposition to Arianism. Arius (c. 250-336) was a popular elder from Alexandria who developed a Christology that said Christ was truly a Person, though He was not equally God with the Father, but was eternally subordinate. In answer to this heresy, the council's phraseology was that Christ was 100% God and 100% Man, with neither being subordinate. This is called the hypostatic union.

 

[Covenanter]

Not certain what target your point is trying to hit.

Representation is different then hypostatic union.

Christ did not represent God and represent humankind. He was fully both.

YOU are the target - I was responding to your observation that -
"The KJV does ok with what they had, but the NASB gives that passage a clearer flow of the statement."

I would like to offer just a bit different picture to your thinking, to see if it is agreeable to you.

The KJV does ok with what they had, but the NASB gives that passage a clearer flow of the statement.

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.​

......
When Christ told the desciples “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father,” it wasn’t that they looked personally at the Father, but the exact representation of the Father. The Hebrews passage gives a list (so to speak) of the attributes of the Father represented in the Son.

The writer of Hebrews is very careful to show the eternal aspect of the Son, yet also give positional aspect as expressed in the “name” being exalted above even the angels.

When Marry was given the name for the child, it was a human name. The human name now above all names. “That at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow.”

Therefore hypostatic must have a human form, a human body that can be touched, felt, seen, bowed before, and still bears the marks of the crucifixion.

The believers are like Christ in that we are never body less. But when she’d of the mortal are clothed in the immortal.

Unlike The Father, who is Spirit.

This is important because on the Cross, Christ gave His Spirit into the Father’s care (using human imagery) His body dying. Unlike the believers spirit, being unshackled from the dead body is given that new body, the Spirit of Christ raised Him from the dead in the same body.

All the attributes Christ had before the crucifixion he had after the crucifixion.

The only attribute left then to be exalted was His name.

So I replied -

NASB - And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, ​

Who is 'He' & 'His' ?
IMO - And the Son is the radiance of His Father's glory and the exact representation of His Father's nature,

the exact representation of His Father's hypostasis,

How does that impact on the "hypostatic union" ?

 

[agedman]

YOU are the target - I was responding to your observation that -
"The KJV does ok with what they had, but the NASB gives that passage a clearer flow of the statement."



So I replied -

Ok.

Ultimately, the picture remains that the exaltation was the name given to Mary, for there was possession as fully God and human of all other attributes.

 

[HankD]

There is a scriptural foundation for the doctrine of the hypostatic union but it must ultimately be embraced by faith.

Who can fully understand the how (and the why) of God being made flesh (the Word was made flesh) a mortal man subject to death.

A death endured for His brethren.

HankD

 

[Covenanter]

Ok.

Ultimately, the picture remains that the exaltation was the name given to Mary, for there was possession as fully God and human of all other attributes.

I don't understand. Can you completely rewrite that, please?

 

[agedman]

I don't understand. Can you completely rewrite that, please?

I’m sorry, will try again.

There are two primary elementals to the hypostatic union.
1) Jesus is God, not just a representative, but God ( so is the Holy Spirit and the Father) the Elohim (plural) is one God.
2) Jesus is human, not just a representation of human as if God clothed Himself in humanity or some other such inaccuracy.

The two natures were never mixed or blended into one, but were never inseparable except in death on the cross. Because God cannot die, humanly Christ died, but the OT gives wonderful glimpses of what took place between the spear thrust and the stone rolling aside. This is not the thread to explore that aspect.

So that leads to what I wrote.

Because the name, “Jesus,” is the only aspect that was not already equal with the trinity, already exalted, then it follows the Scripture statements such as, “given a name above all names,” is both literal and accurate.

Mary, was the first to hear the name, “Jesus.”

 

[TCassidy]

I don't understand. Can you completely rewrite that, please?

Ultimately, the picture remains that the exaltation (of Jesus) was the name given to Mary (Luke 1:31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and give birth to a son, and will call his name ‘Jesus.’), for there was possession as fully God and human of all other attributes (in Jesus).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps this is displayed when BB members express that surely the Lord must have experienced blisters on His feet, stubbed His toe, had sore muscles, upset stomach... or some other phenomena of human frailty.

More often some express that He had limited knowledge of the hearts of the people, or in some manner a hindrance in His authority and ability to accomplish the will of the Father.

It is seen in how one responds to the typical Cal/Arm arguments, too.

I find the episode of our Lord stilling the storm to be particularly helpful (Mark 4:35-41 etc.).
The Lord Jesus comes on board the boat and goes to sleep on a pillow. Why? Because He is tired. He is a Man, Man as if He were not God (Isaiah 40:28).
But when the disciples come to Him in a panic and wake Him, He stills the storm completely with a word. 'And there was a great calm.' He did not pray to God to still the storm; He did it Himself. No wonder the disciples asked each other, 'Who can this be, that even the wind and wave obey Him?' He is God, that's who. God as if He were not Man. Two complete natures in one body.

So I do believe that the Lord Jesus may well have experienced blisters on His feet etc. because that's what happens to men and women when they walk long distances. 'Therefore in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God.......For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted ['tested'], He is able to aid those who are tempted' (Hebrews 2:17-18).

 

[agedman]

I find the episode of our Lord stilling the storm to be particularly helpful (Mark 4:35-41 etc.).
The Lord Jesus comes on board the boat and goes to sleep on a pillow. Why? Because He is tired. He is a Man, Man as if He were not God (Isaiah 40:28).
But when the disciples come to Him in a panic and wake Him, He stills the storm completely with a word. 'And there was a great calm.' He did not pray to God to still the storm; He did it Himself. No wonder the disciples asked each other, 'Who can this be, that even the wind and wave obey Him?' He is God, that's who. God as if He were not Man. Two complete natures in one body.

So I do believe that the Lord Jesus may well have experienced blisters on His feet etc. because that's what happens to men and women when they walk long distances. 'Therefore in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God.......For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted ['tested'], He is able to aid those who are tempted' (Hebrews 2:17-18).

Do you consider that God does not sleep, nor does He slumber?

The point being that the physical body may certainly have required sustenance, and rest, but the Lord was fully aware of what was going on, even controlling the storm while the body slept.

More to the point, the body of the Lord could not by OT standards have any scares, or marks prior to the day of crucifixion. Therefore, such things as blisters, thorns, ... anything that could harm the body from both out and within, (intoxicants) would not be part of his life experience.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Because the name, “Jesus,” is the only aspect that was not already equal with the trinity, already exalted, then it follows the Scripture statements such as, “given a name above all names,” is both literal and accurate.

Mary, was the first to hear the name, “Jesus.”

Not necessarily brother -

"For my son Jesus shall appear with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years. After these same years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life." (II Esdras 7:28 & 29)

"The date of II Esdras has been placed about 30 B.C."(Dickson - Holy Bible, New Analytical Indexed Edition, 1944, "From Malachi To Christ", page 1083 - subtitle - "The Date of These Writings".)

I see no problem with historic record here, (besides the name Emmanuel / Immanuel prophecy), and shows value to the supposed 'apocryphal' books.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you consider that God does not sleep, nor does He slumber?

Well, I posted Isaiah 40:28 so that might give you a small clue.

The point being that the physical body may certainly have required sustenance, and rest, but the Lord was fully aware of what was going on, even controlling the storm while the body slept.

As God, for sure He knew what was going on (John 3:13, KJV, NKJV), but as Man He knew every pain and weakness to which the flesh is heir (Hebrews 2:17-18 again; 4:15).

More to the point, the body of the Lord could not by OT standards have any scars, or marks prior to the day of crucifixion. Therefore, such things as blisters, thorns, ... anything that could harm the body from both out and within (intoxicants) would not be part of his life experience.

I don't see how the Lord Jesus could be made 'in all things....like His brethren,' share in their flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14) and be tested in all points as we are if He bore no marks or scars. The physical perfections of the sacrificial animals find their counterpart in the moral and spiritual perfections of our Lord. In fact, He looked older than His earthly years. The Jews placed Him at nearly 50 when He was only 33 (John 8:57).

 

[agedman]

Well, I posted Isaiah 40:28 so that might give you a small clue.

As God, for sure He knew what was going on (John 3:13, KJV, NKJV), but as Man He knew every pain and weakness to which the flesh is heir (Hebrews 2:17-18 again; 4:15).

I don't see how the Lord Jesus could be made 'in all things....like His brethren,' share in their flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14) and be tested in all points as we are if He bore no marks or scars. The physical perfections of the sacrificial animals find their counterpart in the moral and spiritual perfections of our Lord. In fact, He looked older than His earthly years. The Jews placed Him at nearly 50 when He was only 33 (John 8:57).

Working backward through your post:
First
John did not use hyperbole in his account of the acts and statements of Jesus. However, because his writing was so accurate in quoting what others said, John does not shy away from their use of exaggeration.

This is seen in the statement you quote. The statement was not because He looked older, but because of His youth. They are saying your not old enough to be a grandfather, much less know Abraham.

Second
Although i may never have suffered a trauma does not mean I cannot understand and have empathy for one that has suffer trauma.

One does not have to experience all the pains of every situation to understand and have empathy.

Such is that in relation to Christ. He was perfect, both inside and out. Until the day of sacrifice, He was unblemished.

Again, knowing pain, experiencing pain, does not mean that he had to have the cause of the pain.

 

[agedman]

Not necessarily brother -

"For my son Jesus shall appear with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years. After these same years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life." (II Esdras 7:28 & 29)

"The date of II Esdras has been placed about 30 B.C."(Dickson - Holy Bible, New Analytical Indexed Edition, 1944, "From Malachi To Christ", page 1083 - subtitle - "The Date of These Writings".)

I see no problem with historic record here, (besides the name Emmanuel / Immanuel prophecy), and shows value to the supposed 'apocryphal' books.

Sorry, but I don’t consider Esdras 1 or 2 as having a say in this matter.

I am not GREEK Orthodox, Lutheran, or Episcopalian. What they include as Scriptures, I do not.

Therefore, Mary was the first to hear the name.

Forgot to mention that the writing dates are hugely questioned with some occurring as late as the mid - 2nd century.

 

[agedman]

Just so readers are not mistaken.

1 & 2 Esdras are not included in the cannon of even most Jewish collections of Scripture because of consistency problems with the historical accounts related in the writing, and the time of actual writing of these books attributed to Ezra (and some say Nehemiah).

Authorship by either is extremely questionable, although there has been great effort extended especially by the Jews who would like to have 2 Esdras included. The prophetic statements do not meet the OT standard of prophecy consistency with previous prophetic statements.

 

[Covenanter]

This is new to me -

Because the name, “Jesus,” is the only aspect that was not already equal with the trinity, already exalted, then it follows the Scripture statements such as, “given a name above all names,” is both literal and accurate.

Mary, was the first to hear the name, “Jesus.”

Ultimately, the picture remains that the exaltation (of Jesus) was the name given to Mary (Luke 1:31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and give birth to a son, and will call his name ‘Jesus.’), for there was possession as fully God and human of all other attributes (in Jesus).

The name Jesus (Joshua = LXX Jesus) was revealed in a Messianic context in Zechariah 3 & Zec. 6.

3:8 ‘Hear, O Joshua/Jesus, the high priest,
You and your companions who sit before you,
For they are a wondrous sign;
For behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH.
9 For behold, the stone
That I have laid before Joshua/Jesus:
Upon the stone are seven eyes.
Behold, I will engrave its inscription,’
Says the Lord of hosts,
‘And I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

6:9 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 10 “Receive the gift from the captives—from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have come from Babylon—and go the same day and enter the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah. 11 Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua/Jesus the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying:
“Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!
From His place He shall branch out,
And He shall build the temple of the Lord;
13 Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord.
He shall bear the glory,
And shall sit and rule on His throne;
So He shall be a priest on His throne,
And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’
​

 

[Yeshua1]

John - your input would be appreciated.

Do you agree with that bolded part then?

 

[asterisktom]

Actually it's 5 and once in the LXX.

2 Corinthians 9:4 μή πως ἐὰν ἔλθωσιν σὺν ἐμοὶ Μακεδόνες καὶ εὕρωσιν ὑμᾶς ἀπαρασκευάστους καταισχυνθῶμεν ἡμεῖς ἵνα μὴ λέγω ὑμεῖς ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ

2 Corinthians 11:17 ὃ λαλῶ οὐ κατὰ κύριον λαλῶ ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ὑποστάσει τῆς καυχήσεως

Hebrews 1:3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς

Hebrews 3:14 14 μέτοχοι γὰρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγόναμεν ἐάνπερ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν

Hebrews 11:1 ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων

Hebrews 1 1 - 4 is the prologue to the Book of Hebrews.

Emboldened is the RSV translation of hupostasis

RSV Hebrews 1:1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

Which is giving credence to His deity of His God-man essential being (persona) or karakter (χαρακτὴρ) in Hebrews 1:3..
His humanity part of the hypostatic union is shown in the following::

Hebrews 2
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
...
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

KTDNT - Essence.

HankD

A good post, Hank. Very informative and convenient to have these verses listed together.

The only caveat I would have is that the assumption seems to be that the nature of Christ in the Incarnation has to be the very same nature He has now; His missional purpose vs. His eternal essence. It was certainly necessary for Him to be in the flesh ("the days of His flesh", Heb. 5:7).

That is not necessary now. Essential humanity - what makes us us is not in the flesh, else we would be de-manned when we die.

 

[HankD]

A good post, Hank. Very informative and convenient to have these verses listed together.

The only caveat I would have is that the assumption seems to be that the nature of Christ in the Incarnation has to be the very same nature He has now; His missional purpose vs. His eternal essence. It was certainly necessary for Him to be in the flesh ("the days of His flesh", Heb. 5:7).

That is not necessary now. Essential humanity - what makes us us is not in the flesh, else we would be de-manned when we die.

Thanks Tom.

The futurist point of view is that the life force of Jesus body is not the same as when He walked the earth in the flesh post resurrection.

In His resurrection His body was not made alive after the animus of oxygenated blood but of the life giving force of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

Futurist hold to a material resurrected body which presumably will not be subject to death or entropy.

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Many take the following passage as indicating we have a temporary intermediate body pre-resurrection:

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,
3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.
4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Jesus appeared in a material body post resurrection. He ate a meal with the apostles/disciples.

If He is not presently in possession of this body what happened to it? - what is the preterist explanation Tom?

HankD