Featured The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

In a recent thread, discussion was initiated on the "Hypostatic Union." The thread drifted into a philosophical discussion, and away from specifics concerning Christ's natures.

I posted the following:

Once again we address this fundamental doctrine. Jesus is the union of two substances, Logos, God the Son, and human, the son of Mary, a descendant of Abraham and David. He is not a mixture. He has no "human spirit" only the "uniquely divine" Spirit of God the Son. And of course God the Son is not part of or a mixture with human biology.

One cause of confusion is the use of the term "nature" which is also part of the term "sin nature." Humanity, in its fallen current state has a sin nature, a corruption of our human spirits due to the consequences of Adam's sin imposed by God. Many mistaken believers think the sin nature is passed on to the next generation biologically, This is just another unstudied and unbiblical belief.​

I did not see any immediate followup replies, so I have started this thread to discuss His natures.

One historical objection to Jesus not having both a "created human body and soul," was that Jesus would not have a "human mind" without a human "spirit/soul" and thus would not have been tempted as we are, and therefore could not serve as our sin offering. However, this view: "The teaching that says Jesus did not have a human spirit, but only had a divine spirit is called Apollinarianism..." claimed Jesus would not have a human mind. But we know from scripture that the physical body communicates with our mind, thus we have fleshly desires or lusts. Even in a non-fallen state humans could desire what looked good to eat. Our body tells us we are sleepy or hungry, or in need of other bodily functions. Our body tells us not to suffer, to avoid suffering. Christ suffered, thus His body communicated with His mind, the "mind of Christ."

Thus the argument that Jesus lacking a human spirit/soul, results in the mind of Christ not being tempted or suffering as humans do fails. Turning the tables, since humans are created in the likeness of God, God's divine mind can share likeness with humans, except Christ of course did not share the fallen nature of our human "spirit/soul."

Two other supporting views are found in scripture for the absence of a "fallen spirit/soul" in Christ. When He died He commended His Spirit (singular) to God. And He was without blemish, such as a "fallen spirit/soul."

Here is a verse sometimes used to claim Jesus had to have a human spirit as well as His divine Spirit.

Hebrews 2:17 (Interpretive translation)
Therefore, in all things He was obligated to be like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to provide the means of reconciliation for the sins of the people.​

Since the mind of Christ with its fleshly inputs is "like" our mind with its fleshly inputs, He is like all humanity.

The last argument for the need of Christ to have a "human spirit/soul" is the difference between the mind of God and the mind of humans, i.e. infinite verses finite. But this is addressed by Logos setting aside parts of His attributes, emptying Himself by becoming like human servants. Philippians 2:7

 

I am not sure if you are questioning the doctrine of original sin, that by the sin of Adam, humanity was made sinners. As far as whether our flesh has been corrupted, rather than my view our human "Spirit/Soul" has been corrupted, note that it is the human "Spirit/Soul" that is separated from God due to unholiness, dead in trespass so to speak.

So I believe scripture requires the view it is our "soul/spirit" (human soul and human spirit being one and same entity) be corrupted with the knowledge of good and evil. Note Eve's eyes were opened without any biological transmission from a biological father, Genesis 3:7. The view that the corruption is transmitted from human father to his offspring has no basis in scripture. Yes the sins of the father are visited upon his offspring for several generations, but this appears to refer to the consequence of the father's sin, like sending his children to godless schools where they learn to chant "from the river to the sea."

Secondly, we know that a fallen nature is not necessary for our fleshly desires to go against God. I can be hungry that that is not a sin, but to take more than my share because of a "me first" attitude, that is sinful. So it is what we do with our fleshly inputs that reveals our corruption.

Consider this verse:

Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. ​

Here "flesh" translates "sarx" and refers to ""mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God"..." Affections refers to sinful passions and lusts refer to sinful lusts, again what our "spirit/soul" does with our human response. Biological males enjoy procreation, but when that "fleshly desire" becomes an appetite for sex outside of holy matrimony, it then becomes a sinful lust.

 

One! One soul, one Spirit (spirit and soul are the same entity), and one mind, the mind of Christ.

 

Let me address just this one point of your post.

1) I reject the use of the term "begotten" when it is used to mean "not begotten." In John 3:16 I think the idea is the "uniquely divine" Son of God.

2) The alternate view is Jesus did not have a fallen human spirit/soul, and therefore did not have a fallen nature.

3) Yes the doctrine of the virgin birth is foundational to Christianity, as Mary's egg was not fertilized by human sperm, but by the power of God, resulting in God incarnate!

 

The old dispute between bipartite and tripartite is largely settled with modern scholars going with bipartite.

 

Just a tad more on Hebrews 2:17, Here is the NASB version:

Therefore, in all things He was obligated to be like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. ​

Here the "all things" translates "pas" (meaning all of whatever is contextually in view). If we go with "in all these" we must look to the actual context to discern what is in view. Looking back to Hebrews 2:14 we find "flesh and blood" so the contextual idea is:

Therefore, in all flesh and blood things He was obligated to be like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to provide the means of reconciliation for the sins of the people.​

 

This old dispute is only tangential to the topic.

Here is a background paper on the topic for those interested, but please do not side-track our effort to come to a clear understanding of the two natures of Christ.

What Is the Soul? Is It Different from the… | Zondervan Academic

 

Malachi 2:16
“For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and the one who covers his garment with violence,” says the LORD of armies. “So be careful about your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

Here our human "spirit/soul" might lead us into treachery.

 

Galatians 5:17
For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want.

What is the desire of the flesh? Sinful desires and lusts are here in view. The Spirit (God) would not be against our flesh driven desire to eat or sleep or avoid needless pain.

 

The old dispute between bipartite and tripartite is largely settled with modern scholars going with bipartite.

What Is the Soul? Is It Different from the… | Zondervan Academic