An Incarnational Christological Question

[HankD]

The idea of one nature or two natures in the Christ is almost mind-boggling to take him let alone understand. I think all of us would agree to be truly human he had to have a human nature and somehow in the process he shared his room ready to come to earth. This brings up two questions if it was the power of God that rules him from the grave Isaac says in the beginning of Romans this illustrates that his human nature died and the other rose him from the grave. This whole concept is kind of nebulous. I remember when the late R B thieme told the story of why he was deprived of his PhD at Dallas because he held to the position that he had to die totally human nature and the divine nature. They offered him a degree if he would just say that argument for another day. He would not and he remained the master of the theology. I will give him he was very good biblical languages but maybe being deprived of the degree is were too much Greek gets one

John 2
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus claimed the power to raise His body up Himself in 3 days.
It had then to be His Spirit ho logos who would do this unless of course it was His resurrected human spirit.

Or... ?

HankD

 

[Craig CrossWise]

--------------

(4) as as "did not grasp" is emphatic, the infinitive which follows refers back to "form of God" Fee, 207) and Wright demonstates that the same point (Meaning ofPhilippians 2:5-11. 101).

It appears you may be able to answer the question I posed in the Philippians 2:6 thread. I don't have Fee's commentary to reference, so any help is appreciated. My general question on the other thread is this: Is there any syntactical basis upon which to make a claim that οὐχ negates only ἁρπαγμὸν, as opposed to the verb ἡγήσατο? (See other thread to understand the reason for my question.)

Also, according to Fee, is "did not grasp" emphatic because both οὐχ and ἁρπαγμὸν precede the verb? And, why must "did not grasp" being emphatic indicate that the articular infinitive refers back to "form of God"? I can understood if one asserts that the presence of the article indicates that the infinitive anaphorically refers back to "form of God"; but, I don't understand how the emphatic "did not grasp" comes into play in this regard. I have to admit that I find the double accusative difficult to exegete.

 

[Yeshua1]

----

Yes they agree: one in Person, two in natures, AND EACH NATURE wills, acts, & knows in distinction from the other. Kindly show they did not teach that.

Have you read any of these on the matter??? Yes/no?

The would see Him as though being always in perfect harmony/union, so there is neber a monent when His humanity would say do this thing and his deity said no lets do that instead!

 

[Yeshua1]

--------------
I agree that His humanity was limited, but not His deity. IMO, as Calvin states, the doctrine that Christ gave up the use of the divine attributes is an absurdity.(Institutes 2:13:4.

Or as Fee avers, 'The Son gave up nothing!!! "Philippians, 210.)

The text does not require that: and correct theology does not allow it (IMO):

(1) harpagmos as a predicate accusative when occuring with a verb as"consider" means He did not use what He had (equality) for self-advancement--not that He gave it up (Hoover, The Hapagmos Enigma),

(2) Greek speaking fathers as Chrysostom, Leo, and Athanasius attribute equality to the Son in this text,

(3) having the morphe of God requires having equality with God,eg, Frame, The Doctrine of God, 25. As Lightfoot maintains, if He gave up equality, He gave up deity.(Philippians, 111)

(4) as as "did not grasp" is emphatic, the infinitive which follows refers back to "form of God" Fee, 207) and Wright demonstates that the same point (Meaning ofPhilippians 2:5-11. 101).

IMO, all the humbling of Christ occurs only in His humanity.

Jesus did not know the time of His Second Coming while here on earth, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

------------

If the deity in Christ is unlimited ,and the humanity in Christ is limited, does each have its own distinct will and intellect? Does each nature experience and will in distinction from the other but never distinct from the unified Person?,

Yes, but always in perfect union!

 

[Yeshua1]

----

Yes they agree: one in Person, two in natures, AND EACH NATURE wills, acts, & knows in distinction from the other. Kindly show they did not teach that.

Have you read any of these on the matter??? Yes/no?

Yes, have read Dr Hodgh/Grudem/Erickson/Berkhof/Strong, so do think know something of this subject!

 

[AresMan]

No, the Lord jesus is not schzoid, as he has the 2 Natures, but in perfect unison! One Mind and one will

Yeshua, the orthodox teaching is that in the hypostatic union Christ had two wills. A full nature of a person includes a will. In other words, to be 100% God and 100% man, the human nature had to include the "will" aspect.It was not just a human body, but a full human "nature."

After the council of Chalcedon that resolved the Nestorian and Eutychian ("monophysitism") schisms, lesser variants of monophysitism emerged, such as "monothelitism" in which Christ had "one will." Even this wasn't acceptable to the orthodox Chalcedonian position because it called into question the 100% human nature aspect. Substitutionary atonement was always the focus for the orthodox in the christological controversies. The thought was that Christ could not be our substitute if He didn't have the totality of the human nature.
Pope Honorius, who promoted monothelitism was condemned as a heretic and his writings were burned. Of course, Roman Catholic apologists struggle to defend papal infallibility given this juicy bit of history.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't call you a heretic, but I would throw out this history for your consideration.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua, the orthodox teaching is that in the hypostatic union Christ had two wills. A full nature of a person includes a will. In other words, to be 100% God and 100% man, the human nature had to include the "will" aspect.It was not just a human body, but a full human "nature."

After the council of Chalcedon that resolved the Nestorian and Eutychian ("monophysitism") schisms, lesser variants of monophysitism emerged, such as "monothelitism" in which Christ had "one will." Even this wasn't acceptable to the orthodox Chalcedonian position because it called into question the 100% human nature aspect. Substitutionary atonement was always the focus for the orthodox in the christological controversies. The thought was that Christ could not be our substitute if He didn't have the totality of the human nature.
Pope Honorius, who promoted monothelitism was condemned as a heretic and his writings were burned. Of course, Roman Catholic apologists struggle to defend papal infallibility given this juicy bit of history.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't call you a heretic, but I would throw out this history for your consideration.

I think this is a hard area to fully explain, but I hold to Jesus was/is both fully God/man, has 2 distinct natures within Him, and if he also has 2 Wills, he also has all of that unified, as in perfect unison, He will not be ever arguioing and disagreeing within Himself!

 

[HankD]

I think this is a hard area to fully explain, but I hold to Jesus was/is both fully God/man, has 2 distinct natures within Him, and if he also has 2 Wills, he also has all of that unified, as in perfect unison, He will not be ever arguioing and disagreeing within Himself!

The Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680:

“And we likewise preach two natural wills in him [Jesus Christ], and two natural operations undivided, inconvertible, inseparable, unmixed, according to the doctrine of the holy fathers; and the two natural wills [are] not contrary (as the impious heretics assert), far from it! but his human will follows the divine will, and is not resisting or reluctant, but rather subject to his divine and omnipotent will.

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

------------

If the deity in Christ is unlimited ,and the humanity in Christ is limited, does each have its own distinct will and intellect? Does each nature experience and will in distinction from the other but never distinct from the unified Person?,

I am not sure that we should view Christ's "humanity" without distinguishing between Christ in His state when He was born, and Christ in His state now (glorified). I see a distinctive difference between human flesh, the spirit of man, and the glorified saint, which is an eternal combination of the spiritual and physical. Physical bodies suitable to eternity. Spiritual bodies differ from physical, just as spirits differ from physical. While Angels and Demons can take on a physical form, that does not mean they are in fact physical. They have the advantage over physical bodies in that they can enter into this realm, whereas we cannot enter into the spiritual realm in physical form.

Thus I would say that the "limitations" of Christ's physical body apply only from birth until death, at which point He returns to a spiritual existence similar to His existence in Eternity past.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680:

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

HankD

I agree with what they said!

 

[Yeshua1]

It appears you may be able to answer the question I posed in the Philippians 2:6 thread. I don't have Fee's commentary to reference, so any help is appreciated. My general question on the other thread is this: Is there any syntactical basis upon which to make a claim that οὐχ negates only ἁρπαγμὸν, as opposed to the verb ἡγήσατο? (See other thread to understand the reason for my question.)

Also, according to Fee, is "did not grasp" emphatic because both οὐχ and ἁρπαγμὸν precede the verb? And, why must "did not grasp" being emphatic indicate that the articular infinitive refers back to "form of God"? I can understood if one asserts that the presence of the article indicates that the infinitive anaphorically refers back to "form of God"; but, I don't understand how the emphatic "did not grasp" comes into play in this regard. I have to admit that I find the double accusative difficult to exegete.

Isn't paul stating there that Jesus did not hold unto staing in the same form as he was while in heaven, but was willing to come down and take on the limitations and frailities of Human flesh, and yet still was God?

 

[HankD]

I agree with what they said!

You are safe

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

You are safe

HankD

Its just that this is a topic rally hard to fully grasp, as it involves issues beyond my present pay scale!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It appears you may be able to answer the question I posed in the Philippians 2:6 thread. I don't have Fee's commentary to reference, so any help is appreciated. My general question on the other thread is this: Is there any syntactical basis upon which to make a claim that οὐχ negates only ἁρπαγμὸν, as opposed to the verb ἡγήσατο? (See other thread to understand the reason for my question.)

Also, according to Fee, is "did not grasp" emphatic because both οὐχ and ἁρπαγμὸν precede the verb? And, why must "did not grasp" being emphatic indicate that the articular infinitive refers back to "form of God"? I can understood if one asserts that the presence of the article indicates that the infinitive anaphorically refers back to "form of God"; but, I don't understand how the emphatic "did not grasp" comes into play in this regard. I have to admit that I find the double accusative difficult to exegete.

Fee is a charismatic, and I personally don't find him helpful. There is no verb 'Did not grasp' in the Greek text. I don't think Phil 2:6 is as difficult as people make out. I am not an expert at Greek as some people are on this board, but here is my own attempt at translation, preserving the Greek word order to some degree:

'Who, in the form of God existing, not as a harpagmos he reckoned being equal to God, but He emptied Himself, the form of a slave taking......' So the $64 question is, what is a harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸs)? The problem is that it is a hapax legomenon, a word that occurs only here in the whole NT, so there has been a difficulty in establishing exactly what is does mean. The verb harpazo has to do with 'grasping' or 'seizing,' but what does the noun mean? Well, recently a guy (mentioned by SATS Prof somewhere on page 1) has trawled all through all the occurrences of harpagmos in ancient and koine Greek, and he has proved to most people's satisfaction that it means 'Something held to one's advantage,' like a 'Get out of Jail Free' card when you're playing Monopoly. The new NIV gives this meaning.

So the Lord Jesus did not regard being in the form of God something to be held to His advantage. He did not say, "Well I am God, and I am jolly well not going to go down to earth and subject Myself to the most horrendous punishments and agonies on behalf of these miserable human beings!" No, He emptied Himself- of what? Not His deity, but His prestige and glory. He 'made Himself of no reputation.' So far from hanging on to His privileges as God, He took on the nature of a slave. I think it is worth looking at Exodus 21:1-6 and the person who gives up his freedom because he loves his master. His ear is pierced through. Now consider Psalm 40:6-8. The KJV says, 'My ears You have opened,' but the Hebrew can certainly mean 'pierced.' Christ is the One who has given up His position and His freedom to become a slave to the Father; to live the life of perfect obedience to His will that we cannot live, and to take the punishment that we deserve to receive.

 

[Craig CrossWise]

Isn't paul stating there that Jesus did not hold unto staing in the same form as he was while in heaven, but was willing to come down and take on the limitations and frailities of Human flesh, and yet still was God?

With all due respect, my question was directed to SATS prof because it appears he can answer my grammatical question. Interpretation begins with proper exegesis, and this particular verse and its immediate context is notoriously difficult to exegete for various reasons. If I can better understand the grammar, then I can more accurately exegete the verse and only then know how to interpret the verse properly.

That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with what you've stated - based on my exegesis of the text with the knowledge I currently possess - but, frankly, you're not answering the question I posed.

 

[Yeshua1]

With all due respect, my question was directed to SATS prof because it appears he can answer my grammatical question. Interpretation begins with proper exegesis, and this particular verse and its immediate context is notoriously difficult to exegete for various reasons. If I can better understand the grammar, then I can more accurately exegete the verse and only then know how to interpret the verse properly.

That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with what you've stated - based on my exegesis of the text with the knowledge I currently possess - but, frankly, you're not answering the question I posed.

The Greek terms and grammar used there by paul does no mean either Jesus was not claiming to be God, nor that he ever ceased being God...

 

[AresMan]

I strongly urge study in church history on the christological controversies of the second-seventh centuries. Understanding Sabellianism, dynamic monarchianism, Arianism, adoptionism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, monophysitism, and monothelitism in light of church history and the orthodox efforts to hold to Scripture in understanding the nature of God, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, and the atonement can be enlightening to keep us from repeating the mistakes of history.

 

[Billx]

Yes I have read a number of them and they all come back to the credal formulation. This seems a bit like rote.

Someone texted me suggest the comparing the Torah as the pre existing wisdom of God with John's logos as Streight from Torah.
Don't get me wrong I accept the creed and the formula. I know their is more than rote. I see you included some the mystics and may the comparison which was texted should be investigated. I have been rradonh a new book on Trinity by a prof at the existing campus in N. Cal. GGBTS.

TY

 

[Billx]

I'm glad to see members here promoting historic, orthodox Christology! I joined this board over 5 years ago, as I saw many adhere to an unorthodox kenosis, and I attempted to steer them straight. FTR, [Statement edited after consulting with the poster] I'm a self-studying layman, with concern for proper Christology.

AMEN to that