Hypostatic Union

[JonC]

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

He is 100% God and 100% sinless man but on the cross when our sins were laid upon him he became us as our representative and took the full wrath of God, his Father... That's my understanding... Brother Glen

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Obviously I disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

But I agree that Jesus took upon Himself the wages of our sin and died for our sins. He was made sin for us.

I understand Jesus being made like us in all things to refer to the Incarnation and temptations of the flesh.

The reason I believe this is the context of tge passage (that Christ can empathize with us, having been tempted in all points as is common to man).

 

[JonC]

I decided early on in my walk to accept what the Bible says on faith and not worry too much about it. Math, science, ect in the physical world reveal to us how God's creation operates within the laws of nature. I don't think a percentage can be placed on His divine nature.

I agree. The "100%" is used to say He is fully God.

 

[Baptizo]

I agree. The "100%" is used to say He is fully God.

The way I understand it is that He is both 100% man and 100% God. When He manifested Himself into our world He 100% man for sure but there's also that part of Him that is operating outside of our world, the part of Him that is 100% God. He is both at once, operating in two different realms at once.

 

[JonC]

The way I understand it is that He is both 100% man and 100% God. When He manifested Himself into our world He 100% man for sure but there's also that part of Him that is operating outside of our world, the part of Him that is 100% God. He is both at once, operating in two different realms at once.

I agree. That is what I mean by 100% God/ 100% man.....never man not God or God not man (post Incarnation).

This is why the Christian definition stresses a union but without mixture or separation. There was never a moment post incarnation that Jesus was not fully God/ fully man.

The difficulty for us is in explaining how this is possible. But we are not called to do that....that's above our pay grade.

 

[Baptizo]

The difficulty for us is in explaining how this is possible. But we are not called to do that

I agree wholeheartedly. Those who organized The First Council of Nicaea thought they were settling the issue once and for all but here we are 1,700 years later.

 

[JonC]

I agree wholeheartedly. Those who organized The First Council of Nicaea thought they were settling the issue once and for all but here we are 1,700 years later.

To be fair it was settled for a very long time. But today challenges have crept up - most notably in anti-trinitarian Pentecostalism. I guess it is natural for it to spread.

Each generation gets to work out problems of its own.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The way I understand it is that He is both 100% man and 100% God. When He manifested Himself into our world He 100% man for sure but there's also that part of Him that is operating outside of our world, the part of Him that is 100% God. He is both at once, operating in two different realms at once.

Are you saying that Jesus Christ was only a HUMAN PERSON when He was on our earth?

 

[CJP69]

The pole is flawed. The first answer is more correct than the second, by far, but it includes a contradiction. A union of two things cannot be both without mixture and without separation. There should have been a third option....

Jesus is the God-Man. He does not have TWO natures. He has ONE nature that is both divine and human.

Why that is so difficult for people to understand or accept is beyond me. It seems very straight forward, intuitively simple and easy to understand.

 

[JonC]

The pole is flawed. The first answer is more correct than the second, by far, but it includes a contradiction. A union of two things cannot be both without mixture and without separation. There should have been a third option....

Jesus is the God-Man. He does not have TWO natures. He has ONE nature that is both divine and human.

Why that is so difficult for people to understand or accept is beyond me. It seems very straight forward, intuitively simple and easy to understand.

I agree that Jesus has one nature, but I do believe it is the union of two natures without mixture and indivisable, in one substance.

It is more theological than practical.

The reason the Christian doctrine uses "without mixture" is that this would form a contradiction when it comes to attributes. It would result in Christ not being human or God, but a hybrid....more than man but less than God.

And they recognized the contradiction.

Basically it was developed not to understand what we cannot know but to guard against heresies.


But very good point. No entity can literally have two natures. Christ's nature is a union of two natures, and is something that is beyond our understanding (we can only understand the human part and what God reveals of His nature). God is greater than man.

 

[Van]

Hypostasis is the Greek word for "substance"
The Hypostatic Union is the doctrine dealing with the nature of Jesus.

Here is the actual statement:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


The part of thus doctrine that has been challenged recently is that Jesus is recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.

We often represent this by saying Jesus is 100% God, 100% man.

Recently @SavedByGrace and @37818 have suggest a different view - that Jesus has two natures (one being 100% God and the other being 100% man with Jesus adding a human nature as a second nature).

This, obviously, contradicts orthodox Christianity. Rather than Jesus being represented in the union of two natures in one substance, you end up with Jesus having one 100% God nature and one 100% human nature (50% God and 50% man).

Mathematically this makes sence. But Biblically I do not believe they can support the position.

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, it 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.

 

[Baptizo]

Are you saying that Jesus Christ was only a HUMAN PERSON when He was on our earth?

No, I said Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.

 

[Van]

Phlippians 2:7
but emptied Himself taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

So interpret this verse to support the idea that Jesus was somehow not fully God when incarnate. This view is false.

Did Christ set aside some of His divine attributes while incarnate? Yes. Jesus did not know the time of His return, so He set aside a part of His omniscience. Thus omniscience must mean God knows what He chooses to know. Was Jesus still said to be "all knowing? Yes, but the context limits the scope to Jesus being all knowing about Peter, or more broadly about those Jesus engages, such as the other disciples. John 21:17

 

[37818]

Jesus did not know the time of His return, so He set aside a part of His omniscience.

This is not a well understood truth by most believers.

Mark 13:32, But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Fact, He was always the Son.
Fact, He was always the LORD God.

Acts of the Apostles 1:7, And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

He was always both with God and was God. John 1:1-3.

 

[kyredneck]

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. Ps 22

 

[CJP69]

I agree that Jesus has one nature, but I do believe it is the union of two natures without mixture and indivisable, in one substance.

It is more theological than practical.

For "practical" read "rational".

There is NO SUCH THING as an irrational truth, including theoLOGICAL truth.

The reason the Christian doctrine uses "without mixture" is that this would form a contradiction when it comes to attributes.

I have no doubt that this is the reason they give but they do so without foundation and without argument. Humanity is not antithetical to, nor mutually exclusive of, the divine. The creature is not antithetical to the Creator. God did not create man evil nor is his true nature evil. Evil is the perversion of and/or the negation of the good. Adam was created "very good" and was created for the express purpose of having a deeply meaningful, first person relationship with the Divine. Adam fell from that high stature when he disobeyed God. Those who are of Adam's seed inherit his fallen nature but Jesus, having no Earth father, did not inherit Adam's fallen nature and thus there is no antithesis between Jesus' humanity and His divinity.

It would result in Christ not being human or God, but a hybrid....more than man but less than God.

He is a hybrid! It is the product of God the Father having a child with a human mother. That sounds like a hybrid to me! His being more than a man is a meaningless thing to say and His being less than God is just as undefinable. It's a platitude that amounts to a mere opinion that cannot be established by any sort of evidence, biblical or otherwise.

And they recognized the contradiction.

The contradiction only exists in their own minds. It is their faulty, a priori, premises that create the contradiction and nothing else.

Basically it was developed not to understand what we cannot know but to guard against heresies.

So adopting a belief in an irrational and unbiblical doctrine is supposed to guard against heresies, how?

It sounds like bulldozing your house to prevent the arsonist from burning it down.

But very good point. No entity can literally have two natures. Christ's nature is a union of two natures, and is something that is beyond our understanding (we can only understand the human part and what God reveals of His nature). God is greater than man.

Well, I think we can understand it better than what this sentiment would tend to imply. Of course, we have pretty much no concept at all of what its like to be God but that isn't necessary. I think people really try super hard to over complicate it. The Creator became a man whom we call Jesus. He didn't stop being God when He did that and He cannot ever stop being a man now.

So much for the doctrine of immutability!

Make no mistake, the preservation of that Neo-Platonic doctrine is the real genesis of the confusion!

 

[CJP69]

9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. Ps 22

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:​

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully—
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God.

10 “If he begets a son who is a robber
Or a shedder of blood,
Who does any of these things
11 And does none of those duties,
But has eaten on the mountains
Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;
12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,
Robbed by violence,
Not restored the pledge,
Lifted his eyes to the idols,
Or committed abomination;
13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.

14 “If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!

18 “As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.

Turn and Live
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?

30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

 

[JonC]

For "practical" read "rational".

There is NO SUCH THING as an irrational truth, including theoLOGICAL truth.


I have no doubt that this is the reason they give but they do so without foundation and without argument. Humanity is not antithetical to, nor mutually exclusive of, the divine. The creature is not antithetical to the Creator. God did not create man evil nor is his true nature evil. Evil is the perversion of and/or the negation of the good. Adam was created "very good" and was created for the express purpose of having a deeply meaningful, first person relationship with the Divine. Adam fell from that high stature when he disobeyed God. Those who are of Adam's seed inherit his fallen nature but Jesus, having no Earth father, did not inherit Adam's fallen nature and thus there is no antithesis between Jesus' humanity and His divinity.


He is a hybrid! It is the product of God the Father having a child with a human mother. That sounds like a hybrid to me! His being more than a man is a meaningless thing to say and His being less than God is just as undefinable. It's a platitude that amounts to a mere opinion that cannot be established by any sort of evidence, biblical or otherwise.


The contradiction only exists in their own minds. It is their faulty, a priori, premises that create the contradiction and nothing else.


So adopting a belief in an irrational and unbiblical doctrine is supposed to guard against heresies, how?

It sounds like bulldozing your house to prevent the arsonist from burning it down.


Well, I think we can understand it better than what this sentiment would tend to imply. Of course, we have pretty much no concept at all of what its like to be God but that isn't necessary. I think people really try super hard to over complicate it. The Creator became a man whom we call Jesus. He didn't stop being God when He did that and He cannot ever stop being a man now.

So much for the doctrine of immutability!

Make no mistake, the preservation of that Neo-Platonic doctrine is the real genesis of the confusion!

What I mean os things like "logical order".

There have always been debates about the order in salvation (faith before or after regeneration, for example).

But the whole point of "logical order" is philosophical (it is not chronological order).

It is fun to read because people argue as if chronology applies (on one hand you have a regenerated lost person, on the other an unregenerated saved person.....both instances are unbiblical).


The doctrine here was just a compilation of Biblical truths about Jesus' nature. Ultimately it, too, is a philosophical issue.

 

[kyredneck]

@CJP69

??? …wondering how post #36 is relevant

 

[37818]

Those who are of Adam's seed inherit his fallen nature but Jesus, having no Earth father, did not inherit Adam's fallen nature and thus there is no antithesis between Jesus' humanity and His divinity.

You do not know anything here. You wrote nonsense.
God is infinititly good. And God's incarnation by way of His Word per John 1:3, John 1:14, does not change Him being infinititly good.

 

[tyndale1946]

9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. Ps 22

??? …wondering how post #36 is relevant[/QUOTE]

You're not the only one!... Brother Glen