• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 
Last edited:
CJP69

CJP69

Active Member
It seems pretty clear, biblically speaking, that whether it's done biologically or not, the sin nature is passed through the father. It is always presented as an issue related to Adam's transgression. It is in the first Adam (i.e. not Eve) that all died and it is in the Last Adam that all are made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

Jesus, the only begotten of the Heavenly Father, had no Earthly father and thus did not inherit the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained the unspoiled nature of His Father. This, among other reasons, is why the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is so foundational to Christianity.

All your talk pitting the infinite vs the finite is meaningless gobbledygook that you have no biblical basis for whatsoever. We are created in God's image and likeness for the specific purpose of having a genuine, two way, loving relationship with God that once started has no end, for God has indeed placed eternity in the hearts of man.

Lastly, Jesus does not have two spirits. That's ridiculous. If ever you find yourself twisting yourself into such a theological pretzel, it means you've made a mistake and need to start over. It isn't that hard to understand. God became a man and remains a man to this day and forever more. He didn't stop being God when this happened. He simply became a human being with a physical body that He never had before and that now, in its glorified state, He will never be without.

Why is that so hard for people to accept? There is no need to complicate matters the way these people do unless your first allegiance is to a pet doctrine rather than to the plain teaching of the text of scripture. If you are unwilling to accept that God is capable of changing in any way whatsoever then it won't take long before you'll become one who makes a practice of devising theological hoops to jump through when confronted with even the most basic precepts of the Christian faith, including the very gospel itself which teaches that God not only became a man but that He died and then rose from the dead. That's a rough road for those who hold to the doctrine of immutability as taught by Augustine, Luther and Calvin.
 
Last edited:
P

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎ (’ehye ’ăšer ’ehye)

A prophecy

I Will Be Who I Will Be

Jesus the Christ come in flesh and blood = I Am

The Christ The Son of the Living God

so also it hath been written,

'The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam, for a life-giving spirit, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.
but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

The little baby brought forth by, the virgin, Mary!
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Van said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did Jesus have one soul or two?
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
CJP69 said:
Jesus, the only begotten of the Heavenly Father, had no Earthly father and thus did not inherit the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained the unspoiled nature of His Father.
Click to expand...
What has the knowledge of good and evil have to do with any of this? Which you have not mentioned.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Van said:
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
Click to expand...
What passage would you reference to prove that man's nature has been corrupted by sin (a change in nature) in opposition to men giving in to the desires of a human nature (flesh)?

The reason I ask is that it seems important to me that the Word became "flesh" in the sense that He was made like us in all ways and experienced the same types of temptation (the difference being He did not give in to the temptations of the flesh).

Thanks.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
What passage would you reference to prove that man's nature has been corrupted by sin (a change in nature) in opposition to men giving in to the desires of a human nature (flesh)?

The reason I ask is that it seems important to me that the Word became "flesh" in the sense that He was made like us in all ways and experienced the same types of temptation (the difference being He did not give in to the temptations of the flesh).

Thanks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Van said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not questioning the doctrine of Original Sin, per se.

I'm trying to reconcile the idea of two types of human natures (one fallen) with Scriptures category of "flesh" vs "spirit".

I guess it is impossible, given our questions, to simply use biblical categories. But sometimes I find it difficult to reconcile certain theories and doctrines with the Bible because there is no category for those ideas within the actual text of Scripture.


Given your explanation, I'd say that "fleshly desires" are not sins. Giving in to those desires when they contrast with God is a sin.

Take Adam. He was tempted. That was not a sin, and in another context with a different tree perhaps it wouldn't have been a sin.

But he gave in to the desires of the flesh in opposition to God.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Van said:
(spirit and soul are the same entity)
Click to expand...
Not all agree. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
CJP69 said:
SNIP

Jesus, the only begotten of the Heavenly Father, had no Earthly father and thus did not inherit the fallen nature of Adam's race but retained the unspoiled nature of His Father. This, among other reasons, is why the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is so foundational to Christianity.
SNIP
.
Click to expand...

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!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
37818 said:
Not all agree. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
The old dispute between bipartite and tripartite is largely settled with modern scholars going with bipartite.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.​
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I think looking at how they settled the this about 2000 years ago helps.

They did not seek to explain how Christ's nature worked, but instead sought to prevent others from making an error in their doctrine.

So they left the workings to "mystery".

This is what they concluded:

1. Jesus is represented in two natures (divine and human).

2. These two natures are one (the union of two).

3. These two natures cannot be separated. (One cannot say Jesus did this in his human nature and that in his divine nature).

4. These natures cannot be mixed (Jesus was no more man in His humanity and no less God in His divinity).


This does not work out in human wisdom because it means Jesus is 100% God, 100% man. So they left the how up to mystery - something we can be told, believe, but also something that is beyond our finite understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top