Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Humanity of Christ

Transcript

The Humanity of Christ · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Reformed thinking. Welcome to the deep dive.
0:02
We are about to plunge into a really significant subject,
0:06
something that's absolutely central to Christian
0:08
understanding the humanity of Jesus Christ.
0:11
That's right. And this dive is particularly
0:13
special because it's tailored for you, based on a collection
0:16
of sources you shared with us. Notes, chapter excerpts,
0:19
briefing documents, study guides, all zeroing in on this
0:24
one crucial doctrine. Our mission today is to take
0:26
that stack of material, distill its core insights, and help us
0:30
get a truly clear, well informed picture of what these sources
0:33
say about Jesus. Being human, we want to
0:35
understand why that fact holds so much weight.
0:37
And you know how the understanding of it has been
0:40
thought through and challenged over time.
0:42
Yeah, the sources you provided offer a really comprehensive
0:44
look. They approach the topic from
0:46
several angles. The clear statements and
0:48
accounts found in the Bible itself, the historical record of
0:52
how the early church wrestled with and defined this idea, and
0:56
then the systematic theological reasons behind its necessity.
0:59
They really give us the whole landscape, so to speak.
1:02
OK, let's start at the beginning, as the sources seem
1:03
to Why do they play such high significance on Jesus being
1:07
fully human? What makes this not just a
1:09
detail, but something absolutely central?
1:12
Well, the sources identify a fundamental human problem that
1:15
the doctrine of Christ humanity speaks to.
1:17
They describe this deep unbridgeable gap that exists
1:21
between human beings and God. This gap, as they lay it out AS2
1:26
main dimensions first, there's an autological gap.
1:28
You know. God exists on a completely
1:29
different plane of being. He is inherently superior,
1:32
infinite, transcendent. We as finite creatures cannot
1:35
just through our own efforts alone, fully grasp or connect
1:38
with God in his absolute essence.
1:40
It's just different natures. So there's a difference in our
1:43
very nature and being compared to God, like fundamentally
1:46
different levels. Precisely.
1:48
But the sources point out there's a second, equally
1:51
critical part of the gap, and that is the spiritual and moral
1:54
one. This is the divide caused by
1:56
human sin. Because of our fallen state, we
1:59
are alienated from God. Our moral feelings and
2:02
corruption mean that no amount of personal effort, no attempt
2:05
at self improvement or striving, can bridge that chasm and
2:09
reconcile us to a holy God. We are kind of stuck on our
2:11
side, separated. So we're disconnected from God
2:14
by who he is and also by who we've become because of sin.
2:18
Yes, that's the predicament the sources describe.
2:20
And according to this material, the incarnation, the event of
2:23
God becoming flesh in Jesus Christ, is the singular way this
2:26
otherwise unbridgeable gap is closed.
2:29
It's the bringing together a full deity and full humanity in
2:31
one unique person that's the solution presented.
2:33
OK. And here's where the sources
2:35
highlight something really striking.
2:37
They state that if Jesus wasn't truly, genuinely one of us, if
2:42
his humanity was in any way diminished or like an illusion,
2:45
then humanity wasn't actually united with deity in him.
2:49
And they draw a stark conclusion from this.
2:52
If humanity wasn't truly united with deity and Christ, then
2:55
humanity cannot be saved. It's not just some theological
2:58
nicety, it's foundational for redemption itself.
3:02
That connection between the reality of his humanity and the
3:05
possibility of our salvation is absolutely central in the
3:08
sources they get. Hopeful distinction here,
3:10
actually, they say the validity or the applicability of Christ's
3:14
saving work, the fact that his death on the cross counts for
3:16
human beings, that it is a sacrifice on our behalf that
3:19
depends entirely on the reality of his humanity.
3:22
He had to be genuinely one of us to stand in our place, you know,
3:24
to represent us and to offer a sacrifice that could actually
3:27
atone for human sin. Because a human needed to offer
3:30
a sacrifice for humanity Makes sense.
3:32
Exactly. He needed to be the
3:34
representative man. Now the efficacy of his work,
3:37
it's actual power to overcome sin and death and bring us into
3:41
right relationship with God. The sources attribute that to
3:44
the genuineness of his deity. So both natures are
3:47
indispensable, of course, but His authentic humanity is
3:50
presented as the very basis, one which is saving work can even
3:53
apply to us. OK, so his deity gives the ACT
3:56
power, His humanity makes it applicable to us.
3:59
Got it. What's another core reason the
4:02
sources give for the significance of his humanity?
4:05
The sources also point pretty strongly to his ongoing
4:07
intercessory ministry. His capacity to deeply
4:10
sympathize with us and our weaknesses and struggles, and to
4:13
intercede on our behalf before the Father is directly linked to
4:16
his having personally experienced human temptations
4:18
and trials. Because he lived it, he gets it.
4:20
Is that the idea? Precisely.
4:23
The sources under score this by referencing passages like in
4:25
Hebrews, which speak of him being a high priest who can
4:28
sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every
4:31
way, just as we are, yet without sin.
4:34
If you weren't fully human, if you hadn't walked in our shoes
4:37
and felt the pressure of temptation, the sources suggest,
4:40
he couldn't genuinely function as our sympathetic priest and
4:43
advocate. He wouldn't truly understand our
4:45
condition from the inside out. OK, so the sources build The
4:47
case that Jesus is full humanity is not just a fact, but a
4:51
functional necessity for salvation and for his role as
4:54
our compassionate intercessor. That's clear.
4:57
Now let's look at the extensive biblical evidence the sources
5:00
compiled to support this. How do they show that Jesus
5:03
possessed all the essential aspects of humanity?
5:06
Right. The sources dedicate a
5:07
significant portion to this, starting with the most tangible
5:10
evidence, his physical humanity. They really emphasize that his
5:14
birth wasn't just an appearance, it was a genuine human birth.
5:18
He was conceived in the womb of a human mother, Mary.
5:21
Just like any human baby, he was nourished prenatally.
5:24
He underwent a normal natural delivery in Bethlehem.
5:27
The Gospels trace his lineage, showing him as part of a typical
5:30
human family tree, implying the reception of genes.
5:34
You know, the biological realities that ground him in
5:36
human history and biology. He didn't bypass any of the
5:39
normal human beginnings. No shortcuts there.
5:41
Not according to these sources. They also note his development.
5:44
Luke 2.52 is cited, showing he grew in wisdom and stature, a
5:48
process of physical and intellectual maturation that is
5:51
uniquely human. And he clearly required food and
5:54
water for nourishment and survival, demonstrating the
5:56
biological dependency of a human body.
5:58
And what about physical limitations?
5:59
Did he get tired? Hungry.
6:01
Absolutely, and the sources highlight these as clear
6:03
indicators of his real humanity. He experienced hunger like in
6:07
Matthew 4.2 in the wilderness temptation.
6:09
He felt thirst, crying out I am thirsty on the cross.
6:13
In John 19.28. Fatigue was real for him.
6:16
John 4.6 mentions him being weary and sitting by the well.
6:20
The sources also point to his weariness and anguish in the
6:22
Garden of Gethsemane, showing a body under immense strain.
6:26
He wasn't somehow immune to physical exhaustion.
6:29
And the ultimate physical reality, suffering and death.
6:33
How do they address that? The sources are very clear.
6:35
His suffering was physically real.
6:37
The beating, the crown of thorns pressed into his head, the nails
6:40
driven through his hands and feet.
6:42
This was physical pain endured by a real human body, and his
6:45
death was not an illusion. They referenced John 19.34 where
6:49
a soldier pierced his side and blood and water flowed out, seen
6:52
by the onlookers, demonstrating the bodily reality.
6:54
Even in death it was physical. The sources also mention the
6:57
physical perception by his contemporaries.
7:00
Why is that significant? Why do they bring that up?
7:02
They bring this up because it counters any idea that he was
7:04
just a spirit or an apparition. First, John 1.1 is cited.
7:09
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
7:11
which we have seen with our eyes, which we've looked at and
7:14
our hands have touched. The sources note that the New
7:17
Testament authors, particularly John, go to great lengths to
7:20
emphasize that they heard, saw, and touched him.
7:24
They specifically pointed out that touch in ancient thought
7:27
was often seen as the most reliable sense for confirming
7:30
physical reality. His presence was tangible,
7:32
solid. And even after the resurrection,
7:35
that physical reality was still important to demonstrate.
7:37
Yes, the sources highlight this strongly.
7:39
In Luke 24.39 after his resurrection, he invites his
7:43
disciples to touch him, saying look at my hands and my feet.
7:46
It is I myself touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and
7:49
bones as you see I have. He explicitly uses his physical
7:52
body, flesh and bones as proof that he is not a mere spirit.
7:56
This is crucial for understanding the sources view
7:58
of the resurrection bodies reality as well.
8:00
It wasn't just a spiritual thing.
8:02
OK, now there's a specific point the sources bring up about Bolt
8:05
Man's interpretation of 2nd Corinthians 5.16 regarding
8:10
seeing Christ cut Asurka. Can you elaborate on that and
8:13
how the sources counter it? Yeah, this is a specific point
8:15
raised in the sources to distinguish their view from
8:19
certain modern interpretations that downplay the historical
8:22
side. Bolt Man, as presented in the
8:24
sources, use Paul's phrase katasarka, which often gets
8:28
translated according to the flesh or from a worldly point of
8:31
view, to argue that faith in Christ isn't based on objective
8:35
historical knowledge about Jesus of Nazareth.
8:37
He suggested that Paul here means that Christians no longer
8:39
know Christ in a purely historical, empirically
8:42
verifiable way, that the earthly life isn't the focus.
8:45
So Boltman argued that knowing the historical facts about Jesus
8:48
wasn't the basis of faith, it was something else.
8:51
That's the sources presentation of Boltman's argument from this
8:54
verse, Yeah. However, the sources strongly
8:56
disagree with this interpretation.
8:58
They argue that when Paul uses Katasarka in this context, he's
9:02
not talking about the impossibility or irrelevance of
9:05
historical knowledge about Jesus's earthly life.
9:08
Instead, they argue, he's talking about an unregenerate
9:10
perspective or attitude, a way of viewing things that is based
9:15
on fallen human nature, limited by worldly standards or focused
9:19
only on external, superficial aspects like judging by
9:22
appearances. OK.
9:24
So it's about how you see him, not whether you can see him
9:27
historically. It's a perspective shift.
9:30
Precisely. The sources contend that Paul is
9:32
saying believers no longer view Christ from this fallen,
9:35
worldly, limited perspective, but through the eyes of faith
9:38
informed by the Spirit. They see this is correcting a
9:41
particular attitude toward Christ, not as denying the
9:44
validity or accessibility of historical knowledge about his
9:47
earthly life and physical reality through observation and
9:49
investigation. It's their way of pushing back
9:52
against interpretations that would sideline the importance of
9:54
the historical Jesus. That distinction between an
9:57
attitude and the possibility of knowledge is helpful.
10:02
OK, Moving beyond the physical, the sources also describe Jesus
10:05
as fully and genuinely human in his inner life, emotionally and
10:09
intellectually. Right.
10:10
This is the section on psychological humanity,
10:12
emotional and intellectual. The sources provide extensive
10:15
examples from the Gospels to show the full range of Jesus's
10:17
human emotions. He loved a specific individuals.
10:21
Think of John the disciple referred to as the one whom
10:24
Jesus loved, or Lazarus and his sisters.
10:26
That's personal affection. He had deep compassion for
10:28
individuals like lepers and for crowds who were harassed and
10:32
helpless like sheep without a shepherd.
10:34
He experienced sorrow and was deeply troubled, particularly in
10:37
the hours leading up to his crucifixion.
10:39
He knew joy too. It wasn't all sorrow and
10:41
trouble. Yes, absolutely.
10:43
The sources point to his joy, perhaps found in the fulfilment
10:46
of his mission or in his relationship with the Father.
10:49
John 151117.13 mention this. The sources even mentioned
10:54
Hebrews 12.2 which speaks of him enduring the cross for the joy
10:57
set before him, showing a future oriented joy that sustained him
11:01
through suffering. That's quite something.
11:03
He also experienced more intense or challenging emotions.
11:06
He could be angry and grieved, like and observing the hard
11:09
hearts of the Pharisees in Mark 3.5, and even indignant as when
11:13
the disciples prevented children from coming to him in Mark
11:16
10.13. Real strong reactions.
11:19
The sources highlight certain Greek words to show the depth of
11:21
these feelings, don't they? They do, which suggests they
11:24
want us to grasp that these weren't superficial emotions.
11:27
They mentioned splotch nismi for compassion, noting that it
11:31
literally means to be moved in one's internal organs or gut,
11:34
indicating a feeling that goes right to the core of 1's being.
11:37
This wasn't just intellectual pity.
11:39
It was a visceral human feeling, deeply felt.
11:42
And they mentioned specific uniquely human reactions like
11:45
surprise. Yes, they point to his
11:47
astonishment. He marvelled or was astonished.
11:51
The Greek is, if Amazon at both the great faith of the centurion
11:54
and the profound unbelief of the people in his hometown.
11:58
This capacity to be genuinely surprised by human responses,
12:01
whether positive or negative, seem to be highlighted by the
12:04
sources as a very human characteristic.
12:06
What about moments of significant struggle or
12:08
distress? Bethemini comes to mind.
12:11
The sources emphasize these strongly.
12:13
As evidence of his full humanity, Luke 1250 is cited.
12:16
Where he speaks of a coming baptism of suffering, he must
12:19
undergo adding, And how distressed I am until it is
12:22
completed. That sounds like real anguish.
12:24
It conveys an acute sense of the burden and necessity of his
12:27
mission. In John 12.27 he says, Now my
12:30
soul is troubled, and what shall I say, Father, save me from this
12:33
hour. But for this purpose I came to
12:35
this hour. That's the picture of a human
12:37
soul wrestling inwardly. And the sources returned to
12:40
Gethsemane as you said. Yes, Mark 14.3242 is described
12:45
as a prime example of his deep struggle.
12:47
He went there with his disciples and told them, My soul is very
12:50
sorrowful, even to death. He prays repeatedly, expressing
12:54
his human will. Take this cup from me while
12:57
submitting to the Father's divine will.
12:59
Yet not what I will, but what you will.
13:02
This isn't just a divine decree playing out.
13:04
It's a human person wrestling with the prospect of suffering
13:06
and death. And they note his cry of
13:08
loneliness on the cross from Psalm 22.1.
13:11
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
13:13
A very human expression of feeling abandoned in the depths
13:16
of suffering. Wow, his weeping at Lazarus
13:18
death is also highlighted with another specific Greek word,
13:20
isn't it? Yes, in John 11.33 and 35 where
13:24
it says he groaned in the spirit and was troubled and then Jesus
13:27
wept. The sources mentioned the word
13:28
used for groaning, embroma. They point out this word is used
13:31
elsewhere for a strong, almost animalistic reaction, like a
13:34
horse snorting with emotion. It paints a picture of Jesus's
13:37
grief that is raw, visceral, and undeniably human.
13:41
Not just a calm intellectual sadness, this was a deeply felt
13:44
human sorrow. So the sources show a Jesus with
13:47
a full, deep and complex emotional life.
13:51
What about his knowledge? This seems tricky.
13:54
The sources mention instances of remarkable knowledge alongside
13:57
instances of limited knowledge. How do they balance that?
14:00
Yeah, this is a key area the sources address.
14:03
To show his genuine human intellect while also affirming
14:06
his unique nature, they list examples of remarkable
14:09
knowledge. He knew people's thoughts.
14:11
He could read character instantly, like Nathaniel or
14:13
knowing what was in people. He knew the Samaritan woman's
14:16
past even though he'd just met her.
14:18
He knew Lazarus was dead before receiving word.
14:21
He knew Judas would betray him. He knew Peter would deny him.
14:24
And John 18.4 says he knew all that was going to happen to him.
14:28
It certainly seems like more than ordinary human knowledge,
14:31
like significantly more. But then the sources also state
14:33
he had limited knowledge. How does that work?
14:35
Yes, and according to the sources, this is crucial
14:38
evidence for his genuine humanity.
14:40
They note that he frequently asked questions, which on the
14:43
surface gives the impression of seeking information as any human
14:46
would like in Mark 9.21 asking how long the boy had had his
14:49
condition. But the most explicit statement
14:52
side is Mark 13.32 where Jesus is speaking about the timing of
14:55
his second coming and says but about that day or hour no one
14:58
knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only
15:02
the Father. This is presented as a clear,
15:04
self professed limitation on his knowledge as the Son in his
15:07
Incarnate state. How did the sources reconcile
15:10
that limitation with his deity? This seems like a potential
15:13
challenge, a real tension point. This is where the sources get
15:15
into careful theological distinctions.
15:18
They cite James Orr, who makes a distinction between ignorance
15:21
and error. The sources argue that while
15:24
Jesus confessed ignorance regarding certain things, like
15:26
the timing of the perogia, he never made erroneous or
15:30
factually incorrect statements. They might point out, for
15:33
instance, that his acceptance of Moses authorship for the
15:35
Pentateuch aligns with the biblical narrative and the
15:38
consistent testimony of Scripture, rather than
15:41
reflecting a supposed error based on certain modern
15:44
historical critical approaches that question Mosaic authorship.
15:48
It's the source's way of emphasizing that his human
15:51
limitations were about the scope of his knowledge in his
15:54
Incarnate state, not about flawed understanding or factual
15:57
mistakes about things he did claim to know or teach.
16:00
OK, so ignorance about some future events isn't the same as
16:03
being wrong about something he taught or claimed to know.
16:06
That's the line they draw. That's the distinction the
16:08
sources draw citing. Or they also cite Leonard
16:11
Hodgson who is presented as suggesting that Jesus isn't just
16:14
a man, but the one perfect man. The sources use this to argue
16:18
that Jesus is the true standard for measuring humanity instead
16:21
of our flawed, corrupted post fall humanity being the NOR.
16:25
His unadulterated humanity is presented as the true measure of
16:28
what human nature was meant to be.
16:30
The sources also make a point about his human religious life.
16:33
What did that look like? They note that his humanity is
16:35
also evident in his human religious life.
16:37
He lived within the religious practices of his time, attending
16:40
the synagogue regularly, as Luke 4.16 mentions.
16:44
But the most significant point the sources highlight here is
16:46
his prayer life, presented as clear evidence of his dependence
16:50
on the Father, a hallmark of true creaturely humanity.
16:54
He's shown praying regularly, often at length and with
16:57
intensity. Think about the decision to
16:59
choose his 12 disciples, arguably one of the most
17:01
significant leadership moments in his ministry.
17:04
And he spends the entire night in prayer beforehand.
17:06
That's Luke 6.11. This is just a divine being who
17:09
has all the answers. It's a man wrestling in prayer,
17:12
seeking guidance, demonstrating what perfect human dependence on
17:15
God looks like. That does show a human life
17:17
lived in reliance on God. Definitely.
17:20
The sources also point to the terminology used for him in the
17:22
Bible. What terms do they highlight?
17:24
Yes, the biblical terminology used to describe him is cited as
17:27
further evidence Jesus himself used the term man for himself,
17:31
such as quoting Deuteronomy. Man shall not live by bread
17:34
alone and applying it to himself or stating now you are trying to
17:38
kill me, a man who has told you the truth.
17:40
That's John 840. He calls himself a man.
17:43
And others referred to him as a man.
17:45
Frequently Peter in his sermon on Pentecost refers to Jesus as
17:49
a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs.
17:53
That's Acts 2.22. Paul notably uses the term man
17:57
when comparing Christ to Adam, the first man in Romans 5.
18:00
First Corinthians 15 where he speaks of the first man Adam in
18:02
the second man Christ at first Timothy 2.5 states clearly, for
18:05
there is one God, one mediator between God and mankind, the man
18:09
Christ Jesus. It's explicit.
18:10
The sources also highlight terms like taking on flesh.
18:13
What's the significance there? Yes, terms like flesh or being
18:17
born of a woman are highlighted as signifying his entry into
18:21
full human reality. First Timothy 3.16 says he
18:25
appeared in the flesh. John 1.1 Teen is foundational.
18:29
The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
18:32
Hebrews 10.5 quotes Psalm 40A. Body you prepared for me.
18:36
Galatians 4.4 says God sent his son born of a woman born under
18:40
the law. It all points to real
18:42
embodiment. And the sources specifically
18:44
point to 1st John 4.2 to 3 as particularly relevant here.
18:48
Why that passage? They do.
18:49
They highlight this passage because it was written
18:51
explicitly to combat a heresy, likely an early form of
18:54
dawcatism, that was denying the genuineness of Jesus humanity.
18:58
John says this is how you can recognize the Spirit of God.
19:00
Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in
19:03
the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge
19:06
Jesus is not from God. The sources see this is a clear
19:09
litmus test for authentic faith directly tied to affirming
19:12
Christ. Real historical humanity.
19:14
It was a dividing line issue even then.
19:16
So pulling all this biblical evidence together, what's the
19:19
overall picture the source is paying?
19:20
How did the first followers see him?
19:22
The sources indicate that for the disciples of the writers of
19:24
the New Testament, Jesus's humanity wasn't initially A
19:27
theoretical problem to be debated.
19:29
It was an assumed, observed reality.
19:32
They lived with him, saw him, touched him.
19:35
It only became a point of formal theological definition later
19:38
when they had to respond to specific emerging issues and
19:41
heresies that challenge this fundamental reality.
19:44
Much like the one John confronts in his letter.
19:46
Those who lived with him saw a genuinely human person.
19:50
OK, so Despite that clear biblical picture, the sources
19:53
show that early church history wasn't smooth sailing.
19:56
There were significant departures from this
19:58
understanding that forced the Church to clarify and defend the
20:01
doctrine. That brings us to the historical
20:03
challenges, the heresies that sought to diminish or deny
20:06
Christ's full humanity. The first one the sources detail
20:10
is Dasatism. And as you mentioned earlier,
20:12
the name itself gives us a clue right to seem.
20:15
It does coming from the Greek doke meaning to seem or to
20:18
appear Dasatism essentially deny the reality of Jesus humanity.
20:23
They argued he only seemed or appeared human, but wasn't truly
20:26
made of flesh and blood like us. A phantom, almost.
20:30
What was the thinking behind this?
20:31
Why would someone believe that? It seems so contrary to the
20:34
Gospels. Well, the sources explained that
20:37
Dacetism was heavily influenced by prevalent Greek philosophies
20:40
of the time, particularly elements found in Platonism and
20:43
Aristotelianism, which also permeated Gnostic thought.
20:47
There was often a strong dualism in these systems that saw a
20:50
sharp divide between the spiritual realm, seen as good,
20:53
perfect, unchanging, and the material world, often seen as
20:57
inferior, corrupt, or even inherently evil.
21:00
And Aristotelian thought also emphasized the impassibility of
21:03
God, the idea that God cannot change or suffer.
21:07
OK, so if matter is bad or corrupt and God cannot suffer,
21:10
the idea of God actually becoming material and suffering
21:13
would be problematic, even offensive to some.
21:15
Precisely. The belief was that a pure,
21:18
transcendent, impassable God could not genuinely unite with
21:21
evil, corrupting matter, or undergo messy human experiences
21:24
like birth with pain and death. So for Dostis, Jesus's physical
21:28
body must have been an illusion, a kind of projection, like a
21:32
ghost walking around, not a real physical presence.
21:34
The sources note the even struggle with the idea of Jesus
21:37
being born from Mary. Some sought not as her genuinely
21:40
contributing material nature, but more like a divine substance
21:43
passing through her untouched, like water through a pipe,
21:46
trying to keep the divine pure. How did the early church leers
21:50
and theologians react to this? They couldn't just let that
21:52
stand. No, the sources state, the
21:54
Church recognized this view came at an unacceptable cost.
21:58
While it might seem to neatly resolve the tension between
22:01
deity and humanity by making humanity an appearance, the
22:04
Church saw that it fundamentally severed Jesus's real connection
22:07
to humankind. If he wasn't truly human, they
22:10
reasoned, how could he genuinely represent humanity?
22:13
How could his sacrifice on the cross truly atone for human sin?
22:17
Figures like Ignatius, Reneus and Tertullian vigorously oppose
22:20
Dosatism, seeing it as undermining the very possibility
22:23
of salvation. As we saw earlier, the sources
22:26
point to 1st John as direct biblical evidence of this early
22:29
struggle against those denying Christ came in the flesh.
22:31
And the sources mentioned that while pure dosatism is rare
22:34
today, DOSATIC tendencies can still appear.
22:37
What does that look like? Yes, they suggest that while you
22:40
might not find someone explicitly saying Jesus was a
22:42
ghost, ideas that downplay the physical, messy, emotional
22:46
reality of Jesus's life and suffering, maybe focusing only
22:49
on his divine power or abstract teachings while glossing over
22:53
his fatigue, his pain, his tears, can sometimes be seen as
22:57
reflecting a similar underlying discomfort with the idea of God
23:00
truly inhabiting the full depth of human experience, sort of
23:04
sanitizing him. OK, so Dosatism denied the
23:06
reality of his humanity. The sources describe a
23:09
pulinarianism as a different kind of challenge, not a full
23:11
denial, but a truncation or limitation of humanity.
23:15
What was that about? Exactly.
23:17
Apollinarius, A respected theologian and actually a friend
23:20
of Athanasius in the 4th century, was concerned with
23:22
safeguarding the unity of Christ's person against ideas
23:25
that seem to split him into two separate beings.
23:28
He wanted one Christ. In his attempt to ensure Christ
23:30
was one subject, he proposed a viewer.
23:32
Jesus had a human body, flesh, but argue that the divine Logos,
23:36
the eternal Son of God, took the place of a human soul, or more
23:39
specifically the human mind or reason, the nouse.
23:42
So the physical body was human, but the governing consciousness,
23:45
the mind was, is divine, like a divine driver in a human car.
23:49
That's sort of the core of the view is presented in the
23:52
sources. Yeah.
23:53
According to Apollinarius, Jesus didn't have a separate,
23:56
independent human will or consciousness in the way a
23:59
typical human does. He believed this prevented
24:02
internal conflict between a potentially sinful human will
24:05
and the divine will. It supposedly guaranteed his
24:08
sinlessness because his mind was entirely divine, not susceptible
24:12
to temptation in the way a human mind is.
24:15
He was trying to avoid what he saw as the problematic idea of
24:18
two complete natures potentially pulling in different directions,
24:21
which he saw as making Christ a kind of two sold freak.
24:24
He used analogies, apparently to argue against adding a full
24:28
human nature to the divine. OK, so he was trying to solve
24:30
the unity problem. How did the rest of the church
24:33
react to this solution? Well, the Church, after much
24:36
debate, rejected and condemned to pulinarianism.
24:39
The sources note this happened formally the Council of
24:41
Constantinople in 381. The key objection raised was
24:44
that by denying Jesus a human mind and will, arguably the most
24:48
defining aspects of human identity and moral agency,
24:51
Apollinarius had effectively deny that Jesus was fully human.
24:54
The sources highlight that this clashed with the Gospel accounts
24:57
that clearly show Jesus engaging in human thought, human learning
25:00
and exercising a human will, albeit one always in perfect
25:03
submission to the Father's will, like in Gethsemane.
25:06
So the Church saw that by trying to make him undeniably unified,
25:09
Apollinarius made him less than fully human.
25:11
He cut out a vital part. Yes, they saw that the divine
25:15
element in this model essentially overshadowed and
25:18
absorbed the human psychological faculties.
25:20
The sources likely emphasized that this denial of a human mind
25:24
and will was critical because, as the Church understood it,
25:28
salvation required Jesus to obey God as a human, to exercise a
25:32
human will in submission to the Father, particularly in
25:34
overcoming temptation. If he only had a divine will,
25:38
that specific aspect of human obedience and resistance to sin
25:42
isn't genuinely represented or redeemed in him for humanity.
25:46
OK, so Dosatism denied the substance, Apollinarianism
25:50
denied key faculties. The sources then shift to
25:53
discuss modern perspectives, suggesting that while outright
25:56
theoretical denial of humanity is less common, modern views can
25:59
still minimize its practical or theological significance.
26:02
Exactly this brings us to the modern depreciations of
26:04
humanity. The sources discuss figures like
26:06
Carl Barth. What was Barth's approach to
26:09
Jesus? Humanity, according to these
26:10
sources? He's a giant figure, obviously.
26:12
The sources state that Barth fully granted the fact of Jesus
26:15
humanity. He was truly a human person, no
26:18
question there. However, they argue that Barth
26:20
regarded historical information about Jesus's earthly life,
26:24
information accessible through ordinary historical methods, as
26:28
having no real significance for faith, which is pretty strong
26:31
statement. That seems counterintuitive for
26:34
someone who wrote so much about Christ.
26:35
Why would he say that? What was his reasoning?
26:37
It's linked to his broader theology of revelation as
26:40
presented in the sources. For Barth, God's true revelation
26:44
isn't found primarily in historical facts about the past
26:47
that we discovered through research.
26:48
Revelation, in his view, happens in a dynamic supernatural
26:52
encounter with God in the present, mediated by the Holy
26:55
Spirit and the preached Word. Historical facts about Jesus,
26:58
while real, were in his perspective a little
27:01
commonplace, perhaps even secondary, and paradoxically
27:04
sometimes more likely to conceal than to reveal the deeper
27:07
reality of God's saving action in Christ, which he saw as
27:10
happening on a different divine plane.
27:12
So simply accumulating historical facts about Jesus
27:15
wouldn't automatically lead to saving faith in God, according
27:19
to Barth's view, as described here.
27:21
It's about the encounter. That's the interpretation the
27:24
sources give. Revelation isn't about gathering
27:26
historical data. It's about God manifesting
27:29
himself in a way that transcends mere historical facts in an
27:33
event. And then the sources discuss
27:35
Rudolf Boltman, who they say took this even further.
27:38
How so? Yes, Boltman is presented as
27:40
more radical. He famously distinguished
27:43
between history, which refers to actual historical events
27:46
potentially accessible through objective historical methods,
27:49
and Keshikta, which he defined not as objective history, but as
27:53
existential history, events that have significance and impact for
27:56
believers today. What it means to us now.
27:59
And for both men, faith wasn't based on history, the actual
28:02
events. According to the sources, no
28:05
Bultman believed that objective historical facts about Jesus
28:09
history were largely inaccessible or unreliable
28:12
anyway. Due to the limitations of
28:14
historical methods and the nature of the Gospel accounts.
28:18
He was skeptical about what we could really know historically.
28:21
More importantly, he argued that faith isn't based on accepting
28:24
these historical facts, but on responding to the existential
28:27
meaning found in the early church's preaching, the kurigma.
28:31
His program of demythologization sought to strip away what he saw
28:34
as the mythical elements in the Gospels to uncover this core
28:37
existential message. Can you give an example of how
28:39
that plays out in his thinking according to the sources?
28:42
Like with the crucifixion or resurrection?
28:44
The sources cite his view on those very events.
28:47
For Bolt Man, as they describe, the meaning of the crucifixion
28:51
wasn't primarily the historical event of Jesus's death on a
28:54
cross 2000 years ago, but it's existential meaning for
28:58
believers now. The call to self denial and
29:00
identification with Christ's death crucifying one's old self.
29:04
He might point to Galatians 6.13.
29:07
Similarly, the meaning of the resurrection wasn't about
29:10
whether Jesus's body historically came back to life,
29:13
but it's meaning in our being raised from an old life to a new
29:15
life of faith. It's about personal
29:17
transformation triggered by the message.
29:19
So faith is about the message and its current impact on me,
29:22
not necessarily about whether the historical events literally
29:25
happened that way. That's the picture of the
29:27
sources paint of Bolt Man's position.
29:29
He shifted the ground of faith from objective historical facts
29:32
to subjective existential encounter with the preach Word.
29:35
OK, the sources offer critique of both Barth and Boltmann on
29:38
this point, though, what's their concern?
29:40
They argue that Barth and Boltmann, in different ways,
29:43
separate the factuality of Jesus historical life from its saving
29:46
impact in a way that isn't justified by Scripture.
29:49
They point to passages like Paul's argument in First
29:51
Corinthians 15 where he emphatically bases the hope of
29:54
the resurrection life for believers on the historical fact
29:58
of Christ's bodily resurrection. Paul isn't just talking about an
30:01
existential feeling, he's arguing that because this
30:04
specific event happened to Jesus, it has real implications
30:07
for everyone who believes. If Christ didn't rise, Paul
30:10
says, our faith is futile. The sources also suggest that
30:13
Birth and Boltman overlooked Jesus's own post resurrection
30:16
emphasis on his physical, tangible humanity, like inviting
30:20
his disciples to touch him and eating fish to prove he wasn't a
30:23
ghost. The sources see these modern
30:25
views as, in practice, minimizing the theological
30:28
significance of the historical Jesus, the man who walks the
30:31
earth. The sources also mentioned a
30:33
concern from some Latin American evangelical theologians about
30:36
how this doctrine has been handled historically, even
30:39
within Orthodoxy. What's that perspective?
30:41
Yes, they note that these theologians have voiced concern.
30:44
The traditional Orthodox theology, while correctly
30:47
affirming both deity and humanity, has in practice,
30:50
particularly in Western theological discourse, tended to
30:53
focus so heavily on the divine nature and abstract
30:56
philosophical discussions about Christ's person that the
30:59
concrete historical and human aspects of Jesus's life have
31:03
been somewhat overshadowed or depreciated.
31:06
This, they argue, can potentially remove doctrine too
31:09
far from the social concerns, suffering and concrete realities
31:12
of human life that the Church is called to engage with.
31:15
They advocate for a theology that keeps the earthy reality of
31:18
Jesus human life more centrally in view, connecting his
31:22
incarnation to solidarity with the poor and oppressed.
31:24
That's a different kind of issue.
31:26
Not denying the doctrine, but arguing that the focus has been
31:29
skewed away from the human reality in practice.
31:32
Interesting point. This discussion naturally leads
31:34
to a question the sources address, which some listeners
31:36
might find challenging. If Jesus did not sin, was he
31:39
truly human, since sin seems to be such a universal human
31:43
experience for us? Yes, this is a crucial point.
31:45
The sources addressed directly and carefully.
31:48
They begin by clearly and unequivocally affirming Jesus's
31:51
sinlessness, citing extensive biblical evidence.
31:54
What are some of the key biblical statements they rely on
31:56
for that? Oh, numerous passages are
31:59
listed. Hebrews 4.15 states he was
32:02
tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he did not sin.
32:06
Hebrews 7.26 describes him as holy, blameless, pure, set apart
32:11
from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
32:13
First Peter 2.22 says he committed no sin and no deceit
32:17
was found in his mouth. 2nd Corinthians 5.21 says God made
32:21
him who had no sin to be sin for us, and first John 3.5 states
32:25
flatly in him is no sin. The testimony seems consistent.
32:29
Jesus himself made claims about his sinlessness too right or
32:32
implied it. Yes, the sources note he
32:34
challenged his opponents. Can any of you prove me guilty
32:36
of sin in John 8.46? A challenge no other human could
32:40
honestly make. He also stated I always do what
32:42
pleases him, the Father, John 8.29 and I have kept my Father's
32:45
commands and remain in his love. John 15.10 claims of perfect
32:49
obedience. And implicitly through his
32:51
actions or lack thereof. Like, did he ever need to
32:53
repent? Good point.
32:54
The sources point out that unlike every other human, Jesus
32:57
never confessed sin or offered sacrifices for himself, which
33:01
was required under the law for sinful people.
33:04
He acted as if he didn't need forgiveness.
33:06
They also cite the testimony of others who witnessed his life
33:09
and death. Pilot's wife warning her husband
33:12
don't have anything to do with that innocent man.
33:14
The thief on the cross acknowledging Jesus's innocence
33:17
compared to their guilt. And even Judas in his remorse
33:19
saying I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.
33:23
All these witnesses point to his unique lack of sin.
33:26
So the biblical record is overwhelming on his sinlessness.
33:29
But the problem many perceive as described in the sources is this
33:33
If experiencing and committing sin is a universal part of the
33:36
human condition as we know it, doesn't Jesus's sinlessness mean
33:39
he wasn't fully human like us? Does it make his temptations
33:42
somehow less real or less intense if he couldn't actually
33:45
fall? The sources directly countered
33:47
this view. Their main argument is that sin
33:50
is not the essence of human nature, It is not what
33:52
fundamentally makes someone human.
33:54
Rather, they argue, sin is a corruption, A distortion, A
33:58
deviation from human nature as God originally created it.
34:02
To argue that sin is essential to being human, they say, would
34:05
imply that God, the creator of human nature, is somehow the
34:07
author or cause of sin, which they strongly reject is
34:10
heretical. OK, so sin is a bug and not a
34:13
feature of humanity. It's something wrong with us,
34:16
not something essential to us. Precisely.
34:18
It's a malfunction, a corruption of the original design.
34:21
The sources argue that Adam and Eve before the fall represent
34:23
true, uncorrupted human nature, and Jesus likewise represents
34:27
pure human nature, unadulterated by the fall.
34:30
Therefore, the sources make a striking claim.
34:32
They state that Jesus is not just as human as we are.
34:35
He is, in real sense, more human than us, because his humanity is
34:38
the true, perfect, uncorrupted form of what humanity was
34:41
intended to be. He is the standard, not our
34:44
fallen, corrupted selves. Wow, that reframes the question
34:47
entirely. Instead of asking if his
34:49
sinlessness makes him less human, we should ask if our
34:52
sinfulness makes us less truly human by God's original design.
34:55
That seems to be the perspective the sources advocate, yes.
34:59
Now regarding the temptations, if he was certain not to sin,
35:01
were they truly real struggles? The sources state unequivocally
35:05
that the temptations were absolutely genuine and intensely
35:09
felt. They were not play acting.
35:11
Gethsemane is cited again as a powerful example of his real
35:15
human struggle against the prospect of suffering and
35:17
separation from the Father. That wasn't fake anguish.
35:20
But how can the temptations be real if sin was impossible for
35:23
him? That still feels like a bit of a
35:24
knot. This touches on a mystery of his
35:26
dual nature, definitely, but the sources offered this
35:29
perspective. While divinely certain he would
35:32
not sin due to the union of his natures and the power of the
35:35
Spirit enabling his perfect obedience, the sources state
35:38
that humanly considered, purely within his human nature, he
35:42
could have sinned. This possibility inherent in the
35:45
nature of temptation itself, temptations always towards
35:47
something one could do, made the struggles real.
35:51
They cite Leon Morris, who argued that resisting temptation
35:54
to the bitter end, even unto death, demonstrates that you
35:57
have experienced its full force, its entire weight and pressure.
36:00
Unlike someone who yields early and never knows the depth of the
36:03
battle, Jesus knew the full onslaught of temptation
36:06
precisely because he resisted it perfectly to the very end.
36:09
That distinction is powerful. He didn't sin, but the
36:12
possibility, the pressure, the struggle within his human nature
36:16
was entirely real. He faced it fully.
36:18
That is the position the source is present, acknowledging that
36:21
it does lead us to the edges of finite human understanding when
36:24
contemplating the perfect unity of His divine and human natures.
36:27
It's profound. OK, this deep dive has covered
36:30
the basis, the evidence, the historical challenges, and the
36:34
question of sinlessness regarding Jesus's humanity.
36:38
Let's conclude by looking at the significant implications of this
36:40
doctrine for our faith in theology as listed in the
36:43
sources. What difference does it all
36:44
make? Right.
36:46
The sources list several crucial implications that flow directly
36:49
from accepting Jesus's full humanity.
36:51
First, as we touched on early, is the atonement effectiveness.
36:55
Because he was truly one of us, sharing our nature, though
36:59
without its corruption, his death could actually avail for
37:01
human beings. He was qualified to offer a
37:04
sacrifice on our behalf, functioning as the ultimate high
37:07
priest who represented humanity before God.
37:09
Without genuine humanity, that representation breaks down.
37:13
Makes sense? Second implication.
37:14
Sympathy and intercession. This point is reinforced as a
37:17
key implication because he experienced human trials.
37:21
Hunger, thirst, fatigue, loneliness, grief, temptation.
37:26
As Hebrews 4.15 emphasizes, He understands our struggles from
37:30
the inside. He is not a distant deity
37:32
unfamiliar with our pain. Therefore, He's uniquely
37:35
qualified to sympathize with us and to intercede for us before
37:38
the Father, bringing our needs and weaknesses before God.
37:40
With perfect understanding, He gets us. 3rd What does his
37:43
humanity show us about? Well, about ourselves and what
37:47
humanity is meant to be. He manifests true humanity.
37:50
The sources repeatedly present him as the one perfect man, the
37:53
standard, the pattern, the embodiment of what true humanity
37:56
looks like as God intended it. His life shows humanity lived
37:59
perfectly, in complete harmony with God's will.
38:01
He's the blueprint. So he's not just an example of a
38:04
good human, but the definition of what a true human is.
38:06
Yes, he sets the benchmark and that leads to the 4th
38:10
implication. He is an example for believers
38:13
because he lived a human life under real conditions here on
38:15
earth. He serves as a model for how we
38:18
are to live. His life demonstrates the
38:20
biblical standards. Life lived in submission and
38:22
obedience to God is possible for a human, but the sources are
38:26
careful to add the crucial caveat here.
38:28
His life also demonstrates, through his constant prayer and
38:30
dependence on the Father, that this kind of life is only
38:32
possible through absolute reliance on God's grace and
38:35
power, not human self-sufficiency.
38:37
We can't do it alone, OK? 5th What does the incarnation
38:40
itself, God, taking on humanity, say about human nature?
38:44
Is being human OK? Yes, the sources see it as a
38:47
profound affirmation of human nature's goodness.
38:50
In various periods, philosophical or religious ideas
38:53
have emerged that view the physical world or human nature
38:56
as inherently bad or evil, leading to ascetic practices
38:59
that deny the body or human desires.
39:02
The Incarnation directly counters this.
39:04
The fact that God himself took on full human nature, body and
39:07
soul, reminds us that being human as created by God, is
39:11
fundamentally good and worthy. It's not something to escape,
39:14
but something redeemed. And finally, the last
39:17
implication listed. It shows that God is not totally
39:21
transcendent in a way that makes him aloof or uninvolved.
39:24
The fact that God could step into human history and live
39:27
among us as a real human person demonstrates that he's not
39:30
entirely removed from the human realm and that he actively works
39:33
within it. It speaks to his relational
39:34
nature and his willingness to engage with his creation at the
39:37
deepest level. He's not impossibly far away.
39:40
That brings us to the close of this deep dive.
39:43
The sources conclude by emphasizing that the reality and
39:46
completeness of the incarnation, God becoming genuinely human, is
39:50
a doctrine to be profoundly appreciated and rejoiced.
39:53
In echoing that powerful statement in John 1.14, the Word
39:58
became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
40:01
We've covered a lot of ground in this dive, haven't we?
40:03
From the Biblical Foundation laid out in your sources,
40:06
through the historical challenges that forced clearer
40:08
definition like Docetism and Apollinarianism, to modern
40:12
perspectives that might minimize the historical or practical
40:14
dimensions, and finally the rich implications for our faith and
40:18
understanding of ourselves. It's a dense topic.
40:21
Absolutely. And that idea you mentioned
40:23
earlier, that Jesus is the true measure of humanity, that his
40:26
uncorrupted nature is the standard rather than our own
40:29
fallen experience. Well, that's something worth
40:32
dwelling on. It might make you think
40:33
differently about what it truly means to be human, what God
40:35
intended. A very worthwhile approach to
40:38
keep pondering, indeed. Thank you for providing the
40:41
sources that guided this deep dive.
40:42
It's really given us a clearview of what they say about this
40:46
fundamental doctrine. We hope this discussion has been
40:48
helpful for you in processing these materials and encourages
40:52
you to continue reflecting on these important points.
40:55
Maybe even dig back into those sources yourself.
40:57
And thank you for listening. We'll dive deep again soon.