Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Unity of the Person of Christ

Transcript

The Unity of the Person of Christ · Reformed Thinking

0:00
All right, let's dive in. Think about this.
0:01
Fully God, fully human. Two things that seem totally
0:05
different, impossible to fit together, right?
0:07
But how do we actually make sense of one person, Jesus
0:11
Christ, who is both? Welcome to the deep dive.
0:17
Today we're really digging into a core truth of the Christian
0:20
faith. The unity of Christ, divine and
0:23
human nature is in one person. We've got some great source
0:26
material here, solid theological discussion, looking at
0:29
historical views, biblical grounding.
0:31
Think of it like we're spreading out all these notes on the table
0:33
together. Yeah, absolutely.
0:34
And our goal really is to take all this rich information
0:37
carefully, unpack what the church has wrestled with for
0:40
centuries, about who Jesus actually is.
0:42
We want to see what the Bible itself shows us, and maybe most
0:45
crucially, understand why this matters for you personally
0:48
today. It's about getting a clear grasp
0:50
on something absolutely central to Christian belief.
0:53
OK, so let's start with why this is such a big deal.
0:56
Well, our sources are pretty clear that while understanding
0:59
Jesus divine nature and his human nature separately is
1:02
obviously needed, the unity of these two natures in his one
1:05
person is described as a, well, a large and crucial issue.
1:09
It's not some minor detail. It has really extensive
1:13
implications for how we understand, you know, pretty
1:15
much all of Christian theology. Right, so it ripples outwards
1:19
it. Really does, and the reason it's
1:20
so central connects directly to the whole purpose of the
1:23
incarnation itself. Why did God become man?
1:26
According to the sources, the Incarnation aimed to bridge that
1:29
huge gap, metaphysical, moral, spiritual that exists between
1:34
God and us, the human race. Because we're separated right by
1:37
sin, by affinity. Exactly.
1:39
We're separated from a holy God. The Incarnation is God's
1:42
decisive action to close that chasm, to reconcile us to
1:45
himself. OK, so the incarnation bridges
1:48
the gap. How does the Unity part
1:49
specifically play into that? Well, that's the vital
1:52
connection, the sources highlight.
1:54
The success of bridging that gap depended completely, completely
1:57
upon the unity of deity and humanity within Jesus.
2:00
Think about it, If Jesus was God and Jesus was human.
2:04
But those two aspects weren't truly seamlessly united in one
2:08
person. Well, the gap might seem
2:10
smaller, maybe, but it would still be there.
2:14
The separation wouldn't be fully overcome in him.
2:16
The bridge wouldn't actually connect both sides properly.
2:19
OK, that makes sense. So let's make it concrete for
2:21
the listener. Why does this unity affect you
2:23
directly? Because, as the sources explain,
2:26
the very effectiveness of Christ's work, his sacrifice on
2:29
the cross, his atonement for sin, hinges entirely on this
2:33
unity. Right.
2:34
The sources talk about this sort of paradox of redemption.
2:36
Could you unpack that a bit? Sure, for redemption, to
2:39
actually evade sail for humankind, as the sources put
2:41
it, it had to be the work of the human Jesus.
2:43
He lived a real human life, felt human emotions, suffered real
2:47
pain, died a physical death. That's the part that connects to
2:51
us, that meets the requirement for a human substitute.
2:54
OK, the human side is necessary for substitution.
2:56
Precisely. But at the same time, for that
2:59
sacrifice to have the infinite value needed to atone for the
3:03
sins of all people throughout all time before an infinitely
3:06
holy God, it also had to be the work of the divine Christ.
3:11
A mere human, even a perfect one, could at best only atone
3:14
for himself, maybe one other person.
3:17
But for one death to cover countless sins against an
3:20
infinite God that requires a value only deity possesses.
3:23
So both natures are essential for the work to be effective.
3:26
Exactly. The sources put it quite
3:28
bluntly. If the Savior's death isn't the
3:30
work of a unified God man, one person who is truly God and
3:34
truly human, then that sacrifice is going to be deficient
3:37
somehow. If only a human died, it lacks
3:40
infinite value. If somehow only the divine
3:42
nature suffered, which is impossible anyway, it wouldn't
3:45
be a true human sacrifice meeting our need.
3:47
Wow, so our actual salvation hangs on getting this right.
3:50
It really does. Understanding that it was the
3:52
one unified person, Jesus Christ, the God Man, who
3:55
accomplished the singular necessary work on the cross is
3:58
fundamental. But as crucial as it is, the
4:00
sources also admit this is one of the trickiest theological
4:03
problems out there. Yeah, they rank it up there with
4:05
things like the Trinity or, you know, figuring out the
4:09
relationship between human free will and God's sovereignty.
4:11
It's tough stuff. And the core difficulty, they
4:14
say, comes from trying to mesh these two natures with
4:17
attributes that seem, well, contradictory.
4:21
You've got the divine side, yeah, Knowing everything, being
4:24
all powerful everywhere at once. Right.
4:26
Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.
4:27
And then you contract that with human nature, even perfect human
4:30
nature, limited knowledge, needing to grow in wisdom,
4:35
limited physical ability, being stuck in one place at a time.
4:39
How do those two sense of characteristics exist in one
4:42
person at the same time? How can one individual know all
4:44
things and yet, as the gospel say, grow in wisdom, be
4:48
everywhere, yet be sitting by a well in Samaria?
4:51
That's the intellectual knot. And it doesn't help that the
4:53
Bible doesn't just lay it all out systematically for us.
4:56
No, it doesn't. The sources point out there's a
4:59
a relative lack of biblical material that directly explains
5:03
the mechanics of the relationship between the
5:05
natures. There's no chapter in verse
5:07
saying here's exactly how the divine and human interact moment
5:11
by moment. Instead, we have to carefully
5:13
piece it together. How do we do that?
5:15
Then we draw inferences. We look at Jesus's actions, what
5:19
he did, we look at his self concept, how he spoke about
5:21
himself, and we look at what the apostles and other biblical
5:24
writers said about him. It requires careful theological
5:27
work. Which is why historical
5:29
theology, seeing how the Church has wrestled with this, guided
5:32
by scripture, is so valuable here.
5:34
Absolutely. It's not just about proof
5:35
texting. It's about carefully,
5:37
meticulously working with all the data we have, biblical and
5:40
historical, to avoid falling into errors that would actually
5:44
undermine who Jesus is and what he did for us.
5:46
OK, so let's shift to the biblical evidence.
5:49
Even if the how isn't explicit, the sources say that that the
5:52
reality of the unity is really strongly supported.
5:55
Definitely. One major piece of evidence is
5:58
how Jesus consistently talks about himself, the sources point
6:02
out. You know, throughout the
6:03
Gospels, Jesus always spoke of himself in the singular.
6:05
It's always I me. He never sounds like he has two
6:09
separate minds or wills operating independently.
6:12
Right, unlike some Old Testament passages where you might see
6:14
plural references within the Godhead, like Let us make man.
6:18
Exactly. And you see the singular
6:19
identity really clearly in places like John 17, his high
6:23
priestly prayer. He speaks of his unity with the
6:25
Father, praying that believers maybe 1 is we are one.
6:30
But when he talks about himself, his own person, his own work,
6:33
there's zero hints of any internal division or like 2
6:36
competing centers of consciousness.
6:38
He speaks as one unified I. And the sources also mentioned
6:42
specific passages where a single subject, he or him, clearly
6:46
possesses both divine and human attributes or performs actions
6:49
related to both natures. Yes, let's look at a few key
6:52
examples they highlight. John 1.14 is probably the most
6:56
famous. The Word became flesh and dwelt
6:58
among us. Here you have the divine Word
7:01
identified as God right back in verse one taking on human nature
7:04
became flesh. It's the same subject, the Word
7:07
doing this. Then there's Galatians 4.4.
7:10
God sent his Son born of a woman born under law.
7:13
Right. The divine Son, the one God sent
7:15
from his preexistent state, is the same one who was born human
7:18
under the conditions of human life and law.
7:20
One person, 2 realities. In First Timothy 3.16 seems
7:25
particularly powerful in connecting his pre Incarnate,
7:28
earthly and ascended states. It really is.
7:31
The sources call it particularly significant.
7:33
He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was
7:36
seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the
7:39
world, taken up in glory. The single He is the one who
7:42
existed in glory, then appeared in the flesh on earth, then was
7:45
vindicated and preached, and then was taken up into glory
7:47
again. It links all these phases to 1
7:50
continuous subject. Beyond just attributes, the
7:53
sources say his work also shows this unity.
7:55
Yes. His actions aren't neatly
7:57
divided into human stuff and divine stuff.
8:00
They're presented as the actions of a unified subject, the one
8:04
Person, Jesus Christ, the God Man.
8:06
So whether he's performing miracles, teaching with divine
8:09
authority, suffering, physically dying, or now interceding, for
8:13
us, it's the one Christ doing it all.
8:16
Can you give an example of that from the sources?
8:18
Sure. Think about Ephesians 2.
8:20
Paul talks about reconciling both Jews and Gentiles to God in
8:24
one body through the cross. And then he says we have access
8:27
to the Father through him, through Christ by 1 Spirit.
8:32
This whole act of reconciliation, achieved on the
8:34
cross and applied to us now, is presented as the work of the
8:37
single unified Christ. OK.
8:39
And 1st John is mentioned too. Right first, John 2 Jesus Christ
8:42
the Righteous 1 is our advocate and the atoning sacrifice for
8:45
our sins and the source of the point out that John explicitly
8:49
links this atoning work to the one person who he identifies
8:51
elsewhere in the letter as both truly human, having come in the
8:54
flesh 4.2 and truly divine, the Son of God 4.155.5 The atonement
9:00
is the work of the individual who is both.
9:02
That's clear. The sources also mentioned the
9:04
use of titles for Jesus being revealing.
9:06
Yes, this is quite interesting. Scripture sometimes uses divine
9:10
titles when describing his human actions, and human titles when
9:13
referring to his heavenly status.
9:15
Like calling the crucified one the Lord of glory.
9:17
Exactly. 1st Corinthians 2.8 does that Paul applies this
9:21
incredibly high divine title Lord of Glory directly to Jesus
9:25
in the context of his human suffering and crucifixion.
9:29
It shows the one crucified is the Lord of Glory.
9:32
And the reverse happens to using a human title for his heavenly
9:35
reality. The title Son of Man which Jesus
9:38
used often emphasizing his humanity in solidarity with us.
9:42
Well it's used in places like John 3.3 war where he speaks of
9:45
the Son of man descending from heaven or John 6.62 where he
9:49
talks about the Son of man ascending to where he was
9:51
before. This human title is used to
9:53
describe his pre existence and heavenly origin and destiny.
9:57
So pulling all that biblical evidence together.
9:59
The picture of the sources present is consistent.
10:02
Jesus is depicted as a single person who was simultaneously an
10:05
earthly human being and the pre existent divine son who became
10:09
Incarnate. And crucially, they emphasize
10:11
there's absolutely no suggestion that these two natures took
10:15
turns directing his activity. It wasn't like his deity
10:18
switched on for miracles and switched off for suffering.
10:21
His actions were always those of his one unified person, the God
10:25
Man. OK, that gives us a solid
10:26
biblical foundation for the unity.
10:29
Now, how did the church historically grapple with
10:31
explaining this relationship between the natures?
10:33
Well, the sources note that deep reflection on the relationship
10:36
itself, the how, actually came relatively late.
10:39
The first big battles, culminating in the councils of
10:41
Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381, were about establishing
10:46
the reality and completeness of both natures.
10:49
First, they had to affirm firmly yes, he is truly God and yes, He
10:53
is truly human. Right, so once that was settled,
10:55
the next logical question pops up.
10:57
Exactly. Once the church universally
11:00
agreed OK, he's fully God and fully human, the question became
11:04
right. But what does that actually
11:05
mean? How do these two realities
11:08
coexist in one person without canceling each other out or
11:11
becoming something different? And in trying to answer that,
11:14
some ideas emerge that the church ultimately found
11:17
problematic. That's right.
11:18
As theologians proposed various models and explanations, the
11:21
church, through ongoing debate and councils guided by
11:24
Scripture, had to reject certain views as insufficient or
11:28
distorting the picture of Christ.
11:30
And the sources highlight two major early misunderstandings
11:33
that represent kind of opposite errors here, Nestorianism and
11:37
Uticianism. Let's tackle Nestorianism first.
11:40
It's named after Nestorius, who became the Bishop of
11:42
Constantinople around 428 AD. The sources do caution that
11:46
understanding his precise view is tricky because of, well,
11:49
intense church politics at the time, especially his rivalry
11:53
with Cyril of Alexandria, and because Nestorius's own language
11:56
could be seen as ambiguous. Wasn't there also a background
11:59
of different theological schools clashing, like Alexandria versus
12:03
Antioch? Yes, that's part of the context.
12:05
You had the Alexandrian school often emphasizing the divine
12:09
word, taking flesh, sometimes called Word flesh, Christology
12:12
maybe sometimes under playing the full human soul.
12:15
And then the Antiochine school, which Nestorius was linked with,
12:18
really emphasized the full and complete human nature of Christ,
12:22
a word man, Christology, and stress the distinction between
12:25
the two natures. These differing starting points
12:28
definitely fueled the controversy.
12:30
So what? Was the main point of contention
12:31
with Nestorius himself. The sources mentioned the term
12:34
Theotokos. Right Theotokos, it's Greek for
12:37
godbearer, used to refer to Mary.
12:39
Nestorius became uncomfortable using that title for Mary alone.
12:43
It wasn't that he denied Jesus deity, but he felt calling Mary
12:46
simply godbearer was misleading. He suggested alternatives like
12:50
maybe adding human bearer answer potokos or using a combined term
12:54
like Christ bearer Krista Tokos. Why the hesitation?
12:57
What was his reasoning, according to the sources?
12:59
His argument as presented was basically that God, the infinite
13:03
divine being, can't logically have a mother in the normal
13:07
human sense. No creature, even Mary, could
13:10
generate the divine nature. He felt Mary bore the man Jesus,
13:14
who was intimately united with God, the vehicle for God, but
13:18
she didn't bear the divine nature itself.
13:20
He worried that just saying Theotokos could accidentally
13:23
imply errors like Arianism, that Jesus wasn't fully God so Mary
13:27
bore God, or Apollinarianism that Jesus wasn't fully human so
13:31
she didn't bear a real man. He argued the divine nature
13:34
couldn't be contained in a womb or suffer or die.
13:37
Those were experiences of the human nature that God the Word
13:40
was united to. OK, I can see the concern
13:42
perhaps, but the reaction was pretty strong.
13:44
Very strong, especially from his rival Cyril of Alexandria, who
13:48
saw this distinction as dangerously dividing Christ's
13:50
person. Another figure, Eusebius of Dora
13:53
Lamb, heard Nestorius and apparently concluded he was
13:56
basically an adoptionist, thinking the man Jesus became
13:58
divine later, maybe at baptism, rather than being God from
14:02
conception. All this came the view that got
14:04
condemned. Yes, from these statements and
14:08
the reactions, the traditional picture of Nestorianism emerged
14:11
as the heresy that splits the God man into two distinct
14:14
persons, A divine Son of God alongside a human son of Mary,
14:19
linked somehow but not truly one unified person.
14:23
That was the view condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
14:27
But the sources mentioned modern scholars debate if Nestorius
14:30
himself actually taught that extreme version.
14:32
They do since more of Nestorius own writings were discovered.
14:36
Some scholars argue he might have been misunderstood, perhaps
14:39
due to terminology or Cyril strong opposition, and maybe
14:42
faced an unjust condemnation. It's a historical debate.
14:46
Didn't he prefer a different word than union?
14:48
Right. He preferred the Greek word
14:50
Sinophia, meaning conjunction or connection, to describe how the
14:53
nature is related. He was wary of Cyril's preferred
14:56
term heinouses, meaning union, especially hypostatic union.
15:00
The story is feared that Cyril's emphasis on union risk blurring
15:03
the distinction between the natures which he really wanted
15:05
to preserve. But regardless of his personal
15:07
intent. Regardless, the sources conclude
15:10
that what he said seemed to imply this dangerous split in
15:13
Christ's person. Even if his own theology was
15:16
more nuanced, his language led the church to perceive a threat
15:20
to the unity of Christ, and that perceived threat was condemned
15:23
at Ephesus. OK, so Nestorianism is about
15:26
dividing the person. What about the opposite error,
15:29
Uticianism? Right Uticianism represents the
15:31
other ditch, the sources say. This one is also a bit hard to
15:34
pin down precisely, and it arose after the Council of Ephesus.
15:38
What was the context for this one?
15:39
Essentially, some folks felt that a compromise agreement
15:42
reached in 433 trying to reconcile the Alexandrian and
15:46
Antiochine positions after Ephesus maybe lean too heavily
15:50
towards emphasizing 2 natures. They worried this compromised
15:53
the unity of Christ's person that Ephesus had defended.
15:56
So a group emerged pushing hard for a one Nature formula to
16:00
describe Christ after the Incarnation.
16:02
And your Takis became the figurehead.
16:04
Yes, Euda Keys. He was an elderly, apparently
16:07
not exceptionally bright archimandrite.
16:09
Like a head monk in Constantinople.
16:11
He became the symbol for this one nature position.
16:14
What did he actually say, according to the sources?
16:16
Well, during an examination in 448 he apparently declared that
16:20
after the birth of Christ, Jesus possessed only one nature, that
16:24
of God made flesh and become human.
16:26
He explicitly rejected saying Christ existed in two natures
16:30
after the incarnation. It seems he might have thought
16:32
there were two natures before the union, which isn't self
16:35
problematic, but only one resulting nature after the Word
16:39
took flesh. And how is this interpreted or
16:42
understood? Historically was the heresy.
16:44
The way Utuchianism was understood and condemned was
16:48
that it taught Jesus's humanity was effectively absorbed into
16:51
the deity. Like a drop of honey dissolving
16:53
in the ocean, it was virtually eliminated.
16:56
This, of course, is basically a form of docetism, denying
16:59
Christ's real humanity. If his humanity was absorbed, He
17:02
wasn't truly human, Couldn't truly suffer for us.
17:04
Or maybe a fusion? Right, another interpretation
17:07
may be closer to you, to Jesus. Confusion was that it resulted
17:10
in a fusion or mingling of the divine in human into something
17:14
totally new, 1/3 substance. A hybrid that was neither fully
17:18
God nor fully man. That's equally bad because a
17:21
hybrid couldn't bridge the gap between God and humanity either.
17:24
It would be something else entirely.
17:26
So Eudochis got condemned, but then there was that dodgy
17:29
council. Yeah, he was condemned locally,
17:31
but then political maneuvering led to this council in 449,
17:34
later called the Robber Synod because it was seen as
17:37
illegitimate and coercive. It actually reinstated ET Cheese
17:41
and officially rejected the two natures after the incarnation
17:44
idea. And that mess LED directly to
17:46
Chelsea. Directly, the chaos and
17:49
perceived injustice of the Robber Synod created an urgent
17:52
need for a legitimate ecumenical council to sort things out,
17:55
which led Emperor Martian, with papal support, to convene the
17:59
Council of Chalcedon in 451. OK, Chalcedon 451, This is the
18:03
big one for defining the orthodox view.
18:05
It really is convene under proper authority.
18:08
It reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and then issued its own
18:11
statement, the Chalcedonian definition, which became the
18:14
benchmark for understanding Christ's person for most of
18:16
Christianity ever since. What's the core statement?
18:19
The heart of it is acknowledging one in the same Christ's Son,
18:23
Lord, only begotten, acknowledged in two natures.
18:27
It holds firmly to both the oneness of the person and the
18:30
reality of the two distinct natures.
18:33
And then it uses those four famous adverbs to describe how
18:36
the nature's relate in the one person.
18:38
Yes, these are critical. The two natures exist in
18:41
confusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.
18:45
Memorizing those four gives you the essence of Chalcedon's
18:48
boundaries. Let's unpack those based on the
18:50
sources in confusedly unchangeably.
18:53
What does that guard against? That pair of guards against the
18:55
Utician error. It means the distinction of
18:57
nature's is not removed by the Union.
19:00
Deity remains deity. Humanity remains humanity.
19:03
They don't blend or morph into each other.
19:05
The property of each nature is preserved.
19:08
Each keeps its unique characteristics.
19:10
And indivisibly and separately. That pair guards against the
19:14
Nestorian error. It insists that although the
19:17
natures are distinct, they concur in one person and one
19:20
subsistence. There's only one subject, one
19:23
eye, who possesses both natures. The person is not parted or
19:27
divided into two persons. So Chelsea Don essentially draws
19:30
the line saying don't go this way historianism, don't go that
19:33
way, you teaching ISM. Exactly.
19:36
It insists on holding both truths simultaneously, the
19:39
absolute unity of Christ's person and the continuing
19:42
distinctness and integrity of both His divine and human
19:45
nature's within that one person. But the sources also point out a
19:48
limitation here. It's described as essentially
19:51
negative. Right, and this is important.
19:53
Chalcedon tells us what the Union is not.
19:55
It doesn't positively explain the how.
19:57
It doesn't give us a psychological blueprint of
19:59
Christ's inner life or fully resolve the tension between
20:02
divine and human attributes. It defines the boundaries of
20:05
Orthodox. Thinking, fencing off the
20:07
heresies. But it doesn't eliminate the
20:09
mystery at the heart of the incarnation.
20:12
So, as one source put it, Charles Sudan is not the answer,
20:15
it is the question. In a way, yes.
20:18
It preserves the biblical tension, the mystery of the God
20:21
man, and provides the essential guardrails for any further
20:24
theological reflection. It tells us, here's the truth
20:28
revealed in Scripture. Hold on to all of it.
20:30
Don't deny any part, don't merge them, don't split him.
20:34
But it doesn't offer a simple rationalist explanation that
20:38
makes the mystery disappear. Makes sense, and attempts to
20:41
sort of solve the problem didn't just stop in 451, did they?
20:44
No, definitely not. The sources mentioned several
20:46
other strategies or models that have popped up throughout
20:49
history trying to make sense of this, which the mainstream
20:51
church has also generally found wanting.
20:53
Like adoptionism that you mentioned briefly before.
20:56
Right. The sources bring it up again as
20:58
an early and recurrent attempt that keeps reappearing in
21:01
different forms, often when people struggle with the idea of
21:04
the eternal Son becoming human from conception.
21:07
Just to recap adoptionism. Simply, Jesus starts as human,
21:11
then God adopts him. Basically, yes.
21:13
The idea is he was just a particularly righteous human and
21:16
then at some point, maybe his his baptism, maybe his
21:19
resurrection, God adopted him, his son, giving him divine
21:23
status or power. It's framed more as a human
21:26
becoming God or being elevated, rather than God becoming human.
21:30
It gives the human Jesus an independent existence before
21:33
becoming divine. And adoptionists point to verses
21:36
about Jesus being begotten. Yeah, they might use Psalm 2.7.
21:40
You are my son today. I have begotten you or the voice
21:44
from heaven at the baptism. This is my beloved Son.
21:46
And interpret these as the moment of adoption or
21:49
divinization. But the sources say this just
21:51
doesn't fit the bigger picture. Not all, they list major
21:54
obstacles, things like Christ's clear pre existence as the
21:57
divine Son before his earthly life, John 1.1, John 8.58,
22:01
etcetera. The whole narrative around his
22:03
conception and birth points to his divine identity from the
22:06
start. The virgin birth itself
22:07
signifies a divine initiative. The overwhelming biblical
22:10
emphasis is God becoming human from conception, the initiative
22:14
coming from above. Adoptionism flips that, making
22:17
it about a human ascending which just doesn't align with the New
22:19
Testament. OK, what about anhypostatic
22:22
Christology? That sounds complicated.
22:24
It does sound technical. The idea here is that Jesus is
22:27
human nature was impersonal, meaning it didn't have its own
22:30
independent personal existence or subsistence apart from the
22:34
divine word. Taking it on, the thought is
22:36
that the divine word didn't unite with a pre-existing or
22:39
independently existing human person, but rather united with
22:43
human nature. That human nature only gained
22:46
its personal identity by being assumed by the Divine Person of
22:49
the Sun. Why propose this?
22:51
What was the goal? According to the sources, it was
22:53
mainly a way to strongly guard against Nestorianism by denying
22:58
there was a separate human person to be divided off, and
23:01
also against adoptionism by denying a human person existed
23:04
before the Union. It emphasizes the initiative of
23:07
a divine person. But what's the problem with this
23:09
view according to the sources? Well, a couple of things.
23:12
First, thinking of Jesus uniting with human nature in general
23:16
rather than being a specific individual human.
23:18
That gets kind of abstract and maybe even nonsensical if taken
23:21
too literally. But more significantly, denying
23:24
that Jesus had a complete individual human personality
23:27
risks making him seem less than fully human.
23:30
If his humanity lacks its own personal center, does it make
23:33
him predominantly divine, just sort of using human nature?
23:36
The sources say this smacks of Apollinarianism, the heresy that
23:40
denied Jesus had a complete human soul or mind.
23:43
True full humanity seems to require a complete human
23:45
personality. Got it.
23:47
Then there's Connoticism from the 19th century, based on
23:50
Philippians 2. Right connoticism is a distinct
23:52
approach, focusing heavily on Philippians 2.7, where Paul says
23:56
Jesus emptied himself from the Greek canoe.
23:58
And the connotic interpretation takes this emptying literally.
24:01
Yes, in a specific way, as described in the sources.
24:05
Connoticism typically argues that the Sun, in becoming human,
24:08
literally emptied himself of his divine attributes, things like
24:12
omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence.
24:15
He laid aside the form of God and took on human limitations
24:18
instead. It's seen as an exchange, giving
24:21
up divine properties, except maybe moral ones like love, to
24:24
take on human ones, for the duration of his earthly life.
24:28
How did the sources critique this view?
24:30
Pretty strongly. They suggest it risks sounding
24:32
like modalism. God being divine, then human
24:35
then divine again, rather than being both simultaneously in one
24:39
person. If he laid aside divine
24:41
attributes, was he truly, fully God during his earthly life?
24:45
It just doesn't seem to square with the gospel evidence where
24:47
Jesus sometimes displays divine knowledge or power even while
24:50
living under human limitations. Think of him knowing Nathaniel
24:53
under the fig tree or knowing people's thoughts.
24:56
And it struggles with the idea of the ongoing incarnation.
24:59
Right. If he just laid aside divine
25:01
attributes temporarily, what about his ascended state?
25:04
Scripture seems to present him as the glorified God Man even
25:07
now. Canonoticism doesn't easily
25:09
account for that continuity. So what's presented as a better
25:13
reading of Philippians 2.7? The sources argue it's not about
25:16
emptying himself of divine attributes like subtraction.
25:20
The grammar suggests he emptied himself by taking the form of a
25:23
servant. The emptying happened in the act
25:25
of becoming human and humbling himself.
25:27
So the emptying is better understood not as losing the
25:30
divine nature, but perhaps emptying himself of the status
25:33
or privileges of equality with God.
25:36
He voluntarily chose functional subordination to the Father and
25:39
accepted the limitations that came with adding a true human
25:42
nature to His divine Person. So it's about adding humanity
25:46
and accepting limitations on the exercise of divine power, not
25:48
losing the power itself. Exactly, and Colossians 2.9
25:52
which says the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form in
25:55
Christ, really supports this. The fullness was there, even if
25:58
it's outward expression was voluntarily limited by His human
26:01
condition and mission. OK, one more attempt mentioned
26:04
dynamic incarnation or a Christology of presence.
26:08
Right. This view suggests God's
26:10
presence in Jesus wasn't a unique personal, hypostatic
26:13
union of the divine sun with a human nature.
26:16
Instead, it sees the incarnation more as the powerful, active
26:20
presence of God's power or spirit or influence within the
26:24
human person, Jesus. It's less about a union of
26:27
nature's in one person, more about God powerfully and
26:30
dwelling and working through a man.
26:32
Kind of like God's power entering the man Jesus.
26:34
Sort of. Yeah.
26:35
It's compared compared to older ideas of dynamic monarchism.
26:39
Not the eternal Son becoming human, but God's power or spirit
26:42
descending upon and empowering the man Jesus in a unique way.
26:46
And Donald Bailey's view is mentioned here using the paradox
26:50
of grace in believers as a model.
26:52
Yes. Focus on 2nd Corinthians 5.19
26:54
God was in Christ, emphasizing the indwelling aspect.
26:57
He used the analogy of a Christian doing good work and
26:59
saying it wasn't I, but the grace of God in me.
27:02
He suggested Jesus's incarnation was the supreme, perfect example
27:05
of the same dynamic God working in and through a human.
27:08
What's the critique of that approach?
27:10
The main issue according to the. Sources is that it seems to make
27:13
the difference between Christ and believers merely
27:16
quantitative. God was more present or powerful
27:19
in Jesus rather than qualitative.
27:21
Jesus is uniquely the God man, the eternal Son Incarnate.
27:25
It struggles to account for things like Colossians 2.9,
27:29
fullness of God dwelling bodily, Christ's unique preexistence,
27:33
his unique sonship. Ultimately, by reducing the
27:36
incarnation to an indwelling of power rather than a personal
27:39
union of natures, it tends to diminish or implicitly deny
27:43
Jesus's full deity as the second person of the Trinity become
27:47
human. OK, so.
27:49
We've looked at several historical attempts that didn't
27:51
quite hit the mark according to orthodox understanding.
27:53
Where does that leave us in terms of positive principles for
27:56
understanding this? Well, the sources move towards.
27:58
Laying out some basic tenets of the Orthodox view while still
28:01
fully acknowledging it remains A profound mystery we can't fully
28:04
dissect. But these principles, drawn from
28:06
Scripture and affirmed historically, help us stay
28:08
within the right boundaries. OK, principle one.
28:11
The incarnation was more. An addition of human attributes
28:14
to the divine sun than a loss of divine attributes.
28:17
All right, back to Philippine too.
28:18
He didn't empty himself of deity, he emptied himself by
28:21
taking servant form. It's about addition, not
28:25
subtraction. Exactly, he added.
28:27
A full human nature, body, soul, mind, will to His Divine Person.
28:32
This edition naturally led to limitations on the functioning
28:35
or exercise of His divine attributes during His earthly
28:38
life, but not a loss of the Divine capacities themselves.
28:42
His human body meant He wasn't physically omnipresent.
28:45
His human mind meant He genuinely grew in wisdom.
28:48
But the sources stress, citing Colossians 2.9 again, that the
28:52
fullness of the Deity remained present bodily in Him.
28:55
The capacities were there even if their exercise was
28:57
voluntarily limited by the human condition He embraced.
29:00
OK, principle too. The Union meant that divine.
29:03
And human nature's did not function independently.
29:06
His actions were always those of the one unified person.
29:09
So he wasn't switching back and. Forth like now I'm God, now I'm
29:11
man correct his actions were. Always those of the God man.
29:14
The sources use that term divinity, humanity acting
29:17
together. His single I, his one person
29:20
acted possessing both sets of attributes simultaneously.
29:23
But how does that work with the? Limitations.
29:25
If his divine nature was omniscient, how did he grow in
29:28
wisdom? That's where the distinction.
29:30
Between possessing an attribute and exercising it comes in.
29:33
The sources explained that his human nature imposed real
29:36
limitations on the exercise of his divine attributes.
29:39
As part of the genuine human experience He undertook, His
29:42
human mind genuinely learned and grew, which was a necessary part
29:46
of His true humanity, even while His divine nature possessed
29:50
omniscience. This growth was a real
29:53
circumstance induced limitation on the exercise of His divine
29:56
knowledge willingly undertaken. The sources use some analogies.
29:59
Here, yeah, they can be helpful. Though all analogies breakdown,
30:02
Think of a world class sprinter choosing to run a 3 legged race.
30:06
They still have the speed, the capacity, but the conditions
30:09
limit the exercise of that speed.
30:12
Or a champion boxer fighting with one hand tied.
30:15
The skill is still there, fully present, but the chosen
30:18
circumstance limits how they can deploy it.
30:20
It was a voluntary limitation, inherent in the act of becoming
30:23
truly human. And this limitation was.
30:25
Voluntary and tied to the incarnation itself?
30:28
Absolutely. It was a.
30:29
Voluntary, self chosen limitation He embraced for the
30:32
period of His earthly mission. His deity always function in
30:36
conjunction with, never independently from His humanity
30:40
within His one person. OK, Principle 3 is.
30:42
About our starting point, yes, this one's crucial.
30:45
In thinking about the Incarnation, we must start with
30:48
Jesus Christ Himself to properly define what true humanity and
30:52
true deity actually are, especially in relation to each
30:55
other. What's the common mistake?
30:56
Here the pitfall, the sources. WARN is starting with our own
31:00
preconceived notions. We look at our own fallen,
31:03
limited humanity and think, how could that unite with God?
31:06
Or we have abstract philosophical ideas about God
31:09
being totally impassable, utterly separate, and think how
31:12
could that become human? Starting there makes the
31:14
incarnation seem logically impossible from the outset.
31:18
So the better way is. Start with the reality.
31:21
Jesus Christ is the God man, therefore whatever true deity
31:24
is, and whatever true unfallen humanity is, they are compatible
31:28
in Him. We should look to Jesus to see
31:30
humanity as it was meant to be, perfect and sinless.
31:34
That perfect humanity, the sources suggest, is inherently
31:36
more compatible with deity than our current broken state might
31:39
lead us to believe. And look to Jesus to.
31:42
Understand God too, exactly as. John 1.18 says no one has ever
31:47
seen God, but the one and only Son who is himself God and is in
31:51
closest relationship with the Father has made him known.
31:53
Jesus is the ultimate revelation of who God is and what he is
31:56
like. So the fact that the
31:58
incarnation. Happened in Jesus proves the
32:00
compatibility of the natures in him.
32:01
We define the terms by the reality we see in Christ,
32:04
precisely the. Reality of the God man
32:06
demonstrates that divine and human natures, correctly
32:09
understood, are not ultimately incompatible because they did
32:12
coexist in his one person. And the sources add, the whole
32:16
biblical concept of humanity being made in the image of God
32:20
points towards a foundational likeness that might make the
32:23
incarnation less utterly inconceivable than some
32:26
philosophical models might suggest.
32:27
Got it, Principle. 4 focuses on the initiative.
32:30
Yes, the initiative. For the incarnation came from
32:33
above, from God, not from below from humanity.
32:36
Why is that perspective helpful? It makes more sense.
32:39
Conceptually, it's easier to grasp the unlimited infinite God
32:43
condescending choosing to take on the limitations of humanity
32:47
than it is to imagine a finite limited human somehow pulling
32:50
themselves up to become infinite deity.
32:52
God, being unlimited, can descend and add the lesser
32:56
humanity to himself. The limited human cannot by
32:59
their own power ascend to become the unlimited God, and this
33:03
connects back to Christ. 'S pre existence.
33:05
Definitely the sources. Reiterate that the heavenly
33:07
second person, the Divine Son, existed before the earthly Jesus
33:11
of Nazareth. There wasn't a human Jesus
33:13
existing independently who was later joined by the Divine.
33:17
The Eternal Son took on human nature in varies womb which as
33:21
the sources. Note really rules out
33:22
adoptionism. Again, completely adoptionism.
33:25
Requires a pre-existing human who becomes divine.
33:28
The biblical view is the pre-existing divine son becomes
33:31
human. OK.
33:32
And the final principle? Principle 5.
33:34
It's helpful to think of. Jesus Christ as a uniquely,
33:37
infinitely complex person, using the analogy of human.
33:40
Personality, right? Some people are.
33:42
Relatively straightforward. Others are much more complex,
33:45
with maybe wider experiences, deeper thoughts, more varied
33:48
facets to their character. Now apply that idea to Jesus,
33:52
but expand the complexity infinitely.
33:54
His single, unified personhood encompassed all the attributes
33:58
and qualities of both perfect divine nature and perfect
34:01
sinless human nature. His one consciousness held both
34:05
realities. But it's crucial He wasn't just
34:07
a. Mixer blend absolutely crucial
34:09
the. Sources stress he was not a
34:11
simple mixture or hybrid, not a tirshim quid, a third thing that
34:16
was neither fully God nor fully man.
34:18
No, his one person fully possessed and integrated both
34:22
complete and distinct natures. OK, those principles provide.
34:25
A framework to wrap up the sources, summarize the errors to
34:29
avoid. Yes, they basically say.
34:31
That throughout history, all the deviations from this orthodox
34:34
understanding are really just variations of 6 fundamental
34:36
heresies that mostly showed up in the 1st 4 centuries as the
34:40
Church was hammering this out. Can you list those?
34:44
They are one denying the. Genuineness of his deity, like
34:47
Ebianism saying he was just a man to denying the completeness
34:51
of his deity like Arianism saying he was divine but a
34:53
lesser created God 3. Denying the genuineness of his
34:57
humanity like Dawcetism saying he only seemed human 4.
35:01
Denying the completeness of his humanity like Apollinarianism
35:04
denying he had a human mind or soul 5.
35:07
Dividing his person, the core issue in historianism,
35:10
essentially making him two separate beings 6.
35:13
Confusing or merging his nature's the core issue in
35:16
uticianism, making him a hybrid. So navigating this doctrine.
35:19
Involves carefully steering clear of all those ditches.
35:22
That's the conclusion from the. Sources while fully explaining
35:25
the how of the Incarnation is beyond us, remaining faithful to
35:29
Scripture means we must carefully avoid each of these
35:31
distortions. All right, so in this deep.
35:34
Dive Drawing on these sources, we've seen why understanding
35:36
Jesus as one person with two natures is so vital for
35:40
salvation itself. We've looked at the inherent
35:43
difficulties, the strong biblical evidence for his unity,
35:46
how the church historically rejected views that divided his
35:49
person or confused his nature's, the boundaries set by Chalcedon,
35:53
and some key principles for holding this truth faithfully.
35:56
And it's worth saying again this.
35:57
Isn't just dry, abstract stuff for theologians, it's absolutely
36:01
foundational for you personally. Understanding who Jesus is,
36:04
truly God and truly human in one person is essential for
36:07
understanding what he accomplished for you.
36:09
The infinite value and the representative power of his
36:12
saving work depend entirely on this reality.
36:15
It was the unique God man who lived, died, and rose again for
36:19
your redemption. The sources rightly call it a.
36:21
Great mystery. We affirm it because Scripture
36:24
reveals it, even if our minds can't fully encompass it.
36:27
So maybe the thought to leave you with is this How does
36:30
embracing this mystery, the truth that Jesus is one person,
36:34
fully God and fully human, without confusion, without
36:36
change, without division, without separation?
36:39
How does that shape your worship?
36:40
How does it deepen your trust in his finished work?
36:43
And how might it inform your view of what it truly means to
36:45
be human, created in God's image and redeemed by the God who
36:49
became one of us?