Shepherds College: Systematic Theology, Session 7: Christology

The Person of Christ1 How is Jesus fully God and fully man, yet one person? The term homoousios emerged as a critical theological concept during the Nicene Council of 325 AD, fundamentally addressing the nature of Christ's divinity. It affirms that Jesus Christ is "of one substance" with God the Father, directly contradicting the Arian teaching that the Son was a created being only "of like substance" with the Father. The central question was Christ's true identity: whether He is merely similar to the Father or actually of the same essential being. The Church Fathers considered this issue critically important, believing the validity of the gospel depended on the answer[2]. The Arians, rejecting Christ's full divinity, believed there was an unbridgeable gap between God and the world, and claimed that Christ was created and did not eternally exist. Ultimately, homoousios indicates the numerical unity of essence in the three divine persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-directly challenging the Arian view of three distinct substances[3]. Later theological developments even extended this concept to affirm that Christ is homoousios with the Father in divinity and with humans in humanity, fundamentally meaning "consubstantial" or "coessential." homoousios The crucial Greek term used in the Nicene Creed (AD 325) to affirm that Jesus Christ the Son of God is "of one substance" with God the Father and hence truly and fully divine. This word contradicted the teaching of the Arians that the Logos-Son, though divine, was created and therefore not equal with God the Father but only homoiousios... Homoiousios is a Greek theological term meaning "of similar substance," which was the belief of a 4th-century Christian group that God the Son was of a similar, but not identical, essence to God the Father. This contrasts with the orthodox doctrine of homoousios, meaning "of the same substance," which was established at the Council of Nicaea. The two terms are similar in spelling but different in meaning, with a key difference being one "iota" (i) of an "iota". EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS We may summarize the biblical teaching about the person of Christ as follows: Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man in one person and will be so forever. The scriptural material supporting this definition is extensive. We will discuss first the humanity of Christ, then his deity, and then attempt to show how Jesus' deity and humanity are united in the one person of Christ. A. THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST 1. Virgin Birth 2. Human Weaknesses and Limitations a. Jesus Had a Human Body. b. Jesus Had a Human Mind. c. Jesus Had a Human Soul and Human Emotions. d. People Near Jesus Saw Him as Only a Man. 3. Sinlessness 4. Could Jesus Have Sinned? 5. Why Was Jesus' Full Humanity Necessary? a. For Representative Obedience. b. To Be a Substitute Sacrifice. c. To Be the One Mediator between God and Human Beings. d. To Fulfill God's Original Purpose for Man to Rule Over Creation. e. To Be Our Example and Pattern in Life. f. To Be the Pattern for Our Redeemed Bodies. g. To Sympathize as High Priest. 6. Jesus Will Be a Man Forever B. THE DEITY OF CHRIST 1. Direct Scriptural Claims a. The Word God (Theos) Used of Christ. Although the word theos, meaning "God," is usually reserved in the New Testament for God the Father, there are several passages where it is also used to refer to Jesus Christ. In all of these passages the word God is used in the strong sense to refer to the one who is the Creator of heaven and earth, the ruler over all. These passages include John 1:1; 1:18 (in older and better manuscripts); 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8 (quoting Ps. 45:6); and 2 Peter 1:1.21 I have already discussed these passages in chapter 14, where I argued that each person in the Trinity is fully God, and readers may wish to review those pages briefly at this point.22 It is enough to note that there are at least these seven passages in the New Testament that clearly and explicitly refer to Jesus as God. One Old Testament example of the name God applied to Christ is seen in a familiar messianic passage: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called, 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God' " (Isa. 9:6). b. The Word Lord (Kyrios) Used of Christ. Sometimes the word Lord (Gk. kyrios) is used simply as a polite address to a superior, roughly equivalent to our word sir (see Matt. 13:27; 21:30; 27:63; John 4:11). Sometimes it can simply mean "master" of a servant or slave (Matt. 6:24; 21:40). Yet the same word is also used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was commonly used at the time of Christ) as a translation for the Hebrew yhwh, "Yahweh," or (as it is frequently translated) "the LORD." The word kyrios is used to translate the name of the Lord 6,814 times in the Greek Old Testament. Therefore, any Greek-speaking reader at the time of the New Testament who had any knowledge at all of the Greek Old Testament would have recognized that, in contexts where it was appropriate, the word "Lord" was the name of the one who was the Creator and Sustainer of heaven and earth, the omnipotent God. Now there are many instances in the New Testament where Lord is used of Christ in what can only be understood as this strong Old Testament sense, "the Lord" who is Yahweh or God himself. This use of the word Lord is quite striking in the word of the angel to the shepherds of Bethlehem: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). Though these words are familiar to us from frequent reading of the Christmas story, we should realize how surprising it would be to any first-century Jew to hear that someone born as a baby was the "Christ" (or "Messiah")23 and, moreover, that this one who was the Messiah was also "the Lord"-that is, the Lord God himself! The amazing force of the angel's statement, which the shepherds could hardly believe, was to say, essentially, "Today in Bethlehem a baby has been born who is your Savior and your Messiah, and who is also God himself." It is not surprising that "all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them" (Luke 2:18). When Mary comes to visit Elizabeth several months before Jesus is to be born, Elizabeth says, "Why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). Because Jesus was not even born, Elizabeth could not be using the word Lord to mean something like human "master." She must rather be using it in the strong Old Testament sense, giving an amazing sense to the sentence: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of the Lord God himself should come to me?" Though this is a very strong statement, it is difficult to understand the word Lord in this context in any weaker sense. We see another example when Matthew says that John the Baptist is the one who cries out in the wilderness, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight" (Matt. 3:3). In doing this John is quoting Isaiah 40:3, which speaks about the Lord God himself coming among his people. But the context applies this passage to John's role of preparing the way for Jesus to come. The implication is that when Jesus comes, the Lord himself will come. Jesus also identifies himself as the sovereign Lord of the Old Testament when he asks the Pharisees about Psalm 110:1, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet' " (Matt. 22:44). The force of this statement is that "God the Father said to God the Son [David's Lord], 'Sit at my right hand.' " The Pharisees know he is talking about himself and identifying himself as one worthy of the Old Testament title kyrios, "Lord." Such usage is seen frequently in the Epistles, where "the Lord" is a common name to refer to Christ. Paul says, "There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6; cf. 12:3, and many other passages in the Pauline Epistles). Jesus is called "Lord" in this sense that affirms his deity over 400 times in the New Testament.24 A particularly clear passage is found in Hebrews 1, where the author quotes Psalm 102, which speaks about the work of the Lord in creation and applies it to Christ: You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end. (Heb. 1:10-12) Here Christ is explicitly spoken of as the eternal Lord of heaven and earth who created all things and will remain the same forever. Such strong usage of the term Lord to refer to Christ culminates in Revelation 19:16, where we see Christ returning as conquering King, and "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." c. Other Strong Claims to Deity. 2. Evidence That Jesus Possessed Attributes of Deity 3. The Kenosis Theory: Did Jesus Give Up Some of His Divine Attributes While on Earth? 4. Conclusion: Christ Is Fully Divine 5. Is The Doctrine of the Incarnation "Unintelligible" Today? 6. Why Was Jesus' Deity Necessary? C. THE INCARNATION: DEITY AND HUMANITY IN THE ONE PERSON OF CHRIST 1. Three Inadequate Views of the Person of Christ a. Apollinarianism. Apollinaris, who became bishop in Laodicea about AD 361, taught that the one person of Christ had a human body but not a human mind or spirit and that the mind and spirit of Christ were from the divine nature of the Son of God. This view may be represented as in figure 26.1. Apollinarianism Figure 26.1 But the views of Apollinaris were rejected by the leaders of the church at that time, who realized that it was not just our human body that needed salvation and needed to be represented by Christ in his redemptive work but our human minds and spirits (or souls) as well: Christ had to be fully and truly man if he was to save us (Heb. 2:17). Apollinarianism was rejected by several church councils, from the Council of Alexandria in AD 362 to the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. The leaders of the early church were correct in rejecting this view because it results in a Christ who is truly God but is not truly and fully a man as we are. b. Nestorianism. Nestorianism is the doctrine that there were two separate persons in Christ, a human person and a divine person, a teaching that is distinct from the biblical view that sees Jesus as one person. Nestorianism may be diagramed as in figure 26.2. Nestorianism Figure 26.2 Nestorius was a popular preacher at Antioch, and from AD 428 was bishop of Constantinople. Although Nestorius himself probably never taught the heretical view that goes by his name (the idea that Christ was two persons in one body rather than one person), through a combination of several personal conflicts and a good deal of ecclesiastical politics, he was removed from his office of bishop and his teachings were condemned. It is important to understand why the church could not accept the view that Christ was two distinct persons. Nowhere in Scripture do we have an indication that the human nature of Christ, for example, is an independent person, deciding to do something contrary to the divine nature of Christ. Nowhere do we have an indication of the human and divine natures talking to each other or struggling within Christ, or any such thing. Rather, we have a consistent picture of a single person acting in wholeness and unity. Jesus always speaks as "I," not as "we," though he can refer to himself and the Father together as "we" (John 14:23). The Bible always speaks of Jesus as "he," not as "they." And though we can sometimes distinguish actions of his divine nature and actions of his human nature in order to help us understand some of the statements and actions recorded in Scripture, the Bible itself does not say "Jesus' human nature did this" or "Jesus' divine nature did that," as though they were separate persons, but always talks about what the person of Christ did. Therefore, the church continued to insist that Jesus was one person, although possessing both a human nature and a divine nature. c. Monophysitism (Eutychianism). A third inadequate view is called monophysitism, the view that Christ had one nature only (Gk. monos, "one," and physis, "nature"). The primary advocate of this view in the early church was Eutyches (c. AD 378-454), who was the leader of a monastery at Constantinople. Eutyches taught the opposite error from Nestorianism, for he denied that the human nature and divine nature in Christ remained fully human and fully divine. He held rather that the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the divine nature, so that both natures were changed somewhat and a third kind of nature resulted.40 An analogy to Eutychianism can be seen if we put a drop of ink in a glass of water: the mixture resulting is neither pure ink nor pure water, but some kind of third substance, a mixture of the two in which both the ink and the water are changed. Similarly, Eutyches taught that Jesus was a mixture of divine and human elements in which both were somewhat modified to form one new nature. This may be represented as in figure 26.3. Eutychianism Figure 26.3 Monophysitism also rightly caused great concern in the church because, by this doctrine, Christ was neither truly God nor truly man. If that was so, he could not truly represent us as a man nor could he be true God and able to earn our salvation. 2. The Solution to the Controversy: The Chalcedonian Definition of AD 451 In order to attempt to solve the problems raised by the controversies over the person of Christ, a large church council was convened in the city of Chalcedon near Constantinople (modern Istanbul), from October 8 to November 1, AD 451. The resulting statement, called the Chalcedonian Definition, guarded against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. It has been taken as the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox branches of Christianity alike. The statement is not long, and we may quote it in its entirety: We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has been handed down to us. Against the view of Apollinaris that Christ did not have a human mind or soul, we have the statement that he was "truly man, of a reasonable soul and body ... consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us." (The word consubstantial means "having the same nature or substance.") In opposition to the view of Nestorianism that Christ was two persons united in one body, we have the words "without division, without separation ... concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons." Against the view of Monophysitism that Christ had only one nature, and that his human nature was lost in the union with the divine nature, we have the words "to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change ... the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved." The human and the divine natures were not confused or changed when Christ became man, but the human nature remained a truly human nature, and the divine nature remained a truly divine nature. Figure 26.4 may be helpful in showing this. In contrast to the earlier diagrams, it indicates that the eternal Son of God took to himself a truly human nature, and that Christ's divine and human natures remain distinct and retain their own properties, yet they are eternally and inseparably united together in one person. Chalcedonian Christology Figure 26.4 Some have said that the Chalcedonian Definition really did not define for us in any positive way what the person of Christ actually is but simply told us several things that it is not. In this way some have said that it is not a very helpful definition. But such an accusation is misleading and inaccurate. The definition actually did a great deal to help us understand the biblical teaching correctly. It taught that Christ definitely has two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. It taught that his divine nature is exactly the same as that of the Father ("consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead"). And it maintained that the human nature is exactly like our human nature yet without sin ("consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin"). Moreover, it affirmed that in the person of Christ the human nature retains its distinctive characteristics and the divine nature retains its distinctive characteristics ("the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved"). Finally, it affirmed that, whether we can understand it or not, these two natures are united together in the one person of Christ. When the Chalcedonian Definition says that the two natures of Christ occur together "in one Person and one Subsistence," the Greek word translated as "Subsistence" is the word hypostasis, "being." Hence the union of Christ's human and divine natures in one person is sometimes called the hypostatic union. This phrase simply means the union of Christ's human and divine natures in one being. 3. Combining Specific Biblical Texts on Christ's Deity and Humanity When we examine the New Testament, as we did above in the sections on Jesus' humanity and deity, there are several passages that seem difficult to fit together (How could Jesus be omnipotent and yet weak? How could he leave the world and yet be present everywhere? How could he learn things and yet be omniscient?). As the church struggled to understand these teachings, it finally came up with the Chalcedonian Definition, which spoke of two distinct natures in Christ that retain their own properties yet remain together in one person. This distinction, which helps us in our understanding of the biblical passages mentioned earlier, also seems to be demanded by those passages. a. One Nature Does Some Things That the Other Nature Does Not Do. Evangelical theologians in previous generations have not hesitated to distinguish between things done by Christ's human nature but not by his divine nature or by his divine nature but not by his human nature. It seems that we have to do this if we are willing to affirm the Chalcedonian statement about "the property of each nature being preserved." But few recent theologians have been willing to make such distinctions, perhaps because of a hesitancy to affirm something we cannot understand. When we are talking about Jesus' human nature, we can say that he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them" (Matt. 18:20); "I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20); "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23). So we can say that both things are true about the person of Christ-he has returned to heaven, and he is also present with us. Similarly, we can say that Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) if we are speaking with respect to his human nature, but we can say that he eternally existed (John 1:1-2; 8:58) if we are speaking of his divine nature. In his human nature, Jesus was weak and tired (Matt. 4:2; 8:24; Mark 15:21; John 4:6), but in his divine nature he was omnipotent (Matt. 8:26-27; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). Particularly striking is the scene on the Sea of Galilee where Jesus was asleep in the stern of the boat, presumably because he was weary (Matt. 8:24). But he was able to arise from his sleep and calm the wind and sea with a word (Matt. 8:26-27)! Tired yet omnipotent! Here Jesus' weak human nature completely hid his omnipotence until that omnipotence broke forth in a sovereign word from the Lord of heaven and earth. If someone asks whether Jesus, when he was asleep in the boat, was also "continually carrying along all things by his word of power" (Heb. 1:3, author's translation), and whether all things in the universe were being held together by him at that time (see Col. 1:17), the answer must be yes, for those activities have always been and will always be the particular responsibility of the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God. Those who find the doctrine of the incarnation "inconceivable" have sometimes asked whether Jesus, when he was a baby in the manger at Bethlehem, was also "upholding the universe." To this question the answer must also be yes: Jesus was not just potentially God or someone in whom God uniquely worked but was truly and fully God, with all the attributes of God. He was "a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). Those who reject this as impossible simply have a different definition of what is possible than God has, as revealed in Scripture. To say that we cannot understand this is appropriate humility. But to say that it is not possible seems more like intellectual arrogance. In a similar way, we can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17-18; Heb. 7:16). Yet here we must give a note of caution: it is true that when Jesus died his physical body died and his human soul (or spirit) was separated from his body and passed into the presence of God the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43, 46). In this way he experienced a death that is like the one we as believers experience if we die before Christ returns. And it is not correct to say that Jesus' divine nature died, or could die, if "die" means a cessation of activity, a cessation of consciousness, or a diminution of power. Nevertheless, by virtue of union with Jesus' human nature, his divine nature somehow tasted something of what it was like to go through death. The person of Christ experienced death. Moreover, it seems difficult to understand how Jesus' human nature alone could have borne the wrath of God against the sins of millions of people. It seems that Jesus' divine nature had somehow to participate in the bearing of wrath against sin that was due to us (though Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms this). Therefore, even though Jesus' divine nature did not actually die, Jesus went through the experience of death as a whole person, and both human and divine natures somehow shared in that experience. Beyond that, Scripture does not enable us to say more. The distinction between Jesus' human and divine natures also helps us understand Jesus' temptations. With respect to his human nature, he certainly was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Yet with respect to his divine nature, he was not tempted because God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13). At this point it seems necessary to say that Jesus had two distinct wills, a human will and a divine will, and that the wills belong to the two distinct natures of Christ, not to the person. In fact, there was a position, called the monothelite view, which held that Jesus had only "one will," but that was certainly a minority view in the church, and it was rejected as heretical at a church council in Constantinople in AD 681. Since then the view that Christ had two wills (a human will and a divine will) has been generally, but not universally, held through the church. In fact, Charles Hodge says, The decision against Nestorius, in which the unity of Christ's person was asserted; that against Eutyches, affirming the distinction of natures; and that against the Monothelites, declaring that the possession of a human nature involves of necessity the possession of a human will, have been received as the true faith by the Church universal, the Greek, Latin, and Protestant. Hodge explains that the church thought that "to deny Christ a human will, was to deny he had a human nature, or was truly a man. Besides, it precluded the possibility of his having been tempted, and therefore contradicted the Scriptures, and separated him so far from his people he could not sympathize with them in their temptations." Moreover, Hodge notes that along with the idea that Christ had two wills is the related idea that he had two centers of consciousness or intelligence: "As there are two distinct natures, human and divine, there are of necessity two intelligences and two wills, the one fallible and finite, the other immutable and infinite." This distinction of two wills and two centers of consciousness helps us understand how Jesus could learn things and yet know all things. On the one hand, with respect to his human nature, he had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52). On the other hand, Jesus clearly knew all things (John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Now this is only understandable if Jesus learned things and had limited knowledge with respect to his human nature but was always omniscient with respect to his divine nature, and therefore he was able any time to "call to mind" whatever information would be needed for his ministry. In this way we can understand Jesus' statement concerning the time of his return: "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32). This ignorance of the time of his return was true of Jesus' human nature and human consciousness only, for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew the time when he would return to the earth. At this point someone may object that if we say that Jesus had two centers of consciousness and two wills, that requires that he was two distinct persons, and we have really fallen into the error of "Nestorianism." But in response, it must simply be affirmed that two wills and two centers of consciousness do not require that Jesus be two distinct persons. It is mere assertion without proof to say that they do. If someone responds that he or she does not understand how Jesus could have two centers of consciousness and still be one person, then that fact may certainly be admitted by all. But failing to understand something does not mean that it is impossible, only that our understanding is limited. The great majority of the church throughout its history has said that Jesus had two wills and centers of consciousness, yet he remained one person. Such a formulation is not impossible, merely a mystery that we do not now fully understand. To adopt any other solution would create a far greater problem: it would require that we give up either the full deity or the full humanity of Christ, and that we cannot do. b. Anything Either Nature Does, the Person of Christ Does. In the previous section we mentioned a number of things that were done by one nature but not the other in the person of Christ. Now we must affirm that anything that is true of the human or the divine nature is true of the person of Christ. Thus Jesus can say, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). He does not say, "Before Abraham was, my divine nature existed," because he is free to talk about anything done by his divine nature alone or his human nature alone as something that he did. In the human sphere, this is certainly true of our conversation as well. If I type a letter, even though my feet and toes had nothing to do with typing the letter, I do not tell people, "My fingers typed a letter and my toes had nothing to do with it" (though that is true). Rather, I tell people, "I typed a letter." That is true because anything that is done by one part of me is done by me. Thus "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Even though actually only his human body ceased living and ceased functioning, it was nonetheless Christ as a person who died for our sin. This is simply a means of affirming that whatever can be said of one nature or the other can be said of the person of Christ. Therefore, it is correct for Jesus to say, "I am leaving the world" (John 16:28), or "I am no longer in the world" (John 17:11), but at the same time to say, "I am with you always" (Matt. 28:20). Anything that is done by one nature or the other is done by the person of Christ. c. Titles That Remind Us of One Nature Can Be Used of the Person Even When the Action Is Done By the Other Nature. The New Testament authors sometimes use titles that remind us of either the human nature or the divine nature in order to speak of the person of Christ, even though the action mentioned may be done only by the other nature than the one we might think of from the title. For example, Paul says that if the rulers of this world had understood the wisdom of God, "they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8). Now when we see the phrase "the Lord of glory" it reminds us specifically of Jesus' divine nature. But Paul uses this title (probably intentionally to show the horrible evil of the crucifixion) to say that Jesus was "crucified." Even though Jesus' divine nature was not crucified, it was true of Jesus as a person that he was crucified, and Paul affirms that about him even though he uses the title "the Lord of glory." Similarly, when Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43), the name "my Lord" is a title that reminds us of Christ's divine nature. Yet Mary of course is not the mother of Jesus' divine nature, which has always existed. Mary is simply the mother of the human nature of Christ. Nevertheless, Elizabeth can call her "the mother of my Lord" because she is using the title "Lord" to refer to the person of Christ. A similar expression occurs in Luke 2:11: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." In this way, we can understand Mark 13:32, where Jesus says no one knows the time of his return, "not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Though the term the Son specifically reminds us of Jesus' heavenly, eternal sonship with God the Father, it is really used here not to speak specifically of his divine nature, but to speak generally of him as a person, and to affirm something that is in fact true of his human nature only. And it is true that in one important sense (that is, with respect to his human nature) Jesus did not know the time when he would return. d. Brief Summary Sentence. Sometimes in the study of systematic theology, the following sentence has been used to summarize the incarnation: "Remaining what he was, he became what he was not." In other words, while Jesus continued "remaining" what he was (that is, fully divine), he also became what he previously had not been (that is, fully human as well). Jesus did not give up any of his deity when he became man, but he did take on humanity that was not his before. e. "Communication" of Attributes. Once we have decided that Jesus was fully man and fully God, and that his human nature remained fully human and his divine nature remained fully divine, we can still ask whether there were some qualities or abilities that were given (or "communicated") from one nature to the other. It seems there were. 1. From the divine nature to the human nature. Although Jesus' human nature did not change its essential character, because it was united with the divine nature in the one person of Christ, Jesus' human nature gained (a) a worthiness to be worshiped and (b) an inability to sin, both of which did not belong to human beings otherwise.50 2. From the human nature to the divine nature. Jesus' human nature gave him (a) an ability to experience suffering and death; (b) an ability to understand by experience what we are experiencing; and (c) an ability to be our substitute sacrifice, which Jesus as God alone could not have done. f. Conclusion. At the end of this long discussion, it may be easy for us to lose sight of what is actually taught in Scripture. It is by far the most amazing miracle of the entire Bible-far more amazing than the resurrection and more amazing even than the creation of the universe. The fact that the infinite, omnipotent, eternal Son of God could become man and join himself to a human nature forever so that infinite God became one person with finite man-that will remain for eternity the most profound miracle and the most profound mystery in all the universe. QUESTIONS FOR PERSONAL APPLICATION 1. After reading this chapter, are there specific ways you now think of Jesus as being more like you than you did before? What are these? How can a clearer understanding of Jesus' humanity help you face temptations? How can it help you to pray? What are the most difficult situations in your life right now? Can you think of any similar situations that Jesus might have faced? Does that encourage you to pray confidently to him? Can you picture what it would have been like if you had been present when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am"? What would you have felt? Honestly, what would your response have been? Now try visualizing yourself as present when Jesus made some of the other "I am" statements recorded in John's gospel.51 2. After reading this chapter, is there anything that you understand more fully about the deity of Jesus? Can you describe (and perhaps identify with) what the disciples must have felt as they came to a growing realization of who Jesus actually was? Do you think Jesus is thone person you would be able to trust with your life for all eternity? Will you be happy to join with thousands of others in worshiping around his throne in heaven? Do you delight in worshiping him now? Special Terms Apollinarianism Arianism Chalcedonian Definition communication of attributes docetism Eutychianism God hypostatic union impeccability incarnation kenosis theory Logos Lord monophysitism monothelite view Nestorianism Son of God Son of Man virgin birth Essential Scriptures on the Deity of Christ John 1:1 John 8:58 John 5:17-29 John 10:30 Philippians 2:6-7 John 5:19-47 John 6:25-40 John 14:1 Matthew 11:25-27 Philippians 2:9-11 Romans 1:4 Titus 2:10-13 John 1:1-5 Colossians 1:15-20 Hebrews 1:1-3 Matthew 25:31-46 John 5:19-29 2 Corinthians 5:10 Revelation 19:9-10 Revelation 22:8-9 Acts 7:59-60 1 Corinthians 16:22 Revelation 22:20 John 1:14 Genesis 1:1 John 1:3 John 1:14-18 Luke 2:40-52 Luke 2:52 John 4:7-8 John 19:28 John 4:6 John 11:33-38 Matthew 26:36-46 Matthew 26:14-16 Matthew 26:30-35 Matthew 26:47-56 John 6:60-67 Hebrews 4:14-16 Hebrews 2:14-18 Hebrews 5:7-8 Colossians 1:15 2 Corinthians 4:4 Hebrews 1:3 John 20:26-29 Luke 24:41-43 Luke 24:13-27 John 20:14-15 John 20:19 John 20:26 Luke 24:31 Ephesians 1:19-23 1 Timothy 6:16 John 14:9 Matthew 11:28 Romans 3:23 John 20:30-31 Hebrews 4:14-15 1 Grudem, W. (2020). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Second Edition). Zondervan Academic. 21 Titus 1:3, in connection with the fact that v. 4 calls Christ Jesus "our Savior" and the fact that it was Jesus Christ who commissioned Paul to preach the gospel, might also be considered another example of the use of the word God to refer to Christ. 22 See chapter 14, pp. 276-80, for discussion of passages that refer to Jesus as "God." See also Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), for the most extensive exegetical treatment ever published dealing with New Testament passages that refer to Jesus as "God." 23 The word Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. cf. compare 24 The English word Lord occurs 447 times in the ESV text of Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation, and I think 441 of them attribute deity to Christ by calling him kyrios, "Lord," in the strong Old Testament sense as the name of God. (Lord is used in a weaker sense in Acts 25:26; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Peter 3:6; and perhaps Acts 9:5; 22:8; and 26:15, first instance.) 40 A variant form of Eutychianism held that the human nature was simply lost in the divine, so that the resulting single nature was the divine nature only. 50 See above, p. 695n42, on the Lutheran view that ubiquity was also communicated from the divine nature to the human. 51 See the list of "I am" statements at p. 681n25, above. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2