The
doctrine of Christ may include both a study of His person and His work. However,
since His principal work was the Atonement, soteriology is usually separated from
Christology. His other works are normally considered under Christology.
The
doctrine can be organized more or less chronologically. A study of the preincarnate
Christ comes first. This would be followed by a section on Christ in His humiliation,
i.e., during His earthly life. (It would be erroneous to call this section Christ
Incarnate, since the Incarnation continues beyond His earthly life.) Then would come
a study of His present and future ministries. The major theological problems appear
in the period of Christ’s humiliation while in an earthly body, problems like the
meaning of kenosis, the relation of His two natures, and impeccability.
The
doctrine of the person of Christ is crucial to the Christian faith. It is basic to
soteriology, for if our Lord was not what He claimed to be, then His atonement was
a deficient, not sufficient, payment for sin.
I. THE PREEXISTENCE OF
THE PREINCARNATE CHRIST
A. The Meaning of Preexistence
Preexistence
of Christ means that He existed before His birth. For some writers it means that
He existed before Creation and before time. But strictly speaking, preexistence is
not synonymous with eternality. Practically speaking, they stand for a similar concept,
for a denial of preexistence almost always includes a denial of eternality and vice
versa.
B. The Importance of Preexistence
1. At birth.
If Christ came into existence at His birth, then no eternal Trinity exists.
2.
Not God. If Christ was not preexistent then He could not be God, because, among other
attributes, God is eternal.
3. Liar. If Christ was not preexistent then He
lied, because He claimed to be. Then, the question arises, what else did He lie about?
C.
The Evidence for Preexistence
1. His heavenly origin. Verses that
claim heavenly origin for Christ attest to preexistence before birth. Note especially
John 3:13 and 31.
2. His work as Creator. If Christ was involved in creating,
then, of course, He had to exist before Creation. See John 1:3; Colossians 1:16,
and Hebrews 1:2.
3. His relationship with God. He claimed equality of nature
with God (John 10:30). He claimed equal glory with the Father before the world began
(17:5). Paul also claimed Christ had the same nature as God (Phil. 2:6). These passages
are evidences for eternality as well.
4. His attributes. He claimed full Deity
and others attested to it. These claims will be examined later, but for now Colossians
2:9 will suffice—in Christ dwells all the fullness of Deity.
5. His relation
to John the Baptist. Though John was born before Jesus, John acknowledged that Jesus
existed before him (John 1:15, 30, literally “first of me” but referring to preexistence
as the basis for Christ’s superiority over John).
II. THE ETERNALITY
OF THE PREINCARNATE CHRIST
A. The Meaning of Eternality
Eternality
means not only that Christ existed before His birth or even before Creation but that
He existed always, eternally. Usually eternality and preexistence stand or fall together,
though Anus taught preexistence of the Son but not His eternality. He insisted that
if Christ was the Only Begotten He must have had a beginning. Jehovah’s Witnesses
today have an Arian-like Christology which denies the eternality of the Logos.
B.
The Importance of Eternality
If eternality is denied then (a) there
is no Trinity, (b) Christ does not possess full Deity, and (c) He lied.
C.
The Evidence for Eternality
His relationship with God as of the same essence
demonstrates eternality, since God is eternal. Notice the word charakter in Hebrews
1:3 which indicates that Christ is the exact representation of God’s nature or essence.
Possession
of divine attributes includes the attribute of eternality.
The Old Testament
prophets claimed eternality for Messiah. Micah said that His goings forth are from
the days of eternity (5:2; see Hab. 1:12). Though the words can mean “from the days
of old,” that is, from earliest times, they can also mean from eternity. Isaiah 9:6,
“Eternal Father,” likely refers to Christ as a Father to His people always (thus
it only looks forward, not backward to eternity past).
Christ claimed eternality
when He declared, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). This is more than limited
existence before Abraham was born because He said “I AM.” “I was” might indicate
that He existed for several centuries before Abraham, but I am (eimi) states eternality.
John’s
plain statement that Christ is God (John 1:1). “The Word was God.” Not the Word was
divine (as Moffatt and Goodspeed) since that would require theios (as in Acts 17:29
and 2 Peter 1:3). Nor does John say that the Word was a god (as Jehovah’s Witnesses
translate it). Definite nouns that precede the verb, as here, regularly lack the
definite article (see Leon Morris, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1971], p. 77n).
III. THE ACTIVITY OF THE PREINCARNATE CHRIST
A.
His Activity as Creator
1. The extent of it. He was involved in the
Creation of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). This demonstrates His power
(to be able to create all things).
2. The purpose of it. All things were created
for Him (Col. 1:16), meaning for the purpose of achieving His ends in the Creation.
This demonstrates His prerogative (to have Creation serve His purposes).
3.
The continuation of it. He also now sustains His creation, for in Him all things
hold together (v. 17). This demonstrates His presence (continuing to sustain creation).
B.
His Activity as Angel
1. His identity as Angel of Yahweh. Clearly
the Angel of Yahweh is a self-manifestation of Yahweh, for He speaks as God, identifies
Himself with God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God (Gen. 16:7-14; 21:17-18;
22:11-18; 31:11-13 Ex 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-22; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech.
1:12; 3:1; 12:8). Yet He is distinguished from Yahweh (Gen. 24:7; Zech. 1:12-13).
That He is a Member of the Trinity is indicated by the fact that the appearances
of the Angel of Yahweh cease after the Incarnation. This is confirmed by the Old
Testament statement that the Angel of God accompanied Israel when they left Egypt
(Ex. 14:19; cf. 23:20) and the New Testament statement that the Rock who followed
Israel was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4).
2. His ministries as an Angel of Yahweh.
(1) He often acted as messenger to various people (Gen. 16:7-14; 22:11-18; 31:11-13).
(2) He guided and protected Israel (Ex. 14:19; 23:20; 2 Kings 19:35). (3) He was
the instrument of judgment on Israel when God sent a pestilence on the people (1
Chron. 21:1-27). (4) He was the agent of refreshment to Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-7).
C.
His Other Activities
No other historical activities of Christ are
revealed as happening in His preincarnate state. His work as Messiah required the
Incarnation, though it was predicted in the Old Testament. Likewise His work as Savior
necessitated the Incarnation. The Old Testament does not give specific revelation
of the second Person as Savior, only God as Savior. To have done so would also have
required an Old Testament revelation of the Trinity. Rather that period is called
“the times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30).
Though our Lord was not inactive in
His preincarnate state, His greatest works necessitated the Incarnation. Nevertheless,
He stands magnificent in His person as the eternal God, but, as it were, in the shadows,
waiting the spotlight of the Incarnation to reveal His glory and grace (John 1:17;
Titus 2:11).
I. THE MEANING OF INCARNATION
Though the
word itself does not appear in Scripture, its components (“in” and “flesh”) do. John
wrote that the Word became flesh (John 1:14). He also wrote of Jesus coming in the
flesh (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). By this he meant that the eternal second Person of
the Trinity took on Himself humanity. He did not possess humanity until the birth,
since the Lord became flesh (egeneto, John 1:14, in contrast to the four occurrences
of en in vv. 1-2). However, His humanity was sinless, a fact Paul guards by writing
that He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3).
II. THE PREDICTIONS
OF INCARNATION
A. Prediction of the God-Man
In this prophecy
concerning Messiah in Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah foretold the union of Deity and humanity
in Him. He said that a child would be born (a reference to humanity) and that His
character would be such that He may be designated as the Mighty God (el gibbor; a
reference to Deity). Isaiah uses el only in reference to God (see 31:3); gibbor means
hero. Thus the phrase means a hero whose chief characteristic is that He is God.
Thus in this single verse both the humanity and deity of our Lord are predicted.
(See Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964J, 1:335-8.)
The
name Immanuel reveals the same truth about the Lord (7:14). This means more than
God’s presence with His people in His providential dealings. It means in this text
that the very presence of the virgin-born Child brings God to His people (see Young,
1:289-91).
B. Prediction of the Virgin Birth (Isa. 7:14)
In
this prophecy Isaiah foretold the means of the Incarnation as being a virgin birth.
Liberals have challenged the translation “virgin” for the Hebrew word almah, stating
that bethulah should have been used if Isaiah unmistakably meant virgin. It is true
that almah means a sexually mature, marriageable maiden, and bethulah means a separated
woman, usually a virgin, but not always (Es. 2:17; Ezek. 23:3; Joel 1:8). Thus it
is not true to say, as the critics do, that bethulah would have been a more precise
word to use if Isaiah clearly meant virgin.
Apparently almah is not a technical
term for virgin but refers to a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity
(Gen. 24:43). There is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a
young woman who is not a virgin. The Septuagint translates it by parthenos in two
of its seven occurrences, as does Matthew 1:23. Thus the word means a young woman
of marriageable age one of whose characteristics was virginity, and necessarily so
in the case of the fulfillment of this prophecy in Christ’s birth.
Who is
the virgin referred to in the prophecy? The interpretations fall into three basic
categories. (1) The nonmessianic interpretation which understands the prophecy fulfilled
by some unknown woman in the past who may or may not have been a virgin. How then
can verse 23 be explained? (2) The strictly messianic interpretation that sees the
prophecy referring only to Mary with no reference to any maiden of Isaiah’s time.
Unquestionably it does refer to Mary (v. 23), but whether to her only is the question.
Without a reference to someone in Isaiah’s time what value would the sign have been
to Ahaz? (3) The prophecy refers both to someone in Isaiah’s day and to Mary in the
future.
According to this third interpretation who would be the maiden in
Isaiah’s day? Again there are three answers: (a) Ahaz’s wife; (b) Some unknown maiden
in Israel; (c) Isaiah’s second wife to whom he was not yet married when the prophecy
was given. If (a) is true then the son was Hezekiah. If (b) is true, then the son
is unknown. If (c) is true the son was either Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa. 8:3) or
another unmentioned son of Isaiah. In this view Isaiah’s first wife, the mother of
Shear-jashub (7:3) had already died.
Matthew unambiguously sees Christ as
the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Of this there can be no question. And both
the strictly messianic and the double-reference views acknowledge that.
III.
THE MEANS OF INCARNATION
A. The Evidence
The Virgin Birth was
the means of the Incarnation. The Incarnation, once accomplished, is a lasting state
for our Lord. It began at His birth and continues (albeit in a resurrection body
now) forever. The Virgin Birth was an event that lasted only a matter of hours.
When
Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear the Messiah, she protested that she
would need a husband. The angel’s response was in essence, you won’t need a husband,
because the Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow
you (Luke 1:35). The statement emphasizes more the fact of divine generation of the
Child, than the method.
Matthew carefully guards the fact of the Virgin Birth
in the genealogical table of our Lord (Matt. 1:16). He records that Joseph was the
husband of Mary, but that it was by Mary only that Jesus was born. The pronoun “by
whom” is feminine singular, indicating clearly that Jesus was born of Mary only and
not of Mary and Joseph.
Whether Galatians 4:4, “born of a woman,” indicates
the Virgin Birth or not is unclear. It may simply mean that Christ assumed humanity
just like He assumed a position under the Law, as the next phrase says. Or it might
refer to the Virgin Birth since the verb is not the regular verb for “be born” but
the same verb as in John 1:14 which refers to the Incarnation, though not to the
Virgin Birth as such. However, the passages in Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke are clear.
What
was the purpose of the Virgin Birth? It need not be the necessary means of preserving
Christ sinless, since God could have overshadowed two parents so as to protect the
baby’s sinlessness had He so desired. It served as a sign of the uniqueness of the
Person who was born. How early and how widely the fact was known among the contemporaries
of Christ we cannot say. Of course, when Matthew and Luke were written it was known,
and from that time on the early church regarded it as a crucial doctrine, and by
the early second century an established doctrine (Ignatius, Smyrna, I, 1, for example;
see also Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church,
Studies in Historical Theology [Naperville: Allenson, 1964], 2:10-20).
B.
The Genealogies
Matthew and Luke both trace the genealogy of the virgin-born
Son. Matthew contains forty-one selected names, while Luke includes seventy-seven.
Matthew traces the King back to Abraham; Luke goes back to Adam. Matthew’s list is
commonly regarded as Joseph’s line and Luke’s, Mary’s.
There has been much
discussion particularly over the question of whether Luke’s genealogy is that of
Jesus through Mary His mother. Alfred Plummer raises this objection to that view:
“It is probable that so obvious a solution, as that one was the pedigree of Joseph
and the other the pedigree of Mary, would have been very soon advocated, if there
had been any reason (excepting the difficulty) for adopting it. But this solution
is not suggested by anyone until Amnnius of Viterbo propounded it, ca. A D. 1490”
(A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke [ICC, Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1910], p. 103).
On the other side, F. Godet argues effectively
for Mary’s lineage in Luke on the basis of the absence of the article be
fore Joseph (3:23) which links Jesus directly with Eli and seemingly puts Joseph
out of the genealogical line altogether (A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke [Edinburgh:
T. &. T. Clark, 1910], 1:195-204).
Various explanations are given for
both genealogies being Joseph’s line. One is that Matthan and Matthat are the same
person, making Jacob and Eli brothers and making Joseph the son of Eli and the nephew
of Jacob. If Jacob died without heirs his nephew Joseph would have become the heir,
or possibly Joseph became the heir of Jacob because Eli (assuming that his wife had
died) married Jacob’s widow according to the custom of levirate marriage (See J.G.
Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ [New York: Harper, 1930], pp. 207-9).
A
strong argument for the Lucan genealogy being Mary’s relates to the curse placed
on Jehoiachin (Jeconiah or Coniah) in Jeremiah 22:30. He was pronounced “childless”
which is explained in the verse as meaning no physical descendant of his would prosperously
reign on the throne of David. (He apparently did have seven sons, though perhaps
adopted, 1 Chron. 3:17-18). Thus Jesus could not expect to be a ruling king (though
He had the legal right) if He were a blood descendant of Joseph who was a descendant
of Coniah. Therefore the virgin birth was necessary to free Him from the line of
the curse (see Robert Gromacki, The Virgin Birth of Christ [Grand Rapids: Baker,
19811, pp. 150-9). However, this could also be accomplished if Jesus is linked to
Joseph (not as His natural father, of course) through Nathan rather than Solomon
(as Luke might be indicating).
It has also been suggested that the curse on
Coniah was ended by God’s choosing and exalting Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23). Making him
“as a signet” elevated him to a place of authority, and choosing him transferred
to Zerubbabel and his family among David’s descendants the messianic promise. Zerubbabel’s
name does appear in both the Matthew and Luke genealogies.
In any case Luke
carefully avoids the impression that Jesus might be the natural son of Joseph: yet
he preserves His kingly claims by not linking Him solely to His mother (since the
claim passed through the male members). Never in His lifetime did anyone dispute
Jesus’ claim to the throne of David.
IV. THE PURPOSES OF THE INCARNATION
Why
did God send His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh? The Scriptures give several
answers to that question.
A. To Reveal God to Us
Though
God reveals Himself in various ways including the magnificences of nature around
us, only the Incarnation revealed the essence of God, though veiled (John 1:18; 14:7-11).
The only way man can see the Father is to know about the Son, and the only way we
can do that today is through studying the record of His life in the Scriptures. Because
He became a man, the revelation of God was personalized; because He is God, that
revelation is completely truthful.
B. To Provide an Example for Our
Lives
The earthly life of our Lord is held up to us as a pattern for
our living today (1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6). Without the Incarnation we would not
have that example. As man He experienced the vicissitudes of life and furnishes for
us an experienced example; as God He offers us the power to follow His example.
C.
To Provide an Effective Sacrifice for Sin
Without the Incarnation
we would have no Savior. Sin requires death for its payment. God does not die. So
the Savior must be human in order to be able to die. But the death of an ordinary
man would not pay for sin eternally, so the Savior must also be God. We must have
a God-Man Savior and we do in our Lord (Heb. 10:1-10).
D. To Be Able
to Fulfill the Davidic Covenant
Gabriel announced to Mary that her
Son would be given the throne of David (Luke 1:31-33). This is not fulfilled by the
invisible God reigning over the affairs of men (which He does to be sure). To have
an occupant of David’s throne requires a human being. Therefore, Messiah had to be
a human being. But to occupy that throne forever requires that the occupant never
die. And only God qualifies. So the One who ultimately fulfills the Davidic promise
has to be a God-Man.
E. To Destroy the Works of the Devil (1 John 3:8)
Notice
that this was done by Christ’s appearing. The focus is on His coming, not on His
resurrection as might be expected. Why was the Incarnation necessary to defeat Satan?
Because Satan must be defeated in the arena he dominates, this world. So Christ was
sent into this world to destroy Satan’s works.
F. To Be Able to Be a
Sympathetic High Priest (Heb. 4:14-16)
Our High Priest can feel our
weaknesses because He was tested as we are. But God is never tested, so it was necessary
for God to become man to be able to be tested in order to be a sympathetic Priest.
G.
To Be Able to Be a Qualified Judge
Though most people think of God
as the Judge before whom all will appear, the truth is that Jesus will be that Judge
(John 5:22, 27). All judgment will be executed by our Lord “because He is the Son
of man.” This is the title that links Him to the earth and to His earthly mission.
Why is it necessary for the Judge to be human and to have lived on earth? So that
He may put down all excuses people might try to make. Why must the Judge also be
God? So that His judgment will be true and just.
Thus the Incarnation has
ramifications in relation to our knowledge of God, to our salvation, to our daily
living, to our pressing needs, and to the future. It truly is the central fact of
history.
Ministries of the God-Man
TITLE
REFERENCE
MAN
GOD
Savior
Romans
1:3-4
To Die
To Give Death Meaning
High Priest
Hebrews
4:14-16
To Represent Man As A Sacrifice For Sin
To Represent His People
Before God
Judge
John 5:22
To Judge As A Peer
To Judge
Righteously
Source Of Christian Living
1 John 2:6
To Be Our
Example
To Empower Our Lives
I. THE FULL DEITY OF CHRIST INCARNATE
A.
He Possesses Attributes Which Only God Has
1. Eternality. He claimed
to exist from eternity past (John 8:58; 17:5).
2. Omnipresence. He claimed
to be everywhere present (Matt. 18:20; 28:20).
3. Omniscience. He showed knowledge
of things that could only be known if He were omniscient (Matt. 16:21; Luke 6:8;
11:17; John 4:29).
4. Omnipotence. He demonstrated and claimed the power of
an omnipotent Person (Matt. 28:18; Mark 5:11-15; John 11:38-44).
Other attributes
of Deity are claimed for Him by others (e.g., immutability, Heb. 13:8), but these
cited are claims He made for Himself.
B. He Performs Works Which Only
God Can Do
1. Forgiveness. He forgives sins eternally. Men may do
that temporarily, but Christ grants eternal forgiveness (Mark 2:1-12).
2.
Lift. He gives spiritual life to whomever He wishes (John 5:21).
3. Resurrection.
He will raise the dead (11:43).
4. Judgment. He will judge all people (5:22,
27).
Again, all of these examples are things He did or claims He made, not
claims others made of Him.
C. He Was Given the Names and Titles of Deity
1.
Son of God. Our Lord used this designation of Himself (though rarely, John 10:36),
and He acknowledged its truthfulness when it was used by others of Him (Matt. 26:63-64).
What does it mean? Though the phrase “son of” can mean “offspring of,” it also carries
the meaning “of the order of.” Thus in the Old Testament “sons of the prophets” meant
of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and “sons of the singers” meant of the
order of the singers (Neh. 12:28). The designation “Son of God” when used of our
Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity. “In
Jewish usage the term Son of . . . did not generally imply any subordination, but
rather equality and identity of nature. Thus Bar Kokba, who led the Jewish revolt
135-132 B.C. in the reign of Hadrian, was called by a name which means ‘Son of the
Star.’ It was supposed that he took this name to identify himself as the very Star
predicted in Numbers 24:17. The name ‘Son of Encouragement’ (Acts 4:36) doubtless
means, ‘The Encourager.’ ‘Sons of Thunder’ (Mark 3:17) probably means ‘Thunderous
Men.’ ‘Son of man,’ especially as applied to Christ in Daniel 7:13 and constantly
in the New Testament, essentially means ‘The Representative Man.’ Thus for Christ
to say, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John 10:36) was understood by His contemporaries as
identifying Himself as God, equal with the Father, in an unqualified sense” (J. Oliver
Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion [Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962], 1:105).
2. Lord and God. Jesus is called Yahweh in the New Testament,
a clear indication of His full Deity (cf. Luke 1:76 with Mal. 3:1 and Rom. 10:13
with Joel 2:32). He is also called God (John 1:1; 20:28; Heb. 1:8), Lord (Matt. 22:43-45),
and King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:16).
D. He Claimed to Be
God
Perhaps the strongest and clearest occasion of such a claim was
at the Feast of Dedication when He said, “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30).
The neuter form of “one” rules out the meaning that He and the Father were one Person.
It means that they are in perfect unity in natures and actions, a fact that could
only be true if He were as much Deity as the Father. The people who heard this claim
understood it that way, for they immediately tried to stone Him for blasphemy because
He made Himself out to be God (v. 33).
How can anyone say that Jesus of Nazareth
Himself never claimed to be God, but rather that His followers made the claim for
Him. Most of the passages cited above are from Christ’s own words. Therefore, one
must face the only options: either His claims were true or He was a liar. And these
claims are for full and complete Deity—nothing missing or removed during His life
on earth.
II. THE PERFECT HUMANITY OF CHRIST INCARNATE
Denials
of the humanity of Christ are less common than denials of His deity. Why? Because
as long as you do not inject the Deity factor into the person of Christ, He is only
a man, however fine or exalted, and as a man only He cannot disturb people with His
claims so much as if He is the God-Man. However, those who may readily affirm His
humanity may not so readily affirm His perfect humanity. They may acknowledge Him
as a good man (how so if He lied?) or a great man (how so if He misled others?) but
not as a perfect man (for then they might feel more obligated to listen to Him even
though they may not acknowledge Him as God).
A. He Had a Human Body
Though
Christ’s conception was supernatural, He was born with a human body which grew and
developed (Luke 2:52). He called Himself a man (John 8:40).
B. He Had
a Human Soul and Spirit
The perfect humanity of our Lord included
a perfect immaterial nature as well as a material one. It was not that the human
nature provided Christ’s body while the divine nature consisted of soul and spirit.
The humanity was complete and included both material and immaterial aspects (Matt.
26:38; Luke 23:46).
C. He Exhibited the Characteristics of a Human Being
Our
Lord was hungry (Matt. 4:2). He was thirsty (John 19:28). He grew weary (4:6). He
experienced love and compassion (Matt. 9:36). He wept (John 11:35). He was tested
(Heb. 4:15). These are characteristics of true humanity.
D. He Was Called
by Human Names
His favorite designation of Himself was “Son of man”
(over eighty times). This name linked Him to the earth and to His mission on earth.
It focused on His lowliness and humanity (Matt. 8:20); on His suffering and death
(Luke 19:10); and on His future reign as King (Matt. 24:27).
He was also the
Son of David, a title that linked Him to His ancestor David and to the royal promises
to be fulfilled ultimately by Messiah.
Paul calls Him a man in 1 Timothy 2:5.
III.
THE UNION OF DEITY AND HUMANITY IN CHRIST INCARNATE
This concept of
the hypostatic or one-person union of the divine and human natures in one Person
is probably one of the most difficult concepts to comprehend in theology. Not one
of us has ever seen Deity except as the Scriptures reveal God, and not one of us
has ever seen perfect humanity except as the Scriptures reveal pre-fallen Adam and
our Lord. To try to relate these two concepts to the person of Christ adds complexities
to ideas that are in themselves difficult to comprehend.
A. The Meaning
of “Nature”
Though the English words “nature” and “substance” can
be synonymous, meaning essence, we need to make a distinction between the two words
for theological purposes. If nature is conceived of as a substantive entity, then
nature and substance would be the same, and the incarnate Christ would consist of
two substances, and would be essentially two Persons, as Nestorianism held. But if
“nature” is viewed as a “complex of attributes” (Buswell’s suggestion, 1:54) this
error is more apt to be avoided. The single Person of the incarnate Christ retained
the total complex of divine attributes and possessed all the complex of human attributes
essential to a perfect human being.
B. The Character of the Union
The
Chalcedonian Creed stated that the two “natures” were united without mixture, without
change, without division, and without separation. This means that the entire complex
of the attributes of Deity and those of perfect humanity were maintained in Jesus
Christ at all times since His Incarnation. There is no mixture of divine and human
attributes (as Eutychians taught), no change in either complex (as Apollinarians
taught), no dividing of them, and no separating them so as to have two Persons (as
Nestorianism taught). Orthodoxy says two natures comprising one Person or hypostasis
forever. It is correct to characterize Christ as a theoanthropic Person, but not
accurate to speak of theoanthropic natures (since that would mix the divine and human
attributes).
Calvinism has held that the union involves no transfer of attributes
from one nature to the other. Lutheranism teaches the ubiquity of Christ’s body which
does involve a transfer of the attribute of omnipresence to the humanity of Christ.
In other words, ubiquitarianism holds that Christ is present in His human nature
everywhere and at all times. Luther developed this doctrine in 1527-28 to support
his belief in the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper.
C. The Communion
of Attributes
This simply means that the attributes of both natures
belong to the one Person without mixing the natures or dividing the Person. Practically
speaking, it is the basis for Christ being seen to be weak, yet omnipotent; ignorant,
yet omniscient; limited, yet infinite.
I have said that attributes cannot
be transferred from one nature to the other. To do so would change the mix of the
complex of attributes and thus the nature. If infinity can be transferred to humanity,
then Deity loses infinity and is no longer full Deity. However, attributes of both
natures must be expressed through the one Person. Thus the Person can seem to “transfer”
back and forth from the expression of one or the other natures, though the attributes
themselves must remain as part of whichever nature they properly belong to. Thus
theologians have developed a system to classify the actions of the person of Christ
with respect to origination of the action (see Hodge, Systematic Theology [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 19601, 2:78ff, who has four categories, and Walvoord, Jesus Christ
Our Lord [Chicago: Moody, 1974], pp. 116-7, who has seven). Some examples include
(a) actions predicated on the whole Person, like redemption (both natures being involved);
(b) actions predicated on the divine nature (though the whole Person is the subject),
like preexistence (true only of the divine nature); and (c) actions predicated on
the human nature, like being thirsty.
Whatever help such a classification
may give, it seems more important to remember that the Person does whatever He does,
revealing whatever attribute of whichever nature He reveals. The Person thirsted;
the Person knew all things; the Person does not know the day or the hour; and (probably
the hardest one) the Person died. Of course, Deity does not die or thirst, but the
Person, Jesus Christ, the God-Man, did both.
D. The Self-Consciousness
of Christ
Another question is whether Christ in His own self-consciousness
was aware of His deity and humanity at all times. The answer is that the Person was
always aware in Himself with respect to His deity and that the Person grew in self-consciousness
with respect to His humanity.
E. The Will(s) of Christ
Did
Christ have one or two wills? Chalcedon said one Christ in two natures united in
one Person, implying two wills. In the seventh century the Monothelites insisted
that Christ had but one will, but this view was declared heresy by the Council at
Constantinople in 680. If will is defined as a “behavior complex” as Buswell does,
then our Lord may be said to have had a divine behavior pattern and a perfect human
one as well; hence two wills. If will is defined as the resulting moral decision
as Walvoord does, then the person of Christ always made only one moral decision;
hence one will. However, it seems to me that every single decision stemmed from either
the “will” of His divine nature or the “will” of His human nature or a blending of
both, making it proper to think of two “wills.”
