Hypostatic Union

[jarrod]

I have been wrestling with how we often struggle with defining Jesus as being 100% God and 100% man. "Wait, that's 200%?!"

My thinking on this subject stems from the fact that we typically define things by their attributes. The definition of "man" carries the assumption of attributes. For example, a man has a body that has certain distinct characteristics that shape our make-up. When I say, "that is a man," I am stating that it is a person, with a body and a level of cognitive ability (as opposed to an animal).

I think we tend to define God by His attributes. Charles Ryrie defines God as the "sum total of His infinite attributes." This may or not be accurate, but I have seen the questions asked, "who is God?" The answer given typically ascribes the traits of Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and the like. For someone to be God, they would have to carry with them the characteristics of God.

I think Jesus carried both of these. He was a man who hungered, bled, was tired, etc. He was also God who showed this to be true by calming the storms, walking on water, knowing what people were thinking, and too many others to enumerate. So, in summary, I can see how He is fully God and fully man by carrying the attributes of both -- "God in the flesh."

Jrod

[steve7150]

I think Jesus carried both of these. He was a man who hungered, bled, was tired, etc. He was also God who showed this to be true by calming the storms, walking on water, knowing what people were thinking, and too many others to enumerate. So, in summary, I can see how He is fully God and fully man by carrying the attributes of both -- "God in the flesh."









If Jesus is God, who is Yahweh considering that there is only one true God?

[jarrod]

If Jesus is God, who is Yahweh considering that there is only one true God?

Like most trinitarians, I believe that what we see in Scripture is God revealing Himself in 3 separate or distinct persons. I say persons to denote personality. If He reveals Himself that way and also as one true God, I would say there is a mystery there that is unknown but true nonetheless.

I also look at it as "divine mathematics." In what way are 2 made one flesh in marriage (1+1=1)? I'm sure 90% of the thoughts on this subject are unknown to me, but I think it could be imagery of the same math applied to God (1+1+1=1). We are also said to be one in Christ. All of us one together? That is a lot of addition that still equates to 1.

So, I think there is more to the relationship of the persons of God than He has shown, or has been revealed to me yet?

[mattrose]

He was a man who hungered, bled, was tired, etc.

No argument there!

He was also God who showed this to be true by calming the storms, walking on water, knowing what people were thinking, and too many others to enumerate.

One could well argue that Jesus' miracles were the result of His being filled with the Spirit, not the result of His being fully God. Some Scriptures explicitly say as much. Besides, if miracle working equals deity, then there are many other gods in the Bible (like Peter and Paul, for example).

I do not deny that Jesus is God. I believe in the Trinity more today than I ever have. But I hold to a very kenotic christology. Jesus voluntarily limited himself to the realm of humanity during his tenure on earth. His deity, in my opinion, is argued in other ways.

[jarrod]

One could well argue that Jesus' miracles were the result of His being filled with the Spirit, not the result of His being fully God. Some Scriptures explicitly say as much. Besides, if miracle working equals deity, then there are many other gods in the Bible (like Peter and Paul, for example).

I do not deny that Jesus is God. I believe in the Trinity more today than I ever have. But I hold to a very kenotic christology. Jesus voluntarily limited himself to the realm of humanity during his tenure on earth. His deity, in my opinion, is argued in other ways.

I definitely see your point of contention. However, I believe you may be using the simple statement "His being filled with the Spirit" (we hear it all the time?) making it to be less than it really is. Steve in some recent lectures (Kingdom of God) talks about how we devalue the word "Lord," mainly because it's hard to understand the concept of a _bondservant_ in America.

He was filled with the Spirit, but it was not so normally as you or I. The result was the Spirit of God indwelling the Word of God (who was there from the beginning since He was fully God). The Spirit chose to bless Him richly and He possessed fully the gifts of God -- how? -- because the fullness of Deity dwelt in bodily form -- the Spirit of God, indwelling a man. The Spirit, who hovered over the face of the deep, is multi-dimensional (for lack of a better word) and exists in all places at once. But Jesus, God taking on flesh, was imparted the portion of the Spirit that was everything God.

Taking it further...

[Paidion]

I think Jesus carried both of these. He was a man who hungered, bled, was tired, etc. He was also God who showed this to be true by calming the storms, walking on water, knowing what people were thinking, and too many others to enumerate. So, in summary, I can see how He is fully God and fully man by carrying the attributes of both -- "God in the flesh."

While on earth, Jesus didn't "carry the characteristics of God." Rather He divested Himself of His divine attributes in order to become a human being. At least that is how I interpret the divine emptying which Paul states in the following passage:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:5-7 RSV).

Thus, while on earth, Jesus was 100% man. Period. I have no doubt that as a baby he wet his diapers (or the equivalent) and cried like any other baby (notwithstanding the Xmas carol "Away in a Manger" which affirms otherwise. I might also add in spite of the gnostic stories of his infancy in which he stood up and gave great orations.) Jesus was a real human being. He could do no miracles except through the power of God, just like Peter and Paul, as Matt stated.

I can't make sense out of Trinitarianism. Trinitarians say, "God was born on the earth as a man." Yet they define "God" as a Trinity of three divine Persons. Was the Trinity born on earth as a man? Or are Trinitarians using "God" in a different sense when they say this? If so, in what sense?

I see Jesus as being the only-begotten Son of God, begotten before all ages, the first of God's acts, as the early Christians affirmed. Even the original Nicene creed affirmed that Jesus was begotten before all ages — and the council of Nicea, as you know, also affirmed Trinitarianism. But I guess later Trinitarians saw the inconsistency, and changed the creed to read, "eternally begotten" — whatever that means.

So I see Jesus as divine by virtue of the fact of having been begotten by God who is divine, just as each of us is human by virtue of the fact of having been begotten by man. It can be affirmed that He is "God" in the sense of His being divine, just as each of us can be said to be "man" in the sense of being human.

But Jesus Himself called His Father "the only true God":

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3

Jesus not only called His Father "the only true God", but by use of that little word "and" indicated that He Himself was other than "the only true God."

If Jesus is God, who is Yahweh considering that there is only one true God?

Both Jesus and His Father share the name "Yahweh". This seems clear from Genesis 19:24.

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven.

Abraham addressed one of the three angels who spoke to him as "Yahweh". This Yahweh was the agent through whom the Yahweh in heaven rained sulphur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Father and His Son also share the same spirit. Thus there is also one holy spirit, not a third divine Person in my opinion, but the Persons of the Father and the Son completely united into one. We read in the New Testament both of the spirit of God, and the spirit of Jesus. We also read that the Lord (Jesus) IS the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18). Could this be the reason Jesus could not send the holy spirit while He still lived on earth as a man? Was it because His spirit was confined to His body while He was "in the flesh"?

[look2jesus]

You guys are making my head hurt!

[jarrod]

While on earth, Jesus didn't "carry the characteristics of God." Rather He divested Himself of His divine attributes in order to become a human being.

Your first statement about Jesus not carrying the characteristics of God makes this verse come to mind:

At least that is how I interpret the divine emptying which Paul states in the following passage:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:5-7 RSV).

I agree with and love that verse, and I think that was true about our Lord. When he was a baby, he wet his diapers and his mother probably had to clean the same foul smell children today producem(that is a crude image, but not irreverent). I believe He divested Himself, emptied Himself, and took on the form of a servant. At his Baptism, however, I believe He was given the Spirit of the Lord (3rd personality involved) to give back what He divested Himself of at the incarnation as a newborn.

The Baptism of our Lord was so huge I still cannot fathom it all in my mind and the things I think I understand make me fear in reverence. He was chosen. He was announced by God the Father to be His one and only Son. We see the Word's of Jesus on earth revealing Himself to be divine (not saying you're arguing against that), but that Jesus also refers to the Father ("our Father, Lord in Heaven") and to the Holy Spirit as separate (Cf. John 14?) as the Helper. I think He is revealing something more than you are suggesting.

I can't make sense out of Trinitarianism. Trinitarians say, "God was born on the earth as a man." Yet they define "God" as a Trinity of three divine Persons. Was the Trinity born on earth as a man? Or are Trinitarians using "God" in a different sense when they say this? If so, in what sense?

I, along with other Trinitarians, espouse this because that's what we believe the Bible says regarding the subject. I gave just 2 verses earlier, but that's just the way it is "seen." I would say, from my understanding of Scripture, that no the "Trinity" was not born on Earth. The Word was given flesh who _was_ God and was _with_ God in the beginning.

So I see Jesus as divine by virtue of the fact of having been begotten by God who is divine, just as each of us is human by virtue of the fact of having been begotten by man. It can be affirmed that He is "God" in the sense of His being divine, just as each of us can be said to be "man" in the sense of being human.

I may be missing your point, but Adam was not created by "man"? But you would say, "yes but He was created eternal", and I would say yes eternal, but He did _not_ perform the miracles of Christ in the same manner as Christ revealed. Also, we don't record of Adam Himself _claiming_ to be God (because He clearly wasn't). Therefore I find some fault in your previous statement according to my understanding.

Abraham addressed one of the three angels who spoke to him as "Yahweh". This Yahweh was the agent through whom the Yahweh in heaven rained sulphur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.

That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that we know it could be a "Christophany" since Jesus was with God in the beginning.

The Father and His Son also share the same spirit. Thus there is also one holy spirit, not a third divine Person in my opinion, but the Persons of the Father and the Son completely united into one. We read in the New Testament both of the spirit of God, and the spirit of Jesus. We also read that the Lord (Jesus) IS the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18). Could this be the reason Jesus could not send the holy spirit while He still lived on earth as a man? Was it because His spirit was confined to His body while He was "in the flesh"?

Ok I think I see what you are saying. You are right the Lord is *the Spirit* ... He is the manifestation of the Spirit of God in the flesh. I like what Steve says about Him not being called the "Son" or titled "Incarnate" before coming Here on Earth, but fully God nonetheless. Also, once He came to earth, having divested Himself (Cf, Philippians 2), the Spirit of the Lord came upon Him and restored the full Deity that dwelt in Him bodily. Again, I point out, that Jesus referred to the Father and the Spirit as separate entities leading me to believe they are separate. Although, I will agree, that they "share" the same Spirit in a sense.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and help me work this out,

Jrod

[steve7150]

Jesus not only called His Father "the only true God", but by use of that little word "and" indicated that He Himself was other than "the only true God."

Steve7150 wrote:If Jesus is God, who is Yahweh considering that there is only one true God?



Both Jesus and His Father share the name "Yahweh". This seems clear from Genesis 19:24.









In Acts 10.38 it says "God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power and he went about doing good" which sounds like the miracles he did were from power given to him by his Father.
The plain statement "The Lord our God , the Lord is one" (Duet 6.4) was a statement against polytheism and no one at that time interpreted this as a trinity nor was it meant to have a hidden meaning IMO.
So IMO for whatever it's worth is that the statement "Jesus is God" is misleading because you then have polytheism according to the laws of mathematics which were created by God.
Jesus is the "Word" or "the breath of God" (Psalm 33) and i think he is God in the sense that he "came forth from God" or actually out of the mouth of God, but he is not a second God.

[Perry]

So IMO for whatever it's worth is that the statement "Jesus is God" is misleading because you then have polytheism according to the laws of mathematics

Steve,
What do you make of John 20:27-29?