Two Natures

[benstenson]

This is an exciting topic I've been studying that I want to share with anyone who might be interested whether they agree or disagree (I'm open to correction).

I believe the dual-nature (Christology) idea is mistaken and incoherent because the word 'nature' should imply all of one's attributes, not merely a sub-category of attributes (human vs divine). Jesus by definition had one nature. Whatever attributes he had, whether human or divine, are all part of his nature.

The reason people want to resort to the incoherence of "two natures" (two the-way-you-are's) is because they want to affirm Jesus' humanity and his deity. They want to affirm his deity in a way that would seemingly contradict his humanity. Adding a second 'nature' removes the contradiction from the foreground allowing the phrase "according to his [such and such nature]" to be inserted immediately prior to any contradictory statement. However a reasonable theory avoiding contradicting attributes can be easily understood without adding a second nature to Jesus.

When Jesus gave up his "former glory" (John 17:5) and "divine form" (Phil 2:6-8) in order to be "made flesh" (John 1:14) "like his brothers in every respect" (Heb 2:17) he did not become another person. His nature changed, but his identity was still the same - the divine Son (or logos) of God. His identity was not dependent upon a particular form or attributes (Mark 16:12, Luke 2:52) any more than a celebrity's identity depends upon their changing weight, hair color, skin color, etc.

Prior to the incarnation Jesus had a divine form and of course was God (not the Father) in his identity.
After the incarnation Jesus was now 100% human - no longer in divine form - yet remained God in identity. But could Jesus being divine actually change? That's the whole point of the incarnation.

The incarnation among other events was an actual locational change for Jesus:

• "I came down from heaven" (John 6:38)
• "What if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62)
• "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." (John 16:28)
• "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight ... they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up" (Acts 1:9-10)

The idea that Jesus divinity/deity was a second nature outside of his bodily location is denied by Paul when he wrote, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men ... For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the deity/divinity bodily. And ye are [likewise] complete in him" (Col 2:9-10) This passage does not mean that all of the Father's deity dwelt bodily in Jesus. The Father remained in heaven while Jesus was on the earth. It should be interpreted "in him dwells all the fullness of [his/Christ's] deity bodily". Jesus is complete bodily just as the Church (his body) is complete in him.

This begins to solve all the Christological (and Trinitarian) controversies that I've come across. It appears to me that doctrinally dividing Christ into two natures began much division in the body of Christ, the Church. My hope is that understanding the unity or completeness of Jesus would inspire unity and completeness in the various divisions of the Body of Christ.

[steve7150]

The idea that Jesus divinity/deity was a second nature outside of his bodily location is denied by Paul when he wrote, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men ... For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the deity/divinity bodily. And ye are [likewise] complete in him" (Col 2:9-10) This passage does not mean that all of the Father's deity dwelt bodily in Jesus. The Father remained in heaven while Jesus was on the earth. It should be interpreted "in him dwells all the fullness of [his/Christ's] deity bodily". Jesus is complete bodily just as the Church (his body) is complete in him.





Was'nt Paul speaking of Christ in the present tense after he was resurrected but as Phil 2.8 says he emptied himself (of what?) and humbled himself and became a bondservant.
It sounds like he may have had two natures , an active human nature and a divine nature that might have been deactivated but i'm not sure. The human nature was indeed tempted by the devil IMO but never gave in to temptation. I don't think God can actually be tempted but a human nature can be really tempted.

[benstenson]

Was'nt Paul speaking of Christ in the present tense after he was resurrected but as Phil 2.8 says he emptied himself (of what?) and humbled himself and became a bondservant.
It sounds like he may have had two natures , an active human nature and a divine nature that might have been deactivated but i'm not sure. The human nature was indeed tempted by the devil IMO but never gave in to temptation. I don't think God can actually be tempted but a human nature can be really tempted.

Since one's nature, by definition, includes all of one's attributes, it does not seem to mean much to say 'two natures'. Maybe what you meant is that Jesus left some part of him behind in heaven? Or that there was some part of him still attached to him but temporarily lifeless? I do not see the "emptied himself" thing as needing to be taken that way. It could simply mean he changed, thus "emptying" himself of his former attributes/glory. This seems like the simplest or most reasonable explanation to me.

Jesus did not require a deactivated divine part of himself in order to be divine. His deity did not vanish with his glory. Because of his identity (not nature) he remained God. ('who' vs 'what'.)

When the Bible says that God cannot be tempted it is not making an ontological/metaphysical statement about him but a moral statement. God's immutability is moral not ontological - character not constitution - trustworthiness not inability - dedicated heart not tied hands. God has free will and is therefore virtuous/righteous/loving and not merely 'good' like animals.

[steve7150]

Jesus did not require a deactivated divine part of himself in order to be divine. His deity did not vanish with his glory. Because of his identity (not nature) he remained God. ('who' vs 'what'.)






I think his divine attributes did have to be deactivated otherwise he would'nt get tired or hungry or sleepy and in addition he did his miracles not because he was divine but through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10).
He certainly had a human nature as a man but he also had a divine nature as God and in his human nature i think he could have sinned but of course he did'nt. As God he could'nt have sinned but as a man he was really tempted and i think the temptation only means something if it were possible for him to sin but since he overcame real temptation that gives us hope.
So it sounds to me that he had two natures although Jesus may be the only example ever of this which would make him quite unique.

[darinhouston]

This is pretty deep into semantics, I think, but I see the divine and human as separate qualities or attributes of his single nature, much like a King's nature is both human and royal (and may be personable, jovial, or whatever).

[benstenson]

I think his divine attributes did have to be deactivated otherwise he would'nt get tired or hungry or sleepy and in addition he did his miracles not because he was divine but through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10).
He certainly had a human nature as a man but he also had a divine nature as God and in his human nature i think he could have sinned but of course he did'nt. As God he could'nt have sinned but as a man he was really tempted and i think the temptation only means something if it were possible for him to sin but since he overcame real temptation that gives us hope.
So it sounds to me that he had two natures although Jesus may be the only example ever of this which would make him quite unique.

I agree Jesus was a mortal man like us. He had limited strength and knowledge. Jesus either could... or could not... have sinned. It cannot be both - otherwise one part of him could sin while the other part remained holy. That is impossible. It would require two wills. The tree must be either good or bad.

"As God", "As man", "in in his human nature", "in his divine nature" are the kinds of phrases that I referred to in the first post saying, "Adding a second 'nature' removes the contradiction from the foreground allowing the phrase 'according to his [such and such nature]' to be inserted immediately prior to any contradictory statement."

In other words a lot of us have been saying totally contradicting things about Jesus but claim it is not contradictory by saying "according to his humanity" or "in his human nature" or "as a man" etc. If there is no contradiction in saying the same person both could have and could not have sinned... then why is it necessary to claim two separate parts? Why not say it in plain English? It was possible and impossible for him to sin, he was limited in strength and omnipotent, he was omniscient and grew in wisdom, and so on. It is really just like the sound of one hand clapping.

Do you understand what I mean?

[benstenson]

This is pretty deep into semantics, I think, but I see the divine and human as separate qualities or attributes of his single nature, much like a King's nature is both human and royal (and may be personable, jovial, or whatever).

Your analogy seems perfect but I would call royalty a role. If a divine nature means divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc) then Jesus certainly did not have a divine nature while he was mortal. This is great because it allows him to fully relate to us as men.

[steve7150]

In other words a lot of us have been saying totally contradicting things about Jesus but claim it is not contradictory by saying "according to his humanity" or "in his human nature" or "as a man" etc. If there is no contradiction in saying the same person both could have and could not have sinned... then why is it necessary to claim two separate parts? Why not say it in plain English? It was possible and impossible for him to sin, he was limited in strength and omnipotent, he was omniscient and grew in wisdom, and so on. It is really just like the sound of one hand clapping.

Do you understand what I mean?






I think i know what you mean but it just does'nt make sense to me to claim two contradictory things were true simultaneously in that he could'nt have sinned and he could have sinned.
We know he was divine and we know he was man therefore since both can't be his active attributes simultaneously , one part of Jesus must have been deactivated while he was a man. You say it was possible and impossible for him to sin at the same time, i must confess i just don't get it.

[darinhouston]

I don't think the royals would see themselves only in a role -- think of the divine rights of kings. At least in the context I'm speaking of, they don't believe themselves to be merely filling a role. Nobility is born, not assumed.

[benstenson]

I think i know what you mean but it just does'nt make sense to me to claim two contradictory things were true simultaneously in that he could'nt have sinned and he could have sinned.
... You say it was possible and impossible for him to sin at the same time, i must confess i just don't get it.

I'm sorry my post was confusing. I was only pointing out how two natures doesn't change the basic contradictions that a lot of people say. I don't agree at all with that contradicting stuff. I was just showing how it doesn't make any sense, as you also pointed out.

I believe Jesus changed from having a divine form to having a human form. I believe the change was real, so he had the attributes of a man - not omnipotence and omniscience.

Maybe we believe the same thing but are using different words?

I just thought you were saying that Jesus could sin because he was a man but could not sin because he was God. Maybe you did not mean simultaneously? Maybe you meant he could only possibly do wrong while he was on the earth?