To go one step further, Jesus Christ’s role as mediator flows out of this co-indwelling of divinity and humanity, typically called the hypostatic union. The next logical step is to view Jesus Christ as mediator in its chronological order. Was Jesus Christ the mediator before the incarnation? It could be said that His mediating role flows out of His very nature which is self-giving love and is eternal since He is eternal. There is still uniformity within the Godhead, and humanity was in need of a mediator as well as a redeeming-savior before the incarnation. The incarnation made the mediating role of Jesus Christ possible. The hypostatic union that was initiated in the immaculate conception of the incarnation is continued through to the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus Christ. There is a human element within the Trinity today. The humanity did not die off of Jesus Christ prior to the resurrection, leaving only divinity. Augustine says, “He did not so come to us, as to leave the Father. From us He went, and did not leave us”. The incarnation and the hypostatic union is vital for us to understand what it means for Jesus Christ to be our mediator.
A person might ask, “If Jesus Christ was still divine and human after the resurrection, then how is it that two of His disciples didn’t recognize Him as they walked on the road to Emmaus, or that after they had eaten together, He (Jesus) vanished before their eyes (St. Luke 24:13-35)?” I would answer that person by asking, “Why does Jesus show His disciples His hands and His feet?” and say, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have (St. Luke 24:39).” This is the same Jesus Christ that the disciples knew before the crucifixion, as far as His hypostatic union is concerned. The Anglican Article 2 says, “the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided”. The same Son of God who took upon Himself humanity (and humanity took on divinity) at the incarnation, being Jesus Christ (divine and human), is the same Jesus Christ (divine and human) who died on the cross for our sins, and is the same Jesus Christ (divine and human) who was resurrected from the dead. It is also the same Jesus Christ (divine and human) who ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven and mediates on our behalf. The purpose of the incarnation was to redeem humanity back into relationship with the Triune God, which is reciprocal love.
A person may go as far as saying that the reciprocal love of the Trinity can be found in relational-creational terms of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit created humanity in His own image from self-giving love. The relationship is broken and the image is flawed after humanity decided to grasp equality with God. This act is the polar-opposite of the nature of self-giving love. The self-giving love of God is found again in the act of uniting Himself to humanity through the incarnation. The flawed image of God within humanity is only healed by the divine becoming incarnate. Likewise, the void in humanity from a lost relationship can only be filled by the humanity of our Mediator who truly knows our hurts, pain, loneliness, etc. Jesus Christ is still divine and human today. He is our Lord, our Savior, and our Mediator.
No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
-St. John 14:6
Well… that is a very well written, and logically articulated, inancurate article.
Hello Ron!
It is good to see s new post here at Truth Dialogue!
In a short & sweet response I will defend my opening statement.
If I understand the article correctly, the author is corrolating “humanity” with “human nature.” Not Humanity, as a verb, but as a noun.
I will simply say that there is no Humanity in Heaven (period). We will loose all of our human nature when we are made perfect.
Human nature is flawed (imperfect), thus sayeth Matt Gaiser, Jesus Christ no longer has a physical human nature, therefore there is no nature of human in the Trinity…
Merry Christmas!
May God bless you this Chirstmas season as we remember, and worship His Son Jesus Christ whom He sent to die for our sins.
-Matt Gaiser
Matt,
Glad to see you back.
Matt, human nature has been corrupted by sin. Therefore present human nature is “flawed,” to use your words. But we affirm that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, right? Was Jesus’ human nature flawed? By all means, no! We know from Scripture that Adam’s fleshly nature is transmitted through his “seed,” but Jesus did not inherit Adam’s sinful seed. Instead, we see an unblemished humanity, the kind that God had intended in the beginning. It is incorrect to say that human nature is intrinsically sinful, as though sinfulness is an essential component to its nature. Wrong. Sin corrupted true human nature, therefore human nature isn’t sinful by necessity, it has become sinful. For some reason we assume that there is no kind of human nature that is unblemished, and yet that is exactly what God originally created, what Jesus assumed, and what God intends for all of us in the end (or something like it). So saying “human nature” is lost when we go to heaven is actual quite wrong. What is “perfected” is human nature, so that what is lost in heaven isn’t humanity, but fallen humanity. In addition, to reference another topic from long ago (http://truthdialogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/incarnational-implications.html), did Jesus not divinize humanity? I think the consensus of church history might suggest this is so.
So what is Ron intimating? He is not suggesting that there is an element of “fallen” humanity in the Trinity. That’s silly, and if Ron was suggesting that we might all be inclined to burn him at the stake, right Ron? Instead, I think he is suggesting that Jesus assumed human nature (not fallen), and it was the God-man who ascended into heaven and bore humanity into the heart of the Trinity. Yikes! Talk about implications!
Sean,
That was a rather rapid response! 16 min to be exact… I don’t think that I could type your response in 16 min. I am impressed. Seminary must require a bit of keyboarding.
“But we affirm that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, right?”
Yes, correct.
However, Christ, because of His human nature, was “capable” of sin while here on earth.
Why would Christ “need” to maintain His human nature upon ascention?
“He is not suggesting that there is an element of “fallen” humanity in the Trinity. That’s silly, and if Ron was suggesting that we might all be inclined to burn him at the stake, right Ron?”
I agree, on both parts of that previous quote. Just because I love Ron, and if he were saying that, we would need to put him out of his misery.
“I think he is suggesting that Jesus assumed human nature (not fallen), and it was the God-man who ascended into heaven and bore humanity into the heart of the Trinity.”
Hmmm…okay… I am still not sure as to “why” He would need to keep any part of his humanity. He didn’t need it to deal with man before the incarnation, why after?
-Matt Gaiser
Matt,
I am fast like white lightning.
Quickly, I’m not sure that what I said meant that Jesus “had” to maintain his humanity, just that he did. I’m not trying to dump some theological idea onto him with some kind of agenda. I’m simply making conclusions based on the facts. Ron laid out the facts in his initial message; we can observe them quite plainly. Yes, the resurrected Jesus had the ability to move in and out of this 3-dimensional reality to which we are confined. And yet, he had a physical body that could be seen, touched, experienced with the five senses, and could eat and drink the same food and water that we need (not necessarily him though) for sustenance. The eternal Logos assumed human nature, and, from what the evidence suggests, never dismissed it. It appears that he became what he was not and stayed what he became. The Fathers noticed this as well, and they marveled. I think if we were to refine our understanding of what real humanity is supposed to look like and is, then we would look at the ascended God-man and marvel as well. This concept poses no threat to me. Instead it provides me a sense of hope and longing and anticipation for what He has yet in mind for you and for me.
God bless you, brother.
Why is the nature of the hypostatic union still the essence of the personhood of Jesus Christ?
Simply stated, only a divine being could truly save humanity from sin and death. Jesus Christ must be divine. Jesus Christ’s incarnation enables Him to truly know us. Jesus Christ is both divine and human. This is the relational aspect of salvation. We cannot say that we have a relationship with Jesus Christ apart from His humanity. How can anything finite relate to anything infinite? How can a human being inter-relate with a divine being? How is it that Jesus Christ truly understands and knows all that we experience? To be our Mediator, He, in essence, must have one foot in earth and one in heaven (metaphorically speaking).
The mediation between God and man was previously accomplished by a priest set aside by God. Now we have a true mediator through the priesthood of Jesus, who “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverance. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designeated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.(Heb. 5:7-10, ESV)” (Verse 7, “In the days of his flesh” – literally means during the time he had muscle and skin)(We understand that humanity is more than the matter of muscle and skin; humanity includes the duality of material and immaterial)
Just as Jesus Christ’s incarnation cannot be seperated from His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension; His mediating role cannot be seperated from His nature of divinity and humanity forever united within His beingness.
All by the way, nice picture Matt.
Thank you, Ron…
I picked the very best one I could find.
I do have a question for you and/ or anyone.
Several comments have been made to the effect that His incarnation helped Him to truly “know” us.
I am not sure i buy into this, though I think I understand the rationalization behind it.
I never considered that any part of Christ’s coming to earth was to benefit Him at all?
Is the thouhgt that He needed to becaome man, in order to understand man?
I am not sure He gained any “further” knowledge in His taking on Humanity.
I am not arguing this point, I am just stating what I have always “thouhgt.” Please feel free to enlighten me, in your spare time that is…
Matt has asked the question, “Is the thought that He [Jesus Christ] needed to becaome man, in order to understand man? I am not sure He gained any “further” knowledge in His taking on Humanity.”
This is an excellent question and it allows this dialogue to go where it was inteded to go. We now enter the old epistemological question, “How can anyone know anything?” Or, “can anyone truly know?” This study of epistemology usually includes metaphysics, logic, and psychology. Epistemology also includes all speculative philosophy. The other branch of philosophy (or metaphysics) would be ontology which as you know is the study of being. I’m using the word “know” as a means of bridging these philosophies. I’m not sure if that can be done, but I believe that a metaphysical statement of the person of God will take all of our language and then some (i.e. the use of paradoxical descriptions and metaphors to name a few). With this said, “Did the incarnation have to occur for God to truly know humanity?”
The answer is simply “no”. The Psalms are very clear on this matter of God intimately knowing His people. Psalm 139 might be the most eloquent on the subject of epistemology and the tieing toether of sense perception, empiricism, rationalism, and ontology. God knows His people. But, “how do we know that He knows?” This is the ultimate question.
The incarnation is the knitting together of the divine and the human within the very person of Jesus Christ. We can know that He knows us because He became us. He didn’t just come for a visit and then leave and go and be what He was before the visit. No, He took a portion of us back with Him.
I’ve got a family memeber who was raised privledged (in my eyes). This person and his wife cannot relate to the common blue collar person. They pretend they can and I think that they believe that they can, but they can’t. The reason they can’t is because they have never truly been one of us. Oh, sure they can dress the same and somewhat relate to us, but they do not live or have lived where we have lived. They don’t know what it is like to have to be at a job every day with no future hope, very little raises, very little vacation and to do the same thing day-in and day-out without the option of quitting because of survival. They can say they know the blue collar person and pretend to relate, but they will never relate. The Scriptures often talk about Jesus Christ as “a servent” or “the Son of Man”. He became us. I think that it is often easy to think about Jesus’ divinity, but hard to think about His humanity. Many times when we think about Jesus’ humanity we are thinking of post-Genesis chapter 3 type of humanity. I’m not saying that He sinned. He did not sin. But, He did take on humanity and has that same element (beingness) within Him today, therefore taking humanity into the Trinity.
(Believe it or not I still have alot to say on the subject)
Hello Ron, How is life back at CBC treating you?
Now that the reintroduction is out of the way.
Help me understand where you are leading. Since Jesus is both Divine and human, the trinity now contains an element of humanity? I am I right? And this element remains because Jesus still functions as our High Preist?
My question, What if the incarnation is more than functional? What if the incarnation was a place of participation, or intimate knowing, (as I think you are using the term)? Humanity was created in God’s image, so there is an “element of the trinity” within us. Is it hard or wrong-headed to think that God would take on an “element of humanity” in His desire to know and love us?
Chuck Polk
Chuck,
I think you got it. Usually, people immediately associate humanity with sin. This is not the case. As has been articulated.
Since that has been established, we must ask the question, (I guess because of a post-modern/existential mind set) “what does this mean for me?” Or, in ohter words, “what do we have to offer the lonely, or the hurting, or poor, or the addict, or the devorced, or the oppressed, etc.?”
We can offer them, with a clear understanding, a personal-loving-infinite-holy God who not only will take away their sins, but will comfort them. Why? He has been their. He has become human (of course while maintaing his deity…). He can honestly say, “He knows.” “He truly knows”.
Ron,
I agree. We have a God who “truly knows.”
I wonder, however, if the question “What does it mean for me?” is not enough. That question seems to be focused on what God does for me. And we answer that God is with us.
I think there is a deeper quest underneath this self-centered question. “Who am I?” Our knowledge of this world is increasingly uncertain. Who we are is unknown, a social construct.
I wonder if this divine participation and intimate knowing opens up space for us to understand who we are. Not in rational grasping, but in a relational sharing. To understand what it means to be human in relational ways grounded in a relational God, who is more than there with us, but draws us in and gives us a new image, transforming us into people who are most truly human and secure.
I hope my wonderings make sense.
First off I would like to say nice blog. Second I will do my best to make a response that is up to par. These post are great, you guys know your stuff. Third I would like to add a though to Matt’s statement, I will simply say that there is no Humanity in Heaven (period)… Jesus Christ no longer has a physical human nature; therefore there is no nature of human in the Trinity…
Matt thanks for your post. While I imagine that this is hard to grasp, scripture makes it clear that Jesus resurrected body was physical. One day while setting in theology class, this same debate came up. Someone said humanity cannot enter heaven and quoted something Paul said. The prof. said your right…before Christ resurrection humanity could not enter Heaven. He then pointed to that often misused saying of Jesus in John 14:2, “I go to prepare a place.” Many times people use this to say Jesus is building me a home, but if you read the verse – the dwelling places already exist. The prof. made the suggestion that what Jesus meant, is that because He came and shared in our humanity (without sin), He goes back to His Fathers right hand fully God and fully human. Now in the Triune Life…there is Jesus still fully God and fully Human (resurrected). Because He went back fully God and fully Human, we (Humanity) now as C.S. Lewis says can enter that “dance” and partake of the Triune life.
I think the biggest problem is that we in the west is we look at man after the fall and never before the fall and after Christ. He came as John Wesley said to restore in us that “primitive state”.
Grace and Peace
heath
First, I would like to say that I have been doing this because I like to. It is enjoyable. I do not do it for the sake of argument. Secondly I have honestly been doing this with an open mind… although I have not changed it yet
What I keep struggling with is this:
1) God already “knew” what it was like to be man…
Or, I guess what I am saying is. God did not gain any knowledge by becoming man. So to say that He maintained His humanity so that “we” know that “He” knew… just doesn’t hit home with me.
Now, Ron, you said, on this subject:
“Did the incarnation have to occur for God to truly know humanity?”
The answer is simply “no”. The Psalms are very clear on this matter of God intimately knowing His people. Psalm 139 might be the most eloquent on the subject of epistemology and the tying together of sense perception, empiricism, rationalism, and ontology. God knows His people. But, “how do we know that He knows?” This is the ultimate question.
and then you said…
“We can offer them (the lost), with a clear understanding, a personal-loving-infinite-holy God who not only will take away their sins, but will comfort them. Why? He has been their. He has become human (of course while maintaining his deity…). He can honestly say, “He knows.” “He truly knows”.
I understand what you are saying, I just have a hard time “buying it.” I mean Christ never took this approach. Scripture never presents the fact that God “knows” what we are going through, because He has been there. I agree that this is comforting to man. I mean, women who have had miscarriages are far better to comfort those who have had a miscarriage, because they “know” the pain. I just don’t see any Scripture to support this.
While I do not need Scripture to exactly back every single thing I believe, 100%. It does need to at least exhibit the idea or a foundation to base that theology on. We can obviously deduct certain things be studying Scripture, and getting to understand the “character of God.” I just don’t see anything, Scripturally, that backs or even demonstrates this idea.
2) Just because Christ physically ascended from the face of the earth, doesn’t really mean anything, within the context of this discussion (to me)…
Christ could have cleansed Himself of His Humanity at any point, just because His physical body went through the clouds does not mean He maintained any aspect of humanity. To me this like one of my employees saying, “Matt left here yesterday in a brown sweater. He must still be wearing his brown sweater.” That may seem like a simplistic analogy. The point is, it is actually easier for God to “shed” His humanity then it is for me to take off my sweater. He merely has to “will” it. I have to physically remove it. So the fact that He ascended in His physical human body doesn’t really demonstrate anything about His current “state.”
Christ came to die. He came to be the final sacrifice, He came for the Atonement of sins… He came for man, and so that we might have fellowship with Him.
I still have an open mind on this (believe it or not).
I have more to ask, but this is enough for now
-Matt
Hey Matt,
In your response you said the following:
“I understand what you are saying, I just have a hard time “buying it.” I mean Christ never took this approach. Scripture never presents the fact that God “knows” what we are going through, because He has been there. I agree that this is comforting to man. I mean, women who have had miscarriages are far better to comfort those who have had a miscarriage, because they “know” the pain. I just don’t see any Scripture to support this.”
Remember what Hebrews 4:14-6 says:
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may recieve mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” – English Standard Version
One of the the things that the author of Hebrews is trying to show the readers is the supremacy of Christ. In doing so, the author notes that one of the reasons for His supremacy is the fact that He is a God who has come to earth and He has experienced the same things we have – even temptation. Therefore, as a result of the fact that He knows what we are going through, because He has experienced it, we are able to come before His throne with boldness. He is a God who knows because He is a God that has experienced human life – and Scripture does back that assertion up.
Also, while there is more I would like to add, may I ask what is it exactly about the possiblilty of Christ retaining His humanity that troubles you? Is it the connection of Christ with humanity in heaven? Is it an issue with humanity in general? Just curious.
Troy
Troy,
You asked:
Is it the connection of Christ with humanity in heaven? Is it an issue with humanity in general?
No, neither. What I have a problem with is the concept that, by God becoming man, that He gained knowledge.
I don’t think that God “grew” in knowledge. If He did, then He was not all knowing.
How can He be, “All Knowing” and then grow, in His all knowing wisdom.
-Matt
Hey Matt,
Let me begin with addressing the issue of God’s omniscience. Usually in Christian circles when we say that word or we talk about God being “all knowing”, what we usually mean is that God knows everything. Yet, if we do not properly define what we mean by that then we may be leading others into an erroneous understanding about God and His knowledge; or perhaps we even have an erroneous understanding ourselves.
When we talk about God’s knowledge we need to remember that is not so much an “all knowing” knowledge as it is a knowledge of choice. That is to say, God knows everything that God chooses to know. Now, at first that may strick us as heresy. Yet once again in the book of Hebrews we have the following:
“then he adds, ‘I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.’” Hebrews 10:17 (ESV)
Therefore, God knows everything He chooses to know, and praise the Lord their are things that He forgets and has no more knowledge of. I include that because I think it is an important part about God’s knoweldge that we must remember as we talk about God being all knowing.
Secondly though, let me ask, Is there knowledge that can be gained through experience that doesn’t so much give us more knowledge so much as it gives us a different kind of knowledge? For instance, taking your miscarriage example, it is possible for my wife to study all about miscarriages and to know what women go through. Yet, if she was to go through it herself and experience a mischariage then chances are she would not gain more knowledge about mischarages so much as she would have a different kind of knowledge – it would be an experiential knowledge.
Therefore, the knowledge that God gained was not one in the sense that He learned something new about humanity that He didn’t know before, so much as it was that He gained an experiential knowledge of human experience and life.
Does that make sense?
Troy
P.S. If Jesus shed His humanity when He ascended, then where did it go? Where did it go after He was ressurected from the dead and then went to see the Father? If He shed it at that time also, then where did He keep it so that He could put it on again when He came back to the disciples? Just curious.
Matt,
I am so thankful that you are with us here on Alitheia Dialegomai. You bring so much to the table, and your persistence and inquisitiveness are challenging.
I completely sympathize with where you’re coming from. You are not the only one who is troubled by what appear to be some of the implications of these ideas. And even though those of us who have been expressing them do so as though they are simple truths, the fact is that they are not. I think even the most seasoned and accomplished scholar will spend his life grinding these thoughts through his head. Shame on any of us who so tritely speak of anything about God, as though God can be exhaustively understood.
But in the midst of our reverence and self-acknowledged feebleness of minds, we cannot ever forget that God has revealed himself to us. There are some things that we can know about him.
What do we know about the Incarnation? We know that the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnate and was born of a human virgin. God’s eternal Son took on another nature, and together in the person Jesus Christ those natures existed in perfect harmony. But something must be noted in this incarnational reality: The Second Person emptied himself of certain attributes of deity. Yes, he was still 100% divine in his essence, but he emptied himself of many of his attributes. While incarnate in a human body, was Jesus omnipresent? As a new born infant, and as a child inquiring in the temple, was Jesus omniscient? The obvious answers to these questions is, “no.”
If we were to say then that by becoming incarnate God “knew” our condition, is that in any way infringing upon his divinity? Well, I suppose that depends on our usage of “knew.” Yes, God is omniscient. But as Troy has so eloquently stated, what God knows is a decision of his will. He chooses what to know and what not to know. “Knowledge” is not sovereign to God, he is not subservient to it. He chooses to know what he chooses to know; he does not know something because it can be known, that would mean that “knowledge” is somehow greater than God. Keep in mind that the willful acts of God are always selfless and others-oriented. Therefore, if the Second Person of the Trinity chose to empty himself of some of his divine attributes, take on the form of human flesh, and therefore experience humanity from the inside out, I do not see how that in any way compromises his divinity.
Matt, do you believe that Jesus was literally tempted in the wilderness? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God cannot be tempted? The truth is that Jesus, in his divinized humanity, subjected himself to every form of temptation common to man. While in theory God could “know” what it means to be tempted given that there is an intellectual knowledge about the subject, he could not “know” temptation unless he experienced it–at least know it like we know it, from our perspective. Furthermore, he subjected himself to every experience common to man. Did God ever hunger in eternity past? Did God ever get tired in eternity past? Did God ever have a stomach ache? What happens in the incarnation is that we see an eternal and transcendent God condescend, take on a common humanity, and experience everything we experience. This gracious act of God does not necessarily change Him per se, it changes us, for it tells us of God’s complete selflessness and interest in man, and that, just as Jesus was tempted and yet did not sin, so too can we. The experiential knowledge that Jesus “gained” was not so that God could become complete in his knowledge, but it was for our benefit. Because of Jesus, human persons can look at the transcendent God and say, “He knows what it feels like to be tempted. He knows what it feels like to be tired and worn down. He experienced my condition, and he knows me more than in just some objective, external, intellectual way, he knows me in a very personal, experiential, actual way.” There are a million implications of the incarnation for human reality.
In Colossians we read that we “who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body.” It is in the fleshly body of Jesus that divinity and humanity were perfectly and eternally reconciled and united. Jesus divinized the human nature. At the ascension, what we know is that this divinized humanity in the resurrected and now glorified Jesus, ascended into heaven. You may say, “but he shed his human nature on the way up.” With what evidence do you make such a claim? If you do so from some deep theological premise, what be your premise? What is your theological commitment that causes you to resort to speculation instead of believing in the light that has been given? In addition, what would be the theological implications of Jesus shedding his humanity? Would divinity and humanity still be united? If so, where? If Jesus no longer is the God-man (in whatever way he exists as such) then can we go to him as our great high priest? Can he interceded for a humanity that he no longer is in union with? Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit, as the essence of the divine, can dwell in human people, then why cannot the essence of humanity dwell in the being of God? Why do we take the former for granted and yet recoil at the latter? Is it any less of a miracle or mystery that a human person can have the very nature of God within him? I think not. Keep in mind that we are not talking about the fallen human nature. The nature that Jesus assumed was not in any way tainted with the stain of Adam’s sin as transmitted through his seed. Although having a human nature, Jesus did not have the fallen human nature that you and I had at birth. He took humanity, and through perfect obedience to God, made it holy in a way it had never been holy before, even before the Fall. So, assuming Jesus ascended into heaven still the God-man, we are not saying that he drew sin into the heart of the Trinity in any way. That would be most blasphemous indeed.
In the end, Matt, none of us have all the answers. There is so much to know and so much to experience. As I expressed earlier I am so thankful for your participation here on this blog. We all truly need one another to sharpen each other and grow in grace. I know that I am personally challenged by your witness and eagerness to know, be, and do. God bless you, brother. May the dialogue continue!
Thank you Sean, and T.R.
Firstly, Texas Redneck. I agree that everything you say “could” be true. I whole heartedly agree that God chooses to “know,” and not to know certain things.
What I struggle with is that He “needed” to come and “be” man in order to “know” what being a man was like. Let’s assume for a minute, that He chose not to know what it was like to be human. Then He decided to “know.” He could have just “willed to know,” and had full knowledge of humanity. I understand that “we” can not experience others emotions just by “wanting” to, but He could. He could have stood in Heaven, closed His eyes (or not) and “willed” to know what it was like to be man. He could have “experienced” being Human, without ever being human. He could have experienced all of the emotion of a lifetime of temptation, pain, etc… in a single instance…If He really wanted to “know.”
My point is, He did not have to actually become man, to “know” what it is like to be man.
Although, in that, maybe He didn’t want to will it, but He “could” have.
You said, “Secondly though, let me ask, Is there knowledge that can be gained through experience that doesn’t so much give us more knowledge so much as it gives us a different kind of knowledge?”
Yes, for man, we can gain a knowledge through experience, that is different than just knowing the aspects of something.
But, for God, He does not need the “factor” of experience.
What I am really trying to get to is, what “evidence” is there that Christ ascended with His humanity.
You asked,
“Therefore, the knowledge that God gained was not one in the sense that He learned something new about humanity that He didn’t know before, so much as it was that He gained an experiential knowledge of human experience and life.
Does that make sense?”
Yes. It does. My question is, does experiential knowledge exist within the realm of God? I am not so sure it does. As I stated above, God can “experience” something, without ever experiencing it. If He so chooses.
Sean,
I agree with your statement on the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
I do not think that Him coming, and experiencing humanity, takes away from His Divinity in any way. I just do not think He needed to become man, so that He could know what it was like… but now I am repeating myself.
As far as Him being man, I agree again with everything you said. He did experience pain, He got tired, He was truly tempted. That, however, was for us, as man, to know that we have the same capacity to suffer as He did, and refrain from sin. Again, He did it for us, not Him.
You said,
“”He knows what it feels like to be tempted. He knows what it feels like to be tired and worn down. He experienced my condition, and he knows me more than in just some objective, external, intellectual way, he knows me in a very personal, experiential, actual way.”
I agree. For us as man, it is easier to comprehend if we think of it like this. If God so chose, could He not have just said, “I know what you suffer, and I know you in a personal way, and I know every condition that you experience, because I choose to know.”
You may say, “but he shed his human nature on the way up.” With what evidence do you make such a claim?
Sean, I don’t think I said that, “He shed His humanity on the way up.” What I said was. “Christ could have cleansed Himself of His Humanity at any point, just because His physical body went through the clouds does not mean He maintained any aspect of humanity… So the fact that He ascended in His physical human body doesn’t really demonstrate anything about His current “state.” What I was trying to demonstrate is that, the fact that He ascended physically, and with His humanity in tact is not “proof” or even the slightest bit of evidence that He kept it. To base, or to argue, the belief that He kept His humanity, because He ascended with it is a weak foundation.
Sean: What is your theological commitment that causes you to resort to speculation instead of believing in the light that has been given?
Well… I don’t think that I speculated what you thought I did.
Sean: In addition, what would be the theological implications of Jesus shedding his humanity? Would divinity and humanity still be united?
Now, that! my brother… is a good question. The answer to that question may be the most solid evidence that He kept His humanity. That is a solid foundation to base the assumption on. I will have to think about that a great deal.
If so, where? If Jesus no longer is the God-man (in whatever way he exists as such) then can we go to him as our great high priest? Can he interceded for a humanity that he no longer is in union with? Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit, as the essence of the divine, can dwell in human people, then why cannot the essence of humanity dwell in the being of God?
I would say because He is God, and He “chooses” to be immanent with us. I am not sure that Him shedding His humanity would keep Him from being in union with us.
Off the top of my head… I would say that the answer to how He can maintain unity with man lies in the “power of the blood.” His blood made it possible.
Please know, everyone, that I am truly intrigued by this discussion, I do not take offence, nor do I mean to offend. I greatly appreciate your time in dialoguing with me.
In Him,
-Matt
Oh… I forgot.
One more thing. If, in His humanity, He experienced all these things (pain, suffering, temptation, etc…), which He did, there is no question about that, and He kept His humanity, then you would have to believe that He would (within His humanity), be capable of all those experiences now.
I obviously do not hold to the fact that God can be tempted to “sin.”
I also do not pretend that you are even saying this, nor implying it. I know full well that none of you believe this… I think…
But what I am asking is, if He kept His humanity, then how do you get around the fact that He can not sin. I mean if He kept His humanity, then He would at least have the capsity to do so? Right? Or am I missing something.
I understnad that He is 100% divine…But He was 100% divine here on earth too.
Okay… Sean, take a deep breath, relax, and be nice to me, please.
-Matt
Matt,
Ok, I have taken a deep breath. Inhale. Exhale. Breathe, Sean, breathe. Ok, I think I am ready to respond now.
Actually, in all seriousness, I’m afraid that this discussion may be approaching its limits in what can be said – at least by me anyway. There is a lot of research that could be done, and actually has been done, on the subject that I haven’t the time to perform or review. However, in the interest of dialogue, I will attempt at least one more stab at the topic.
Let me begin by responding to a several your recent comments, Matt, since this seems to be the approach that works best.
“Christ could have cleansed Himself of His Humanity at any point”
First of, whether or not he could have done this has never the been the question. The question is more about whether or not he did. And before we ever think of trying to answer that question I would be forced to ask why he would. For what reason would Jesus need to be “cleansed” of his human nature, Matt? I have already tried to establish that the human nature he assumed was not tainted by Adam’s sin. It was not a fallen humanity. On the contrary, it was an unblemished humanity that he perfected and glorified in his death and resurrection (which was bodily, and yet more than bodily — supra-bodily, since he could appear and disappear at will and still maintain his fleshly scars). So what reason do we have to think that he would in any way need to “cleanse” himself of a perfect and glorified human nature? Whether or not he could isn’t really debatable. But it seems to me that the incarnation and atonement (which can never be separated on any terms) seek to reveal to mankind that God and man have been uniquely and definitively united in the body of Jesus Christ, and united for all eternity. Which brings me to another comment of yours:
I am not sure that Him shedding His humanity would keep Him from being in union with us.”
Then how else could we have union with God? If not through Jesus, then through what? To say anything other than through his body would be to contradict the explicit truths of Scripture. Hebrews 10 (19-22) tell us that we enter into the presence of God through the body and blood of Jesus, that is because it is only in the sacrifice of the God-man that communion with God is possible. To say it is possible in any other way (whether or not God could do it another way) would be to contradict Scripture.
“To base, or to argue, the belief that He kept His humanity, because He ascended with it is a weak foundation.”
No weaker than an argument that bases its premise on speculation. Not only are there great theological implications riding on this issue, but the last eye witness accounts were of Jesus ascending in a glorified human body. Sure, we could speculate on what happened on the other side of the clouds, but that would be nothing but speculation. I agree, this is not a definitive proof, but it is at least based on evidence whereas the opposite is purely speculative.
Hebrews 4:14 – “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.”
“If, in His humanity, He experienced all these things (pain, suffering, temptation, etc…), which He did, there is no question about that, and He kept His humanity, then you would have to believe that He would (within His humanity), be capable of all those experiences now.”
Not necessarily. Do you believe that in heaven you will have a glorified body? I sure hope so. Physical resurrection from the dead is an orthodox Christian belief. But let me ask you this: Do you believe that in heaven you will feel pain? suffering? temptation? I sure hope not. Need we be comforted once more with the words of Revelation 21:3-4:
“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
‘See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them;
he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away.’”
Christ’s resurrection is the basis for our resurrection. If he rose from the dead bodily, we too will rise from the dead bodily. If he rose from the dead, but then somewhere between here and heaven his humanity was absolved, what does that say about us? I shudder to think of the possibilities.
“I obviously do not hold to the fact that God can be tempted to ‘sin’… But what I am asking is, if He kept His humanity, then how do you get around the fact that He can not sin. I mean if He kept His humanity, then He would at least have the capacity to do so? Right? Or am I missing something.”
Once again, your comment raises two very important questions. 1. If Jesus was divine on earth, how then was he tempted? And, 2. When you are one day in heaven, in your glorified humanity, do you think you will still have the capacity to sin? I will answer neither of these questions, but will let them stand as a statement on their own.
Ok, now that I have responded to a couple of your comments that stuck out to me, let me just do one more thing. I read through Hebrews real quick to try to find a few verses of Scripture that might help us a little.
2:10 – “It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.”
How is Jesus “made perfect” through sufferings? How do sufferings make him “complete” if he is divine?
2:16-18 – “For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.”
Why did Jesus “have to” become like the descendants of Abraham in every respect in order to “help” them? Why did he have to be “tested by what he suffered” in order to be “able to help those who are being tested”?
5:8-9 – “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.”
He “learned” obedience through what he suffered? I thought he already knew everything and had nothing to learn. And why did he have to be “made perfect” in order to become the source of salvation?
7:26-28 – “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.”
and
9:24, 26 – “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf… he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
It seems to me that the basic message of the gospel is that the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature in addition to his divine nature at the incarnation. However this works, we do not know. The bottom line is that the dual natures of Jesus is ultimately a mystery, but it is a mystery that we depend upon for all our theology. This same Jesus died on a cross, his divinity representing the one offended, his humanity representing the one who offends. Both parties have been reconciled and unified in one body. This same Jesus rose bodily from the dead, yet more than bodily. He perfected and glorified humanity and serves as the basis for our forgiveness and also for our resurrection on the final day. He ascended into heaven, passed through the skies, into the direct presence of God, and serves as a high priest on our behalf by the sacrifice of himself. No where does Scripture indicate that his humanity was somehow “cleansed” between here and heaven, nor is there any theological necessity for such a concept. In fact, I would say that the real theological fallout would come if we were to say the opposite. I would think that instead of being opposed to the idea that Jesus remains the God-man for eternity we should be overjoyed. It means that we will forever have union with God through him. It means he took upon humanity and drew it into the very heart of God. It means that, just as he desires to inter-dwell in us through his Holy Spirit (however that works), so may we inter-dwell in Him. Is that not the beauty of perichoresis, the life-to-life transferal, the interpenetrating reality that defines our relationship to God? How beautiful the doctrine that says that we may be in him and him in us, that we may have perfect communion without loss of identity. John 14:20 – “On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.”
My feeble mind cannot answer all the questions. I cannot fully reconcile the Scriptures I quoted earlier. I know there are better answers out there than I can give. That is why it is incumbent upon you (in fact, all of us) to keep thinking, keep searching, keep committing your mind to the rigors of study. You do not have to agree with me or anyone else on this blog, but at the same time do not allow your preconceived notions of God to prevent you from delving more deeply into the revelation of who he is. Let him open your mind to his reality. Let him expand your horizon. I think you are headed down that road, Matt. Keep pressing towards that goal.
If this topic intrigues you so much, why not commit more time and attention to it? Not for this blog, mind you, although that would be perfectly acceptable, but in other areas of your life and studies. I think you would find great value in reading from the church fathers on this topic. There is a lot there to hear and learn from. I know I feel challenged to examine what the church has had to say on the issue. We cannot figure this thing out on our own. We need each other and all those who have gone before us (and of course, above all else, the Holy Spirit) to show us the way.
Matt, I hope none of this post has come across as angry or “loud.” I know the language I use when I type can come across as rather abrasive sometimes. Try as I may, I cannot fully change my writing habits. Please accept this post out of love and humility and common interest in seeking and knowing him fully in the depths of who I am.
Matt,
I also think I have come to the end of my discussion. This has been a good dialogue and I thank you for your interaction. Much like Sean, I would encourage you to keep digging, thinking, and studing this topic – as should we all. There are too many theological implications at stake for us to not keep digging and striving to come to a deeper understanding of truth. Thanks for the great discussion.
Troy
P.S. Where did Ron go?
Sean,
Brother Scribner… you have NEVER come across as angey or loud. And as the Lord God Almighty knows full well that I have tried to get you to do so.
Of course, I have this proffesor in Bible College who encourages me to…
TR – Ron “thinks” he is busy. Just because he is teaching 7 different classes (one of them 1hr away from campus), and going to school (also 45min. away) for his masters(again) he says he has trouble finding time to blog? Oh yeah… he also said something about having a wife, and two kids…
Hey thanks guys.
I appreciate your comments.
Just so you know, I do not disagree with what you are saying. I can discern certain things, because of my understanding (in it’s infancy) of Scripture. I just do not feel that I could articualte, based on what has been said in this blog, a clear position on this topic…
Sean, Ron is supposed to be getting me the names of some good “Church History” books for my self-study… if you have any recommendations, let me know. Unfortunately I do not get to take any Church History courses in Bible College. (Strange huh?)
I think it should be mandatory.
In Him,
-Matt
Matt,
Ron is a big sissy. You tell him I said that, along with everyone down here in Mississippi who knows him as well as I do.
As for a suggested early source on the topic at hand, I would probably (Athanasius) tell you to just go with what Ron points you towards. He’s the church (Athanasius) historian here. I guarantee you that (Athanasius) any suggestion that (Athanasius) I would make will be suggested to you by Athanasius- I mean Ron.
(Use your spiritual gift of discernment to decipher my encrypted suggestion)
If you just cannot wait until Ron gets back to you (seeing as how he is so busy), check out a couple of our past blog articles. Here are a few I would recommend:
Incarnational Implications
Chalcedonian Definition
Who He Is – scroll through the comments on this one, take special note of Steve Blakemore’s final comment at the bottom.
I think these suggestions should get you started on continuing thought on the topic. Just to let you know, you are not the only one who will be continuing thought after this dialogue ends. All of us should constantly be evaluating our Christology on a day to day basis. We must stay sharp and focused and ready at a moment’s notice to not only articulate objective truth to the world but demonstrate its transforming implications with our lives. And as a side note, I will be directing my graduate studies in this area as well. So maybe one day after I am old, wrinkly, and grizzled I can say something that makes a little more sense on the matter….most likely I won’t, but God has performed great miracles in the past.
God bless you all.
I thought I answered everyone’s questions…heck…I was hanging on my every word. I was celebrating my epiphany in communion with the Triune God who truly knows me. I’m sorry for the laps in time, it seemed but only as a moment to me.
-Athanasius Ron
Oh yea, I more thing. During the Reformation period, the Reformers were hammering out their theology. One of the main points of contention was over a theology of “the Lord’s Supper” (Reformers changed the name from Eucharist). The Catholic Church beleived in transubstantiation. Luther believed in consubstantiation, while Ulrich Zwingli believed and taught it as simply a memorial meal.
Zwingli’s argument was in reaction to the Catholics and to Luther. Zwingli, being somewhat of a Neo-platonist, argued that the elements do not become the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor (like Luther) is Christ’s presence above, around, under, and beside the elements. He said that Jesus Christ’s human body is localized in heaven (remember- Neo-platonist: a dichonomy between spiritual and earthly). Therefore, since Jesus Christ’s body is “localized” in heaven, He cannot become the material elements or be so present as to be all around the elements.
Interesting.
(Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999), p.406-407.
That’s all…I’ll stop before Sean gets mad.