“Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Jude now turns to a pre-Flood historical situation about Enoch.
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam,
We find Enoch in Genesis 5:4-20 and Hebrews 11:5. He walked with God in a declining culture. Enoch made it patently obvious that God would judge the world. God translated Enoch from the earth without dying. He may be typical of the future church that will be translated to heaven without dying. The Rapture of the church is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament.
And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. Ge 5:24
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Heb 11:5
Although Jude attributes a prophecy to Enoch (Jude 14-15), nowhere does the Old Testament indicate that Enoch said these things. The quotation may have been taken by Jude from the apocryphal Book of Enoch—a book not accepted as inspired by God. However, God assigns inspiration to this prophecy, as quoted in the book of Jude.
prophesied about these men also, saying,
Enoch prophesied of the events previous to verse 14. He prophesied of coming apostates.
The word “behold” is dramatic, a word that calls for a parting of the curtain to see the statue. The “behold” here calls attention to the coming of the Lord.
the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,
This prophecy will have preliminary fulfillment when the Lord returns after the Tribulation at the Second Coming.
to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds
The word “ungodly” occurs four times in this one verse. The word “all” indicates the universality of judgment on all ungodly. “Ungodly” refers to doctrinal fallacy. The Lord will execute judgment on false teachers.
which they have committed in an ungodly way,
The word “ungodly” is not a synonym for immoral. Religionists might be moral but not godly. Many nice, religious people are without God—at least, without the true God.
and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
God will convict the ungodly for their false teachings—”spoken against Him.” It is the tendency of false teachers to speak against Christ and His finished work on the cross.
Prophecy is clear about the future.
The Lord Jesus will come in two stages: (1) the Rapture and (2) the Second Coming. At the Rapture, He will come for the saints; at the Second Coming, He will come with the saints. At the Rapture, He will come in clouds. At the Second Coming, He will come to the earth itself. The first coming is to receive the Church unto Himself. The Second Coming is to establish His kingdom on earth. In the Second Coming, He will fulfill the unconditional promises of the Old Testament, such as the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. These covenants (contracts) were given to Israel so that He will establish Israel’s kingdom for her. The purpose of the Tribulation is to bring Israel back to God to receive her kingdom.
Greg, It may be more correct in the context of my point to say: “Thus, Jesus not only possessed material aspects of humanity but also immaterial. He was more than a human body; He had a soul and spirit as well.”
OK – so this statement returns us to a long standing question –
“Thus, Jesus not only possessed material aspects of humanity but also immaterial. He was more than a human body; He had a soul and spirit as well.”
But first – when you say – “had a soul and spirit” – please confirm that you mean HUMAN soul and spirit. Yes?
My long standing question – who is and what is the “HE” that “had a [human] soul and spirit…”?
Greg, the Son of God voluntarily set aside the USE of His incommunicable attributes to take on human soul and spirit which includes human attributes.
Would we say that Grant HAS a human soul and spirit?
The issue I am wrestling with is – WHO and WHAT is Grant?? HOW is Grant to be distinguished from Grant’s “soul” and Grant’s “spirit” – what else – and, evidently, “who” else is there that makes “the man” Grant.
Greg, Grant is a soul: intellect, sensibility and will. My “spirit” is my spiritual capacity. Will is my faculty of volition.
I hope you can see my confusion –
Grant IS a human soul.
Jesus HAS a human soul. What is the meaningful difference between these two human souls?? Is Jesus human soul LACKING something that Grant’s human soul has (despite Jesus being made in all points as we are…)??
The corollary – what is the distinction between “person” and “soul”?
Greg, here is some information of a course that I taught some years ago. Sorry I can’t give you my sources since it was so long ago:
MEANING OF HYPOSTATIC UNION
The hypostatic union may be defined as “the second person, the preincarnate Christ came and took to Himself a human nature and remains forever undiminished Deity and true humanity united in one person forever.” When Christ came, a Person came, not just a nature; He took on an additional nature, a human nature—He did not simply dwell in a human person. The result of the union of the two natures is the theanthropic Person (the God-man).
EXPLANATION OF HYPOSTATIC UNION
The two natures of Christ are inseparably united without mixture or loss of separate identity. He remains forever the God-man, fully God and fully man, two distinct natures in one Person forever. “Though Christ sometimes operated in the sphere of His humanity and in other cases in the sphere of His deity, in all cases what He did and what He was could be attributed to His one Person. Even though it is evident that there were two natures in Christ, He is never considered a dual personality.” In summarizing the hypostatic union, three facts are noted: (1) Christ has two distinct natures: humanity and deity; (2) there is no mixture or intermingling of the two natures; (3) although He has two natures, Christ is one Person.
PROBLEM OF HYPOSTATIC UNION
The major difficulty in this doctrine involves the relationship of the two natures in the Lord Jesus. Several opinions on this point have developed.
Calvinistic view. John Calvin taught that the two natures are united without any transfer of attributes. An attribute could not be taken away from a nature without changing the essence of that nature. Walvoord states, “The two natures are united without loss of any essential attributes and that the two natures maintain their separate identity.” There can be no mixture of the two natures; “infinity cannot be transferred to finity; mind cannot be transferred to matter; God cannot be transferred to man, or vice versa. To rob the divine nature of God of a single attribute would destroy His deity, and to rob man of a single human attribute would result in destruction of a true humanity. It is for this reason that the two natures of Christ cannot lose or transfer a single attribute.”
Lutheran view. The Lutheran view of the two natures teaches that attributes of the divine nature are extended to the human nature with some important results. One important doctrinal result is the ubiquity of the human body of Christ, that is, the omnipresence of the divine nature of Christ is transferred to the human body of Christ. Consequently, the human nature of Christ passed into a ubiquitous state at the ascension and is physically present in the elements of holy communion. Although the elements do not change, the person partakes of Christ who is “in, with, under and by” the bread and cup.
RESULTS OF HYPOSTATIC UNION
Both natures are necessary for redemption. As a man, Christ could represent man and die as a man; as God the death of Christ could have infinite value “sufficient to provide redemption for the sins of the world.”
The eternal priesthood of Christ is based on the hypostatic union. “By incarnation He became Man and hence could act as a human Priest. As God, His priesthood could be everlasting after the order of Melchizedek, and He properly could be a Mediator between God and man.”
KENOSIS AND HYPOSTATIC UNION
The kenosis problem involves the interpretation of Philippians 2:7, “(He) emptied [Gk. ekenosen] Himself.” The critical question is: Of what did Christ empty Himself? Liberal theologians suggest Christ emptied Himself of His deity, but it is evident from His life and ministry that He did not, or His deity was displayed on numerous occasions. Two main points may be made. (1) “Christ merely surrendered the independent exercise of some of his relative or transitive attributes. He did not surrender the absolute or immanent attributes in any sense; He was always perfectly holy, just, merciful, truthful, and faithful.” This statement has merit and provides a solution to problem passages such as Matthew 24:36. The key word in this definition would be “independent” because Jesus did on many occasions reveal His relative attributes. (2) Christ took to Himself an additional nature. The context of Philippians 2:7 provides the best solution to the kenosis problem. The emptying was not a subtraction but an addition. The four following phrases (Phil. 2:7–8) explain the emptying: “(a) taking the form of a bond-servant, and (b) being made in the likeness of men. And (c) being found in appearance as a man, (d) He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death.” The “emptying” of Christ was taking on an additional nature, a human nature with its limitations. His deity was never surrendered.
We spoke briefly of the early Christological heresies and the development of a “mainstream Christology” within the tradition that asserts that Jesus is “fully human and fully divine”. Some of the early heresies, as I understand them, are summarized as follows:
ARIANISM is the heresy that Jesus is not divine, and Christ was a created being (subordinate to God the Father). In this scheme of things, Christ had been the first created person. (Promoted by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, c 250-336 A.D. )
ADOPTIONISM is the heresy that Jesus was the adopted son of God, and NOT co-eternal with God the Father. (It is also known as Dynamic Monarchism). According to this error, Jesus was elevated to godhood either at His baptism or after His resurrection
DOCETISM is derived from the Greek term dokeo, which means to “seem” or “appear”. Docetism being the heresy that:
a.) Jesus was God the Father and only appeared to be human, and/or
b.) Jesus didn’t really die on the cross but was replaced there by Simon of Cyrene or by Judas Iscariot. (Some Moslems believe that Simon died in place of Jesus. There was also a Gnostic variant of Docetism. )
APOLLINARIANISM is the heresy that Christ took on only a fleshly human nature, and not full humanity. (So-called because it was originally promoted by Apollinaris the Younger (c. 310-c. 390), bishop of Laodicea in Syria). Apollinaris taught that Jesus had a divine mind and divine soul, but not a human mind or human soul. He conceded that Jesus had a human body; yet a spiritual one not fully human.
EUTYCHIANISM is the heresy that Jesus had neither a human nature nor a divine nature, but a third kind. This “theantropic” nature was part-God and part-human. A combined human/divine being not fully God or fully human.
NESTORIANISM is the heresy that Christ’s two natures (human and divine) are two different persons in one and not two natures inseparably joined in one person. (Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D.)
EBIONISM is the heresy that Jesus was a created being and not God. A prophet, perhaps even an angel, but in no way divine.
GNOSTICISM – promoters of this view were Simon Magus, Marcion, Saturninus, Cerinthus and Basilides. The dating of its origin is uncertain but it was the most ancient, predating Christ. This comes from the word gnosis meaning to know. This was a philosophical system built on Greek philosophy that taught matter was evil and the Spirit was good. They taught docetism which promoted a clear separation between the material and spiritual world. Christian Gnostics said that because matter was evil, God could not really incarnate in a human body, he only appeared in human form and only appeared to suffer; it was an illusion.
SABELLIANISM (Modalism, patripassionism) Sabellius, Praxeus, Noetus, Epigonus said the one God reveals himself in three modes of being. Although Dynamic modalism said that the deity was limited to the father alone Modalistic Monarchianism deified the Son also. Saying the unity of god is one essence that could be interchangeable as the Father, Son, Spirit.
MONOPHYSITISM is the heresy that the human nature of Christ was swallowed by the divine nature to create a new third nature – a tertium quid.
Thanks for the follow-up – EGADS! that is a lot of material!
I am wondering if you could provide the specifics from the above that relate to the issue I identified – which may be stated as
What is the difference between the “I” and the “soul”? The corollary – what is the distinction between “person” and “soul”?
Same issue – slightly different approach –
You stated –
Grant IS a human soul.
Jesus HAS a human soul.
My question –
What is the meaningful difference between these two human souls?? Is Jesus human soul LACKING something that Grant’s human soul has (despite Jesus being made in all points as we are…)??
My corollary question
If God the Son did not incarnate in Jesus – would Jesus be able to fully function in the same way that you and I are able to fully function without an incarnated deity….?? If not, what is Jesus missing that we have?
I trust you can see the issue I am driving at – which usually gets lost in all the data – and, thus, I focus on it.
Thanks so much,
Greg, if you study the 7 alternatives the answer to your question lies there. The issue of “soul” and “person” in Scripture varies in different contexts so there is no simple answer to your question.
Maybe this quote from Grudem may help:
The Incarnation: Deity and Humanity in the One Person of Christ
The biblical teaching about the full deity and full humanity of Christ is so extensive that both have been believed from the earliest times in the history of the church. But a precise understanding of how full deity and full humanity could be combined together in one person was formulated only gradually in the church and did not reach the final form until the Chalcedonian Definition in A.D. 451. Before that point, several inadequate views of the person of Christ were proposed and then rejected. One view, Arianism, which held that Jesus was not fully divine, was discussed above in the chapter on the doctrine of the Trinity.32 But three other views that were eventually rejected as heretical should be mentioned at this point.
1. Three Inadequate Views of the Person of Christ.
a. Apollinarianism: Apollinaris, who became bishop in Laodicea about A.D. 361, taught that the one person of Christ had a human body but not a human mind or spirit, and that the mind and spirit of Christ were from the divine nature of the Son of God. This view may be represented as in figure 26.1.
But the views of Apollinaris were rejected by the leaders of the church at that time, who realized that it was not just our human body that needed salvation and needed to be represented by Christ in his redemptive work, but our human minds and spirits (or souls) as well: Christ had to be fully and truly man if he was to save us (Heb. 2:17). Apollinarianism was rejected by several church councils, from the Council of Alexandria in A.D. 362 to the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.
b. Nestorianism: Nestorianism is the doctrine that there were two separate persons in Christ, a human person and a divine person, a teaching that is distinct from the biblical view that sees Jesus as one person. Nestorianism may be diagramed as in figure 26.2.
Nestorius was a popular preacher at Antioch, and from A.D. 428 was bishop of Constantinople. Although Nestorius himself probably never taught the heretical view that goes by his name (the idea that Christ was two persons in one body, rather than one person), through a combination of several personal conflicts and a good deal of ecclesiastical politics, he was removed from his office of bishop and his teachings were condemned.33
It is important to understand why the church could not accept the view that Christ was two distinct persons. Nowhere in Scripture do we have an indication that the human nature of Christ, for example, is an independent person, deciding to do something contrary to the divine nature of Christ. Nowhere do we have an indication of the human and divine natures talking to each other or struggling within Christ, or any such thing. Rather, we have a consistent picture of a single person acting in wholeness and unity. Jesus always speaks as “I,” not as “we,”34 though he can refer to himself and the Father together as “we” (John 14:23). The Bible always speaks of Jesus as “he,” not as “they.” And, though we can sometimes distinguish actions of his divine nature and actions of his human nature in order to help us understand some of the statements and actions recorded in Scripture, the Bible itself does not say “Jesus’ human nature did this” or “Jesus’ divine nature did that,” as though they were separate persons, but always talks about what the person of Christ did. Therefore, the church continued to insist that Jesus was one person, although possessing both a human nature and a divine nature.
c. Monophysitism (Eutychianism): A third inadequate view is called monophysitism the view that Christ had one nature only (Gk. μόνος, G3668, “one,” and φύσις, G5882, “nature”). The primary advocate of this view in the early church was Eutyches (c. A.D. 378–454), who was the leader of a monastery at Constantinople. Eutyches taught the opposite error from Nestorianism, for he denied that the human nature and divine nature in Christ remained fully human and fully divine. He held rather that the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the divine nature, so that both natures were changed somewhat and a third kind of nature resulted.35 An analogy to Eutychianism can be seen if we put a drop of ink in a glass of water: the mixture resulting is neither pure ink nor pure water, but some kind of third substance, a mixture of the two in which both the ink and the water are changed. Similarly, Eutyches taught that Jesus was a mixture of divine and human elements in which both were somewhat modified to form one new nature. This may be represented as in figure 26.3.
Monophysitism also rightly caused great concern in the church, because, by this doctrine, Christ was neither truly God nor truly man. And if that was so, he could not truly represent us as a man nor could he be true God and able to earn our salvation.
2. The Solution to the Controversy: The Chalcedonian Definition of A.D. 451. In order to attempt to solve the problems raised by the controversies over the person of Christ, a large church council was convened in the city of Chalcedon near Constantinople (modern Istanbul), from October 8 to November 1, A.D. 451. The resulting statement, called the Chalcedonian Definition, guarded against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. It has been taken as the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox branches of Christianity alike.36
The statement is not long, and we may quote it in its entirety:37
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has been handed down to us.
Against the view of Apollinaris that Christ did not have a human mind or soul, we have the statement that he was “truly man of a reasonable soul and body … consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us.” (The word consubstantial means “having the same nature or substance.”)
In opposition to the view of Nestorianism that Christ was two persons united in one body, we have the words “indivisibly, inseparably … concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.”
Against the view of Monophysitism that Christ had only one nature, and that his human nature was lost in the union with the divine nature, we have the words “to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusedly, unchangeably … the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.” The human and the divine natures were not confused or changed when Christ became man, but the human nature remained a truly human nature, and the divine nature remained a truly divine nature.
Figure 26.4 may be helpful in showing this, in contrast to the earlier diagrams. It indicates that the eternal Son of God took to himself a truly human nature, and that Christ’s divine and human natures remain distinct and retain their own properties, yet they are eternally and inseparably united together in one person.
Some have said that the Chalcedonian Definition really did not define for us in any positive way what the person of Christ actually is but simply told us several things that it is not. In this way some have said that it is not a very helpful definition. But such an accusation is misleading and inaccurate. The definition actually did a great deal to help us understand the biblical teaching correctly. It taught that Christ definitely has two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. It taught that his divine nature is exactly the same as that of the Father (“consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead”). And it maintained that the human nature is exactly like our human nature, yet without sin (“consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin”). Moreover, it affirmed that in the person of Christ the human nature retains its distinctive characteristics and the divine nature retains its distinctive characteristics (“the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”). Finally, it affirmed that, whether we can understand it or not, these two natures are united together in the one person of Christ.
When the Chalcedonian Definition says that the two natures of Christ occur together “in one Person and one Subsistence,” the Greek word translated as “Subsistence” is the word ὑπόστασις (G5712) “being.” Hence the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one person is sometimes called the hypostatic union. This phrase simply means the union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one being.
3. Combining Specific Biblical Texts on Christ’s Deity and Humanity. When we examine the New Testament, as we did above in the sections on Jesus’ humanity and deity, there are several passages that seem difficult to fit together (How could Jesus be omnipotent and yet weak? How could he leave the world and yet be present everywhere? How could he learn things and yet be omniscient?). As the church struggled to understand these teachings, it finally came up with the Chalcedonian Definition, which spoke of two distinct natures in Christ that retain their own properties yet remain together in one person. This distinction, which helps us in our understanding of the biblical passages mentioned earlier, also seems to be demanded by those passages.
a. One Nature Does Some Things That the Other Nature Does Not Do: Evangelical theologians in previous generations have not hesitated to distinguish between things done by Christ’s human nature but not by his divine nature, or by his divine nature but not by his human nature. It seems that we have to do this if we are willing to affirm the Chalcedonian statement about “the property of each nature being preserved.” But few recent theologians have been willing to make such distinctions, perhaps because of a hesitancy to affirm something we cannot understand.
When we are talking about Jesus’ human nature, we can say that he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9–11).38 But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20); “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28:20); “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23). So we can say that both things are true about the person of Christ—he has returned to heaven, and he is also present with us.
Similarly, we can say that Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23), if we are speaking with respect to his human nature, but we can say that he eternally existed (John 1:1–2; 8:58) if we are speaking of his divine nature.
In his human nature, Jesus was weak and tired (Matt. 4:2; 8:24; Mark 15:21; John 4:6), but in his divine nature he was omnipotent (Matt. 8:26–27; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). Particularly striking is the scene on the Sea of Galilee where Jesus was asleep in the stern of the boat, presumably because he was weary (Matt. 8:24). But he was able to arise from his sleep and calm the wind and sea with a word (Matt. 8:26–27)! Tired yet omnipotent! Here Jesus’ weak human nature completely hid his omnipotence until that omnipotence broke forth in a sovereign word from the Lord of heaven and earth.
If someone asks whether Jesus, when he was asleep in the boat, was also “continually carrying along all things by his word of power” (Heb. 1:3, author’s translation), and whether all things in the universe were being held together by him at that time (see Col. 1:17), the answer must be yes, for those activities have always been and will always be the particular responsibility of the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God. Those who find the doctrine of the incarnation “inconceivable” have sometimes asked whether Jesus, when he was a baby in the manger at Bethlehem, was also “upholding the universe.” To this question the answer must also be yes: Jesus was not just potentially God or someone in whom God uniquely worked, but was truly and fully God with all the attributes of God. He was “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Those who reject this as impossible simply have a different definition of what is “possible” than God has, as revealed in Scripture.39 To say that we cannot understand this is appropriate humility. But to say that it is not possible seems more like intellectual arrogance.
In a similar way, we can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17–18; Heb. 7:16). Yet here we must give a note of caution: it is true that when Jesus died his physical body died and his human soul (or spirit) was separated from his body and passed into the presence of God the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43, 46). In this way he experienced a death that is like the one we as believers experience if we die before Christ returns. And it is not correct to say that Jesus’ divine nature died, or could die, if “die” means a cessation of activity, a cessation of consciousness, or a diminution of power. Nevertheless, by virtue of union with Jesus’ human nature, his divine nature somehow tasted something of what it was like to go through death. The person of Christ experienced death. Moreover, it seems difficult to understand how Jesus’ human nature alone could have borne the wrath of God against the sins of millions of people. It seems that Jesus’ divine nature had somehow to participate in the bearing of wrath against sin that was due to us (though Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms this). Therefore, even though Jesus’ divine nature did not actually die, Jesus went through the experience of death as a whole person, and both human and divine natures somehow shared in that experience. Beyond that, Scripture does not enable us to say more.
The distinction between Jesus’ human and divine natures also helps us understand Jesus’ temptations. With respect to his human nature, he certainly was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Yet with respect to his divine nature, he was not tempted, because God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13).
At this point it seems necessary to say that Jesus had two distinct wills, a human will and a divine will, and that the wills belong to the two distinct natures of Christ, not to the person. In fact, there was a position, called the monothelite view, which held that Jesus had only “one will,” but that was certainly a minority view in the church, and it was rejected as heretical at a church council in Constantinople in A.D. 681. Since then the view that Christ had two wills (a human will and a divine will) has been generally, but not universally, held through the church. In fact, Charles Hodge says:
The decision against Nestorius, in which the unity of Christ’s person was asserted; that against Eutyches, affirming the distinction of natures; and that against the Monothelites, declaring that the possession of a human nature involves of necessity the possession of a human will, have been received as the true faith by the Church universal, the Greek, Latin, and Protestant.40
Hodge explains that the church thought that “to deny Christ a human will, was to deny he had a human nature, or was truly a man. Besides, it precluded the possibility of his having been tempted, and therefore contradicted the Scriptures, and separated him so far from his people he could not sympathize with them in their temptations.”41 Moreover, Hodge notes that along with the idea that Christ had two wills is the related idea that he had two centers of consciousness or intelligence: “As there are two distinct natures, human and divine, there are of necessity two intelligences and two wills, the one fallible and finite, the other immutable and infinite.”42
This distinction of two wills and two centers of consciousness helps us understand how Jesus could learn things and yet know all things. On the one hand, with respect to his human nature, he had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52). On the other hand, Jesus clearly knew all things (John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Now this is only understandable if Jesus learned things and had limited knowledge with respect to his human nature but was always omniscient with respect to his divine nature, and therefore he was able any time to “call to mind” whatever information would be needed for his ministry. In this way we can understand Jesus’ statement concerning the time of his return: “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). This ignorance of the time of his return was true of Jesus’ human nature and human consciousness only, for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew the time when he would return to the earth.43
At this point someone may object that if we say that Jesus had two centers of consciousness and two wills, that requires that he was two distinct persons, and we have really fallen into the error of “Nestorianism.” But in response, it must simply be affirmed that two wills and two centers of consciousness do not require that Jesus be two distinct persons. It is mere assertion without proof to say that they do. If someone responds that he or she does not understand how Jesus could have two centers of consciousness and still be one person, then that fact may certainly be admitted by all. But failing to understand something does not mean that it is impossible, only that our understanding is limited. The great majority of the church throughout its history has said that Jesus had two wills and centers of consciousness, yet he remained one person. Such a formulation is not impossible, merely a mystery that we do not now fully understand. To adopt any other solution would create a far greater problem: it would require that we give up either the full deity or the full humanity of Christ, and that we cannot do.44
b. Anything Either Nature Does, the Person of Christ Does: In the previous section we mentioned a number of things that were done by one nature but not the other in the person of Christ. Now we must affirm that anything that is true of the human or the divine nature is true of the person of Christ. Thus Jesus can say, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). He does not say, “Before Abraham was, my divine nature existed,” because he is free to talk about anything done by his divine nature alone or his human nature alone as something that he did.
In the human sphere, this is certainly true of our conversation as well. If I type a letter, even though my feet and toes had nothing to do with typing the letter, I do not tell people, “My fingers typed a letter and my toes had nothing to do with it” (though that is true). Rather, I tell people, “I typed a letter.” That is true because anything that is done by one part of me is done by me.
Thus, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). Even though actually only his human body ceased living and ceased functioning, it was nonetheless Christ as a person who died for our sin. This is simply a means of affirming that whatever can be said of one nature or the other can be said of the person of Christ.
Therefore it is correct for Jesus to say, “I am leaving the world” (John 16:28), or “I am no more in the world” (John 17:11), but at the same time to say, “I am with you always” (Matt. 28:20). Anything that is done by one nature or the other is done by the person of Christ.
Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (pp. 554–562). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.
Thanks. I am actually looking for your definition – based on your statements. That is what is meaningful in our discussion (these other people are dead… and cannot clarify).
Can Jesus fully function as a man without an incarnated deity – just like you and I – as men – can fully function without an incarnated deity?
If not – what is Jesus missing that we have?
As a corollary, from above, I pick just one item – the Chacedon statement – “of a reasonable [rational] soul ”
I fail to see the difference between a “rational soul” and a person – thus fail to see any distinction between such an assertion and flat out Nestorianism other than simply “saying so” (which very evidently has no weight).
Greg, Here is Louis Berkof’s ratification of one person in two natures but with qualifications that protects against others distorting the doctrine:
The Natures of Christ. The Bible represents Christ as a Person having two natures, the one divine and the other human. This is the great mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:16.
a. The two natures. Since many in our day deny the deity of Christ, it is necessary to stress the Scripture proof for it. Some old Testament passages clearly point to it, such as Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:6; Micah 5:2; Mal. 3:1. The New Testament proofs are even more abundant, Matt. 11:27; 16:16; 26:63, 64; John 1:1, 18; Rom. 9:5; 1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1–3; Rev. 19:16. The humanity of Jesus is not called in question. In fact, the only divinity many still ascribe to Him is that of His perfect humanity. There is abundant proof for the humanity of Jesus. He speaks of Himself as man, John 8:40, and is so called by others, Acts 2:22; Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21. He had the essential elements of human nature, namely, a body and a soul, Matt. 26:26, 38; Luke 24:39; Heb. 2:14. Moreover, He was subject to the ordinary laws of human development, Luke 2:40, 52, and to human wants and sufferings, Matt. 4:2; 8:24; Luke 22:44; John 4:6; 11:35; 12:27; Heb. 2:10, 18; Heb. 5:7, 8. Yet though He was a real man, He was without sin; He did no sin and could not sin, John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 9:14; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5. It was necessary that Christ should be both God and man. It was only as man that He could be our substitute, and could suffer and die; and only as sinless man that He could atone for the sins of others. And it was only as God that He could give His sacrifice infinite value, and bear the wrath of God so as to deliver others from it, Ps. 40:7–10; 130:3.
b. The two natures united in one Person. Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but Christ became personal in the Person of the Son of God. After this assumption of human nature the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the God-man, possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will. This is a mystery which we cannot fathom. Scripture clearly points to the unity of the Person of Christ. It is always the same Person who speaks, whether the mind that finds utterance be human or divine, John 10:30; 17:5 as compared with Matt. 27:46; John 19:28. Human attributes and actions are sometimes ascribed to the Person designated by a divine title, Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 1:13, 14; and divine attributes and actions are sometimes ascribed to the Person designated by a human title, John 3:13; 6:62; Rom. 9:5.
c. Some of the most important errors concerning this doctrine. The Alogi and the Ebionites denied the deity of Christ in the early Church. This denial was shared by the Socinians of the days of the Reformation, and by the Unitarians and Modernists of our day. In the early Church Arius failed to do justice to the full deity of Christ and regarded Him as a demi-God, while Apollinaris did not recognize His full humanity, but held that the divine Logos took the place of the human spirit in Christ. The Nestorians denied the unity of the two natures in one Person, and the Eutychians failed to distinguish properly between the two natures.
Berkhof, L. (1938). Summary of Christian doctrine (pp. 94–96). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
A. Statement of the Church’s View Respecting the Person of Christ
1. DEFINITION OF THE TERMS “NATURE” AND “PERSON”. With a view to the proper understanding of the doctrine, it is necessary to know the exact meaning of the terms “nature” and “person,” as used in this connection. The term “nature” denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term “person” denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. Now the Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself.
2. PROPOSITIONS IN WHICH THE VIEW OF THE CHURCH MAY BE STATED
a. There is but one person in the Mediator, the unchangeable Logos. The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ. It would not be correct, however, to say that the person of the mediator is divine only. The incarnation constituted Him a complex person, constituted of two natures. He is the Godman.
b. The human nature of Christ as such does not constitute a human person. The Logos did not adopt a human person, so that we have two persons in the Mediator, but simply assumed a human nature. Brunner declares that it is the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ that at the point where we have a sinful person, He has, or rather is, the divine person of the Logos.
c. At the same time it is not correct to speak of the human nature of Christ as impersonal. This is true only in the sense that this nature has no independent subsistence of its own. Strictly speaking, however, the human nature of Christ was not for a moment impersonal. The Logos assumed that nature into personal subsistence with Himself. The human nature has its personal existence in the person of the Logos. It is in-personal rather than impersonal.
d. For that very reason we are not warranted to speak of the human nature of Christ as imperfect or incomplete. His human nature is not lacking in any of the essential qualities belonging to that nature, and also has individuality, that is, personal subsistence, in the person of the Son of God.
e. This personal subsistence should not be confused with consciousness and free will. The fact that the human nature of Christ, in and by itself, has no personal subsistence, does not mean that it has no consciousness and will. The Church has taken the position that these belong to the nature rather than to the person.
f. The one divine person, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both. This must be maintained over against those who, while admitting that the divine person assumed a human nature, jeopardize the integrity of the two natures by conceiving of them as having been fused or mixed into a tertium quid, a sort of divine-human nature.
B. Scriptural Proof for the Unipersonality of Christ
The doctrine of the two natures in one person transcends human reason. It is the expression of a supersensible reality, and of an incomprehensible mystery, which has no analogy in the life of man as we know it, and finds no support in human reason, and therefore can only be accepted by faith on the authority of the Word of God. For that reason it is doubly necessary to pay close attention to the teachings of Scripture on this point.
1. NO EVIDENCE OF A DUAL PERSONALITY IN SCRIPTURE. In the first place there is a negative consideration of considerable importance. If there had been a dual personality in Jesus, we would naturally expect to find some traces of it in Scripture; but there is not a single trace of it. There is no distinction of an “I” and a “Thou” in the inner life of the Mediator, such as we find in connection with the triune Being of God, where one person addresses the other, Ps. 2:7; 40:7, 8; John 17:1, 4, 5, 21–24. Moreover, Jesus never uses the plural in referring to Himself, as God does in Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7. It might seem as if John 3:11 were a case in point. The plural is peculiar, but in all probability refers to Jesus and those who were associated with Him, in opposition to Nicodemus and the group which he represented.
2. BOTH NATURES ARE REPRESENTED IN SCRIPTURE AS UNITED IN ONE PERSON. There are passages of Scripture which refer to both natures in Christ, but in which it is perfectly evident that only one person is intended, Rom. 1:3, 4; Gal. 4:4, 5; Phil. 2:6–11. In several passages both natures are set forth as united. The Bible nowhere teaches that divinity in the abstract, or some divine power, was united to, or manifested in, a human nature; but always that the divine nature in the concrete, that is, the divine person of the Son of God, was united to a human nature, John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; 4:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:11–14; 1 John 4:2, 3.
3. THE ONE PERSON IS SPOKEN OF IN TERMS TRUE OF EITHER ONE OF THE NATURES. Repeatedly the attributes of one nature are predicated of the person, while that person is designated by a title derived from the other nature. On the one hand human attributes and actions are predicated of the person while he is designated by a divine title, Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 1:13, 14. And on the other hand divine attributes and actions are predicated of the person while he is designated by a human title, John 3:13; 6:62; Rom. 9:5.
C. The Effects of the Union of the Two Natures in One Person
1. NO ESSENTIAL CHANGE IN THE DIVINE NATURE. The doctrine of creation and the doctrine of the incarnation always constituted a problem in connection with the immutability of God. This was already pointed out in the discussion of that attribute. However this problem may be solved, it should be maintained that the divine nature did not undergo any essential change in the incarnation. This also means that it remained impassible, that is, incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance, and insusceptible to weakness and temptation. It is well to stress the fact that the incarnation was a personal act. It is better to say that the person of the Son of God became incarnate than to say that the divine nature assumed human flesh. If Reformed theologians do occasionally speak of the divine nature as incarnate, they speak of it “not immediately but mediately,” to use the language of scholastic theology; they consider this nature not absolutely and in itself, but in the person of the Son of God. The result of the incarnation was that the divine Saviour could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted, and could suffer and die, not in His divine nature, but derivatively, by virtue of His possession of a human nature.
2. A THREEFOLD COMMUNICATION RESULTED FROM THE INCARNATION
a. A communicatio idiomatum, or communication of properties. This means that the properties of both, the human and the divine natures, are now the properties of the person, and are therefore ascribed to the person. The person can be said to be almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, and so on, but can also be called a man of sorrows, of limited knowledge and power, and subject to human want and miseries. We must be careful not to understand the term to mean that anything peculiar to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature, or vice versa; or that there is an interpenetration of the two natures, as a result of which the divine is humanized, and the human is deified (Rome). The deity cannot share in human weaknesses; neither can man participate in any of the essential perfections of the Godhead.
b. A communicatio apotelesmatum or operationum. This means that the redemptive work of Christ, and particularly the final result of that work, the apotelesma, bears a divine-human character. Analyzing this, we can say that it means: (1) that the efficient cause of the redemptive work of Christ is the one undivided personal subject in Christ; (2) that it is brought about by the cooperation of both natures; (3) that each of these natures works with its own special energeia; and (4) that, notwithstanding this, the result forms an undivided unity, because it is the work of a single person.
c. A communicatio charismatum or gratiarum. This means that the human nature of Christ, from the very first moment of its existence, was adorned with all kinds of rich and glorious gifts, as for instance, (1) the gratia unionis cum persona tou Logou, that is, the grace and glory of being united to the divine Logos, also called the gratia eminentiae, by which the human nature is elevated high above all creatures, and even becomes the object of adoration; and (2) the gratia habitualis, consisting of those gifts of the Spirit, particularly of the intellect, of the will, and of power, by which the human nature of Christ was exalted high above all intelligent creatures. His impeccability, the non posse peccare, especially should be mentioned here.
3. THE GOD-MAN IS THE OBJECT OF PRAYER. Another effect of the union is, that the Mediator just as He now exists, that is, in both natures, is the object of our prayer. It should be borne in mind that the honor adorationis does not belong to the human nature as such, but belongs to it only in virtue of its union with the divine Logos, who is in His very nature adorabilis. We must distinguish between the object and the ground of this adoration. The object of our religious worship is the God-man Jesus Christ, but the ground on which we adore Him lies in the person of the Logos.
D. The Unipersonality of Christ a Mystery
The union of the two natures in one person is a mystery which we cannot grasp, and which for that very reason is often denied. It has sometimes been compared with the union of body and soul in man; and there are some points of similarity. In man there are two substances, matter and spirit, most closely united and yet not mixed; so also in the Mediator. In man the principle of unity, the person, does not have its seat in the body but in the soul; in the Mediator, not in the human, but in the divine nature. As the influence of the soul on the body and of the body on the soul is a mystery, so also the connection of the two natures in Christ and their mutual influence on each other. Everything that happens in the body and in the soul is ascribed to the person; so all that takes place in the two natures of Christ is predicated of the person. Sometimes a man is denominated according to his spiritual element, when something is predicated of him that applies more particularly to the body, and vice versa. Similarly things that apply only to the human nature of Christ are ascribed to Him when He is named after His divine nature, and vice versa. As it is an honor for the body to be united with the soul, so it is an honor for the human nature of Christ to be united with the person of the Logos. Of course, the comparison is defective. It does not illustrate the union of the divine and the human, of the infinite and the finite. It does not even illustrate the unity of two spiritual natures in a single person. In the case of man the body is material and the soul is spiritual. It is a wonderful union, but not as wonderful as the union of the two natures in Christ.
Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (pp. 321–325). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
To be honest – I am looking for YOUR model. I cannot confirm anyone who is not here.
This is what I have –
Grant is a soul: intellect, sensibility and will. My “spirit” is my spiritual capacity. Will is my faculty of volition.
What is the difference between Grant’s soul and Grant’s person? Is not Grant’s soul actually just His person?? Or is it only capabilities – via which Grant’s human person operates – such that we would NOT say Grant IS a soul – but more properly that Grant HAS a soul.
Does this question make sense in the context we are referring to?
Greg, as I mentioned previously, the Bible is very complex on this issue. The person IS and HAS a soul. In Scripture and in the history of theology, the word “soul” has had a varied and complex constellation of meanings. A careful study of biblical words and expressions used for the person need to be made to facilitate our understanding.
In Hebrew, the concept of the soul is mainly expressed by the noun נֶפֶשׁ (nepeš, “soul”). It is the basic term for a living being’s vital life-force that interacts with its surroundings and needs to be satisfied for life to be sustained. It usually refers to humans (Gen 2:7), but occasionally is used for animals (Gen 9:5). There is a related verb, נָפַשׁ (nāpaš, “to be refreshed”), from the same root (Exod 23:12). Often, the word nepeš refers to the individual; thus, it is used for the whole human being.
In Greek, the soul is expressed by the noun ψυχή (psyche, “soul”), which has a similar semantic range as nepeš and usually translates it in the Septuagint. In the NT, psychē refers to the inner self, life, and the person, and often has a holistic sense to it (e.g., Matt 6:25), as does nepeš. There is a related adjective, ψυχικός (psychikos, “natural”) that describes unspiritual and natural humanity as opposed to spiritual humanity (1 Cor 2:14).
It is clear in both Hebrew and Greek that the relevant terms refer to the life-force, and often to the living being itself. It is the natural life-force that sustains a person and is the center of emotion, will, and desire. In the biblical usage of these terms, context indicates whether the writer refers to the life-force of a living being or to the essence of a person that continues after physical death. The soul is an object of both the judgment of God and God’s saving work in both the OT and NT (e.g., Psa 62:1; Mic 6:7; Matt 10:28).
In the Bible, the soul is the entity that thinks, feels, acts, and desires. At times it is depicted as something that is within the living being (נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, nepeš ḥayyâ; Gen 2:7), but at other times it is the soul (נֶפֶשׁ, nepeš) that goes to the afterlife or Sheol (Psa 16:10). The soul can be connected to God and desire God’s presence (Psa 42:2), but it can also have wicked desires and renounce God (Psa 10:3). The soul can receive deliverance (Psa 17:13; Luke 17:33) but can also receive God’s wrath (Ezek 18:4; Matt 10:28).
I certainly acknowledge the complexity re the notion of the soul that is expressed throughout the Bible!!!
What I am specifically asking for your is YOUR notion of the soul in the context of YOUR Christology, viz, when you say Jesus HAS a human soul, what do YOU specifically mean by that? What is the Jesus who is the possessor of this soul??
And what in YOUR mind the distinction between Jesus HAVING a human soul and Grant BEING a human soul?
Does my question make sense? I am simply trying to clarify statements you have made above that I am confused by.
Thanks so much!
Greg, my Christology is closely expressed by Berkof. Since the USAGE of soul depends on the variegated contexts it depends on the particular passage of how I would respond to your question. That is why I have not been able to give you a specific answer. Do you have a specific passage in mind?
My view of myself is the same as what the Bible has to say about me depending on the context. To over simplify, in the sense of being a person I AM a soul; I HAVE a soul in the sense that I have a conscience.
Are you saying that sometimes you would be comfortable with Jesus “being” a soul – and other times “having” a soul – all dependent on the passage??
I remain completely baffled by the distinction of a soul/rational mind – and “person”. I hear lots of “religious” words when I read through some these of tomes – but I don’t see simple cut and dried text and a clear working statement that makes the least sense.
When boiled down, it appears the hypostatic union model essentially results in Jesus being a human person by having/being a human soul/rational mind then simply denies it because such a two person concept is clearly not supported in scripture a la the king is not really wearing any clothes despite all the citizens asserting he is. I realize that practically most evangelicals relate to Jesus as a human person – and do not understand the issue of the anhypostasis at all.
Greg, I am surprised that you made no attempt to interact with Scripture, rather you chose to reconcile your thinking through strictly human perspective. One of the main passages dealing with the hypostatic union or the kenosis concept is Philippians 2:7, where the κενόω (emptying) is presented.
Greg, Here is a summary of anhypostasis and enhypostasis with two central scriptures:
Christ took human nature, but he did not take a man. He took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7), but not a servant. He did not even take an existing human genotype or embryo. He created the genotype in union with himself, and it’s personality developed only in union with the Son of God. He is a divine person who, without ‘adopting’ an existing human person took our human nature and entered upon the whole range of human experiences.
The humanity taken up into the person of the Logos is, then, not a personal man but human nature without personal subsistence. Anhypostasis is the negative side of the doctrine, however, enhypostasis is the positive, where personhood comes from.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . (John 1:14)
In anhypostasis the kind of humanity Jesus took in the incarnation was impersonal. He did not add a human person to himself when he took a fully human nature. In anhypostasis the question is where did the singular person of Jesus come from? Who is the one person of his two (divine and human) natures?
Enhypostasis indicates that His humanity is not only impersonal (anhypostasis), but it’s also in-personal, in that its personhood is in the personhood of the eternal second person of the Trinity. The fully divine Son is the person who took full humanity and remains the “one person” of the God-man.
The thrust of enhypostasis is that the human nature of Christ, although not itself an individual, is individualized as the human nature of the Son of God. It does not, for a single instant, exist as anhypostasis or non-personal.
Jesus has been fully divine from all eternity, while he added full humanity to that divinity at a certain point in time.
On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and therefore enhypostatic, or personalized. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So, the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above.
Considered in itself, on the other hand, and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is both anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son).
For further study see Donald Macleod The Person of Christ and Fred Sanders Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Intermediate Christology
Thanks so much – here is a challenging statement –
“”it’s” personality developed only in union with the Son of God. He is a divine person who, without ‘adopting’ an existing human person took our human nature and entered upon the whole range of human experiences. ”
What I hear is that the human nature – the “it’s” in YOUR above model – had a personality. Is that not a person??? What is the distinction between a human personality – and a human person??
Likewise, I remain at at loss in regards to my on-going inquiry –
“I remain completely baffled by YOUR distinction of a soul/rational mind – and “person”.”
BTW – I am happy to entertain scripture – I am simply trying to make certain I am clear re YOUR model (not Sanders, not Berkhof, etc. but YOUR Christology – as you are are the only one who can clarify….:-). Sanders and Berkhof will simply leave me in confusion with various seemingly unclear and even contradictory statements. When I listen to Fred, he simply makes no sense with his statements – but most of his students don’t have a clue in the first place so they simply nod their heads without still having a clue.
Thanks so much,
Greg, unfortunately, for some time I have sensed that you are playing theological games but now it appears clear that you are. I have made it patently clear that the Son’s person took on human nature but you keep nitpicking the issue. Also, I also made it clear that I was giving both the lexical and usage of how “soul” and “person” have been used interchangeably throughout Scripture depending on the context. The specific passage in its context must determine the meaning. I hope you are not attempting to grandstand on the internet.
Not sure if my last comment was never made – or deleted.
Please be aware that I did follow-up on the last comment affirming complete sincerity – and my own challenge in getting a direct answer to my specific questions (which I have not to date despite repeated efforts – though I am willing to bear the responsibility in somehow not being clear in my questions).
You make the statement above –
“…it’s personality developed only in union with the Son of God…”
What/who is the “it’s”?
The model of a developing “personality” indicates that a “person” – that, a human one” is now present – such that there is both a human person and a divine person.
How do you PERSONALLY differentiate between “person” and “personality”?
Greg, I hesitate to pick up this blog with you because of your approach to questioning, especially when it comes to hypothetical questions. Hypothetical questions must be answered hypothetically. It is irrelevant how I view myself (my psychology) since the theanthropic person or hypostatic union is different from me, although He was truly human. Also, if the Bible does not speak explicitly on a subject or define that subject but simply describes the idea, then that is all one can do is to depict it as Scripture does; otherwise, we enter into a reductio ad absurdum approach. We can deduct certain things as true such as the Son as a person took on human dynamics; that is, He functioned and was characterized in Scripture as a human being with a will. That is why I gave the 7 alternative ways the Son functioned in His humanity on earth above. Monothelitism entails the problem of conflict in the triune God. The two-wills model (Dyothelitism) is more accurate to the biblical and theological evidence for the incarnation
As you know it is dangerous to impose one’s theology on Scripture. That is why it is best to begin with extant statements of Scripture, the raising of data via exegesis. The proper order is exegesis, history-culture, exposition, biblical theology then systematic theology (to oversimplify). Thus, I have attempted to confine my answers to you based as closely on what the Scripture says rather than a hypothesis about what might be in Christ. It appears that Dyothelitism is descriptively closer to Scripture revelation.