“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.
“Behold,
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.
1:15
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.
PRINCIPLE:
Prophecy is clear about the future.
APPLICATION:
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.
Dear Pastor,It is another interesting study.We find Enoch in Gen.5:21-24.,an interesting character in the Bible,who has foretold Jesus’ Second Coming with His saints.Zechariah is another Old Testament Prophet who mentioned about this in Zechariah 14:5./Isa34:16.As you have mentioned the Prophecy is clear.
There are two general views among the Christians regarding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.(i)As a single event (ii)In two stages.
It has been interesting to read your comments up until you mentioned “the rapture”. In all my years of bible study I have never found any mention of the rapture in either the old or the new testiments. This appears to be a new theology to me being talked about without giving a scriptural basis. I understand it was first instigated by the Jesuits some time ago and picked up by yhe Protestant Churches that also follow the Roman Cattholic teaching of them having the right and power to change the Sabbath from Saturday till Sunday.I believe that Jesus is coming again and soon but not secretly as the rapture theory states. I use 1st Thesalonians 4:13-17 which talks about a very noisy and visible appearing of Jesus Christ when He returns without putting His feet on this world of sin and His saints return to Heaven with Him where they will spend the next 1,000 years going over the rcords of men’s activities over the years so that we are able to conclude that God’s judgemnet has been rightly carried out.
Today the signs as mentioned in Matthew 24 are screaming out that Jesus must come soon. Unfortunately not many people are going to be ready for this event and will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. Many will assume that they are saved, Matthew 7:21-23 but Jesus declares that He never knew them. I am so glad that I have not been mislead by any of the false teachings that are going around and as I worship my God on every Sabbath day I rejoice in my expectations of a soon returning King. For those who promote a “second chance” theology I am sorry for them and the ones they lead astray.
Regards; Kevin Menz. A practising Seventh day Adventist, remembering the Sabbath day as instructed by Jesus, but given up by the apostate Protestant churches and their teachers, giving allegiance to the Roman church which they claim to have broken away from. Read what Cardinal Gibbons has to say on it by going to; “The change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday” by Cardinal Gibbons, on the internet. I did the other day and was astounded by their blatant claims.
As the word “trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible so the word “rapture” is not mentioned either as a specific word but the teaching for both is there. The Greek word AIRW means rapture, literally “to lift from the ground.” Theological terms are just abbreviations of truths taught in the Word.
For false teachings about the origins of the rapture go to this site: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=pretrib_arch
Grant
With respect to the words not being present, I am generally okay – though I seem to think that God gave us all the words we need – and that we don’t need to create a completely new word.
The issue with the trinity of course is that not only is the word not present in the Bible – and not only is there not a hint of the concept – but God repeatedly and clearly describes Himself as a single personal entity. If there was a comprehensive statement re the trinity – we would would certainly expect it in 1Cor8:6 – for us there is one God – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (which is exactly the creed of the vatican derived churches). However, the opposite of the trinity is there – for us there is one God – the Father. Period. This picture is clear and seen literally hundreds of times throughout the NT.
Best,
Greg
Grant
The fascinating piece re the actual commentary is whether Jude actually believed Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch… It does appear that this may have been the case.
Greg,
Note my study on the deity of Christ beginning with this study: http://versebyversecommentary.com/john/john-11/
Without going into detail here are some verses:
Trinity, the
The characteristically Christian doctrine about God. It declares that there is only one true God; that this God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each of whom is distinct from, yet interrelated with, the others; and that all three persons are fully, equally and eternally divine.
1511
Trinity, relationships between the persons
The actual term “the Trinity” is not found in Scripture, but the truths implied in a trinitarian understanding of God are clearly set out. The OT hints at a plurality of persons in the Godhead. The NT affirms that the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine.
There is only one God
Dt 6:4 See also Isa 43:10-11; 44:8; 1Ti 1:17; 2:5; Jas 2:19
OT indications of plurality in the Godhead
God refers to himself in the plural Ge 1:26 See also Ge 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8
The angel of the LORD Ge 16:11-13 The “angel of the LORD” is identified with, yet distinct from, God. See also Ge 18:1-33; Ex 3:2-6; Jdg 13:3-22
The word of God
The “word of the LORD” or “wisdom of God” is personified and identified with, yet distinct from, God: Ps 33:4; Pr 8:22-31
The Spirit of God
The Spirit of God is God’s personal agent: Ge 1:2; Ne 9:20; Job 33:4; Isa 40:13 fn
The Messiah
The Messiah’s divine nature is emphasised: Ps 110:1; Isa 9:6; Jer 23:5-6
Interchangeable expressions
Word, Spirit (or breath) and LORD are used interchangeably for God: Ps 33:6; Isa 48:16; 61:1
NT trinitarian references
Mt 28:19 The unity of the three persons is reflected in the singular name. See also 2Co 13:14; Eph 4:4-6; Rev 1:4-5
The unity of the three persons
The Son is fully united with the Father Jn 10:30 See also Mk 9:37 pp Lk 9:48; Lk 10:16; Jn 10:38; 12:44-45; 13:20; 14:7,9-11; 15:23
The Spirit is identified with God 2Sa 23:2-3 See also Ps 51:11; Mt 28:19; 1Co 3:16
The three persons are distinct from one another
Jesus Christ addresses the Father directly Mt 11:25-26 pp Lk 10:21; Mt 26:39 pp Mk 14:36 pp Lk 22:42; Mt 26:42; 27:46 pp Mk 15:34; Lk 23:46; Jn 11:41-42; 17:1
The Father speaks to the Son from heaven Mt 3:17 pp Mk 1:11 pp Lk 3:22; Mt 17:5 pp Mk 9:7 pp Lk 9:35; Jn 12:27-28
The Spirit speaks to the Father on behalf of believers Ro 8:26-27
Other examples of the difference between the persons Mt 12:32; 24:36; Jn 7:39; 16:7; 1Ti 2:5; 1Jn 2:1
The relationship between the Father and the Son
Jesus Christ is God’s unique Son Jn 1:14 The Greek word for “One and Only”, traditionally rendered “only begotten”, is actually used to signify “the only one of its kind”; “unique”. See also Jn 1:18; 3:16,18; Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5; Ps 2:7; 1Jn 4:9
The relationship of Father and Son is unique Mt 11:27 pp Lk 10:22 See also Jn 6:46; 7:28-29; 8:55; 10:15; 17:25
The Father loves the Son Jn 3:35 See also Jn 5:20; 10:17; 15:9; 17:24
The Father shares his divine life with the Son Col 2:9 See also Jn 5:26; 6:57; Col 1:19
The Father delegates his authority to the Son Jn 5:27 See also Mt 28:18; Jn 3:35; 5:21-22; 16:15; Rev 2:26-27
Father and Son indwell each other Jn 14:10-11 See also Jn 10:38; 14:20; 17:21-23
The relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other two persons
The Spirit is “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ” Ro 8:9
“the Spirit of God”: Ps 106:33; 1Co 2:14; Php 3:3; 1Jn 4:2
“the Spirit of Christ”: Ac 16:7; Gal 4:6; Php 1:19; 1Pe 1:11
The Spirit’s unique relationship with God Mt 10:20 See also 1Co 2:10-11
The Spirit’s unique relationship with the Son Jn 1:33 See also Isa 61:1; Jn 14:16-17,26; Ac 10:38
Manser, M. H. (2009). Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies. London: Martin Manser.
Matthew 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
In the words of Jesus, when does it declare the rapture??? Does it say “immediately after” tribulation? Yes… CLEARLY. It happens “after” the antichrist is revealed. How do you “gather the elect from the four winds” if the very elect have gotten a free ticket out. There’s no free, easy, comfortable ride out. Ask the Jews. Many saints were killed all because of their faith. To suffer with him is to reign with him. What a craxy doctrin… to believe gentiles get a free ride out and sit at the marriage supper while the Jews get massacred. Read the word in context? Jesus said he comes AFTER the tribulation.
Estle, There is nothing about the Rapture in Matthew 24. No scholarly dispensationalist holds that the Rapture is in that passage. The Oliviet Discourse deals strictly with the Second Coming. Go to this contrast between the Rapture and the Second Coming: https://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/doctrine/rapture-vs-the-second-coming/
Grant, just as Paul was accused of being “mad” for his understanding and stance for Jesus (Acts 26:24) it would seem your opposer’s are thinking likewise!
I appreciate your use & understanding of the “whole” Word of God and the clear path to the truth. Jude is one of the most intriguing books of the Bible to me, and just as God’s word is timeless, Jude’s warnings & remedies couldn’t be anymore “Spot On” for our day.
The Holy Spirit is in us to reveal these truths from God the Father about Jesus Christ our Redeemer.
Praise all Three In ONE!!!
Thanks Bryan. It is difficult to answer a question that involves the entire Bible concisely in a blog.
Grant,
I had for some reason not received the fact that you responded to me with a lengthy comment above. I apologize for not following up.
I must admit that I find concepts like “hints” and “implications” to be more than unacceptable and if I may respectfully say feel theoogically lazy as a resource for fundamental models of what we believe that the original authors believed.
That being said I’m wondering whether you are familiar with the doctrine of the anhypostasis?
Best,
Greg
Greg, anhypostasis is related to the doctrine of the hypostatic union. The hypostatic union (union of Christ’s deity and humanity) is when the Son set aside the voluntary USE of His incommunicable attributes. He never stopped existing as God, but He did not use His incommunicable attributes to function within true humanity. Eternality can never cease to exist. A key passage in this regard is Philippians 2:6 See my devotionals on this passage: https://versebyversecommentary.com/philippians/philippians-26/
Stasis relates to person or substance, the essential essence of a person. The Son has one substance or person whether in His deity or humanity. He is of one substance with the Father. The words anhypostasis and enhypostasis relate to His human nature. Anhypostasis has an alpha privative negating the hypostasis; that is, the Son did not obtain a pre-existing human being when He took on human nature. He did not enter an already existing embryo. In that case, He would have another person than His own.
Nevertheless, Jesus’ human nature was true humanity; He was a real person. The word enhypostasis (en=in and substance). He truly existed in a human substance. The eternal Son in His personhood stepped foot in true finite humanity (which could not stand alone as His divine nature could). He added true human nature to His divine nature, not another human person. He has two natures but one person, the same person who existed from all eternity as the Son. He is one united person, not two. The Trinity has one indivisible divine nature with three persons.
please note that versebyversecommentary.com is a devotional. It is not intended to do heavy exegesis or theology. I have no issue with discussing heavy things in blogs, however.
Grant
Thanks for the follow up. I apologize if I have moved in a direction different than the intent – I am happy to cease with this comment unless you would like to follow-up elsewhere. I am much more interested in rigorous exegetical work since that seems so much more needful (in my mind anyway).
Basically you are telling me that Jesus is not a man – that he is merely an impersonal human nature that is actuated by an eternal deity. A man is able to fully function independent of an eternal deity (just like you, I and all men are able to do). Does that make sense?
BTW – I don’t think we would say “united person” but rather “united natures” – since the one person is simply the eternal Son. Does that make sense?
Does it bother you that the Jesus and the Apostles so frequently flat out, unequivocally, clearly, repeatedly and formally described Jesus as a man? Whereas the the anhypostasis clearly and necessarily denies this fundamental belief of both the Messiah and Apostles as there is something fundamental that we have/are that is absent from the human nature of Jesus? I trust you are familiar with the texts such Jn8.40, Acts2.22, 1Cor15.21, Rom5.15, 1Tim2.5 and half dozen others equally significant not to mention that the text flat out states that in ALL points he is made as we are…
I know it challenges me tremendously – it is, as it were, the very denial of the man Christ Jesus – the Lord of Glory.
Best,
Greg
Greg, that is exactly what I did NOT say. Evidently, you completely misunderstood my point. As we say in theology, the Son of God was undiminished deity and true humanity united in one person forever. Jesus was true humanity in every respect. Note my capital “USE” when I said that He set aside the voluntary use of His incommunicable attributes (attributes that only God possesses) when the Son became a man. He maintained His full deity while a man but He did not use divine attributes while functioning in His humanity (Phil 2:6-8).
Grant – Thanks so much for the follow-up.
Perhaps I should only make one point at a time to make certain I am tracking you –
Is this statement in my above email correct –
I don’t think we would say “united person” but rather “united natures” – since the one person is simply the eternal Son.
That is – there is no human person for the person of God the Son to unite to – only an impersonal human nature.
Does that make sense?
Greg
Greg, The English word nature is derived from the Latin natura and is the equivalent of the Greek phusis (cf. Ro 2:14; Ga 2:15; 4:8 ; Eph 2:3; 2 Pe 1:4). The term nature designates the divine or human elements in the person of Christ. In theology the expression substance from the Latin substantia is also used, corresponding to the Greek ousia. All of these terms are used to define the real essence, the inward properties which underlie all outward manifestation.
As this pertains to the person of Christ, nature is seen to be the sum of all the attributes and their relationship to each other. Necessarily, such attributes must be compatible to the nature to which they correspond and cannot be transferred to another substance or nature. As applied to the problem of defining the humanity and deity of Christ, nature as used of the humanity of Christ includes all that belongs to His humanity. As applied to the deity of Christ, it includes all that belongs to His deity. Hence, theologians speak of two natures, the human and the divine, each with their respective attributes.
Thanks Grant.
I think my focus was the person – you spoke at one time of “united in person” but there is no uniting of persons – there is simply a divine person – with a divine person that unites with an impersonal human nature. I understand that both the nature’s retain their own characteristics – but certainly they unite… or you would not have the two natures in one person model… Yes?
Greg, one person who set aside the voluntary use of His incommunicable attributes when he stepped foot in a human body.
Did I say “united in person” or “united in one person forever?”
Grant
The statement was –
“He is one united person…”
I am suggesting that He (the divine person) would said to be united in nature – there is no uniting of persons – since, as you noted, in the hypostatic union model, there is no human person – merely an impersonal human nature.
Now – perhaps this is simply semantics – since you may have a quite accurate intent – but I find the the phrasing “one united person” to be both confusing and not reflecting of the technical demands of the hu.
Does that help explain my question?
Greg
Greg, to clarify, our Lord’s humanity and deity are united in one person forever.
Grant
Let’s just work with this statement then – “our Lord’s humanity and deity are united in one person forever.” – which has always puzzled me. I never understood the use of the preposition “in” – it seems very counter-intuitive to the actual HU model. The HU model seems very straight-forward – one divine person + one divine nature adhering to one [impersonal] human nature. I realize there is a bit of an issue as to what is included in the “nature” set and the “person” set but that is not what I am wrestling with here.
In fact this statement seems to obscure the fact that there really is no man Christ Jesus – but merely an impersonal human nature that has been taken on by a divine being. Thus, it would seem much more accurate to state something like “our one divine Lord’s divinity adheres TO one human nature forever.”
In fact, I really have no idea what “united in one person” even could mean – it seems nonsensical – as if set A and set B are included in a large set C or ??
Does my confusion make sense?
Perhaps if stuck solely to Biblical text we could avoid all this confusion… What do you think about that approach?
Best,
Greg
Greg, we understand the person of Christ best in His pre-incarnate state. His incarnation, however, did not diminish His deity in any way. In His humanity Jesus’ personhood developed like any other human being (Lu 2:52; Mt 26:38), which cannot be attributed to His divine nature. This related to His humanity rather than divine consciousness. He also experienced the limitations of ordinary human beings. He had a human spirit (Jn 13:21). Thus, He had a complete human body, soul and spirit (contrary to Bultmann).
Regarding the union of the divine and human natures Christ sometimes operated in the sphere of His humanity and other times within the sphere of His deity, in every case He was one person, not two. The Bible never considered Him a dual personality. However, both of His natures maintain their complete identity. The two natures maintain their unity without transfer of attributes. There is no third substance. Christ is theanthropic in one person.
We sort the function of His two natures by distinguishing what is different in each:
1. Some attributes are attributed to His whole person such as Redeemer.
2. Some attributes are true only of His deity, but the whole person is the subject (Jn 8:58). The whole person is the subject, but the attribute of deity applies only to His divine nature. Therefore, it is possible to say of the incarnate Christ that His person is eternal although His humanity was added in time.
3. Some attributes are true only of His humanity, but the whole person is the subject (Jn 19:28). “I thirst” can be attributed only to His humanity but the whole person is involved.
4. The person may be described according to the divine nature but the predicate of the human nature (Rev 1:12-18). Christ in glory is described “as dead” (Rev 1:18).
5. The person may be described according to His human nature but the predicate of His divine nature (Jn 6:62). “Son of Man” describes His human nature, but the ascension up to where He was before could only refer to His divine nature.
6. The person may be described according to the divine nature, but the predicate of both natures (Jn 5:25-27). Christ here is described as the Son of God, but the predicate of speaking is attributed to both natures. Human nature is specifically in view in future judgment.
7. The person may be described according to the human nature, but the predicate of both natures (Jn 5:27; Mt 27:46). In the latter passage Christ is speaking from His human nature but “Me” refers to both natures (the whole person).
Note Berkouwer:
1. STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON. There is but one person in the Mediator, and that person is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person, nor did He adopt a human person; He simply assumed a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the person of the Son of God. The one divine person, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature and now has both. After this assumption of a human nature the person of the Mediator is not divine only but divine-human; He is now the God-man. He is a single individual, but possesses all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. While He has but a single self-consciousness, He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a divine and a human will.
2. SCRIPTURE PROOF FOR THE UNITY OF THE PERSON IN CHRIST. If there were a dual personality in Christ, we would naturally expect to find some traces of it in the Bible; but there is not a single trace of it. It is always the same person who speaks, whether the consciousness that finds utterance be human or divine, cf. John 10:30; 17:5 as compared with Matt. 27:46, John 19:28. There is no interchange of “I” and “thou” between the human and divine natures, such as there is between the persons in the Trinity (cf. John 17:23). 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. On the other hand divine attributes and actions are ascribed to the person designated by a human title, John 3:13; 6:62; Rom. 9:5.
3. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON. Since the divine nature is immutable, it naturally did not undergo any essential change in the incarnation. There is, however, a threefold communication, which results from the union of the two natures in Christ:
a. A Communication of Attributes or Properties. This means that, after the incarnation, the properties of both the human and the divine natures are 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 subject to human wants and miseries.
b. A Communication of Operations. In virtue of this it may be said that the redemptive work of Christ is the work of the one undivided personal subject in Christ; that it is brought about by the co-operation of both natures; that each one of these natures works with its own special power; and that the result of this, as the work of a single person, forms an undivided unity.
c. A Communication of Graces. From the very first moment of its existence the human nature of Christ was adorned with all kinds of rich and glorious gifts. It shares in the grace and glory of being united with the divine person, and even becomes the object of prayer and adoration. Moreover, it partakes of those gifts of the Holy Spirit, particularly of the intellect, of the will, and of power by which the human nature of Christ was exalted high above all other intelligent creatures.1
1. Berkhof, L. (1933). Manual of Christian Doctrine (pp. 184–186). Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Grant
Thanks for the follow-up. Admittedly, that is a LOT of material up there. I think it would be helpful to focus on a bit at a time.
Here is the first paragraph which I will limit myself to –
Greg, we understand the person of Christ best in His pre-incarnate state. His incarnation, however, did not diminish His deity in any way. In His humanity Jesus’ personhood developed like any other human being (Lu 2:52; Mt 26:38), which cannot be attributed to His divine nature. This related to His humanity rather than divine consciousness. He also experienced the limitations of ordinary human beings. He had a human spirit (Jn 13:21). Thus, He had a complete human body, soul and spirit (contrary to Bultmann).
So the first two sentences I understand are pretty straight-forward for the HU model (though the non-diminishing and the kenosis might be a bit of an issue – but that is not my area of interest).
A significant issue our reference to person – we are referring to a fundamental – the fundamental consciousness of the entity. There are three persons in the trinity model – that all communicate, etc. That is there are three separate consciousnesses that communicate, act, love, will, etc. A person is something obviously distinct from a nature – a reality within itself. To think of a person in any other way simply eliminates the whole tri-une distinction both between themselves – and themselves and the one nature.
So when I read your text – I am reading in the context of the above understanding of person.
Thus the statement – “In His humanity Jesus’ personhood developed like any other human being (Lu 2:52; Mt 26:38), which cannot be attributed to His divine nature. ”
This sounds like you are saying a human person developed…. along with what I understand the HU would require as an existing divine person. Surely the divine person did not develop anything (the notion of a divine person growing in wisdom would be beyond absurd…). The divine person was quite complete and as you noted “not diminished”.
Then this statement – “Thus, He had a complete human body, soul and spirit (contrary to Bultmann).” In this light, I fail to see that this anthropological construction does not comprise (or, include) a human person (fundamental human consciousness, etc.) which I cannot imagine isn’t construed within the context of the soul or soul/spirit. We never see a fourth component of a man in scripture called “person” in distinction to soul or soul/spirit.
Grant – One approach to help see my concern is identifying the “I” – such as, who is the “MY” in “not MY will be done…” if not the divine person. There can be no other person according to the HU. I realize this leads to the oddity of one divine person being in contrast to another divine person – but these are not my ideas – I am merely following through on the logic. This “I” (“MY”) is the person – I cannot imagine anything more self-evident – and, per the HU, a divine person.
Perhaps one other approach can help clarify –
If God the Son never incarnated in that which was conceived in Mary – could that which was conceived in Mary fully function – just like you, I or any man can fully function without an incarnated deity? If not, what part of a being a man is missing…?? In that case we have something less than “a man” …. despite scriptural statements to the contrary. OTOH if we assert that he could fully function apart from the incarnated deity – then we have two persons… which is equally problematic.
Does this latter approach help identify what I am being challenged by?
Best,
Greg
Greg, the divine person never developed a new person in His humanity. That would bifurcate His personhood. On that point i agree. My simple thrust is that Jesus delimited Himself to the sphere of functioning as a human while at the same time not using His incommunicable attributes to do so. The person functioning within humanity developed as true humanity. Nothing changed in His person except His taking human attributes to live truly as a human. The 7 alternatives simply show how He functioned in the interplay of His two natures (divine and human) on earth. Thus, no “person developed” as a new entity while He was on earth; it was the same person with a new nature (I agree with you on this point). The “I” is simply from the viewpoint of humanity, which goes back to setting aside the VOLUNTARY USE of His incommunicable attributes. In one case the same person used His divine attributes (in some cases on earth as a human) and in other cases stayed within human attributes.
Grant
Thanks – I knew we would make progress!
Just to clarify – when you say “My simple thrust is that Jesus delimited Himself to the sphere of functioning as a human while at the same time not using His incommunicable attributes to do so”
You are really referring to God the Son…He is in fact Jesus – with some set of human attributes which he works through. This, as opposed to a human person – a man Christ Jesus born of a woman.
Sound about right?
Best
Greg
Greg, yes, that was a misstatement.
Grant
Just to make sure I am correctly representing you –
When you say “Jesus” – you really referring to God the Son… with some set of conjoined human attributes picked up at conception through which he works.
This, as opposed to a human person – a man Christ Jesus.
Am I accurately reflecting your Christology?
Best,
Greg
Greg, my apprehension about your direction has to do with the true nature of Christ’s humanity. That is why I have been hesitant to imbibe your direction. Instead, let me affirm my position.
INCARNATION OF TRUE HUMANITY
The true humanity of Christ is a crucial doctrine of Scripture. The death of Christ revolves around our Lord’s humanity. His deity could not die for deity is eternal and can never cease to exist. Other doctrines such as His Messiahship, inheriting the throne of David and offices of king and priest rest on Christ’s true humanity.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Clear evidence of His true humanity is that He possessed a human body of flesh and blood. His body was like other men except for a virgin birth and not inheriting a sin capacity. His life as a human being manifested normal human development and growth (Lu 2:52). His advance in “wisdom and knowledge” pertains to His Human rather than divine consciousness. He also suffered pain, thirst, hunger, fatigue, rest, death and resurrection. People could touch Him before and after the incarnation. Jesus carried human titles such as “the Son of Man,” “the man Christ Jesus,” “Jesus,” “Son of David” and “man of sorrows.”
HUMAN RATIONAL SOUL AND SPIRIT
Jesus said that His “soul” was “sorrowful even unto death” (Mt 26:38). Eternity cannot die but a human soul can. He was also “troubled in spirit” (Jn 13:21). Thus, Jesus not only possessed material aspects of humanity but also immaterial. He was more than a human body; He had a complete body, soul and spirit.
UNION OF DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURES
Although Christ operated sometimes in His deity and other times in His humanity (see 7 points above), in all cases what He was and did came from one person. He was not a dual personality. Normal pronouns are used of Him. The hypostatic union of His divine and human natures can be seen in John 1:1-14; Philippians 2:6-11; Romans 1:2-5; 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 1:1-3. The Son of God took upon a complete human nature. This human nature will exist forever (Mt 26:64). His humanity is foundational to His work as a mediator (1 Ti 2:5). Human personality once in existence is never terminated in the Bible.
RELATION OF CHRIST’S TWO NATURES
“Nature” indicates either divine or human elements within the person of Christ. The Greek word for “nature” (physis)is found in several Scriptures (Ro 2:14; Ga 2:15; 4:8; Eph 2:3; 2 Pe 1:4). There has been debate in church history about the definition of “nature” making it difficult to come to apodictic conclusions based simply on the word itself. “Substance” may be a better word (ousia in Greek). We can generally conclude that “nature” pertains to the essence or inner properties that manifest themselves. Christ’s nature then is the sum of all His attributes and their relationship to each other. Attributes must be compatible to the nature they represent. Or, they cannot be transferred to another nature or substance. Nature regarding Christ’s humanity is all that belongs to His humanity. Nature as applied to His deity is all that belongs to His deity. Both divine and human natures have their respective attributes. Both Christ’s divine and human attributes are united without loss of any essential attributes. Both natures maintain their separate identity, that is, there is no mixture or loss of their separate identity. There was no loss or transfer of any property of one substance to another. The union is one of person and of one person. Thus, the two substances maintain their separate identities though joined in personal union. Christ is a theanthropic single person; His natures are not theanthropic since infinity cannot be transferred to the finite. God cannot be transferred to man. To negate Christ’s deity of a single attribute would rob Him of that deity. To disavow Him of genuine human attributes would negate His humanity.
The union of the divinity and humanity of Christ is not deity possessing humanity; this denies His true humanity. Neither is it humanity simply indwelt by deity; Christ did not differ from other men in degree of divine influence. The union of His two natures were personal and constitutional. The Son of God did not unite Himself with a human person but a human nature. While the two natures are never attributed to each other they are attributed to His person. Some attributes are true of His whole person; some only of His deity; some only of His humanity. In a more complex way, the person may be described of His divine nature, but the predicate is of His human nature (Re 1: 12-18), and the person may be described of His human nature, but the predicate is of His divine nature (Jn 6:62). Yet again, the person may be described by the divine nature, but the predicate is of both natures (Jn 5:25-27). Further, the person may be described according to the human nature, but the predicate is of both natures (Mt 27:46; Jn 5:27).
THE SELF CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST REGARDING HIS TWO NATURES
Christ was always aware of His divine self-consciousness. His human consciousness developed a self-consciousness. Christ during His humanity on earth spoke from both consciousnesses.
Regarding the issue of Christ’s “will,” He can only have one will. “Will” in this case must be distinguished from desire. It was not the Lord’s desire to die on the cross but His will demanded that He do it anyway.
IMPLICATIONS OF ONE PERSON WITH TWO NATURES
The union of Christ’s two natures relates to His incarnation. His divine nature was immutable, but His human nature could progressively develop, learn and experience life. He learned by suffering (He 5:8).
The priesthood of Christ rests on His hypostatic union. As a priest He represented both God and man. His kingly office rested on both natures.
The incarnate Christ was worshiped as the sovereign God.
In the ascension Christ was restored to pristine glory. His human nature was also exalted at that point. He sits at the right hand of the Father as the God-Man.
Grant
Thanks for the thoughtful follow-up – a lot here.
One statement catches my eye – “He had a complete body, soul and spirit. ”
I think you mean that Jesus had a complete HUMAN body soul and spirit. Is that correct?
Greg