What is the hypostatic union? The theological “tension” surrounding this issue is that God and humanity are opposed to each other. If there is to be a bridge to bring these two opposing camps together, then there must be a perfect representative who can suffer for us and thus be fully human, and yet able to have the infinite value needed to die for all of humanity’s sins and represent us before a holy and just God. Jesus could not be less than totally united in these two natures, otherwise, this matter would remain partially unresolved. He is thus both fully human and fully divine. John 1:14, Gal. 4:4, 1 Timothy 3:16, etc. all point to the union of Christ as God and man. John 17 and Psalms 2:7 and 40:7-8 do as well.
The following is a sample of the formal ways that the church had tried to resolve this issue early on in its history. [we get devotional below the following bullet point list].
- Nestorianism was the view that held that there was a split in the personhood of Christ. Nestorius himself did not necessarily hold to this, but his choice of words while patriarch of Constantinople in 428ff. led some, especially his rivals to take it that way. He made the mistake of declaring his position that Mary was not just theotokos (“God-bearing”) [but also]…anthropotokos (“human-bearing”). Nestorianism became identified with a view that Christ had split natures, and was condemned at the Council of Ephasus in 431, but it is impossible to determine the actual “view of the real Nestorius, especially now that we have discovered the “Book of Heracleides” which was reputedly authored by Nestorius and indicates that he agreed with the Chalcedonian formulation (two natures united in one person). Yet it shows that he was impatient with Cyril’s hypostatic union. Nestorius preferred to think in terms of conjunction rather than union.” (Christian Theology, Erickson, p. 664).
- Eutychianism came after the council of Ephesus in 431. Eutychus became the main symbol for this idea that Jesus consisted of but one nature. This was a form of Docetism, which is the view that Jesus was not fully physical. His body was a phantasm or a celestial substance. Eutychus was denounced at the “standing Synod of Constantinople.” (Christian Theology, Erickson, p. 665). He did not defend himself. It is hard to say what exactly he believed. “In 449, a council at Ephesus reinstated him.” This was known as the “robber synod” because it was not held under imperial authority. (Christian Theology, Erickson, p. 665) However, this led to the Synod at Chalcedon in 451 after the succession of a new emperor, and issued a “statement that was to become the standard for all of Christendom.” It affirmed the Nicene Creed and held in tension that Jesus was one substance and one person yet possessing two natures fully. It thus avoids the pitfalls of Nestorianism and Eutychiansim.
- Adoptionism is the idea that at some point, most likely Jesus’ baptism or even resurrection, He was adopted by God as His Son. They quote Ps. 2:7: “You are my son. Today I have become your Father.” They apply it to Christ via Heb.1:5; 5:5. They also point out the similarity with Mark 1:11.
- Anhypostatic Christology – This was intended to guard against Nestorianism and Adoptionism. It asserts that Jesus had no subsistence apart from the second person of the trinity. It argues basically that Jesus had no individual human personality.
- Kenoticism – The modern period produced this attempt to solve the problem of the two natures by arguing that Jesus emptied Himself of his divine attributes when He became human (Phil. 2:7). This could be seen on a parallel with modalistic monarchianism to the problem of the trinity. (Christian Theology, Erickson, 672)
- Dynamic Incarnation – “This holds that the presence of God in the divine-human Jesus was not in the form of a personal hypostatic union between the Second Person of the Trinity and an individual human being, Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, the incarnation should be thought of as the active presence of the power of God within the person Jesus.” (Christian Theology, Erickson, 668) This is akin to Dynamic Monarchianism according to Erickson.
The disadvantage of all this technical nuance is that it tends to overwhelm us. Oftentimes, however, on a practical level, we tend to emphasize Jesus’ Godness at the expense of His humanness. Even with good intentions, I too confess to doing this in certain ways, and it has been an immense blessing for me to reconsider this.
There is thus a need to factor in the humanity of Jesus Christ. The second person of the Godhead took on humanity. There is no doubt as to the fact that it is real. But Jesus is God, and yet He became fully and completely human. Dr. Bookman said on the Sound Words Podcast, that Jesus was remarkably like us.
Luke 4 says that Jesus returns to Nazareth. And He was raised in Nazareth. He was about 30 in the prior chapter, and everyone knew Him. He moved his family to Capernaum after the death of His father, Joseph. He went to the synagogue where he had been. He is a local boy who went to the synagogue school with all the other children. Jesus was a stone mason along with Joseph. Tekton is the greek word for this. Perhaps he apprenticed his own brothers.
Then we learn that amazingly, He had driven out the money changers at the temple, and word had gotten back to Nazareth. Then He reads the most unambiguous passage from Isaiah 61 about the Messiah. This is a local boy made good, according to Dr. Bookman. It says that all eyes are upon Him, and He said that this passage was fulfilled today, and everyone understood that He was claiming to be the Messiah.
They all said that “Is this not Joseph’s son?” There wasn’t anyone who said that “this is the same guy who blew [as it were] on those doves as a child and they all flew away,” which some fictional and spiritual accounts say of Jesus. Everyone said, as if surprised, “is this not Joseph’s son?”
This indicates that He was so normal that they could not have suspected that He was anything other than a normal young man. But all of the normal elements of life were there. He was something of a winsome person just like it appears in his interactions with his mother and father. In every way He was a model. He was humanity not colored by sin. He lives a normal life, but a life that in every way would have been normal.
One of the things we witness in Him is that there are intimate connections between prayer and sanctification. But how do we sort out in depth these issues between His humanity and deity? What you have to do is bow the knee in each of these ways.
the Bible says that Jesus took on Himself full humanity and yet He was God. You have in the person of Jesus this reality. You have to come at that question with two perspectives:
Ontologically, as to His essence, the nicene expression is one person, but two natures. It is unspeakably important and blessed. He is our redeemer because He is one of us, and it is also true that He must be God. But He can sympathize with all our weaknesses and infirmities.
When Jesus was baptized, the Spirit of God came upon Him. What was going on here is the theocratic anointing. The Spirit came upon Jesus to enable Him to do what God had called Him to do to offer Himself as the Messiah. Everyone in the past needed that ministry of the spirit to enable them. Jesus stood in need of that ministry of the spirit to enable Him to become what He Himself had chosen to become. Ontology means essence. Jesus took on Himself genuine humanity, and He lived a very normal life.
What we all tend to do is to assume in passsages that Jesus was on a different plane than us. This is the “Clark Kent approach,” where people all became like robots in His presence and needed to do what He said. He actually lived a very normal existence. He had genuine limitations, and He prayed because He was dependent. He was stunningly more like us than we think. He is not walking through some pre-scripted drama. Hebrews says that He learned obedience through what He suffered. He experienced genuine frustration. Bruce Ware is the most important voice in drawing us to the reality of Jesus’ humanity.
What part did Jesus’ diety play in the role that Jesus lived? Bruce Ware said it is irrelevant. Jesus relied on the Spirit just as we are dependent on the Spirit. He lived a life that was so normal. This was so that He could be our kinsman redeemer. He was like us in every way. In every way Jesus is fully both God and man. People tend to react to these very real descriptions of His humanity by being docetistic, but that is an unnecessary reaction. He is fully both Human and God.
Leave a Reply