[Akoue]

The Council of Chalcedon convened in 451 and addressed an important christological question: Did Jesus Christ have both a human and divine nature and, if so, how are we to understand this? The answer provided by the Council Fathers includes the following:

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person and one hypostasis.

The second Person of the Trinity emptied himself to become human [the kenosis]. But Jesus Christ was fully divine and fully human.

How are we to understand this?
What does this have to teach us about our own relation to the Divine?
Can we learn anything from this about the union with God that awaits us in heaven?

I am looking for responses from those who believe in the two natures of Christ, which is to say that I am not asking whether you accept the Council of Chalcedon, but rather how you think about it and what you think it has to teach us about the matters I mention above.

[adam7gur]

There was a king who took off his royal suit to put on every day clothes like I wear.He also left his palace to live in my house,eat what I eat every day,sleep where I sleep,hurt like I hurt,laugh like I laugh,be tempted like I am.
Does this make him less of a king?It makes him even greater in my eyes because he emptied himself.
Christ is and always was God,remember when He was arrested He said that He could command the angels to stand by Him and not allow His enemies to lay hands on Him.That is one of the most typical moments that we see both natures of Christ and Him putting aside His divine nature and choosing to go through His passion by His human nature!

[De Maria]

I think we can. It has something to do with the I AM WHO AM.

[JoeT777]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Chalcedon

Oh yeah thanks for the pox last night! I've been sneezing my head off ever since. I'll tell the story when you're ready for a laugh.

JoeT

[Akoue]

I think we can. It has something to do with the I AM WHO AM.

We can what?
What has what to do with the I AM WHO AM?

Confused.

[jakester]

The Council of Chalcedon convened in 451 and addressed an important christological question: Did Jesus Christ have both a human and divine nature and, if so, how are we to understand this? The answer provided by the Council Fathers includes the following:

The second Person of the Trinity emptied himself to become human [the kenosis]. But Jesus Christ was fully divine and fully human.

How are we to understand this?
What does this have to teach us about our own relation to the Divine?
Can we learn anything from this about the union with God that awaits us in heaven?

I am looking for responses from those who believe in the two natures of Christ, which is to say that I am not asking whether you accept the Council of Chalcedon, but rather how you think about it and what you think it has to teach us about the matters I mention above.

Akoue - I've been meaning to post... been busy. Anyway, here are some of my thoughts.

To me, Christ's humanity is often underemphasized because of the focus on his divine nature. Christ is clearly divine... he is the incarnate God. But I've often seen him portrayed as God in a human skin suit... having all the look and feel of a human but really God. The thing that troubles me about this is that is really weakens the extent of the reality of him being human. What I mean is that if he were merely here existing with all of the strength and power of God, then how can I rightly relate to him as a human. His legitimacy as a human being would be called into question, I think. One could scarcely relate to him if his experience was so unique from the rest of us. In a very profound sense, his experience was very different from ours. He never experienced moral failure. But I think that Hebrews gives us the perspective which rightly bridges our human experiences (that is, Christ's and ours):

The idea that I interpret here is that the author had just finished talking about "striving to enter the rest of God"... this is what I understand to be eternal life. The writer of Hebrews says that the word of God is living and active and discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart and that no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

I'm not solid in my understanding of this section but this is how I am thinking of it now. The bible consistently portrays the life of a believer as one filled with testing and perseverance. Before anyone can enter into the rest of God, suffering and trials are to be expected. Where I think the writer of Hebrews is going with the beginning part of Ch 4 is that he recognizes that entering into the rest of God requires a steadfast commitment of heart. I have to really want to obey God and do what he says but it won't be easy. Many times my own sin and evil will fill my life with trouble and at times I will want to quit from pursing good. When he says that the word of God is living and active and discerns the intents of the heart, it aids us in recognizing our weaknesses and sins for what they are. We can face into the reality of who we are and not lose heart because the bible rightly points out our problem of sin. Well, if I were to stop there I may lose heart at the fact that I am morally weak and unworthy of God. This is why I think the writer says that we should have confidence when we approach the throne of God (presumably because we have come to a place of weakness) and ask him for mercy because Jesus Christ, being a man, understands our struggles in this life. He understands that we are weak and broken and this is why we can have confidence before God because he acts as our High Priest, making a petition on behalf of us to God.

Where I was focusing my earlier comments was on the fact that Jesus understands our humanity because he is human. The place that this really becomes clear is in the wilderness temptations. Many commentators have looked at the temptations and marveled at Satan's audacity for trying to tempt Jesus. What I think they assume is that Satan was clearly at the height of his arrogance when he tried to tempt the son of God, because after all he was God. However, as one bible teacher once helped me see before, was the fact that Satan came to tempt Jesus in very profound ways. I suppose that it might take an additional post to bring to light some of my thoughts on the temptations themselves but it is my belief that the temptations weren't tit for tat interactions. It wasn't Satan saying this and Jesus immediately responding back (again, donning his super cape with a “G” on it); I think Jesus was really undergoing a serious struggle with the statements that Satan was presenting to him. He was alone in the desert; he was hungry; he was tired. And Satan used his weakness to try and provoke unrighteous responses from Jesus. The amazing thing was that after each incident, his commitment to God remained intact. This is why Jesus is a hero to all who trust in him because he came to understand temptation firsthand…he felt its sting. But he never succumbed to it…but unfortunately, we do. This is why we need the grace and mercy of one who not only understands what we face in our humanity, but is willing to offer grace to us in our time of need.

Akoue, I for one am in deep need of God's mercy and what makes me feel more understood as a human being before God is knowing that God understands me because he is human, too. Amen.

[artlady]

I am no scholar at all and I may even be off topic but when Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple,wasn't he showing a human side?

[Akoue]

Jakester,

I've had a chance to think about your post and I like it very much. I thank you once again for writing something thoughtful and insightful.

In fact, it is because it is so thoughtful that I'm eager to know whether you think that the two natures in Christ teaches us anything regarding our own relation to the Divine. If you think it doesn't, that's fine too, of course. But if you think it does I would very much like to know your thoughts about it.

When you get the time. No rush.

(SUBSTANTIAL) ADDITION:

It occurs to me that I could have been more clear what I am asking you. I've been thinking a lot about what the Incarnation itself teaches us about the relation between the human in the Divine. In Christ we see both natures. And I've been thinking, in the light of that, about the sort of intimacy we have with the Godhead in this life, and the sort of intimacy we may have with the Godhead in eternity. So this is where I'm coming from with the question. I hope it makes some sense.

[revdrgade]

Jesus did not "empty Himself" of His Divine Nature, but only of the honors and glory that He had when He was with the Father.

He often used His Divine Nature in miracles and even in changing His form:

Mk 16:12-13
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

Mt 17:1-3
17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
NIV

We now have become new creatures in Christ, but we don't have a divine nature in the way that He had. We do "partake" of that nature and are begin changed into His image from one degree of glory to another.

The union with God in heaven is still a mystery and won't be fully realized till we put off this flesh for good. The goal is that we become one with God as His Son is:

Jn 10:26-30
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one ."
NIV

Jn 17:11
11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name — the name you gave me — so that they may be one as we are one
NIV

[Criado]

I am no scholar at all and I may even be off topic but when Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple,wasn't he showing a human side?

That's NOT Jesus' human side. There is something he wants to teach not through words but through action.
-----------

To comment on the original post,

I believe that one way to understand this is to cite parallelism.

I John 4:2 states: "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

It is synonymous in saying "The President comes here in a car". The car is NOT the President. The president is the one who is inside the car. Likewise, Jesus is NOT the flesh (thus, has no human NATURE), the flesh is a mere vehicle; the one inside the flesh is Jesus.

If we are going to believe that Jesus has human nature, this verse will be violated:

Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

[jakester]

Jakester,

I've had a chance to think about your post and I like it very much. I thank you once again for writing something thoughtful and insightful.

In fact, it is because it is so thoughtful that I'm eager to know whether you think that the two natures in Christ teaches us anything regarding our own relation to the Divine. If you think it doesn't, that's fine too, of course. But if you think it does I would very much like to know your thoughts about it.

When you get the time. No rush.

(SUBSTANTIAL) ADDITION:

It occurs to me that I could have been more clear what I am asking you. I've been thinking a lot about what the Incarnation itself teaches us about the relation between the human in the Divine. In Christ we see both natures. And I've been thinking, in the light of that, about the sort of intimacy we have with the Godhead in this life, and the sort of intimacy we may have with the Godhead in eternity. So this is where I'm coming from with the question. I hope it makes some sense.

Akoue - I think I know what you are asking but at the same time, I don't... if that makes sense. Can you maybe rephrase what you are asking or add some additional perspective to help clear up your question for me a little more? Maybe you are just working through some of your thoughts and perhaps it's a little difficult putting it into words... I have that experience often, especially when dealing with philosophical ideas, etc.

[Akoue]

Akoue - I think I know what you are asking but at the same time, I don't...if that makes sense. Can you maybe rephrase what you are asking or add some additonal perspective to help clear up your question for me a little more? Maybe you are just working through some of your thoughts and perhaps it's a little difficult putting it into words...I have that experience often, especially when dealing with philosophical ideas, etc.

Fair question. I'll take another crack at it and see if I can be clear this time!

I've been thinking a lot about the Incarnation as itself a sort of text. Here's what I have in mind: Scripture is a text that we read and study because it has things to teach us that we feel it is important to learn. So we ask ourselves questions about, say, a particular passage: What does this mean? What am I supposed to learn from this?

I've been thinking about the Incarnation in a similar way: What does the Incarnation itself say, what is it teaching me (or trying to teach me) about the relation between the human and the divine. In the person of Jesus, the human and the divine are one, but still distinct. My question, the thing that is especially on my mind at the moment, has to do with what this fact, the fact of the coming together of the human and the divine in Christ, teaches us about the relation of the human and the divine in general. (By "in general" I mean, other than in the specific case of Jesus of Nazareth.)

It is my view that all of Scripture, every episode and, indeed, every word is deeply meaningful, that Scripture is more than its surfaces. So we can look at the Incarnation in the light of what it tells us about Christ and his mission. But I think that, in addition to that, it is also telling us something about all of us. It is itself a lesson, or a teacher, in its own right.

So I am thinking about what I have to learn from the Incarnation, from the fact of the Incarnation, of the coming together of the human and the divine in Jesus. And I am trying to concentrate for the moment on what I, or we, have to learn from this about our own relation to the divine, both in this life and in the life to come. What is the relation of these two natures in the rest of us? I opened with Chalcedon in order to set some kind of framework in place--well, that and because I am also interested in Chalcedon and people's thoughts about it--a framework for thinking about the different kinds of relation, and intimacy, of the human and the divine.

My question, then, isn't a terribly precise or well-defined one, alas. Rather, I was trying to elicit your thoughts--or even just your musings--about this. I've found that you and I often think about things differently, but not so differently that I just can't see where you're coming from. In fact, though I may disagree with you I genuinely like what you have to say--even when I don't completely agree with it. And this is why I have sought to elicit your thoughts on the matter. They aren't likely to be my thoughts, but then, that's the point. Whether I find myself in agreement with you at the end of the day, I am confident that thinking about what you have to say will pay its own dividends.

So, you know, I'm basically using you! Actually, you're just an interesting interlocutor who has a different perspective from my own. And seeking out different perspectives is an indispensable part of learning.

Does this help? I hope this helps.

[arcura]

.
Akoue,
Wow, what a question that is.
What Jakeser offered was exceptionally good and I agree.
I do not believe that The Word of God emptied Himself of all His Godly abilities, but He did take on the weakness of being a human being.
He also treated Himself as one of us in so many ways including praying to God the Father as we should.
He felt pain as we do in ways both physical and emotional.
But he also retained the power to work miracles so in that way He did show us signs of His divinity.
That necessarily so for He needed to show us that He was indeed the promised one, the Messiah.
What about our possible divine nature now or in heaven?
As a Catholic I do believe that through partaking of the Eucharist we do become one with Jesus in both His divine and human natures.
But that is temporary for we soon sin.
However, in heaven that will be different for those of us who are there for their sinful nature will have been purged.
I do believe that once there we will be in a glorified body as Jesus had after He rose from the dead and we will be fully His brother and one with Him as He is with The Father.
It Just dawned on be that the Holy Saints in heaven are of that sort; unlike heavenly angels who are holy but not one with God.
Yes, I do believe that we will be fully holy because we will be one with God and thus have a human and divine nature.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[gromitt82]

The Council of Chalcedon convened in 451 and addressed an important christological question: Did Jesus Christ have both a human and divine nature and, if so, how are we to understand this? The answer provided by the Council Fathers includes the following:


I am looking for responses from those who believe in the two natures of Christ, which is to say that I am not asking whether you accept the Council of Chalcedon, but rather how you think about it and what you think it has to teach us about the matters I mention above.

The mystery of the Holy Trinity is way beyond our capacity of understanding. The
Trinity is one of the greatest theological mysteries. There are some that think that because we believe in one God (monotheism) we cannot accept the concept of the Trinity. Nevertheless, the Bible illustrates that the Godhead consists of 3 divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each fully God, each showing fully the divine nature.
However, our mental capacity is not prepared to absorb such a concept as it is not to understand the very meaning of the word GOD. We can give to it all kind of meanings and try to explain it by pointing out of the marvelous and incomprehensible characteristics that, according to our little intelligence, the Deity must have.
Furthermore, I’m convinced that we are not even able to start scratching the reality of GOD. I believe that most of us seldom stop to think of the kind of power needed to create the Universe we know right now. A Universe formed by zillions of stars, of unknown limits (if any), and where there may be millions of inhabited worlds too.
And despite this fact we still insist in trying to understand concepts totally inexplicable.
To the best of our knowledge Jesus Christ was fully human insofar He was born of a woman, and fully Divine inasmuch His Incarnation was due to the Holy Spirit. But, as I say, I do not think that this has as great a transcendence as the learned audience of the Chalcedon Council decided it had, this said with the utmost respect to their work and decisions.
As I said in another post today I believe we tend to complicate our life a little too much with problems such as the quadrature of the circle…

[arcura]

gromitt82,
Well said.
Fred

[jakester]

Fair question. I'll take another crack at it and see if I can be clear this time!

I've been thinking a lot about the Incarnation as itself a sort of text. Here's what I have in mind: Scripture is a text that we read and study because it has things to teach us that we feel it is important to learn. So we ask ourselves questions about, say, a particular passage: What does this mean? What am I supposed to learn from this?

I've been thinking about the Incarnation in a similar way: What does the Incarnation itself say, what is it teaching me (or trying to teach me) about the relation between the human and the divine. In the person of Jesus, the human and the divine are one, but still distinct. My question, the thing that is especially on my mind at the moment, has to do with what this fact, the fact of the coming together of the human and the divine in Christ, teaches us about the relation of the human and the divine in general. (By "in general" I mean, other than in the specific case of Jesus of Nazareth.)

It is my view that all of Scripture, every episode and, indeed, every word is deeply meaningful, that Scripture is more than its surfaces. So we can look at the Incarnation in the light of what it tells us about Christ and his mission. But I think that, in addition to that, it is also telling us something about all of us. It is itself a lesson, or a teacher, in its own right.

So I am thinking about what I have to learn from the Incarnation, from the fact of the Incarnation, of the coming together of the human and the divine in Jesus. And I am trying to concentrate for the moment on what I, or we, have to learn from this about our own relation to the divine, both in this life and in the life to come. What is the relation of these two natures in the rest of us? I opened with Chalcedon in order to set some kind of framework in place--well, that and because I am also interested in Chalcedon and people's thoughts about it--a framework for thinking about the different kinds of relation, and intimacy, of the human and the divine.

My question, then, isn't a terribly precise or well-defined one, alas. Rather, I was trying to elicit your thoughts--or even just your musings--about this. I've found that you and I often think about things differently, but not so differently that I just can't see where you're coming from. In fact, though I may disagree with you I genuinely like what you have to say--even when I don't completely agree with it. And this is why I have sought to elicit your thoughts on the matter. They aren't likely to be my thoughts, but then, that's the point. Whether I find myself in agreement with you at the end of the day, I am confident that thinking about what you have to say will pay its own dividends.

So, you know, I'm basically using you! Actually, you're just an interesting interlocutor who has a different perspective from my own. And seeking out different perspectives is an indispensable part of learning.

Does this help? I hope this helps.

Akoue - basically, I don't know if I have considered the question you are asking before although I think I have wondered about some of what you are saying in particular ways. For one, although God's existence is demonstrated through creation, etc. he also has chosen to keep himself remarkably hidden from us. Jesus was the visible manifestation of God in the flesh, but neither you nor I nor countless others have ever seen him. So we are still groping in the dark, trying to understand who God is and what he's like and what he's up to in our lives and the world around us. Yet at the same time, Peter says the following about followers of Jesus Christ:

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

From the apostle's perspective, God has begun a process already in the life of his people, whereby he is making them into the sort of people who will inherit the kingdom of God and he has no problem saying "... that they have become partakers of the divine nature." What does that mean, partakers of the divine nature? It's god-like. I don't mean to say "God", but god-like. There is and will only ever be one God. But the apostle Peter seemed to understand that man's existence in glory will be one of complete god-like character. In fact, the process of making this so has begun already for one whom God has marked for eternal glory. From my perspective, the idea of man being made into a divine being is simply another way of saying, supremely good. Not supreme in rank...like God or just as good as God. But supreme in the sense that we become as good as God intended for us to be. But we can only be thus if God makes us so. Eastern mysticism tries to formulate an approach to becoming divine by means of personal attainment. That one can become god-like by practicing certain things or discipling himself from fulfilling evil desires (not that abstaining from evil isn't right to do). But I cannot go there because I absolutely see God as the one who is making people into the sort of creatures he has in mind for his kingdom.

In summary, I have no problem with the idea of human beings becoming divine creatures (that is, supremely good). Man will never be like God because man is a created being of God and "... in him we live, and move, and have our being... " But man has not yet reached the zenith of what God intended for him. In the garden, Adam and Eve had not known evil. They did end up knowing it. In the kingdom of God, man will not only know what evil is but will have a nature—a divine nature— that will be wholeheartedly committed to goodness and righteousness because he will be good and righteous, just like God. This is the point that I believe Peter is making.

So, does the Incarnation teach us anything about the relationship between the human and the divine? Yes, I believe it does. I believe it brings us back to the garden event. What man did not do right then, man will one day be able to do right... withstand temptation and evil. Jesus is the firstfruits of God's creation and one day all will be made right. Man will be able to follow the godly example of Jesus Christ, fulfilling all that God has intended to create in man. This is how I see it, of course and I am not willing to die for what I am laying out here but it is the best I can do in putting together the pieces of what I know.

I don't know if I answered your question or not but hopefully I was in the ballpark.

Sincerely.

[arcura]

Jakester,
That was a VERY good explanation.
Thanks.
Fred