quote:

---

... The Word became flesh. I think Geisler is right to point out the in the incarnation God takes on human nature, or takes human nature into himself. But this shouldn't be boiled down to something equivalent to two people living in the same house temporarily. The incarnation continues. The union of the divine and human in Christ is permanent. I find that awe-inspiring!

Tom

---

For starters:
1. "God takes on human nature, or takes human nature into himself..."
2. "...shouldn't be boiled down to something equivalent to two people living in the same house temporarily..."

Here is a good site with clear, scriptural thinking from someone badly stereotyped--John Calvin. See: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii25.htm. It is called: " Chapter 13. Christ clothed with the true substance of human nature." (from Calvin's Institutes--Book Two: Of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, which are a devotional work.

quote:

---

... the image of the theatre became an organizing metaphor in Calvin's thought, putting worship at the heart of his theology. 13 The human adoration of God, and its extension throughout the rest of creation, was, in fact, the stated purpose toward which Calvin originally directed his Institutes of the Christian Religion. His theological masterpiece might best be read as a summa pietatis rather than as a summa theologica. In the long subtitle of the first edition of the Institutes (1536), Calvin described his book as "encompassing almost the whole sum of piety [pietatis summam] and whatever it is necessary to know about the doctrine of salvation, a work most worthy to be read by all who are zealous for piety." (OS I:19) Doxology was for him the chief goal and delight of all created beings. He knew that theology remains unfinished until it concludes itself in spirituality.
(Belden C. Lane, Saint Louis University )

---

Go look through it (its fairly short). Spending some time with that text is also a good idea. Many different issues are brought up that you might not occur to logic, but do to a devotional mind: such as what scripture means that The Holy Spirit was upon Christ. Calvin says that obviously it is not saying that an extra portion of the divine "essence" was spooned out. Rather, it is upon the humanity of Christ that the "energies" (Calvin uses the word "Glories.") were bestowed. Christ's Baptism and His Transfiguration) celebrated yesterday in the East reveal the initiation of God's grace to humanity -- OUR humanity. Yipee! They are promises for us.


Tom said: "God takes on human nature, or takes human nature into himself..."

How very true.

The Greek term is en-hypostasis. Our fallen humanity, as the creeds say "everything except for sin" (which included the temptations mentioned in Marcus' post above (that "Jesus was, at the same time, a divine self unable to sin but also able to experience all the spiritual and physical difficulties that we also experience whilst incarcerated in these bodies. ") was permanently taken on by Christ and IS and evermore shall be His. He is our day--the day of the end of Revelations--and our "God with us." The wall of separation is removed.


Harold asked: So did God become flesh, an actual human, or did the Word simply add a human dimension to himself.

Harold, the answers are YES and YES. It seems to me that you misread what G. wrote.

As I read your first post, here is what I think I'm seeing. You make two statements which it seems you also say can't both be true; but it seems that both are true:

quote:

---

1 -- "In the incarnation the divine nature did not become human nature or visa versa.
2 -- The divine person-the second person of the Trinity-became human, that is, assumed a human nature in addition to His divine nature.

BOTH OF THOSE ARE TRUE.

Notice carefully the words of Scripture. "The Words was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

3 -- It does not say that God became flesh.

YOU'RE RIGHT. GOD-IN-CHRIST BECAME FLESH (enhypostasis), BUT CHRIST'S DIVINITY DID NOT MERGE WITH HIS HUMANITY, AT ALL (NICENCE CREED, AND ATHANASIAN) "NO MIXING" AND "NO CONFUSION."

I'LL ALTER YOUR LAST PART TO MAKE IT TRUE: It is impossible for God'S ESSENCE to become man as it is for an infinite to become a finite or an uncreated to become created. BUT THIS IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD'S ENERGIES (Orthodox)/GLORIES (Calvin).

---

Tom's second statement:

2. "...shouldn't be boiled down to something equivalent to two people living in the same house temporarily..."

Right.

The Incarnation is not God "occupying" flesh. (Marcus maybe isn't saying this, but forgive me, please, my quoting some poorly chosen words, as example of how easy it is for ALL of us to mess up: "Why cannot God also occupy such a vessel for a time in the same way?") What Marcus clearly understood about the nature of Christ's temptation, I quote above, is that His flesh was HIS. Who ever said, "That must have felt incredibly claustrophobic to a divine spirit." I disagree with. I have to say that "claustrophobic" sounds like "God-in-a-man-suit" rather than an en-hypostasis where Christ really did become human, as Tom said up front.

Markus said something brilliant when he said: "His spiritual being was His own divine being." Theologically RIGHT ON THE MONEY. The Eastern Orthodox are exact and explicit on this!

To illustrate: For Christ to have had a human spirit (which he did not have) would be for the Logos to "possess" another whole man. That is one of the typical heracies--we all recognize that.

But we should also pause. Christ HAS a human body. Does not have a human spirit. BUT Christ DOES have BOTH a HUMAN WILL (came with the body--has to, as it is standard equipment) AND a DIVINE WILL! Don't overlook that!

It was his HUMAN will that was tempted. It is of THAT human will that the early church Fathers said "That which is not assumed is not healed." A very famous statement. And it is about our fallen, human will, in need of redemption that they were addressing by that formulation.

So, here is a problem:

Who said: "However, whilst within His earthly carcass, there was evidently a greater spiritual separation from the Father than when He was previously, and is subsequently, in heaven in purely spiritual form. "

Go see Calvin in that LINK above. You could also go see the Eastern Fathers. But if you are more comfortable with a Westerner, here is Calvin again: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii25.htm.

Calvin writes:

quote:

---

4. The absurdities which they wish to fasten upon us are mere puerile calumnies. They reckon it base and dishonoring to Christ to have derived his descent from men; because, in that case, he could not be exempted from the common law which includes the whole offspring of Adam, without exception, under sin. . . . Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us," distinctly separates him from the common lot, as being true man, and yet without fault and corruption, (Rom. 8: 3.) It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the divine nature. . . .

AND THEN POINTEDLY!:

Another absurdity which they obtrude upon us, viz., that if the Word of God became incarnate, it must have been enclosed in the narrow tenement of an earthly body, is sheer petulance. For although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin's womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning.

Calvin's Institutes, Book II, Chapter 13. "Christ clothed with the true substance of human nature."

---

Calvin agrees with the East pretty darn well.


I'VE HEARD MANY REFORMED FOLK SPEAKING ABOUT CHRIST'S "EMPTYING" OF HIMSELF. BUT HERE IS WHAT JOHN CALVIN HAD TO SAY, WITH CAREFUL AND CLEAR DISTINGUISHINGS:

quote:

---

... what Paul is then discussing, (Philip. 2: 7.) His object is not to show what kind of body Christ assumed, but that, when he might have justly asserted his divinity he was pleased to exhibit nothing but the attributes of a mean and despised man. For, in order to exhort us to submission by his example, he shows, that when as God he might have displayed to the world the brightness of his glory, he gave up his right, and voluntarily emptied himself; that he assumed the form of a servant, and, contented with that humble condition, suffered his divinity to be concealed under a veil of flesh. Here, unquestionably, he explains not what Christ was, but in what way he acted. Nay, from the whole context it is easily gathered, that it was in the true nature of man that Christ humbled himself. For what is meant by the words, he was "found in fashion as a man," but that for a time, instead of being resplendent with divine glory, the human form only appeared in a mean and abject condition? Nor would the words of Peter, that he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirits" (1 Pet. 3: 18,) hold true, unless the Son of God had become weak in the nature of man. This is explained more clearly by Paul, when he declares that "he was crucified through weakness," (2 Cor. 13: 4.) And hence his exaltation; for it is distinctly said, that Christ acquired new glory after he humbled himself. This could fitly apply only to a man endued with a body and a soul. Manes dreams of an aerial body, because Christ is called the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. But the apostle does not there speak of the essence of his body as heavenly, but of the spiritual life which derived from Christ quickens us, (I Cor. 15: 47.) This life Paul and Peter, as we have seen, separate from his flesh. Nay, that passage admirably confirms the doctrine of the orthodox, as to the human nature of Christ. If his body were not of the same nature with ours, there would be no soundness in the argument which Paul pursues with so much earnestness, - If Christ is risen we shall rise also; if we rise not, neither has Christ risen.

---

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So to Tom's two, I'd add two more:

3. Christ was not separated from the inter-Trinitarian fellowship (a mystery to us) while Incarnate on earth, NOR while Incarnate now!!!!

4. Christ's emptying of Himself did not involve a change in divinity. Just a change --as Calvin says above -- in the way he acted. That was a decision and act of the Son's WILL -- but of course also the Tri-unitiarian will also; as is everything God wills. The Son willed the emptying, continually. That is why the descent of the Holy Spirit.

But OUR emphasis in devotion as we think about this is that CHRIST DID THAT FOR US. We should not think "Christ was trapped. He went in, and things got ugly." At ANY point Christ could have acted divinely. Any point. (Otherwise how would the temptations like rock-to-bread or calling down angels be real?) He changed in no way as to his divinity. But in becoming human, for us and our salvation, he "suffered his divinity to be concealed under a veil of flesh." (Calvin)


(Lets see what Harold posted above...)

Great topic!





Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/08/2002 12:16:49 AM

quote:

---

The Incarnation is not God "occupying" flesh. (Marcus maybe isn't saying this, but forgive me, please, my quoting some poorly chosen words, as example of how easy it is for ALL of us to mess up: "Why cannot God also occupy such a vessel for a time in the same way?") What Marcus clearly understood about the nature of Christ's temptation, I quote above, is that His flesh was HIS. Who ever said, "That must have felt incredibly claustrophobic to a divine spirit." I disagree with. I have to say that "claustrophobic" sounds like "God-in-a-man-suit" rather than an en-hypostasis where Christ really did become human, as Tom said up front.

---

Actually, these were not poorly chosen words, (maybe a poorly chosen idea!) - it is actually what I intended to say. When I say I see the incarnation as God entering a human carcass, that is what I intended. (I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with that though!

I am not trying to suggest that God was like some genie spiralling like a whiff of smoke into a bottle, but that God in heaven extended His finger and touched the earth in the form of our Lord Jesus Christ. A memory comes to mind of the kids sitting entranced in front of the Punch and Judy show at the seaside. All they see is Punch, he has his own character, his own voice, his own existence, his own message. But who is Punch? When the hand is removed, it is a piece of cloth and papier-maché. Is Punch then the hand? But the hand is only an extension of the hidden person who controls all things behind the curtain. It is a poor analogy, and I would not wish to suggest Jesus is only a hand-puppet, but this is a respresentation of how I see God entering our world.

It seems that I am also granted the honour of being at odds with even Calvin for suggesting that "However, whilst within His earthly carcass, there was evidently a greater spiritual separation from the Father than when He was previously, and is subsequently, in heaven in purely spiritual form. "

Response:

quote:

---

“Another absurdity which they obtrude upon us, viz., that if the Word of God became incarnate, it must have been enclosed in the narrow tenement of an earthly body, is sheer petulance. For although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin's womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning. “
Calvin's Institutes, Book II, Chapter 13. "Christ clothed with the true substance of human nature

---

Whilst it is clear that Jesus still had a vast spiritual awareness that obviously extended well outside the capability of a human shell, I only wonder why He so often went off into solitude for long hours to pray. I would not imagine this having been necessary in spiritual form prior to the incarnation, and therefore assume this indicates a greater spiritual separation whilst in carnal form. But that was just a layman’s observation, not a point of contention :)

Thanks to all for such an enlightening discussion

Markus




Edited by - markus on 08/10/2002 02:50:03 AM

quote:

---

I only wonder why He so often went off into solitude for long hours to pray. I would not imagine this having been necessary in spiritual form prior to the incarnation, and therefore assume this indicates a greater spiritual separation whilst in carnal form.

---

OK, perhaps here is both the problem that is your 'impetus' and a sketch made to see whether it solves the problem.

Let me also paint loosely. Lets consider that the more the puppet-sock is true ... the less the need for being "off into solitude for long hours to pray." That is also to say, that the more human Christ was, with a real "fallen" humanity (unlike the imaculate Conception the Roman church ascribes to Mary) the more greatly would be the need for intense prayer. That is a different way than you are approaching it. You are adding an outside problem. (I don't mean to suggest that I think I can know what you are actually thinking. I'd talk this way if we were cutting and nailing two-by-fours.) The problem that you suggest is this "greater spiritual separation." But haven't you, in order to solve a "Christological" problem just opened up a "Trinitarian" problem? (I imagine two guys each trying to fill their hole by stealing dirt from the bottom of their neighbor's hole.......) But instead of adding the feature of "greater spiritual separation whilst in carnal form" so as to account for the problem; what about something simpler, from the inside, like His humanity itself.?

A famously ubiquitous declaration of Eastern Christian theologians is that "What is not assumed is not healed." It was said in regard to the debate over whether Christ had a real human will. (The Western, juridical tradition appears--if what I read last night some Reformed discussion board is accurate--to simply ignore that question because they concluded that: since the depravity of the human will is so great, for Jesus to take and heal his own human will wouldn't solve ours. If I understood right, its like they just dropped the matter.) But at least one of the seven Ecumenical Councils (established dogma) declared that Christ had two wills. ("Oriental Orthodox split with Eastern Orthodox over this; but it was a misunderstanding, as they are discovering in recent years. Distance and language. Actually they both point to the same saint as their spokesman. Ironic.) THAT second will ... the human will that is natural to his human nature (We'll get into that.) was subject to temptation. It NEEDED "solitude for long hours to pray." Look at the kinds of temptation: hunger, ultimate control, fame. These are tempting only to those who don't have them. The Eternal Son has them. Had them even while under the kenosis (How did Calvin say it?): "Christ humbled himself. ... for a time, instead of being resplendent with divine glory, the human form only appeared in a mean and abject condition?" But the real human body of Jesus', that he made part of his Person -- really a part -- was slowly dying. Christ suffered his whole life. The Cross is the all-important; but it is not all. It was not same Trinitarian post-partum that was the suffering, the cause of the need for long prayer. It was Christ's real humanity itself! Just like yours and mine! Just like them.

I mentioned that Christ made his humanity to be a real part of his person. I've offered in posts above that the Eastern Fathers talk about God three ways: as essence, as energies, and as hypostasis/Person. Academically the Greek words for essence and the work "hypostasis" mean exactly the same thing (Lossky). So it is a play-on-words that they were constructing. (Even in Gregory Nyssa.) They purposely avoided language that could be worked upon logically to derive concepts. Purposely. Their motivation was that they knew that the Person-ness of God could NOT be reduced down to His essence. (That would be a "god of the philosophers.") And going the other way, they wanted to guard against people taking anything from descriptions of the essence (and let me wonder out loud here about descriptions of the energies too: since I have a stronger recollection of some things talked about by Evangelicals as pertaining to the essence being regarded Eastwards as being energies -- like power.) Anyways!!! Person. Christ's humanity was joined to his person. The body and soul/will that are organically part of each other in every other human person are joined to His person.

Lossky makes this comment: (worth noting)

quote:

---

The expression "hypostatic union" (despite its convenience and general use) is improper because it make us think of a human nature or substance existing before the incarnation which would enter into the hypostasis of the Word, while in fact the human nature of substance assumed by the Word in the Virgin Mary only began to exist as this particular nature or substance at the moment of the incarnation, i.e., in the Person or Hypostasis of the Son of God become Man. Thus the humanity of Christ, by which He is "consubstantial with us" never had any other hypostasis than that of the Son of God; however no one would deny that His human nature has the character of an "individual substance," and the Calcedonian dogma insists on the fact that Christ is "perfect in his humanity," "truly man," -- "while with a reasonable soul and a body."
(In the Image and Likeness of God, page 117)

---

I see in your impressionist brushstroke of "extended His finger and touched the earth in the form of" an interesting creation. But the actual happening is much to wonderful to not ponder. God didn't just "touch" the earth; He became both part of his creation, AND took to himself the role of priest that Adam had thrown away. Man, the microcosm and the mediator. Christ the true Mediator. That God may BE ALL and IN ALL.







Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/10/2002 11:30:36 AM

quote:

---

Mephi2K:

Here's a question: Given the humanity of Jesus, is is possible that some of the metaphysical beliefs and theological truths that Jesus was espoused was highly culturally conditioned, and therefore, possibly INCORRECT?

Could Jesus have been sincere, yet WRONG in ANY of his ultimate claims and/or beliefs? If not, tell comprehensively why not?

---

You can, or course, make this be anything that you want; its your question. But here is my answer.

Focusing on, "Given the humanity of Jesus", one has to answer the question first: Which sort of being human? There are many possibilities. But taking that sort of being human that Jesus has, the answer to you question is: NO.

You know the sorts of heracies that mess with the Incarnation. The truth about the Incarnation is that Christ became both truly human and truly divine. So, since my initial take on your question was that you were playing the devil's advocate and suggesting that Christ's humanity ran-away-with control of everything so as to sidetrack his divine will, THAT is to pick a different sort of "being human" than is the true case. "Going there" is the prerogative of the question asker; but its a question prooving itself then.

But maybe that is not what you were doing?

If by "metaphysical truths" you mean what can pass for metaphysical concepts in academia, then maybe so. could Jesus have held concepts as strange to us as Calvin's thinking that water--begin a light element--could of itself rise up and overwelm the land? Maybe. But a truly metaphysical truth? NO. A trutly metaphysical truth is one like that the ascended Christ is not everywhere, but is no longer subject to the catagory of space. Truths of that order would not be messed up by Jesus: When he said "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" THAT SORT of truth he would not mess up. This is because ose sorts or truths are not known by any mechanisms that culture makes use of. (How's that?)

quote:

---

So, let me get this completely straight. I hear you saying basically that it was not possible that the MAN, Jesus of Nazareth, held any views and/or beliefs that FUNDAMENTALLY conflict with actuality. Sure, we can say that Jesus' knowledge may have been largely phenomenological (perspectival, yet NOT untrue), but it would NEVER have been the case the Jesus believed something that was just NOT TRUE in any case. Moreover, I hear you saying that statements about his self-understand would NOT be subject to error either.

---

I just see you trying to put words in my mouth. And those words don't seem to resemble what I wrote at all.

However.......

When you wrote this, "Perhaps I'm trying to get a grasp of a learning, growing Jesus".

I think that that is worth doing. so why are you asking the OTHER set of questions then?

You asked, 'graspingly': "Did the Logos-become-human possess the greatest perceptive mind in human existence?"

I don't know? (And what would critics of the Iowa Basic Skills Test, or the ACT or MCAT say about the political correctness of such a question?) Too complicated a question. But....... looking at the other side of the coin, of how darkness of mind (like Paul talks about) has impact on perception, etc., you might explore. But it seems you are painting Christ as a superman?

"Was Jesus the child prodigy who, once taught something, NEVER forgot it?" I doubt it. "could (he) accumulate knowledge like a supercomputer?" I bet not. "Did Jesus not make ANY mistakes?" I bet so. "Was Jesus the genius who, somehow, perceived all things in a way unlike any other human..." (What do you mean by "perceive?") Tentatively: "Not."

I like the "kenosis" definition that Calvin furnishes (in posts above). But the "ignorance" of Christ is just part of that. That kenosis is bigger than just his ignorance.

His ignorance (Is THAT your topic?) was real. As I said above: If for example Jesus looked at the world through the lens of framwork-componants that were wrong--such as the nature of water mentioned of Calvin 1500 years later, or any of us who heard wrong in Jr. High science class--that would not be surprising.

Your focusing on the "learning, growing..." Jesus is the most fruitful place to look. Especially for knowing and understanding.

"Perception" seems to be a more complicated matter. We may not understand the aging process we who are over 40 are going through; but perceptions of it are a domain beyond mere understanding. "Perception" also seems to encompass the subjective.

What was Christ's "perception" of his mission on the road to Calvary; and even as he prayed in the garden "if there be another way." His HUMAN will I'm talking about now. (His divine will had nothing to fear; his human will did.) Fear though it did--as real as his temptations had been...and were in that 'now'--his perception went beyond mere understanding. "Thy will." "Father forgive them." "It is finished." Kenosis completed!




Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/13/2002 7:22:52 PM

quote:

---

Meph, were you talking to me? Remind me sometime NOT to hire you as my spokesman. I didn't think that I did such a bad job saying what I did. How did you twist... (Did you even start with my material; or were you just raring to go no matter how I answered--should I suspect?) Go back and read what I wrote. It was not profound or anything; but I thought it was organized.

---

Ok. I'm going to go by the assumption that we've never spoken before. (Directly, I mean) I generally don't try to get personal or speak in an insulting way. At least, not intentionally. And when it happens, I try to get some understanding and not do it again. Perhaps it's the state of mind that I'm in right now...but I took your statement as a backhanded, condescending slap. It may well not have been...but that's how I took it. If you notice, Al, I phrased my words intentionally...

"I hear you saying..."

...is supposed to leave the impression that this is NOT necessarily what the other person said, but what YOU, the receiving party, got from the communique. Now within this, it is the case that sometimes a person restates the points that the first person stated. Paraphrasing, if you will. And other times, it is the case that a person can list the PERCEIVED IMPLICATIONS of the thoughts the first person asserted. What I readily perceive is that I did much more of the latter than the former...and that lead to my statements being less than precise in your eyes. The second thing jumps a step. Now, to a person LOOKING for a paraphrase, it would certainly seem that I didn't paraphrase you carefully enough. And since I realize that, I will take that on the chin. What I should have done was adequately paraphrase instead of jumping to implications like I did.

But please notice the statement...

"Is all this what you are saying, Al?"

I felt this statement was indicative of the fact that my ideas were tentative and open to feedback. Regardless to what, it would have sufficed to say NO. At which point, if you so chose, you could have restated your points more succinctly. Whatever. See, Al, I could have maybe understood the nature of your response if I just said..

"YOU, Al, are obviously saying...."

but I didn't do that, now did I? Nope. I didn't. So, with all that now understood, perhaps we can start over on ALL this...

You are very correct that the "learning, growing" aspect is a good place to do this. Because in talking about that, we'd be dealing with what I want to...namely that of Jesus' potential ignorance. Nice catch.

Now, again, it could just be that I am hyper-sensitive right now about how I perceived your response. If you feel that's the case, then I apologize if you feel slighted. I figure that the BEST thing that we can do is to basically try to clarify ourselves to each other as rational human beings while trying to have a productive convo. What do you think?

Thanks.

In the Spirit of Dialogue,



PS: Are you friends with POW? Just wondering.