Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or “person”, of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word ‘subsists’ is used rather than ‘exists’ to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine.
Now, all of this seems impossibly abstract. Also, how can it be possible to have a true human nature that is not personal, or whose person is not human? Is the human nature of Jesus then merely an outer shell, or a disguise perhaps? These are good questions to which I do not have an immediate answer. But in fact something rather important is being said here: that Jesus is not a man who merely fulfilled the potential of human beings better than others have done; he is real man only as the Son of God (so Ivor Davidson). Barth says: “God and Man are so related in Jesus Christ that He exists in Man so far and only so far as He exists as God, i.e., in the mode of existence of the eternal Word of God.” (CD I.2.163) In other words, Jesus’ humanity is the humanity of God.
Why does this matter? I want to inquire as to how Jesus’ humanity relates to, and so identifies or prescribes, the humanity of the rest of us. This description of J’s human nature may actually compromise this as a possibility, because it sounds like his humanity is only the generalized humanity of the human species and not that of an individual: in which case is it real humanity? Real humanity is only ever instanced as individual. In addition, it sounds like this formulation makes J’s human flesh only a passive recipient or instrument of divine power. Perhaps we need to think of it the other way round… Any suggestions?
The Perfect You?
-
Once we have an idea of what reality is, could be or will be, there are
other pressing questions that arise in the search for the Spirit’s
worldview. With ...
Posts
18 comments:
Also, how can it be possible to have a true human nature that is not personal
Isn't the point that you can't divide Christ into a human nature and a divine nature? The context of the doctrine being a heresy that taught that Jesus was an ordinary man who the logos "fused" itself onto...
In addition, it sounds like this formulation makes J’s human flesh only a passive recipient or instrument of divine power.
I'm really batting out of my league here. But the incarnation fundamentally changed the logos. He did not have flesh before - now he (alone of the trinity) carries flesh into eternity.
Is it possible that the nature of the logos was changed at the incarnation in something of the same way? That the divine nature became something new - a divine/human nature? In that sense, Jesus' nature is as truly human as it is divine...
Suggestions?
See, this is what happens when you fly non-stop for 24 hours, your mind turns to jelly.
Seriously, glad to see you got there safely.
G'day Michael.
I believe that when Christians talk about the humanity of Christ, they start with the wrong point.
That is they start with us, and then it gets complicated in our reasoning to work out how Jesus could be fully human and full divine at the same time.
While I do appreciate the difficulties involved and don't want to overly simplify it, we need to begin first with God.
The Scriptures start with "In the beginning GOD".....then it records God as saying "Lets make man in our image"
While I believe this includes flesh as well, as there are many times recorded in the O when Christ appeared as a Theophany - in flesh, it explains how God can be fully God and fully human.
Part of the nature of God is human, it has always been a part of his makeup, yet at the same time he is fully God, and in this way he made us like himself as a reflection of his humanity.
I believe that when we think of this starting with God and his character and nature it brings us closer in knowing him as a personal God and not an abstract god- it does for me any way
craig bennett
Indeed Craig, that is almost Rahner's point in _The Trinity_ - that unless human being expresses the being of the second person, then his humanity is a mask that conceals rather than reveals him. Rahner reaches this conclusion by asking whether it would have been possible for any member to have become incarnate (did the Logos draw the short straw?). His answer is that _only_ the Logos could have, since if it was a possibility of each of them, then the fact that it was the Logos doesn't reveal anything specifically about the Logos _per se_, only about the potential in each of the three hypostases.
G'day Byron,thanks for that.
Michael, in relation to your last question of your blog,
I think that how the fullness of Christs humanity is outworked is that he layed aside the fullness of his divine nature in being man.
So while he layed aside the nature and characteristics of the fullness of God, he was still God, there was never a time when he was not God.
In limiting his self to his human nature, he suffered fully as we do, was hungry and thirsty, got tired, went to the toilet, bleed when cut, got a little impatient with people ....
Hebrews 4:14 sheds a bit of light upon the humanity of Christ in that he suffered every kind of temptation known to man, and yet he still did not sin...
When we take into account that Genesis refers to the first Adam being made sinless and good, yet it is obvious that Adam was made with the capablilty to sin, shows us the humanity of Christ in action, in his not sinning, whie being tempted in every way.
craig bennett
Human character seems to come about through the incompleteness of the soul. Who we are is somewhat influenced by this corruption. Jesus, being whole, has no defined human nature, so to speak. So, no I would so it is not real humanity.
What Jesus does do is create a tangible facet of God by which we can interact. Humanity has a hard time interacting with the abstract, much like me reading this blog. Though Jesus' body has long since passed, it creates an anchor humanity can attach itself to. Man is no longer connected to God in an abstract form, but something real.
As for the other end of the deal, I'm not entirely sure, but suppose that humanity desires two essential elements; physical contact and communication.
Hope I'm not way off base here.
Tex
when Christ appeared as a Theophany - in flesh
I'm not fully convinced that the Theophany's were exclusively the logos.
Also, I suppose they were "in flesh", but I dont think they were fully "incarnational"...
G'day Craig S
If we are made in the image of God, and God made the actual flesh that we are made of.....why couldn't he have appeared in the theophany in the flesh, and why don't you think they were the logos.
craig b
G'day Craig S
I have been thinking about this a bit more and am a bit excited about it, and hopefully MJ will comment soon...
The Bible makes reference to Jesus as being the second Adam, what say that we are not born with flesh stained sin as I so often hear spoken about, instead we are born with the potential to sin as sinful people.
As a human Jesus had the potential to sin, yet he did not, if he was fully human from our perspective he had to have that nature about him....
What if he was born in the flesh like Adam was made....both concieved by the Holy Spirit, do you think that puts a different slant on the meaning and understanding of flesh and the incarnation of Christ.
craig b
Wow, well there's lots of help here.
The question I was asking was: must we conceive of Jesus' human nature as "impersonal", and if so, can this be truly representative human nature and thus able to save human beings?
I think Rahner's comment is apposite and similar to Barth's idea: but, Byron, does it answer my concerned question? Do we need clarifications of what "person" and "nature" mean or ought to mean?
A couple of things concern me about Tex's post: 1, the suggestion that J's humanity was not real; and 2, the suggestion that his body has passed away...
G'day Michael,
I'm not sure what you mean by concieving the human nature of Jesus as being impersonal?
I don't think the scriptures give us any indication that Christ was impersonal.
I think we need to look more at Adam to find out what Christs humanity is like as he is referred to as being the 2nd Adam.
There may be a weakness in the Evangelical theology regarding the story of Adam in our understanding of his and subsequently Christs humanity?
If Christ was not fully human and that includes his nature then he could not have identified with us, though in saying this, it is only God who saves, and God was / is able to save us in any way he chose to do so, and he did through the sacrificial death of his son.
I sort of see your question starting from the wrong starting point, that being humanity instead of starting from the point of Gods sovreignty.
Do we need clarifications of what "person" and "nature" mean or ought to mean?
Well we do - but that is a bit of a challenge isn't it? "Person" as used in trinitarian doctrine is a totally unique word, isn't it? It doesn't particularly correspond with our regular ideas of what a "person" is (and those are pretty vague anyway).
The thing about the Christological and Trinitarian formulations is you have to read them antithetically (if that is a word). What I mean is, it is usually helpful to look at the error they were refuting.
Hmmm...more thought needed...
The theological dictionary defines person as follows - "self-awareness, choice, can reason, love, possessing a will and consciousness".
According to wikipedia, hypostasis (the greek word behind person) literally means "foundation, base or that which stands behind".
Maybe the word "person" is a pretty poor translation then! I'm sure MJ has more to add here...
We must remember Gregory of Nazianzus, "The un-assumed is the untouched or the unhealed." To say that the Incarnation is not fully human is to, at once; declare the salvation of all mankind a failure. Also remember "the Word became flesh"- GK: sarx: carnally minded. And "There is one Mediator between God and man; the man Christ Jesus, himself HUMAN- GK anthropos- human.
The Rev. Dr. T.F. Torrance's book Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ explains much on this topic and he is an authority on Trinitarian/ Incarnational Theology- perhaps with Barth (of whom he was a protégé)Torrance is THE theologian of our time.
In the introduction to Torrance's final book, Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ, Robert Walker states, "Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis must be taken together. Separated they distort the understanding of the person of Christ and of our salvation in him. By itself, anhypostasis could lead to a doctrine of universalism or limited atonement, while enhypostasis could imply Arminianism. Together, they help express the New Testament perception of the completeness of our salvation in Jesus with the need for faith."
Bill
It is true that the anhypostasia of Jesus human nature is an insufferable defect - for the simple reason that scripture plainly declares that Jesus is a MAN - I won't bother you with the texts that you already well know other than noting that Jesus Himself concurred (Jn 8:40) - and Paul confirmed that He was not different than Adam (ICor15:22) - therefore Jesus HAD TO HAVE a human person - better, Jesus IS a human person.
The reality is simple - you cannot be a MAN without being a Human Person - whom do you think spake - "not My will be done..." The "My" is a person - and a human one at that.
Chalcedon be hanged - I will stick with Jesus Himself (Jn 8:40).
Best
Greg
F. Leron Shults has an excellent section on anhypostasis and enhypostasis in "Reforming Theological Anthropology." He actually critiques Barth in an interesting way but never comes up with a viable alternative in my opinion.
Post a Comment