The Hypostatic Union
Today in
the Academic, Scientific, Economic, Political, Philosophical and Religious
arenas we are experiencing a shift away from an environment of certitude and
towards a new and heretofore untested era of skepticism, speculation and
ambiguity. The first and primary victim of this paradigm shift has been Truth.
We now live in a world where truth is no longer considered to be a relevant
term. Only opinion matters. The new priority is not discovery but persuasion or
“spin”. New and unproven theories and ideas are trotted out into the public
square and demand is immediately made for equal time and consideration
alongside long held previously accepted facts. In the realm of Physics, for
example, we are being inundated with fanciful concepts and terms like; Sting
Theory, Membrane Theory, Parallel Universes, Infinite Regress, and Imaginary
Time. Words are being redefined to fit into new
“world views”, and widely held concepts of reality have been relegated
to the garbage heap for recycling into new and more egalitarian and “tolerant”
opinions. In this new milieu of change for change sake we are coming perilously
close to sailing off the edge of the imaginary universe, which we in our zeal
for change have concocted.
One of the
driving forces (and there are many) behind this drifting into oblivion has been
the disunity and infighting within the Christian Church. Once the church was the moral anchor of
Western Civilization. The Church has now become little more than a minority
party at the table of public debate, competing for the public ear and the
public dollar with Political Parties, Institutions of Higher Education, Fields
of Scientific Endeavor, Philosophical Schools of Thought and so on. The Church
has lost its ability to articulate a consistent and comprehensive statement
defining foundational principles. It has degenerated into a bunch of armed
camps clinging to ancient creeds, man made dogmas, charismatic personalities,
and groups aligned around mutual experiences which often have little if any
basis in Biblical principles or even in reality. The main focus of much of the
electronic church, for example, has become a running seminar on personal nest
feathering under the guise of evangelicalism. In point of fact, there is
nothing evangelical about the promotion and teaching of the singular pursuit of
personal wealth. Nor does the endless repetition of stale old dogmas and “isms”
(Calvinism, Armenianism, Neonominianism, Replacementism, etc) do anything to
lead a sinful and rebellious world to repentance. What is needed is a return to
the plain use of language and a clear reading of the Bible.
Words, in order to be useful tools of
communication must retain consistent meaning. If we are to have any continuity
with the past or any stabilizing influence on the future, we need a dependable
lexicon. Especially in the Christian Church if we ever hope to fulfill our God
given mission to be the instrument of hope and reconciliation to a lost and
dying world. Of course we also must expand our vocabulary as new technology and
concepts emerge. We need to grow with the times, but not at the expense of
loosing touch with what is best from the past. It has always been proper and
desirable to expand our knowledge base and to incorporate new terms to solidify
and define concepts, but not to completely redefine the terms of reality and
cavalierly discard the very idea of the knowability of actual truth itself.
One of the fundamental and most
divisive areas of controversy in the realm of Christian Theology has always
been the attempt to understand and explain the truths related to the unity and
plurality of God. From a secular perspective, this same dilemma of unity and
diversity has been source of great debate regarding reality in general. In
addition, the Christian community has been challenged to explain and defend the
paradoxical concept of the Son of God. The only way to address these
fundamental issues is to use language, specific meaningful language. But, as
stated, the definitions of the terms used must be established up front or no
real meaningful discussion can take place. Let’s look at what Theologians call
“The Hypostatic Union” as our jumping off point into our search for the
rediscovery of dependable Truth. I will define the terms as I introduce them,
not to manipulate of redefine them in any way, but in an attempt to maintain
clarity. My hope is that we will reconnect with our anchor, the objective
truths of Christianity.
First I will address the difference between
the interpersonal (between or among them) relationship of the Persons of the
Godhead and the intrapersonal (within or inside them) relationship or
perichoresis (internal, harmonious, complementary, unified dance, as it were)
of the three Persons. In both cases the relation is one of both unity and
distinction. It is clear from scripture that three persona subsist in an
enhypostatic (interpersonal) union; a hypostases, a plurality of persons, yet
they are intimately and inseparably connected and related as they are one in
essence (intrapersonaly). Coequal in every way, the three share all the same
attributes, characteristics and nature while at the same time retaining
individuality and personal identity. But this understanding does not go far
enough to describe the uniqueness of the Godhead.
The singularity and oneness of God
can only be correctly understood when He is seen as being purely and completely
actualized Being. Right away when a term like “actualized being “ is introduced
red flags go up for those with an anti- rationalist / anti-philosophical bent.
Let me explain what I mean. I mean that God is complete and lacking nothing. He
is the “I Am”, He is not the “I Am Becoming” or the “I Could Be” or even the “I
Will Be Some Day”. He is all that He ever was and all that He ever could be, in
other words, He does not change and nothing can be added to His Being (or taken
away for that matter). He is, to put it simply (no pun intended), one in
essence, not three or any other plurality, but one and only one essentially.
Therefore each of the three Persons while taken as separate regarding
personhood, must be ultimately relegated to an anhypostatic status
(non-personal) regarding substance, subsumed under and subsisting in the unity
of the Divine essence, which can only and always be singular. This eternal
truth is beautifully proclaimed in the Shema, “Hear o Israel
This dilemma of rectifying
plurality and singularity is further complicated by the inclusion of Jesus of
Nazareth into the equation. Clearly this is a great source of skepticism among
non-Christian thinkers. How can a changeless being undergo birth and death in
time and space? And how can humanity be added to a being to which nothing can
be added? Any honest Christian must admit to the validity of these and similar
questions. An honest and reasonable acknowledgement of the difficulty is the
first step toward the breaking down of the barriers of doubt and ridicule. It
does not suffice to run away and hide in stale old creedal statements that have
come down to us from earlier ages, creeds that were formulated by men with
world views that were heavily informed by and were the product of their
particular historical environment. These dogmatic statements have not served
the Church well in answering the skeptics. We do not represent the cause of
truth well by simply restating the outdated and constrained opinions of others
rather than taking personal responsibility for and ownership of our own views.
Critical thinking and honest investigation are sadly lacking in the Christian
community today. Many are so afraid of criticism that they don’t even engage in
the discussion. Is it any wonder that few outside our own little denominational
boxes take our rhetoric seriously? I do not believe it is wise to avoid the
tough questions out of fear of being ridiculed or of being labeled a heretic.
Of course there is always the risk of error when undertaking to explore new
ideas. But God is more than able to stand the investigation and we should be
also. And if mistakes are made along the way, then they will simply take their
place along side the myriads that are already in play in the Christian
community. The Christian life should be one of constant discovery and growth.
We have only just begun to grasp the deep truths that God has revealed
concerning Himself. There is no time to rest on past stalemates and
schisms.
While
it may indeed be impossible to answer some of the most difficult questions
regarding the unique person of Christ, it is incumbent upon us as followers of
Christ to address what the scriptures do reveal concerning the nature and
person of the promised Messiah. Any objective student of the Bible knows well
that the Messiah is mentioned extensively in the Bible. His coming was promised
throughout the Old Testament. His humanity, national origin, lineage, office,
and activities are described in great detail. Beyond dozens of direct
statements relating to Him, the Bible is filled with allusions, inferences and
foreshadows of who and what He is. Every knowledgeable student of scripture has
encountered Him personally on the pages of the Bible and thereby knows certain
facts concerning who and what He is to be. Of course personal prejudice and
cultural inculcation do play a major roll in obscuring some of the facts, but
thankfully not all of them. One critical area of disagreement concerning Christ
concerns His deity. Was He and is He God or not? Was there any indication in
the Old Testament that Messiah would be God or not? Was Jesus Christ a man like
any other man, or was He God, or was He both?
Here the Christian has a position of unique advantage by virtue of the
fact that he recognizes the New Testament as part of the inspired word of God.
Yet, unfortunately, this fact does not seem to help much in arriving at
unanimity of consensus regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Is He the
“God-man” or is He the “God / man”? What’s the difference and why does it
matter?
Much of classical and contemporary Christianity
presents Jesus as the God-man. The idea being that His humanity is somehow
different than that of ordinary men by virtue of the fact that He is God. Some
even suggest that His divinity makes His humanity not really human, not like
the rest of us are human. It has been said that “ His humanity is as a drop of
honey in a sea of deity”. All of His miracles and prophecies were only possible
because He was really God concealed in a human body. God in a man suit. He
looked like a man, but He was much more on the inside. He could not sin because
God cannot sin. Humans can sin, in fact many in this school of thought insist
that humans must sin, they have no choice in the matter, the opposite side of
the coin from Jesus who couldn’t sin even if He wanted to, because He couldn’t
want to, He’s God. One of the most extreme forms of this camp is
Docetisism. The idea being that Christ
was not even really a physical being at all, He was, in fact, a phantom or a
phantasm.
There are various other schools of belief derived
from this same idea that Jesus was not like other men because He did not
“inherit” a “sin nature.” It is argued
that all of the rest of natural born mankind inherits a sin nature. This unnatural
development is a result of a fundamental change in the character of mankind as
a consequence of “The Fall.” The sin nature was initiated by Adam, and has been
passed on from him to all of his offspring. The result being that all men are
now born with a sin nature. It is further postulated that whereas men only and
always act as slaves to their own nature, all men are born sinners with the
irresistible compulsion to sin. No feasible explanation is offered to explain
how Adam, who was created without a sin nature, and was declared to be good by
an omniscient God, was ever able to sin in the first place, which of course
would be contrary to his God given “good” natural nature. This is the glaring
flaw in this convoluted logic. Obviously no sin nature is required to compel
man to sin. All that is needed now, and all that was ever needed, is actual
free will. Ironically it is this very free will that those who would make this
argument seek to eliminate, an idea defined as “the bondage of the will”. The
result is that along with the elimination of free will goes all actual personal
responsibility, which is replaced with so called Federal culpability, imputed
guilt, and Augustinian original sin.
These concepts have given rise to all sorts of confusion and fanciful
invention, such as; Limbo, Infant baptism, Alien Faith, Limited Atonement,
Double Predestination, and so on. None of these developments, these man made
accretions, have done anything to advance the cause of Christ, they serve only
to divide and alienate, yet they are proclaimed from pulpits, taught from
lecterns and sold as seminars all over the Christian world.
Some hold to the notion
that because Jesus was virgin born He didn’t have the same internal
constitution as other men, He didn’t inherit the sin chromosome (the “Y” or
male aspect). He was born only of the “seed of woman” not of the seed of man
and so, they say, He only inherited the “X” chromosome. Of course (they say)
sin is only transmitted by the man, not by all of the descendents of Adam (i.e.
women).
To the objective
observer there is no question that the Bible clearly portrays sin as a personal
choice and not as a disease or as a genetically induced compulsion. Also, the
term “seed of woman” is merely a euphemism for “descendant of Eve” or a “Human
Being”. All Hebrew scholars agree that the term seed (zera’) is used in more
than one way in scripture. One of the primary and most widely used applications
of the noun is to refer to offspring, as is the case here. There is no warrant
to assume that the word in the context of Genesis chapter three is referencing
female sperm (which would be an oxymoron).
At best, and may I say
not insignificantly in my opinion, the woman’s seed reference is a veiled
prophecy of the virgin birth. It opens the door for future and further
revelation concerning the miraculous birth of God’s Son, but this in no way
justifies the wild and unrestrained speculation that Jesus was some kind of
spiritual hermaphrodite, having the outward appearance of a man but the inward
constitution of a pure woman!
Also, just a note in
passing, the Bible declares that Jesus was not only born of the seed of woman
but also of the seed of Abraham, of the seed Isaac, of Israel , and of
the seed of David. Furthermore by implication and inheritance He is of the seed
of Judah ,
(presumably with a full compliment of chromosomes). But, from this perspective
(impeccability) as to His temptations, they were not really temptations as
ordinary men are tempted. They were merely demonstrations of the fact that He
could not sin. This idea seems logical and acceptable to many Christians
(although contrived and deceptive to others). He never had any real decisions
to make because His life was all preordained. All of the passion, conflict,
sorrow and suffering that we observe in the Gospels were not actually as they
appeared. They were merely object lessons for the rest of us, but of no real
significance to Him or to the outcome of His life. He was never in any real
danger or distress and He was never tempted to sin. It was all a grand
illusion. God of course is beyond all of that, passion, change, contingent
consequences etc. Some argue that even His death was not like the death of a
real man, an ordinary man. He could not really die, as we understand death
because God cannot die (the Theopaschite controversy). Thus we have the
unresolved paradox of the God-man. It is not difficult to see why few outside
this camp, especially those in the secular world, take these ideas seriously.
Unfortunately this type of thinking (or lack of thinking) has gotten a tight
grip on much of Christendom throughout the ages. It is so deeply entrenched
that in some circles one risks the label of heretic for even questioning such
things.
The other view of the nature of Jesus Christ is that
He was and is the God / man. The idea being that while He was and is the fully
divine Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Logos, the Living
Word from all eternity. He was and is, at the same time, fully and completely
human in every way that the term human can be understood. There is no mixing of
the two natures at all. There is no subservience of the human nature to the
divine nature within Christ by way of being, or of ability or of will (except
by choice). His humanity is real, in
every way. He was subject to all of the full impact of pain and suffering,
doubts, and temptation just as any other real man is. In fact, it is this very
fact that made Him an acceptable substitute for every man and enabled Him to
satisfy the demands of the Law of God for men by actually fulfilling them as a
man. His will was His own and it was
always possible for Him to will contrary to the will of the Father, as is
clearly evidenced by His prayer in the garden. We are given some further
insight into the relationship between His two natures in Philippians chapter
two where we have the exposition of the kenosis.
These two illustrations are very helpful in our
attempt to understand how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. The
term that has been most helpful to me in trying to express this unique
relationship is “syntactic”. The idea being, that the two natures are in
complete unison and harmony with each other at all times and in all ways
possible. That being said, I must
introduce the concept of the so-called
“communicable and incommunicable” attributes of God into our discussion.
In order to comprehend more fully the syntactic relationship between Jesus of
Nazareth and the Eternal Logos, we will make some distinctions here.
It has long been understood that God desires to share
some of His attributes with man. His word is full of calls to holiness,
compassion, generosity, mercy, justice, and love. He offers man wisdom,
understanding, knowledge and insight into great and wonderful realms of thought
and endeavor. But it is equally clear that no human being is capable of
possessing all of God’s unlimited attributes within the confines of time and
space, such as His infinitude and His omnipresence to name just two of many. It
is contrary to reason to expect that there could be an infinite finite being.
Even God cannot do that which is actually impossible. For example, it is
actually impossible for there to be more than one infinite being, for wherever
one would begin the other would necessarily end. The result is that both would
be finite, no matter how vast.
Right away,
as soon as I make a statement like this I can hear cries of foul from well
meaning Christians. Believers, who are quick to run to the aid of Jesus and
take up the mantle of the God-man, insisting that God, must not be limited by
anything as trivial as logic or more specifically by the law of non
contradiction. And so we can see that real clarification is needed if we ever
expect to reach people outside of the church. We must work to establish
credibility, consistency and cordiality within our own community if expect
others to give us an objective hearing of the Gospel of the God / man. I need
to make one statement of clarification here before we move on. I am not saying
in any way that the full unrestricted resources of God almighty were not
available to Jesus, only that they were not fully contained within His human
form.
As regards His virgin birth, there is no need or
warrant for embellishing or adding to the biblical record. God said that the
virgin birth would be for a sign and that is what it was. Nothing more and, may
I say with all gravity, nothing less. We tread on perilous ground when we take
it upon ourselves to fill in information that we assume God has left out of His
inspired word! We must not present our speculative theories or our inculcated
dogmas and preconceived assumptions as inspired inerrant biblical truth. When
we do, then we become nothing more than just another self-promoter at the table
of public debate along side the physicist with his silly imaginary time theory.
So let’s address the question as to how any of this
could possibly be true. That is, how could Jesus be a real man and really be
God at the same time, in the real world? It must be repeated that the bible
does not give us a full explanation of how. But it does plainly reveal that
Jesus Christ is both the divine Son of God and the human son of man, the
son of Mary, the son of David. These facts alone are more than enough for us to
contemplate without inventing any of our own or borrowing any that some one
else came up with, and so it is here that we will begin.
First I would like to site a few passages from the
Bible to answer some of the questions that we left hanging earlier. The Old
Testament does give insight into the fact that Messiah will be both God and a
man. An objective reading of the original texts will reveal this awesome truth.
The ancient Sages and Rabbis recognized that Messiah was not like other men.
They referred to him as “David’s Greater Son”. In fact, in order to deny what
is clearly revealed in the Psalms and the Prophets, one must employ dogmatic
man made mechanisms. As Christianity spread throughout Judaism and the rest of
the world, an anti-Christian bias developed and became a reactionary dictate
for all future commentary on Jewish interpretation of scripture. One of the
most influential voices arose in the twelfth century; his name was Maimonides.
His famous Thirteen Principles of Rabbinical Judaism continue to heavily
influence modern Jewish thinkers. The so-called “Third Principle of
Maimonides”, denies the possibility for God to manifest Himself in any Physical
form.
Of course the scripture is filled with examples of
God manifesting Himself in physical forms, the most obvious being the pillar of
fire and the pillar of smoke, to say nothing of the many appearances of the
“Angel of the Lord”. Furthermore, David
in the Psalms indicates that Messiah will be a man and at the same time He will
be divine. Ps.2: 7 – Messiah, the king over all kings, will be the “begotten
son” of God and He will rule over the entire earth. In Ps.45:6-7 – the Messiah
is addressed as God twice, although modern Jewish scholarship has chosen to
alter the clear translation, the original text remains plain for all to see.
Also in the same Psalm, Messiah’s reign is said to be without end. In 1
Chron.17:11-14 – Nathan the Prophet tells David that his son, his “Greater Son”
will be God’s Son also, and again, His rule and reign will be everlasting.
The New Testament states, unapologeticly, that the
universe and all that it contains was created by, for and through Jesus Christ.
See John chapter one and Colossians chapter one. Furthermore Jesus declares
Himself to be equal with God and to be the very presence of God on earth. See
John chapters eight, ten, and fourteen. Additionally the first chapter of the
book of Hebrews makes the unequivocal statement that He (Jesus) was the exact
representation of God, the “ express image of His (God’s) person”. Colossians
chapter two and verse nine states that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily” (Notice that it does not say that the fullness of the Godhead
was contained in His body, as we have already discussed there is a vast
difference between the two concepts. One is perfectly logical and non-contradictory
while the other breaks the fundamental laws of reason and logical constancy).
The Bible presents Jesus of Nazareth as a man with
an intimate relationship with God. Their relationship was one of complete
unity, harmony and love. At the same time Jesus is shown to be separate and
distinct from God. He Himself said that He did not speak on His own behalf but
rather on God’s behalf, thereby making a distinction between God and Himself.
He said that there were things that only God knew that were unknown to Him. He
demonstrated that He obeyed God even though there were times when His own will
was to seek another way, clearly a major distinction. We see demonstrated in these examples, as
well as elsewhere in scripture, what I have called the syntactic consistency of
the communicable attributes of God with the human attributes of Jesus.
This perfectly harmonious relationship between the
man Jesus and God explains God’s ability to express Himself fully through His
sinless Son to the rest of mankind. Indeed, God has always expressed Himself
through the Son, the second person of the Trinity, the Logos. The very
definition of the Logos is that He is the perfect expression of all conception
in the mind of God. The Logos is the thought that defines the mind of God. In
order of being, simultaneous and co-eternal, in order of knowing, begotten and
subsequent.
As I
indicated before, some of God’s attributes cannot be communicated through the
body of a man. These features and characteristics are confined solely to the
eternal Godhead. They are shared only among the three co-equal persons of the
Holy Trinity. They may not be shared or even understood by the mind of man. To
fully comprehend them is to participate in them (while we may apprehend such
concepts as infinitude, we can never fully comprehend it) and to participate in
them is to be God. Because God is eternal and changeless, no created thing can
be God. No contingent (dependent) thing can be God. No finite thing can be God.
God can dwell in the finite but He cannot be contained in it.
All that being said, then how could Jesus Christ be
truly God and truly man? It seems to be impossible. I believe the key to
understanding this mystery is found in the very nature of God’s character, his
unanimity of being, the combination of all of His attributes being one at the
same time. Actually when I speak of God’s attributes and time, I am committing
a categorical error, but I do so for the sake of expressing the other wise inexpressible. We
must speak using anthropomorphism. God does not actually have attributes, as we
understand the concept as it relates to all other things. God is His attributes
He doesn't have them. Neither is God confined to the realm of time, as we
understand it. There is no chronology with God as concerns His being. His attributes are the sum and total of His
being. They are not distinct from Him. They cannot be dissected and lined up
and analyzed separately from His total Being. This feature of God’s being I
call Simultaneity. It is the essence of His Immutability. Whatever God is, He
is without measure or change. He is what He is eternally and without variation.
It is this deep truth that will unlock the mystery of the incarnation, the
mystery of the God / man.
Simultaneity means that God is one, singular,
simple, and complete. As I said it is necessary to speak in terms of His
attributes individually for the sake of language, but in reality all of his
attributes are one. God knows all things that can be known. He knows Himself
perfectly and He knows all other things completely. He knows that He has the
power of creation and He knows that He was / is to create all that He did and
ever will create including the material realm. He does not know as we think of
knowing His Knowledge is simultaneous with his very being. God never learned
anything. He knows all things from the beginning. Here again language falls
short, for God actually has no beginning. With this idea in mind think of how
God could “experience” or know firsthand
the life of Jesus Christ from all eternity while at the same time allowing for
Jesus to be actually born in real time and space. Allowing for Jesus to undergo
natural growth and change and all of the experiences of life and humanity. God
in a sense (through His foreknowledge, before creation took place) experienced
what it is to be a man through His Son Jesus Christ. In point of fact, God actually created the
universe in accordance with this very purpose. As we cited earlier, the Bible
makes it very clear that all things were created for Jesus , Col.
This motivation to manifest Himself is at the very
essence of God’s being, not in the sense of an irresistible urge, but in the
sense of His attribute of relational love. God is a completely volitional
being; He is never compelled to do anything. But, He is also a relational
being, which by the way is only possible if He is multipersonal within Himself.
His love of relationship is His essential nature. So He willingly created
others to share His personal love and His creation with.
In summary, God from all eternity knew that He
would create time, space and matter and that He would use His creation to
express Himself as a man, a perfect and sinless man. This man would most
perfectly reflect His nature and person in the material realm. His body would
be a “tabernacle” in which God Himself could dwell. Because God is omniscient,
prescient and cannot be mistaken, He knew from all eternity all of the
experiences of this perfect man, His Son, firsthand, and He knew them with
certainty, even before they actually took place in time and space.
In a way that cannot be
fully explained or comprehended by the human mind, but that is in no way
contrary to logic, the divine nature of the second person of the Holy Trinity
would actually reside in this human body. God remained changeless. He never
learned anything that He didn’t already know, and at the same time He did not
prevent real choices in time and space from being actually made. By the way,
just as a point of clarification, God had previously taken on human form before
the incarnation when He visited Abraham by the terebinth trees of Mamre. Of
course, this time it would be different. This human body that He would reside
in would be born of a woman and would have a perfectly human nature of its own.
In every way possible the two natures would be identical and in every way that
was necessary they would be distinct. In this miraculous way, the divine person
of God with His divine nature could take on the human nature of man and still
remain the same divine second person of the Holy Trinity.
He would be one person
with two natures. In this way God was able to perfectly express Himself in the
material creation as a man. But not only would God be able to express Himself
physically and perfectly to His creation, He would accomplish for mankind what
no other man could. As a result of the sinless perfection achieved by this man,
He would be able to endow the rest of mankind with actual free will. He would
be able to allow men to act in ways contrary to His will and laws, and yet be
able to redeem them from their fallen, sinful and lost condition! He would be
able to maintain perfect justice, which is His essential nature, while at the
same time maintaining perfect mercy, which is also His nature simultaneously.
His Son, by an act of His own free will, would be able to keep all of God’s
holy laws and perfectly obey God’s will on behalf of every man, as one of them.
He would be able to stand as a substitute for all men and act as their
representative. What’s more, He would be able to “Taste death for every man”.
His death would be the necessary payment for the sins of all men. His innocent
body freely given as a sacrifice for others would fulfill the nonnegotiable
requirement of perfection under God’s perfect Law.
His body was the perfect “tent “ in which the
fullness of God could actually dwell. The fit between the perfect man and the
fullness of God dwelling together in the one body was so in sync that they are
indistinguishable. The only discernable difference is that one is a created
human being, the son of man with a fully human nature, and the other is the
uncreated eternal Son of God, the Logos, with the divine nature. In this one
man, there are two distinct and eternally separate natures. While the two
natures of Christ (human and divine) are different, they are at the same time
in complete agreement in every way possible (syntactically).
For all eternity they
will remain united in the person of the God / man Jesus Christ. There was never
anything added to the Second Person of the Trinity. He was, as He is now and
always shall be, unchangeable and complete. Neither was the man Jesus of
Nazareth some kind of freak or anomaly among men. He was a man like all other
men. His temptations and struggles were real, as were His victories.
So then we have come to
a point of conclusion. It would be more accurate to say we have come to several
conclusions. First, God is one and only one in His essence, that is to say, in
His being. Secondly, God is relational in His essence, that is to say, within
Himself. Therefore if God is relational within Himself, He must be
multi-personal within Himself. He is in fact three persons eternally distinct
and eternally united in one essence. Thirdly, God has manifested Himself bodily
in the material world that He created for that very purpose. God took on the
body of a man. A body that had a completely independent human nature and will
all its own.
Within this man then
dwell both a human nature and the divine nature, but only one person, the
second person of the Holy Trinity. Because the three persons of the Holy
Trinity are eternally one in essence, the complete fullness of the Godhead
therefore dwells in the body of this man. The unity and the diversity of God
almighty are truly awesome to consider! As I said before, some things can never
be fully explained. But that is no reason not to explain what we can understand
from what God has revealed to us about Himself. God has given us language and
minds to understand. He has given us His divine revelation and sent His Holy
Spirit to help us to be able to understand what He has revealed. He has
explained Himself as the ultimate unity and at the same time He has revealed
that He is magnificently diverse. Here the statement of unity and distinction
must remain and here for now, I must end.
There is no need to
redefine terms and concepts in order to manipulate God’s revelation into
fitting into our understanding. We as Christians should endeavor to remain open
and objective to the plain truth of plain language. In this way, God willing,
we may reconnect to our anchor of truth, God’s word. May we put aside our
animosity towards anyone who disagrees with our point of view and may we seek
only to know God’s truth.
Don
Zeoli Sr. 2009
At this point I feel it
would be helpful for me to attempt to anticipate and address some of the major
objections to what I have put forth in my statement. I am fully aware that much
of what I have said goes against the grain of what has come to be called
orthodox Christianity. But I do not believe that we should be afraid to
question the status quo. Particularly when it is in error as is the case here.
As I said in the beginning of my remarks, my goal is to try to reestablish a
foundational grasp on some of the basic truths that define Biblical
Christianity. In order to accomplish this goal I will take some of the Biblical
texts that are in question as to their meaning and relevance concerning these
issues. This is done in an honest attempt to help to defuse some of the
concerns and questions of those who would disagree with my remarks. I will
under take to do so as time permits in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment