Immutability and Jesus' two natures

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Rexlion, Jun 18, 2019.

  1. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I am pondering a conundrum.

    Article 2 - The Word, or Son of God, which was made very man


    The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.


    Would it be accurate to say that Jesus 'put on' humanity and a human nature somewhat akin to a person putting on a suit of clothes?

    I read today in John H. Rodgers' Essential Truths for Christians the following statements:
    Jesus is a fully human person, Who assumed human nature from the Virgin Mary. (P. 67)
    Jesus is one person existing then and now in two distinct natures united in Himself. (P. 88)

    We know from scripture that God is eternally unchanging. Consider
    Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; and
    Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    Wouldn't we say that God's very nature is immutable? Never changing?

    Therefore, seeing that Jesus' nature does not change but saying that He "took man's nature" so that subsequently He had two natures, are we not obliged to conclude that the taking of human nature did not alter Jesus' fundamental nature (which is divine), and that therefore the human nature was not so much in Him as it was on Him (like a suit of clothing)? But is this sufficient to consider Jesus as fully human? We don't want to get into docetism, after all.

    The alternative would seem to dictate that we view Jesus' nature as having changed. :hmm:I don't like that alternative one bit.

    I welcome your thoughts.
     
    Thomas Didymus and Liturgyworks like this.
  2. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Hmm, I am surprised that no one has had any answer up to this point. Be that as it may, in my reading I think I have found an answer (hopefully a satisfactory one) to my conundrum. I'll begin by citing the Athanasian Creed, which says this of Jesus:
    Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
    The 'suit of clothes' analogy would not be orthodox thinking after all. Rather than taking humanity onto Himself like a suit of clothes, Jesus took humanity and human nature into Himself. Humanity being a part of Him rather than a covering layer on Him (the latter would only produce a change in appearance, I now realize) is a large distinction.

    Jesus' divine nature is eternal, and Jesus' human nature came about roughly two millenia ago relative to our existence. But Jesus' human nature always was a part of Jesus, even before He created time. To our perceptions and the unfolding of our lives, time is everything. But to God, time is a construct of His own devise. He is not subject to time but is Master over it. Before time began, Jesus existed. Everything that He is, He was and will be. Jesus knew before He created the universe and its flow mechanism (time) all that would take place within that construct. Everything He "would" do and "would" be (in a future relative to us, but in a state of "being" to God) is what He was from eternity and is now and will be forever. In that sense, Jesus always has had humanity in Him. Therefore Jesus has not changed.

    It's rather esoteric, but God is big and our understanding is limited by our finite minds and the by-no-means-unlimited revelation of Himself that we have received.

    Comments? Ideas?
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  3. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don't know that I'd be willing to go that far. Jesus, Ieshua, the son of Mary, was a man born in space and time, with a fully human nature, and did not exist before the Annunciation to Mary of his conception.

    I think the simple answer is the one staring us in the face: we have to dispense with the idea that one being could only have one nature. For most people our assumption would still remain true, but for Ieshua, son of Mary, it was not so. He had a fully and completely a human nature which came into being at a certain place and time. But he also had a second nature, the eternal Logos, the Son and the second person of the holy Trinity.

    That's why we can even affirm that he had two wills. Affirming that he had only one will was the ancient heresy of monothelitism.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
    Thomas Didymus and Liturgyworks like this.
  4. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican

    Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
    The Chalcedonian Definition

    The challenge 'Two Natures un-confusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis' is to be distinguished from the position of Monothelitism which argued for a single will (or nature) almost implying a blurring of the distinctive quality of the hypostatic union such as would leave us with Jesus being neither God nor Man. Most westerners have to struggle with this fine cutting in Eastern Theology, to the point where un-confusedly is the last thing many of us feel. The point that I think is often forgotten here is that the divine and the human in Jesus were absolutely reconciled, and whilst the mission of Jesus was that very reconciliation between the human and the divine, he himself in his very being is that reconciliation, and in himself that purpose was absolute fulfilled.
     
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  5. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    1. Before time began, God existed.
    2. Jesus is God.
    Conclusion: Before time began, Jesus existed.

    Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
    Joh 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

    Botolph, thanks for posting that Chalcedonian Definition. Don't recall if I have ever seen it before, and it's helpful.
     
  6. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You're trying to make his human nature identical to his divine nature, and his human will identical to his divine will. The two can be different, and in fact can manifest themselves independently. For example where he cries out, O God why hast thou forsaken me, that is Jesus the man. In John 8:58 he is talking as the Logos, the second person of the Trinity.

    Jesus is God now. Jesus was not God before his birth.
    Jesus and Logos are not the same thing.
     
  7. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I struggle with what you are saying, albeit that I know what you are prodding at however

    We Believe ...
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;​

    and

    acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;​

    and of course from the prologue to 4G

    and the word became flesh and tabernacled in our midst

    Καὶὁλόγος σὰρξἐγένετο καὶἐσκήνωσενἐ νἡμῖν​
     
  8. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I think I'm only adhering to the fact that Jesus is one person with two natures, but I'm hypothesizing that His human nature has in some mysterious way always been a part of Him from eternity past. If I understand you, you're saying that Jesus' human nature in no way was part of Him prior to the Incarnation. If that is accurate, I pose the question to you: did the taking by Jesus of human nature into Himself constitute a change of Jesus' nature? If not, can you please elaborate?
     
  9. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The danger with what you are enunciating is to suggest that humanity was in some sense involved and responsible for creation, long before our being asked to share in the naming of creatures.
     
  10. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    There is also the fact that we are talking about the Godhead being immutable. When considering God as the eternal Trinity we must think 'eternally mindedly', which would mean that change, as we know it in time, is not possible for an eternal entity and so becomes an irrellevance from an eternal perspective. We cannot think of the persons of The Trinity as being 'separate' when we say there is but ONE God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To do so would violate the notion that "There is no other God but God". Isa.43:10-13. While we are 'in time' the Trinity, and therefore the nature of God, will always be a mystery to us.
    .
    .
     
    Thomas Didymus likes this.
  11. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Right, that is the key question. I would respond that it does not change his nature, because the divine nature is immutable. What does change is simply that a second nature appears, “alongside” the divine nature.
     
  12. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    If we say that human nature was in no way in God the Son, and in no way part of God the Son prior to the incarnation, then when He took human nature into Himself, wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that He has become more than He was beforehand? If He had one nature, and now He has two natures; isn't He enriched to the sum of one nature? It sounds like a change has occurred, and that's why I see a problem with that view.

    I agree, He is immutable. It's just a question of the best way to explain how we reconcile that fact with the fact of His two natures. I'm not dogmatic about the idea that Jesus could have had two natures from eternity past, just leaning in that direction. I don't think it would in any way dictate the conclusion you suggest, of humanity having a hand in the Creation; by Jesus' divine nature He created all. And I do think that the concept is supported by the Chalcedonian Definition, for it says Christ has "...Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably..." Isn't that saying that Jesus' two natures are inseparable and indivisible? If Jesus did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation, then until the Incarnation His two natures were separated and divided, right? At least that's what it sounds like to me.

    I think it was Anselm who postulated that God is a (I would say The) maximally great being. And if one can conceive of a being who has more of some attribute, then the former being we previously conceived of was not maximally great, but the latter being is the maximally great being. Applying this to the problem at hand, if we can conceive of Jesus not having an attribute before a certain point in time, then He was not maximally great before that time because now He is greater than before.
     
  13. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    This is correct.
     
    Brigid likes this.
  14. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    You’ve got to be very careful here, because the definition you just posted is actually per se Nestorian. Indeed its evocative of one rather disagreeable poem of Mar Narsai, which I can look up if you wish. It violates the principle of communicatio idiomatum.

    If you want to follow a Chalcedonian Christology, or indeed Miaphysite Christology, you basically have two options for understanding this conundrum: apthartodocetism, favored by the Chalcedonian emperor St. Justinian what became the preferred Chalcedonian explanation, theopaschitism, favored by the Oriental Orthodox St. Severus (in opposition to other OOs who were apthartodocetists themselves).
     
    Thomas Didymus, Rexlion and Botolph like this.
  15. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Hmm, I will definitely have to look up those two.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
    Liturgyworks likes this.
  16. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Not at all. Nestorius taught that the person of Jesus was conceptually separable from the Second Person. I would affirm that through the Incarnation, the two natures are joined together in a hypostatic union.

    It is not an expression of Nestorianism to affirm that there was a time when Jesus' human nature did not exist. That is after all why the Incarnation was so significant. If Jesus' human nature existed for all eternity in the past, then nothing meaningful happened at the Incarnation.
     
  17. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    What you say in this post is entirely correct; my objection is to what you said in the other post. The idea of communicatio idiomatum, which is a widely accepted Christological premise, requires that after the incarnation, in order to avoid change, separation or confusion of the two natures, and to emphasize the redemptive aspect of the Incarnation and the Passion of our Lord, that things attributed to one nature are communicated to the other. This enables us to, for example, say that God suffered (according to His humanity, or according go the flesh). Which is why the poem of Mar Narsai, who was a bona fide Nestorian, and anything that resembles it, tends to freak me out a bit.
     
  18. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    I should add that the Theopaschite option became prevalent, and apthartodocetism came to be regarded as an error, among Chalcedonians, despite St. Justinian’s support for the latter.
     
  19. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    After further thought and reading, I must add that the Chalcedonian definition may not be definitive. It could simply mean that Jesus is "acknowledged in Two Natures unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably" now; that is, ever since the Incarnation. So the definition does not lend clear support to my hypothesis after all.
     
  20. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    What exactly is your hypothesis?