CHRIST’S TWO NATURES
ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR HIS PRAYERS IN GETHSEMANE
AND HIS CROSS WORK
Timothy C. Hoelscher
First Baptist Church of Royal City, WA.
How Can This Be True?
“Where
were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell, if you understand. Who
set its measurements, since you know? Or who stretched the line on it? On what
were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang
together and all the sons of God shouted for you?” Job 38:4-7
“Have
you ever in your life commanded the morning, and caused the dawn to know its
place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be
shaken out of it?” Job 38:12-13
“Can
you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the chords of Orion? Can you lead
forth a constellation in its season, and guide the Bear with her sons? Do you
know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?” Job
38:31-33
“Do
you know the time the mountain goats give birth? Do you observe the calving of
the deer?” Job 39:1
“Who
sent out the wild donkey free? And who loosed the bonds of the swift donkey?”
Job 39:5
“Do
you give the horse might? Do you clothe his neck with a mane?” Job 39:19
“Is it
by your understanding that the hawk soars, stretching his wings toward the
south?” Job 39:26
“Can
you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook” Or press down his tongue with a cord?
Can you put a rope in his nose? Or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make
many supplications to you? Or will he speak to you soft words? Will he make a
covenant with you? Will you take him for a servant forever?” Job 41:1-4
Thus God spoke with Job. New
Testament revelation indicates that the Son had appeared and not the Father
(John 1:18). Therefore, it is best to conclude that this was God the Son
speaking with Job. The questions He asked and the realities indicated are true
of the Triune God. Job concluded, “I know that you can do all things and
that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.” (Job 42:2).
Since this is true, how was the
cross of Christ possible? How could this all-powerful, all-knowing God be in
any way affected by the beatings of men, by their reproaches, by a crown of
thorns, by three nails, by a spear? This isn’t a question from skeptics, though
they too may pose it. People who genuinely believe in Christ’s death for their
sins upon the cross, His resurrection and that their salvation is based
entirely upon their personal faith in Him, pose this question. They don’t question
what Christ did but they question how it was possible, they do not understand
how both are true.
Floyd Barackman presents three
problems related to this issue. The first regards the limitation of Jesus’
knowledge. The second involves His temptation. The third involves His death. We
could add to these Christ’s prayers in the garden of Gethsemane, specifically
His words “Not my will but Yours.” Barackman points out that these problems
really involve our understanding of these truths not the actual truth.
A proper understanding of the
incarnation will help answer these questions. The incarnation is the act of God
the Son becoming man, in flesh hence in caro. The incarnation
resulted in one person, possessing and individualizing simultaneously two
distinct natures, one divine, one human. How those natures are related and how
the Son relates to those two natures is the heart of this matter.
This question is not only for
the learned. It is a basic question about the central figure Who secured our
salvation. Understanding the relationship of the Son to His natures may affect
one’s appreciation for his or her salvation. A biblical knowledge of these
relationships will also answer many common questions regarding Jesus in the
gospels, questions which can nag true believers. It can even serve as a
corrective to such false charges as “cheap grace” leveled at those who proclaim
salvation by faith alone in Christ.
The Preincarnate Son
When God the Son became flesh
(John 1:14), He was already a complete person, with consciousness,
self-consciousness, desires,and determination. He is this from all eternity,
for He is an eternal person of the Godhead (Psalm 90:2; Micah 5:2).
What is a Person? A person is
more than a nature; he is more than an essence with a set of abilities. Our
English Bibles use the word "person" to translate "soul"
emphasizing an individual with life and emotions. Person is also used to
translate various words for "man" such as adamah, ish, and anthropos.
It translates both the Hebrew and Greek words for "face" Mynp
and proswpon (e.g. Job 13:8; 31:21; Luke 20:21). The
face is that which is unique to an individual and through which one expresses
his individual desires, reactions and determinations. One's determinations or
choices [boulh] demonstrate who a person is. Collating
this information we can define a person as the special individualization of a
nature ; as one who is self-conscious, self-asserting and is
therefore the responsible subject of actions through the use of a nature.
The Son spoke of Himself as I
and distinguished Himself from the Father and the Spirit, “And I, myself,
will ask the Father and another similar comforter He will give to you ... the
Spirit of the Truth...” (John 14:16-17a). The “I, myself” emphasizes Christ’s
uses of the pronoun egw in addition to the personal ending -w
on the verb ask. His self consciousness is expressed by the words “I”
and such statements as “I am the bread of life” and “I am the light of the
world.” The Son expressed His personhood through His possession of objective
knowledge [oida] of the Father and men’s thoughts (John
7:29; Matthew 9:4). He had experiential knowledge [ginwskw]
(e.g. John 2;24-25). He could express His own personal opinion [dokew>doxa]
(Luke 17:9). He could desire [qelw] to act as when He desired to make a
leper clean (Matthew 8:3). He made choices [boulomai] as when He
determined to reveal the Father to certain men (Matthew 11:27). He had personal
purpose and expressed consciousness of his objectives (e.g. John 18:37; Luke
12:49-51; Matthew 9:13). In all these He demonstrated that He is a person.
The above passages refer to the
incarnate Son. The following Scriptures express the personhood of the Son
before His incarnation. The incarnation didn’t make Him a person. Isaiah
48:16-17 states
“You
come near unto Me, hear this: From the beginning I have not spoken in
secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord [adonai] GOD
has sent Me, and His Spirit. Thus says the LORD [Jehovah], your
Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your God, who teaches you for
your profit, who leads you by the way that you should go.” Isaiah 48:16-17,
[Jewish Publication Society translation]
Not only do we find three
persons distinguished as God, Adonai God, His Spirit, and Jehovah your
Redeemer, but we find the one who spoke distinguished Himself from the other
two. We find that the one speaking was sent by the other two. The speaker is
self-conscious identifying himself as “I” with the suffixed pronouns y
on brq “come near”, yt
on “spoken” and the full pronoun yna in the verbless clause “I was
there” and again in verse 17 “I, Jehovah your God.”
Philippians 2:6-7 presents the
Son prior to and at the point of the incarnation. Prior to the incarnation He
was existing in God’s form. He was not deeming His equality with God to be
seizure. To deem represents hgeomai a word meaning to lead, here with the
idea of leading one’s thoughts. This word describes an operation of the mind.
As a person, the Son was leading the activity of His mind so that He never
considered equality with God the Father to be seizure or a snatching at
something which was not rightfully His. Being equal with God is His right! He
then emptied Himself. He was not emptied because the verb is an Active voice. He
is a person responsible for His own activities. Over all this He was
objectively framing His mind [fronew]. From this passage we can conclude that
He was framing His mind just prior to His incarnation. Therefore, even before
He became man, He was [is] a person.
The Divine nature is one
complete divine nature. The Godhead is [pardon the grammar] three distinct
persons who subsist and entirely that divine nature. The singular divine nature
is the basis of a singular consciousness. The Son knew all men (John 2:24). The
divine nature is also the basis of a singular desirous will, desires which
arise from the nature. God desires all men to be saved ( 1 Timothy 2:4). God is
one in nature but three in person. Each Person has His own unique
determinations and personality expressed by His unique use of the divine
nature. They are never in conflict because they are holy. Each individual uses
the divine nature in a manner consistent with who He is as God. Studying the
Trinity, it can be seen that each person uses the attributes, exercises the
divine prerogatives and is described in relation to the whole nature. [See
figure 1.]
Figure 1.
Because three distinct persons
are one God, each must have His own self-consciousness and His own
determination. The Father spoke, “I will precede to be for Him for a Father and
He will precede to be for me for a Son.” (2 Samueal 7:2). The Father knows that
He is the Father and not the Son or Spirit. That is self-consciousness and each
person of the Godhead has his own. Each one also makes His own choices. The
choices are made on the basis of the singular desirous will but each one
chooses. The result is one complete divine nature, one consciousness and one
desirous will yet three distinct self-consciousnesses and three distinct determinative
wills. This is the Trinity, one in essence in nature but three in person.
God the Son is a Person. He
eternally possesses the divine nature. The incarnation did not result in a new
person. Approximately 5-4 bc the Son joined Himself to a human nature. Thus, He
animated and individualized that human nature. David wrote that “in sin, my
mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). She did not conceive an impersonal
nature but as David wrote, “me.” It is biblically consistent to conclude that
the Son joined Himself to a human nature at the moment of conception.
The Virgin Birth
The conception of the Son’s
human nature was not by normal means. It resulted from a supernatural act of
God (Luke 1:34-35). A normal human conception requires the union of a mother’s
ovum and father’s sperm. First the Holy Spirit came upon Mary. The “upon” idea
was doubled by the occurrence of the preposition epi following the
verb and prefixed to the verb epercomai.
This same verb is used of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples at Pentecost
(Acts 1:8). Then God’s power would overshadow her. Three times this word is
used of a cloud’s shadow while God announced, “This is My Beloved Son in whom I
am well pleased. You hear Him.” No physical contact happened between
the Father or the Holy Spirit and Mary. The Spirit not only eliminated the
transmission of sin from a human father but protected the child from the sin of
the mother. Bildad the Shuhite questioned, “How can one born of a woman be
clean?” (Job 25:4). Job asked, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”
(Job 14:4). He is indeed the seed of David through Mary one of David’s
descendants (Romans 1:2). Mary was genetically His mother not merely a vessel
that carried an unrelated human child. Through the supernatural work of the Spirit
Mary conceived without the necessary male component and without passing on her
own fallen nature.
The result was a "holy
thing". The incarnation is the addition of a human nature to the person of
the Son. Normally a conception results immediately in a person. However, God
the Son was already eternally a person. If the conception resulted in a person,
then two persons would have existed: God the Son and this other person
conceived within Mary. It was not God the Son indwelling a man named Jesus. This
is the historical heresy known as Nestorianism. So, the nature: the spirit, the
soul and the body, was not a person. Neither did the Son join His divine nature
to the human nature. That would have resulted in something more than human and
less than God. It would have resulted in something like a demigod. This is also
an ancient error. The Son did not merely dwell in what appeared to be a human
nature, a heresy known as docetism. The Son did not cease being God nor did the
divine nature become human. Robert Gromacki writes, "Secondly, the
incarnation does not involve transubstantiation. The latter is supposed to
occur when one material substance is literally changed into another." And
in the same paragraph, he again explains, "When the Bible believer affirms
that God became man, he does not mean that deity was turned into humanity. When
God became man, He did not cease being God. How could God ever be less than
what He is? At the incarnation, God acquired a human nature." That would
have changed the Father and Spirit, for they too are God. Rather the Son joined
His person to that supernaturally conceived, perfect and untainted human
nature.
The union of the two natures in
one person is theologically described as the hypostatic union. Hypostasis
derives from a Biblical word, however, the theological idea expressed does not
match the idea of this word as used in Scripture but was a later development.
Early church councils used the word hypostasis to express that the natures were
united in one person but were not united to each other. The natures remained
two distinct natures, unmingled but forever united in one person. The natures
were not united to each other but to the person of the Son. This expression of
Biblical truth has been orthodoxy for centuries from the early church, the
church of the middle ages, including many of the various churches not
considered Catholic, the churches of the Reformers and many of the separatist
churches, such as the anabaptists and brethren groups.
In the instant in which the
perfect human nature was conceived, God the Son joined His person to that
nature, making it His. “He was still one person but with two natures, divine
and human.” The Son possessed all the characteristics which are true of the
divine nature. The Son also possessed the characteristics of this human nature.
He possessed a human spirit in which He could sigh (Mark 8:12). He possessed a
human soul in which He could sorrow (Mark 14:34). He possessed a human body
(Matthew 27:58). He never spoke to Himself in a schizophrenic fashion as if the
two natures were separate persons. He never spoke of Himself as “we” but always
“I” and “me.” God the Son is now one person with two natures, each with its own
potential sphere of experience and each with its own desires. As one person He
still has one self-consciousness knowing Himself. He also has only one
determinative will. The choice lies with the person not the nature. The son is
responsible for his every choice regardless of what nature is involved. [See
figure 2.]
Figure 2.
Each nature has its own
consciousness, an awareness of its surroundings and experiences. "Jesus
Christ was one person with two different kinds of consciousness. He had a
divine consciousness and also a human consciousness." His divine
consciousness remained fully aware of what was in all men (John 2:25) while His
human nature was limited to the normal human experience. When touched by a
woman in a crowd, He could ask, “Who touched Me?” (Mark 5:30). Each nature also
has its own desirous will. John Walvoord commented on the Son's two natures,
"If by will is meant desire, it is clear that there could be conflicting
desires in the divine and human natures of Christ. If by will, however, is
meant the resulting moral decision, one person can have only one will."
The divine nature could not know hunger but the Son’s human nature could
generate a desire for food when necessary(Matthew 21:18; Luke 4:2). A single
Person who is God and is man (2 Timothy 2:5).
Since the conception of the Son’s
human nature, He has not only possessed but constantly individualized each
nature. To deny this would be to say that He could lay aside one of the natures
so that is might be impersonal. However, the Son has not constantly moved in
the consciousness of both natures. He has moved from one realm of consciousness
to the other. In the example of the woman touching Him, had the Son been moving
in the realm of His divine consciousness, He would have known exactly who
touched Him. Yet in the realm of His human consciousness He did not know who
touched Him. His human consciousness was aware that some of His divine power
had been used, “power had gone out from Him.” In which realm of consciousness
He moves at a given time is the choice of the person. The Son chooses in which
realm of consciousness He will operate.
Distinctions between the
natures
The distinction between the Son’s
two natures, especially regarding the two realms of consciousness can be seen
in several examples. The divine nature is complete. God does not change
(Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). God does not grow, improve, degenerate or undergo
any other form of change. Yet God the Son in the realm of this human nature did
undergo changes. "The child grew and became mighty in spirit, being filled
with wisdom ..." (Luke 2:40). This is growth in the realm of His human
nature, specifically His human spirit, which is the realm of rational thinking.
Without any textual dispute verse 52 indicates that He advanced in wisdom. In
the realm of His human consciousness, He could grow. He knew that He was God
and man, but that does not mean that His human mind knew everything He knew as
God. His human spirit had limitations; it could grow and it became mighty.
In Philippians 2 Paul explained
some details of what happened when the Son became man. Verse 7 states that He
emptied Himself. He did not empty Himself of deity. Some have proposed a theory
built on the word "emptied." The Greek word is kenow
[kenoo last "o" is long] and the theory is called the kenosis. Such
people have taught that God the Son emptied Himself of His deity and ceased
being God. Less extreme variations of this theory state that He gave up some of
His divine attributes. However, Paul states exactly how He emptied Himself. He
became a slave. A slave is responsible to obey His master. He does not pursue
his own agenda but does whatever his master gives him to do. In this instance
the Son gave up the free exercise of His attributes. What He did during His
earthly ministry was done in submission to the Father's will (see John 4:34;
5:30; 6:38, 39, 40). He did not cease being God but exercised His divine
abilities only as the Father directed.
Throughout His earthly ministry,
He continued to possess the characteristics of His divine nature. When He spoke
with Nicodemus, He said, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who has
descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:13). Some
Greek manuscripts have omitted the last phrase "who is in heaven."
There is good evidence among the Greek manuscripts that the phrase should be
included. It is significant because it demonstrates that He remained
omnipresent even when He was incarnate. He also used His power, His omniscience,
love, righteousness, etc.. Therefore, He did not give up the use of His
attributes. He used them only as the Father determined.
In Luke 2:41-50, there is a
glimpse of His deity as He conversed with the men in the temple. His parent's
astonishment indicates that this was not his normal behavior at this point in
His life (2:48-50). His submission to His Father is seen in the words, “...it
is necessary for me to be about my Father’s business...” His mother and
stepfather did not understand Him. While Mary knew that her son was the result
of a divine work, she gave no evidence then that she understood that He was
deity. His human spirit was growing, becoming mightier while in the realm of
His divine nature there was no need or ability to grow. His conversation in the
temple came from His divine nature and was expressed through His twelve year
old human nature.
Other contrasts between His
human and divine natures can be easily observed. The all-powerful Son of God
was tired, wearied and exhausted from labor in the realm of His human nature
and sat on a well to wait for His disciples to buy food (John 4:6). When a
Samaritan woman arrived He began to move in the realm of His divine
consciousness. He exercised His omniscience (vv. 16-19, 29). Upon their return,
His disciples saw the contrast between the two natures but did not understand
it. They had brought back meat and He no longer needed any (vv. 31-34). Doing
the Father’s will was meat to Him (John 4:34). On another occasion while
traveling by boat with His disciples, the all-powerful Son of God slept in the
realm of His human consciousness. When a storm came He arose and with the
prerogative of deity, told the wind and sea to be quiet and to be muzzled (Mark
4:38-39). In the realm of His human nature with its consciousness He hungered
after forty days of fasting (Luke 4:2); He went aside to rest from the ministry
(Mark 6:31). The omniscient Son of God, in the realm of His human nature, did
not know who touched Him (Mark 5:30). Commenting on Mark 5:30, Robert Gromacki again
wrote, "The omniscience of His divine nature was balanced by the limited,
uninformed knowledge of His human intellect. One morning, hungry, "seeing
a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing
thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of
figs was not yet" (Mark 11:13). His approach to the fig tree reflected the
natural ignorance of His human mind, but His cursing of the tree revealed His
omnipotence and omniscience ..." In His human consciousness, the
omniscient Son of God does not know the day or the hour in which He will return
(Mark 13:32). The omnipresent Son of God had to travel from place to place
because His human nature could only be in one place at a given time. God is
untemptable with evil yet in the realm of His human nature the Son was tempted
by the devil for forty days. "Though Christ sometimes operated in the
sphere of His humanity and in other cases in the sphere of deity, in all cases
what He did and what he was could be attributed to His one Person. Even though
it is evident that there were two natures in Christ, He is never considered a
dual personality."
Understanding the Son’s two
natures is vitally important to an understanding of events as He approaches the
cross. There are two primary events to consider: His prayers in Gethsemane and
His time on the cross. This truth brings out an even greater significance for
the cross. It will cause the believer to appreciate even more his wonderful
Savior.
Approaching the cross, the
desirous will of the Son's human nature was at odds with the desirous will of
the Father (Luke 22:42). In the realm of His human nature, He had to align that
desirous will with the desirous will which the Godhead, expressed through the
Father, had chosen.
Gethsemane
After our Lord had introduced
the communion, spoken with the eleven in the upper room, and communicated with
His Father regarding His disciples (John 17), He went out into a garden (John
18:1). Because John emphasized our Lord’s deity he skipped over the Lord’s
communications in Gethsemane. Matthew, Mark and Luke recorded these words. Luke
who emphasized the Son’s humanity as the real man is the only writer who
recorded the resulting sweat drops as of blood (Luke 22:44). Mark emphasizing
the Son as an obedient servant records His request concerning the hour in which
He would come under man’s authority. (Mark 14:35, 41). The King would not
submit to man’s authority. Since the hour does not contribute to Matthew’s
theme, He mentions it in 26:45.
All three synoptic writers
include some of these communications, none in their entirety. Neither do they
record the identical words but each records part of the communications. Our
Lord communicated long enough on each occasion that His disciples fell asleep.
Though the record of this communication fills only a small space, He
supplicated and spoke with the Father for a significant time. The Holy Spirit
bore these writers along to record some of what was said but not to record it
all in detail. God gave us a summary of our Lord’s communication.
In the garden Jesus fell upon
His face. He was grieved, overwhelmed and depressed (Matthew 26:37, 38; Mark
14:33). His soul was grieved even surrounded by grief [perilupw].
The soul is a human element, part of man’s tripartite nature. The feelings
Jesus experienced were human. He simply said, “I am grieved.” for that human
nature is His. His human consciousness was overwhelmed in the face of the hour
and the cup. Neither of these would have overwhelmed the divine nature. The
divine nature did not experience grief, in fact of the Father we find, “It
pleased the Lord to bruise Him.” (Isaiah 53:10). “Please” is a translation of Upx
“(b) towards some one, i.e. to favour him, to delight in him as in God,
in men;” As the Son communicated with the Father, the emotions and words flowed
from His human nature not His divine nature.
Mark recorded that Christ
briefly communicated to the Father concerning His hour.The hour was the limited
period of time during which He would be under man’s authority. He the Creator
would subject Himself to the creature (Matthew 26:45; Mark 14:41). Christ spent
very little time communicating concerning the hour. The hour caused Him some
grief but it was not the paramount concern.
The cup was the focus of His
communication three times. The cup was part of His death, specifically the
length of time. [See Appendix 1] About a week earlier Christ spoke to His
disciples of His death and its attendant events (Luke 18:31-33). Luke related three
times that His disciples did not understand what He was saying (v. 34). It is
so clear to us that we are confused at their lack of understanding. Yet the
second phrase “it was hidden from them” explains that someone else was
preventing them from understanding of what He spoke. In a similar manner, the
Son chose to hide this fact from His human consciousness. Just as His
omniscient divine consciousness knows the exact day and hour of His return yet
His human consciousness does not, so His divine consciousness knew all the
details of His death yet his human consciousness did not. The Father did not
hide this from Him. God the Son Himself willingly chose to limit the knowledge
of His human mind. This was similar to how He limited His human knowledge regarding
the time of His return in the second coming. In His human consciousness, He did
not know how long He would have to endure this death.
The Son was no coward. He was
not asking the Father that His death should pass from Him. He was not asking if
He could avoid the death. He was asking that He might know how long the death
would last. In Hebrews we find that He was answered.
“Who
in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties
to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and
tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;)” Hebrews 5:7, J.N. Darby.
The word supplication involves
an unknown factor. “The uncertainty may involve the means, method, supply, need
or assistance concerning something in his own life or that of others.” It is
distinguished from other communication words because the one supplicating is
crying out for help not knowing how God will answer. In the realm of His divine
nature, He knew all things. In His human consciousness, He didn’t know how or
when God might answer His supplication. As in many places in the gospels, only
by distinguishing Christ’s two natures is one able to make sense of this.
For this reason, the Son,
supplicated according to Hebrews 5, that the cup should pass from Him (Matthew
26:39). The “if it is possible” gives the impression that this might not be
possible. The Greek in these statements assumes that it is possible, “since is
is possible.” Mark even recorded that the Son knew all things were possible for
the Father (Mark 14:36). Even in the realm of His human nature, He was aware
that this cup could pass from Him. Luke uses boulomai, “Since You
choose to take away ...” (Luke 22:42). Jesus was stating that the Father is the
one who would determine, not that the Father had determined. If the cup were to
pass from Him, He would have still gone to the cross, suffered and died but He
would have done so knowing how long His deaths were to last. This was not the
Father’s will. It was the Father’s will for the Son to approach and experience
the cross without knowing how long His death was to be.
It is with this desirous will [qelhma]
of the Father that the Son in the realm of His human consciousness was in
conflict. Therefore, each synoptic writer records a clear statement that Son’s
desirous will was not that of the Father (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke
22:42). Matthew and Mark both wrote, “but not what I am desiring but what
you...” Luke recorded a similar statement by our Lord, “but not my desirous
will, but let yours come to be.” This is not a conflict between the Son in His
divine nature and the Father for only one desirous will exists in the divine
nature and it is impossible for the divine desirous will to be in conflict with
itself [See Figure 3]. Figure†3.†
The conflict was between the
desirous will arising from the Son’s human nature and the desirous will arising
from the divine nature. [See Figure 4.] The Son in the realm of His human
nature chose to align His desirous will with the Father’s and approach the
cross drinking the cup.
Figure 4.
Apart from an understanding of
the Son’s has two distinct natures, one human and one divine, the Garden event
does not make sense. How could two persons who are one God be in conflict? They
could not. The conflict was between the will of deity and the will of humanity.
Since the Son does not have an “I” and “you” relationship, the Son willingly
limited His conscious experience to the realm of His human nature. Our Savior
faced the cross not in the realm of His all-powerful, all-knowing deity but in
the realm of His human nature with its natural human weakness and limited
knowledge.
This does not mean that the Son
ceased to be divine. In fact, the value of His death was in part that the
person who died is a divine person. The Church was made the unique possession
of God by His own blood (Acts 20:28). God has not blood so God the Son
became man so He could shed His blood. God doesn’t die, so the Son, being
eternally God, willing chose to operate in the realm of his human
consciousness, for only His human consciousness could experience pain,
suffering and death as a man.
Because the Son had a human
nature He could learn obedience (Hebrews 5:8). Deity doesn’t learn obedience.
The Godhead doesn’t live by a set of rules or standards. Their nature
determines how they function. In addition to what this does for biblically
defining the term “son” this also demonstrates a contrast and need of the Son’s
human nature to His divine nature. He suffered in the realm of His human nature.
Suffering is inconsistent with God’s nature, specifically the attribute of
goodness. Goodness means that God has a consistent sense of well-being which
results in God being happy and content. These divine qualities are inconsistent
with suffering. Therefore, the Son’s sufferings were confined to the experience
of His divine nature.
He learned obedience from the
things which He suffered. The context connects the sufferings to His death and
the events leading to it. One may obey under a variety of different
circumstances but obedience under suffering is notable. He obeyed being in the form
of a slave (Philippians 2:7). His obedience was even to a cross kind of death
with excessive public humiliation and ignominy. These sufferings in the realm
of His human nature caused Him to be matured [A.V. “perfected] (Hebrews 5:9).
The divine nature has no need of maturing nor can it mature. It is eternally
perfect. The Son’s human nature could mature as He chose to face the sufferings
properly and obey the Father’s will.
The Son’s sufferings and
obedience are an encouragement to the believer. Because He faced these in the
realm of His human nature, just as He faced His temptations, He is a
sympathetic High-priest (Hebrews 4:14-15). Our High-priest knows by experience
our experience. If we fail to grasp that His two natures are distinct and if we
fail to recognize that He can choose to move in either realm of consciousness,
then this statement seems meaningless. Many believers have doubted how
sympathetic their High-priest is because they have never recognized the
difference between His natures.
A Display of Deity
Following His communication to
the Father and the alignment of His human will with the Divine will, a mob
arrived in the garden (John 12:1-3). Jesus knew all the things that were about
to come upon Him (John 18:4). He asked the group of soldiers and jewish
officials whom they were seeking. They replied, “Jesus of Nazareth.” (John
18:5). He answered, “I AM.” (John 18:6). Many English Bibles translate this “I
am He.” adding the pronoun “he” to egw
eimi. As elsewhere in John’s
gospel, egw eimi is the Greek translation of the Old
Testament name Jehovah [hwhy] When Jesus spoke these words, the mob
all fell back unto the ground. Were they astounded at His admission to being
Jesus of Nazareth? C.E. Stuart took the meaning of these words in this sense, “A
sense that the Lord was no mere man, we suppose, took possession of them.”
Merril Tenney appears uncertain as to what Jesus intended by these words.
However the late J. Vernon McGee expressed well the real intent of these words,
“Even in this dark hour when He was yielding Himself as the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world, He revealed His deity - and they fell
backwards! He revealed to these men that He was absolutely in charge, and they
could not arrest Him without His permission.” If He had not allowed them to
take Him, they would have been powerless to do so. A.C. Gaebelein noted two
reasons for this display of divine power. First is demonstrated to both the mob
and disciples that He is the Lord of glory. Second it demonstrated that the arrest
and crucifixion were not forced upon Him but He chose to allow them to be. In
light of the Gethsemane prayers this final display of divine power reminds the
reader of Jesus’ willing submission to the following events. It reminds us of
Jesus’ words, “No man takes my life from me, I lay it down of myself.” (John
10:18). From this point on, He will not call upon His divine power to rescue
Himself. He will not relieve the reality of the cross from Himself by His
divine power. When He was tempted in the wilderness, He did not exercise His
divine attributes to alleviate His real hunger. So here, He will face the cross
in His human nature, through His human consciousness and not in His divine
omnipotence or omniscience.
The Cross
Christians recognize the physical
sufferings of Jesus Christ upon a Roman cross. In all His physical sufferings,
the reproaches and blasphemous words directed at Him, He remained silent (Acts
8:32). Philip explained to the Ethiopian that these words written by Isaiah
described Jesus (Acts 8:33-34). He did not return harsh words for harsh words
nor did He threaten those who threatened Him (1 Peter 2:22-23). Jesus Christ
Himself told the Philadelphian church that they had guarded the word concerning
His patience (Revelation 3:11). This suggest an early tradition which denyied
that Jesus Christ was patient when facing His sufferings. His humanity
experienced adversity which He chose to endure rather than escape. Neither did
He respond to the circumstances in a manner inconsistent with His righteous
character. This was an example of how we too should suffer (1 Peter 2:21). It
is a good example because He suffered in His humanity as do we.
Upon reaching Golgotha (the hill
of the skull) Jesus was offered wine mixed with gaul and/or myrrh (Matthew
27:34; Mark 15:23). This was an analgesic a narcotic which could have dulled
some of the physical pain. Matthew records that He did not desire [qelw]
to take this substance. He did not choose to alleviate any part of His
experience on the cross (Matthew 27:34). Again, our Savior bore the agonies of
the cross as a man. He did not avail Himself of the normal human means of
relief. Similarly, It is not then surprising that He did not avail Himself of
His divine attributes to alleviate His suffering in His human nature.
Christ’s Seven Saying from
the Cross
They then crucified Him (Mark
15:24). His crucifixion lasted about six hours, from nine in the morning until
three in the afternoon. During those six hours our Savior uttered seven sayings
from His cross. [See Appendix 2] This group of seven sayings help us to
understand much of what took place in the hours our Lord hung on the cross.
When these saying from the cross are compared and placed in chronological order
based upon the contexts, another level of suffering comes to light.
”Father forgive them for they
know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34). The Roman soldiers did not understand
that the Jews were rejecting their prophesied King. The word “said” is an
Imperfect tense emphasizing that this was on going. It would mean that Jesus
repeated these words while they were nailing Him to the cross. This prayer is
answered by God putting the sins of the whole world on Christ. Therefore, the
whole world is held responsible for Christ’s death not just the Roman soldiers
or the Jews.
“Today you shall be with me
in paradise.” Luke 23:43 One of the two criminals who were crucified on
either side of Christ believed in Christ. He observed Christ’s response to his
suffering and the insults of others while on the cross (Isaiah 53:7; Mark
14:61). For this reason these words were probably close the sixth hour (noon).
That amount of time allowed the criminal to observe Jesus’ silence at the harsh
words of the crowd as well as those which he and the other criminal were
directing at Jesus. Seeing that Jesus was different, he believed that Jesus was
the promised king and he asked to be remembered in the kingdom. Christ promised
him that he would be with Christ in the Paradise part of Hades.
“Woman behold your son.”
John 19:26-27 Through the following events Christ’s relationship to others was
chaning. He was becoming the Savior by bearing sins and then rising again. He
was to be Lord (Acts 2:36). So, He would no longer be the son of Mary. John was
to become her son and she, his mother. This speaks of His compassion for His
human mother but also looks forward to the change of relationships which was
soon to be. Paul described that change, "So that, we from the present,
know objectively no man according to the flesh, since we have even known Christ
experientially according to the flesh, but we know him no longer" (2†Corinthians
5:16).
These first three sayings are
markedly different from the next four. They express a man suffering physically
yet in full possession of His faculties, not so overwhelmed by suffering. His
words express calmness in the midst of physical suffering. Crucifixion ix
foreign to the modern reader. So, we marvel that one could control one’s
faculties under such a torturous death. Many victims lasted days upon a cross.
The other two men crucified with Christ were in control of their faculties
enough that they too were hurling insults at Jesus (Matthew 27:44; Luke 23:39).
However, the following words evince a suffering at a whole new level. All of the
next four sayings were spoken towards the end of His crucifixion about the
twelfth hour (3 pm). During most of the next three hours, He will be silent.
“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthini,
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!” Matthew 27:46 This saying is preceded
by darkness, as a symbol of God turning His back on the Son for the time which
He bore our sins. This was prophesied in Psalm 22:2 ff. This is an expression
of the spiritual death He experienced as a man. In the realm of His humanity He
experienced spiritual separation from the Father. During the preceding three
hours, God caused Him to become sin in our place (2†Corinthians 5:21). It was
during this time that He was “caused to be perverse” and the Father caused Him
to be chastened (2 Samuel 7:14). “Human hands might inflict physical suffering
and death as any victim would die, but only the hand of God could make Christ a
sin offering, or could lay on Him the iniquity of others (2 Cor. 5. 21; Isa.
53:6).” Had the Son been moving in the realm of His divine consciousness He
would not have experienced abandonment. The divine nature can not be divided
and the persons can not separate from one another in that nature, as they are
one in essence. As we have seen, the Biblical evidence is that the Son faced the
cross in the realm of His human consciousness. In His human consciousness He
experienced separation from the Father. As we were once alienated from the life
of God as men, so the Son as our substitute became alienated from the Father
only in the realm of His human nature (cf Ephesians 4:18).
The abandonment of the Son by
the Father is seen in the contrast between the Father’s pleasure and the Son’s
sufferings. If the Son’s sufferings were in the realm of His divine nature, it
would have been shared by the other members of the Trinity. Yet Isaiah wrote, “It
pleased the Jehovah to really bruise Him, He caused Him to be weak when You
proceed to put His soul as an offering for guilt [trespass] “. The Father was
pleased and caused the spiritual sufferings, while the Son experienced the
spiritual sufferings.
“I thirst!” John 19:28.
Following the previous statement Matthew and Mark record that He again cried
out (Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36). Both writers then recorded that one of the
people who heard Him ran for a sponge filled with vinegar. John, not Matthew or
Mark, records the words which He cried out. Their response was to offer Him a
sponge (John 19:29). However, He was expressing a spiritual thirst. John alone
wrote of the Spirit slaking the spiritual thirst of those once separated from
God (John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39). John does not record His cry for the Father but
does record this cry for the Spirit. Since God is a Trinity, we should not be
surprised that the Son not only desired the relationship with the Father but
also with the Spirit. His request regarding both the Fath and Spirit is
answered with the next statement. (cf. 1†Peter 3:18).
“It is finished.” John
19:30. His physical death had not yet begun. His physical death was necessary
for our salvation as were His physical and spiritual sufferings. If they were
not, He could have come down from the cross at this point. Thus, His work was
not yet finished. It would not be finished until the dark early hours of Sunday
morning when He would arise and then ascend to the Father. “It is finished.”
can not refer to redemption, for that is by His blood shed in death (Ephesians
1:7; Colossians 1:14). “It is finished.” refers to the end of the separation
from the Father and Spirit while upon the cross. The time, in length unknown to
the Son, was finished and ended. The spiritual suffering, and alienation was
over.
“Into your hands I commit my
spirit.” Luke 23:46. The Son’s alienation in the realm of His divine
consciousness had ended. His fellowship with the Father had resumed. Rather
than cries of spiritual pain He then confidently entrusted His human spirit to
the Father’s care and released Himself in death. Peter recounts this event in
six words, “ yanatwyeiv men sarki
zwopoihyeiv de pneumati “on
one hand having been put to death in flesh, but on the other hand made alive in
spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18). Peter viewed these last four sayings being close
together in time, probably within mere minutes or less. His physical death
occurred closely in time with the resumption of His spiritual life. His
physical death began but His spiritual death ended. Peter also records that the
death was in the realm of His human spirit. Jesus’ body was still physically
alive but His human spirit had been alienated for those hours from Twelve to Three.
With these words, the Son released His spiritually alive human spirit and soul
resulting in the death of His body.
Other References Indicating
Christ’s Two Natures and Suffering
Other scriptures indicate two
distinct natures, and posit the suffering on Christ’s humanity. He became poor,
that we might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9). Though the cattle on a thousand
hills are God’s, the riches and poverty to which Paul referred are not material
(Psalm 50:10). The Son became poor by becoming man and laying down His life in
our place. “What His riches were and to what depth of poverty He descended
cannot be comprehended by men;.” On behalf of the Jews, Christ became a curse
while on the cross, that He might buy out from the curse of the Law those who
were under that Law (Galatians 3:14). While on the cross and being made sin by
the Father, He died to the sin nature (Romans 6:10). The Son could only
die to the sin nature if that were true of Him. Yet with respect to His
birth and life He was holy, blameless and without sin (1 Peter 1:19; Hebrews
4:15). It was while He hung upon the cross that the Father made Him to become
sin and to that sin He died (2 Corinthians 5:21). By being in the likeness of
sinful flesh, God condemned the sin in the flesh to provide us salvation
(Romans 8:3). The sin in the flesh does not describe acts of sin but the sin nature,
that indwelling principle of sin, which Paul wrote, “dwells in me.” (Romans
7:17, 20).
Many of the Psalms contain
Messianic prophecies. Psalm 22 is one of those rare Psalms wholly devoted to
prophecy regarding the Messiah. The psalm graphically depicts the Messiah’s
sufferings. What is noticeable is that His spiritual sufferings (vv. 1-2, 6-8,
11-12) are first described and then His physical (vv. 14-17). The New Testament
quotes several passages of this psalm and applies them to the sufferings of
Jesus Christ upon the cross.
His cry for God reveals His
spiritual death (Psalm 22:1). He asked why God had abandoned Him, the Qal
Perfect indicating an accomplished state. The Hebrew word bze
meant to leave or desert. The next two phrases are verbless clauses, “...far
from my salvation; words of my roaring.” The gaspings of a suffering man are
plainly seen in these broken, verbless statements. The idea of God being “far
from” Jesus occurs three times in this Psalm, here as an adjective and twice as
a verb. In verse eleven (12 in the Hebrew) He pleads with God to not “be far
from me.” This verb form followed by the preposition Nm
meant to go away “from”. This verb is a Qal Imperfect and requests that God not
continue the state which existed in verse 2. Then again in verse 19 (20) He
pleads for God to not be far away. In each of these, a separation, not possible
in the realm of deity, is described. The separation was between the Son’s human
nature and the Father.
Jesus expressed this separation
when He was crying out to God but God was not answering (v. 2). He described
Himself as a worm and not a man (v. 6). Following His last request that the
Father not be far away, He strongly asked, indicated by an imperative verb, “Hurry,
my strength.” (v. 19). He requests that God cause to deliver His soul from the
sword and then that God would cause to save Him from the mouth of the lion and
the horns of the ox (vv. 20-21).
Beginning with verse 21, the
tenor changes. The Qal Perfect “You answered Me.” is in contrast to the time
when God was not answering Him (v. 2). The Son then proceeds to really recount
the name of God to His brethren (v. 22). As in 1 Peter, “put to death in flesh
but made alive in spirit” so here, the Son’s spiritual death ends and His
spiritual fellowship with the Father and Spirit resumes.
Isaiah 53 also portrays the
suffering Messiah, yet with many verbs indicating the specific activities of
God and man with respect to Jesus’ sufferings and death. The people count Him
to be struck, smitten and really humbled by God (v. 4). The Jews nor Romans who
crucified Jesus made the people’s perversities to fall upon Him. Jehovah did
(v. 6). Jehovah really bruised Him and caused Him to be put to grief (v. 10).
As noted above, during this activity, Jehovah, specifically the Father, was
pleased! This draws a distinct line between the Son’s human and divine natures,
between His human consciousness which suffered these things and His divine
consciousness which took part in planning these sufferings as the basis of
providing salvation for man.
Nearly 2,000 years have passed
since the Son entered the world as Jesus Christ. In the intervening centuries
both unbelievers and believers have attempted to understand the incarnation.
Many philosophical statements have been made regarding the nature of that
incarnation and the results. Only the Biblical account infallibly records both
the event and results. Theologians consulted, some quoted throughout this paper
and even myself are fallible. What is communicated must express accurately what
God has chosen to reveal to and for us.
It is clear that the Son is
eternally God, one with the Father and Spirit. It is clear that the Son became
flesh, became man through a supernatural act. It is clear that as a result He
is both perfectly God and man. It is clear that these two natures are not two
persons but two natures individualized by one Person, the SON! It is clear from
the gospel accounts that the Son moved between the realms of consciousness
unique to each nature: at times so plainly God and at times plainly man!
Understanding this clarifies
many of the gospel accounts wherein the Son moved between these two realms of
consciousness leaving many believers asking, “What just happened?” or “Why did
He do or ask that?” Of even greater importance is that it adds depth to one’s
appreciation of our Savior’s sufferings. We at no time would minimize the
sufferings of our Savior, no believer would, however, failing to grasp that the
Son possesses two distinct natures can also leave us with questions, “How could
He really suffer if He’s God?” or “What could a cross do to Him?” Finally,
understanding that the Son could restrict His activities to one realm of
consciousness powerfully demonstrates the basis of the Son’s spiritual
sufferings on the cross not at the hand of man but at the hand of the Father.
No ontological conflict exists because the sufferings were experienced in the
realm of the Son’s human nature not the divine nature.
While all this is true, we must
also keep in mind, that the value of that death is not just that a man died but
that the man who died is eternally a person of the Godhead. As in Paul’s words
to the Ephesians elders, “the church of God, which He made His unique
possession by His own blood.” He didn’t die as God but as man. That man who
died never stopped being God!
“Wherefore,
God also exalted Him and gave to Him the name, the one above every name, in
order that at the name belonging to Jesus, every knee should bow, the ones in
heavens and upon earth and under earth, and every tongue will confess out, “LORD
JESUS CHRIST.” to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians
2:9-11
Appendix 1 on the Cup
Theologians and commentators are
diverse in their interpretation of the cup, with little consensus. Three
primary interpretations are offered. 1. Satan was trying to kill Jesus in the
garden. 2. Jesus was shrinking from sin. he feared being made sin. 3. Jesus
wished to avoid the cross.
As to the first, Satan put the
idea in Judas’ heart and then entered into Him to betray Jesus (John 13:2, 27).
He was moving men to kill Jesus (John 8:39-40, 44). Satan’s goal was not a
premature death. As the rulers of the age (Satan is called prince John 12:31:
16:11) they did not know that Christ’s death would accomplish God’s purpose (1
Corinthians 2:6, 8). Therefore, the cup was not Satan trying to kill Jesus by
weakening His human nature.
In the second case, we would
agree that Jesus didn’t want to become sin but that was how salvation would be
secured. Christ’s prayer was stated in a first class condition. He knew or it
was assumed true that the Father could let the cup pass from Him. Therefore,
due to the nature of the condition, Christ was not asking if there were some
other means to secure our salvation. He knew He had to become sin in order to
bear our sins.
The third is like the second,
except that it emphasizes either Jesus’ spiritual and physical death or just
His physical death. What was said in regard to the last possibility would also
serve to answer this. Jesus knew that among the various divine purposes He came
to fulfill, His death was paramount (Matthew 16:21-23).
While other alternatives could
be offered, whatever is proposed must fit the idea in Hebrews 5:7. God could
save Him out (ek) of death. Christ’s supplication was not
to avoid death, which would have been expressed by the preposition apo
but salvation out of death. The Jews knew by revelation that they would be
raised from death. Martha expressed her confidence in the resurrection in the
last day (John 11:24). In the realm of His human nature Jesus would have known
of a future resurrection. The reality of resurrection does not fit the
situation.
The timing of the resurrection
is the matter. Jesus Christ revealed to His disciples that He would be treated
brutally, killed and rise three days later. Yet His disciples did not
understand this. In fact it was hidden from them (Luke 18). In a similar
manner, the three days was hidden from the Son’s human nature. The cup was the
Son facing death not knowing how long His death would last. This is probably
two fold: how long He would be separated from the Father, how long His body
would remain in the tomb and He would be in Hades / Sheol. His supplication was
answered as to the former when on the cross He said, “It is finished.” His work
was not yet done for He hadn’t yet died physically. What was finished was His
spiritual death, His separation from the Father. In Hades He received an answer
to the supplication regarding the latter, “You will not abandon my soul in
Hades nor allow your Holy one to see corruption” (Acts 2:27). The result was
that His “flesh would tent out in hope (Acts 2:26).
Donald Barnhouse offered an
interpretation related to the time. Barnhouse believed Christ did not want to
be eternally separated from the Father by the second death.
Facing death, knowing that it
would last for just a few hours or three days would not have minimized the Son’s
work or make it less noble or loving. Yet a depth is added to His work,
understanding He willingly faced His death not knowing how long it would last.
This was His cup.
Appendix 2
A SYNOPSIS OF PASSAGES
RELATING TO CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE
Luke 2:7 needed nurturing
Luke 2:40 He grew, and became
strong in spirit and wisdom.
Luke 2:52 Jesus grew in wisdom
and in stature and in favor with God and men.
Luke 4:2 Jesus was hungry after
not eating. cp John 4.
Luke 8:24 He needed to sleep.
Mark 6:31 He rested and ate from
the constraints of ministry.
John 11:35 He had emotions.
Matthew 20:34 He had compassion
on the sick.
John 19:28 He thirsted.
He has a body - wrapped in swaddling clothes.
Luke
2:21 He was circumcised.
John
19:34-38 body to pierce and legs to break.
Luke
24:36-39 Even in the resurrection He had a physical body that could be handled.
Luke
24:42-43 he could eat broiled fish and honeycomb.
He has a soul - He emoted as we do.
Matthew
26:38 It was grieved. Grief is one of the emotions and senses.
He has a spirit - He mentally related to things.
John
11:33 “groaned in spirit” mentally and rationally He met with frustration their
disbelief in His deity. This produces the emotional response “Jesus wept”
Luke
2:40 he grew in the realm of His rationale.
DIVINITY IS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM
Divine Attributes
goodness - Matthew 19:17; John
10:11, 14
holy - Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14
love - 1 John 3:16
omniscience - John 4:17-19
ability to judge therefore
righteous - John 5:27-29
truth - John 14:6
Characteristics of the nature
omnipresence - John 3:14
eternal - John 5:58; John 1:4;
5:6
ability to create John 1:3;
2:7-10
ability to forgive - Matthew
9:2-6
ability to receive worship with
the Father and Spirit - John 4:23,24; John 9:38; Hebrews 10:29
He shares titles which are
only God's
King of Kings 1 Timothy 6:15;
Revelation 17:14; 19:11-16
Lord of Lords 1 Timothy 6:15;
Revelations 19:16
Savior Isaiah 43:11; Acts 13:23;
Philippians 3:20l Luke 2:11; John 4:42
First and last - no other god
Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 1:8,11,17-18; Isaiah 9:6
