Christology, the
doctrine concerned with the nature and person of Christ, has been debated
through the centuries and to commence this debate the issue of Christ’s
humanity is raised. The Synoptic Gospels clearly point to Jesus’ human
qualities such as growing (Lk. 2:52), hunger (Mk. 2:15), distress (Mk. 14:33),
and ultimately death (Mk. 15:37). However, the Synoptic Gospels were not the
only place where these claims can be found, in other places scripture witnesses
explicitly to his true humanity (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 4:15).[1]
The second aspect
of Christology should focus on the claims in Scripture for Christ’s deity.
Jesus had a proper understanding of his nature and this can be seen in the
claims he made as the “I AM” of the Old Testament.[2]
Seven times in the Gospel of John he refers to himself as ego eimi; “I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35), “I am the good
shepherd” (Jn. 10:11), and “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25). These
self-claims speak to who Jesus believed himself to be. Furthermore,
encapsulated in the application of logos
is the claim to pre-existence which should be understood as a claim of deity
(Jn. 1:1). This verse points to
Christ, who in the beginning was the agent of God’s creative decree and
subsequent creative activity. [3]
With the previous
two paragraphs in mind we can tie the two natures together as the Council of
Chalcedon (451), officially defined the doctrine of the hypostatic union. [4]
This bond of both God and man Scripture will attest most cogently to in the
incarnation. Christ was born of the flesh (Jn. 1:14), had family lineage (Rom.
9:5) and yet this same man was attributed with God-like qualities for he knew
what was in man (Jn. 2:24-25), a clear representation of omniscience. Paul
gives credence to the deity of Christ when he ascribes omnipotence to him in
the act of creation (1:16). When the whole of Scripture is tied together the
union is revealed. Calvin believed when Christ became flesh he did not suspend
nor alter his conventional commission of upholding the universe a declaration
of Christ being both fully God and fully man.[5]
For Christ to
exist in such a union he would have to have a proper self-knowledge of his
nature. He would have to claim deity and act upon it as judge (Rev. 20:11-12),
savior (Jn. 3:16) and creator (Jn. 1:3). He would have to embrace his
humiliation in full by experiencing emotion (Jn. 11:35), hunger (Mk. 2:15) and
ultimately the finality of the flesh (Mt. 27:50). When taken together Jesus
could fully relate to man in the flesh because he lived as one and he could
properly relate to the Father and the rest of the Godhead because he was of the
same essence as them.
In Christ’s
incarnation he took on the form of humanity in order that he save humanity from
its fallen condition. Because the essence of God is an immaterial being (Jn
4:24), he could not be the propitiation for human sin because an immaterial
being cannot bleed. Blood was the requirement to atone for the sins of man
(Lev.16:15). Thus, the only way was to offer a sacrifice that was without
blemish to atone properly for humankind. Yet an animal cannot fully cover the
sins of men, it would take a perfect man, still more, it would take a perfect
God-man.[6]
Christ Jesus was that perfect God-man atonement (1 Pet. 1:18-19).
When overemphasis
on one of Christ’s nature is given over the other heresies can arise. These
heresies can give rise to a misconception or a complete disregard for the
humanity and subsequent incarnation of Christ as is seen with Apollinarian
Christology.[7]
After Tertullian unerringly identified the Father and Son were of “one
substance”[8]
debate arose as to how this might be. Arius denied Christ as having a human
soul and the Council of Nicea (325) condemned him.[9]
To defeat this heresy it should be pointed out that if Christ did not have a
soul and possess the full human qualities then he could not be the acceptable
placation for sin. Nestorianism arose after the Nicene Council alleging that
Christ two natures existed side by side and thus denying the popular view of
Christ. Much as the same above, if you separate the two natures, then man could
not be the adequate source of atonement, it takes God to satisfy this penalty
(Heb. 7:26).
The humanity of Christ
enriches my life by giving it a source of example and study on how to conduct
life with a focus on holiness. Walking victorious because of the sacrifice
helps me understand that true relationship and friendship rests in my desire to
lay it all down for those I love. (Jn. 15:13)
Bibliography
Blaising, C. “Hypostatic Union.” In Evangelical Dictionary
of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 583-84. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2001.
Towns, Elmer. Theology for
Today Mason, OH: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001.
Wallace, R.S., and G.L. Green. “Christology, New Testament
Christology.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd
ed., 239-45. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.
[1] R.S. Wallace
and G.L. Green, “Christology, New Testament Christology.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed.
Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 239.
[2] Elmer L.
Towns, Theology for Today (Mason:
Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001), 160-161.
[3] Wallace and
Green, 241.
[4] C. Blaising,
“Hypostatic Union.” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2001), 583.
[5] Wallace and
Green, 243.
[6] Wallace and
Green, 242.
[7] Ibid, 242.
[8] Ibid, 241.
[9] Ibid, 242.
