Anhypostasia

[karl_heinz]

Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or “person“, of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word ‘subsists’ is used rather than ‘exists’ to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine.

Fernando Ocariz Brana, F. Ocarz, Lucas F. Mateo Seco J., dwell deeply into the subject of the person of Jesus is their The Mystery of Jesus Christ. .

Here’s what they say in pg. 114, under the sub-heading, “Being and person in Christ.”

“Every individual human nature constitutes a human person, unless the case occurred of a human nature which existed by virtue not of it’s proportionate act of being but by virtue of the being of another person. We could, ofcourse, not even have imagined such a situation, if we had not known the mystery of Christ, whose human nature, though lacking nothing as such, is not a human person.

In fact, the human nature of Jesus is perfect, but it does not constitute a human person because it does not exist by virtue of a proper and proportionate act of being of its own, by by virtue of the divine being of the Word. Of course, we must not confuse ut actuas essendi (act of being) and esse formale. So whereas we do not predicate of Christ’s human nature its own finite act of being, we certainly should predicate of it an esse formale of its own, that is, the esse humane nature.

The fact that the Person of the word is what makes the human nature of Jesus exist, without being thereby limited or circumscribed, is certainly a great mystery, but it is not something impossible to almighty God; and it does not mean that the divine being enters into composition with human nature (which would be a peculiar form of monophysitism).”

However some theolgians have difficulty with this Jesus. In his book, To Know and Follow Jesus (pub. Paulist Press, 1984), the Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Hart, is critical of the traditional understanding of Jesus enshrined in the creeds of mainstream Christianity by the Council of Chalcedon:

“The Chalcedonian formula [Jesus is fully God and fully man] makes genuine humanity impossible” (p. 46, ).

Hart explains:

“The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in Him [divine and human, ie., he is fully God and fully man], it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient [all-knowing], omnipotent, and omnipresent. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kind of struggles we are familiar with” (p. 46).

Thomas Hart then describes the official view of Jesus further: According to the Council of Chalcedon,

“Jesus is called ‘man’ in the generic sense, but not ‘a man.’ He has human nature, but is not a human person. The person in him is the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus does not have a human personal center. This is how the Council gets round the possible problem of split personality” (p. 44,).

IMHO Hart does seem to have a point. How can Jesus be man in any meaningful sense if he is not “a man ?”

Let’s discuss this issue. IMHO it is important because it goes to the heart of answering the question, “who is Jesus.” Yet it is no exaggeration to suggest that practically all of the laity are ignorant of it.

Jesus asked the following question in Matthew 16:13, “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?” Yet without either an acceptance or an comprehension of anhypostasia, it is impossible for a Catholic to answer this question without falling into profound heresy.

 

[CaptainPicard]

The Nicene Creed says that He was made man. So even if Jesus wasn’t a human person, the Church has always understood that He was human – he was a man. The Church also teaches that His human nature wasn’t swallowed up by His divine nature. That’s the error of Eutychianism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutychianism. I don’t think that Thomas Hart was saying this exactly, but I do disagree with him that “we know which nature will dominate”. To me, the incarnation is a great mystery, and to say something like “we know his divine nature will dominate” seems awfully presumptuous.

Hart also equates human nature with having the ability to sin and having a certain lack of power. But I’m not so sure. If we go to heaven, it’s generally believed that we will no longer have the ability to sin, being so united to God as we will be. Likewise, in our glorified state, we’ll probably be more powerful, or at least much better off. That wont make us less human. If anything, it probably makes us more human. Sin is more of a degradation of our humanity, not something necessary to be truly human.

All that said, Jesus did lead a truly human life. He was born of a woman, became a little infant (!), grew up like we all do, and even suffered pain and death. He had relationships with those around him, ate food, worked and sweated and bled. Sure, it was made different by the fact that He was also God, but I don’t think that took away from His being human.

To get back to your original point, I think the fact that Jesus’ human nature has no person of its own is probably an important point to make for theological correctness and creating a solid Christological understanding, however, it doesn’t seem to me to take away from Jesus’ “humanness” (but I can’t claim to understand it all that well).

 

[James224]

Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or “person“, of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word ‘subsists’ is used rather than ‘exists’ to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine.

Fernando Ocariz Brana, F. Ocarz, Lucas F. Mateo Seco J., dwell deeply into the subject of the person of Jesus is their The Mystery of Jesus Christ. .

Here’s what they say in pg. 114, under the sub-heading, “Being and person in Christ.”

However some theolgians have difficulty with this Jesus. In his book, To Know and Follow Jesus (pub. Paulist Press, 1984), the Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Hart, is critical of the traditional understanding of Jesus enshrined in the creeds of mainstream Christianity by the Council of Chalcedon:

Hart explains:

Thomas Hart then describes the official view of Jesus further: According to the Council of Chalcedon,

IMHO Hart does seem to have a point. How can Jesus be man in any meaningful sense if he is not “a man ?”

Let’s discuss this issue. IMHO it is important because it goes to the heart of answering the question, “who is Jesus.” Yet it is no exaggeration to suggest that practically all of the laity are ignorant of it.

Jesus asked the following question in Matthew 16:13, “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?” Yet without either an acceptance or an comprehension of anhypostasia, it is impossible for a Catholic to answer this question without falling into profound heresy.

From the Summa:

OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ, as Man, is God. For Christ is God by the grace of union. But Christ, as Man, has the grace of union. Therefore Christ as Man is God.
OBJ 2: Further, to forgive sins is proper to God, according to Isaiah 43:25: “I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake.” But Christ as Man forgives sin, according to Matthew 9:6: “But that you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” etc. Therefore Christ as Man is God.
OBJ 3: Further, Christ is not Man in common, but is this particular Man. Now Christ, as this Man, is God, since by “this Man” we signify the eternal suppositum which is God naturally. Therefore Christ as Man is God.
On the contrary, Whatever belongs to Christ as Man belongs to every man. Now, if Christ as Man is God, it follows that every man is God - which is clearly false.
I answer that, This term man when placed in the reduplication may be taken in two ways. First as referring to the nature; and in this way it is not true that Christ as Man is God, because the human nature is distinct from the Divine by a difference of nature. Secondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this way, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is the Person of the Son of God, to Whom it essentially belongs to be God, it is true that Christ, as Man, is God. Nevertheless because the term placed in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, as stated above (A10), hence this is to be denied rather than granted: “Christ as Man is God.”
Reply OBJ 1: It is not with regard to the same, that a thing moves towards, and that it is, something; for to move belongs to a thing because of its matter or subject - and to be in act belongs to it because of its form. So too it is not with regard to the same, that it belongs to Christ to be ordained to be God by the grace of union, and to be God. For the first belongs to Him in His human nature, and the second, in His Divine Nature. Hence this is true: “Christ as Man has the grace of union”; yet not this: “Christ as Man is God.”
Reply OBJ 2: The Son of Man has on earth the power of forgiving sins, not by virtue of the human nature, but by virtue of the Divine Nature, in which Divine Nature resides the power of forgiving sins authoritatively; whereas in the human nature it resides instrumentally and ministerially. Hence Chrysostom expounding this passage says (Implicitly. Hom. 30 in Matthaeum; Saint Thomas, Catena Aurea on Mark 2:10): “He said pointedly on earth to forgive sins, in order to show that by an indivisible union He united human nature to the power of the Godhead, since although He was made Man, yet He remained the Word of God.”
Reply OBJ 3: When we say “this man,” the demonstrative pronoun “this” attracts “man” to the suppositum; and hence “Christ as this Man, is God, is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God.” (Summa, Part 1, Q16, Article 11)

 

[karl_heinz]

Hi Captain,

The Nicene Creed says that He was made man. So even if Jesus wasn’t a human person, the Church has always understood that He was human – he was a man. The Church also teaches that His human nature wasn’t swallowed up by His divine nature. That’s the error of Eutychianism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutychianism. I don’t think that Thomas Hart was saying this exactly, but I do disagree with him that “we know which nature will dominate”. To me, the incarnation is a great mystery, and to say something like “we know his divine nature will dominate” seems awfully presumptuous.

Hart also equates human nature with having the ability to sin and having a certain lack of power. But I’m not so sure. If we go to heaven, it’s generally believed that we will no longer have the ability to sin, being so united to God as we will be. Likewise, in our glorified state, we’ll probably be more powerful, or at least much better off. That wont make us less human. If anything, it probably makes us more human. Sin is more of a degradation of our humanity, not something necessary to be truly human.

All that said, Jesus did lead a truly human life. He was born of a woman, became a little infant (!), grew up like we all do, and even suffered pain and death. He had relationships with those around him, ate food, worked and sweated and bled. Sure, it was made different by the fact that He was also God, but I don’t think that took away from His being human.

To get back to your original point, I think the fact that Jesus’ human nature has no person of its own is probably an important point to make for theological correctness and creating a solid Christological understanding, however, it doesn’t seem to me to take away from Jesus’ “humanness” (but I can’t claim to understand it all that well).

Thanks for your post.

I think you’ve got it backwards a bit. The church has always understood that Jesus is not a man (not a human being) , except in a qualified sense, although he is MAN. Here’s Part 2 of “The Blessed Sacrament is Truly Emmanuel”

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/rscanlon_euch2_oct05.asp

Can We Call Christ a Human Being?

While the Son of God assumes the essence or nature of created man (i.e., humanity), He does not assume the being of created man. The Son of God, therefore, does not assume human or created being. So, Jesus Christ is not a human being except in a qualified sense. Rather, He is a divine Being.

Finally, it is clear that Jesus Christ cannot be a human being or created being because we are called upon by the Church to adore Jesus Christ with “the worship known as ‘latria’ (act of adoration) which may be given to God alone.” [42] …Thus, while it is correct to say that Jesus is fully human because He has an essence or full human nature in common with us, we should not say that Jesus is a human being. The “a” in the “a human being” particularly indicates an individually existing created human substantial form or nature. It will be most likely be understood as human substance or human nature in the sense of a “hypostasis,” “suppositum,” or “subject,” i.e., “person.” And then it would be incorrect.

While Jesus Christ has a full human nature and a full divine nature, these natures subsist in His divine Person (hypostasis or suppositum). So, we should not call Christ a human being, for He is a Divine Being. Jesus Christ is truly Emmanuel. He is a divine Person and Being in human form. When we touch the hands and fingers of Jesus Christ we are touching his divine Person. Thus, St. John refers to the “Word of Life” as that which “our hands have handled” (I Jn 1:1). Let us now turn our attention to the Blessed Sacrament.

I find it hard to imagine how Jesus (the Divine Person) could have become an infant in any meaningful sense. How, for example, could the omniscient Person, for example, have grown in wisdom (Luke 2:52) . That seems like a flat out contradiction. To be sure, there are certain human attributes which the Divine person could conceivably have partaken of, like human pain, human suffering and so forth,… but how does the all knowing Divine person experience a growth in knowledge?

What he lacks, it seems to me, is the creature’s humanity. The creature is a work in progress, the Creator is by definition not. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus’s humanity is a very different sort than ours, it is the humanity of God, ours is that of a man. The Church candidly admits that it is not the same, it is more “excellent” than ours. If it is more excellent, it is different, and if it is different, than maybe it isn’t humanity at all, as we conceive humanity.

 

[karl_heinz]

From the Summa:

OBJ 1: It would seem that Christ, as Man, is God. For Christ is God by the grace of union. But Christ, as Man, has the grace of union. Therefore Christ as Man is God.
OBJ 2: Further, to forgive sins is proper to God, according to Isaiah 43:25: “I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake.” But Christ as Man forgives sin, according to Matthew 9:6: “But that you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” etc. Therefore Christ as Man is God.
OBJ 3: Further, Christ is not Man in common, but is this particular Man. Now Christ, as this Man, is God, since by “this Man” we signify the eternal suppositum which is God naturally. Therefore Christ as Man is God.
On the contrary, Whatever belongs to Christ as Man belongs to every man. Now, if Christ as Man is God, it follows that every man is God - which is clearly false.
I answer that, This term man when placed in the reduplication may be taken in two ways. First as referring to the nature; and in this way it is not true that Christ as Man is God, because the human nature is distinct from the Divine by a difference of nature. Secondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this way, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is the Person of the Son of God, to Whom it essentially belongs to be God, it is true that Christ, as Man, is God. Nevertheless because the term placed in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, as stated above (A10), hence this is to be denied rather than granted: “Christ as Man is God.”
Reply OBJ 1: It is not with regard to the same, that a thing moves towards, and that it is, something; for to move belongs to a thing because of its matter or subject - and to be in act belongs to it because of its form. So too it is not with regard to the same, that it belongs to Christ to be ordained to be God by the grace of union, and to be God. For the first belongs to Him in His human nature, and the second, in His Divine Nature. Hence this is true: “Christ as Man has the grace of union”; yet not this: “Christ as Man is God.”
Reply OBJ 2: The Son of Man has on earth the power of forgiving sins, not by virtue of the human nature, but by virtue of the Divine Nature, in which Divine Nature resides the power of forgiving sins authoritatively; whereas in the human nature it resides instrumentally and ministerially. Hence Chrysostom expounding this passage says (Implicitly. Hom. 30 in Matthaeum; Saint Thomas, Catena Aurea on Mark 2:10): “He said pointedly on earth to forgive sins, in order to show that by an indivisible union He united human nature to the power of the Godhead, since although He was made Man, yet He remained the Word of God.”
Reply OBJ 3: When we say “this man,” the demonstrative pronoun “this” attracts “man” to the suppositum; and hence “Christ as this Man, is God, is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God.” (Summa, Part 1, Q16, Article 11)

I don’t know what this is supposed to do? Aquinas in Summa Theologica variously asserts that Christ did not assume “a human person,” that he did not assume “a man.” Here:
biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/A/AQUINAS/SUMMA/TP/TP004.HTM

Whether the Son of God assumed a person?

I answer that, A thing is said to be assumed inasmuch as it is taken into another. Hence, what is assumed must be presupposed to the assumption, as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion. Now a person in human nature is not presupposed to assumption; rather, it is the term of the assumption, as was said (Question [3], Articles [1],2). For if it were presupposed, it must either have been corrupted—in which case it was useless; or it remains after the union—and thus there would be two persons, one assuming and the other assumed, which is false, as was shown above (Question [2], Article [6]). Hence it follows that the Son of God nowise assumed a human person.

Whether the Divine Person assumed a man?

I answer that, As has been said above (Article [2]), what is assumed is not the term of the assumption, but is presupposed to the assumption. Now it was said (Question [3], Articles [1],2) that the individual to Whom the human nature is assumed is none other than the Divine Person, Who is the term of the assumption. Now this word “man” signifies human nature, as it is in a suppositum, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4,11), this word God signifies Him Who has human nature. And hence it cannot properly be said that the Son assumed a man, granted (as it must be, in fact) that in Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the first opinion quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was assumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (Question [2], Article [6]).

 

[CaptainPicard]

Hi Captain,

Thanks for your post.

I think you’ve got it backwards a bit. The church has always understood that Jesus is not a man (not a human being) , except in a qualified sense, although he is MAN. Here’s Part 2 of “The Blessed Sacrament is Truly Emmanuel”

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/rscanlon_euch2_oct05.asp

It could well be that I have it backwards, I’m definitely untrained on the subject. I guess I was starting from the assumption that Christ was a man
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim 2:5
and since being a man implied being a human, that Christ would be human. The Church, of course, teaches that He is not a human person. But is He a human being? I don’t know, I’ve always understood being as being similar to substance. If that’s really the case, then perhaps He is a human being? I think it was Pope Leo who said that Christ is consubstantial with us and consubstanital with God. But maybe being in this sense is used more in the sense of personhood.

Hi Captain,
I find it hard to imagine how Jesus (the Divine Person) could have become an infant in any meaningful sense. How, for example, could the omniscient Person, for example, have grown in wisdom (Luke 2:52) . That seems like a flat out contradiction. To be sure, there are certain human attributes which the Divine person could conceivably have partaken of, like human pain, human suffering and so forth,… but how does the all knowing Divine person experience a growth in knowledge?

I think that the Catholic answer is that Christ, the divine person, did become an infant, and just as shockingly, did die, though you could preface it with “in His human nature”. He experienced growth in His human nature but not in His divine nature. How does that work exactly? I’m not sure that anybody knows.

Hi Captain,
What he lacks, it seems to me, is the creature’s humanity. The creature is a work in progress, the Creator is by definition not. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus’s humanity is a very different sort than ours, it is the humanity of God, ours is that of a man. The Church candidly admits that it is not the same, it is more “excellent” than ours. If it is more excellent, it is different, and if it is different, than maybe it isn’t humanity at all, as we conceive humanity.

I think that it’s just something that is shrouded in mystery. Certainly, God, by taking on a human nature, seems to have “changed” in a certain sense. And again while He grows up, He seems to change more. This is pretty paradoxical, but it seems to be what happened, nevertheless.

As far as His humanity being more excellent, that’s not something that particularly bothers me. A fighter jet can be more excellent than a little personal plane, but it’s still a plane. I suppose one might worry that at some point the fighter jet becomes a spaceship if it becomes too excellent. How would one define “human”? If Jesus wasn’t fully human and fully divine, what are the alternatives? (I’m not just asking these facetiously) I guess one could categorize things differently, but Jesus and the NT writers seem to make sure that we know that He was a man.

 

[karl_heinz]

Hi Capta(name removed by moderator)icard,

The Church, of course, teaches that He is not a human person.

Yes.

But is He a human being? I don’t know, I’ve always understood being as being similar to substance. If that’s really the case, then perhaps He is a human being?

Jesus has human being (i.e. he has human nature, human substance), but he is not **a **human being. Notice how the difference in usage changes the meaning of the word “being.” It depends on what we mean by the word “being” by the way we use it . When we say “Jesus is a human being,” especialy with the “a” as in"a human being", we’re effectively calling him a human person. Here’s the Catholic article:

“Thus, while it is correct to say that Jesus is fully human because He has an essence or full human nature in common with us, we should not say that Jesus is a human being. The “a” in the “a human being” particularly indicates an individually existing created human substantial form or nature. It will be most likely be understood as human substance or human nature in the sense of a “hypostasis,” “suppositum,” or “subject,” i.e., “person.” And then it would be incorrect.”

---

I think it was Pope Leo who said that Christ is consubstantial with us and consubstanital with God. But maybe being in this sense is used more in the sense of personhood.

The Pope meant it in the sense of substance and not person. Here again is the Church documet:

“It has already been pointed out that, when the Church teaches that Jesus is “consubstantial with us according to the human nature,” she means this in the sense of “essence,” but not in the sense of “hypostasis” or “person.” Jesus does not have a human “hypostasis” or human “person” in common with us. This is why St. Thomas says “That Christ must not be called a creature.” [37]”

---

I think that the Catholic answer is that Christ, the divine person, did become an infant, and just as shockingly, did die, though you could preface it with “in His human nature”.

The Catholic answer is that the divine person died in his human nature.

As far as His humanity being more excellent, that’s not something that particularly bothers me. A fighter jet can be more excellent than a little personal plane, but it’s still a plane. I suppose one might worry that at some point the fighter jet becomes a spaceship if it becomes too excellent. How would one define “human”? If Jesus wasn’t fully human and fully divine, what are the alternatives? (I’m not just asking these facetiously) I guess one could categorize things differently, but Jesus and the NT writers seem to make sure that we know that He was a man.

I would define “human” as someone who is exactly like Adam in every way as to his existence, which would mean he would have to be first and foremost a creature. So that if Adam is a human person, then so must this person to qualify as human. Otherwise we’re effectly dealing with two different kinds of humanities. Your analogy was inapt. Imagine rather a human person who has assumed frog nature. He looks like a frog, croaks like one, hops like one but can we seriously call such a one a frog? I don’t think so.

 

[jimmy]

The Catholic answer is that the divine person died in his human nature.

Although it is more precise to qualify the statement that the divine person died, it isn’t necessary because what is predicated of the nature is also predicated of the person. You can’t seperate the natures to such an extent that it is only the human nature that is said to have died. It is the person that has died, even though the death may be due to the fact that he possesses a human nature.

I would define “human” as someone who is exactly like Adam in every way as to his existence, which would mean he would have to be first and foremost a creature. So that if Adam is a human person, then so must this person to qualify as human. Otherwise we’re effectly dealing with two different kinds of humanities. Your analogy was inapt. Imagine rather a human person who has assumed frog nature. He looks like a frog, croaks like one, hops like one but can we seriously call such a one a frog? I don’t think so.

The assertion is that God became a creature, even though He maintained His eternity. There is a paradox in the doctrine of Christ. Christ was both eternal and created, he was both immortal and mortal, and etc. Christ was truely a man.

I think that what you are looking for is one of two possibilities. Either God can’t become man, or God becoming man can only happen in some form of Grace.

 

[Aner]

Karl

I am not sure if you will receive this so I will keep it short. I appreciated your dissection of the anhypostasia of Christ’s humanity. You have done a great job at ferreting this matter out.

The fact is that your gut feel is right - the man Christ Jesus is denied by this doctrine and replaced by an impersonal, non-independently functioning, human nature that is actuated by a divine being. You were struggling to come and flat say - I will do that for you. Yes, I am still alive - God has not struck me dead.

More important, this impersonality of humanity of Christ is in stark contrast to the teaching of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and John the Baptist who ALL formally declare that Jesus is a man (either Aner or Anthropos). The reality is that we need to start with what is clearly, formally and repeated stated in scripture - Jesus is a man. Below are a few texts that are a great starting point. You will not have to wonder what Messianic/Apostolic teaching is any longer after reading these…

Explicit Statements that Jesus is a Man
Luke 24:19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man ἀνὴρ] who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
NOTE: Jesus did not chastise them because of errant Christology ….

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man ἀνὴρ] who ranks before me, because he was before me.’

John 3:27 John answered and said, A man ἄνθρωπος] can receive nothing except it is given him from the heaven.

John 8:40 but now you seek to kill me, a man ἄνθρωπος] who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

Acts 2:22 “Men [Aνδρες] of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man ἄνδρα] and attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23this Jesus,d delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men

Acts 17:30, 31 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man ἀνὴρ] whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man ἄνθρωπος] Jesus Christ abound unto the many.

I Cor 15:21 For as by δι’] a man ἄνθρωπος] came death, by δι’] a man ἄνθρωπος] has come also the resurrection of the dead.

I Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man ἄνθρωπος] is from heaven
ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.

I Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man ἄνθρωπος] Christ Jesus,