What are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnated had a Divine Nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Angainor

Guest
Let me start by saying that I believe Jesus incarnate was a divine person with a human nature, but no divine nature.

So, what are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnated had a Divine Nature? I don’t think miracles are a reason because Jesus told us how he performed miracles:

Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” Matthew 8:23-27
When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:14-20

It is by the perfect faith of a divine person that Jesus could perform miracles. Peter proves it is possible for a human nature to perform a miracle when he walked on water by having faith (for a short while) that he could do it:

“Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” Matthew 14:29-31
 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

**And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. **

John 1:1-5, 14

Word=God
Word=Jesus
Ergo, Jesus=God
 
Oh. I have to say that your first sentence kind of threw me off.

A divine person with a human nature but no divine nature?

Incarnation means that the divine person of the Son took on a human nature, at a particular moment in history.

If he was not a divine person, then what was he from the beginning?

In the beginning was only God.
 
40.png
JimG:
Incarnation means that the divine person of the Son took on a human nature, at a particular moment in history.
Click to expand...
Yes that is what I am saying. Jesus is, was, and always shall be a divine person. I believe that devine person took on a human nature at the incarnation. Catholics believe Jesus took on a human nature united with his retained divine nature.
 
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
Matt 1:23

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20:28

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, who, though being in very nature God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Philippians 2:6
Yes that is what I am saying. Jesus is, was, and always shall be a divine person. I believe that devine person took on a human nature at the incarnation. Catholics believe Jesus took on a human nature united with his retained divine nature.
Click to expand...
The two are not mutually exclusive in the case of Jesus Christ. Throughout the Gospels, Christ indeed was fully human, but in several instances he identifies himself in terms which the Jews reserved only to God. Furthermore, the Apostles recognized that he retained his divine nature while being fully human.
 
I doubt I can do better than the excellent responses already given, but how can a divine person be separated from the divine nature?

There can be personless natures, like an apple, or a chair, but there cannot be a person without a corresponding nature, since a nature describes what the person can do.
 
I doubt I can do better than the excellent responses already given, but how can a divine person be separated from the divine nature?

There can be personless natures, like an apple, or a chair, but there cannot be a person without a corresponding nature, since a nature describes what the person can do.

(BTW, miracles done “by men” are not due to man’s nature, but are done by means of God’s divine nature as man cooperates)
 
Personhood does not exist independently of some entity which possesses personhood.

“Before” the incarnation, the Person of the Son existed. He did not exist as only a “who”. He also had to possess an essence–a “what.”

So before the incarnation, what was he? Not a human being. He became that at the incarnation. If he claimed God as his Father, he could only have possessed the nature of God as his "what"ness.
 
Fidei Defensor said:
Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, who, though being in very nature God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Philippians 2:6
Click to expand...

It’s hard to argue with that, but I will try.

The Greek word for nature in this verse seems to mean “in the form of”. Is this greek word what is generally meant by “nature” as used in the hypostatic union doctrines? Anyone know?

Also, Paul isn’t setting out to define the precise nature of Jesus in this passage, but teaching the Philippians to be humble. Could he have used the word “nature” casually?
 
40.png
Angainor:
It’s hard to argue with that, but I will try.

The Greek word for nature in this verse seems to mean “in the form of”. Is this greek word what is generally meant by “nature” as used in the hypostatic union doctrines? Anyone know?

Also, Paul isn’t setting out to define the precise nature of Jesus in this passage, but teaching the Philippians to be humble. Could he have used the word “nature” casually?
Click to expand...
Actually, this was the key text for the Western patristic understanding of the hypostatic union, which was dogmatized as Catholic faith at the Council of Chalcedon. The classic exposition of this verse is found in the Tome to Flavian of Pope St. Leo the Great:
The properties of the twofold nativity and nature of Christ are weighed one against another. There enters then these lower parts of the world the Son of GOD, descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order, because being invisible in His own nature, He became visible in ours, and He whom nothing could contain was content to be contained: abiding before all time He began to be in time: the LORD of all things, He obscured His immeasurable majesty and took on Him the form of a servant: being GOD that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death. The LORD assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours. For He who is true GOD is also true man: and in this union there is no lie, since the humility of manhood and the loftiness of the Godhead both meet there. For as GOD is not changed by the showing of pity, so man is not swallowed up by the dignity. For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not cease to be on an equality with His Father’s glory, so the flesh does not forego the nature of our race.
Click to expand...
By the teaching of the Catholic Church, this verse must not be interpreted so as to say that in becoming man, Jesus ceased to be God, but rather than the form of God was hidden in the form of man, so that the majesty of God was made visible through the form of a man. Rightly interpreted, St. Paul does not at all say that Jesus lost the nature of God, only that it was concealed in the form of a servant.
 
40.png
JPrejean:
…There enters then these lower parts of the world the Son of GOD, descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory
Click to expand...
, begotten in a new order by a new nativity…For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not cease to be on an equality with His Father’s glory, so the flesh does not forego the nature of our race…
Click to expand...
As I said, I do not think it was necessary for Jesus to retain his Divine nature to sparkle with miracles.

Where did “not quitting His Father’s glory” come from? I don’t find it in Philippians 2. Quite the opposite.verse 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
 
But how do you explain something like this:
mark 10
17
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18
Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? 3 No one is good but God alone.
Click to expand...
 
-Philip said “Lord show us the Father” and Jesus said “Philp have I been with you so long and you still do not know me.”
-Jesus said “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”
-Jesus also raised Lazarus from the dead. Where was there faith of others that He would or could do this? Jesus in His divine nature commanded that which was beyond human nature to come forth and it obeyed.
 
40.png
svoboda:
But how do you explain something like this:
mark 10
17
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18
Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? 3 No one is good but God alone.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Jesus did not deny he was God. He was counting on the listeners to put 2 and 2 together. Jesus could say “I am God”, but the listener might be more convinced if Jesus leaved a trail of breadcrumbs for his followers to follow so they could discover the truth for themselves.
 
As I said, I do not think it was necessary for Jesus to retain his Divine nature to sparkle with miracles.
Click to expand...
It would be for Jesus through His own power to do what St. Leo is describing, which is the heart of the argument. When others do so, it is through a gift from God, not through their own inherent power (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:24, “Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God”). One cannot be the Power and Wisdom of God without actually being God; that’s the definition of divine nature.
Where did “not quitting His Father’s glory” come from? I don’t find it in Philippians 2. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
Only because you’re reading something into the verse that isn’t there. Here’s a relatively literal translation from the RSV, morphe being more literally translated as “form.” And BTW, translating morphe as “nature” actually reflects the later Chalcedonian usage, so using “nature” as a translation would actually be inconsistent if you are purporting to deny that Christ retained His divine nature:
Phillipians 2
[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Note that what Jesus lets go in His kenosis (emptying) is not the form of God, but equality with God. So we have to answer the question “equal in what sense?” That is what is answered by “taking the form of a servant.” God, in His eternal majesty by virtue of His divine nature, would not be subject to death and indignity, but Christ takes on the human form and becomes personally subject to such things in His human nature. Nothing in this verse says or implies that Christ ceased to have the form of God; it simply says that He had it, i.e., He was divine at the time He assumed His human nature.
 
Even if it were by faith that Jesus performed miracles, faith is still a gift from God, not an inherent power of human nature (Eph. 2:8). There’s a big difference between Jesus’s faith by virtue of actually being God by nature and our faith by grace.

BTW, you do realize that if Jesus does not have a divine nature; He is not God, right? If you profess “Jesus is God,” you are saying definitively that He has a divine nature.
 
Muslims often state that the Christian doctrines of the Trinity–three Persons in One Divine Nature–as well as the hypostatic union of One divine person with both a divine and a human nature, go against reason and logic. I don’t agree.

But, one divine person possessing only one human nature? That does go against reason. If he possesses only a human nature, in what sense can he be said to be a divine person?
 
If Jesus has no more divine nature, then it is impossible for us to participate in his divinity as it says in 2 Pet 1:4.

If Jesus is not divine, then we cannot be divinized.
 
40.png
Angainor:
Let me start by saying that I believe Jesus incarnate was a divine person with a human nature, but no divine nature.

So, what are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnated had a Divine Nature? I don’t think miracles are a reason because Jesus told us how he performed miracles:

Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” Matthew 8:23-27
When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:14-20

It is by the perfect faith of a divine person that Jesus could perform miracles. Peter proves it is possible for a human nature to perform a miracle when he walked on water by having faith (for a short while) that he could do it:

“Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” Matthew 14:29-31
Click to expand...
What you believe in is like the inverse of Monophysitism.

Christ, by dint of being a Divine Person, had a Divine Nature and Divine Will… it simply has to be that, since Personhood requires like Nature. He possessed also a Human Nature and a Human Will united to the Divine through the mystery of the Hypostatic Union.

He cannot be Divine and not have a Divine Nature just like he could not be Truly Man without a human nature.
 
40.png
Angainor:
Yes that is what I am saying. Jesus is, was, and always shall be a divine person. I believe that devine person took on a human nature at the incarnation. Catholics believe Jesus took on a human nature united with his retained divine nature.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “Divine Person”?

Lutherans also believe Jesus took on a human nature united with his retained divine nature, don’t they?

From the Lutheran Church Missoury Synod:
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2487
"… this humanity, this actual human flesh and blood, was assumed into the person of the Son of God, thus sharing in the divine nature. "
Click to expand...
The Formula of Concord states of the Divine Person of Jesus, “both natures belong, the divine and the human.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top