Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Question: Did Jesus Christ Have Two Natures?

Chopper

Member
In my morning devotions and study, I read a statement by John Gill, one of my favorite Theologians, the following....He that descended is the same also that ascended,.... His remarks was based on, Ephesians 4:10 "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

Gill - "It was the same divine Person, the Son of God, who assumed human nature, and suffered in it, which is meant by his descent, who in that nature ascended up to heaven: this proves that Christ existed before he took flesh of the virgin; and that though he has two natures, yet he is but one person.

I don't think that I've ever read anywhere that Jesus Christ, while incarnated in human form, had two natures. Am I wrong?
 
Gill - "It was the same divine Person, the Son of God, who assumed human nature, and suffered in it, which is meant by his descent, who in that nature ascended up to heaven: this proves that Christ existed before he took flesh of the virgin; and that though he has two natures, yet he is but one person.

I don't think that I've ever read anywhere that Jesus Christ, while incarnated in human form, had two natures. Am I wrong?

There are plenty of heresies revolving around that matter chopper. The ancient theology term that I accept in the matters is "hypostatic union." Which term was specifically made (as many unique christian theological terms are made) for the Trinity.

Hypo means beneath or below. Static meaning unchanging. It's an anglicized term for the similar term in Aramaic greek for hupostatis that is used in the N.T. to denote Jesus' distinctively unique personage.
 
I don't think that I've ever read anywhere that Jesus Christ, while incarnated in human form, had two natures. Am I wrong?
Brother Chopper, I think you’re right. To be otherwise we would end up with doctrines such as that of Mary being born without sin to bear Jesus without sin, and then I suppose Mary would not need favor as we read in Lk 1:30 (grace?).

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Php 2:7 But (Jesus) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
 
In my morning devotions and study, I read a statement by John Gill, one of my favorite Theologians, the following....He that descended is the same also that ascended,.... His remarks was based on, Ephesians 4:10 "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

Gill - "It was the same divine Person, the Son of God, who assumed human nature, and suffered in it, which is meant by his descent, who in that nature ascended up to heaven: this proves that Christ existed before he took flesh of the virgin; and that though he has two natures, yet he is but one

I don't think that I've ever read anywhere that Jesus Christ, while incarnated in human form, had two natures. Am I wrong?

Nature comes from a father, Jesus had no earthly father as we know.
To say he had a human nature is well,,,, he took on a body but God was His Father.
It is not uncommon to mistake the two. We take on the same nature Christ had at the new birth.
That is being born again, sin nature was crucified in Christ on the cross, its dead in Christ. You must be in Christ to be free from it, and we recieve a new nature. That is the birthing in a nutshell, blessings.
 
Nature comes from a father, Jesus had no earthly father as we know.
To say he had a human nature is well,,,, he took on a body but God was His Father.
It is not uncommon to mistake the two. We take on the same nature Christ had at the new birth.
That is being born again, sin nature was crucified in Christ on the cross, its dead in Christ. You must be in Christ to be free from it, and we recieve a new nature. That is the birthing in a nutshell, blessings.
That answer has a world wide size hole in it. There was a Roman Punishment that is the perfect metaphor for the life of the Faithful Christian: In some areas of the Empire, if a murderer was caught before he could get away, the carcus of te man he had murdered was tied to his back. It remained there, decaying and rotting until it also killed the bearer.

The Christian has been forgiven and will, after death and resurrection, receive the Glorified Body but we carry that Dead Old Man on our Backs until we will be changed. That is why Paul would say I do that I would not do. We must struggle with our Sin Nature to grow in Christ's Army.
 
There are plenty of heresies revolving around that matter chopper. The ancient theology term that I accept in the matters is "hypostatic union." Which term was specifically made (as many unique christian theological terms are made) for the Trinity.

Hypo means beneath or below. Static meaning unchanging. It's an anglicized term for the similar term in Aramaic greek for hupostatis that is used in the N.T. to denote Jesus' distinctively unique personage.

I hope you are saying that Jesus did not have two natures. He had only one and that was divine.
 
Brother Chopper, I think you’re right. To be otherwise we would end up with doctrines such as that of Mary being born without sin to bear Jesus without sin, and then I suppose Mary would not need favor as we read in Lk 1:30 (grace?).

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Php 2:7 But (Jesus) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Then, you are saying no to two natures, right? He had only one, divine.
 
That answer has a world wide size hole in it. There was a Roman Punishment that is the perfect metaphor for the life of the Faithful Christian: In some areas of the Empire, if a murderer was caught before he could get away, the carcus of te man he had murdered was tied to his back. It remained there, decaying and rotting until it also killed the bearer.

The Christian has been forgiven and will, after death and resurrection, receive the Glorified Body but we carry that Dead Old Man on our Backs until we will be changed. That is why Paul would say I do that I would not do. We must struggle with our Sin Nature to grow in Christ's Army.

Thanks Buddy. I like the metaphor of the dead man on the back of the killer. I don't think I'd ever heard that, thanks.
 
Nature comes from a father, Jesus had no earthly father as we know.
Hi Brother Soul man, I have to ask because of God not using Solomon in the genealogy of Jesus but his brother Nathan why it would have mattered. If Jesus didn’t suffer the similar temptation of the draw of sin the same as us what overcoming of temptation was accomplished? I am not saying you are wrong. Thanks.
 
Hi there my old friend Deb. The answer is yes, it can be tempted but since a divine nature cannot sin, it is not like ours.
Hi Chopper, good to talk to you. :)
So that would mean that the only thing that Jesus got from Mary was a human body. I understood it as He also received a human nature so that He could understand how we are tempted. But His human nature was pure, not contaminated by the fall/Adam's sin, so sinless. Because of His divine nature He would never sin.
 
In my morning devotions and study, I read a statement by John Gill, one of my favorite Theologians, the following....He that descended is the same also that ascended,.... His remarks was based on, Ephesians 4:10 "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

Gill - "It was the same divine Person, the Son of God, who assumed human nature, and suffered in it, which is meant by his descent, who in that nature ascended up to heaven: this proves that Christ existed before he took flesh of the virgin; and that though he has two natures, yet he is but one person.

I don't think that I've ever read anywhere that Jesus Christ, while incarnated in human form, had two natures. Am I wrong?
An early error was Nestorianism.

https://carm.org/nestorianism
 
I don't think that I've ever read anywhere that Jesus Christ, while incarnated in human form, had two natures. Am I wrong?
This is an issue that divided the Church at the Council of Chalcedon. (451 AD)

The council was called because of the teaching of Eutyches who held that the less perfect human nature of Christ had been completely absorbed by His divine nature and thus the two had been confounded into one so that Christ had only one nature.

The conclusion of the council was that there were two perfect natures in the one Person of Christ unified "unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably."

However, this conclusion did not sit well with the Egyptian (Coptic) bishops or the Syrian Bishops who objected that the conclusion of the council was essentially the Nestorian heresy that the two natures of Christ were united mechanically and the Divine nature controlled the human nature making Christ the "God-bearer" rather than the "God-man." So the Coptic and Syrian churches (AKA: "Oriental Orthodox") refused to agree with the conclusion causing a split which exists until today. They considered that Christ having two distinct natures cause the Trinity to become a foursome.

The Chalcedon solution was that Christ is "OF" two natures.
The Copts and Syrians say He is "FROM" two natures.

Personally, I think the Coptic and Syrian churches' solution is the better of the two and today, much of the Orthodox Church sees the difference as merely one of language (Greek vs. Coptic and Aramaic) and semantics.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
 
Last edited:
Hi Brother Soul man, I have to ask because of God not using Solomon in the genealogy of Jesus but his brother Nathan why it would have mattered. If Jesus didn’t suffer the similar temptation of the draw of sin the same as us what overcoming of temptation was accomplished? I am not saying you are wrong. Thanks.

No and thats a good question. If I am understanding you right Jesus was tempted, I was saying He did not have a sin nature, like we were born with. His temptation did not come in spirit-nature.
 
No and thats a good question. If I am understanding you right Jesus was tempted, I was saying He did not have a sin nature, like we were born with. His temptation did not come in spirit-nature.
The target of temptation is the flesh.
Rom 8:3 (NKJV) For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
The source of man's so-called "sinful nature" is that man, in his fallen condition, allows the flesh to rule rather than the spirit and the intellect.
Christ was a perfect man and the perfect image of God (2Co 4:4) as man was originally created to be. (Gen 1:26) As such, He did not allow the flesh to determine His actions but only did what the Father did. (Jhn 5:19)

But that is a different topic: "Was Jesus tempted."


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
 
Hi Chopper, good to talk to you. :)
So that would mean that the only thing that Jesus got from Mary was a human body. I understood it as He also received a human nature so that He could understand how we are tempted. But His human nature was pure, not contaminated by the fall/Adam's sin, so sinless. Because of His divine nature He would never sin.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I just believe that Jesus was able to sympathize with our temptations without a human nature. I'll give it some more thought, just because I value your thinking.

Will you be around more now?

Love You. :hug
 
Then, you are saying no to two natures, right? He had only one, divine.
Hi again Brother Chopper, I've heard doctrine both ways, and I'm glad you're making sure of what you believe.
My opinion tends to take the road that God having been divine from the beginning could not be tempted, and in Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation (to me this was completely man), and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. Did Jesus retain His power as God to accomplish overcoming sin? At least not in my opinion or the temptation He suffered and overcame would not have sufficed proving His worthiness to be the sacrificial Lamb required by God without blemish.
Blessings in Christ Jesus. :)
 
Back
Top