The Trinity and Jesus Christ's human nature

[John Uebersax]

Best greetings to the members of the forum!

I am recently puzzled by a question that may seem very elementary to the members here. It relates to Jesus Christ as a member of the Holy Trinity. Forgive me if I say anything foolish -- if so, that is the price I pay for asking questions in matters of which I am ignorant -- but the person who is not ignorant need ask no questions!

First, which of the following statements are true or false?

A. Jesus Christ, in his entirety, as the union, conjunction, or combination of Divine and human nature, is the second person of the Holy Trinity?

B. The Divine nature of Jesus Christ, but not his human nature, is the second person of the Holy Trinity?

C. The human nature of Jesus Christ did not exist, except perhaps as a potentiality, with God at the beginning. That is, the Divine nature of Jesus Christ, this Divine nature being the Logos of God, is/was co-eternal with the Father, but not his actual human nature, which was born into temporal history 2000 years ago.

Second, would it be more correct to say Jesus Christ *is* both God and man, or Jesus Christ *was* both God and man? The issue here is whether we consider his human nature as continuing to exist? I would think so, but wish to get others' opinions.

Third, and relatedly, Jesus resurrected and ascended, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; but is that in human form, or in a 'glorified' human form? Can we say that he is now a 'man', or should we say he now has a glorified human nature, i.e., is a 'glorified man', or something of the like.

Please be assured that I do not ask these questions with controversial motivation -- I am simply trying to understand them. Thank you in advance for any replies.

John Uebersax

[Paul Cowan]

Jesus Christ IS 100% human AND 100% God. He IS the Second person of the Trinity. He ascended AS man AND AS God to sit with Him in Heaven.

[John Uebersax]

Jesus Christ IS 100% human AND 100% God. He IS the Second person of the Trinity. He ascended AS man AND AS God to sit with Him in Heaven.

Thank you Paul, but this does not reduce my puzzlement at all.

Was Jesus Christ's human nature present with God at the beginning?

John

[Paul Cowan]

I am sorry, I cannot authoratatively answer your question. All I have to go on is Jesus IS God. And God is the same yesterday, today and forever. And God is the God of the living. So, my answer is; yes.

[Nina]

Was Jesus Christ's human nature present with God at the beginning?

John




The human nature which Christ assumed from the chaste blood of the All-holy Theotokos and by the power and energy of the Holy Spirit was a whole man, that is to say, it was flesh animated by a rational and noetic soul. However the body too was shaped immediately at conception.

Of course it must be said that the human nature was deified at once through its assumption by the divine nature in the person of the Logos. pp 341-342

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, The feasts of the Lord.

[Demetrios]

Best greetings to the members of the forum!

I am recently puzzled by a question that may seem very elementary to the members here. It relates to Jesus Christ as a member of the Holy Trinity.



John Uebersax

Outside of space and time. The father, son and holy ghost are the same one god. The Trinity is an explanation of how God saved creation and how each man is saved.
Within time and space God took on what was perishable and made it immortal. All of creation was perishing. He saved it by uniting with it. Man now can become physically and spiritually immortal in Christ. At the resurrection we will see Christ as God. Man and Deity.
Outside of space and time it can also be said that Adam walked with Christ in the garden of Eden. It can also be said that Creation isn't over until the last man is born. That is what recapitulation in Christ is about. When space and time will not exist, all things will be seen as happening at once.

[Aidan Kimel]

I'll take a stab. Do not take this as gospel truth. I welcome correction from the more theologically astute.




A. Jesus Christ, in his entirety, as the union, conjunction, or combination of Divine and human nature, is the second person of the Holy Trinity?

True. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity, two natures, divine and human, united in one divine hypostasis.


B. The Divine nature of Jesus Christ, but not his human nature, is the second person of the Holy Trinity?

False. You are confusing person and nature. The divine nature of Jesus subsists in the divine hypostasis.


C. The human nature of Jesus Christ did not exist, except perhaps as a potentiality, with God at the beginning. That is, the Divine nature of Jesus Christ, this Divine nature being the Logos of God, is/was co-eternal with the Father, but not his actual human nature, which was born into temporal history 2000 years ago.

True. The human nature of Jesus is created.


Second, would it be more correct to say Jesus Christ *is* both God and man, or Jesus Christ *was* both God and man?

Jesus is both God and man. He did not cease to be human in his death and resurrection, but rose again as man and in his human nature ascended to the right hand of God.


Third, and relatedly, Jesus resurrected and ascended, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; but is that in human form, or in a 'glorified' human form? Can we say that he is now a 'man', or should we say he now has a glorified human nature, i.e., is a 'glorified man', or something of the like.

Jesus exists in and with a glorified human nature. What this precisely means we do not know and cannot know this side of the Kingdom. What we do know is that he is now and will always be human.

[M.C. Steenberg]

It's taken me a little time to get to Fr Alvin's response to John, above, but on first reading it looks quite on the mark. As to 'B', it is terribly easy to confuse person and nature (hence the complex debates of, particularly, the fifth century); but Fr Alvin is quite right: it is not possible to separate the 'who' that is the Son (the 'second person of the Trinity', as in the discussion above) from his human nature.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Mina Mounir]

False. You are confusing person and nature. The divine nature of Jesus subsists in the divine hypostasis. this point is very important point . thanks father Alvin.
and if I can contribute with some words for the points and inquiries mentioned by brother John Uebersax.
Based on the book of Saint John of Damascus on the Economy of incarnation , I want to say that he achieved a great step in gathering all Patristic christology within defining their terms.
one of the usual problems in understanding theology is in confusing or mixing the concept of nature with the concept of Person. st. John of Damascus discusses these terms from a Greek aspect : Nature or essence (ousia) is the common characteristics between us . example : Paul and Peter where both Humans ... u cannot distinguish peter from paul through nature. but the person is the unique stamp . Peter is not Paul because Peter is that the one who has the name Peter (the one who likes certain foods and is married and preaches the gospel for Jews ... etc.) ,
Jesus is not a name of nature but is the name of the person who possesses the divine and the human natures united together.
so, we do not distinguish between jesus or the Logos , but Jesus is thr Logos ... that person who was born from the father before all the times and from Mary the virgin in history.
so, it is better for any one who wanna understand the mystery of incarnation , is to avoid the mixing of "nature : some thing" and the "person = some one " . for example : my hand does not love ... but Mina who possesses that hand loves God.

so, back to our topic ,

one of the problems of the fifth and sixth centuries is that the heterodox (Nestorians and Monophysites ) shared the same concept of nature , that is , Nature cannot live without a person .
from this we had two heretic conclusions :
1- Nestorian : since there are two natures , then there are two persons and consequently , Mary is not the mother of God (Theotokos) (look at the second part of the reply of Nestorius on St. Cyril of Alexandria)
2- Monophysite : since there is one person , then we should say one nature and consequently we cannot confess that Christ is consubstantial with us through his manhood.
both conclusions are not based on holy Tradition but on pure greek philosophy (Aristotle and Plato ) . but the true is that there are two natures and there is one person too !! how? the Nestorians could not bear the second part because they claimed that the natures are just (Conjoined) , so , there are two persons. and the Monophysites, as Severus says, believe in one nature from two natures then there is one Person from two Persons (look at his letter to Nyphalius "one Hypostasis from two Hypostases") and to get a single person , they sacrificed - Practically - Christ's human nature to solve their own dilemma.
but the Orthodox faith down the centuries , believes that the two natures are United Hypostatically "Henwsis Hypostatiky " and naturally "kata Physis" as Saint Cyril teaches along with the council of Ephesus 431, which means that the second person came from heaven and took the second nature from the holy virgin and united it with it ... not absorbed it nor conjuncted with it ... i.e. he did not take a person , or even the human nature had a person or even the human nature was formed before union with divine nature. there was no time for the human nature to have a person .. so, saint Leontius of Byzantium in his reply to Severus the anti-Chalcedonian , told him all this explanation with a beautiful word : enhypostasis. which means that the human nature existed inside the hypostasis of the second person of trinity. it was enhypostasized. the hypostasis of the Logos gathered another nature and united it physically with his divine one in an ineffable way. these natures are 'things' ... united inside the one and same one who was born from God and from Mary the Panagia.
this leads us to use the term "communication of idioms = Communicatio idiomatum" which means that the two natures are for one and same person , the Glory of divinity is for Jesus and the pain and death is also for jesus. that's what saint Leo the great in his Tome -along with saint Cyril the great- described by saying : "it is fitting to say that the Son of God died and crucified." and sure that death happened for the Logos through his own (idiotys) flesh ... not the flesh of anyone.
I hope this could help
I'm glad to begin my posts in the topic led me to Join the Orthodox church!
and please if any one felt or found any inaccurate term or sentence or concept within my words , please correct it .
in Christ,
Minas

[Luke]

I'll take a stab. Do not take this as gospel truth. I welcome correction from the more theologically astute.



True. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity, two natures, divine and human, united in one divine hypostasis.



False. You are confusing person and nature. The divine nature of Jesus subsists in the divine hypostasis.



True. The human nature of Jesus is created.



Jesus is both God and man. He did not cease to be human in his death and resurrection, but rose again as man and in his human nature ascended to the right hand of God.



Jesus exists in and with a glorified human nature. What this precisely means we do not know and cannot know this side of the Kingdom. What we do know is that he is now and will always be human.


I have a question about the human nature of Christ being created as stated above. Perhaps there is no good, easy answer for this but if he assumed his human nature then he may not necessarily have even been partially created (as this implies). If the Son is coeternal with the Father I don't see how he can be "created" in any facet. It wouldn't make sense to then say that his human nature is created. I think that he can still take on everything that happens in the world and remain sinless, having gone through everything that we as humans (who are unlike God) go through while on Earth, thereby identifying with us and saving us in our human history. He was a perfect human from the foundation of the ages. It stands to reason that no part of him was created.

Thanks,

Luke

[Peter S.]

It's taken me a little time to get to Fr Alvin's response to John, above, but on first reading it looks quite on the mark. As to 'B', it is terribly easy to confuse person and nature (hence the complex debates of, particularly, the fifth century); but Fr Alvin is quite right: it is not possible to separate the 'who' that is the Son (the 'second person of the Trinity', as in the discussion above) from his human nature.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

I would like to add that Jesus has reached the fullness of what a human nature is. We have not. We are going to die. Then what happens to my human nature I don't know, but we are supposed to be One, John 17,21-23.

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Luke and others,

Above, you wrote:


I have a question about the human nature of Christ being created as stated above. Perhaps there is no good, easy answer for this but if he assumed his human nature then he may not necessarily have even been partially created (as this implies). If the Son is coeternal with the Father I don't see how he can be "created" in any facet. It wouldn't make sense to then say that his human nature is created. I think that he can still take on everything that happens in the world and remain sinless, having gone through everything that we as humans (who are unlike God) go through while on Earth, thereby identifying with us and saving us in our human history. He was a perfect human from the foundation of the ages. It stands to reason that no part of him was created.

It is certainly very much a patristic standard to talk of Christ's human nature as created. Indeed, it is precisely because it is created that it is truly human: there is no such thing as an 'uncreated human nature', and if Christ assumed for himself in the incarnation a nature that was not created, he would not assume a real humanity. If, as you seem to suggest, Christ were only to have 'gone through everything that we as humans', he would have essentially only mimicked humanity, not become human.

The mystery of the uncreated Son become created as man, is at the very heart of the incarnational mystery.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Luke]

Dear Luke and others,

Above, you wrote:



It is certainly very much a patristic standard to talk of Christ's human nature as created. Indeed, it is precisely because it is created that it is truly human: there is no such thing as an 'uncreated human nature', and if Christ assumed for himself in the incarnation a nature that was not created, he would not assume a real humanity. If, as you seem to suggest, Christ were only to have 'gone through everything that we as humans', he would have essentially only mimicked humanity, not become human.

The mystery of the uncreated Son become created as man, is at the very heart of the incarnational mystery.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Dcn,

I can buy this, but there are more questions unless we write it off as mystery entirely, which seems NOT to be what we are doing here. If he has a created nature, and if this human nature is the same one that we share --- of course that makes sense, I can see where it leads --- then he can heal humanity in a way most directly obvious. The problem, however, is that some have portrayed (in a way not seemingly unOrthodox) that the fallen nature of man is not because he is created that way, but rather that his [gnomic] will is led astray. Do we then say this because it is not our teaching that Christ could assume a state that was bound to sin/inclined to sin? Humans just lack the will by living in a fallen world? It seems to be more than that because theoretically we don't have the possibility of not sinning. Furthermore, (and to play Devil's advocate) Christ also could only die voluntarily, so how must it be seen that he assumed our nature?

If by deifying the human nature while assuming it originally and then following through blamelessly to death as he did, I guess this question can be answered by appealing to such a mystery. I just want to be certain as to what everyone here thinks. I suspect I have answered my own questions but it doesn't hurt to ask more in order to reinforce or learn more in the way we look at things.

As I've always thought, it is very hard indeed for us to imagine a being uncreated, out of space and time, whose reality is for all time, all the time. Nevertheless a facet of God's timelessness IS our time. In effect, the fulfillment of all things will be when we're out of time, as all of human history will be within this non-time frame, as is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As another poster said, this will be all at once. Correct?

Cheers,

Luke

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Luke,

There are many interesting points in your most recent post, for which I thank you. Regarding the incarnate Christ, you wrote:


If he has a created nature, and if this human nature is the same one that we share --- of course that makes sense, I can see where it leads --- then he can heal humanity in a way most directly obvious. The problem, however, is that some have portrayed (in a way not seemingly unOrthodox) that the fallen nature of man is not because he is created that way, but rather that his [gnomic] will is led astray.

It may be good to stop here for the moment, to address this point of the gnome. It is most thoroughly treated in the patristic writings by St Maximus the Confessor, and particularly in the context of his anti-monothelete conversations. Gnome is not a will per se in man; it is, rather, a disposition of will. It is, according to Maximus, that disposition which causes the tropos (actualisation) of our will to differ from the logos (natural condition) of our will as human creatures, fashioned by God.

One thing that is consistent and firm, in Maximus as well as so many others, is that man's 'fallen nature' is not an aspect of his nature as created, nor a by-effect of his created status itself. This is precisely at the heart of St Maximus' logos/tropos distinction, which his use of gnome helps explain. The fallenness of man is an aspect of economy, never nature; and so 'fallen nature' is, more presicely, fallen tropos (in Maximus' terms) -- that is, fallen act, fallen disposition, fallen habitude. But what it never is, is an aspect of created nature itself. It is a gnome, a disposition (a la Maximus); a 'second nature' which is a quasi 'nature' of habit (Tertullian); but not an aspect of authentic created nature.

You go on to ask:


Do we then say this because it is not our teaching that Christ could assume a state that was bound to sin/inclined to sin? Humans just lack the will by living in a fallen world? It seems to be more than that because theoretically we don't have the possibility of not sinning. Furthermore, (and to play Devil's advocate) Christ also could only die voluntarily, so how must it be seen that he assumed our nature?

The difficulty here is not with the question of assuming a nature that is sinful, but more fundamentally with conceiving the relationship of nature and sin. From at least as early as the second century, Christian writers were taking pains to note that an 'ontology of sin' -- that is, giving sin a 'nature' or ascribing it to an aspect of nature -- goes against the scriptural testimony of God as true creator and fashioner. The so-called 'Gnostics', who often said very little about gnosis, did however tend to speak rather uniformly on this point; and it is for this reason that the anti-'Gnostic' writings of the period are so insistent in categorically separating created nature from sinful reality. Sin is economy: it is what is done with and to nature; but it is not ontology -- it is not defined or bound up in nature itself.

It is precisely this that clarifies the incarnational taking-on of created human nature by the Son. It is inconceivable to the fathers that the Son could or would united himself to evil -- i.e. become a 'co-heir' of wrong. But this is not what is being done in the Son's 'taking to himself a nature like unto our own'. Rather, it is precisely the Son's taking of our full, created human nature, yet without sin, that manifests the authentic relationship of sin and nature. Sin is not a natural reality in humanity.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Luke and others,

Having a bit more time at my disposal than at last posting, I thought I might comment a bit further on the matter of Christ's human nature as created, and thus the propriety of speaking of the incarnate Word as 'created' with respect to his humanity (in continuing response to Luke's comments here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=65595&postcount=10) and here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=65752&postcount=13)). To this end, a good exemplary text is St Gregory of Nyssa's On the faith written to Simplicius. In some sense, this letter -- like others that Gregory is writing at the time -- have in the background the misuse of Proverbs 8.22 ('the Lord has created me...') by Eunomius and others, who found in it a scriptural warrant for the view that the eternal Son was created of the Father (in this sense, a re-kindling of Arius' spirit). St Gregory is, of course, enthusiastic in refuting this; but at the same time, notes that the language of 'created' is indeed applicable to the Son as incarnate, since the Son has taken to himself the true nature of humanity: a created nature.

In this context, he writes to Simplicianus:
"For He was the Word, and was made flesh; and He was God, and was made man; and He was without body, and was made a body; and besides, He was made 'sin', and 'a curse', and 'a stone', and 'an axe', and 'bread', and 'a lamb', and 'a way', and 'a door', and 'a rock', and many such things; not being by nature any of these, but being made these things for our sakes, by way of dispensation."
By this, St Gregory demonstrates that not all 'he became...' language of God indicates a real becoming of the Son, i.e. a transformation of the Son; for scripture indicates that he 'became' all manner of things that he did not truly become in an natural sense. But in the incarnation, there is a real becoming of the Word. Gregory continues:
"As, therefore, being the Word, He was for our sakes made flesh, and as, being God, He was made man, so also, being the Creator, He was made for our sakes a creature; for the flesh is created."
This is Gregory being quite concise on the matter. The Lord became a creature in becoming human, and had as his own proper nature 'the flesh which is created'. This creaturliness is with respect of his human nature; the Word did not cease being uncreated Word in the incarnation; but the uncreated is become created in his humanity. This very reality is, for Gregory, exposed in the prophets. He continues:
"As, then, He said by the prophet, 'Thus says the Lord, He that formed me from the womb to be His servant' (Isaiah 49.5); so He said also by Solomon, 'The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, for His works' (Proverbs 8.28). For all creation, as the apostle says, is in servitude. Therefore both He Who was formed in the Virgin's womb, according to the word of the prophet, is the servant, and not the Lord (that is to say, the man according to the flesh, in whom God was manifested); and also, in the other passage, He Who was created as the beginning of His ways is not God, but the man in whom God was manifested to us for the renewing again of the ruined way of man's salvation."
Gregory has taken Isaiah's prophecy of the man fashioned from the womb to be a servant, and tied it together to the man created by the Lord for his work. Both prophecies are fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, which is a truly human birth. The Mother of God grants a true and full humanity to her child -- the nature she bestows is that of 'the servant, and not the Lord'; and yet, what is born of her is truly God (hence her title, to be confirmed by the Church sometime after St Gregory, Theotokos: God-bearer). As such, since it is one-and-the-same Son who is Word of the Father, God, and child-of-Mary, human creature, speaking of Jesus Christ as both uncreated God and created human is precisely the centre of the incarnation itself. As Gregory continues in his letter:
"So that, since we recognize two things in Christ, one divine, the other human (the divine by nature, but the human in the incarnation), we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to His human nature. For as, according to the prophet, He was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to Solomon, He was manifested in the flesh by means of this servile creation. But when they say, 'if He was, He was not begotten, and if He was begotten He was not', let them learn that it is not fitting to ascribe to His divine nature the attributes which belong to His fleshly origin."
Here St Gregory again explicitly speaks of 'that which is created' ascribed to Christ's human nature. Without this, it is no human nature at all.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Peter S.]

Here St Gregory again explicitly speaks of 'that which is created' ascribed to Christ's human nature. Without this, it is no human nature at all.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Yes and I would like to add that Christ's human nature is the nature Adam was created in by God. Without sin and death. Without the Creation by God there is no human nature at all. And death belongs to our human nature. Not to Christ's when he was born. Jesus chose to die, and experienced death because of this. For us. John 3;16. This is love.

And we are called to be perfect as God, and we are called "to be gods", as St. Athanasius says. Only God is perfect. Humans don't have a perfect nature.

Peter

[Peter S.]

And death belongs to our human nature. Not to Christ's when he was born.
Peter

I see that death belonged to Christ's human nature, when he was born according to St. John of Damascus so I was wrong in this.


St John of Damascus in his Orthodox Faith Book 3 writes:


Therefore it is impious to say with the insane Julian [of Halicarnassus] and Gaianus that before the resurrection the Lord's body was indestructible in the first sense. For, if it was thus incorruptible, then it was not consubstantial with us, and the things such as hunger, the thirst, the nails, the piercing of the side, and the death which the Gospel says happened did not really happen, but only seemed to. But if they only seemed to happen, then the mystery of the Incarnation is a hoax and a stage trick; it was in appearance and not in truth that He was made man and in appearance and not in truth that we have been saved. At least I think I was wrong. But I think Jesus assumed the nature of Adam before the Fall.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Can I ask a childlike question? If Jesus had a created human nature (body) but was not subject to death as we are because He was without sin, does this really mean that if He had not been crucified, He would never have died? If so, at what age would His ageing have stopped? After all, a man of thirty-three years of age is not at such 'a peak of condition' as a man of twenty-one, say.

[Peter S.]

Can I ask a childlike question? If Jesus had a created human nature (body) but was not subject to death as we are because He was without sin, does this really mean that if He had not been crucified, He would never have died? If so, at what age would His ageing have stopped? After all, a man of thirty-three years of age is not at such 'a peak of condition' as a man of twenty-one, say.

It was impossible for the love of Christ not to do his Fathers will. That's the way love is.

Peter

[Peter S.]

Christ had two wills and the human will always did the will of the Father, because of love. This is the view opposite to monotelethism.

If I said Christ was immortal from birth this is wrong, but he chose to be mortal by the will of the Father.

Peter

[Peter S.]

One thing I wonder about is that it is said in the Old Testament that Enoch and Elijah didn't die. Enoch was taken to God. Gen 5,24.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

What does the Church teach - that Jesus Christ as man on earth was mortal in His humanity, or that He was immortal even in His incarnate humanity? If the latter, my question remains.

[Michael Stickles]

What does the Church teach - that Jesus Christ as man on earth was mortal in His humanity, or that He was immortal even in His incarnate humanity?

If I'm reading St. Athanasius correctly, the answer would be closer to the second. For he writes in his On the Incarnation of the Word (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xxii.html):


And besides, the Saviour came to accomplish not His own death, but the death of men; whence He did not lay aside His body by a death of His own — for He was Life and had none — but received that death which came from men, in order perfectly to do away with this when it met Him in His own body.

Athanasius says earlier in this work (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.ix.html) that Christ took "a body capable of death"; he does not say a body subject to death.

As to your hypothetical question - it's not a matter of when "aging" would have stopped; rather, the point is that decay would not have taken over, so a major part of what we call "aging" would not have applied to Him. I suppose he would have looked whatever age He chose to look.

In Christ,
Mike

[Andreas Moran]

Thanks, Mike. What is implicit in what St Athanasius says is what I thought was the case but I never discussed it with anyone. As to my question, I'm still left wondering. In particular, I'm thinking that Christ's body after His Resurrection is obviously different from what it was before. Before death, He ate and drank, got tired, sweated, and so on like anyone else. True, Adam ate before the Fall but after it, he was told he would eat by the sweat of his face; so was Christ's body not the same as Adam's before the Fall? I'm confused about Adam before the Fall; I seem to recall reading that he was not then subject to death, but Genesis 3:22 clearly says that God sent Adam out of Eden in case he also ate from the tree of life and live for ever. The Fathers say, I think, that Christ ate after His Resurrection to show His disciples He was not a ghost but that He didn't need food because His body was then spiritual in nature. There seem to be four kinds of bodies: Adam's before the Fall, his and ours after the Fall, Christ's before the Resurrection (immortal but needing food and rest, etc.), and Christ's after the Resurrection.

[Peter S.]

There seem to be four kinds of bodies: Adam's before the Fall, his and ours after the Fall, Christ's before the Resurrection (immortal but needing food and rest, etc.), and Christ's after the Resurrection.

Dear Andreas,

How could Christ save our human nature if he had a different body than Adam before the Fall?

Peter

[Paul Cowan]

Andreas,

I have to mirror Peter. This does not "sound" right.

If Christ was not like us then He could not have redeemed us. He suffered all the torments as a man though He was God. If His body was not "like" ours, then His suffering is not "like" ours and He, IMO, could never relate to our sufferings therefore He could not redeem us.

I have to believe He was totally God and totally man also in the fact He had a corruptible body upon death. He was resurrected; yes, but had His body not been resurrected He still had a human body and it would have decayed. It is in that He was resurrected that He saw no decay to His human form.

As for Adam before the Fall, we will have to wait and ask him.

Jesus was no spirit in that He did eat after His resurrection. This to show what type of body we will have also in the resurrection. I do not think He "needed" to eat nor will we, but we will have the ability to eat not in a passionate state, but to commune as humans.

IMHO

Paul

[Peter S.]

Am I understanding this correctly?: God can not die, and Christ's divine nature didn't die. His person, Logos never died on the cross, but he asked the Father "why has thou forsaken me" because his human nature was going to die on the cross.

This question by Christ on the cross can give us something to wonder about on our human nature and the human nature before the Fall that Christ had taken, which is also ours, and our goal (theosis) which has to do with the mystery of the Trinity and love.

I wonder if Christ's body would have not decayed and that he could have lived forever, but this is a philosophical question and I guess not a theological, and is nothing to wonder about. This is nothing to wonder about because it was impossible for Christ not to do his Fathers will and not to die when he was 33, because that is how his person is, the Logos, and that's what the Trinity and the mystery of love demands. His person is life and he lives forever.

I have heard that we should think of what meaning the Ressurection has on Christ's human body. In his Ressurection he had a spiritual body, and that is the goal. But I must admit that it's much I don't understand, and can't understand.

the worst sinner,
Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks, Mike. What is implicit in what St Athanasius says is what I thought was the case but I never discussed it with anyone. As to my question, I'm still left wondering. In particular, I'm thinking that Christ's body after His Resurrection is obviously different from what it was before. Before death, He ate and drank, got tired, sweated, and so on like anyone else. True, Adam ate before the Fall but after it, he was told he would eat by the sweat of his face; so was Christ's body not the same as Adam's before the Fall? I'm confused about Adam before the Fall; I seem to recall reading that he was not then subject to death, but Genesis 3:22 clearly says that God sent Adam out of Eden in case he also ate from the tree of life and live for ever. The Fathers say, I think, that Christ ate after His Resurrection to show His disciples He was not a ghost but that He didn't need food because His body was then spiritual in nature. There seem to be four kinds of bodies: Adam's before the Fall, his and ours after the Fall, Christ's before the Resurrection (immortal but needing food and rest, etc.), and Christ's after the Resurrection.

St Maximus the Confessor in what I take to be a synthesis of the Patristic vision says that Christ adopts the Adamic nature in two senses.

One is that He adopts Adam as created in the image of God. The other is that He also adopts the corruptible nature of Adam as it is as a consequence of his Fall.

Christ however adopts this corruptibility in a sinless way thus reversing its sinful tendency.

An interesting aspect of St Maximus' thought is that he never thinks of human nature in a static way. Rather taking the thought of previous Fathers such as St Irenaeus he explains that in Christ, human nature is able to resume its true destiny which is that deified life in Christ for which it was originally created.

This is why when he discusses how Christ adopts human nature, he continually focuses in on human will and the different senses in which human will is given life in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Katya Kazakina]

Dear member,
when i was studying theology, my teacher in dogmatics used to say, 'God came to us (was born) as a God and ascended as God-Man. This is a translation as i didn't study it in English. But what he meant was that before he was born, He was God, after His birth he was God-Man and remains forever God-Man, i.e. never ceases to be God nor Man.

Well...something like that!
Katya

[Paul Cowan]

"why has thou forsaken me" because his human nature was going to die on the cross.

This is not how I understand it. He asked God the question because He was never without God the Father's presence with Him. When He took on the sins of the world God the Father was not able to look on Him so He turned His back on Him in the sence that it would appear He (Jesus) was alone without God the Father through the eyes of his human self. It was His human self that asked the question since His divine self was in God and God in Him.

It's a mysterious dichotomy to try to understand the understandable.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

The other is that He also adopts the corruptible nature of Adam as it is as a consequence of his Fall.

Christ however adopts this corruptibility in a sinless way thus reversing its sinful tendency.

Taking on a corruptible nature without corruption which is yet Adam's fallen nature - very hard to get my head around that one! I don't mean it might not be so, but only that I can't understand it.


he asked the Father "why has thou forsaken me" because his human nature was going to die on the cross.

This question by Christ on the cross can give us something to wonder about on our human nature and the human nature before the Fall that Christ had taken, which is also ours, and our goal (theosis) which has to do with the mystery of the Trinity and love.

Christ was, of course, quoting from Psalm 21 (LXX) though I suppose this does not take away from the fact that He suffered a sense of forsakenness in His human nature.

Whilst grateful for everyone's thoughts, I'm still not sure how many bodies we are talking about as between Adam and Christ. The matter has, it occurs to me, relevance to the Eucharist.

[Peter S.]

This is not how I understand it. He asked God the question because He was never without God the Father's presence with Him. When He took on the sins of the world God the Father was not able to look on Him so He turned His back on Him in the sence that it would appear He (Jesus) was alone without God the Father through the eyes of his human self. It was His human self that asked the question since His divine self was in God and God in Him.

It's a mysterious dichotomy to try to understand the understandable.

Paul

Paul,

I don't think Christ had two 'selves'. His person is the incarnated love, God the Word, Logos. That's what I ve learned. So he (Jesus Christ), is one person with two wills, but they acted as one will, still he had two. Jesus had a divine will and a human will. I think they can not be separated, but I m not sure of that. Correct me (with some patristic quotes), if I m wrong. I think Jesus went back to heaven as Logos, and he ended the dualism in human nature. And he was always with the Father as you say.

And I think there lays very much in the words "why has thou forsaken me", so it's maybe right what you say about the words. And death is the result of sin. We are maybe saying the same here?

Peter

[Paul Cowan]

Yes, Peter, once again we are saying the same thing; in my mind. I am just poor at articulating it. I did not mean to suggest there was a duality within Christ between his divinity and humaness. I was using the word "self" to help my own brain keep track between what we call divine and human. It is a mystery no man will ever be able to articulate in its fullness.

Christ is 100% God and 100% man. He suffered cold, heat and hunger as man. He was able to understand man's needs because He is god. Wh would He sweat bolld in Gethsamane if He were not man, but as God, He was able to be strong in His human body.

I think I am just getting myself deeper. I can pretty much visualize what I want to say. I just can't say it well. Forgive me'

Paul

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Andreas wrote:


Taking on a corruptible nature without corruption which is yet Adam's fallen nature - very hard to get my head around that one! I don't mean it might not be so, but only that I can't understand it.

The word or expression used by the Fathers is that Christ appropriated the fullness of human nature apart from sin.

This central idea of the Incarnation is found in St Athanasius but especially in St Cyril of Alexandria. St Maximus draws out the implications of this insight especially as it relates to the human will with its tendency both towards the divine pleasure of deification and towards the selfish pleasure of self gratification.

As St Maximus explains, Christ appropriates or takes on Himself the consequences of this human attraction towards sinful pleasure; ie the suffering & death consequent to this. But He does this in a sinless way so that the sinful consequence of pleasure is reversed in such a way that death now leads to Life.

This insight of St Maximus certainly brings out in more depth the action of Christ's Incarnation and of how it affects humanity. It certainly anchors itself in the previous Patristic insight of how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature ('only what is taken on by Him can be saved'). But the implications of this are more fully drawn out.

Thus Christ not only takes on Himself human nature as we are created in the image of God. Crucially- for this is how redemption actually occurs- He in a sinless manner also takes on Himself our sin, He appropriates and indeed experiences it but in a sinless manner.

Of course though this still leaves us with the central mystery of how Christ could appropriate sin while doing so in a sinless manner. The fact that He is the Divine Logos obviously is central to this. I think it wrong however to think of this in the way we do at times almost as if His divinity was a protecting buffer between Himself and the sin of humanity. If this was so then much of the point of the Incarnation would be lost. The very thing we most suffer from- sin- would not truly be engaged in by the God Who saves me.

What I would say then is that what St Maximus actually points to is how Christ in the deepest way precisely as God Incarnate truly is engaged with our sin, that He meets it, takes it on and even experiences it. The manner in which He does this however as the Divine/human Christ is without the sinful passion & personal willing towards this that always for us accompanies sin. Rather as St Maximus explains Christ endures the consequences of sin in a blameless fashion which means that He encounters our sin and experiences it in a way that accords with its reality as destructive death rather than ours as something attractive. It is in so doing that He turns the power of death around and transforms it into a path towards Life for us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

Paul wrote:



I appreciate what you say here. It still leaves me thinking we (humans) are still subjected to the pleasures of sin, which is what attracts us to them in the first place, which Christ did not(?) experience? I can appreciate the idea of Him taking them on and feeling the full affect of our sins on Himself, but if he was not allowed to be attracted to them as we are, does this not put a division between He and us?

It would not be a matter of what He was allowed to be attracted to. Rather as the Divine Word of God incarnate He experiences sin in its reality rather than as pleasure. In other words when we experience sin as pleasure rather than as something that goes against our own nature this is because in our sin affected state of mind we perceive sin in a deeply distorted way from its actual reality.

With Christ however, of course we could not say that He experiences sin in its full reality in the sense that He shares or participates in it. As to how this could still allow for a sharing in our condition that leads to our salvation I would say that this is because Christ's experience of sin precisely is in a blameless and divine manner. That is He experiences sin as it truly is at its root rather than with its sinful allurement as we often experience this.

Here an analogy (but only very faint) would be how we can recognize a sin is harmful while not participating in it. Christ however as incarnate God is constantly engaged in the redemption of our sin so that His experience of sin is much more immediate than anything we could fathom even though it is blameless.



I have always thought He was as much human as we are and subjected to Everything we are.

Yes- but He does this as incarnate as God meant human nature to be; ie as human nature actually was created to be in reality: incorruptible rather than sin loving delusion it is presently caught in. Further, Christ meets sin in its unmasked and real state, not in the delusive and pleasurable way in which it appears to us. If the One freeing us from prison loves prison we could never be free.



I guess it is like we can enjoy the alcohol and the mentally woozy state it puts us in if we over indulge, but He only got the hangover. Was He not capable of having the woozy state or was He only interested in the end result? He is saving us from the ultimate hangover yet we still have to endure the woozy state and the interim hangovers?

Interesting question. I would say that Christ experiences the fear of suffering and death in a blameless way which lies behind many of such addictions.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter S.]

As St Maximus explains, Christ appropriates or takes on Himself the consequences of this human attraction towards sinful pleasure; ie the suffering & death consequent to this. But He does this in a sinless way so that the sinful consequence of pleasure is reversed in such a way that death now leads to Life.

Now I think I understand better Fr.


Of course though this still leaves us with the central mystery of how Christ could appropriate sin while doing so in a sinless manner. The fact that He is the Divine Logos obviously is central to this.I think it wrong however to think of this in the way we do at times almost as if His divinity was a protecting buffer between Himself and the sin of humanity. If this was so then much of the point of the Incarnation would be lost.


Yes maybe what I said creates a buffer Fr.


Was He not capable of having the woozy state or was He only interested in the end result?

Paul, I don't think the woozy state after drinking is a sinful consequence of pleasure, but maybe you ment it just as an allegory.

BTW Paul, if you earlier ment that they will eat as communion in heaven I don't think so; (1 Cor 15, 50. I know this verse refers to fallen nature.) But I think they will have service in heaven.

Peter