Thanks for this warm space where we can meet.
Thank you for the privilege that we can open up your word
and learn more about you and your son.
Lord Jesus, we pray that as you promised
at the end of Matthew's gospel,
that you would be with us to the end of the age,
that you'd be with us now by your spirit
as we consider the deepest mystery of all, Lord,
your incarnation and who you have become for us
by becoming flesh.
Lord, give us humility as we approach these topics.
Give us understanding.
Above all, we pray, you'd give us hearts
that are in all of you more and more
and in worship of you, adoration of you.
We pray this in your mighty name, Jesus, amen.
Okay, so where have we been in this class
on the person of Christ,
which is sometimes called Christology.
So if you're ever reading books of theology
or you're reading things, you run across Christology.
Basically what that means is just the doctrine
of the person of Christ.
So who is Jesus, his person?
And if you'll remember kind of where we've been in our class,
we've been doing kind of a walkthrough
of the person of Jesus.
Two weeks ago, we considered that Jesus is fully human.
So we looked through the gospel records
and looked at how Jesus had a fully human body,
how he had a fully human mind.
He had fully human emotions.
Just all the ways in which we think about ourselves
as human, we see that reflected in the gospels,
that Jesus was fully human.
And then just last week, we reflected on the fact
that Jesus is fully God.
And we looked at all those things that were,
some of those moments in the gospels
where Jesus is in his own words, in his own actions,
sort of claiming to be the one true God here among us,
like claiming to forgive sins,
claiming that only he knows the father
and only the father knows him,
these sorts of things.
Okay, so we've established two wonderful things,
that Jesus has a fully human nature
and he's fully God, he's a fully divine nature.
What more is there to talk about
in a class on Christology, right?
We're done.
Ah, but one large question still remains, right?
What is the relationship of these two natures
in the one person, Jesus?
Right?
We sort of say these two things,
but man, what does that even mean?
How do we relate those to one another?
Is there a way we can press into
the unity of the person of Christ?
Now, this is a very difficult question.
So as we approach this topic this morning,
we'll do so with some humility
and maybe even some trepidation.
One theologian, Millard Erickson, writes this.
He says,
this is the most difficult of all theological problems,
how the two natures of Christ are in one person.
Ranking up there, he says,
with the doctrine of the Trinity
and the doctrine of the relationship
of human free will and divine sovereignty.
So Erickson, they're sort of locating
some of these divine mysteries
that are very deep,
the doctrine of the Trinity,
how our agency and God's sovereignty
relate to one another.
But here's the sort of one that takes the cake,
what we sometimes call the hypostatic union.
How is it that there are two natures
in the one being of Jesus?
Okay.
And it's sort of obvious
why that's a difficult question, right?
Like Erickson goes on to say
in that same paragraph I referenced.
You know, it's difficult to comprehend
because it posits the combination of two natures
that by definition are contradictory, right?
I mean, think about deity, right?
Christ is infinite in his knowledge, power, and presence,
being fully God.
If he's God, he has to know all things.
You know, if he's God,
he can do all things that are proper objects
of his power, right?
If he's God, he can be everywhere at once.
But on the other hand, if he was human,
he was limited in knowledge.
He couldn't do everything.
And he certainly was limited
to being in one place at one time, right?
So how are those two natures combined in one person?
So it's a difficult question,
but it's also an important question, right?
It's not one just that, you know,
theologians can sort of write dissertations about
and get tenure and teach at a seminary, you know?
It's actually important.
And what's really neat,
this morning we're going to walk through
the historical development
of how the church has thought about this,
and we'll see that in the early centuries of the church,
this was the issue.
This was the issue over which
they spent most of their time and energy
because it was central.
Why was it central?
Because, I mean, one way of thinking about it, right?
This idea, this doctrine of the person of Christ,
what we call Christology, is important
because the incarnation involved,
well, we might say the bridging of the gap,
the bridging not just of sort of the kind of
metaphysical or ontological gap, right,
but bridging of the moral and spiritual gap
between God and humanity, right?
The great chasm between us and God
that sin had opened up,
it's the incarnation that bridges that gap.
And if it's really going to bridge that gap,
then Jesus has to be
divine and human in one person.
There has to be a unity
of deity and humanity within Jesus, right?
If they weren't,
then it's almost as if
the problem still remains, right?
Okay.
We'll come back to some of the
sort of deeper significance of these things
as we get to the end.
But let's think about this.
So, again, this is Millard Erickson.
He has a really good chapter on this.
I'll be referencing a lot of his stuff as we go.
But Millard Erickson,
it was a Baptist theologian in the South.
I think he taught somewhere.
Did he teach at Southwestern?
Do you know, Tyler, where Erickson taught?
Yeah, he's...
I'm going to read something from his book,
which is kind of funny,
because it's a very dry textbook that he wrote.
He wrote a big book called Christian Theology.
And, you know, Millard Erickson isn't known for, like,
you know, flowery language or things like this.
But then he comes to the end of his chapter
on the unity of the person of Christ,
and he says,
it's sometimes been said
that there are only seven basic jokes.
And every joke is a variation on one of them.
I don't know what the seven are.
He doesn't get into it, right?
But then he says,
a similar statement can be made
about the errors regarding the person of Christ.
So here's Millard Erickson sort of using comedy
as an illustration for understanding
the deepest mystery of all time,
the person of Christ.
But what he says is really, really helpful.
He says,
you know, there are basically,
there are basically six ways in which,
as humans,
we sort of go wrong
in thinking about the person of Christ.
And as we think about those six ways
historically that developed,
we can sort of figure out,
like, okay, well,
there are the kind of edges of the sandbox, right?
As we've tried to push up against it
with our human intellect,
we have found where, like,
we drift off into error.
And he says,
and I'll write some of these down as we go,
but he says,
here are the six.
Either they deny the genuineness
or the completeness of Jesus's deity.
There's the first two.
Either Jesus isn't divine,
or he's not totally divine.
There's the first two.
Or they deny the genuineness
or completeness of his humanity.
So Jesus either just isn't really human,
or he's, like, not totally human.
Or, here's the other two,
they divide his person
or they confuse his natures.
Now, those are the two
we'll spend a little more time on this morning
because those are maybe
the little more harder ones
to wrap our minds around.
And then Erickson says,
all departures from the orthodox doctrine
of the person of Christ
are simply variations
of one of these heresies.
And when he says orthodox there,
he just means
this is what the scriptures teach
and this is what the church faithfully
has affirmed throughout the ages.
This is sort of right belief
and right worship
or in line with,
or, like,
when you go to the orthodontist,
what are they doing?
They're ortho-ing your dontics, right?
They're straightening your teeth, right?
So what is orthodoxy?
Orthodoxy is,
doxy, right,
is belief or even worship, right?
Ortho is the worship
that's in line with,
in line with what?
In line with the scriptures
and what the church
has proclaimed the scriptures
to teach, right?
So,
all departures
from the orthodox doctrine
of the person of Christ
are simply variations
of one of these heresies.
Okay,
so this will be some fun.
Let's look,
let's look at some of these
and let's figure out
the edges of the sandbox,
right?
So, let's think about
heresies or errors
concerning Christ's deity.
Can I ask something
before we even start this?
Quickly, Richard,
because otherwise
I'll run out of time.
Go ahead.
This is a primary issue, right?
This is not a secondary
or tertiary issue.
Yes,
but we will see
as we get into this
that some of the distinctions
we're making
are very fine.
So,
we do want to have grace
if someone maybe
doesn't use the exact language
that we do
or maybe is just
prone to misunderstanding.
This is one of those doctrines
where
we have to be gracious
as one other.
But,
with that being said,
the short answer
to your question,
Richard,
is yes,
this is a primary doctrine.
To deny
the full humanity
or the full deity
of Christ
takes you outside
of
the realm
of Christianity.
Right?
You've stumbled
into something else.
Yeah.
So,
okay,
heresies regarding
Christ's deity.
Hey,
that looks pretty,
that's readable, right?
I'm getting better.
Yeah,
so the first,
the first one
is what we might call,
well,
what's been called
historically,
Evianism.
Okay,
so what does Evianism?
Evianism is basically,
and this cropped up
very early in the church,
was basically the belief
that Jesus was merely human.
He wasn't God.
He wasn't fully God.
However,
Jesus was,
he was the,
he was the human Messiah.
God was active in him.
His power was active in him
to,
to a superlative degree.
But,
but he wasn't God.
We just saw in him
humanity come fully alive
with the power of God,
right?
Now,
of course,
the church very early on
said,
no,
that's a departure
from what Jesus himself
taught us,
who he was,
and what we believe him to be.
A sort of variation of this
is called adoptionism.
Stop,
whoops,
shun,
ism,
adoptionism.
So,
adoptionism,
if you run across that
in conversations about Christology,
is basically saying that,
so Jesus was born as if,
he was fully human
when he was born.
There was nothing kind of
ontologically special about him,
but at a certain moment
in his life,
God came upon him.
A lot of times,
they'll say at his baptism,
at his baptism,
the Christ came upon him,
and at that moment,
he became
something greater than human.
And then he did his earthly ministry
that way,
and then oftentimes,
adoptionism will say,
but then the Christ left him,
right?
usually somewhere around
his crucifixion,
right?
Now,
you can see that
that gets way far out
from what the New Testament
taught,
right?
But both of these
were ways of trying to say,
like,
well,
we know God can't become
a human being,
right?
It was kind of working
with this prior philosophical
assumption that God
can't become a human,
so how do we make sense of it,
right?
But both of these
were out of bounds,
right?
Because they really just deny
what we talked about last week,
that Jesus was fully God.
Okay,
those are kind of easy to spot,
right?
There was a second one
that denied
Christ's deity,
although this one
was a bit more sophisticated.
And this one goes under
the name of Arianism.
Okay,
in the early 4th century,
there was an
Alexandrian presbyter,
sort of elder,
leader in the church,
named Arius.
who was a very smart guy,
and a lot of people
liked him.
And he was even
a songwriter.
And,
because we know,
right,
because we know
that God is one,
and God is eternal,
and God
is majestic,
right?
Surely,
that one
awesome,
majestic God,
right,
can't,
there can't be
two of them,
right?
And that one
awesome,
majestic God
can't,
like,
become a human
being.
So,
what do we believe,
then,
about the Son?
Even about the
eternal Son?
So,
now,
let me take a step back.
Everything I'm telling you
about the history of these
is very truncated,
and the story's way more
complicated,
but I'm just giving you
the overview.
So,
if you hear someone say,
well,
it's a little more like this,
yeah,
there's nuance here,
but I'm going to give you
the broad outline.
So,
basically,
Arius and his followers
began to teach that
the word that John
talks about
was actually
the highest
and best
and first
created being,
that the word
had a beginning.
and Arius
and his followers
actually wrote songs
for worship,
and one of the great
choruses was,
there was a time
when the word was not.
Interesting,
right?
Imagine singing
that one in church.
There was a time
when the word
was not.
You were not the word
in the beginning.
Right?
So,
but you can see
how
that sort of
makes sense,
right?
There's one God
and God creates
this superhuman being
and it's through
that sort of
ultra,
super,
first created being
that he does
everything else.
Right?
But again,
that sort of
makes Jesus
mostly God,
but not God.
Right?
He's actually
not God.
And here's how
it started to come down.
And this was what,
there was a council
that was called
by the church,
Council of Nicaea
in 325,
because this
controversy raged
for many,
many,
many years
and it continued
to rage
for many,
many years.
And there was a man
named Athanasius,
who was a great hero
of the faith,
who fought this battle.
And late in the new year,
later in the new year,
in the spring,
we're going to look at
more of this in detail.
But it came down
to this.
Is Jesus,
you're going to like this,
this is good.
Is Jesus
homoiosios?
Or is he
homoiosios?
Ah,
this little letter
right here
is the Greek letter
iota.
It's like our I.
Blood wish,
not blood wish,
literally,
but controversies
raged over this letter
because the difference
between this word
and this word,
if you know Greek,
is homoiosios
is similar in being.
Really alike.
Oosios is just being.
But homoosios
is insane.
The same in being.
Now,
in writing,
that's not a big difference,
is it?
One little I.
But in meaning,
it's a world of difference.
That Jesus isn't just
mostly like God,
he's fully God.
Homoiosios,
of one same nature
with the Father.
And at the Council of Nicaea,
that's what they will affirm.
This is from
the Council of Nicaea,
I believe in
one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten
Son of the Father,
born of the Father
before all ages.
There's an eternal
generation of the Son,
is what we're talking about.
There was no time
when the Son was not.
And then it goes on
to say this,
God from God,
speaking of Jesus the Son,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten,
not made,
consubstantial,
which is just the Latin phrase,
homoiosios,
of one nature,
of the same nature
with the Father.
Okay,
so here's one edge
of the sandbox,
Christ's deity.
He's not God,
he's mostly God.
Both of those are ruled out,
he's fully God,
right?
Okay,
what about when it comes
to Christ's humanity?
How does this start to cook
in the early church?
Well,
we talked about this
a couple weeks ago.
The first one that cropped up,
especially as the gospel
began to take root
in,
as the gospel began
to take root
in cultures,
docetism,
that were more heavily influenced
by Greek thought,
and again,
that was everywhere,
it wasn't just,
I mean,
there were plenty of Jews
who were heavily influenced
by Greek thought,
so you see this pretty early,
but where the kind of
Greek worldview
was more heavily in place,
you began to see
this thing crop up,
docetism.
Now,
what is docetism?
Docetism,
we talked about earlier,
is that Jesus only seemed
to be human.
He had the appearance
of being human,
but he wasn't actually human.
Now,
why would you believe
something like that?
Why would you believe
that Jesus is fully God
but not fully human?
Yeah,
Ivor,
go ahead.
It sure does,
doesn't it?
Isn't it easier to believe
that God just kind of
showed up as an avatar,
but if you got close enough
to him,
your hand would go
straight through,
right?
Yeah.
Yeah,
and also several religions
at the time
thought about avatars.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah,
that's right.
Yeah,
especially if you get
into Eastern religions,
right?
Yeah,
that's right.
That's right.
Yeah.
Part of else
what was going on here
is that in,
in,
in a particularly
kind of Greek cast of mind,
in some of them anyway,
matter,
the material stuff
of the world,
was,
was negative,
right?
It was a kind of
a negative approach
to the material world,
right?
Why?
Well,
because matter's changing,
matter's painful,
right?
So,
some of the Greek worldview
had the idea that
what's the goal
of existence,
right?
Well,
the real goal of existence
is to get out of this shell
into the one,
into the eternal,
right?
You see that in Stoicism
especially,
right?
You know,
the goal is to sort of
get a piece of,
get to a place
of equanimity
in this life
so that when you die,
you're kind of absorbed
into the one,
right?
Sounds very Eastern
to our ears,
doesn't it?
Obviously,
the church rejected this.
No,
Jesus was fully human.
Why?
Because from a biblical worldview,
matter's good.
God created everything
and said it was good.
So,
there's nothing sort of
necessarily wrong
with his full humanity
besides,
look at the records
that we have.
Look at the apostolic witness
that we talked about
two weeks ago.
Jesus was fully human.
He was eating with them.
He was touching them,
right?
Can a spirit do these things?
The resurrected Christ
said to them.
Okay,
so that one was out.
The second one though,
and again,
you kind of see the,
oh,
I'm going to spell this wrong.
I-N-A.
Ah.
This one was a little
more sophisticated though.
And this one,
man,
this one,
this one sounded
right on the surface.
It was kind of a clever,
Apollinarianism was a clever
solution to the problem,
right?
How is Jesus fully human
and fully divine
in one person?
So around 361,
so this would be about
40 years after the
Council of Nicaea,
right?
These two were pretty early on.
They kind of co-existed
and kept going,
right?
Arianism cropped up
early 4th century,
Apollinarianism kind of
mid to late 4th century.
Bishop of Laodicea
around 361,
Apollinarius,
I think is how you
would pronounce it,
said that,
hey,
Jesus clearly had
a fully human body.
That's obvious,
right?
But,
his soul
or his mind
was divine.
So that's how
God becomes
fully human.
God,
who we know,
the one God,
God is a spirit,
right?
Has no body.
That spirit just comes down
and takes a human body.
Boom!
Done!
Solution solved,
right?
How easy is that?
You know,
I kind of joked about this
a couple weeks ago
when we talked about this.
This is sort of like,
this is sort of like
the earth suit approach
to Christology.
That just like
astronauts put on
a space suit
to go into space,
God put on an earth suit
to come to earth,
right?
And that earth suit
was his human body.
But everything going
on side of that human body
was God.
But wait a second.
This is what the church
is saying
as the teachings
of Apollinarius
start growing steam.
But when we read
the apostolic witness,
that's not what we see,
is it?
Do we not see
that Jesus has
a human mind
and a human soul
and even a human will,
which will become
a debate a little later
in church history?
Does Jesus have
a human will
or is it just
God's will, right?
And think of it this way.
One of the things
we've been saying
over and over again
in this class
on the person of Christ
is that the full humanity
and full deity of Christ
are so important.
Why?
For our salvation, right?
If God the Son
doesn't assume it
in the incarnation,
if he doesn't take it up
into himself,
then it's not going
to be redeemed, right?
And friends,
do our bodies need saving?
Yeah, the older I get,
the more I realize
our bodies need saving, right?
As I can, you know,
get a little creakier
and get a little older, right?
But let's push a little deeper.
Do not our minds
and our souls
also need saving?
If Jesus is going
to save us,
then he needs
a fully human nature,
not just a human body.
So both on account
of the scriptural witness
and the theological
implications of it,
Apollinarianism
was ruled out.
That no, no, no,
Jesus had a fully human mind
or soul
as well as a fully human body.
And that was at the Council
of Constantinople
in 381.
So this would have been Nicaea
in 325
and this would have been
381, right?
Constantinople, 381.
Constantinople.
Okay.
381.
Constantinople.
All right.
Well, how far have we gotten now
as we progress
through church history?
Okay.
Jesus is fully God
and Jesus is fully human.
We haven't gotten very far,
have we?
But look at where
the sandbox lies, right?
Good work was done
by our forebears
in the faith, right?
We've defended Jesus'
full divinity, right?
We've also defended
his full humanity.
Okay.
So then,
the story continues
as we progress.
So,
we're in now
into the 5th century,
into the early 5th century.
Now these,
what I'm going to call these
are,
well,
let me write it this way.
These would be errors
concerning
the unity of Christ's person.
Okay.
If I,
if I abbreviate Christ
with an X,
that's not because I'm like
taking the Christ
out of Christmas.
X is a Greek letter,
chi,
which is how Jesus'
name starts in the Greek.
It's just shorthand.
It's an abbreviation.
It's not a deletion.
So,
the unity of Christ's person.
Ah,
okay.
First one that crops up
is in
the early 4th century
with a guy named Nestorius.
And what we're going to see
with these two
is that
there's a bit of a tragedy
in some of these stories
because
a lot of the names
under which
these two things
I'm going to talk about
get called,
so poor Nestorius,
right?
He was a very good preacher.
He was a very godly man,
but he got himself
into a lot of theological trouble.
And he actually got slandered
a lot for things
he didn't believe.
But what happened was
is as he struggled
to articulate
the unity of Christ's person,
it got a little messy.
And then,
what he believed
ended up,
what,
the,
something got labeled
with his name
that maybe he didn't
actually believe
when you dig down
into his writings.
But,
what it came to be called
was
Nestorianism.
Okay?
And what Nestorianism is,
is that
basically,
the way it gets
shorthanded is,
is that there's two persons.
And two natures.
Basically,
you've got,
you've got Jesus' humanity
and his divinity,
and it starts driving them apart.
That they,
that,
that they're both kind of
almost protected
from one another.
Right?
That we don't want them
kind of commingling.
But you can see how
immediately this,
this becomes a nonsensical
proposition.
Right?
How can there be
two persons
within
Jesus?
Right?
So,
how this debate
got started
is very interesting
because
there was some debate
flying around
in the fourth century
of whether we should
call Mary
the theotokos,
the God-bearer.
Right?
Is it appropriate
to call Jesus
the mother of God?
The bearer of God?
Right?
Now,
I think today
in the church
we think,
well,
yeah,
of course,
because Jesus was fully God,
so she was the mother of God.
We were comfortable
saying with that.
But someone like Nestoria
says,
yeah,
but don't we need
to be careful there?
Did a human
like give birth
to the one true,
like the infinite God?
Right?
So suddenly
the mystery of the incarnation
starts pushing
against our language.
So Nestoria says things like,
well,
I'm fine with theotokos
as long as we quickly add
anthropotokos,
that she was the bearer
of a human.
But then it starts
to get squirrely,
right?
Well,
did that human person
Jesus
exist
before the incarnation?
Was there a pre-existing
human Jesus
before the word
became human?
In other words,
is there a human person
and a divine person
that are somehow
being melded
in the incarnation?
And the answer to that
is no,
theologically,
right?
But these were the things
that were trying
to be guarded against
when the church came up
against Nestorianism.
Now,
here's why I say
I sort of have some
sympathy for Nestorius
because
I think
when you go back
and look at the
historical records,
there's a good case
to be made
that Nestorius
actually affirmed
what the church
would eventually affirm,
but he was just
struggling to find
the language for it.
He was struggling
to find the right
language for it,
right?
And there are
some churches
today even
that sound
a little more
Nestorian
in how they
articulate
the person
of Christ,
right?
But I think
they're just
trying to find
language to
articulate
the inarticulable.
Okay.
Any questions
about Nestorius?
I know this is
quick and this
is probably
the most confusing
of all of them.
I usually think
of it as
two cats
in a bag.
Yeah.
That's right.
But this produces
like a schizophrenic
Jesus,
right?
Well,
and here's the
theological problem.
Yeah.
Well,
go ahead.
We'll keep going.
Kim,
yeah,
go ahead.
In the Old Testament?
Oh,
can I have
pause on that
and can we talk
about that after
because it's
a yes,
but there's
both exegetical
things going on
there and
theological things
going on there,
but we'll talk
about them
afterwards.
Yeah.
Okay.
So this
kind of language
to talk about
the unity of
Christ's person
wasn't going to
fly,
right?
The other thing
that cropped up
in the wake
of kind of
this battle
against what
came to be
called Nestorianism,
oh,
by the way,
Council of
Ephesus
for,
I think,
31,
right?
Yes,
431.
Okay.
So they get
together,
they condemn
this way of
articulating the
unity of
person of
Jesus,
the Council
of Ephesus
in 431.
In the wake
of that,
there's lots
of enthusiasm
to not divide
the person
of Christ,
and it gets
a little out
of hand
because there's
a formula
flying around
that kind of
gets dubbed
one nature,
like one nature
Christology.
The unity
of the person
of Christ
was so real
and so actual
that it's not
even right to
talk about
two natures,
we just talk
about one nature.
And again,
this is where
church history
is a bit
tragic.
Hold on,
I'm going to
spell this
wrong too.
U,
T-Y-C-H-E-S,
yeah,
that's it.
Eutychus
was an older
kind of head
of a monastery
and he kind
of gets pulled
into this
controversy,
again,
maybe not as
clear of a
thinker or as
careful of an
articulator,
and he says
things like
that after
his birth,
Jesus only
possessed
one nature,
that of
God made
flesh,
right?
So this
starts to
develop into
the view
where the
humanity of
Jesus and
the divinity
of Jesus
sort of
create this
third thing,
this like
new
nature,
right?
So it's
like
right?
They like
come together
to create
something new,
a third
thing.
Mixing red
and blue
makes purple.
Exactly,
yeah,
or you have
water,
you have
water,
and you
have ink,
and you
drip the
ink into
the water,
and the
whole thing
kind of
becomes
something
else,
right?
Eutychianism,
which is
sort of a
confusion,
or a
combination
of the
natures,
right?
Now,
why,
when the
church started
to think
about this,
did it
start to
get
uncomfortable,
do you
think,
given what
we've talked
about in
this class
so far?
Well,
our nature
is not
a fusion
of two
nations.
Yep,
that's right.
Who is he
redeeming?
Who is
Christ?
Ah,
yes,
well,
that's right,
yeah,
who is
Jesus redeeming
in this
new
third
thing?
Anybody
else want
to add
to that?
It sort
of seems,
what is
he now?
And who
is he
saving?
Yeah,
anyone else
want to
jump in?
Why is
this kind
of mixture
of the
nature
something
that feels
problematic
to the
church,
you think?
Yeah,
he's not
God anymore.
What is
he?
He's not
human anymore,
and he's not
God anymore.
He's like,
what did
you say?
Alien,
yeah,
he's got
this new
thing,
right?
Yeah,
this is
exactly right.
So when the
church really
started to
think about
this,
they thought,
well,
then,
well,
goodness,
Jesus is
neither human
nor divine,
but something
else altogether,
and that
means he
can't do
what he
came to
do,
right?
He can't
actually save
us because
he's not
us anymore.
He's something
else altogether,
right?
Now,
again,
here's where
I want to
be maybe
charitable to
our forebears
in the faith,
right?
Can you see
how Nestorius
or even
Nestorianism
and Eutychism
or Eutychianism,
how they're
trying to hold
two things
together,
but maybe
falling off
either end
of the cliff,
right?
Because what
we want to
do is we
want to
hold together
he's fully
human and
fully divine,
but he's
not two
cats in
a bag,
right?
So we're
trying to
hold these
things together,
but you can
see how it's
easy to tip
off one
way or
to tip
off the
other,
to combine
the natures
together into
one person,
right?
One nature,
one person,
or two
natures in
two persons,
right?
So hard to
find that
balance,
the balance
that the
scriptures
present,
right?
That Jesus
is fully
human and
fully God,
but he is
one person,
right?
So how does
the church
try to sort
this out?
Well,
the short
story,
it goes,
that at the
Council of
Chalcedon,
this one's
Chalcedon,
sometimes you
hear it
Chalcedon,
Tyler,
what's your
preferred
pronunciation
of the
Council?
Chalcedon,
doesn't it?
Yeah,
yeah,
Chalcedon.
Where do I
write this?
I'll just
write it up
here.
Okay.
In 451,
so in 451,
the church has
another council
at Chalcedon
to try to hammer
out these
controversies that
we're developing.
So they're looking
back over the
last number of
years,
all the way back
to Apollinarianism,
actually,
Historianism,
Tuchianism,
and they're saying,
all right,
how are we going
to define,
how are we going
to define this
thing according
to scripture
and according
to what we
feel like the
church has
taught through
the years?
And this is
what's sometimes
called the
Chalcedonian
definition of
451.
And I'll read
this because
this is
really kind
of a high
watermark in
the church's
theological
development when
it comes to
the person
of Christ.
This is an
English translation
of it.
It says,
we then,
following the
Holy Fathers,
all with one
consent,
teach men to
confess one
and the same
Son,
our Lord Jesus
Christ,
the same,
perfect in
Godhead,
and also
perfect in
manhood,
truly God
and truly man,
of a reasonable
soul and body,
consubstantial with
us,
right,
of the same
nature as us,
consubstantial
with us
according to
the manhood,
in all things
like us
without sin,
begotten
before all
ages of the
Father according
to the
Godhead,
and in these
latter days for
us and for
our salvation,
born of the
Virgin Mary,
the mother of
God,
see how they
slip that in
there in these
controversies,
according to
the manhood.
And here's
the sentence
that will get
kind of remembered
most throughout
history.
One in the
same Christ,
Son,
Lord,
only begotten,
so one,
right,
to be acknowledged
in two
natures,
inconfusably,
unchangeably,
indivisibly,
inseparably,
without confusion,
without change,
without division,
without separation.
The distinction
of natures
being by no
means taken
away by the
union.
The distinction
of the natures
being by no
means taken
away by the
union.
Who do they
have in the
eye there,
right?
The distinction
of the natures,
right?
But rather,
the property
of each being
preserved and
concurring in
one person and
one subsistence.
Okay,
subsistence.
This is sort
of technical,
that's a Latin
phrase, but the
Greek phrase there
would have been
hypostasis.
Sort of one,
again, they're
grappling for
language here.
Hypostasis
typically means
being, right?
One person,
one being,
right?
But two
natures,
not parted or
divided into
two persons,
there they're
glancing at
Nestorius,
right?
But one in
the same son
and only begotten,
God the
word, the
Lord Jesus
Christ, as the
prophets from the
beginning have
declared concerning
him, and the
Lord Jesus Christ
himself taught us,
and the creed of the
holy followers has
handed down to us.
Okay, there it is.
The definition of
Chalcedon.
And again, note,
two natures, right?
One person, two
natures, and the two
natures are without
confusion, without
change, without
division, without
separation.
The property of each
nature being preserved
and concurring in one
person.
And as I mentioned,
that word
subsistence or
hypostasis gets
picked up in later
theological language.
So when we're
talking about this
whole idea, we're
talking about the
hypostatic union.
The hypostatic union.
Okay, well, what
did the Council of
Chalcedon do for
us?
Did it make any
progress towards
answering the
question, do you
think?
Do you hear me read
that and think,
mystery solved.
I've got it figured
out.
What do you think?
So, these other
two views, Nestorius
and Eudakis, they
obviously, historically
precede the decision
that the Council
of Chalcedon.
Yes, yes, yes.
That's right.
So Nestorianism, what
became known as
Nestorianism, was
denied in 431 in
Ephesus, right?
So, not that much
longer after, about
20 years later, right?
But it's all in the
same ballpark.
But yes, this is
after these debates
have been raging for
many years.
So, Chalcedon
merely adds another
option.
I wouldn't say
that.
Well, sure, it
depends.
It depends what you
mean by another
option, right?
It sounds like a
summary.
You're trying to make
sense of all the
other...
Yes, that's right.
That's right, yeah.
Yeah, what they're
doing...
Right, yeah.
What they're doing
at Chalcedon...
So, sometimes this
Chalcedonian
definition is sort of
disparaged.
It's like, well, it
doesn't really say
anything.
It sort of says
what we can't
say, right?
We can't say this,
we can't say this,
we can't say this.
And there is a
sense in which it
is saying that,
right?
Again, it is sort
of defining the
edges of the
sandbox wherein we
want to stay
within.
But it is making
some positive
statements, right?
And again, I think
they're scriptural
statements.
They're looking at
scripture and saying
this is what the
scriptures teach,
right?
that Jesus is
fully human and
fully God, right?
That these two
natures exist without
either one being
diluted or changed,
right?
So, it's helping to
keep us in this...
What Chalcedon is
doing, it's helping
us stay in the
center of the
biblical revelation,
right?
Here, right?
What the scriptures
teach.
Oftentimes, we'll
end up straying out
of it because we're
uncomfortable with
the tension or the
mystery of it, right?
None of these
squiggles have any
significance.
I'm just sort of
illustrating, right?
So, is it just sort
of another option on
the way?
Well, yes and no.
I think what it is,
it is an articulation
at a certain moment
in time, right?
But,
it's actually a
pretty good one.
It's a pretty faithful
one to scripture,
right?
And it's one that has
guided the church for
many years.
Now, here's where I
think we need to be
careful, right?
That,
I think we want to be
careful that when we're
struggling to define
this mystery,
we're not just like
throwing heresy stones
at everybody if they
can't repeat the
definition of Chalcedon.
Yeah, Rob, go ahead.
Oh, goodness, no, yes,
yes.
There's a tension
over the story.
There's a lot of
intuition that this
isn't quite right.
It took a while to
articulate the alternative.
Yes, that's right.
There's a broken one
that everyone
pointed out to the
story,
but everyone said
that's wrong.
There's all
intention over the
thing.
This doesn't quite
feel right.
Yeah, that's right.
Thank you, Rob.
It's not as if,
yeah, it's not as if
this was the first
time people started
using this language
to talk about Jesus.
It was the church
getting together and
saying, no, this is
the way that we're
going to walk in.
This is the faithful
expression of what
scriptures teach,
right?
Yeah, that's helpful.
Yep.
As they say at the
end of this
Chalcedonian
definition, right?
As the prophets
from the beginning
have declared
concerning him,
and the Lord Jesus
Christ himself taught
us, and the
Creed of the Holy
Father's handed
down to us.
So they're
basically saying,
like, this is what
the Old Testament,
the New Testament,
and the church so
far has really
taught.
We're trying to
articulate it as
best we can and
as clearly as we
can in light of
these recent ways
of articulating it
that we feel like
stray from what
scriptures teach and
what the church has
taught.
Make sense?
Yeah, Richard,
go ahead.
But when those
who are of
Nestorius' persuasion
or Eutychese'
persuasion read the
findings at
Chalcedon, they
didn't say, oh,
this is what we've
been struggling for
years to say.
Now the church can
be one in this
matter.
Instead, they
hardened their
positions and went
their own way.
Well, you see that
a lot in church
history, right?
And there's a
really, interestingly,
Nestorius himself,
later in his life,
actually said, yeah,
I'm fine with the
Chalcedonian
definition.
I'm grossly
overstating things,
but yes.
However, what you
have to keep in
mind with church
history is that a
lot of these
debates end up
getting also
caught up in
culture, power,
political things,
right?
So a lot of
times things will
get defended with
a vigor because
there's a lot
loaded into it,
right?
So imagine if
this particular
way of
trying to make
sense of
the person of
Christ was
also bound up
with your
culture, your
language, your
family, your
church tradition,
right?
It'd be hard to
just sort of like
chuck it and keep
going, right?
So I guess what I'm
trying to say is
this is where I
want to have a
view of the
Council of
Chalcedon that
says, yeah, I
actually think
that's probably the
best way of
articulating what
the scriptures
teach, but you
also want to be
generous to those
who are trying to
capture this in
ways that might
not use the same
kind of language to
get at the same
thing, right?
Because I think
if you were to
talk to a
church today that
holds something that
feels a lot more
like Nestorianism and
you started to
really talk about
them, you pushed
past the sort of
creedal definitions,
I think you'd end
up really, really
similar.
But here's where my
knowledge of things
starts to get white
because I'm no
expert in the
Church of the
East or the
current Nestorian
churches of today and
things like that,
right?
So, but you're
right.
Even with
Arianism, though,
like when the
Council of Nicaea
happened, there
were Arians running
around for hundreds
of years, right?
Because bad ideas
die hard.
Yeah.
Matt, go ahead.
Yeah.
Two questions.
Yeah.
When was the issue
of one or two
wills?
Oh.
The person of
Jesus brought up
and the second
one is, was there
ever a council
debate about whether
Jesus had one or
two centers of
consciousness?
Yeah.
So, I forget the
year that the
monothelite controversy
happened.
That's the debate
over Jesus having a
fully human will.
But it was after
Chalcedon.
Yep.
Google search it.
You'll find the
date.
I think it was
pre, I think it was
100 or 200 years
later, though.
For some reason,
681 is in my mind,
but I could be wrong
about that.
Well, that was the
year in which it was
settled.
681 is when the
monothelite, thank you.
Okay, thanks, Richard.
Yep.
681.
Yep.
Whether Jesus has two
centers of consciousness,
that way of speaking
about the unity of
Christ's person, to my
knowledge, which is
limited, wasn't really
used in these early
Christological debates.
I think that's more of
a modern way of
expressing things.
Maybe it was never
addressed.
I don't, I don't,
yeah, I don't think so.
Not to my knowledge.
I could be wrong about
that.
But I do think that,
just that language of a
center of consciousness,
you certainly don't find
that in the first few
hundred years, right?
That could be a bit,
that could be a bit of
what they're getting at
with language of person.
Does it, does a center
of consciousness fall,
is that a, is that,
would that fall into the
person or would that
fall into the nature,
right?
This is where we start to,
this is where we start to
get into the realm of
like, wow, what does that
look like?
Yeah, Matt, go ahead.
So I was taught two
centers of consciousness
by a very Orthodox
person.
Sure, yeah.
A seminary.
Yeah, sure.
And on one level,
you know, some of these
things, to me, my way of
being seen, very speculative.
For sure, yes.
However, that particular
issue solved a little
problem where,
interpreted one way,
the son does not know,
you know, when the second
coming.
Sure, yeah.
Isn't that one, that's
one of the verses that
really is a test case,
I think, for a lot of
our Christological
thinking.
Or at least it starts to
push out some of these
distinctions.
Yeah, go ahead, Matt.
So when you come to
that, in my mind,
you go back to hard
evidence of Scripture.
Yeah, right.
How to fit all of those
things in with my very
limited understanding of
theology and how all the
logic fits together.
Yeah, right.
You know, I want to say,
oh, yeah, two centers
of consciousness.
Yeah.
Because it addresses,
for me, anyway,
Yeah.
Sure.
Attention and
spiritual evidence.
Yeah.
Oh, that feels,
that's sweet.
Yeah.
And this is where
theological language,
right, is helping us
approach how do we
grapple and hold
together these biblical
truths with our
finite minds.
So if language of two
centers of consciousness
helps us to affirm
that Jesus is fully
human and fully
divine in one person,
great.
Right?
If it begins to push
Jesus into kind of a
split personality,
then it can become not
helpful.
Right?
But again, this is where
with an issue like this,
it usually takes more
than a slogan to really
capture what the Bible's
talking about.
But I actually think,
Matt, you're bringing up
a good point.
Right?
If two centers of
consciousness is helpful
to capture what this is
talking about, then
great.
I don't necessarily have
any problem with it.
Right?
Yeah.
Beth?
I think it's interesting
that most of the
conversations you laid
out around this mystery
is coming from like a
conception point as
opposed to a like
lived point.
Yeah.
And I think one of the,
as we try to reach for
it, like the fact that
we're sinners.
Yeah.
We can't even taste the
sort of like, for lack
of a better term, sort of
the synergy, the working
together of God's will
and human will.
Yeah.
We can't even quite grasp
the uncontaminated, like
really stirred together
solution of God and man.
Yeah.
So anyway, I think I'm
sure in there, as they
like did these deep dives
into this mystery of
like, what does it
mean that Jesus was
fully human but without
sin, that he was so
submitted, fully harmonious
and submitted to the
will of the Father?
Like, what does that
even mean?
Right.
Yeah.
No, it's a great point.
I think you're making two
really good points, Beth.
Or one really overarching
point, which is, you know,
as humans, we don't just
have finite minds, right?
But we also have fallen
minds when we approach
these things, right?
So even if, even if sin
had never entered the
world, we would still not
be able to fully comprehend,
right?
Comprehend in the sense of
understand in every degree
what's going on in the
incarnation.
just like we would, we
will never for all
eternity fully comprehend
God's triune nature,
right?
Now, add on top of that
the fact that there are
what are sometimes called
noetic effects of the
fall, which is a fancy way
to saying our thinking
too, our reasoning
capacities have been
affected by the fall.
So there's like strike two
and we're really never
going to get to the bottom
of this, right?
Right.
Yeah.
So we're going to try to
find language to help us
articulate the realities we
see in scripture, but also
acknowledge where we run
up to.
There's mystery there.
There really is.
And I think as Christians
that's okay, right?
It's okay to say, here's
what God's revealed and we
have to just let them sit
there.
You know, we can do our
best to try to define and
understand and look at the
scriptural data, right?
But at the end of the day,
like we just have to, our
posture before some of these
things has to eventually end
in awe and wonder and
worship, right?
Yeah.
Do you want to add to that,
Beth?
Go ahead.
Well, and I just think what's
been helpful for me to not
feel overwhelmed with kind of
stepping out of the boat on
these things.
At least the story has
stepped out of the boat,
right?
Yeah, right, right.
I think what's helpful is to
always think in terms of
like, one, what does the
word of God say?
And two, what's at stake?
Yeah.
Like, to understand what's
at stake with the
certainty that which you
played out.
Yeah, yeah.
And I wish, you know, three
weeks was way too little time
to do this class.
I'm realizing now.
We should have done it over
six, I think, because it
would have been a lot of fun
to push even deeper.
There's a lot we haven't
talked about in this class,
and I'll say this kind of by
way of summing up,
because we need to go.
You know, we haven't talked
about Philippians 2, which I'm
kind of, it's too bad we
haven't.
And we haven't talked about
what's sometimes called
Kenotic Christology.
What does it mean that Jesus
emptied himself in the
incarnation?
Now, I think, real briefly on
that, what does it mean that
Jesus emptied himself?
When you look at Philippians 2,
we want to be careful when we
talk about Jesus emptying himself
in the incarnation, that he
doesn't sort of leave behind
divine attributes.
because if Jesus just sort of
left behind or gave up
divine attributes when he
became a human being, in what
sense can we say that he's still
fully God, right?
And I think when you look at
Philippians 2, what Jesus is,
what the Son is emptying himself
of is not necessarily
attributes, but honor and glory,
privilege and position, right?
Think of that.
Let this mind be in you, which
also in Christ Jesus, who,
being in the form of God, right,
being fully God, didn't consider
equality with God a thing to be,
what's the word there?
Grasp, sometimes we translate it.
The sense of that word is sort of
exploited for his own privilege,
right?
Used.
But emptied himself and took the
form of a servant, right?
And interesting, took the form of a
servant, I think is explanatory of
what the emptying was, right?
To give up, in a sense, not his
divine attributes, but the honor,
glory, privilege and position of
heaven to come and be a servant and
die.
Now, of course, that raises all
sorts of questions.
Matt, you raised them.
What does it mean that the Son
doesn't know the day or the hour
when the Father will come and
clean up all things, right?
And I think the answer there has
been twofold.
One is, some people will say, well,
that is Jesus speaking out of his
human nature, right?
In his divine nature, of course he
knew everything.
The end from the beginning.
But in his human nature, he did not,
right?
That's sort of one way to approach it.
A sort of lesser way is that,
this is sort of a soft version of
Philippians 2, where it's like,
Jesus wasn't giving up his divine
attributes, he was limiting them in
the incarnation.
Sort of a self-limiting.
The illustration is sometimes given
of a, imagine an elite sprinter having
to do a three-legged race with me,
right?
He's still an elite sprinter, but we're
moving a lot slower because we've got
to, like, stick together.
So that's one way that, again, we're
trying to hold together the two
natures in the one person, right?
You know, I think either way is
biblically acceptable, right?
But what we don't want to say is that
Jesus just gave up divine attributes
when he became a human, right?
We don't want to say that because then
Jesus, again, we're falling into this
thing where Jesus wasn't fully God,
right?
Better to sit in that mystery of, yeah,
there are times when his human nature
really is shining through.
Or maybe when the kind of limitation
of his divine natures in the
incarnation is really shining through
than to say he wasn't this, that,
or the other thing, right?
So that's what we didn't talk about
in this class.
We also could have pushed so much
harder into the practical difference
that all this makes.
So, yeah, let me just encourage you,
you know, if you'd like to push deeper
in these things, it really is a deep
wellspring of wonder and comfort for us
as Christians.
So, Beth, did you have a last word?
I saw your hand go up.
I thought I had something.
Oh, Debbie, did you have something
you wanted to add?
Yeah.
Sure.
Yeah.
Sure.
I know.
Yeah.
Right, right, right.
Yes.
Yes, I know.
I know.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
You know, here's, here's how I think
about it.
Ah!
So, I think what's, I think a good catchphrase
in Christology is,
remaining what he was, he became what he was not.
Remaining what he was, he became what he was not.
He assumed a human nature, right?
He assumed a human nature, the divine, the word of God, right?
God the Son assumed a fully human nature, right?
So, one way I think about it is that what was happening when Jesus was born, right?
That the fully divine second person of the Trinity had assumed into his divine nature
a fully human nature, and in that moment was experiencing exactly what it's like to be
an infant, right?
Without ceasing to be omnipresent and omnipotent and omniscient and all those things, he suddenly
knew intimately what it was like to be helpless and hungry and crying for milk, right?
That's utterly mind-blowing, right?
But there it is.
I mean, that's the mystery of the incarnation, and you think about that through his whole life,
right?
So, I wonder if in that Mark 13 passage, not even the Son knows that there was the person
of Christ experiencing in his humanity exactly what ignorance was like.
Isn't that powerful?
Mind-blowing, right?
That he knows what it's like to not know everything in that moment.
What a comfort to know that our Savior was willing to stoop, give up his privilege and position,
to even taste of ignorance for a moment.
Wild, right?
And utterly unique in the history of religions.
There's nothing like this.
So, okay, let me pray and we'll close.
Father in heaven, our Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, God three in one, Lord, we just ask
for your help and your grace to not just understand these things as limited as we can, but to live
in the great truth that you, our infinite God, took on a finite nature for us and for our
salvation.
Thank you, Lord Jesus, that in you, in your one person, we can see, God, what you are truly
like and we can know that you have reconciled and redeemed us.
We pray this in your mighty name, Jesus.
Amen.
All right, friends.
If people look at you funny because you're late to church, you can blame the pastor.
But let me encourage you to rush next door and catch the service.
Thank you.