Jesus was/is/ever will be of TWO natures: God and man.
Jesus was/is/ever will be BOTH God AND man.
100% God. 100% man.
Both. Totally. Together. Joined. Inseparable. (but not blended)
ALWAYS.
It's not that on even-numbered days He was/is only God but on odd-numbered days He is only man.
It's not that He was only a man until He was Baptized, then was only God.
It's not that He LOOKED like a man - but looks are deceiving.
It's not that He as ONLY God - but made Himself SEEM like a man.
His divine nature "communicates" with His human nature (thus the miracles, the Transfiguration, the Passion fulfilled, the Resurrection), but not always (Jesus' humanity does not know when He will Return). The human nature does not communicate with the divine (thus, Jesus is without sin: His divine nature "communicating" sinlessness to the human nature, his human nature not "communicating" sin to the Divine Nature); His humanity dying on the Cross but not His divine nature.
When it says that the GOD/MAN Jesus "laid aside" the use of His Divinity during the State of Humiliation (His conception through His Crucifixion) (which He didn't always, even in that time frame), it was never CEASING to be God but rather "laying aside" of the powers, "rights", etc. of His divinity: His "servanthood" mandated this. But again, His "service" was not because He lost His divinity and had no choice but to suffer, it was because He CHOOSE to be our servant, WILLINGLY suffering what He COULD have resisted.
Now, I'll admit, the Two Natures of Christ (and the "Communication of Attributes") is not easy stuff, I remember driving my teachers "nuts" about this when I was 10 or 11. There are biblical situations where it's hard to fully understand how this all "cranks out." We are "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." But this is because we know of no reality that is TOTALLY two different things. But with God, we're dealing with realities at times not familiar to us, not seen in our own physical universe.
BTW, this is not controversal stuff. This is stuff that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have always fully agreed upon. It's NOT stuff that divides us - and never has. This is very ancient, very ecumenical stuff from the Council of Nicea, from the Council of Chaladon. Tjose who deny this need to freshen up not only on Scripture but on the UNIVERSALLY condemned heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism.
I hope this helps.
Pax
- Josiah
IN ADDITION.... and related......
We increasingly live in a world of theological illiterates. My Ph.D. is not in theology, but I have a solid LAYMAN'S training. I thank my parents, my former Catholic Church, my current Lutheran Church, a LOT of teachers (and my own quest) for that. Christians generally use to KNOW this stuff.
My brother now attends a HUGE (and hugely popular) "Evangelical" "Non-Denom" church (you've heard of it). It has no theology and it teaches no theology. It has very LOUD music (very, very professionally done - and loudly), it has a Starbucks, it has wonderful small groups (great place to find a spouse), wonderful youth groups (and I do mean groupS - many of them), impressive facilities (complete with parking guides and shuttle buses).... but no theology. The sermons (and I've heard a few) are VERY useful - full of PRACTICAL stuff about how to be happy, how to have a great marriage, how to raise teenagers, how to this and that, and there's always JUST enough Bible quotes so that people THINK this counsel comes from the Bible instead of Ophra or Dr. Phil. But the theology is less than shallow.... it's non-existent. I use to think of this as "the church LITE" but actually, having attended a few services with my bro, it's "the church EMPTY." As my brother admits - the people there know NOTHING of Christian history or theology.... NOTHING. They know NOTHING about the theology of God or Christ, they know nothing about Communion or Baptism... beyond what their own nature (and TV) tells them for the simple reason that their church is SILENT on such (not wishing to offend anyone). SOME (like him and a bunch of Catholics) WERE trained - and bring their training with them, but a LOT of the people never learned any of this - and they won't learn it at that church. They'll learn how to be happy..... how to make their teens love church.... how to be good stewards of their paycheck..... how to sing LOUD (real loud)..... that church is above all FUN.... but theology? Nope.
The result is that a LOT of bad stuff.... mistakes..... heresies..... come to fill the void. Give Satan an inch, he'll take a mile. People will regirgitate Arianism or a host of other ERRORS all Christians LONG AGO denounced - simply because NO ONE TAUGHT THEM that this error has been universally condemned. It's new because they don't know it's old.... and wrong. Their church won't tell them (for fear of offending some and getting off into what their audience considers "irrelevant.").
I have been WAY, WAY too active on the 'net since I was 10 years old. I have been discussing all this stuff with friends, family and others since before that. TO BE BLUNT: I'd rather have a discussion with a well trained Catholic or Orthodox or perhaps Anglican any day.... the well trained ones tend to know this stuff. I'll disagree with them on some new things (like Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Infallibility of the RCC's own Bishop in Rome, etc.) but at least they know where they are coming from and way. They make a well-thought out, consistent, informed (if wrong!) argument. Which is why at CF, at CARM, etc. - I had nearly all my discussions with Catholics (and Orthodox when they were available), oh and a lot of well-trained Reformed too (oh how I miss James!). But too often, we encounter people who just don't know the history, the debates, the consensus, the theology.
I KNOW I'm sounding self-righteous, and I apologize for that. I'm just a laymen too (don't think we have too many clergy here). But I conversed with MANY clergy (at CF, at CARM and at MANY other sites) and while I accept their superior knowledge, I could have an intelligent, historic, biblical, discussion..... both of us knowing when we step out of what was clear or historic or ecumenical and when we stepped into denominational distinctives (and why). I could refer to a Council or Father or theologian - and they knew what I was talking about. Too often, in the modern milieu of non-denominational "Christianity lite," we're just perpetually re-hashing ANCIENT stuff that actually all denominations agree on, or obsessions on points remarkably MINOR, matters NOT dogmatic and often just misunderstandings. I'm not lamenting, it's just what is. If only churches still had 3 year confirmation classes. If only if Pastors TAUGHT church history, church fathers, church councils again. If only sermons taught biblical theology instead of just supplying an occasional snippet to prove Ophra Winfrey or Dr. Phil is right. If only churches cares about our souls and filling up heaven and not just our happiness and filling up the church.
Sorry. I know that was a rank. And probably not properly conveyed. And I know I often fail here, too.
Pax
- Josiah
