As Man Jesus....but as God Jesus....
 

For years I have heard the standard Bernardese on Jesus's two natures and I used to teach exactly the same thing. That is that Jesus, the man, would at times do things AS a man and at other times do things AS God.

Yet in every case we spoke of, it was still the man. For example It was those human legs that trend on the water and it was the human mouth that said to Peter he could come out there too. Yet at the same time we have made a clear distinction between God and humanity. How is it then we can say "As God He walked on water" when it is clear He was still a man?

No. This is wrong. Yes He was God in personal identity while in the form of a man. Yes His Divine nature was present and resident and even in ontological union with the human nature. But I believe the bible shows that when Jesus healed the sick and did miracles He was still acting AS MAN.

Consider that He was a MAN approved by those miracles
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

That Jesus said the works HE did the Disciples would to do
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Why? He told them they needed FAITH to do these things. But when it comes to Jesus doing these things we are saying He was not a man with great faith doing things things but He was God...that seems contradictory if we are to be like Jesus. Jesus had a certain advantage then. He was not a man that had to overcome the flesh and have faith and give His will totally over to God in order to do those things if the common thinking is correct.

No, He came here and was our example. It was through the Humanity, as a man that Jesus said
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
There'd be no reason to expect that if we have faith like him, live like him and was submitted to the will of God like him that we can do the works that he did if the only reason he was able to do those things is because he was going back and forth from being God to being man. That makes no sense because he never stopped being a man. He never changed forms when he worked miracles. It was still those human hands, feet and voice.

I think it is both theological wrong to say "as man he did, but as God he did" and I think it is dynamically wrong to say that. In other words it leads to doctrinal error, almost a nestorian error that ultimately denies a true Human nature and a Kenosis or emptying of Himself (he had an advantage) and it lends us to believe ultimately that we can't really be like Jesus (other than the fact that he never sinned) in His humanity. In fact this would be the conclusion of the Divine Flesh theory too since we have to wait till the resurrection to attain such a status (which begs the question though, if His flesh was Divine why did he need to be changed after the resurrection?)

Anyways I see this as both a Theological issue and a dynamic faith issue.

BTW what I mean is, by the Kenosis. Kenosis is the greek term used in Phil 2 to translate "emptied Himself"...If the "as man Jesus, as God Jesus" thing is true then this renders Phil 2 totally meaningless.

2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
2Co 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Rom 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Interesting that this thought came to me while I was praying and had just read the first couple chapters of that book by A.A. Allen, and God has been speaking to me for a long time now about this verse in Romans. The first couple chapters of the book speak of the servant not being above the master, then that everyone that is perfect shall be AS the master.

We can never be above him in rank and certainly never claim to have a Divine nature, but only be filled with the Divine nature. But in humanity we can grow to become like Him

I guess nobody disagrees with me....We should all email Bro Bernard then and tell him he's wrong

the Nestorian Schism

No, wait... that had to do with whether or not Mary gave birth to a 'god' or a 'savior'. blah

Very good Prax. JD has addressed this on several occaisions and with several papers. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...tsymposium.htm

For quite a few years, I have taught and written against Benardism. In the mid 90s, I decided to oppose the belief of two natures in Jesus. I first posted these things on the OLD GNC. I don't know if you can find it in the archives or not.

A couple of years ago, I had an ongoing discussion with an ardent two nature believer of Jesus presently. In fact, it was a long on-going discussion that ran simultaneously on two threads.

Thank you Prax. I appreciate this post. I believe that this knowledge and understanding is taking root among honest hearted seekers of truth.

This is so timely for me...my sister and I have been dicussing this the past week or so...she comes from a different church background than I do....this is truly the answer to our discussion...Thank you so much for your time and effort here....I am going to print this out so we can talk about it further...its a great Bible study!

I don't believe in Jason Duleism either. It seems to be a convoluted argument of Binatarnism. He said:

"While it is tempting to fragment Jesus into a divine side and a human side, and then reason that since Jesus' deity is the Father only His humanity is the Son, the hypostatic union demands that we understand the Son to be one indivisible person. His two natures cannot be understood to be individual entities able to be viewed separately from one another and labeled by two separate names, but two natures unified in one indivisible person. When we are talking about the Son, then, we are talking about deity and humanity united in one ontological reality."

OK where is the "binatarnism"?

"but two natures unified in one indivisible person."

All you have to do is add one more nature in this one individual person and you would have what is tantamount to Trinitarianism.

I personally do not believe in the two natures in the present tense Jesus. He is God alone, having only one nature, which is divine.

Well obviously this view does not agree with Apostle Paul's teaching.

5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I believe in modalism.

In one mode of being he exists as YAH the only true God.

Yet in another SIMILTANEOUS mode of being he exists as the Messiah, the Son of man.

These two existences are distinct and similtaneous. Two me the issue of whether we can call these "persons" or if we are limited to the term "natures" has become very small.

I am ok with "persons" as I understand the distinctions are real. Yet there are not two persons who are God but rather one who is God another who is man.

Jesus/Yeshua is God manifesting himself as humanity while at the same time still existing (in another mode of being) as omnipresent spirit.

14: That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16: Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

David Bernard is not the founder of Bernardism. He just passed along what he himself learned from those before him. I agree that Jesus did not walk on water as God. He did not raise the dead as God. He did all things as a man whom God was dwelling in. Howbeit the man was his only begotten son in whom he was well pleased. He was anointed with the oil of gladness above all others because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity.

In Jason's way of explanation there is no binatarianism...ie two persons. There is One Divine person (Yahweh) who adds to Himself a Human nature (hypostatic Union) and as the Son is Fully human and Fully God but the Divine nature or the "God" part of Him is "latent" which is what the Kenosis is about in Phil 2. He was truely and fully human even when He was working miracles...it was not Jesus "as God" and then when He ate "as man"...He was always "as man" and was not going back and forth. That would make no sense.

In saying the Son has two natures it is saying that what you see is the Human nature and the Divine nature or Spirit is ontologically united with the Person of God or the Hypostasis, to the Human nature.

I believe that through the Human nature Jesus experienced what it means to be Human empowered by the Spirit, like you and I, even though in origin He was/is the creator of all things

That is not true. Trinitarianism is not three natures and one person. It's three persons and one nature. Thus binitarianism would be two persons with the same one nature.

Jason is saying ONE person with TWO natures. That is a complete reversal. the total opposite of binitarianism

Amen, and He is the firstborn from the dead....he was made like us, and we are to become like him. And even here and now, we too are partakers of the Divine nature and we are to become like him from glory to glory.

Jesus said greater works than these shall you do. He also said we are not above him (the master)....

I think we should all realize that we can and should strive to do the works He did and expect that they should happen being filled with the same Spirit.

Did Christ require faith to work miracles? If He did, was His faith in God or in himself as Messiah, son of God, God manifest in the flesh. It is obvious that Christ knew who He was and that He knew God, so what or who did he need to have faith in? We know the worlds were framed by Faith, did God need to believe His own word would come to pass?

His faith was in God. Perhaps His personal knowledge of Himself affected His faith. Which should also reflect on us. Who are WE in Christ? Who are WE in relation to God? He was THE Son of God and we are THE sons of God. I am A son of God, by adoption. Jesus is THE Son of God birth.

Right. This natures statement is in reference to the person of Christ.

"but two natures unified in one indivisible person."

It's a statement concerning the intrinsic union of the divinity and humanity of Christ - not about the "father and the Son" per se.

Prax...

The trinitarians do not acknowledge three gods. They acknowledge three persons in one God as you well know. But, oneness theologians have to be a little different in order to draw the distinctions. Hence, the "nature" phenomona. Oneness theologians acknowledge two natures (persons to the trinitarians) in One God.

What makes a man is his nature. What makes a horse a horse is its nature. If you had a man and a horse in one hypostatic union as in one entity, you would have a very UNnatural thing. You would have to resort to Greek mythology to find such a thing. Pegasus, the son of Poseidon comes to mind.

Whether you say nature or person, you are saying basically the same thing. The Trinis ackowledge three, most oneness acknowledge two. I acknowledge ONLY ONE GOD HAVING ONLY ONE NATURE. Jesus Christ is that ONE God.

The debate that arose concerning Christology in the 3rd and 4th centuries gave rise to a word that is as mysterious to them as it is false doctrine to me. The word is "hypostatic" union. The trinitarians call it a mystery. Of course, the Oneness have a "revelation."

A NATURE is not a person. It is the nature of certain apples to be red. Is red a person?

There is no binitarianism in the two nature concept, Bro. LOL NATURE has to be distorted into sheer nonsense to be considered a "person."

Humanity required faith -- even in Christ. Jesus LEARNED obedience by the things he suffered. He BECAME PERFECT. See Hebrews 5. Deity cannot do that since it is always and forever perfect and omniscient.

People need to learn about the genuine huamnity of Jesus.

I agree. Nature is what makes a person, a person.

Exactly. NATURE is the CHARACTERISTICS of a person and not the person itself. So you are right on the money!

When someone has a nasty nature, "nasty" is not a person. lol

The NATURE of humanity is what makes HUMANS different from other beings. Humans have certain qualities that other beings do not have, or else they would be humans, too.

If a being has the charactersitics that are privy to HUMAN BEINGS, then that being can only be a HUMAN BEING with HUMAN NATURE.

God does not have the nature of being physical. He manifested IN the physical form of flesh, but was not flesh. God is a SPIRIT. Whatever was around for all eternity past possesses DIVINE NATURE, since nobody else is eternal except God.

So if Christ presently has a physical presence, then that is something that is not of the nature of deity, but some other nature. And since present humanity has FALLEN NATURE, his present state is not the same. But since WE SHALL BE LIKE HE IS when He appears again in the rapture, and our bodies shall be CHANGED to be like His, then whatever you call the NATURE we possess at that time is what nature he presently possesses as to SONSHIP. And I wholly believe it is UNFALLEN HUMAN NATURE, but STILL HUMAN NATURE. And because it is God's PERSON in that flesh, and not two persons, then the Son has divine nature and human nature STILL!

His present nature as per his flesh is what God willed for ADAM before ADAM FELL. And Adam was nothing other than HUMAN! :)

But Did not The Word become flesh ? I understood God became humanity without dimishing His diety ?

The WORD WAS MADE flesh in this manner alone:

God was not the tabernacle in the Old testament any more than He was flesh in Christ. The way John tells us to understand how He was flesh was in QUALIFYING THAT STATEMENT by saying HE DWELT or TABERNACLED IN FLESH.

I could not say that God became humanity.

As I stated before, no. This is incorrect. nature is NOT person. Trinitarians teach three PERSONS who all possess the same nature, not the same kind of nature.

Person is WHO one is and nature is WHAT one is. Jesus possessing two natures does not make him Two persons. However anyone that tries to make two persons out of the two natures is what we call a Nestorian
Again, the problem is I don't say "nature or person". They are NOT equal terms. Trinitarians don't say "nature or person" they say "person" and "nature" like you saying "horse" and "Human". They don't mean the same thing. OPs believe that God is ONE in person and One in Divine nature and that He, at the incarnation, added a human nature to His own person...making him also Human

The word nature simply means the charactoristics that makes one what they are

The word hypostasis simply refers to the person of God. The union is when that person because human at the incarnation. That word is a greek word and is used in the bible in Hebrews 1:3

Nature is what makes a person the KIND Of person they are.

Even rocks have nature...

I think I kinda said that......LOL!

Kinda, but not exactly. That's why I reworded it

Without nature, a person wouldn't be a person!

That makes me right too! LOL!

I am not an expert on all of the theological terminology, but I think all this talk about nature is misguided. God is spirit. God breathed into Adam His Spirit. All humans are body, soul and spirit. The spirit of man (conscience) is part of God's nature in us. We also have the fallen nature of Adam (flesh). We have at least 2 natures in us. (Romans 8) Christ was human, but did not have the fallen nature of Adam. He did have the will of the flesh. "not my will, but Thine be done" Christ had 2 natures, human and spirit, just as we do, yet without sin. ie his human nature was not subject to sin or death. He was the new Adam.

LOL....this is funny.

Red is the nature of an apple. Hard is the nature of a rock. White and fluffy is the nature of a cumulus cloud. Ugly is the nature of a frog. Hahaha...

But red is only a part of the nature of an apple, Hard is only a part of the nature of a rock, white and fluffy is only a part of the nature of a cumulus clud, ugly is only a part of the nature of a frog.

Leave out any element of the nature of man, you would have NO MAN. A man is a spirit, he has a soul and he lives in a body. That is the nature of man. He is unique in his nature. There is nothing like a man, but he is not divine. Only God is divine. When we speak of "the man Christ Jesus" as the mediator between God and man, we are not speaking of another entity, we are speaking of the mediatorial, sacrifical role as the Son of God, God's lamb. This is an age lasting office that will be surrendered when there is no longer any need of that office.

I understand the "part" teachings of Blume. It aint so. Jesus is not PART anything. His nature IS DIVINE. His natue is not part divine. His nature is wholy divine. He is not part God. He is wholy God. He is not part God and part man. He is wholy God.

Hypostatic Union doctrine is a contrivance of trinitarian thought. I do not subscribe to it as to it as all trinitiarians and most oneness do to explan a supposed corporeal union.

The Trinitarians have the proper understanding of the "kenosis" but only as it pertains to the second person of the Godhead. Most oneness theologians never understood it at all. Hence, much of their thinking is little more than Arianism.

Exactly. lol. But there are many who change the definitions of words at whim. And they often become personality-distraught and attack people as time continues in such discussions.

I think the above bolded part is worded wrong, compared to the other comments made. Yes, hardness is part of the rock's nature, just like being divinity was part of the nature of Jesus. This doesn't mean he's part divinity anymore than a rock is partly hard. See what I mean in that?

However, I don't believe being God was a nature of Jesus, as He is God. Having divine natures is what makes Him God just like having emotions are what make us human.

You hit the nail on the head. RIGHT! A PERSON is not part of a nature. A NATURE is PART of a person!!! Jesus is "PART" OF NOTHING!

Emotions alone make us human?

I don't think so.

Having divine nature(s) is what makes Him God? Just how many divine natures would you propose that he had (past tense) or has (present tense)?

I didn't say emotions alone. But those are part of our nature.

There are divine natures that are what make God, God. Attributes that differ from human natures.