The Defense of the Hypostatic Union

Introduction

In the 5th century at the council of Ephesus Nestorius, Arch Bishop of Constantinople, argued that a divine nature cannot be born. Nestorius believed that Christ had two hypostases.[1]  He believed that Christ was born as any human would be, but that His divine nature was one hypostases and his human side was another hypostases, instead of the historical orthodox position as two natures in one man, a single hypostases. Nestorius, in 431 AD, was later considered a heretic after his doctrine, better known as Nestorianism, was rejected by the church council. If history has shown us anything is that it tends to repeat itself. The same arguments have rose up on numerous occasions that are against high Christology.  Because of this,  it’s up to the believer in Christ to be able to defend against such arguments. The goal is to present a proper understanding of the hypostatic union and a defense of this doctrine in hopes that false accusations of the person of Christ will be successfully refuted”.

The Hypostatic Union

Athanasius, in his work title “Incarnation,” states, “The body, fashioned from the virgin, in which the Word dwells, as seen in the light of his passion, cannot be separated from the body of Christ, that is, those who by faith in the cross are no longer subject to the corruption of death.”[2] This statement by the early church father, and primary defender of the hypostatic union; whose name is used in the title of the creed that affirms this union, clearly gives the understanding that Christ human/divine natures were needed so that the plan of salvation would be completed. Additionally, the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ as being fully God and fully man in one person.[3] Christ hypostatic Union has many implications. It is this topic of high Christology that brings all the other doctrinal teachings together. To get a better understanding of this doctrine it is only fair that we examine each of the natures of Christ separately.

Christ Human Side

Beginning with the human side of Christ, we of course have to consider the virgin birth of Christ. Better known as the Immaculate Conception, it is the orthodox teaching that Christ was born of a virgin (Mary) and was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This action was accomplished by non-human interaction, but was a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit.[4] Matthew 1:18-25 tells the complete account of the birth of Christ. The text clearly teaches in Matt 1:18 that “before they (Joseph and Mary) came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”[5] Moreover, we see that Joseph, through a dream, is told that what’s conceived in Mary is of the Holy Spirit, and the child’s name shall be called Jesus because He will save His people. According to Wayne Grudem Ph. D., the virgin birth has 3 major important aspects to it. (1) It shows that ultimately salvation must come from God.

According to Grudem, the virgin birth perfectly shows that human affair is not needed to accomplish the goals of God.[6] Salvation only comes through the supernatural work of God and not of human action.[7](2) The virgin birth made possible the uniting of full deity and full humanity in one person. This helps us grasp Christ human side. It gives us fallible humans the understanding that Christ was born a human, and He can understand our problems and failures.  (3)The virgin birth also makes possible Christ’s true humanity without inherited sin.[8] The fact that Christ was not born of a human father the inherited sin that has affected all of humanity has been at least temporarily interrupted by the birth of Christ. In Christ human side we see the same limitations that come with fallible man. He was thirsty (John 19:28), was hungry (Matt 4:2), was tired (John 4:6), grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52). In all these area’s we see human areas of struggle and or mental capacities, but yet Christ was sinless.

Lastly, Christ being born of a virgin in the same way all humans are born makes Him an all sufficient savior. Stephen J. Wellum Ph. D. states, “Without the eternal Son’s fully human birth, growth, and development, we would not have an all-sufficient Savior whose sacrificial death achieved for us the full forgiveness of our sins and whose sympathetic service helps us to walk in the power of that forgiveness.”[9] For the elect in Christ to really grasp forgiveness and understand what Christ went through in order to fulfill the plan of the Father the human side needed to be put on full display. This display of weakness and frailty made Him an all sufficient savior, which enables the believer to understand and believe who Christ claimed to be.

Christ Divine Side

Christ divinity is the area where much more debate is encountered. Many believe that Christ was a real historical person, but not many believe that He was the Son of God and or God in human flesh. This area is highly contested even though scriptural evidence points to His divine nature. John 1:1 states in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. In the Greek we read:

“Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

En arch en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon kai Thoes en ho Logos

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word.”

The nature of the Greek translation of this verse clearly states that Christ is God “Theos exist/ is Logos” or God is the Word.  Many would attempt to place the article “a” before theos to make God and Word interchangeable, but anyone who prescribes to this misses the point of what John is saying. Dr. James White Ph. D. argues, “If John had put the article before theos, he would have been teaching modalism, the belief that one person sometimes acts like the Father, and sometime the Son and sometimes the Holy Spirit.”[10] John and the other authors of the scriptures taught a Trinitarian understanding of God (Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8 and 2 Peter 1:1). The text clearly teaches that Jesus Christ (the Logos) is God (Theos), which points to Christ relationship to the Father, which further points to His divine nature as it concerns the hypostatic union.

Additionally, we also read in John 8:58 that Christ, in speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees, states, “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” This statement is an exact reflection on Exodus 3:14, in where, God revealed His real name (Yahweh) or “I AM WHO I AM” to Moses at the burning bush. John MacArthur M.Div. states, “Here Jesus declared Himself to be Yahweh, i.e., the Lord of the OT. Basic to the expression are such passages as Ex 3: 14, where God declared Himself to be the eternally pre-existent God who revealed Himself in the OT to the Jews.”[11] Jesus Christ declares Himself “The Lord (Yahweh)” in front of those who would know exactly what “I am” is referring to. Even more interesting is that following this statement of divinity the Jews and teachers of the Law picked up stones to throw at Him( John 8:59), pushing the narrative that Jesus is God even further.

Furthermore, Richard Bauckham Ph. D. adds,” Such identifications of YHWH are extremely common in Second Temple Jewish literature. They were the simplest and clearest way of answering the question, what distinguishes YHWH, the only true God, from all other reality? In what does his uniqueness consist? These characteristics make a clear and absolute distinction between the true God and all other reality.”[12] They would not have attempted to stone Christ if He did not say something that was considered blasphemy, which in the case calling Himself God. Christ is both human and God. He has two natures in one hypostatic union. Though the scriptures show clear evidence of such a union, there are still arguments that have been formulated that insist that the orthodox position on the person and nature of Christ is not what the Bible teaches.

Objections to the Hypostatic Union

The first objection to the hypostatic union comes by way of the kenotic theory, which argues that it’s contradictory for Christ to be both God and man. Additionally, Christ was fully divine before the incarnation, but divested Himself of exercising certain divine power or prerogatives because they were incompatible with a human being. John Walvoord Ph. D. states, “The act of kenosis…may be properly understood to mean that Christ surrendered no attribute of Deity, but that He did voluntarily restrict their independent use in keeping with His purpose of living among men and their limitations.”[13] The word kenosis means literally to empty, so the contention is in what way did Christ empty Himself, was it the orthodox view of Christ emptying Himself or was it a total separation of the divine side from His humanity?

Those who argue for the second option tend to use Philippians 2:7-8 as proof text: “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” The kenosis theorist would argue that this is clear indication that Christ totally separated His divine side from His human side, there was no combination of the two natures after He was born. The problem with this assertion is that it fails to consider proper exegesis. To be clear, the orthodox position of the hypostatic union does not deny a form of kenosis took place, but it’s the degree of the kenosis that is the distinctions between the orthodox position and the heretical position. Paul in Phil 2 is addressing the church of Philippi and encouraging to be Christ like in their behavior. In so doing this, Paul explains that Christ emptied Himself becoming a bondservant and in the likeness of man in appearance.

All this is said so that the saint of God would understand that Christ, being God, humbled Himself and so should the believer also humble him or herself in the presence of God.  Looking at verse 6 we read Paul fully affirming the full deity of Christ, “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Paul usage of “being” is interesting. The Greek term for “being” (ὑπαρχων/huparchōn)[14] is in the present, active participle, which gives a clear understanding that not only was Christ God before the incarnation in eternity past, but He was God after the incarnation as well. Gerald Peterman Ph. D. of Moody Bible Institute states, “The Son— the second person of the Trinity— existed from eternity in the form of God (v. 6a). Form sometimes means “the nature or character of something,” and does not imply mere appearance; rather, the use of this word later (v. 7) and the parallel with the phrase equality with God, show that being in God’s form means that Jesus is in very nature God (NIV).”[15] The context of the text points to Christ being God. Christ being God was not something He was grasping for, but that He already had. He was God in human flesh before and after the incarnation.

One more objection to consider is that it’s a contradiction to say Jesus Christ has two wills. The Bible clearly teaches that within this hypostatic union we see two wills in one person (Matt 26:39 humans will, John 2:19 divine will). Because Christ has taken the form of humanity He is able to make human decisions, but this does not take away from His divinity, as in, Him being God and man and having a divine will. Both the human will and divine will are within the one person Jesus Christ. Henry C. Thiessen Ph. D. writes, “Though there are two natures, there is but one person.  And though the attributes of one nature are not to be attributed to the other nature, the two natures are attributed to the one person.”[16] Moreover, this human/divine will that Christ has is what makes the orthodox understating of kenosis possible. Macleod states:

“A metaphysical distinction between the will of Jesus and the will of the Father, but also the logical possibility that Jesus’ natural preferences (based on personal self-interest) might not always coincide with the wishes of the Father. Indeed, it is this fact which creates the whole possibility of kenōsis or self-emptying. The Servant consults not his own interests but the interests of others (Phil. 2: 4). This climaxes in Gethsemane, where the dilemma becomes almost unbearably acute.”[17]

Macleod, correctly leans into the idea that Christ anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane was one that perfectly displayed His human will to do as the Father desires. Christ, before He was going to be apprehended and hung on the cross, displays the human conflict to save Himself or do as the Father would desire for Him to do (Matt 26:39). Christ, while sweating drops of blood, deals with this anguish and battle of the wills.  At the end, in His human will, He submits to the will of the Father. But interesting enough Christ displays His divine will by abandoning some of His divine nature to accomplish the overall plan of God in salvation (2 Corinth 8:9; Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3; 8:3; 1 Tim 3:16).  In this one instance we see both wills, human and divine, in play in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Conclusion

In closing, it is clear that those who try to define the nature and person of Christ in a way that is contrary to scripture cannot sustain their position. The hypostatic union, when under stood with the proper idea of kenosis and scriptural exegesis shows that Christ voluntarily emptied Himself, which shows both His human side and divine side in one hypostases. Additionally, the faulty assertion that two wills is a contradiction cannot withstand scriptural scrutiny. It has been shown that two wills can properly fit into the orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union, not presenting any contradictions. Thus, the thesis, “to present a proper understanding of the hypostatic union and a defense of this doctrine in hopes that false accusations of the person of Christ will be successfully refuted”, has been effectively completed. This subject matter will continuously rear its head in the face of the Christian. The hope is that continuous studies will be done in other areas of high Christology to be able to defend the person of Christ. It is the job of the believer that Christ is preached and represented with the highest regard of His person and nature.

[1] E. A Livingstone, Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press, 2013), 631.

[2] Saint Athanasius, On the Incarnation (Yonkers: NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1944) 437.

[3] Wayne A Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan, 2008), 530.

[4] Ibid., 530.

[5] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New American Standard Bible.

[6]. Wayne A Grudem, Systematic Theology, 530.

[7] Ibid., 530.

[8] Ibid., 530.

[9] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton: IL: Crossway, 2016), Location 6002. Kindle.

[10] James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: MN: Bethany House Publishes 1998) 54.

[11] John MacArthur, John: The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville: TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005), Location 212192. Kindle.

[12]Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) Location 2318. Kindle.

[13] John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord: The Doctrine of Christ (Chicago: IL: Moody Publishers, 1969)144.

[14] William Mounce, Mounces Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan. 2006) 1297.

[15]Gerald Peterman, Philippians: Moody Bible Commentary (Chicago: IL: Moody Publishers, 2014). Location 74457. Kindle.

[16]  Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), 223.

[17] Donald Macleod, Person of Christ (Downers Grove:IL, InterVarsity Press, 1998)179.