Category Archives: Questions and Answers

The Lord Jesus Christ – One Person, Two Natures

Posted on by
1

Pastor John, when the second Person of the Trinity (identified as “the Word” in John 1:1) became flesh (John 1:14) did this signify a change in the Godhead in some way? I have heard more than one preacher say that in becoming man, He laid aside His divine characteristics such as omnipresence (being everywhere present) and omniscience (knowing all things). Is this true?

Thanks for writing in. The answer is a resounding “no” to both of your questions. The Godhead has not changed one iota and never will. God is both eternal and immutable (unchanging). Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.” I would also say that Christ in no way laid aside His divine attributes at any time (though by becoming a man, those attributes were veiled to us).

Its important to know that these kind of questions are not new to our generation, but Christian scholars throughout the centuries have grappled with them and found biblical answers. To combat the gross heresy that was seeking to gain inroads in the Church, Christian leaders met together at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, to search the Bible and properly define what we call “the hypostatic union” – the union of the two natures of Christ. Here at this Council (based on the revelation of Scripture) Jesus Christ was declared to be one Person with two natures, one that is fully human and one that is fully Divine. These two natures are united in the one Person. These natures can be distinguished from each other but never separated. How exactly this union of the two natures takes place is very much a mystery but it is certainly the case. Colossians 2:9 tells us that Christ is the fullness of Deity in bodily form.

The statement of the council was:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people 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 [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto 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, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (?? ??? ??????? ?????????, ????????, ??????????, ????????? – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and 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 has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The human nature of Jesus is not half human and half divine, but fully human. Likewise, the Divine nature of Christ is not half Divine and half human, but fully Divine. The human nature has the attributes of human-ness; the divine nature has all the attributes of Deity.

John Calvin in addressing this, once wrote:

“[Although] the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be home in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning!” [Institutes, 2:13:4.]

Knowing this helps us enormously as we read the New Testament. Often we see statements that could only be true of the human nature of Christ. We read that He increased in wisdom, He was hungry, tired, and so on. We are even told that He did not know the date of His second coming and only His Father did. Here we have a statament that would not be true of Him as to His Deity, for as God, He knew all things; and therefore it is a reference to His humanity, where the attribute of Deity (in this case omniscience) did not communicate that knowledge to His human nature. Jesus was omniscient with respect to His divine nature but temporal and changeable with respect to his human nature.

Another evidence of the humanity of Jesus is the fact that He died. Preachers often mistakenly say that God died on the cross, and some hymns even say this. I am sure we have all heard the hymn that declares, “Amazing love, how can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me” but were that to happen in reality, the whole Universe would be destroyed. That is because as God, all things are held together in Him. The Universe would not exist for even a second if God died. No, it is totally impossible for God to die. Jesus died as pertaining to His humanity, not His deity.

This is all extremely mysterious of course, but what the Council of Chalcedon did not remove this mystery. However, it did show us the boundaries regarding orthodoxy, as to what is orthodoxy and what is heresy. When we seek to go beyond Chalcedon’s declarations, to use the expression of one scholar, “we simply choose our heresy.” In that sense, Chalcedon was a “terminal” council in the sense that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to state how the two natures function in Christ’s one Person with any more precision that the council has stated.

What adds to the mystery is that we are not aware of anything in this earthly realm that is fully one thing while at the same time fully something else. That’s why all earthly analogies fail.

I did read recently of one attempt though, that probably gets us as close as possible to being a good analogy, though even here, it is flawed. James Anderson from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina wrote:

“An analogy (albeit an imperfect one) may help to clarify this distinction. In the movie Avatar the protagonist, Jake Sully, is enlisted to operate a Na’vi-human hybrid body. Given the close mental connection between Sully and his ‘avatar’—he acts and experiences everything through that body—we might well say that he inhabits the hybrid body and that he now has two bodies. So consider this question: Can Sully run? Well, yes and no. He can’t run with respect to human body (he’s a paraplegic) but he can run with respect to his avatar body. Similarly, we can say that Jesus was resurrected with respect to his human nature but not with respect to his divine nature. Only in his humanity did he undergo change.”

If we can use our imagination for a moment and picture Jesus, shortly after His birth, it would be true to say that humanly speaking, He was fragile as He was being held in the arms of his mother; yet if we could peer for a moment beyond the physical, Jesus as God, was holding not only His mother, but every cell and atom together in this Universe. Talking of Christ, Colossians 1:16, 17 says:

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

He is the Creator of all things and in Him all things hold together. That’s quite a thought isn’t it?

The last point I would make in all this is in reference to the Roman Catholic teaching of the Mass, where the belief is that the bread becomes the literal body, blood and divinity of Christ. This doctrine has many severe problems with it, not the least being that this is a denial of the Chalcedon statement because it would mean that Christ’s literal body is in more than one place at a time. If the mass is celebrated at a Church on 4th street, it cannot also be on 48th Street or 5th Avenue at the same time, and certainly not also in England, Australia and China. The human nature is human, with its many limitations, one of them being that it is always localized in one place.

What is amazing though is that when Christ was walking the streets of Jerusalem as to His humanity, in His Divinity, He was everywhere present, without any limitations. Such is the case today. The body of Jesus is at the right hand of His Father on the throne of the Universe, and yet, He is near to us and everywhere present with us in His Divinity. That is why the Reformers believed that in celebrating the Lord’s Supper Christ is fully present with us spiritually (rather than physically).

Jesus said, “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:20) What a comfort this is. He is present with us even now. Talk to Him and enjoy sweet fellowship with the Master.

For more insight regarding the Incarnation and what it means, here is a very helpful article by Dr. James White entitled, “Beyond the Veil of Eternity.” I recommend it very highly. Dr. White deals especially with the Philippians 2 passages where it states He “emptied Himself,” not by losing anything essential to the divine nature, but (as the text says) by “taking the form of a servant.” This meant an addition, not a subtraction. A short article by Phil Johnson is also noteworthy, found here.

Contradictions?

Posted on by
Reply

Question: Why does the Bible say that Mary Magdalene and another Mary discovered the empty tomb, while another Gospel says that only Mary did, while another says that Simon joined them? This to me seems like inaccuracies in the Bible.

Lee Strobel answers:

It’s important to clarify between a biblical inaccuracy (what others often call a contradiction) and what a Gospel writer simply chose to include or emphasize in his account. A contradiction is to affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect. A contradiction regarding the eyewitness testimony cited would be, for instance, that “only Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb” – something no Gospel writers say – and “Mary and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) went to the empty tomb.

To shed a bit more light on the biblical passage you cited, John mentions only Mary Magdalene explicitly at the tomb in his Gospel (John 20:1). But if we read carefully we see in the next verse (20:2) that Mary tells Peter, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb but we don’t know where they have put him!” This supports the other Gospels when they say that other women went to the tomb with Mary, perhaps following closely behind. As the NIV Study Bible says, the we “indicates that there were others with Mary (see Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10), though John does not identify them.” So when John wrote his Gospel, he only mentions one woman by name but uses the plural pronoun “we” to indicate that others were with her.

Further, if the Gospel writers, two of whom were among the Twelve disciples of Jesus, wanted to fabricate a story about the resurrected Christ, it is unthinkable that they would have put women at the tomb first. It is well established that a woman’s testimony in the ancient world was generally not considered to be credible and that they were for the most part not allowed to testify in a court of law. See, for instance, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig.

Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”

Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.

In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not. Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.

Questions and Answers with David Murray

Posted on by
Reply

(1) “Why does God seem so different in the Old Testament than He does in the New Testament?”
(2) “Do Christians today have the obey the Old Testament laws?”
(3) “How does God’s sovereignty work with our free will?”
(4) “Is Christianity responsible for the Crusades?”
(5) “Is it ok to let my children have facebook pages?”

In these very short videos below, starting with:

(1) “Why does God seem so different in the Old Testament than He does in the New Testament?”

(2) “Do Christians today have the obey the Old Testament laws?”

(3) “How does God’s sovereignty work with our free will?” Continue reading →

You have come to Mount Zion

Posted on by
1

Pastor John, could you explain the term “Zion”? The word seems to mean different things in the Bible.

You are right in suggesting that the word “Zion” has different meanings. The word has undergone a progressive series of usage as the Bible has unfolded.

The first time “Zion” is mentioned in Scripture is 2 Samuel 5:7 where we are told, “David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David).” The New Illustrated Bible Dictionary says, “Zion… was the name of the ancient Jebusite fortress situated on the southeast hill of Jerusalem at the junction of the Kidron Valley and the Tyropoeon Valley. The name came to stand not only for the fortress but also for the hill on which the fortress stood. After David captured “the stronghold of Zion” by defeating the Jebusites, he called Zion “the city of David” (1 Kings 8:1; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 5:2).”

Later on, Solomon built the awesome Temple structure on Mount Moriah (not the same hill as Zion) and moved the ark of the covenant there. This brought a new use to the word Zion as indicating the Temple itself and the surrounding area. Certain Psalms tells us this (2:6; 48:2; 11-12; 132:13).

It was not long until Zion became synonymous as a name for the city of Jerusalem, the land belonging to Judah and for the people of Israel. Isaiah 40:9 says, “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!”” Zech 9:13 speaks of the people of God as “the sons of Zion” indicating that the word had come to designate the entire people of Israel (Isa 60:14).

Zion is called the dwelling place of God (Psalm 9:11). The entire Psalm 48 is a song of celebration concerning Zion being the city of God. The first three verses read, “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God! His holy mountain, beautiful in elevation, is the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King. Within her citadels God has made himself known as a fortress.”

Psalm 132: 13,14 – “For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: “This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”

Joel 3: 17 – “So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who dwells in Zion, my holy mountain.”

There are at least then four uses of the word found in Scripture. Zion is a hill in Jerusalem; the city of Jerusalem itself; the people of God, as well as the dwelling place of God.

How do we determine how the word is being used in our Bibles? The answer is that whenever we encounter the word “Zion,” the context will tell us which usage is in play.

Having said all this, the New Testament gives us added insight into the word. In a passage in Hebrews 12 we are told:

“18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”

What a revelation this is concerning what is taking place as we gather as the people of God. When we come together in worship on earth, we are also entering sacred space, into heaven itself, joining with Old testament saints, New testament saints, and all the holy angels, and into the immediate presence of God Himself… all are present in heavenly Zion.

Though a Church service may have only a few present in earth, it is actually a joining together of all the saints, for in the spiritual realm, there are always millions present – we join the heavenly host – the saints of all ages and the heavenly host of countless angels in festal array – in worship to our God.

In this sense, this is not heaven coming down to earth, but the exact opposite. Throughout the centuries, the Christian community have not always been the power players ina society. Certainly that is the case in many parts of the world today. The people of God have met (and continue to meet) in very mundane surroundings, perhaps few in number, huddled together under the threat of persecution and great affliction. Yet, when the local Church gathers, rather than heaven coming down, God allows the often tired earthly pilgrims to enter sacred space – for while physically present on earth, we join the heavenly choir.

As we gather as the local Church, our meeting may take place in a cathedral, with its grandiose architecture and splendor; or it might be in a hewn out cavern, in a barn or in the woods, and yet each of us join the gathered community in heaven, joining the service already in progress, in worship of our great King.

One day heaven will come down. Rev 21, 22 shows us that. But now, as we gather together to worship, we the Church enter sacred, holy, heavenly space. We have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God.

May this knowledge stir our hearts to join with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; with Daniel, David, Moses and Isaiah, all in the worship of God. May we join with Ruth and Mary and Hannah; with Zechariah, Samson, Peter and Paul, Barnabas and John; with Polycarp and Jerome, with Athanasias and Augustine; with Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards and Spurgeon; with Gabriel, Michael and all the holy angels; and with loved ones who have gone on to glory before us who stand in the presence of God – thousands upon thousands, and thousands upon thousands more. Lets join them in song, even now… we have come to Zion for this very purpose; to proclaim the praises of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvellous light.

The Sovereignty Bible Test

Posted on by
1

“Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the peoples of the world revere Him. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm. The LORD foils the plans of the nations; He thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever; the purposes of His heart through all generations.” – Psalm 33:8-11

“Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” – Isaiah 46:10-12

“Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, ‘Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.'” – Revelation 19:6

I found this test (below) on a blog site on the internet, where it indicated that it had gotten the test from another place, and when I went there, it said the same exact thing. Where it originally came from, I dont know. It remains something of a mystery!

Before each question there is a verse of Scripture. If you look at each verse, the answers become very clear. Having said that, the ramifications concerning what the answers mean are quite profound.

God bless, – Pastor John

Read: Eph 1:11 – “him (God) who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”

1. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, how much does He work to the will of you, me, Satan, etc.?

A. None.

B. 20%

C. 50%

D. 85%

Read: Isaiah 14:24 The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.”

2. How much of what He purposes to come to pass, doesn’t? Continue reading →

1 John 2:2 (Revisited)

Posted on by
1

You say that Christ died for His people, His sheep, His friends, for His Church and yet 1 John 2:2, speaking of Jesus, states, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” How do you explain that?

I can certainly see how someone would use this verse to undermine the reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption, yet Scripture, I believe, is not contradictory to itself. There is one Divine Author of Scripture and He does not contradict Himself. So how are we to understand 1 John 2:2?

I have written elsewhere about the principles of correct interpretation of scripture. There is only one correct interpretation of scripture. Though there may be many applications of a verse, it only means what it was intended to mean when it was written.

In my article entitled “Playing Marbles with Diamonds” I refer to a number of principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), three of which would apply here:

1. Consider the Author – who wrote the book? (what was his background, language, culture, vocation, concerns, education, circumstance, what stage of life?)

2. Consider the Audience (why was the book written? who was the audience? what would these words have meant to its original recipients?) Continue reading →

Understanding Romans 8:1

Posted on by
2

Pastor John, I am confused. Romans 8:1 tells me that the one in Christ Jesus is no longer under condemnation and yet when I read the King James Version, that is not the case. My heart sinks to think that I have to live a life pleasing to God “in the Spirit” before I can be certain of my standing with God. I can never look at my life for even a day and say I am fully walking “after the Spirit.” I have anxious thoughts and sin is sadly a daily reality in my life. I can really identify with Paul’s struggle against sin in Romans chapter 7. Yet it would seem that Paul’s whole message of justification by faith alone would be destroyed if the King James Version rendering of the Romans 8:1 verse is correct. What is going on? Can you provide any insight here?

Your question is a very important one. Yes, I do believe I can help.

You are right. If the King James Version rendering of Romans 8:1 is correct, then our standing with God is based upon our performance rather than by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The King James Version is an excellent translation normally, but in this particular verse, it gets it wrong and the consequences can indeed be tragic.

One would have thought that his error would have been corrected when the New King James Bible was introduced some years back. However, this is not the case. A marginal note does explain the issue but the text itself remains unchanged from the King James’ rendering.

Without getting too technical, the King James Version and New King James Version are excellent translations of an inferior Greek text. Scholarship has advanced dramatically in the last 400 years (since the KJV was produced) and the newer translations such as the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version (and others) eliminate the problem by using a much more reliable Greek text as a source. Continue reading →

Assurance about lost loved ones

Posted on by
7

How does knowledge of the doctrine of election encourage/help those who are praying for lost loved ones? So many times, when discussing this doctrine for the first time, people feel discouraged and even desperate over the fact that someone that they love may or may not be elect. How can the truth of God’s election encourage someone who is praying that God will save a loved one?

I would like to answer your question by telling you a story from history. In the 4th century, there was a very devout Christian lady named Monica. She was married to a prominent man who did not share her Christian faith. He was often very cruel to her, causing her physical abuse. Every day she would go to the church and pray for his conversion. Later on in his life, he did in fact become a Christian.

Yet the pain and anguish her husband caused her seemingly paled into insignificance compared to that which she suffered because of her oldest son. Her mother’s heart was broken, time after time, seeing the reckless life her son was leading. He not only did not share his mother’s faith but would join himself to anti-Christian groups, using his sharp mind to seek to convince others to follow him. He lived a very immoral life. He had a mistress but left her for another and had a son born out of wedlock, named Adeodatus. Monica was not personally able to convince her son of the truth claims of Christianity, but she determined never to stop praying that he would turn to the Lord. Continue reading →

Q & A with Dr. R. C. Sproul and Ligonier Teaching Fellows

Posted on by
Reply

Watch as R.C. Sproul and Ligonier Teaching Fellows Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, Steven Lawson, and R.C. Sproul Jr. engage in this round-table discussion (held on Thursday, May 19, 2011) covering topics such as dispensationalism, regeneration, sanctification, election, evangelism, the authority and inerrancy of Scripture and Harold Camping. Less than an hour in length, this video is very highly recommended.

Only the Father knows…

Posted on by
2

Matthew 24:36 says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

This seems to be problematic, for if there is something the Son does not know, would this not indicate to us that he is not omniscient (all knowing)? God is all knowing and yet this tells us that there is something Christ did not know. Pastor John, how do we reconcile this verse with the Christian concept of the Deity of Christ?

Thank you for your question. The verse is often raised by those in the cults who openly deny Christ’s Deity. However, a very satisfactory biblical answer to the question emerges when we understand and embrace some good theology.

The Council of Chalcedon (in 451 AD) outlined what theologians refer to as “the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.” This Council is one of the great Ecumenical Councils accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant Christian churches. It provides a clear statement as to what orthodox Christians believe concerning the Person of Christ, drawn of course, from the Biblical text. Translated into English it reads:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

These are intentionally very precise theological statements. It is vitally important we get this right. Heresy awaits all who would veer from this safe biblical position. At Chalcedon it was affirmed that Christ was “perfect/complete in Godhood also perfect/complete in manhood, truly God and truly man.”

Christ is one Person with two natures, a human nature and a Divine nature. The full attributes of deity and the full attributes of humanity were both preserved without mixture or confusion. Christ does not have one nature which is a mixture of divine and human. No, He is fully God and fully man – one Person, with two natures. The human nature remains human with all the attributes of human-ness. The Divine nature remains divine and possesses and maintains all of the attributes of divinity.

In the Incarnation, the second person of the Godhead became a man. Colossians 2:9 says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

Regarding his humanity, Jesus learned about the world around him just as other children would do. Scripture tells us that he grew and became strong (Luke 3:23); there were times when he was thirsty (John 19:28), hungry (Matt 4:2) and was weary (John 4:6). These things show the humanity of Christ rather than His deity. God is never weary, thirsty or hungry. On the other hand, Jesus was also fully God, and, as God, he had infinite knowledge (cf. John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Continue reading →