The
Hypostatic
(And Logical
Problems related to the
Steven R. Cook
Introduction
The doctrine of
the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus Christ is both undiminished deity and
unfallen humanity combined together forever in one person. The theanthropic person is one hundred
percent God, and at the same time one hundred percent man. Though the emphasis is usually on the union
between the two natures, it is apparent from Scripture that there were times
when Jesus spoke only from His humanity, such as when He was thirsty (John
19:28) or hungry (Matthew 4:2), or only from His deity, such as when He forgave
sins (Mark 2:5-7) or referred to Himself as the great “I Am” (John 8:58), or
from both natures simultaneously when speaking as the unique mediator between
God and man (John 14:6; 1 Timothy 1:5).
The unified
division that exists in the theanthropic nature of Jesus Christ is
perplexing. How can there be unity
between two distinct natures? How can
Jesus be both all-knowing and not knowing, everywhere and at one particular place,
all-powerful and helpless? The purpose
of this paper is to address some of the conflicts related to the hypostatic
union, and specifically, issues related to divine and human knowledge. Effort will be made to keep both natures of
the hypostatic union undiminished and unconfused so that Jesus is not viewed as
schizophrenic.
The Hypostatic
The
term Hypostatic is derived from hypostasis, which word, according
to the Standard Dictionary, means “The mode of being by which any substantial
existence is given to any independent and distinct individuality.” Thus it
follows that a union of hypostasis is a union of natures that are within
themselves independent and distinct. The expression Hypostatic Union is
distinctly theological and is applicable only to Christ in whom, as in no
other, two distinct and dissimilar natures are united.1
The
biune nature of Jesus Christ is a revealed mystery; that is, Scripture reveals
that Jesus Christ is both God and man, yet this revelation leaves much that is
unanswered and perplexing to the human mind.
The doctrine of the unfallen humanity and full deity of Jesus Christ was
a hot topic during the first few centuries of the church, and did not get
hammered out until the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.
In Christology, the Council of Chalcedon (451)
distinguished between the one hypostasis
of Christ’s incarnate being and the two physeis, ‘natures’ (divine and human), which were united in
what Alexandrian theologians called ‘the hypostatic union’.2
The
doctrine basically states that “the Lord Jesus Christ is one person with two
natures indissolubly united, the one nature being that of the eternal Son of
God, the other that of man, in all respects human.”3 Dr.
Paul Enns helps develop this definition by stating:
The two natures of Christ are inseparably united without mixture
or loss of separate identity. He remains forever the God-man, fully God and
fully man, two distinct natures in one Person forever. Though Christ sometimes
operated in the sphere of His humanity and in other cases in the sphere of His
deity, in all cases what He did and what He was could be attributed to His one
Person. Even though it is evident that there were two natures in Christ, He is
never considered a dual personality. In summarizing the hypostatic union, three
facts are noted: (1) Christ has two distinct natures: humanity and deity; (2)
there is no mixture or intermingling of the two natures; (3) although He has
two natures, Christ is one Person.4
This precise definition is important
so that as one begins to address complications and difficulties with the union,
he may have an anchor from which to remain safely attached to the shores of
biblical truth. The diagram below is a
rough visualization reflecting the Chalcedonian definition.
One Person Two Natures
The
above diagram attempts to keep unity within the circle, and also attempts to
point out the two distinct natures. The
figure attempts to incorporate the truth that Jesus Christ is “full deity and
perfect humanity united without mixture, change, division, or separation in one
Person forever.”5
God the Son
When Christ came, a Person came, not just a nature; He
took on an additional nature, a human nature—He did not simply dwell in a human
person. The result of the union of the two natures is the theanthropic Person
(the God-man).6
God the Son
is considered the second member of the Trinity, and is co-equal (He shares the
same attributes), co-infinite (He is not bound by time or space), and
co-eternal (He eternally exists) with the other members of the Godhead. As God, Jesus Christ has the same attributes
as the other members of the Trinity. It
appears to this writer that there are ten major attributes of God found in the
Scripture, with minor attributes merely being subcategories. The attributes are as follows:
1.
Omniscience
(Psalms 139:1-6; Psalms 147:5; Jeremiah
a.
Foreknowledge
(Acts 2:23Romans
2.
Omnipresence
(Genesis 28:15; Jeremiah
3.
Omnipotence (Job
42:2; Jeremiah 27:5; Matthew 19:26; Like 1:37; Samuel 17:47; Psalms 27:1;
Isaiah 26:3, 4; Isaiah 40:28, 29; Jeremiah 33:2, 3; II Corinthians 9:8;
Ephesians 1:19; Ephesians 3:20; II Timothy 1:12).
4.
Righteousness
(Psalms 11:7; Psalms 97:6; Psalms 111:3; Psalms 119:137; Jeremiah 23:6; Romans
10:3-4; I John 2:29;).
5.
Justice (Psalms
9:7, 8; Psalms 19:9; Psalms 50:6; Psalms 58:11; Hebrews 10:30, 31).
6.
Sovereignty
(Deuteronomy 4:39; I Samuel 2:6-8; I Chronicles 29:11; II Chronicles 20:6;
Isaiah 45:5-7; Daniel 4:35; Acts 17:24-25).
b.
Predestination
(Acts
7.
Immutability
(Psalms 102:26, 27; Malachi 3:6; Ecclesiastes
a.
Faithfulness
(Lamentations
8.
Veracity (II
Samuel
9.
Love (Jeremiah
31:3; I John 4:7-12; I John
a.
Mercy (Romans
b.
Goodness (Matthew
10. Eternal Life (Deuteronomy 33:27; Job 36:26; Psalms 9:7; Psalms 90:2;
Psalms 102:27; Lamentations 5:19; I Timothy 1:17).8
The New Testament declares that
Jesus Christ is fully God, and that he should be recognized as such. In fact, “hundreds of explicit verses call Jesus
“God” and “Lord” and use a number of other titles of deity to refer to him, and
in many passages attribute actions or words to him that could only be true of
God himself.”9 Two of the strongest references to the deity of Christ are
found in Titus 2:13 and 2 peter 1:1 where the use of the Granville Sharp Rule
affirms that Jesus Christ is both God and Savior.10 Dr. Wayne Grudem helps to clarify this point
by stating:
Although the word theos, “God,” is usually reserved
in the New testament for God the Father, nonetheless, there are several
passages where it is also used to refer to Jesus Christ. In all these passages the word “God” is used
in the strong sense to refer to the one who is the Creator of heaven and earth,
the ruler of all. These passages include
John 1:1; 1:18 (in older and better manuscripts); 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus
2:13; Hebrews 1:8 (quoting Ps. 45:6); and 2 peter 1:1.11
After careful study and analysis, a
serious student of the Bible must conclude that the Bible clearly teaches that
Jesus Christ is God; and more so, that He is God in the flesh (John 1:1,
14).
Jesus the Man
As unfallen man, Jesus was born as
Adam was created. Upon original creation
Adam possessed a body, soul, and human spirit, but he lost his human spirit as
a result of the fall (Genesis
Human Soul Consciousness Self-Consciousness Intellect Volition Emotion
God
supernaturally impregnated the Virgin Mary so that Jesus was fully human, and
yet He was minus Adam’s Old Sin Nature (Romans
Though His deity is eternal, the humanity was gained in
time. Therefore, the theanthropic
Person—destined to be such forever—began with the incarnation.14
Naturally
one might wonder about the Old Testament theophanies of Jesus Christ and
consider how they are similar or different from the incarnation. If a theophany is indeed an actual physical
manifestation of God, would that not constitute an incarnation? Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg addresses this issue
quite well by stating:
It is
true that the hypostatic union and the theophanies have one great feature in
common: in both the one acting is the Second Person of the Godhead. However,
there is only one hypostatic union whereas there have been several
theophanies-that to Abraham, that to
So, it
is noted that the difference between the hypostatic union and Old Testament theophanies
is that the theophanies were many and temporary, whereas the incarnation of
Jesus Christ happened once and will remain forever. It should be noted that there are differing
views regarding Jesus’ status in heaven as to what condition He remains in
hypostatic union. For example, John
Calvin “taught that the two natures are united without any transfer of
attributes. An attribute could not be taken away from a nature without changing
the essence of that nature.”16 This
statement may seem innocuous, until one considers Luther’s view of the current
status of the hypostatic union:
The Lutheran view of the two natures teaches that
attributes of the divine nature are extended to the human nature with some
important results. One important doctrinal result is the ubiquity of the human
body of Christ, that is, the omnipresence of the divine nature of Christ is
transferred to the human body of Christ. Consequently, the human nature of
Christ passed into a ubiquitous state at the ascension and is physically present
in the elements of Holy Communion. Although the elements do not change, the
person partakes of Christ who is “in, with, under and by” the bread and cup.17
There
does not appear to be any clear argument from Scripture that Jesus Christ has
changed in any way since the inception of the hypostatic union. After the resurrection Jesus ascended into
heaven (Acts 1:9-11) where He was observed going up in bodily form. Two angels spoke and said “this Jesus, who
has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you
have watched Him go into heaven.”18 It would seem
sensible to believe that since Jesus went up in bodily form, and that He will
return in bodily form, that He currently resides in heaven in that same bodily
form. Jesus still exists in true
unfallen humanity.
Problems
related to the Hypostatic Union
The reality in which undiminished Deity and unfallen
humanity united in one Theanthropic Person has no parallel in the universe. It
need not be a matter of surprise if from the contemplation of such a Being
problems arise which human competency cannot solve; nor should it be a matter
of wonder that, since the Bible presents no systematized Christology but rather
offers a simple narrative with its attending issues, that the momentous
challenge to human thought and investigation which the Christ is, has been the
major issue in theological controversy from the beginning to the present time.19
The
hypostatic union is a logical contradiction.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is 100% God and at the same time 100%
man. This formula does not fit into
human reasoning. One could consider the
Greek pantheon in Classical mythological literature and understand how someone
such as Zeus could copulate with Alcmene and produce the god-man Herakles, who
was 50% god and 50% man; such reasoning is logical. But the biblical formula regarding the Person
of Christ is such that the Christian is asked to believe that 1+1=1. Starting with human reason alone, one could
never come to such a conclusion; but after understanding and accepting the
biblical formula, one cannot reason it away either. The believer must accept the fact that
“Christ is ever represented as one Person, though He be
the coalition of two so widely diverse qualities.”20 The
hypostatic union “is difficult to comprehend because it posits the combination
of two natures that by definition have contradictory attributes.”21
The
Person of the Lord Jesus Christ is at one and the same time of vast intrinsic
importance and of almost insurmountable difficulty of explanation. It defies
and transcends any human intellectual effort to explain or analyze it. No
successful attempt has ever been made to fathom the mystery of the hypostatic
union. It is all the more inscrutable, because there is, and has been, no
situation or pattern similar or analogous to it in the history of the world.22
Of all the possible logical
complications associated with the hypostatic union, the comparison of divine
and human knowledge stands at the forefront.
Omniscience knows all there is to know, both actual and probable. However, God does not know sin or death
experientially, though through divine imagination He might know them
theoretically. If God knew sin
personally, He would be a sinful God, and this is to be rejected. God the Son does not know sin or Death; yet
Jesus knows both sin (by judicial imputation), and death (separation from God
the Father in time).
In his
human nature there was growth in knowledge, but this must not be construed as a
contradiction of His divine omniscience. Limitations in knowledge as well as
limitations in power are related to the human nature and not to the divine.23
Sin and death are possible only to
humans. In His humanity Jesus
experienced sin judicially on the cross as it was imputed to Him, though not
personally as though He produced it Himself.
He (in His humanity) experienced death physically (cessation of human
life) and spiritually (separation from God the Father in time). In His deity, God the Son did not experience either
sin, or death, since it is impossible for deity to either sin or die. Therefore, in His humanity Jesus knows things
that God the Son cannot know, for if He (God the Son) were to know them
experientially, He would cease to be deity.
How does this affect the unity of the theanthropic person?
In the hypostatic union there are
things deity knows that humanity does not know, and likewise, there are things
humanity knows that deity does not know.
So how does one reconcile a perfect union where incompatible knowledge
exists? If it is said that God the Son
has knowledge as a result of the hypostatic union, was that knowledge new? Did God the Son obtain new knowledge from the
hypostatic union that He could not have known experientially prior to that event? Perhaps, if one considers Old Testament
theophanies as God temporarily taking human form for the purpose of interacting
with His children. Of course, one is
left with the same question at the moment God took human form prior to the
hypostatic union, for if the form was truly human, did God at that moment learn
something experientially which had not been known before? Is experiential knowledge different from
theoretical knowledge? Does God
speculate as to what humans know, since it is possible for humans to know
things He cannot (i.e. sin and death)?
Why would God create beings that have the ability to do things He
Himself cannot do, and with whom He could never fully relate?
If one says God the Son experientially knows
sin and death after the crucifixion, then it must be declared that God changed
with reference to what He knows. If one
says God the Son did not experientially know sin and death after the cross,
then it must be concluded that a perpetual division exists in the hypostatic
union. That is, God the Son and the
humanity of Jesus know different things.
The gamut of theological speculation
is infinite. Sometimes the questions may
help one to think critically; sometimes the questions may lead to heresy,
especially if the one asking the questions seeks to force a reasonable
explanation. This is one of those cases
where some knowledge is helpful in determining an orthodox theology, and too
much information leads to a headache.
Comparison
of Divine and Human Knowledge24
Divine Knowledge Human Knowledge
|
God the Son |
Jesus
the Man |
|
Omniscient |
Select
Knowledge |
|
Omnipresent |
Confined
to Space |
|
Omnipotent |
Limited
Power |
|
Self-imposed
Limitations25 |
Externally-imposed
Limitations |
|
Inherent Righteousness |
Imputed
Sin |
|
Eternal Spiritual Life |
Temporal
spiritual Death26 |
|
Perpetual |
Separated
from God in Time |
|
Eternally Existent |
Born
in Time |
|
Not Able to Sin |
Able
Not to Sin |
|
Not Able to Die |
Able to Die |
It is equally natural to suppose that the
divine nature would be injured to some extent if combined with that which is
human, and the human nature would be exalted out of its precise limitations if combined
with the divine. The teaching of the Scriptures serves to save the reader from
such natural conclusions. The Deity of Christ is unimpaired by its union in one
Person with that which is unfallen human nature; and the unfallen humanity
retains its normal limitations. The confusion and uncertainty that would follow
if these natures were subject to problematical alterations is beyond
estimation.27
So what is one to do? Faith and reason are not incompatible, as
though the believer is forced to choose one over the other; for God Himself
calls to us and says “Come now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). However, though reason can lead the believer
to know certain things, this knowledge does not guarantee an infinite
comprehension of the knowledge obtained.
For God also says:
8“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways
My ways,” declares the LORD. 9“For as
the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways
higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9
It
is best to know that one can know the doctrine of the hypostatic union, and be
content with what is presented in Scripture.
Conclusion
Of these two natures it may be affirmed from the evidence
which Scripture provides, that they are united in one Person, and not two; that
in this union, that which is divine is in no way degraded by its amalgamation
with that which is human; and, in the same manner and completeness, that which
is human is in no way exalted or aggrandized above that which is unfallen
humanity.28
The
doctrine of the hypostatic union is both marvelous and mysterious. That Jesus is undiminished deity and perfect
humanity united together forever in one person expresses the genius and love
God. From the creation of Adam, God knew
He would someday take upon Himself a body for the purpose of redeeming fallen
humanity. The hypostatic union is a condescension of love, an expression of the greatness of
God, and a mystery no man can ever fully comprehend.
Though
there are infinite logical difficulties related to the hypostatic union, these
should not deter one from accepting the truthfulness of the doctrine. For though reason can help one to know the
doctrine, it must always be kept in mind that reason alone (unaided by the Holy
Spirit) is never the measure of truth.
=============================================
1. Lewis S. Chafer, Trinitarianism, Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, July 1941), Vol. 98, p. 268.
2. D. F. Wright, et al, New Dictionary of Theology: Hypostasis (Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 325.
3. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary: Incarnation (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1988), 613.
4. Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1989), 225.
5. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, the Incarnation (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1995), 247.
6. Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1989), 227.
7. Ibid., 196.
8. R. B. Thieme jr., Trinity, (Huston: Texas, R. B. Thieme Jr. Bible Ministries, 1993), 5-15.
9.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology: The Person of Christ (
10.
The Granville
Sharp Rule states that when the copulative kaiv connects two nouns in the same case and the first
noun is preceded by a definite article whereas the second noun is not, then
both nouns refer to the same person.
Both Titus
11.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology: The Person of Christ (
12. After the fall, all mankind is spiritually dead and classified as dichotomous, possessing only a human soul and body. At the moment of regeneration (John 3:3-7) God the Holy Spirit creates a new human spirit ex nihilo and imputes it to the person who trusts in the finished work of Christ on his behalf; thus, the new Christian is trichotomous (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12) possessing a human body, soul, and spirit.
13. This writer is aware of the arguments related to the constitutionality of man from the various theological frameworks and believes that Adam and Christ both entered the world trichotomous. After consideration, this writer has decided not to go into the issues related to dichotomy and trichotomy due to the length of this paper.
14.
Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic
Theology Vol. 1, God the Son: The
Hypostatic
15.
Charles Lee Feinberg, The Hypostatic
16. Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1989), 227-228.
17. Ibid., 228.
18. All Scripture quotes are from the New American Standard Bible © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
19.
Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic
Theology Vol. 1, God the Son: The Hypostatic
20. Ibid., 385.
21. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology: The Sinlessness of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998), 740.
22.
Charles Lee Feinberg, The Hypostatic
23. John F. Walvoord, The Humiliation of the Son of God, Bibliotheca Sacra, (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Theological Seminary, April 1961) Vol. 118, p. 61-99.
24. This comparison is not exhaustive, but rather representative of some of the distinctions that exist between the two natures of Jesus Christ.
25. In Philippians 2:7 the Greek verb kenovw refers to Jesus giving up the right to use some of His divine attributes while in hypostatic union on the earth; however, it does not mean that God the Son ceased to posses certain attributes. Since there is no one greater than God, any limitations upon God must of necessity be self-imposed.
26. When Jesus died spiritually on the cross, it must not be compared to Adam’s spiritual death which resulted in the cessation of his human spirit; rather, Jesus spiritual death was judicial in that He was separated from God the Father during that time He was being judged for sin on the cross. Since the imputation of human sin upon the humanity of Jesus was judicial, his spiritual death must be regarded as judicial as well. Jesus did not cease to be trichotomous, even while He was undergoing the crucifixion.
27.
Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic
Theology Vol. 1, God the Son: The Hypostatic
28. Ibid., 384.
===================================================
Selected
Bibliography
Bauer, Walter. A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed.
Revised and edited by Fredrick William Danker.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed.
The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, 4 Vols.
Chafer, Lewis S., Systematic
Theology 4 Vols.
Chafer, Lewis S., Trinitarianism,
Bibliotheca Sacra,
Enns, Paul P., Moody
Handbook of Theology, Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1989.
Erickson, Millard J., Christian
Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998.
Feinberg, Charles Lee, The Hypostatic
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic
Theology, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press 2000.
Ryrie, Charles, Basic
Theology, Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1995.
Thieme jr., R. B., Trinity,
Huston: Texas, R. B. Thieme Jr. Bible Ministries, 1993.
Unger, Merrill F., et al, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1988.
Wallace,
Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996.
Walvoord, John F., The Humiliation of the
Son of God, Bibliotheca Sacra,
Willmington, H. L., Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers,
1984.
Wright, D. F., et al, New
Dictionary of Theology: Hypostasis, Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press,
1988.
Return
to www.christonly.com