Ontology of Christ

[johnnybanano]

Can someone help me with the theological necessities of Christ's humanity?

Specifically I'm looking for theological arguments for the fact that Christ could not have saved us if he was not fully human.

I've often heard the argument that he could not offer propitiation for those who were ontologically human if he himself was not, but no one has ever proven this to me. Why couldn't he still offer propitiation for humans even if he was not a human.

Why I am asked this, I want to say, "'Cuz it just don't work that way!". But this is not a sufficient answer to the question. What prevents Christ from saving humans if he himself is not one.

***IMPORTANT***

Now don't misunderstand the question. I am not asking for proof that Christ was human. I am only asking for proof that Christ had to be human in order to be Lord and Savior of humanity.

The fact of Christ's humanity can be explained as functioning in the area of revelation rather than salvation. In other words, Christ became human to show us what God was like, not because it was necessary for our salvation. In this understanding the ministry of Christ is two fold. He did not come only to save us; he also came to show us what God was like.

P.S. I know that this is a form of Docetism -- only this is not saying that Christ appeared to be physical, it assumes he was physical, it only questions his human nature.

This post may be unclear, lemme know if you need clarification.



Daniel

[johnnybanano]

I suppose a better way to ask this question is as follows:

What is the essence of human nature?


And Did Christ have this?

Saying that Christ was in the likeness of form of humanity does not necessarily mean that he possesed a human nature.

[James Peter]

Well in Galatians Paul seems to argue that it was necessary for Christ to be 'born of a woman, born under the law' in order to destroy the law. If he was not fully human then he would not have been under the law (I think Paul would agree with that, God is not subject to the Law) and so could not have destroyed it and liberating us from it.

Now, I don't believe that Christ offered propitiation for us (ilasmos=expitiation, in my opinion) and so my explanation is offered in terms of Beker's 'apocalyptic invasion' understanding of the Incarnation and Cross. Unless God entered the dominion of Sin/Law/Death he could not truely destroy them and liberate us from them? Why? The best solution I can offer is that in the same way that God could not just strike Hitler with lightning God cannot (or rather, chooses not to) simply destroy those he has created. The Incarnation and Cross was the only 'Just' (in the sense of correct, virtuous) way to liberate humanity and that required the Logos to empty himself and become fully human - probably to demonstrate that the Law was in fact not just.

But I appreciate that doesn't fit well with those who argue Penal Substitution.

[johnnybanano]

There are a few things that you said that I don't understand. What do you mean by Christ not offering propitiation or expiation? How do you interpret Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:2; and 1 Jn. 4:10?

You also said that God may have sent Christ to show that the law was not just, how then do you interpret Rom. 7:12?


Thanks for your help,

Daniel

[Nang]

Can someone help me with the theological necessities of Christ's humanity?

Specifically I'm looking for theological arguments for the fact that Christ could not have saved us if he was not fully human.

I've often heard the argument that he could not offer propitiation for those who were ontologically human if he himself was not, but no one has ever proven this to me. Why couldn't he still offer propitiation for humans even if he was not a human.

Funny. I just touched on this in another thread, and posted the Scripture to Seer that answers your question.

Hebrews 2:14&15

" Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

Here's the way I see it.

God promised the Son an everlasting Kingdom which would be shared with a created humanity.

However, the created humanity (made of dust) was not capable of being the same as God in order to live forever and ever in God's Kingdom.

So God Himself had to take upon the elements of humanity, in order to make humanity fit, and spiritual, and deserving enough to live in the eternal.

Cuz, Jesus Christ really, really wants us to share eternity with Him!

Nang

[johnnybanano]

I really like your post Nang.

I think that the verse you posted definitely answers the question that Jesus took on the form of humanity (flesh and blood). And it also answers why he did this, to destroy the devil and liberate humanity.

However, I'm wondering if human form and human nature are the same thing. And if they are not, was it necessary that Jesus possess a human nature.

An idea that I brought up in my Systematic Theology class in response to the tricky wording of the Chalcedonian Creed regarding the nature of Christ was that Christ did not have a divine nature and a human nature. Christ had a Christ nature. I'm sure this sounds simplistic, but I think that it helps reduce the mental dichotomies that we draw between the human and divine in Christ.

Anyway.

Do you have any other thoughts on what exactly the "human nature" is and whether or not Christ possessed this nature?

The thread has already left it's original question (and I'm the one who changed its direction) but I am interested in this discussion. I'm not really looking to debate yet, I'm just wanting to have a discussion about these questions.

Thanks for your time and thoughts,

Daniel

[Nang]

I really like your post Nang.

I think that the verse you posted definitely answers the question that Jesus took on the form of humanity (flesh and blood). And it also answers why he did this, to destroy the devil and liberate humanity.

However, I'm wondering if human form and human nature are the same thing. And if they are not, was it necessary that Jesus possess a human nature.

An idea that I brought up in my Systematic Theology class in response to the tricky wording of the Chalcedonian Creed regarding the nature of Christ was that Christ did not have a divine nature and a human nature. Christ had a Christ nature. I'm sure this sounds simplistic, but I think that it helps reduce the mental dichotomies that we draw between the human and divine in Christ.

Anyway.

Do you have any other thoughts on what exactly the "human nature" is and whether or not Christ possessed this nature?

The thread has already left it's original question (and I'm the one who changed its direction) but I am interested in this discussion. I'm not really looking to debate yet, I'm just wanting to have a discussion about these questions.

Thanks for your time and thoughts,

Daniel

Big subject that will have to be discussed at another time. Company arriving here for three days in 10 minutes.

Maybe later we can start a new thread about human "nature."

Nang

[James Peter]

There are a few things that you said that I don't understand. What do you mean by Christ not offering propitiation or expiation? How do you interpret Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:2; and 1 Jn. 4:10?

You also said that God may have sent Christ to show that the law was not just, how then do you interpret Rom. 7:12?


Thanks for your help,

Daniel

What I said was that Christ's death was not propitiation but was rather expitiation. I guess I may as quickly walk through my reasoning for that conclusion though... In 1 John this is pretty clearly the case (from the other verbs used to describe the process such as 'cleanse' and 'purify'), in Romans expitiation fits much better into my overall understanding of Paul's theology (God did not have to appease his own wrath, rather he chose to actively act and redeem us from the power of Sin). The Hebrews verse can go either way and it all really hinges on how you understand OT sacrifice. As I'd argue that it is repentance rather than the sacrifice itself (as various Psalms and Prophets stress) which led to forgiveness expitiation makes more sense.

The problem with Paul's view of the Law was that he says quite different things about it in Galatians and Romans. The question is, given the circumstances under which the two were written, which more closely reflects his actual beliefs? I'm pretty confident that he would have been more 'honest' writing to a gentile church he had founded than to a church he had not visited before, which had a sizeable Christian-Jewish faction, just at the time when he was trying to reconcile his churches to Jerusalem and Antioch again. JL Martyn does a good job of dealing with the issue (in AB Galatians) but I'll summarise by saying that Romans should be understood in light of Galatians, not the other way around (as almost always happens).

Things are further complicated because Paul makes a distinction between 'the Law of God' and 'the Law of Sin'. The 'Law of God' IS Holy and Just, the 'Law of Sin' is not.