Systematic Theology: Lesson 12 - The Names and Natures of Jesus Christ
THE NAMES AND NATURES OF
JESUS CHRIST
Christology - Lesson 12
Our definition of Systematic Theology
is that it is the study of the being and works of God by gathering together the
biblical information on different topics and arranging them together in a
logical fashion.
THE NAMES OF CHRIST
1. Jesus – ιησου – This Greek name is derived from the
Hebrew name “Joshua” (cf. Josh 1:1; Zech 3:1; also the post-exilic derivative
‘Jeshua’ in Ezra 2:2). The name probably means ‘Yahweh saves.” “You shall call
His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matt 1:21; cf.
Luke 1:31). Other persons had this name (an ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:29; the
sorcerer Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6); the co-worker of Paul (Col 4:11). The name
started to be less common because of (1) Jewish hatred of it and (2) Christian
reverence for it. For interesting Old Testament passages in regard to this
name, see Genesis 49:18; Psalm 3:8).
2. Christ/Messiah – χριστος/מֶשִׁחַ – This title means
‘anointed one.’ The title became a name for Jesus. See Psalm 2:2, 6-9, 12;
89:26-29; Dan 9:25-26. Jesus confirmed He was the Christ (Matt 16:13-17;
21:4-5, 9, 15-16; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 24:26; John 4:25-26; 10:24-25).
3. Son of Man – This name is found in Psalm 8:4 and
Daniel 7:13. It was a favorite of Jesus, since He referred to Himself this way
more than 40x.
4. Son of God – This name refers to the deity of
Jesus. As God’s Son, He is also God’s heir. See Psalm 2; Isa 7:14; Luke
1:32-33.
5. Lord – κυριος – ‘Lord’ functions as a polite form
of address (cf. Matt 8:2; 20:33). It can also refer to someone with authority
(cf. Matt 21:3; 24:42). We must keep in mind that the Jews had stopped using
the name “Yahweh” in favor of replacing it with the title “Lord.” Thus, there
is often a sublime hinting of the deity of Christ in the usage of this name.[1] He is the
Lord of all lords (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16).
6. God – That the Messiah would be God
Himself is clear from texts like Isaiah 9:6. The apostles understood this. Thomas
called Jesus “My God” (John 20:28-29). Paul called Jesus “The blessed God” (Rom
9:5).[2] Philippians
2:5-8 and Colossians 1:15-18 unmistakably refer to Jesus as God. So also John
1:1-3. There are also several Old Testament passages quoted by the apostles
that identify Jesus as Yahweh (John 12:37-41 with Isa 53:1 and Isa 6:1, 10;
Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13 with Joel 2:32; Heb 1:10-12 with Psa 102:24-27; Phil
2:10-11 with Isa 45:23). More evidence will be brought forward in the section
on Christ’s divinity.
7. Man – He is called “The man, Christ
Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). He was in the form of God, but became in the form of a man
(Phil 2:6-8). He is often called “the second Adam” because of the language in
Romans 5:14-21. The prediction of His humanity probably began in the Garden in
Genesis 3:15. It carries through the Abrahamic Covenant promise of the seed who
would bring blessing upon the whole world (Gen 22:18) and into the Davidic
Covenant of the seed whose kingdom God will establish (1 Chron 17:11; Luke
1:30-32). This man would die on a cross (Psa 22:11-18; Isa 53:5, 10; John 19:16-18;
Phil 2:8) and live again (Psa 16:10; John 20:1-18). He would ascend to Heaven
(Psa 110:1; Acts 1:9-11) until His return (Acts 1:11; Rev 19:11-16).
8. Word – This is a title used by John to
describe Jesus’ unity with and distinction from the Father (John 1:1, 14; 1
John 1:1; Rev 19:13). Revelation 19:13 makes it clear that John is referring to
Jesus.
Jesus, then is the Christ, for whom
many had waited centuries to appear. The Old Testament made it clear that He
would be the Word of God in the flesh. He came in the flesh, the Son of Man, to
save His people from their sins; and He, the Son of God, will inherit all
things and rule.
This is the picture of our Lord Jesus
Christ that begins to emerge. Let us first lean into the tension created by the
names “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” What does the Scripture have to say about
His being and nature if both of these are true? How can He be “God” and “Man?”
THE NATURES OF CHRIST
Our study of Christ must consider Him
in two ways: first, as the eternal Son of God; and second as the Incarnate Son
of Man. First, we have laid much of the groundwork for the exploration of the
eternal Son of God in our study of the Trinitarian God. We must remember that
He is the Second Person of the Godhead. As such, He has the same attributes as
the Father and Spirit, since He shares the same essence as them. We have
already seen that He is eternally Begotten by the Father (Psa 2:7; John 3:16).
He was never created (John 1:1). Rather, all things were created through Him,
by Him, and for Him (Col 1:16).
In this section of theology, our
attention shifts to the Incarnation. He took on flesh. First, we will look at
the witness of the Scripture to His divine nature.
I.
THE DIVINE NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST
1. Isaiah
9:6
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the
government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
2. Micah
5:2-5a
But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of
Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings
forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. Therefore He will give them
up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the
remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel. And He will arise
and shepherd His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name
of the LORD His God. And they will remain. Because at that time He will be
great To the ends of the earth. This One will be our peace.
3. Matthew 14:33
And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly
God’s Son!”
4. John
1:1-3, 14, 18
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through
Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being…And
the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of
the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth…No one has seen God
at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has
explained Him."
5. Hebrews
1:1-4
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions
and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is
the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and
upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of
sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as
much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than
they.
See
also - Psalm 45:6-7; 110:1; Jeremiah 23:6; Daniel 7:13; Micah 5:2; Zechariah
13:7; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 5:17; 9:6; 11:1-6; 11:27; 16:16-17; 28:18; Mark
8:38; John 2:24-25; 3:16-18; 3:35-36; 4:14-15; 5:18, 20; Romans 1:7; 9:5; 1
Corinthians 1:1-3; 2:8; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 2:20; 4:4; Philippians
2:6; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 4:14; 5:8
Second,
we will look at the human nature of Christ.
II.
THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST
1. Matthew
26:26
"While they
were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave
it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.'
2.
John 8:40
"But as it is,
you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard
from God; this Abraham did not do."
3. John
11:35
"Jesus wept."
4. Romans
5:15
"But the free
gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the
many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one
Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many."
5. 1
Timothy 3:16
"By common
confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the
flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the
nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory."
See also: Matt 4:2;
8:24; 9:36; 26:28, 28; Mark 3:5; Luke 22:44; 23:46; 24:39; John 1:14; 4:6;
11:33; 12:27; 19:38; Acts 2:22; 1 Cor 15:21; Heb 2:10, 14, 18; 5:8; 1 John 4:2
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ABOVE VERSES
1. Jesus eternally existed as
God
2. Jesus was the Creator.
3. Jesus shares the same
attributes as God.
4. Jesus is not to be
confused with the Father and the Spirit.
5. In the Incarnation, Jesus
has a divine nature and a human nature.
6. In the Incarnation, Jesus
has a real, flesh-and-bone body.
7. In the Incarnation, Jesus
and the Father have one will; yet there are times when Jesus struggles against
the will of the Father.
HISTORIC WRESTLINGS WITH THESE TENSIONS
IN THE NATURE OF CHRIST –
Now, with all of this under our belts,
we can survey historical positions on the resolution of the tension of Christ’s
divine and human natures. I think that we will quickly see why the church
condemned all these positions.
I.
EMPHASIZING HIS DEITY[3]
a. Gnosticism
(1st–3rd Centuries AD)
Gnosticism taught that the material world was evil, and so Christ could not
have truly taken on a physical body. He was thought to be a divine spirit or a
messenger of divine knowledge who only appeared to have a human body. In some
strands, Jesus was a man inhabited by a divine presence. This view incorrectly
solves the tension by diminishing Christ's humanity, making him a spirit-like
being.
b. Docetism
(1st–3rd Centuries AD)
A specific sect of Gnosticism, Docetism believed that Christ only seemed to have
a human body. He did not actually suffer on the cross; instead, the Christ
spirit departed before the crucifixion, leaving behind only the human shell of
Jesus. Docetists used passages like “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
to support the idea that Christ’s spirit abandoned the human Jesus. This
view also incorrectly solves the tension by denying Christ’s real humanity.
II.
EMPHASIZING HIS HUMANITY
a. Ebionism
(Late 2nd–3rd Centuries AD)
The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a purely human figure, born naturally to
Joseph and Mary, and chosen by God to be the Messiah because of his
righteousness. They rejected the divinity of Christ but held that he was an
inspired prophet who came to reinforce the Jewish Law. This view incorrectly
solves the tension by denying Christ’s deity.
b. Adoptionism
(also called Dynamic Monarchianism, 2nd–3rd Centuries AD)
Adoptionism taught that Jesus was a man who was "adopted" by God and
given divine powers, usually thought to occur at his baptism. His divinity was
a reward for his obedience to God, but he remained distinct from God the
Father. Adoptionists believed that Christ was essentially human but became
divine through this indwelling power. This view incorrectly solves the
tension by denying the eternal existence of Christ.
c. Liberal
Theology (19 Centuries-Current)
i. Schleiermacher
– Jesus is a man with a supreme God’-consciousness.
ii. Ritschl
– Jesus is a man with the value of a god.
iii. Wendt
– Jesus is a man standing in a continual inward fellowship of love with God.
iv. Beyschlag
– Jesus is a God-filled man.
v. Sanday
– Jesus is a man with an inrush of the divine in the sub-consciousness.
These
modern liberal views incorrectly solve the tension by denying the deity of
Christ.
III.
INCORRECTLY CONFESSING BOTH HIS DEITY
AND HUMANITY
a. Modalism
(Sabellianism, 2nd–3rd Centuries AD)
Modalism rejected the idea of the Trinity as three distinct persons, asserting
that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different "modes" or
expressions of the one God. In this view, God appeared as the Father in
creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification.
Modalists effectively collapse the distinction between the Father and the Son,
teaching that the Father was born of Mary and died on the cross. This view
incorrectly solves the tension of the Trinitarian nature of God; therefore its
articulation of the incarnation makes Christ indistinguishable from the Father
and Spirit.
b. Arianism
(4th Century AD)
Arianism, named after Arius, taught that the Son of God was not eternal but was
the first and highest creation of God. This "semi-divine" Son then
took on a human body. Arius rejected the idea of Christ being fully God, which
the Church later condemned. This view incorrectly solves the tension of the
Trinity, thus its articulation of the incarnation makes Christ more than human
but less than divine.
c. Origenism
(3rd Century AD)
Origen proposed that Christ’s human soul existed before creation and was united
with the divine Word (Logos) before the Incarnation. Later, the Christ took on
flesh. This view incorrectly presents a Christ who is fully divine but less
than human.
d. Apollinarianism
(Late 4th Century AD)
Apollinaris of Laodicea argued that Christ had a human body and soul, but his
mind or rational spirit was replaced by the divine Logos. This teaching held
that Christ was fully God but only partly human. This view incorrectly
presents a Christ who is fully divine but less than human.
e. Nestorianism
(Early 5th Century AD)
Nestorius taught that there were two distinct persons in Christ: one human
(Jesus) and one divine (the Word or Logos). While Nestorius did not explicitly
teach a "split" in Christ’s person, his language emphasized the
separation of the two natures to the point where many thought he was dividing
Christ into two persons. This led to his condemnation at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD).
This view incorrectly presents a Christ whose divine and human natures were
connected but not fully united.
f. Eutychianism
(Mid 5th Century AD)
Eutyches taught that after the Incarnation, Christ had only one nature—a fusion
or mingling of the divine and human natures. This new nature was neither fully
divine nor fully human but a mixture of the two. This view incorrectly
presents a Christ who is fully God and fully human, replacing this with a
hybrid nature.
g. Monophysitism
(5th Century AD)
Originated in reaction to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (below), it asserted that
Christ had only one nature after the Incarnation, a fusion of His divine and
human natures. It became the theology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches,
despite being rejected by the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).[4] This view incorrectly fuses the
divine and human natures, at best creating confusion and at worst creating a
hybrid.
h. Monothelitism
(7th Century AD)
Developed as a compromise to reconcile Monophysites and Chalcedonian
Christians, Monothelitism claimed that Christ had two natures but only one
will, the divine. This doctrine was condemned at the Third Council of
Constantinople (680–681 AD) for denying Christ’s full humanity by not
acknowledging a human will.[5] This view incorrectly denies the
human will of Christ, making Christ fully divine but less than human.
Chalcedonian
Orthodoxy (451 AD)
Now, we can look
at the historic position of the church as to the Incarnation. The details of
this view are present throughout the early years of the church; and, I think we
will see, present the best conclusion from the biblical text.
The Council of
Chalcedon in 451 AD affirmed that Christ is one person with two
distinct natures—fully divine and fully human—united "without confusion,
without change, without division, without separation." Chalcedonian
Orthodoxy rejected both Nestorianism (too much separation between the natures)
and Eutychianism (too much blending of the natures), affirming that Christ is
truly God and truly man, both natures preserved in one person.
“From the earliest times, and more
particularly since the Council of Chalcedon, the Church confessed the doctrine
of the two natures of Christ. The Council did not solve the problem presented
by a person who was at once human and divine, but only sought to ward off some
of the solutions which were offered and were clearly recognized as erroneous.
And the Church accepted the doctrine of the two natures in one person, not
because it had a complete understanding of the mystery, but because it clearly
saw in it a mystery revealed by the Word of God. It was and remained ever since
for the Church an article of faith, far beyond human comprehension.”[6]
The Chalcedonian Creed –
“We, then, following the holy Fathers,
all with one consent, teach men 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 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; 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 and
one Subsistence, 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.”[7]
IN CONCLUSION, the Scriptures teach us that in the
Incarnation, Jesus is fully God and fully man, and that He is the Christ who
came to save His people from their sins by His death and resurrection; and that
though He has ascended to Heaven, He will come again to take up His rule.
[1] This perhaps gives us fresh
insight into passages like Romans 10:9.
[2] There is some debate over the
translation. Either this says Jesus is eternally blessed by God; or that He is
God who is blessed forever.
[3] This section heavily depends
upon Mook, Theology II at The Master’s Seminary Unpublished Class Notes,
1-19. Chat-GPT helped to clarify some of the language.
[4] Monophysitism comes from
the Greek "mono" (one) and "physis" (nature), meaning “one
nature.” This doctrine arose in reaction to the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD),
which declared that Christ exists in two distinct natures, fully divine and
fully human, united in one person. Monophysites, however, rejected the language
of "in two natures," insisting that Christ has only one nature after
the Incarnation. They believed that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into His
divine nature, creating a single, unified nature that was both divine and
human, but not in a way that maintained a clear distinction between the two. Monophysitism
focused on the idea that His divine and human natures fused into one.
Historically, the Monophysite
controversy led to significant divisions in the Church, particularly in Egypt,
Syria, and Armenia. After Chalcedon, Monophysites formed their own churches,
which later became known as Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Coptic
Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church. (For more, see Needham, 2,000
Years of Christ’s Power: Part 1: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, 324-363.)
[5] Monothelitism arose as an
attempted compromise to heal the rift between Chalcedonian Christians and
Monophysites. The term comes from the Greek "mono" (one) and
"thelema" (will), meaning "one will." This doctrine emerged
in the early 7th Century AD during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius
(r. 610–641 AD), who sought to reunite the empire's religious factions.
Monothelites acknowledged that Christ
had two natures (as Chalcedonian theology required: fully divine and fully
human), but they argued that He had only one divine will. This teaching was
intended to appease Monophysites, who were uncomfortable with the idea of two
distinct wills—one human and one divine—in Christ.
However, Monothelitism encountered
strong opposition from many theologians, especially Maximus the Confessor (c.
580–662 AD), who argued that if Christ lacked a human will, He could not be
fully human. For Christ to redeem humanity, He needed to possess everything
that humans have, including a fully human will.
The central issue with Monothelitism was
that it undermined Christ's true humanity by denying that He had a genuine
human will. According to Orthodox theology, Christ’s human will was necessary
for Him to live a truly human life and make human choices, even though His
divine will perfectly guided and united with His human will.
Monothelitism was officially condemned
at the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681 AD), which reaffirmed the
Chalcedonian belief that Christ had two wills—one divine and one
human—corresponding to His two natures. These two wills worked harmoniously without
division or conflict. This council resolved that Christ is one person with two
distinct yet fully unified natures and two distinct wills, both fully divine
and fully human. (For more, see Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power: Part
1: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, 324-363, esp. section 4.)
[6] Berkhof, Systematic Theology,
261.
[7] https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html. This webpage
contains the text in English, Greek, and Latin. It also has footnotes that
explain how certain words and phrases were used to deny the teachings of many
of the groups discussed above.
Comments
Post a Comment