THE UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST

THE UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST

-      How there can be such a union, we cannot explain.

-      But we can observe a few things about it:

The two natures, although united in one person, remain distinct from each  other. There is no confusion.

Rom. 1:3-4 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"
Rom. 9:5 "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

By this Union, the Divine Nature Imparts its Powers and Values to the Human Nature

Luke 5:24 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house."
John 2:19-21 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body."
John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

By This Union Certain Human Experiences are Made Possible for the Divine Person - God is able to die

Heb. 2:14 "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;"
1 Cor. 2:8 "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

This Union Made it Possible for One Person to be the Mediator Between  God and Man

Job 9:32-33 (ASV) "For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.
33  Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both." Heb. 4:14-15 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

This Union is Permanent and Everlasting

Heb. 7:24-25 "But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

WRONG THEORIES OF CHRIST'S PERSON

Dividing the Person: Nestorianism (5th century)

In the churches of the western Roman empire, the cult of Mariolatry was beginning to take root, and Mary was being called "the God-bearer" (theotokos). In one sense, this was valid, for as God-Man Jesus could be called "God". But in another sense this was dangerous, for Mary was in no way the mother of the divine nature of the God-Man. Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, went to an extreme in reacting against this false emphasis, and taught that the divine nature did not associate with the human nature until birth. This sharp separation of the two natures virtually resolved Christ into two persons, both God and man, a God-indwelt  man, rather than the unified God-Man.

Confusing the Two  Natures: Eutychianism (5th century).
In reaction against Nestorianism, Eutyches (a disciple of Cyril of Alexandria) so stressed the unity of Christ's Person that he lost sight of the two distinct natures, teaching that the human nature was wholly absorbed  into the divine nature, producing a composite nature that was, apparently, neither completely human nor divine. Thus, his followers became known as monophysites ("one-nature").

The entire controversy was threshed out at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), where a remarkable statement was formulated which guarded against both errors:
"He is one Christ, existing in two natures without mixture, without division, without separation; the diversity of the natures not being destroyed by their union in the one person; but the peculiar properties of each. nature being preserved and concurring to the One Person."

The brief historic formula of orthodoxy became this: "We must neither divide the person, nor confound the natures." If we remember this, we are preserved from serious heresy in Christology, even though the mystery of it all can never be resolved by the mind of man.

Pressured by the orthodox decision of the Council of Chalcedon, some Eutychians accepted the two natures of Christ (verbally at least), but retained their monophysite position to the extent of insisting that Christ had only one will. The monothelite ("one-will") controversy was not officially settled until 680 A.D. at the 6th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople:
"Jesus Christ had two distinct and inseparable wills...a human will and a divine will, working in harmony, the human in subordination to the divine: the will being regarded as an attribute of His nature rather than His person."

The following books provide much help in understanding these Christological controversies:
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Eerdmans, 1958), pp. 245-60; 302-15.
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian. Church (Eerdmans, 1950), III, 705-783.
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II.
William G. T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine (Scribner's, 1895), 2 volumes.