0

I've asked a question here, where the answer quoted The Belgic Confession

We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties. Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

The question here almost similar with the question before but now it's more about the sentence of The Belgic Confession quoted above.

I would like to start with something like this...

Eternal :
Jesus (the 2nd Person of the Trinity) is God and HE is in heaven.
HE has one nature. Let's just say, Nature-1.

(I use the word "HE" in bold, it means the HE is referring to a non-corporeal being who is God and I will bold the word whenever I mean is referring to that non-corporeal being).

And now there is the Incarnation, where at first is in a form of a male baby.

(I will use the word "He" not in bold which means that the "He" is referring to this male baby who is God_in_corporeal body).

there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties

From the point of view of a time-frame just after the baby Jesus was born, how is the sentence which fit with the situation ?

A. He - this male baby (not HE) WAS in heaven before Incarnation.
He - this male baby (not HE) has two natures.
His first nature is nature-1 and His second nature is nature-2.

B. HE IS in heaven and now HE has two natures after the Incarnation.
HIS first nature is nature-1 and HIS second nature is nature-2.
This male baby, He is the form of HIS second nature.

Since the Belgic Confession say that there are not two Sons of God, then I think point-B is not the answer because it leads to a conclusion that there are two Sons of God, the non-corporeal one (HE) and the corporeal one (He, the male baby). Besides, in point-B - it is HE who now has two natures not He.

Since I feel awkward if I put the "before-now-after" in the sentence of point-A (where all the word "He" and "His" is referring to that male baby)... for example :

He (this male baby) WAS in heaven before Incarnation...
and now, after the Incarnation - He (this male baby) IS on earth
Before Incarnation, He (this male baby) has one nature...
and now, after the Incarnation - He (this male baby) has two natures.

So, the question is :
how is the sentence in point-A which fit to the condition after the incarnation when the sentence is applied with a word "before/now/after" ?


Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body

The quoted sentence above, in the point of view of point-B become something like this :
Thus, HE with HIS divine nature (first-nature) has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. While He, HIS second-nature (human nature) has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body

And I myself thought that "A divine non-corporeal being (Person) along with HIS divine nature is the one who can filling heaven and earth".

So, what does it mean : "A divine nature filling heaven and earth" ?

  • We can only know these things as they are revealed. They are revealed in the Word of God. Therefore one must start with the statements made in God's word, not start with one's own preferences. – Nigel J Jun 30 '18 at 10:52
1

I'll confess to not fully understanding the question, but:

"filling heaven and earth" is intended to convey that we are speaking of the divine nature which, as such, is omnipresent and upholds all things and sustains their being. This corresponds to, and is contrasted with, his human nature, which, it says, rightly, "has a beginning of days" (proven if by nothing else that He was "he who came, as to the flesh, of the seed of David" Romans 1:3).

The Son of God who "upholds all things by his powerful word," (Hebrews 1:3) and "is before all things and in whom all things hold together," (Colossians 1:17) and "through whom all things without exception were made" (John 1:3) was not, as to his person, dignity, etc. created. It is the human nature with which the Father furnished Him, by the Holy Spirit, of the virgin Mary (Galatians 4:4; Luke 1:35).

I couldn't make out what was being said about 'He vs. the male baby,' but there seems to be some confusion about something relatively simple.

In this confession of faith, restating prior Councils of the Church, is stating the position that in Christ Jesus there is but one person, to whom is proper, since the incarnation, two natures.

This is summed up in the prologue of John's Gospel (1:1, 14), where we read:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. ... And the Word was made flesh and made his dwelling among us.

There is one person in view here, the Word, or Son (v. 14), of God, and two natures: the divine, which makes Him a divine, not merely human person, and the human nature which He takes on for our salvation. It's one divine person with a divine nature and a human nature. Not a divine person and a human person.

What you described seems dangerously close to Nestorianism, a heresy which creates a distinction between the divine and human nature which is not warranted, that is, to the point of actually creating two persons in Christ: the 'divine Jesus' and the 'human Jesus.'

What one says of the properties of Christ's human nature you say of Him, the one person: a divine person to whom said human nature belongs. What you say of the properties of Christ's divine nature, youalso say of Him—the very same person.

Hence we read in Scripture things like (Revelation 1:17-18):

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. And he placed his hand on me and said: Fear not, I am the First and the Last, even he that lives: and I became dead, but behold I live forever and I have the keys of Death and the realm thereof.

It was "the First and the Last" who died because He took on a nature in which it is possible to be killed (be separated in spirit from your body). Here one nature died, one didn't.

Similarly (1 Corinthians 2:8):

[The mysterious and hidden wisdom of God] none of the rulers of this age knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

And again (Acts 3:14-15; cf. John 14:6):

But you rejected the Holy and Just One, and asked that a murderer of a man to be realeased to you instead as a favor:1 you killed the Author of Life, whom God raised from the dead: of which we are witnesses.

So when you speak of Jesus, you are speaking of one and the same Lord, Son, Word, God, with two natures equally His own. The divine from all eternity; the human since the Incarnation. Not change to His divine nature which never changes and more than the rest of creation changes His divine nature.

Matthew 1:21-22 And she shall give birth a son: and you shall give him the name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall concieve and give birth a son, and they shall give him the name Emmanuel, which translated means, God with us.

Cf. John 1:1, 14.

Luke 1:43 And why has this been granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Cf. Isaiah 9:6 et seq.


1 Cf. Jn 18:39

  • 1
    Always good when Catholic or Protestant questions can be answered by our shared Chalcedonian theology! – curiousdannii Jun 30 '18 at 15:17
  • SolaGratia, you wrote : "I couldn't make out what was being said about 'He vs. the male baby,' but there seems to be some confusion about something relatively simple". To be easier, I will assume that each Person of the Trinity is a "She", including The Logos (2nd Person). So, it's because I thought that SHE is God eternally with Her first nature. So, after the incarnation, He (the male baby) is HER 2nd nature. SHE still exist with Her first nature filling heaven and earth, while He is in Bethlehem. So, although SHE became a He - but it doesn't mean SHE is no more. – karma Jul 1 '18 at 5:59
  • You wrote : "What you described seems dangerously close to Nestorianism, a heresy which creates a distinction between the divine and human nature which is not warranted, that is, to the point of actually creating two persons in Christ: the 'divine Jesus' and the 'human Jesus.'". Me : It's not what I mean. SHE is not created, while He is not created from nothing. He is the 2nd nature of Her. SHE created the second person (who is a "He") from within Herself. So, SHE is the one who has two natures now. – karma Jul 1 '18 at 6:22
  • You wrote : "It was "the First and the Last" who died because He took on a nature in which it is possible to be killed". The bold one from me become like this : SHE took on a nature in which it is possible to be killed. Assuming there is someone kill the male baby, it is SHE who decide whether the male baby will die or not (when killed), not the male baby who decide whether He will die or not. – karma Jul 1 '18 at 6:22
  • From the point of view of "SHE" (when there is the male baby) : "I took on a nature in which it is possible to be killed". To me it's strange if I put it from the point of view of the male baby : "I took on a nature in which it is possible to be killed but I can choose whether I can be killed then die or not" . – karma Jul 1 '18 at 6:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.