I find myself unexpectedly, and before entering on the main theme of my present Lecture, obliged1 to turn aside for a moment, and consider another. It is one on which I had deemed it scarcely necessary to spend breath, namely, the Doctrine, as it is theologically called, of the Double Nature of Christ, or the Hypostatic Union. The argument from Scripture is very limited. Besides two passages already fully commented on,2 namely, the Proem of St. John’s Gospel, and a passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, there are but two others on which it has even the shadow of a foundation. Both occur in the Epistle to the Romans. In the first chapter3 St. Paul has these words: “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.” In the ninth chapter:4 “I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh… Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.” The closing part of this second passage, I have already commented upon in another connection.5 Now remember, that the allegation of our Trinitarian brethren is, that Christ had two distinct and complete natures, Divine and Human; in the one he was God, in the other, Man. The question before us now, therefore, is, whether these passages sustain the allegation? It is made a question, bear in mind, as to nature; and because St. Paul, in the first, uses both the expressions, “according to the flesh,” and “according to the spirit of holiness,” with reference to our Lord—the one as being “of the seed of David,” the other as being “the Son of God with power”—here is proof, it is said, of his possessing two natures. But turn to the second passage. There you find the Apostle using the same phrase, “according to the flesh,” in regard to himself, in its obvious sense, without the least reference to any peculiarity of nature, which, of course, in his case, will not be pretended; but simply to the matter of descent from the common stock of all Israelites, by virtue of which he shared with them “the promises.” Why not, then, to Jesus, who, by universal consent, was “of the seed of David,” and therefore of “the fathers,” the patriarchs and founders of the nation; “of whom, as concerning” (the phrase in the Greek is the same, according to) “the flesh,” i.e. by natural descent, he “came,” and in correspondence with prophecy, must have come? There is no reasonable pretence for understanding the phrase rendered “according to the flesh,” and which is of frequent and invariable use elsewhere by St. Paul in his Epistles,6 with reference to natural descent, in any other sense in either passage. It cannot he interpreted with reference to his human, in contradistinction from his divine nature, except to make out a case, to support this mere hypothesis. Paul declares, that he “had been called to his Apostleship, to preach the Gospel of God, concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, (how carefully he distinguishes them!) who, he says, by natural or lineal descent, was of the house of David; but by the Holy Spirit was demonstrated to be the Son of God, with power, by his Resurrection from the dead.”7 Thus I paraphrase the first passage, to show its true meaning.
The other argument is drawn from the alleged necessity of the case. Christ is sometimes called God, and sometimes Man. This must be explained. Here is a mystery, and it must be solved. From this supposed necessity springs the hypothesis of the Double Nature in Christ. “This,” says Wardlaw,8 “is the key which fits all the wards of this intricate lock, turning among them with hardly a touch of interruption, catching its bolts, and laying open to us, in the easiest and completest manner the treasures of Divine Truth.” To this I simply answer, that we do not find the lock, and therefore we do not want the key; or the mystery, and therefore we do not want the solution. To us no such necessity, as is alleged, exists. The hypothesis is entirely uncalled for. Nothing is plainer than that there is not the remotest hint of any such thing as a twofold nature in Christ, in all his recorded words, or in the writings of his Apostles; though it is hardly possible that they should have been silent on so grave a point, had there been in it any reality. Regarding it then as the merest hypothesis, for that is all it is, we object, aside of its superfluity, that its admission makes difficulty where there is none; renders vague or obscure the plainest and most explicit language of Scripture. It demands on its face the surrender of reason, and involves positive absurdity. Divine and human qualities, as the essence of being, cannot co-exist in the same person. God is infinite, man is finite; and no being can be at once and essentially finite and infinite.9 It estops inquiry by its plea of mystery; and drives us, would we believe it, to the old position of Tertullian: Credo quia impossibile est, (I believe because it is impossible.) It destroys Christ’s unity, and makes him two distinct and opposite beings. That Christ is both God and man, is a proposition plain enough in its statement; but the two predicates are incompatible. But a graver objection is, that in effect it charges our Lord with duplicity. When he declared on one occasion: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”10—what more precise and significant words could he have used, to show that he laid no claim to Omniscience, that attribute essential to Deity, without which no being could be God? If there was any one thing of which our Lord was ignorant, he could not be God. And how should we have understood him, had we been present—how did the Apostles, how did the multitude who were present, understand him at the time? They must have understood him as we do, to have made a positive, express declaration, that “of that day and hour” he had no knowledge;11 and therefore to suppose that he made a mental reservation, as to his divine knowledge, while he declared only his human want of it, is to charge him with duplicity, with double-dealing, with deceit.
To continue reading this Bible article, click here.
Author: Frederick A. Farley
Keywords: Jesus Subordinate to the Father, subordination, subordination of Jesus, subordination of Christ, Consubstantiality, Consubstantial, Homoiousian, Homoousian, Homoousion, Socinian, Socinianism, Servetus, Arianism, Unitarianism, Unitarian, monotheism, monotheist, one God, One God the Father, One Jesus Christ, Logos, Word made flesh, Jesus is the Word, trinitarianism, Tri-unity, Jesus is God, God the Son, hypostasis, Trinity, Trinitarian, Deity of Christ, Deity of Jesus, Triunity, Arian, Three in one, Three gods, Three gods one person, False doctrine, False teaching, Arius, Arias, Nicene Creed, Nicaea, Nicea, Athanasian Creed, Athanasius, Father son holy spirit, Father son holy ghost, Triune, Three persons in one God, eternal sonship, god manifest in the flesh, God incarnate, incarnation, God made flesh, God manifestation, eternal son, eternal son of God, Christology, Christologies, Binitarian, Binitarianism, First Council of Nicaea, Nicean Creed, Double Nature of Christ, Hypostatic Union, Hypostasis
Bible reference(s): Matt 13:32, John 5:19, John 5:30, John 1:1-3, John 1:14, Romans 1:3-4, Romans 9:3, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:6-8
Source: Unitarianism Defined (Boston: Walker, Wise &s Co., 1935).
Page indexed by: inWORD Bible Software.