Introduction
Why is it necessary to understand the person of Christ?
Because there never was a person like Him.
How so?
Because in the one person of Jesus there were two natures, a human and a divine. No other person in history was such.
The Humanity of Jesus
What does it mean to say that Jesus was human?
This means that Jesus was human with all its experience of health & sickness, sorrow & joy, prosperity & adversity, etc. with the exception that Jesus had no sin.
Why do you make the exception pertaining to sin?
Because the Bible teaches us this. When the author of Hebrews is writing about Jesus as the great High Priest of His people, he writes:
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16)
We find Paul qualifying himself in this regard in Romans.
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (Romans 8:3)
Note the Paul says that the Son of God came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Paul uses this language to avoid the implication that Jesus was actually sinful just like other humans.
Where does the Bible teach that Jesus was fully human?
First, is the Bible’s record of Jesus’ humanity. He was born in the usual human way (Luke 2:6-7), experienced hunger (Matthew 4:2; Mark 11:12), thirst (John 19:28), and weariness. (John 4:6-7) He enjoyed time with family (John 2:12), attended a wedding feast (John 2:2), received a rebuke from his brothers (John 7:3-8), displayed a deep love for His mother (John 19:25-26), and wept at the grave of Lazarus. (John 11:35) He trembled in the face of His coming death. (John 12:27; Matthew 26:39) Finally, Jesus bled (John 19:34) and died. (Luke 23:46)
Second, consider the Bible’s teaching that Jesus had to be human in order to save His people.
Hebrews 2
Where does the Bible teach this?
This is the teaching of the book of Hebrews. In chapter 1&2, the author is proving that Jesus is superior to any of the angels. He does this in Hebrews 1:7-14 by giving four quotations from the Old Testament (the LXX):
- Psalm 104:4,
- Psalm 45:6-7;
- Psalm 102:25-27;
- Psalm 110:1.
Then, in chapter 2, he gives an extended exegesis of Psalm 8 in support of his point that Jesus is superior to the angels. He quotes the Psalm:
What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, and You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, (Psalm 8:4-6)
and then shows that the “man” here is really the Lord Jesus Christ (see the paraphrase here):
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus… writes the author about the man in Psalm 8.
How does this show that Jesus had to be human in order to save His people?
These verses do not show this, but the author goes on. He writes:
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:9-10)
Here we see the work of God the Father whose plan it was to bring many sons to glory. This He does by fitting Jesus out to be their Savior or “the Author of their salvation.” This “fitting out” is done by the suffering which Jesus had to endure to satisfy the justice of God which was against the many sons. Then our author states the doctrine we have been looking for:
For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE.” And again, “I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM.” And again, “BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.” (Hebrews 2:11-13)
Explain how this pertains to our point about the humanity of Jesus?
The author states that both Jesus (He who sanctifies) and the people He came to save (those who are sanctified) are all from one __________. ὅ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων, καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι, ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες…
Why did you put a blank there?
Because it is not entirely clear how the author intends us to understand this. Jesus and His people are all from one…what? (see the paraphrase here). One possible way to understand this is that both Jesus and His people have one nature, that is one human nature. This makes good sense of the reason given in the next clause for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren. The thought would be that Jesus and His people all share the same human nature; and therefore, Jesus, is not ashamed to be identified with them and to be their Savior and Champion.
Why do you say the sufferings were for the purpose of satisfying the justice of God?
The thought world behind the word “to sanctify” ἁγιάζω is that of of the Old Testament sacrifices of atonement. Stuart says (p308) that this should be translated “…both He who makes expiation for sin, and they for whom expiation is made…” He argues that the word ἁγιάζω corresponds to the Hebrew הִקְדִּיש קִדֵּש, (more) which often means, to consecrate to God as an offering. He gives extensive support for this from the LXX. It was by reason of these sacrifices that God was satisfied (Numbers 16:46; 2 Samuel 24:25) and the Old Testament worshipper was forgiven. (Leviticus 4:20, 27, 31, 35) The word is also used this way in Hebrews 10:10; 13:12 This is also the thought behind Jesus tasting death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)
Does the author say more about Jesus’ humanity?
He does. After giving some references from the Old Testament in support of this, he writes:
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)
Here we are told twice the purpose for Jesus taking on a human nature.
What is the first?
The first is contained in these lines: Therefore, since the children [those whom Jesus will save] share in flesh and blood [have a human nature], He Himself [Jesus] likewise also partook of the same [human nature], that through [His] death [on the cross made possible because He now had a human nature] He might render powerless [by His triumphal resurrection out of the grave] him who had the power of death [which power he secured by successfully leading men into sin (Romans 5:12)], that is, the devil, and might free those [of His people] who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives [that is they lived in constant dread and terror of dying].
We are taught here that Jesus took a human nature that he might cancel the power of the devil and liberate those whom he held in bondage.
What is the second?
The second purpose for Jesus’ humanity is that He might be their priest and make propitiation.
The Deity of Jesus
Arius
What did Arius teach on this subject?
Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and that the Son and Spirit were created by Him. God created the Son and gave him the mandate to create the world. (John 1:3) Schaff writes:
The Father alone is God; He alone is unbegotten, eternal, wise, good, unchangeable. He is separated by an infinite chasm from man, and there is no real mediation between them. God cannot create the world directly, but only through an agent, the Logos, who is himself created for the purpose of creating the world. source
Arius did believe that the Son existed before all time and matter but was still brought into existence by God the Father. In other words, the Son was not eternal.
The Son of God is pre-existent before time and the world (πρὸ χρόνων καὶ αἰώνων), and before all creatures (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως), a middle being between God and the world, the perfect image of the Father, the executor of His thoughts, yea even the creator of the world of matter, and of the spirit. In a secondary or metaphorical sense he may be called God, Logos, and Wisdom (θεὸς, λόγος, σοφία). But, on the other hand, Christ is himself a creature (κτίσμα, ποίημα), the first creature of God, through whom the Father called other creatures into existence; he is made, not of the essence of the Father (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας), but out of nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων—hence the Arians were also called Exukontians), or of the will of the Father before all conceivable time, yet in time; he is therefore not eternal, and there was a time when he was not (ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἀρχὴν ἔχει, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ, ἤτοι κτισθῇ); neither is be unchangeable, but subject to the vicissitudes of a created being (τρεπτὸς φύσει ὡς τὰ κτίσματα). source
Hodge provides the following list:
- That the Son owed his existence to the will of the Father.
- That He was not eternal; but that there was a time when He was not.
- That He was created ἐξ οὐκ ὀντῶν, out of nothing, and was therefore κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα.
- That He was not immutable, but τρεπτὸς φύσει.
- That his preëminence consisted in the fact that He alone was created immediately by God, whereas all other creatures were created by the Son.
- He was not God of Himself, but was made God, ἐθεοποιήθη; that is, on account of his exalted nature, and the relation in which He stands to all other creatures, as Creator and Governor, He was entitled to divine worship. source
Did Arius and his followers support their doctrine from the Scripture?
Yes, they referenced Proverbs 8, Acts 2 and Colossians 1.
Start with Proverbs 8.
The text is this:
The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth; (Proverbs 8:22-25)
The words here are the words of wisdom personified which many then take to be the words of the second person of the Trinity. The issue can be seen in the differing translations of v22:
| The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. (Proverbs 8:22 NASB) | The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; (Proverbs 8:22-25 NIV) | The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago; (Proverbs 8:22 NET) |
The issue here is how to translate the verb “possessed” or “brought forth” or “created” which is the verb קָנָה.
Why is it difficult to know how to translate this verb?
Because the verb קָנָה is a homonym; there are two words spelled the same way. The one word means to possess or acquire; the other means to create. The translator has to decide which word is in use here. The LXX uses the Greek word for create: κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Obviously, the Arians preferred the translation of “create” since it is consistent with their belief that the Son of God was created and is not eternal. The orthodox understood this word to mean “possessed” which was more consistent with their own doctrine.
In the christological controversy this word gained a dogmatic signification, for they proceeded generally on the identity of σοφία ὑποστατική (sapientia substantialis) with the hypostasis of the Son of God. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus, i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο, and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son. source
See Hengstenberg.
Who were those men who refuted Arianism?
At first, the bishop of Alexandria did this, but he was succeeded by a man named Athanasius who spent his life refuting Arianism. See his thoughts in Seeberg.