# Human nature of Jesus eternal?/"Son of God" metaphor?



## thistle93 (Jun 4, 2012)

Is it theological heresy to say "the Word, Son of God or Second Person of the Trinity" is eternal but that the person of Jesus who was born in a particular point in history was a not eternal in that He was an infusion of the divine nature (eternal) and the flesh nature (non-eternal). He was God (eternal) and man (non-eternal). Obviously the God nature of "the Word, Son of God or Second Person of the Trinity" in Jesus is eternal but at the incarnation he gained a human nature, which was not His in eternity and made him to be the person of Jesus. And now for eternity future Jesus has both divine and human natures but did not have so in eternity past. Do you understand what I am trying to say and is this to much of a technicality? 

Is it theological heresy to say that the wording "Son of God" to describe the second person of the Trinity: Jesus, is a metaphor (might not be right word) for some way we as humans can understand the relationship/unity of the different persons of the Trinity? Not that the second person of the Trinity is a metaphor (clearly heresy) but that the word "Son" is. Reason I ask is because we do not believe God the Father had sexual relations to have second person of the Trinity conceived but that the "Son of God" is eternal God. Or did the second person of the Trinity become Son of God: Jesus at incarnation? Again do you understand what I am trying to say and is this to much of a technicality? 

Is this relying to much on human logic? Have any of these views been proposed in history and declared heretical? Know complicated but would like to hear thoughts.

Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## nicnap (Jun 4, 2012)

WSC21: The only redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 4, 2012)

Matthew, I don't believe the questions are too technical at all. People have faced persecution for their views on these matters.

First the Word did not become a different person at the Incarnation. Rather, a complete but anhypostatic human nature was assumed into union with the Second Person of the Trinity. In other words, at the Incarnation there is not a different person than there was before; but now that same eternal and divine person also has a complete human nature. That makes sense, because the Person, being divine, eternal, immutable, is not capable of change. But in order for there to be a real hypostatic union, it was necessary to assume NOT a human individual, but a human nature.

So you can say that the human nature of Jesus was not eternal, certainly; but you cannot say the Person wasn't eternal, because the only personhood in Jesus is the Word, the Son, the Second Person. You can also say that the Incarnation was not eternal: it happened at a point in time, and before that point that union did not exist. It is now an indissoluble union and so will endure eternally, but it was not eternal _a parte ante_.

No, it is not heresy to say that the description is metaphorical. It is probably closer to the full statement of the truth to say rather that our relationships were made to serve as shadows. The Father and Son are essentially related in a way that is more deep and real than the relationships between earthly fathers and their sons. So while you could say that Fatherhood is a metaphor for their relationship, in that it describes something analogous to what we are familiar with, you could also say that the reality we experience is a blurry shadow of the genuine reality. 

As to whether the Second Person of the Trinity became the Son of God at the incarnation, the answer is no. "Son of God" as a title is obviously used in more than one way, and the use in Luke 1:35 has special reference to the Incarnation (and the use in other places has special reference to the resurrection/ascension), but the use Hebrews 1 makes of Psalm 45 serves to show that the Wod was really and properly the Son before the Incarnation.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 4, 2012)

py3ak said:


> in that it describes something analogous to what we are familiar with, you could also say that the reality we experience is a blurry shadow of the genuine reality.


 ... and a whole (Biblical) view of epistemology spins out of this.


----------

