# Hypostatic Union: This mystery vs false mysteries



## blhowes (Aug 12, 2004)

I went to a fascinating Bible study last night at a reformed congregational church. They're going through Louis Berkhof's [i:61c986caf6]A Summary of Christian Doctrine[/i:61c986caf6] and last night's study was about chapter 14, The Names and Natures of Christ. Its interesting to think about the hypostic union.

The Bible study got me thinking about two things:

[b:61c986caf6]First, [/b:61c986caf6]I got to thinking about the hypostatic union and Jesus as an infant. As stated on the Third millennium Ministries in response to a related question:
[quote:61c986caf6]
In the hypostatic union, Jesus' two natures are totally separate (like the persons of the Trinity are totally separate), but they are united in one person (like the persons of the Trinity are united in one essence). Because they are totally separate, each nature retains its own attributes. That means that in his human nature, Jesus' knowledge is limited to what he has learned as a man, while in his divine nature he is totally omniscient, knowing everything.[/quote:61c986caf6]

I was wondering if anybody has thought much about this? As a human, he had to grow and learn and as God, he was totally omniscient. Can this be resolved and, if so, how do you reconcile it in your mind?

[b:61c986caf6]Second,[/b:61c986caf6] I got to thinking about mysteries in general. There are some things in the scriptures that we just have to take by faith and really can't fully reconcile in our minds, perhaps this side of eternity. By faith we can accept them as mysteries and it leads us into deeper worship of God.

How do we differentiate between Biblical and non-Biblical mysteries? With Biblical mysteries, we submit ourselves to the teaching without resolving seemingly contradictory ideas. But what about non-Biblical mysteries?

The kind of mysteries that I'm talking about seem to be common in the catholic church. Often, parishioners are told to just accept the church's teaching because its a mystery that just can't be resolved or fully explained. Questioning is often equated with a lack of faith. A typical example that comes to mind is transsubstantiation. 

How can we best refute these kinds of mysteries? It seems like, no matter what, the person could always fall back on, "It says this in the Bible. I don't understand how that could be...its a mystery"

Any thoughts?


----------



## Ranger (Aug 12, 2004)

I wonder this same thing often. For instance, in Luke 7:9, Christ is "amazed" at the great faith of the centurion. Was his human nature amazed like you and I are amazed at various things? Or should we understand this differently?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 12, 2004)

Bob:
A number of years back, in the midst of the Theistic Evolution craze, I always ran into the roadblock that if one followed science instead of the Bible one would undermine his own faith. The creation had to be accepted on faith, and on faith alone; science would only lead us astray. What I wanted to get across to them was that the evolutionary ideas were based on nothing but faith, and not science at all. What they were advocating was not the solution, it was the very same thing as what they were arguing against. But it was as if I was stepping on their very orthodoxy, and they would have none of it. And this was inside the Reformed setting.

On the one hand they were right: it was a pitting of faith against faith. But on the other hand, they were not showing that the faith of the ones they opposed had to be a wrong faith. They were not putting up a viable apologetic. And what was viable they also opposed. 

It was the same type of thing. It was a mystery to them, and they were content to leave it at that. It seemed to me that wrapping it in the term "mystery" exonerated it for them, made it akin to real faith. I had even run into such things as "divine contradictions", justifying unexplained conundrums they had run into by, sort of, blaming God for them, and then escaping from any need to confront them.

All I can want to say about this type of mystifying of things is that it adds to Scripture unnecessarily. These mysteries are not in the Bible anywhere, and are not justified by placing the tension on God's omnipotence, when it was our impotence that caused it in the first place.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 12, 2004)

John,

Excellent point. With a true mystery, our faith is predicated on the evidence and testimony of scripture. Faith placed in a false mystery is predicated on extrabiblical sophistry. A good example would be the one you gave concerning theistic evolution. I was thinking of Edwards faulty "two wills in God" doctrine. Edwards deals with an apparent contradiction and declares it a mystery, Piper follows in his footsteps. Their mystery of course is based on a misreading of a couple of scriptures, therefore it is a false mystery.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 12, 2004)

[quote:506ff29d9c="Ranger"]I wonder this same thing often. For instance, in Luke 7:9, Christ is "amazed" at the great faith of the centurion. Was his human nature amazed like you and I are amazed at various things? Or should we understand this differently?[/quote:506ff29d9c]

That's a good question. Its interesting that the same word used in Luke 7:9 is also used in other passages in response to the works of Jesus. For example:

Mat 8:27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! 

After seeing Jesus calm the raging sea, the word marvel would have some pretty strong meaning - more than just, "Oh wow, isn't that cool - pretty neat!" - it would be (for me anyway) one of utter amazement. I wonder how the word in Luke 7:9, when understood from the Greek, differs with or agrees with this kind of intensity?


----------



## Craig (Aug 12, 2004)

The way I've understood the hypostatic union is like this:

The two natures are distinguished from one another...but they are united...the human nature is the [i:012701008b]express image[/i:012701008b] of God. I view Christ's human nature sort of like molding clay conformed to this unchanging "rock" called deity. While the clay doesn't possess the qualities of the rock, it is able to express many of those features in a clay-like fashion as the rock impresses itself into the clay.

The Deity informs the human nature but is not informed by the human nature.

I think my analogy falls short in several respects...but it has helped me understand the distinctness, and unity of the two natures.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 12, 2004)

[quote:627a0e0257="Craig"]
I think my analogy falls short in several respects...but it has helped me understand the distinctness, and unity of the two natures.[/quote:627a0e0257]
I like your analogy. It sounds like a good way to "wrap your mind around" the concept. I think any analogy we could come up with would fall short, but they are nonetheless helpful when the finite tries to fathom the infinite. 

[quote:627a0e0257="Craig"]
The way I've understood the hypostatic union is like this:

The two natures are distinguished from one another...but they are united...the human nature is the [i:627a0e0257]express image[/i:627a0e0257] of God. I view Christ's human nature sort of like molding clay conformed to this unchanging "rock" called deity. While the clay doesn't possess the qualities of the rock, it is able to express many of those features in a clay-like fashion as the rock impresses itself into the clay. The Deity informs the human nature but is not informed by the human nature. [/quote:627a0e0257]

Would you say then, when Jesus was a baby, that a part of him (the human nature) was just as unknowing about his surroundings as any other baby; and a part of him (the divine nature) was fully cognisant of his surroundings?


----------



## Craig (Aug 12, 2004)

Bob said[quote:2f424f4034]Would you say then, when Jesus was a baby, that a part of him (the human nature) was just as unknowing about his surroundings as any other baby; and a part of him (the divine nature) was fully cognisant of his surroundings?[/quote:2f424f4034]
I don't know...I don't understand babies as it is! Once they start crying, I'm done for. I have no clue! But, I think Christ developed as any human develops...only He did it without sin.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 12, 2004)

[quote:8a073c465b="Craig"]But, I think Christ developed as any human develops...only He did it without sin.[/quote:8a073c465b]
That may be as far as we can go and still stay on solid ground. Nevertheless, its interesting to think about and ponder.


----------



## LauridsenL (Aug 12, 2004)

[quote:7dd90dec2d]I was thinking of Edwards faulty "two wills in God" doctrine. Edwards deals with an apparent contradiction and declares it a mystery, Piper follows in his footsteps. Their mystery of course is based on a misreading of a couple of scriptures, therefore it is a false mystery.[/quote:7dd90dec2d]

Ian --

I find your statement quoted above to be pretty bold. I've read Piper's article on Two Wills in God. I've also read Piper's Justification of God: An Exegesis of Romans 9:1-23. I don't have time to get into detail tonight because I have to go to bed -- we're driving to Wyoming and back this weekend(!). But I don't understand what false mystery you're referring to. Although Piper acknowledges that there is some mystery involved in God's electing purposes (as Paul himself makes clear -- e.g., Romans 11:33 "How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!"), Piper also expressly argues that God leaves far less to mystery than most are willing to acknowledge. The only mystery that I can remember Piper discussing is how it is that God is able to allow men to act in ways for which they are wholly responsible and thus bear real, just guilt, while at the same time God is sovereign over all and has forordained everything that happens. Piper affirms the truth of both statements, while insisting on God's righteousness and justice. If you're taking Piper to task for acknowledging that there is mystery here, I think you'll have to take Luther and others to task for the same thing.

You also mention Piper's misreading of a couple of scriptures. Do you mean his discussion of 1 Tim. 2:4 in his Two Willls article? I've found that article to be a devastating death-blow to the Arminians' attempt to use that scripture as a key proof-text for their "free" will beliefs. 

But maybe I've missed your point.

I'll try to check your response when I get back on Monday.


----------



## Ranger (Aug 13, 2004)

Side Topic: Where in Wyoming? I used to live in Casper, and go to a ranch in Cody each summer for a breath of fresh air from the city.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 13, 2004)

[quote:ee89d004ce="LauridsenL"][quote:ee89d004ce]I was thinking of Edwards faulty "two wills in God" doctrine. Edwards deals with an apparent contradiction and declares it a mystery, Piper follows in his footsteps. Their mystery of course is based on a misreading of a couple of scriptures, therefore it is a false mystery.[/quote:ee89d004ce]

Ian --

I find your statement quoted above to be pretty bold. I've read Piper's article on Two Wills in God. I've also read Piper's Justification of God: An Exegesis of Romans 9:1-23. I don't have time to get into detail tonight because I have to go to bed -- we're driving to Wyoming and back this weekend(!). But I don't understand what false mystery you're referring to. Although Piper acknowledges that there is some mystery involved in God's electing purposes (as Paul himself makes clear -- e.g., Romans 11:33 "How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!"), Piper also expressly argues that God leaves far less to mystery than most are willing to acknowledge. The only mystery that I can remember Piper discussing is how it is that God is able to allow men to act in ways for which they are wholly responsible and thus bear real, just guilt, while at the same time God is sovereign over all and has forordained everything that happens. Piper affirms the truth of both statements, while insisting on God's righteousness and justice. If you're taking Piper to task for acknowledging that there is mystery here, I think you'll have to take Luther and others to task for the same thing.

You also mention Piper's misreading of a couple of scriptures. Do you mean his discussion of 1 Tim. 2:4 in his Two Willls article? I've found that article to be a devastating death-blow to the Arminians' attempt to use that scripture as a key proof-text for their "free" will beliefs. 

But maybe I've missed your point.

I'll try to check your response when I get back on Monday.[/quote:ee89d004ce]

Lee the Two Wills that Piper believes in is this:

God desires all men to be saved.
God does not desire all men to be saved.

This is a direct contradiction. I deny that God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 when kept in context is clearly describing that God wants all kinds of men to be saved (notice the talk about leaders, and princes). Paul is telling Timothy that all kinds of men are fit for the Gospel. The Gospel is to be preached to men in all vocations. And we are to pray for the salvation of these men as well!

The next "problem" text that is dealt with is 2 Peter 3:8-9:

[quote:ee89d004ce] 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. [/quote:ee89d004ce]

The problem in this text is the problem of defining the [b:ee89d004ce]you[/b:ee89d004ce] and the [b:ee89d004ce]anyone[[/b:ee89d004ce]. The Arminian approach to this text (and unfortunately the Edwards/Piper approach to this text) is that God is clearly desiring that all men come to repentence. But the "anyone" and the subsequent "everyone" must be contained by the careful interpreter by the "you" that precedes both. God is not delaying his redemptive plan to wait for the perishing reprobates of this world, he is working out his plan of redemption bringing in all of the elect. 

The result of stumbling with these passages creates a Two Wills doctrine that you will not find in earlier Calvinist writings, or the Synod of Dordt. God does have two wills, but in the way that our friend Mr. Piper describes it. There is a mystery going on in providence, and even moreso in God's predestination. But it is not between two conflicting desires to do saving good to all, and to not do saving good to all. Or to see all men saved and to not see all men saved.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 13, 2004)

Ian:

I am not familiar with the topic in particular. But off the top of my head two thoughts came to me. First, I prefer the plain reading of a text to one that even has a hint of forcing an interpretation to resolve a seeming conflict. At the same time I will allow no contradiction. The second thought, then, was that I would not have put the dilemma as Piper has done, by juxtaposing one will against another. That in itself is an error. So I can still read the Bible to say that God sincerely wishes that all men to be saved, and yet He passes some men by in His electing grace, without contradiction. 

Where I think the tension is makes for a different kind of dilemma. But this one does not make for a "divine contradiction". For me the mystery is in the order of the creation of man, that he is not a mere puppet on a string, but truly created in the high order of the Trinity to reflect the image of God.

When we claim that God is three persons, then some would say that this is anthropomorphizing, attributing to God a human attribute. But I see personhood as a truly divine attribute, one which is created into man. That means that man is more than just a manipulated being. I get this idea from Edwards, as a matter of fact, which he indicates in his book on free will. 

I don't think that this impinges on God's sovereignty, for I also believe that God knows how we really think and believe more than we do ourselves. He can look deep into the soul and see what each person is willing to believe, and what he will refuse to believe. Therefore God may desire to have an unbeliever come to faith, to salvation, but He also has a desire that none should be saved but who truly desire it. Only God is able to look past our sin into our stubborn heart and see the real person inside. Of our own, even the best of persons is unable to get past his own heart, but God can. He can see to the dividing of marrow and joint, of soul and spirit, discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. In the end, God is sovereign, and men are still men. We may not understand the extent of it, but it is not a contradiction; it is mystery because it extends beyond our scope of understanding.

But all this only underlines your original objection, that of placing under mystery what is a mistaken dilemma. As I said, I am not familiar with it. It would surprise me if Edwards stated it, but not too disappointed. I wasn't disappointed when Michael Jordan didn't turn out to be a baseball star too. It doesn't bother me that Wayne Gretzky doesn't burn up the golf courses like he did the ice. It doesn't change my view of Edwards at all if someone were to say that he had his limits. And if what you suggest is a correction of him, all the better for him and for all of us.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 13, 2004)

John,


I don't think that a "natural" reading of the text lends itself to the conclusion that God desires the salvation of all men is being taught in those two texts. I think the interpretation I've put out is quite natural. If you could show me how the context supports such an interpretation I'd be glad to examine your argument. 

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with reading scripture with a presupposistion. At all. My opinion is that the bias that Edwards and Piper brought to the table were wrong, and that my bias is correct (and consequently the bias of Calvin, Witsius, and Owen :bs2: ).


----------



## JohnV (Aug 13, 2004)

[quote:30bfb0f102="Ianterrell"]John,


I don't think that a "natural" reading of the text lends itself to the conclusion that God desires the salvation of all men is being taught in those two texts. I think the interpretation I've put out is quite natural. If you could show me how the context supports such an interpretation I'd be glad to examine your argument. 

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with reading scripture with a presupposistion. At all. My opinion is that the bias that Edwards and Piper brought to the table were wrong, and that my bias is correct (and consequently the bias of Calvin, Witsius, and Owen :bs2: ).[/quote:30bfb0f102]

The difficulty with that is that you cannot end up with an authoritative conclusion. All you are doing is pitting one bias against another and trying to see which makes the more sense. That's not wrong, but it doesn't necessarily get at what the Scripture actually means.

On the one hand you are speaking of a "natural" reading, and on the other you speak of imposing presuppositions upon the text. In that context, how can I put up another "natural" interpretation? Isn't the deck stacked already? If I give what to me is a "natural" reading of the text, it will be countered that I am imposing my own presuppositions on the text; and if I impose my presuppositions on the text it will be countered that it's not "natural". 

I refuse to think that the Scriptures needs me or my input for the text to make sense. It's up to me to drop all my presuppositions and to adopt the Bible's teachings for what it really says. That is, I have to flee my own presuppisitions and embrace the Bible's presuppositions, if we must use this term. That doesn't mean that I know the meaning of every text, but at the same time I am not going to be forced into deciding between two interpretations that limit the Scriptures to human standards.

That all said, it seems to me that the text is referencing the society at large, moving from the general community, both the secular and church, to the church community in particular. It would seem peculiar if the text were to say that God did not want all men to be saved, but that He wanted some to be lost. This text, then, should be seen as a key text to the Calvinistic system of theology, which sees lost men as being passed by in forordained election; rather than as the Arminians mistakenly accuse us of holding, that election is arbitrarily undertaken by God regardless of man's will. This text upholds both the order of the creation of man and God's sovereignty, without doing injustice to or impugning either one. The man that is lost is lost due to his own sins, not due to God's unwillingness to save him. What God is able to see far surpasses our ability to comprehend, but it does not do damage to what is revealed to us in Scripture. 

If we place the point of tension elsewhere, such as at the birth of each little child, then we still come to the same conclusion. Each child that is born is a precious gift. It is not the birth of a child that is the great evil of inordinate sexual activity; for that is the one thing that is still right, even about that. Each child is a person, and as such has an intrinsic value that transcends any value we may place on it. Our view of the right to life hinges on it. This intrinsic value comes from the created order. And God upholds that, without having it at all violated by the imposition of sin at the Fall. He Himself is able to uphold it without violating His own character, His omniscience or omnipotence, or His immutability. 

In short, I believe from this Scripture that God is really and truly God, and that man is really and truly man. I hold this in contradiction to the Arminian view of man which thinks to make man "really" man at the cost of God's sovereignty, or at the cost of Scriptural truth; and also in contradiction to hyper Calvinism which makes God "really" God at the cost of man's person, or at the cost of Scriptural truth. Neither of these, in my view, is sufficient in the doctrine of God's love for man, that He truly desires all men to be saved, and yet is free in His character to elect those who will be saved and to pass by those who will not be saved.


----------

