# Is Jesus passible......today?



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2011)

During His ministry 2,000 years ago He was, but is He now?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 18, 2011)

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Alpha and Omega.



> (Heb 13:8) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.



I really don't understand your question though. What are trying to to get at?


----------



## MarieP (Aug 18, 2011)

earl40 said:


> During His ministry 2,000 years ago He was, but is He now?



I think I understand what you are trying to ask, but if I'm right about it, "impassible" would be the wrong term. "Impassible" means that something is not subject to pain or feeling. Jesus was not impassible, obviously.

But it's an interesting question, does Jesus still feel emotion in heaven? I would say yes, He does, and I don't believe we have to enter the "does God have emotions" debate (which we've discussed here before, and not discussed impassibly, I'd add!).

Jesus remains fully God and fully man. So, He must have emotions. Also, we read in Heb. 12:2, "Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Are we to believe that Jesus would enter heaven and not experience joy anymore?

That's all I have time to post now, but it's a start!


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Alpha and Omega.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Not to sound obtuse but did Jesus have a human nature before the incarnation.

My question pertains as Marie alluded to in that does Jesus react the same as He did 2,00 years ago. In other words, is Jesus immutable, today?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2011)

I think you have it backwards. The human nature of Jesus was certainly not impassible during the time of His humiliation: He was capable of suffering and He did suffer.

Now, though, He has been exalted: He has entered a condition of glorification, and suffering is done away, if not as a logical possibility certainly as a present reality; but nonetheless He is still touched with the feelings of our infirmities. I recommend _The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth_ by Thomas Goodwin for a beautiful treatment of the exaltation of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 18, 2011)

Impassibility does not mean that God is not subject to emotion but it refers to the fact that He is without passions. God is said to be angry, joyful, and a number of other emotions but the issue is whether God is learning information and then reacting to these events with his emotions.

For example, somebody cuts me off on the freeway. I have an immediate, surprised reaction to that event that evokes anger.

God is not like a driver on the freeway Who is "cut off" by human sinfulness and then reacts to that anger. God is not passive with respect to things being done _to_ Him or in the receipt of information.

Remember that with Christ, He took on a human nature and, in His humanity, set aside some rights of His divinity. While He was on the earth, it was the purpose of the Godhead that His glory be veiled and that He grew in wisdom. His humanity did not know the beginning from the end. He suffered emotional and physical pain and reacted to the pain inflicted by others.

His human nature is now glorified. Yes it is still a full human nature but a glorified one and, in His person, there is perfect communication between the divine and human natures. Christ has emotions but they are not reactive emotions and, as such, He is impassible.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2011)

py3ak said:


> I think you have it backwards. The human nature of Jesus was certainly not impassible during the time of His humiliation: He was capable of suffering and He did suffer.
> 
> Now, though, He has been exalted: He has entered a condition of glorification, and suffering is done away, if not as a logical possibility certainly as a present reality; but nonetheless He is still touched with the feelings of our infirmities. I recommend _The Heart of Christ in Heaven Towards Sinners on Earth_ by Thomas Goodwin for a beautiful treatment of the exaltation of Christ.



You are correct I did mean He was passible during His ministry.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> Impassibility does not mean that God is not subject to emotion but it refers to the fact that He is without passions. God is said to be angry, joyful, and a number of other emotions but the issue is whether God is learning information and then reacting to these events with his emotions.
> 
> For example, somebody cuts me off on the freeway. I have an immediate, surprised reaction to that event that evokes anger.
> 
> ...



I do not wish to get into "God being angry" now for I suspect we may disagree on if God can be angry "while being in a happy repose" I like how Calvin and Edwars used to say believe "as if" God is angry.

So do you think Jesus, now glorifed, still feel the wounds in His hands, physically?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Impassibility does not mean that God is not subject to emotion but it refers to the fact that He is without passions. God is said to be angry, joyful, and a number of other emotions but the issue is whether God is learning information and then reacting to these events with his emotions.
> 
> For example, somebody cuts me off on the freeway. I have an immediate, surprised reaction to that event that evokes anger.
> 
> ...



Rich, I have a couple of quibbles with your post. One, though merely verbal, is that using the language of "*subject* to emotion" still conveys an essentially passive idea; obviously you reject that, but the initial wording is not quite precise. Another is that emotions are attributed to God anthropopathically, not properly: such statements speak of God's effects, not His internal state. Denying that God is reacting is good, but it is also necessary to be clear that no variableness (not even a self-caused variation) is present.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 18, 2011)

As the Eternal Word, the second person of the Blessed Holy Undivided Trinity was impassible. Impassibility means that He was always and ever the One who has decreed and who acts. He is never acted upon: He has no passive properties. 

When the Word became flesh, He added humanity to His deity. With respect to his creaturely nature, He was subject to suffering. Yet, in the intergrity of His Theanthropic person, He remained, because He remained fully God, impassible. This is a great mystery, well-expressed in the Tome of Leo and clearly promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.). 

In his exaltation (resurrection and session), He remains, of course, both as God and man in one person forever, impassible. This is a much maligned doctrine these days, from Moltmann to a plethora of evangelicals, due in some part to the misconstruction and misrepresentation of the doctrine by certain rationalists. 

Warfield deals beautifully with this in his magisterial "Emotional Life of our Lord," and Shedd has a fairly full treatment of a separate but related question in his long chapter on the "Impeccability of Christ" (in his _Dogmatic Theology_)


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> In his exaltation (resurrection and session), He remains, of course, both as God and man in one person forever, impassible. This is a much maligned doctrine these days, from Moltmann to a plethora of evangelicals, due in some part to the misconstruction and misrepresentation of the doctrine by certain rationalists.
> 
> Warfield deals beautifully with this in his magisterial "Emotional Life of our Lord," and Shedd has a fairly full treatment of a separate but related question in his long chapter on the "Impeccability of Christ" (in his _Dogmatic Theology_)



So His human nature become impassible since He is now glorified?


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 18, 2011)

earl40 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Alpha and Omega.
> ...



Hmm... No he didn't. To quote the Nicene Creed as it is in the Trinity Hymnal (Red):
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,

begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary,
*and was made man*;

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

To answer the question... He is impassible in his divine nature, but not in his human nature.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 18, 2011)

earl40 said:


> So His human nature become impassible since He is now glorified?


 I would deny that the risen Jesus can be slapped and that his face would swell. Recall his walking through walls, which many propose that his human nature can take on a spirit/matterless form on command, this Calvin denies (I remember reading somewhere). The human nature (flesh) of Christ cannot be but human flesh which cannot alter. Calvin argues that in his walking through walls, it was not Jesus but the wall that changed its composition and gave way when Jesus was passing through as very man of very man.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 18, 2011)

Earl:

I did not put it that way. This is a vast mystery and it is unduly partitive to speak of Him solely with respect to one nature or the other and not in the integrity of His theanthropic person. This mystery consumed the church in its early centuries and its attentiveness to the biblical facts in this regard was its glory. Before speaking quickly, and hence facilely, about this profound mystery we ought to think and study carefully. I fully affirm, as has the church in all its branches since the early centuries, the formulation of this in the Tome of Leo. I would suggest that everyone here read this to get this glorious mystery: That Christ became, and continued, truly God and man in one person. He came down from His glory, but, at the same time, never left the throne. So much more to say about this but I have to run now.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2011)

In His humanity alone, Jesus is not impassible, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent.

*Dennis*


> I would deny that the risen Jesus can be slapped and that his face would swell.



Christ is beyond such blasphemous treatment now. His human body and reasonable soul are glorified and exalted, but He remains a glorified and exalted man in His humanity.



> So do you think Jesus, now glorifed, still feel the wounds in His hands, physically?



Christ's suffering for us ended when He committed His rational human soul to the Father.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 18, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> In His humanity alone, Jesus is not impassible, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent.
> 
> *Dennis*
> 
> ...


I don't see what was blasphemous about my statement. I am only saying that I don't believe his human flesh is subject to corruption or change.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > In His humanity alone, Jesus is not impassible, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent.
> ...



I didn't say you were blasphemous, but those who slapped him were; although I don't know why you chose that as an example.

I agree that Christ's body was, and our bodies will be, made incorruptible. Whether or not that involves what you are saying I don't know. There won't be violence and violent treatment in the Heavenly Kingdom, anyway.

Just because Christ's and our bodies become incorruptible, doesn't logically entail that His humanity became impassible and immutable.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2011)

earl40 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I think you have it backwards. The human nature of Jesus was certainly not impassible during the time of His humiliation: He was capable of suffering and He did suffer.
> ...



I updated the thread title to reflect your question better. The question is, I believe, if the glorified human nature of Christ is impassible - that is, incapable of suffering. Obviously there is no question (on a confessional board) as to whether the divine nature is impassible; nor, I should think, is there any question as to whether Christ is actually suffering, since that part of His work is completed and exaltation is incompatible with an experience of suffering. 
In some ways, it is then a purely hypothetical question, in that it raises the point whether a capacity for suffering persists in an environment where there is no possibility of suffering.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 18, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> I didn't say you were blasphemous, but those who slapped him were; although I don't know why you chose that as an example.


 forgive my misreading of your post.



py3ak said:


> In some ways, it is then a purely hypothetical question, in that it raises the point whether a capacity for suffering persists in an environment where there is no possibility of suffering.


 If one reads Christ's coming to make war on the nations as literal in any way, then the potential is there. Again I point to Jesus walking through walls. His material body would have approached a solid wall with some potential of harm if contact were made, yet the wall dissolved before his substance and gave way. I still think there's something the human nature of Christ that doesn't allow for corruption, but there's the question of whether bruising and bleeding is a property of true humanity as it was always meant to be, or a result of fallenness.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 18, 2011)

Here is a relevant portion from the book by Thomas Goodwin Ruben mentioned above (a wonderful book, and I believe an edition edited by Mark Jones to be more readable is forthcoming). I'm sorry it's a bit lengthy: the first paragraph makes the point, and I added the second because it explains further.



> Lastly, if these affections of Christ's heart be not suffering affections; yet we may express this of them, that there is less fulness of joy in Christ's heart whilst he sees us in misery, than when we are presented to him free of them all. To clear this, I must, recall that distinction of a double fulness of joy, which Christ is ordained to have: the one natural, due unto his person, as in himself considered: the other additional, and arising from the complete happiness of his church. So Eph. 1: 23, though, by reason of his personal fulness, he is said to fill all in all; yet in relation to his church, the perfection of this his body's beatitude, called his fulness, is imperfect. And therefore, until he has filled them with all happiness, and delivered them from all misery, himself remains under some kind of imperfection; and his affections also, in comparison of what his heart shall have when they receive this fullness.
> 
> I shall add some illustration by this similitude (though it hold not in all things): the spirits of just men departed are said to be perfect, Heb. 12: yet, because they have bodies unto which they have a relation, they in this respect may be said to be imperfect, till these bodies be reunited and glorified with them. Thus in some analogy it stands between Christ personal, and Christ mystically considered. although Christ in his own person be complete in happiness; yet in relation to his members he is imperfect, and so accordingly has affections suited unto this his relation: which is no derogation from him at all. The Scripture therefore attributes some affections to him, which have an imperfection joined with them. Thus expectation and desire, (which are but imperfect affections in comparison of that joy which is in the full fruition of what was expected or desired,) are attributed to him, as he is man, until the day of judgment. Thus, Heb 10: 12, 13, he is said to sit in heaven, " expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." The destruction of which enemies will add to the manifestative glory of his kingdom. Now as that will add to the fulness of his greatness; so the complete salvation of his members will add to the completeness of his glory. And as the expectation of his enemies' ruin may be said to be an imperfect affection in comparison of the triumph that one day he shall have over them; so his joy which he now has in his spouse is but imperfect, in comparison of that which shall fill his heart at the great day of marriage . . . .



Can Christ ever according to his human nature be said to possess an attribute unique to the Divine nature? Would He not still have fully human emotions, and wouldn't they still be responsive, as a dependent creature, to God -- even though He is no longer capable of suffering by them (and the above quotes make me think that His human emotions, while not suffering ones, are also responsive to some degree to His church)?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> If one reads Christ's coming to make war on the nations as literal in any way, then the potential is there.



If one does that, one has bigger problems.

Incidentally, here is a link to Leo's excellent _Tome_; those alarmed by the suggestion of length involved in that title may be relieved to know that it is simply a letter to Flavian, and is quite concise.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2011)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Thank you for the edit.

So can I ask if Jesus weeps now? I trend to think not, in that in the resurection we wil have every tear wiped from our eyes and will cry no more. Though we do not know what we will be like then, we do know that we will not cry anymore after the ressurection.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 18, 2011)

Scripture are quite clear on this point. Even in his glorified human nature, Christ's human nature does not communicate with his the divine and they remain in hypostatis. 
4:15 For we *do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize* with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. 
5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 
5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, 
“You are my Son, 
today I have begotten you”; 
6 as he says also in another place, 
“You are a priest forever, 
after the order of Melchizedek.” 


The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Heb 4:15–5:6.

If Christ is able to sympathize for his elect, it follows he does not for the reprobate, this divine impassibility does not apply. Christ's human nature is moved to act on behalf only for one and not all, thus implying passibility in some sense.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------




jogri17 said:


> Scripture are quite clear on this point. Even in his glorified human nature, Christ's human nature does not communicate with his the divine and they remain in hypostatis.
> 4:15 For we *do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize* with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
> 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.
> 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,
> ...


Correction, Christ's human and divine natures do communicate in hypostasis, but not in the sense that attributes from one can be applied to the other except for the attributes that both human and divine natures share (communicable attributes).


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2011)

> If one reads Christ's coming to make war on the nations as literal in any way, then the potential is there. Again I point to Jesus walking through walls. His material body would have approached a solid wall with some potential of harm if contact were made, yet the wall dissolved before his substance and gave way. I still think there's something the human nature of Christ that doesn't allow for corruption, but there's the question of whether bruising and bleeding is a property of true humanity as it was always meant to be, or a result of fallenness.



None of this means that Christ's human nature has now incommunicable divine attributes.



> If one reads Christ's coming to make war on the nations as literal in any way,



Why would He "make war on the nations in any literal way" when He has already declared war on them and is carrying it out in history by His Word, Spirit, Church and Providence.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Aug 18, 2011)

What's the difference between God the Son *before His incarnation*, God the Son *during His ministry* and God the Son *in His resurrection*? Did Thomas Goodwin have a treatise on this?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 18, 2011)

earl40 said:


> So can I ask if Jesus weeps now? I trend to think not, in that in the resurection we wil have every tear wiped from our eyes and will cry no more. Though we do not know what we will be like then, we do know that we will not cry anymore after the ressurection.



We are not told that He does, and have no reason to think that He would. Being a man of sorrows was proper to His state of humiliation; but He is still touched with the feelings of our infirmities.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 18, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What's the difference between God the Son before His incarnation, God the Son during His ministry and God the Son in His resurrection? Did Thomas Goodwin have a treatise on this?


Before: No human nature. God the Son, same substance of the father one nature. 
At the incarnation he took upon a second nature and laid aside his benefits, thus from conception to death the Spirit sanctified him (though was without sin) and kept him holy and granted him supernatural abilities. 
At the Reserection and asscension more precisely, Christ was given all things, was sat at the right hand of God to rule and to act as a priest. Still 2 natures in one person in hypostatic union. This fact remains for ever. God the Son, will never go back to his preincarnate state.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 18, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What's the difference between God the Son *before His incarnation*, God the Son *during His ministry* and God the Son *in His resurrection*? Did Thomas Goodwin have a treatise on this?



Samuel, I hope Paul or someone more familiar with Goodwin will answer, but I am looking forward to reading this by Thomas Goodwin, which seems like it would deal with those things:

Books - Bible Study - Jesus Christ - Christ Our Mediator, Thomas Goodwin, hard cover - Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Aug 18, 2011)

a mere housewife said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference between God the Son *before His incarnation*, God the Son *during His ministry* and God the Son *in His resurrection*? Did Thomas Goodwin have a treatise on this?
> ...



Thanks, Heidi. If you're interested, here is the work in a PDF file:

http://www.archive.org/download/theworksofthomas05gooduoft/theworksofthomas05gooduoft.pdf


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2011)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > So can I ask if Jesus weeps now? I trend to think not, in that in the resurection we wil have every tear wiped from our eyes and will cry no more. Though we do not know what we will be like then, we do know that we will not cry anymore after the ressurection.
> ...



Touched up to the point where He does not cry?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 19, 2011)

Touched to the point where He is merciful and compassionate - as prone to be merciful as we are to need mercy. Unless you define compassion in terms of tears (which I don't know why you would; Jesus was certainly compassionate to the widow of Nain, and yet we are not told of any weeping on that occasion), I don't think there's any reason to speculate about the functioning of tear ducts in a glorified body.

Samuel, to answer your question about Christ before and after the incarnation, it is not very complicated. Before the incarnation there was one person and one nature; after the incarnation there was one person and two natures, and that person went through an estate of humiliation and has now entered a state of exaltation. These are all profitable points for meditation, and I think you will find value in almost any Reformed treatment of the states of Christ.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Touched to the point where He is merciful and compassionate - as prone to be merciful as we are to need mercy. Unless you define compassion in terms of tears (which I don't know why you would; Jesus was certainly compassionate to the widow of Nain, and yet we are not told of any weeping on that occasion), I don't think there's any reason to speculate about the functioning of tear ducts in a glorified body.



Though Jesus can sympathize with our infirmities does this mean He, now glorified, can be moved to compassion. In other words, I understand during His ministry 2,000 years ago He indeed was moved (Human nature) but now that He is glorified is there any way He can be changed by His creatures? As Adam was created mutable is Jesus still mutable today? If He is still mutable and can change, like being moved with compassion, why not think it would be impossible to think He could not have a physical response (like crying) today. The reason I say such is that one day we will forever have no tears and be like Him in that we will never cry again.

So is it possible that a man could be immutable?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 19, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Though Jesus can sympathize with our infirmities does this mean He, now glorified, can be moved to compassion. In other words, I understand during His ministry 2,000 years ago He indeed was moved (Human nature) but now that He is glorified is there any way He can be changed by His creatures? As Adam was created mutable is Jesus still mutable today? If He is still mutable and can change, like being moved with compassion, why not think it would be impossible to think He could not have a physical response (like crying) today. The reason I say such is that one day we will forever have no tears and be like Him in that we will never cry again.
> 
> So is it possible that a man could be immutable?



You would have to clarify in what sense you are speaking. Is Christ subject to change in the sense of defection or development? Obviously not. If that is all you mean by immutability, the answer is clear. The spirits of just men made perfect are no longer subject to sin: in that sense, they are immutable. But I think it would be better to think of them as confirmed and established in holiness, rather than somehow given an ontological status that belongs to the divine nature.

There is no reason to think that Christ would be moved to weep because, in the first place, we are not told that He does; and in the second place, His sorrows are over; but as man He is no less merciful, no less tender, now in His exaltation than He was in His humiliation. Are you selecting weeping simply as an example of a broader principle, or is there a precise reason why you are raising the question in exactly those terms?


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 19, 2011)

py3ak said:


> In some ways, it is then a purely hypothetical question, in that it raises the point whether a capacity for suffering persists in an environment where there is no possibility of suffering.



If it is true that Christ now can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, the environment he is in now must allow for a possibility of suffering for the first clause of this sentence to be true.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 19, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > In some ways, it is then a purely hypothetical question, in that it raises the point whether a capacity for suffering persists in an environment where there is no possibility of suffering.
> ...



Only if you assume that compassion means suffering. I don't see any reason to assume that.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 19, 2011)

Earl and Tim:

As I said earlier, much care must be had in handling this. As to his humanity, Jesus is passible and mutable. But the Logos, the eternal Son of God is not, as Shedd wrote, "The trinitarian personality of the Son of God did not begin at the incarnation, but the theanthropic personality of Jesus Christ did. It is the divine nature, and not the human, which is the base of Christ's person. The second trinitarian person is the root and stock into which the human nature is grafted. The wild olive is grafted into the good olive, and partakes of its root and fatness" (DT, II, 269).

This is why Jesus, in the hypostatic union, could not sin, or, as we say, he was impeccable. It did not mean that the sinless humanity that was added to deity was impeccable as such, with reference only to humanity, but in union with deity it was. Think of Jesus humanity as a malleable copper wire, able to sin and not to sin as was Adam in his original, yet unglorified, state. This copper wire, however, was, as it were, welded to a steel beam, and though it in itself could be bent, yet the beam to which it was welded could not be bent: in the integrity of His theanthropic person, our blessed Lord was impeccable, not simply sinless, but not capable of sinning. A glorified humanity, such as we will be in our heavenly estate, is also not capable of sinning. But Jesus never was able to sin, even in an unglorified, though sinless, humanity, because such humanity susbsisted with deity in the hypostatic union.

Please note that this is the _communicatio idiomatum in concreto_. I am not suggesting that there is a communication of attributes such that the deity transforms the humanity, as it does for our Lutheran friends, allowing for sacramental ubiquity. At the same time, it is not just Calvinists, or Antiochenes, contra the Lutherans, but historic Christianity that teaches that the incarnation does not limit the Logos, the finite not able to contain the infinite. 

Much more could be said here, but the bottom line is that, and here's what people generally miss, He who was God fully retained ALL HIS ATTRIBUTES AS GOD (though coming down from His glory and voluntarily unknowing of certain things) and at the same time was a man who tired and hungered and was no superman but made in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin. One commonly hears that believers tend to Docetism or the other heresies (Apollinarianism, monophysitism, etc.) that deny his humanity. Perhaps. I know that we struggle to understand what it means that He was a man. But I think more than that we tend to err by not really holding to all that it means that He is fully God and fully man. To say simply that Jesus was passible is to make this error. Much more reading and thinking and praying if one wishes to graps this.

While we can say that Jesus Christ is passible in his humanity and impassible in his deity, we can never say, Earl, simpliciter, that Jesus was ever passible. That's what started this thread, the statement to the effect that "Jesus was passible in his ministry 2000 years ago." Only insofar as he was also impassible, impeccable, and immutable as God. This is a vast mystery, second only to how it is that, as the Athanasian Creed says: The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; but there are not three Gods, but only One God. Jesus is God and man in one person from His incarnation forward and we can never leave out any of that reality. The Wesley's Christology, by the way, was deficient. He neither "emptied Himself of all but love," nor did He "leave the Father's throne above" without further qualification. Athanasius on the Incarnation is another wonderful, devotional exploration of these beautiful truths.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2011)

py3ak said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



You may be correct......how can one empathize, sympathize or have compassion without have a degree of suffering?

Now it is possible how this may work. For instance I can tell a friend "I know how you feel" after they tell me their grandfather died. I can say this with total honesty in that I really know how they feel because I felt that way when my grandfather died. Now here is the kicker, I am not sad because my friends grandfather is not my grandfather but I am empathetic because I know how he feels. In other words, my feelings are ABSENT but I am still empathetic.

So my point about Jesus STILL having feelings, like the holes in His hands still causing pain or having pain in His heart over us experiencing bad providence may not be. For as you say His sufferings are ended but the suffering of His passions are as yet unfulfilled.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 20, 2011)

Earl:

My dear brother, you are trying to "figure Jesus out" with respect to these things and it simply won't work.

Jesus acts as our great high priest, seated at the Father's right hand, making intercession for us. The one who makes intercession for us, wonder of wonders, does so as one who Himself has our own nature. In other words, Christ in his full humanity is at the Father's right hand. Think of it, a sympathizing high priest, able to be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, together with the Spirit within (and thus Christ within, the hope of glory and the Father and Son taking up residence--John 14:23), who, on our behalf makes inutterable groanings. What a dual intercessor we have!

My counsel to you would be to stop trying to figure out the mechanics of this or else carefully to study the discussion of God's revelation about this as it has enfolded in church history. To keep speculating as you are without such being grounded in solid study of the Bible and its interpretation seems fruitless and frustrating. Your last attempt above at "I am not sad because..." does not at all get at it. In fact, it demeans (I know you did not intend it to) the indescribable way in which our Savior sympathizes with us and in that sympathy even represents us and our case before His Father. 

He cares about us as no other ever has or could. He understands you like no other. And He both makes intercession for you at the Father's right hand and dwells within you as the hope of glory. It is all far greater than you are conceiving it. How He can so thoroughly sympathize and still be impassible as God is a mystery, but it's part of the mystery of how He can be God and man in one person. We need to seek to understand all the dimensions of this, and then recognize that our inability to reconcile them all is part of the great mystery. We must affirm everything taught in revelation, shaving off nothing to fit some a priori conception that we have of how such things should work. If we consistently shape things to fit our limited capacities (remember God is incomprehensible), we will end up with the Christ of the heretics and not the Christ of the Scriptures and I know that none of us want that.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Aug 20, 2011)

Earl, I think the key points are to keep in mind that He is a _merciful and a faithful high priest_ and that He is able to succor those that are tempted, because He has also experienced temptation. The ability to assist is there; the willingness to assist is there. You can add that He never becomes discouraged or impatient. But I think this is where the heart of the matter lies, not in any question as to what degree the wounds in His hands have healed or whether He is oppressed by sorrow: for the joy that was set before Him He endured the cross - now He is entered into that joy, and pilots us with supreme skill and tenderness to enter into our joy as well.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> My dear brother, you are trying to "figure Jesus out" with respect to these things and it simply won't work.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your reply. Now I hope you see my speculations are on based on inferences drawn from scripture. The bible does say we will be "like Him" and that "like Him" will entail us having no more tears which is In my most humble opinion an indication a lack of pain, suffering and true feelings of such in the future state of the new heavens and earth. So when I asked if Jesus (in His humanity) is immutable now, concerning His being moved to compassion, I do believe Jesus now is different (glorified) than during His earthly ministry. I rather think that we can think we could change His mind "as if" we could move Him to act compassionately towards us while knowing that I do believe His divine nature is no longer "put aside" after His Resurrection.

If there is scripture of The post Resurrection Jesus showing that He is mutable (concerning changing feelings) I will shut up and desist for what I have found by reading the bible there is an discernible "difference" in Jesus before and after His Resurrection.

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Earl, I think the key points are to keep in mind that He is a _merciful and a faithful high priest_ and that He is able to succor those that are tempted, because He has also experienced temptation. The ability to assist is there; the willingness to assist is there. You can add that He never becomes discouraged or impatient. But I think this is where the heart of the matter lies, not in any question as to what degree the wounds in His hands have healed or whether He is oppressed by sorrow: for the joy that was set before Him He endured the cross - now He is entered into that joy, and pilots us with supreme skill and tenderness to enter into our joy as well.



No doubt, I agree with all you have written here for I do believe that it may be possible to render mercy and grace to many without "feeling" their pain....at that moment.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 20, 2011)

Earl, I think you would take away a tremendous consolation from us if you want to date Christ's sympathy for us at some other time and place than the time and place when we need it most. There is indeed a Scripture that says that He is even now, in His glorification, touched with the feelings of our infirmities: this human response of our High Priest in heaven is surely a 'mutable' one, for our infirmities are not forever.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 20, 2011)

Earl:

I do not think that you are making any valid inferences that I can discern. We will be "like him." Yes. How? The rest of Scripture would fill this in, going back to Genesis in our creation in the likeness and image of God and in places like Eph. 4:24 and Col 3:10 where restoration is mentioned. We were like God in the beginning. We will be fully restored in that likeness. We will enjoy, in other words, restoration of true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. We will enjoy that in a glorified state in which we will be not able to sin (unlike Adam in his probation, Christ having fulfilled ours and paid for our sin).

Will we have no sorrow then? Yes, Revelation tells us that. Will Jesus have no sorrow then? Yes, because all sin and suffering will be past. Does that mean that Jesus has no sorrow now? I don't think that at all follows. He is able to be touched with the feelings of our infirmities: I do not think that we should posit anything about Him as our great high priest with respect to such that would make Him less compassionate than the Scriptures paints Him. 

Was Jesus more sympathetic to us in his humiliation than He is now in His exaltation? We are still in our humiliation; we follow after Him, awaiting exaltation at His coming. We need his sympathy in our humiliation. There, in the new heavens and new earth, we will be delivered and no longer have that need, at least in that way. Why would He now be less sympathizing and what in Scripture would indicate that? Why need we speculate that because his humanity is glorified, He no longer can be touched as He was by the feeling of our infirmities?

Think of this: though He is in His glory, He continues to lift us up into the heavenlies, while we remain in our humiliation. We experience this particularly in the sacrament of communion. The Christ, who is with us by the Spirit, though He is exalted, comes to us in our humiliation under the emblems of his humiliation, bread and wine. The bread and the wine signify the nadir of his humiliation. This is evidence of His great sympathizing: though exalted, He dwells with us, by His Spirit, and strengthens us in our humiliation by signs of His own humiliation, by that which stands for his broken body and shed blood. 

I don't think that we have any warrant to even talk about "our Lord used to be touched and mourn for us and does no longer." I maintain that such is unhelpful speculation without warrant.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 21, 2011)

> Thank you for your reply. Now I hope you see my speculations are on based on inferences drawn from scripture. The bible does say we will be "like Him" and that "like Him" will entail us having no more tears which is In my most humble opinion an indication a lack of pain, suffering and true feelings of such in the future state of the new heavens and earth. So when I asked if Jesus (in His humanity) is immutable now, concerning His being moved to compassion, I do believe Jesus now is different (glorified) than during His earthly ministry. I rather think that we can think we could change His mind "as if" we could move Him to act compassionately towards us while knowing that I do believe His divine nature is no longer "put aside" after His Resurrection.
> 
> If there is scripture of The post Resurrection Jesus showing that He is mutable (concerning changing feelings) I will shut up and desist for what I have found by reading the bible there is an discernible "difference" in Jesus before and after His Resurrection.



Christ will always remain very much a human being - albeit a glorified and exalted human being.

Human beings in their very nature are both mutable and passible. But although - in His humanity - Christ is both mutable and passible, in Heaven in His glorified and exalted state He is beyond suffering,but not beyond compassion and fellow feeling, as we will be when we join Him there. Christ and the saints in glory know the end from the beginning in a way that we don't.



> that "like Him" will entail us having no more tears which is In my most humble opinion an indication a lack of pain, suffering and true feelings of such in the future state of the new heavens and earth.



It doesn't say that we will be incapable of these things, just that they will not be there because there will be no reason for them. You're subtily and rationalistically adding to what Scripture says.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> I do not think that you are making any valid inferences that I can discern. We will be "like him." Yes. How? The rest of Scripture would fill this in, going back to Genesis in our creation in the likeness and image of God and in places like Eph. 4:24 and Col 3:10 where restoration is mentioned. We were like God in the beginning. We will be fully restored in that likeness. We will enjoy, in other words, restoration of true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. We will enjoy that in a glorified state in which we will be not able to sin (unlike Adam in his probation, Christ having fulfilled ours and paid for our sin).



May I reply, not concerning the original question I asked, but as a sidelight that was brought up by some inferences you bring up? Now doubt we will be restored as Adam was in the garden before the fall with one possible exception. Do you think we will "have the knowledge of good and evil"? If so, we will not be restored in the exact same likeness of Adam but totally aware of the evil of those in hell and of the evil we committed that Jesus paid for. Thus even though death and suffering have indeed passed away, for us, they are still present for those in hell. Also was not Adam created mutable (able to sin) and we will be immutable (unable to sin) when resurrected? Are these valid references in your opinion?

Blessings to all who have responded.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2011)

I think you should distinguish between _actually changing_ or being _subject to change_ and being _capable of change_. We know that angelic nature is intrinsically capable of change, because some of the angels kept not their first estate; but the elect angels, though having the same nature and therefore being capable of change did not actually change and being now confirmed in holiness would not be subject to change. 
When you say "immutable" some people think of "capable of change" and as such are careful to affirm that contingent, dependent beings are always intrinsically capable of change. In that sense, God only has immutability. 
But if someone hears "immutable" and thinks "free from change" or "confirmed in holiness" then of course they are eager to assert that elect angels and glorified believers are "immutable" in that second sense - just like we speak of our "immortal souls" even though, properly, only God has immortality. Or to use another illustration, God can keep us from falling, but that doesn't mean we are inherently infallible; we may pass a test with no errors, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of mistakes.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 21, 2011)

Earl:

With respect to your last question, above, that is answered in the post that you cite. In terms of man's four fold state, glorified man will be not able to sin: The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only (WCF 9.5). Nothing I said indicated otherwise.

As for the knowledge of good and evil, we will also have that, though not in rebellion, but in perfection. That is to say we shall know good and evil from God's perspective rather than that of the devil and we shall perfectly agree with Him in all His judgments. When I say that we will be restored, I do not mean simply to Adam's place (no probation, I have made clear), but to where Christ's work takes us. 

In other words, we gain more in Christ than we ever lost in Adam. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Aug 21, 2011)

Thank you Alan and Ruben for all of the great information.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 22, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> > Thank you for your reply. Now I hope you see my speculations are on based on inferences drawn from scripture. The bible does say we will be "like Him" and that "like Him" will entail us having no more tears which is In my most humble opinion an indication a lack of pain, suffering and true feelings of such in the future state of the new heavens and earth. So when I asked if Jesus (in His humanity) is immutable now, concerning His being moved to compassion, I do believe Jesus now is different (glorified) than during His earthly ministry. I rather think that we can think we could change His mind "as if" we could move Him to act compassionately towards us while knowing that I do believe His divine nature is no longer "put aside" after His Resurrection.
> >
> > If there is scripture of The post Resurrection Jesus showing that He is mutable (concerning changing feelings) I will shut up and desist for what I have found by reading the bible there is an discernible "difference" in Jesus before and after His Resurrection.
> 
> ...



Thank you Richard.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 25, 2011)

MarieP said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > During His ministry 2,000 years ago He was, but is He now?
> ...



I was reading your post again Marie and you do a very good job of peaking my curosity as per my original post. You ask..."does Jesus still feel emotion in heaven? "

If we use the word emotion as a feeling that comes from a cause outside of ones self, can we say Jesus has emotions today? Now I can see where Jesus, in His humanity 2,000 years ago did indeed have emotions as I defined here because He was limited in His humanity and as yet was not glorified and did not know what was around the corner (according to His humanity) which effected the emotional responce. So does the glorified Jesus know the future (in His humanity) today? If so can we predicate emotions on Him knowing He does not react to events that he knows are going to happen. I say no , given the definition of emotions I laid forth. Of course this is why I ask ....Does the glorified Jesus know everything in the future, today (according to His humanity)?


----------



## earl40 (Sep 21, 2011)

Here is an interesting take on if we will be impassible at the Resurrection.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The impassibility of the bodies of the blessed after their resurrection (Supplementum, Q. 82)


----------

