Christ's Humanity

[Jonathan]

I was just reading today, in a book I just bought, when I found this line... "He [Christ] was born of a woman; he performed the ordinary functions, and was liable to the common accidents of humanity..."

This statement struck me as unfounded in Scripture... am I wrong?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Can you clarify what is meant by "common accidents of humanity"? Also, who is the author and what is the book?

 

[fredtgreco]

I would think this merely refers to the true humanity of Christ - namely that he could get sick, hurt, etc. That is what I think "accidents" means.

What was the book?

 

[sastark]

Just out of curiosity (and to attempt to derail this thread), Did Christ ever get sick?

 

[Jonathan]

Author is John Brown (I posted about this in the Library the other day)... It is his book The Resurrection of Life.

Let me put it into context:

"The question now before us is Who Christ is. Now, beyond all question, he is a man--- "the man Christ Jesus." He is "bone of our bones"--- "flesh of our flesh." He was born of a woman; he performed the ordinary functions, and was liable to the common accidents of humanity; (I translated this that Christ could "stub his toe"; maybe I am misreading it... but that is what I thought it meant) he lived the life and died the death of a man."

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

OK, given the full context (source and surrounding statement) I agree that Fred's understanding of that term sounds correct, meaning I don't see anything unorthodox about the phrase. It is clear that Jesus experienced pain and suffering is his life on earth; it is his shed blood that atones for the sins of his people. His divinity did not make him immune to the pains of this earthly life.

 

[Jonathan]

Hmm... so could Christ technically "stub his toe"? Also what sasark said,

"Just out of curiosity (and to attempt to derail this thread), Did Christ ever get sick? "

I know that he suffered pain on His earthly ministry, but the thing that struck me was the common accidents, so Christ could have an accident?

 

[Ianterrell]

I think the language is fine. I don't have any problems with a young Jesus pooping in his britches or forgetting the words to a song.

 

[Jonathan]

Hmm... I understand the fact that he suffered pain, was tempted, even asked that the cup of God's wrath pass from him... but I always thought the making of a mistake (an error) was a result of our fallen nature... for example... could He forget something? Maybe I am wrong, and just misinterpretting it entirely; still am a new Christian, and not that bright You will have to be patient with my ignorance

[Edited on 12-17-2004 by Jonathan]

 

[Ianterrell]

He was subject to everything common to man, sickness, pain, tripping on poorly laced sandals. Everything common to man except sin.

 

[pastorway]

To err is not necessarily the same as to sin. He got lost from His parents when coming home from the Temple didn't He? He was human, I am sure He got sick, probably even hit his thumb with a hammer in the carpenter shop!

Like Paul said, He was not a "superman" - He was a divine man, fully God and fully man, yet without sin.

Phillip

 

[Jonathan]

I get it now... I just was throwing myself off . Your posts were very helpful though... I always had a "head-knowedge" that Christ was subject to everything we were... but I always kind of pictured him kind of "above the storm". It gives me a fuller realization that Christ suffers what we suffer. "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. ". The only thing I can say is "Who [is] a God like unto thee".

God works in such mysterious ways... he allows me to find this book in the back of the bookshelf... buy it, come home, read it... find this tiny little paragraph in one of the beginning chapters, pricks my interest in a statement, then allows me to post on this board and in the matter of less than an hour strikes down my mind's idea that Christ was somehow a superman. I find every day that God is teaching me more about Christ... I have sat under awesome preaching for nearly 10 years, and yet for most of the 10 years I either didn't listen or only attained a head knowledge. Then Christ in mercy opens your eyes and you see Christ not merely as an example to follow, but your Savior and Friend. I now find that every day He teaches me something new, or re-teaches me the truth about something that I erred on. You don't even know how thankful I am for this forum... I have learned more in the last few weeks than I have in my entire life... Being such a young Christian it is nice to have this board to come and learn on. Oh it is great to be saved! :bigsmile:

 

[turmeric]

One meaning of "accidents" is visible properties. It used to come up when discussing the Eucharist with a Catholic priest I used to know. He talked about "the accidents of bread & wine" meaning; it looks like bread & wine but it's really Christ's body & blood.

 

[alwaysreforming]

Jonathan writes:
" it is nice to have this board to come and learn on"

Yeah, Jonathan, this board is a great place to run ideas across and get sharpened. I used to think I was really smart (because very few people took theology seriously in my former church) until I came across the PB and found out HOW LITTLE I KNOW!

Now I'm starting from the ground up again...

And by the way, thinking of Jesus' humanity the way you used to is very common. I used to think of Him as a Superman as well: no accidents, no colds, no toe stubbing, nada.

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by turmeric
One meaning of "accidents" is visible properties. It used to come up when discussing the Eucharist with a Catholic priest I used to know. He talked about "the accidents of bread & wine" meaning; it looks like bread & wine but it's really Christ's body & blood.

Yeah, in some 18th century philosophy I've read, they talk about "accidents" a lot, and they don't mean unanticipated events, they mean attributes.

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by Paul manata
But accidents in the philosophical sense was not what the author intended. Unless he's an idiot. He said that Jesus was "liable" to common accidents of humanity. So, philosophically, an accidental attribute of man is, say, legs. So, Jesus was liable to having legs?

Are you saying Jesus didn't have legs?

Coincidentally, I read those texts for a philosophy class, which I slept through every time, and which decided for me that I would never, ever take philosophy again! But I did find Locke and Hume interesting.

 

[turmeric]

[Are you saying Jesus didn't have legs?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

The prophecy, Paul, would surround the cross and the curifragium that would have surrounded the shattering of theive's legs to kill them quicker on the cross. So yes, if Jesus was on top of his hut when he was six and decided to jump off, he'd break his legs.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata
well, what's interesting is this: were the bones of Jesus unbreakable?

Since the Bible says that they wouldn't be broken, but we all agreed that Jesus was not a superman, then were Jesus' bones super bones or what?

Isn't it just possible that what this prophecy refers to is not the quality of Christ's legs, but the Providence of His life?

 

[fredtgreco]

'dem bones
'dem bones

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Paul manata
well, what's interesting is this: were the bones of Jesus unbreakable?

Since the Bible says that they wouldn't be broken, but we all agreed that Jesus was not a superman, then were Jesus' bones super bones or what?

They are breakable bones that didnt break. Just because God has predestined something doesnt mean theoretically its impossible for something contrary to happen. Calvin uses this example to demonstrate the sovereignty of God and the freedom of the natural will.... But I heard it in a Bahnsen lecture