Dual nature of Jesus/the Son?

Status
Not open for further replies.

thistle93

Puritan Board Freshman
Somethings that I have wondered lately are questions about the duel nature of Jesus/the Son.

Was Jesus known as Jesus from all eternity or as Bible seems to indicate name given that name at His birth? Might just be semantics.

Would it be unorthodox to say the SON, the second person of the Trinity is eternal but Jesus the God-man was part eternal being "the SON" and part created being "human flesh". For this seems to be why he was the perfect sacrifice for sin. He was both God and man. But before His birth He was just God.

When we refer to Jesus in the OT, should we refer to Him as the Son rather than Jesus, being that he did not take this name and nature on until NT times?

Jesus will keep his God/man nature for all eternity, correct?

Finally was it just the human nature of Jesus that died on the cross and not the God nature?

I know this is a lot to answer but I believe vital to who Jesus/the SON is.

Thank you!


For His Glory-
Matthew
 
Your terminology is a bit confused. Christ is one Person with two natures. He doesn't have a God/man nature but is one Person with two natures.

He is eternally the Son and one Person but He took upon Himself a human nature with a body and a reasonable soul. His human nature is not eternal but had a beginning about 2000 years ago.
 
Jesus is plainly the name assigned to him before his birth by the angel; but he was given that name as any baby is.

It is not orthodox to say that the Son is part this and part that. He is fully God and fully man. However it is certainly true that he was not man before the incarnation. And his human nature is not eternal.

Since "Jesus" is the name of a person, I don't believe it is incorrect to use that name to speak of what is said of him in the OT. Furthermore, though strictly irrelevant, much of what is said in the NT is said prophetically, of the incarnate Son, in which case there could not even be a question that it is appropriate to use the name given to him at his birth.

Yes, Jesus will never lay aside his humanity: the hypostatic union is an everlasting union.

Only the human nature was capable of death - the separation of body and soul. But since the person who experienced death was God the Son, it is permissible to speak of God dying, if it is understood that this is not referring to the divine nature.
 
Though His human nature had a beginning in time it will go on forever, as will all who enter heaven or hell. Also it was His human nature that died on the cross for it is impossible for His divine nature to die. This is why the incarnation was necessary, for Jesus is the second Adam.
 
Matthew,
I find it helpful, when asserting anything of our Lord and Savior to remember that, anything which can be predicated of either His human nature or His divine nature, may with equal validity be predicated of His Person. In other words because He was subject to thirst and weariness in his humanity it is proper to say that He (that is, Jesus) was thirsty and weary. Likewise because he knew what was in the hearts of all men and had divine power in His deity it is proper to say that He (that is, Jesus) was omniscient and omnipotent. This is helpful when trying to understand passages which emphasize one or the other nature in the life of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone recommend some good resources on the differences between the words "nature" or "soul" and "person"?

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top