The God of Jesus Christ

[Deleted member 6112]

Does Jesus, after his human nature, reckon the Triune God his God, or does he only reckon the Father his God?

 

[MW]

Does Jesus, after his human nature, reckon the Triune God his God, or does he only reckon the Father his God?

It is probably best to understand this economically and covenantally. Having agreed to the terms of the covenant of peace, and to submit to the "Father" in particular as the party contractor, the Son assumes a subordinate place as the Head of the elect in which He depends upon the Father as His God and Father in covenant, and the Father gives Himself to be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of the elect.

This probably also ties in with a question on another thread, which was inquiring into the Son not knowing the day and hour of the Father's appointing.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for your response. I'm still struggling with this, though. I think there are at least two senses in which the Son, after his divine nature, must be reckoned to be his God.

First, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." That would include his humanity. So the Son, and thus the Triune God is his Creator, after his human nature.

Second, he is "upholding all things by the word of his power," and thus he upholds and sustains his human nature.

 

[Peairtach]

Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for your response. I'm still struggling with this, though. I think there are at least two senses in which the Son, after his divine nature, must be reckoned to be his God.

First, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." That would include his humanity. So the Son, and thus the Triune God is his Creator, after his human nature.

Second, he is "upholding all things by the word of his power," and thus he upholds and sustains his human nature.

You can't simplistically separate the divine nature and the human nature from the person of the Son.

For the purposes of redemption - and it is in redemption that the threeness of God is most fully revealed i.e. in the New Testament - the Father represented God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to the Son in His human nature. The Son took on the task of covenantal mediator on behalf of God's people. The Spirit sustained the Son in His human nature and applies the work of redemption to His people.

 

[Vox Oculi]

You can't simplistically separate the divine nature and the human nature from the person of the Son.

Agreed. It sounds like what you're actually doing is characterizing the human and divine nature of the Son as being two separate persons.

 

[MW]

Thank you for your response. I'm still struggling with this, though. I think there are at least two senses in which the Son, after his divine nature, must be reckoned to be his God.

There is the principle of "ad extra indivisa." In external works the Trinity is undivided. So essentially we cannot distinguish the persons. That being the case, it is true in one sense that the Son created and upholds His own human nature; but then we are not permitted to divide the persons in this sense, which means we cannot single this out as a specific work of the Son in isolation from the other persons.

God is an infinite ocean; if we abide close by the shore of revelation we will be kept from being dragged out to sea. In this respect revelation teaches us to specify the Spirit as the economical agent of creation and governance of the human nature of Christ. Owen on the Holy Spirit has some insightful remarks on this.

Further, because "my God" is a covenantal term throughout Scripture, and Christ is given to be the covenant-head of the elect, even condescending to be the "first believer," and the fountain of all covenant relations and blessings to believers (Eph. 1:3), I would take it to be a priority to understand the phrase in this covenantal sense.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. That is very helpful. And thank you, Richard. I feared that my thoughts may have been moving in the direction of Nestorianism (which I do not want to affirm, and I acknowledge is heresy), but I was struggling with thee relationship of Christ after his human nature to the Trinity.

I'm not trying to be speculative in my theology; I've been pushed to look into these issues by the questions of a particularly intelligent JW friend. I'm grateful, though--this has truly caused me to marvel at our mysterious and incomprehensible God. I feel (to draw from Rev. Winzer's analogy) like I am standing at the edge of an ocean, and squinting at the horizon to see just how far I can see.

 

[bookslover]

Thank you for your response. I'm still struggling with this, though. I think there are at least two senses in which the Son, after his divine nature, must be reckoned to be his God.

There is the principle of "ad extra indivisa." In external works the Trinity is undivided. So essentially we cannot distinguish the persons. That being the case, it is true in one sense that the Son created and upholds His own human nature; but then we are not permitted to divide the persons in this sense, which means we cannot single this out as a specific work of the Son in isolation from the other persons.

God is an infinite ocean; if we abide close by the shore of revelation we will be kept from being dragged out to sea. In this respect revelation teaches us to specify the Spirit as the economical agent of creation and governance of the human nature of Christ. Owen on the Holy Spirit has some insightful remarks on this.

Further, because "my God" is a covenantal term throughout Scripture, and Christ is given to be the covenant-head of the elect, even condescending to be the "first believer," and the fountain of all covenant relations and blessings to believers (Eph. 1:3), I would take it to be a priority to understand the phrase in this covenantal sense.

Very well put, Matthew. It's important to remember that all three Persons always work in harmony. Example: all three Persons raised Jesus from the dead.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Rev. Winzer,

Would it be safe to say that the distinction can be drawn between the creator-creature relations and the covenantal relations? In this way, the Trinity's relationship to Christ's creaturely nature would be the same as his relation to any other of his creatures; but in regard to the covenantal affairs of Christ, the Father is his God by covenant, and indeed became his God by covenant before the incarnation itself.

Is that a fair way to sum it up?

 

[MW]

Would it be safe to say that the distinction can be drawn between the creator-creature relations and the covenantal relations? In this way, the Trinity's relationship to Christ's creaturely nature would be the same as his relation to any other of his creatures; but in regard to the covenantal affairs of Christ, the Father is his God by covenant, and indeed became his God by covenant before the incarnation itself.

Is that a fair way to sum it up?

Yes, that will work. Perhaps we could liken it to Jesus praying to His Father. The Son is one in divine nature with the Father and Spirit, but we would not conclude He was praying to Himself. At this point there is something appropriate in the designation "Father," as a distinct person, which keeps us from coming to strange conclusions. Although it can be said that the Son is one with the Father as the hearer of prayer, it is the Father in particular who is pointed out to us as the one who hears the Son's prayers and intercessions.