This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
Over the
centuries, believers have sometimes struggled to understand the nature of God
and the great mystery of Jesus.
No doubt because God did his level best to make the theological truth clear to the human mind.
The Bible describes Jesus as having the nature
and power of God, and the Gospel of John tells us that He existed before the
universe began (He was, in fact, the creator of the universe).
It also tells us there were aspects of his personal will that were in conflict with the Father's will. See Matthew 26:39. He would have no occasion to say "not my will..." if in fact his will was always 100% aligned with the Father's will. And you cannot limit his statement to merely his human nature because a) that is irrelevant, you do not believe Jesus could, solely in his human nature, desire things in conflict with the Father's will, and b) "nature" is by definition what a thing really is, so if Jesus really had two natures, Man and God, he could no speak apart from his divine nature, than YOU can speak apart from your human nature. Natures cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, so having more than one nature will not bequeath any such ability. So when Jesus says "not my will..." that is the second person of the Trinity or Logos saying that too.
At the same
time, the Bible teaches Jesus was fully human and died on the cross. Efforts to
reconcile the Divine and human nature of Jesus have resulted in a number of
classic and historic misinterpretations:
Probably because the very notion of one person having both a divine and human nature is a self-contradiction, no matter how artfully dressed up in theologically deep gospel stories.
Adoptionism (2nd Century)
This heresy denies the pre-existence of Christ and therefore
denies His Deity. It taught Jesus was simply a man who was tested by God and
after passing the test was given supernatural powers and adopted as a son (this
occurred at His baptism). Jesus was then rewarded for all He did (and for His
perfect character) with His own resurrection and adoption into the Godhead.
Leader(s) in the Heresy: Theodotus of Byzantium Corrector(s) of the Heresy: Pope Victor (190-198AD)
First, Acts 13:33 places God's begetting of Jesus at the resurrection, by using Psalm 2:7 as a proof-text, when in fact Psalm 2:7 was typically used in pre-Christian Judaism as an official designation of the human king:
33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.' (Acts 13:33 NAU)
Second, while the canonical text of Luke 3:22 says
"and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven,
"You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (Lk. 3:22 NAU)
...an early and widely attested textual variant for Luke 3:22 strongly supports adoptionism:
"You are My beloved Son, this day have I begotten you." (
R.H. Stein was an evangelical inerrantist Christian scholar who wrote the commentary for Luke in the inerrancy-driven New American Commentary. Notice how how he breezes by the textual problem with nearly zero commentary on the textual evidence for the adoptionist reading:
You are my Son, whom I love. It is unclear whether
this is an allusion to Ps 2:7, although a few Western manuscripts (Codex
Beza and the Itala) make this explicit by adding “this day I have begotten
you.” The latter, however, is a scribal addition. The voice from heaven
clearly reveals a unique relationship between Jesus and God and refers to
Jesus’ past as well as present status with God. The voice did not confer upon
Jesus a new status, so we should not see here some kind of adoptionist
Christology. Rather, the voice confirmed what the readers read already in Luke
1:32–35 and 2:49, i.e., that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism. In light of 20:13 “whom I love,” i.e.,
beloved , may mean only . With you I am
well pleased. This is a possible allusion to Isa 42:1.
Luke 3:22, Stein, R. H.
(2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary
(Page 140). Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Bruce Metzger's importance to the field of NT textual criticism cannot be underestimated, especially by Christians since he himself was a Christian. What he has to say about the adoptionist textual variant for Luke 3:22 indicates the early and wide textual support for that reading is just a bit stronger than Stein had let on, supra:
3.22 Su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn soi.
euvdo,khsa {B}
The Western reading, “This day I have begotten
thee,” which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be
secondary, derived from Ps 2.7. The use of the third person (“This is…in whom
…”) in a few witnesses is an obvious assimilation to the Matthean form of the
saying (Mt 3.17).
A Textual Commentary On The
Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed.
by Bruce M. Metzger, © 2002
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Stuttgart, pp. 112-113
Stein also doesn't tell the presumably inerrantist reader that Justin Martyr quotes Luke 3:22 as if he had no reason to think this adoptionist reading was a corruption:
but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I
formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the
same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he
spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘Thou art My Son:
this day have I begotten Thee;’ [the Father] saying that His generation would
take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him:
‘Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.’”
Justin, Dialogue with
Trypho, end of ch. 88
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
That reading is taken as original in the following works of the early church fathers:
For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river
Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day
have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come
to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and
Christ answered him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’
Justin, Dialogue with
Trypho, ch. 103
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: “Thou
art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.
Clement, his 1st
Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 36,
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
For at the moment of the Lord’s baptism there
sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, “Thou art My
beloved Son, today have I begotten
Thee.”
Clement of Alexandria, Instructor or “Miscellanies”,
book 2, ch. 6
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with
what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above
to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, “Thou art my
son: this day have I begotten thee;” for it is to be remarked that He was
declared to be His Son unconditionally, and without regard to time;
Methodius, Banquet of the 10
Virgins, Discourse 8 (Thekla), ch. 9
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
and have known God, and have believed in Christ, by
whom ye were known of God, by whom ye were sealed with the oil of gladness and
the ointment of understanding, by whom ye were declared to be the children of
light, by whom the Lord in your illumination testified by the imposition of the
bishop’s hands, and sent out His sacred voice upon every one of you, saying,
“Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?” By thy bishop, O man, God
adopts thee for His child. Acknowledge, O son, that right hand which was a
mother to thee. Love him who, after God, is become a father to thee, and honor
him.
Constitutions of Holy
Apostles, Book 2, section 4, ch. XXXII.
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland,
TX: Galaxie Software.
Docetism (2nd Century)
This heresy was coined from the Greek word, “dokesis” which
means “to seem”. It taught Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not truly
incarnate. Docetists viewed matter as inherently evil, and therefore rejected
the idea God could actually appear in bodily form. By denying Jesus truly had a
body, they also denied He suffered on the cross and rose from the dead. Leader(s) in the Heresy: Attributed to Gnostics and promoted
by the Gospel of Peter
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus,
and Hippolytus refuted it was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD
Docetism was something already known to the author of 1st John:
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; (1 Jn. 4:2 NAU)
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those
who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 Jn. 1:7 NAU)
The Evangelical "Word Biblical Commentary" acknowledges that docetism could very well have been alive and well before the author of 2nd John wrote:
οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν
σαρκί, “not acknowledging Jesus Christ, incarnate.” The error of the heretics
involved a failure to “acknowledge” (μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες) Jesus Christ incarnate
(literally, “coming in flesh”). In 1 John the verb ὁμολογεῖν (“to acknowledge,”
or “to confess”) is used of (orthodox) commitment to the Christian faith, or
its opposite; and the test of this is a true “confession” (or otherwise) about
the person of Jesus (cf. 1 John 2:23; 4:2, 3, 15). Here the elder may be claiming
in the first place that the secessionist members of his congretation were not
acknowledging the Incarnation as such (the orthodox creed being that Jesus had
“come in the flesh”). Cf. Bonnard, “La chair,” 188–89, who thinks that ἐν σαρκί
(“in flesh”) here and at 1 John 4:2 means the life and death of Jesus as a
totality: a humanity characterized not only as mortal but also as crucified
(cf. 1 John 5:6). Bonnard sees this as the basis of John’s appeal in 1 John
3:16 for self-sacrificial love. In such a case the elder would be describing
those of his flock who were inclined to docetism, and who denied that the
“flesh” of Jesus was real. Heretics of this kind may well have formed a
majority in the Johannine community by this time (see above).
cf. confer, compare
2nd John 7, Smalley,
S. S. (2002). Vol. 51: Word Biblical Commentary : 1,2,3 John.
Word Biblical Commentary
(Page 328). Dallas:
Word, Incorporated.
that's a severe problem for Christians anyway: How could any fool in the first century have taken up Christianity while seriously denying that Jesus had comes to earth in the flesh?
If it was as obvious within 50 years after Jesus died that he had lived on earth just like any other human being, what could possibly motivate those who adopt the Christian faith, to insist that the part of about Jesus having been a real material flesh and blood human being, was wrong?
Were the people of the 1st century just brick-stupid? Or is there a possibility that those 'heretics' had good reasons for insisting that Jesus didn't appear on earth in the flesh?
Apollinarianism (4th Century)
This heresy denied the true and complete humanity of Jesus,
because it taught He did not have a human mind, but instead had a mind that was
completely Divine. The heresy lessened the human nature of Jesus in order to
reconcile the manner in which Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. Leader(s) in the Heresy: Appollinaris the Younger (bishop of
Laodicea in Syria), 360AD
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Constantinople
in 381AD
Such a denial was likely prompted by common sense, since even "orthodox" Christians admit in their various early creeds that the Son of God is utterly incomprehensible, and most Christians say the notion of Jesus having two natures at the same time is a "great mystery". Yeah, and it's also a great 'mystery' how the Bermuda Triangle is a gateway to another dimension. Fuck you.
Arianism (4th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus was a “creature” who was “begotten”
of the Father. Only God the Father is “un-begotten”. In this view, only the
Father is truly God; He was too pure and perfect to appear here on earth, so He
created the Son as His first creation. The Son then created the universe. God
then adopted Jesus as a son (because, after all Jesus and God are not supposed
to have the same nature in this view). Jesus was worshipped only because of His
preeminence as the first creation. Leader(s) in the Heresy: Arius of Alexandria
Egypt
(250-336AD) Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Nicaea in 325AD. The Nicene Creed was written
to respond to this heresy.
You forgot to mention Eusebius of Caesarea, the guy who authored the churche's first official history in the 4th century. Both he and the other Eusebius of Nicomedia were closet-Arians. Jerome said Eusebius was the "most open champion" of the Arian "heresy":
The blessed Cyprian takes Tertullian for his master,
as his writings prove; yet, delighted as he is with the ability of this learned
and zealous writer he does not join him in following Montanus and Maximilla.
Apollinaris is the author of a most weighty book against Porphyry, and Eusebius
has composed a fine history of the Church; yet of these the former has
mutilated Christ’s incarnate humanity, while the latter is the most open
champion of the Arian impiety. “Woe,” says Isaiah, “unto them that call evil
good and good evil; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” We must
not detract from the virtues of our opponents - if they have any praiseworthy
qualities - but neither must we praise the defects of our friends.
Jerome, Letter 84 To Pammachius And Oceanus, ch. 2
Schaff, P. (2000). The
Post-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). electronic ed.
Garland, TX: Galaxie Software
We have to wonder, therefore, whether Eusebius was carrying on an unspoken tradition, namely, going along with the orthodox view despite one's personal disagreement with it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy taught Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human
nature. The founder of the heresy, Nestorius, did not even want Mary to be
called “Mother of God” but instead wanted her to be called “Mother of Christ”.
In essence, the heresy maintained Jesus was really two separate persons, and
only the human Jesus was in Mary’s womb. If that was true, then Jesus was not
God incarnate while in the womb.
Leader(s) in the Heresy: Nestorius of Antioch
(Bishop of Constantinople in 428AD)
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Council of Ephesus in 431AD
Nestorianism could not possibly be false. Mary was a normal sinful human being. She did not give birth to the divine nature of Jesus.
Eutychianism [Monophysitism] (5th Century)
This heresy taught Jesus’ humanity was absorbed by His
divinity. The heresy is Monophysite in nature, derived from the Greek words
“mono” (“one”) and “physis” (“nature”). In essence, the heresy claimed Jesus
had only one nature (something new and different than the Divine or human
nature that God and humans have, respectively). Instead, this heresy taught a
third unique nature was possessed by Jesus; a blend or mixture of the human and
the Divine.
Leader(s) in the Heresy: Eutyches of Constantinople
(380 – 456AD)
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Fourth Ecumenical Council in
Chalcedon in
451AD. The Chalcedonian Creed addresses this heresy.
Saying a person has one nature makes far more logical sense, while saying a person has two natures constitutes absurdity and fairy tales.
Monothelitism (7th Century)
This heresy emerged in response to the Monophysite heresy
(see above), but it also taught something denied by the Scripture. The name is
derived from a Greek root that means “one will”. Monothelitism taught Jesus had
two natures but only one will. Instead of having two cooperative wills (one
Divine and one human), Jesus had one Divine-human “energia”.
Leader(s) in the Heresy: Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople (610 – 638AD)
Corrector(s) of the Heresy: The Third Council of Constantinople; the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680 –
681AD)
Jesus must have had one will, since it makes no logical sense to have two "cooperative wills", unless the two wills are found respectively in two different persons. And that Jesus had one will, not two, is clear from Matthew 26:39. Once again, he would have no occasion to say "not my will..." if both of his wills were perfectly harmonious with the Father's will.
If you agree with your girlfriend that tonight you both should watch "Titanic", do you say "not my will but yours be done"? No. It is only if you personally don't wish to do that, but reluctantly consign yourself to making her happy, that you'd say such a thing.
These ancient heresies have been revisited by believers over
the centuries and even persist into the modern era.
Sure is funny that today's heretics don't "misinterpret" modern evangelical church faith statements the way they "misinterpret" the bible. Seems to me that sinners are smarter than God: they found a way to speak about biblical theology in a way that guards far more successfully against misinterpretation, than the wording of the bible did.
So much for the "perspicuity of scripture" doctrine.
Unitarians, for example
have embraced a view of Jesus very similar to the heretics of Arianism. The
more we understand these classic heresies related to Jesus, the better prepared
we will be to spot counterfeits when they re-emerge in our culture.
I'm sorry to hear that you have no more faith that the Holy Spirit will enlighten Christians, than the math teacher thinks the Holy Spirit will teach math to the students.
Sure is funny that despite your belief that God "guides" your bible study, you speak and act as if the naturalistic method of knowledge-acquisition by reading books, is the SOLE method a Christian has at their disposal for learning the biblical truths you think they need to learn.
Sounds to me like your adding the influence or guidance of the Holy Spirit to bible study is utterly gratuitous..any god-mocking psychopath atheist could learn the same amount of material Christians do, by studying the bible just like they do.
Sure is funny that your Holy Spirit never "chooses" to educate Christians by directly beaming his lessons into their brains. You may as well say the Holy Spirit was guiding the god-mocking atheist child as they grew in secular knowledge by reading books in school.
If you don't want the Holy Spirit's influence to be some utterly gratuitous concept wholly unnecessary to explain why Christians learn doctrines, perhaps you can show some situations where Christians became knowledgeable of bible doctrine without reading the bible or learning from other people?
Why do you assert the Holy Spirit has the ability to teach Christians without the need to go through some human teacher or book, if in fact you don't have any evidence that he ever did? You may as well say Fido is capable of teaching bible doctrine to Christians without going through human teachers or books to do it.
Dream on.
