Blog Archives

Jesus Weeps for Jerusalem

8/17/2022

The Humanity of Jesus – Jesus Weeps Over Jerusalem

Luke's Gospel records Jesus weeping and lamenting over Jerusalem (Lk 13:34, 1:41-48). Jesus also wept at the tomb of his close friend Lazarus (Jn 11:35). These glimpses of Jesus's humanity bring us to the issue of his dual nature, that is very God and very man, in one person of the Trinity, the divine logos. How could that be? This question embroiled the early church in controversy and heresy with such views as Arianism, that Jesus was a human creature of God not divine, or the opposite heresy of Docetism, that Christ was divine and only seemed or appeared human to us. It is not surprising that intelligent and sincere people could disagree on these matters as the concept of the two natures of Jesus united in one son of God is not just hard to grasp, but perhaps ultimately a mystery of faith in the sense we cannot ever fully grasp it because we are not God.

Here is a condensed history of the early Christological views:

Council of Nicaea (AD 324) -- called by Emperor Constantine to consider and, if possible, settle the ARIAN heresy. It gave the church the first great ecumenical creed.

First Council of Constantinople (AD 381) -- called by Emperor Theodosius the Great to correct errors of APOLLINARIANISM (Jesus had only a divine mind) and MACEDONIANISM (Jesus had a different nature from that of the Father).

The Council of Ephesus (AD 431) -- was presided over by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and was called to deal with NESTORIANISM (Jesus had two separate natures).

The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) -- three bishops and two presbyters presided. They were representatives of Leo of Rome. The Council condemned EUTYCHIANISM (Jesus had only one nature) and gave the church the creedal statement on Christology which has stood the test of the centuries. The Chalcedonian statement has largely become the orthodox creed of Protestantism.

Second Council of Constantinople (AD 680) -- was called by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus and was directed against MONOTHELITISM (Jesus had only a divine will).

Frankford Synod (AD 794) -- was called by Charlemagne and at it, ADOPTIONISM (God adopted the human Jesus) was condemned.

Our orthodox Christian understanding today rests on the creed agreed upon at Chalcedon, which in its full form reads as follows:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

It's important because unless Jesus was fully human, but without sin, his life and death could not atone for the sinful rebellion of mankind. It matters!

The thing to hang onto is that the Bible clearly shows us in the Gospels that Jesus's actions and words demonstrate his humanity, he could weep, he could grieve, he could hunger, he could thirst, he could suffer. Just as clearly scripture shows Jesus's divine authority and capacity, he taught, he made authoritative statements, he rebuked religious leaders, he declared sins forgiven, and he worked signs and wonders, the miracles vouching for his divine attributes. Theology is important, yes, but we want to avoid outthinking God in the face of truths he has so clearly shown us in his Word.

0 Comments

Why do so many innocent people suffer in such terrible disasters? A traditional explanation of the presence of evil and suffering is that the world is fallen and corrupted because of the first sin of Adam and Eve, disobediently rebelling, through pride,

8/8/2022

0 Comments

Do Beetles Have A Conscience?

8/5/2022

1 Comment

Do Beetles Have A Conscience?

Why is it, I wonder, that all people in all cultures have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of virtue, of moral obligation or duty? Only human beings have this sense, this conscience. Can the universal fact of human morality result from purely natural, mechanical, or chemical processes that produce such a phenomenon? Or to put it another way, if there is no God, and if this present reality is nothing more than biochemical and mechanical processes at work, would moral obligations make any sense?

In the Darwinian model of reality, we are animal creatures whose only imperative is to live and reproduce (without purpose or teleology). Our success in passing along our genes to one generation and to another and another is the only thing that matters. How can this explain the morality felt by all human beings? Where do we get this sense of virtue and our satisfaction from virtuous acts?

I am briefly suggesting that our best explanation for this is theism. There are four aspects of moral reality to consider: moral facts, moral knowledge, moral transformation, and moral rationality (virtue and happiness fit together).

            What I am suggesting is that we begin by agreeing that people have a moral sense, and that they see things in terms of “right and wrong.” Generally, people respect virtue and are favorable toward virtuous actions. Yes, certain people, from a defective, antisocial personality, don’t see that, or don’t see it in a way most people would consider healthy and moral. Those are exceptions. But as a rule, people are revulsed by suffering (even animal suffering). They have pity on those in distress, they come to the aid of people in trouble, they believe we ought not to lie, cheat, or steal, and they take their promises seriously.

Most people do not fall into the cynicism and nihilism of Nietzsche and others like him in the world (remember, Nietzsche went insane). But if this world is it, and if we are nothing better than reptilian, there is no explanation for this. There is no reason for any animal, even the “human animal,” to have morals, to be virtuous, or to subordinate self-interest to any other cause. There would be no rational explanation for Horatius at the Bridge, the soldier who is willing to fall on a hand grenade, the person who risks his life to save a drowning stranger, the family that shares its meager food with others, or, yes, the neighbor who donates a kidney to a dying man. These things are what we mean by moral facts that call for an explanation, which I suggest naturalism cannot provide.

            On the second prong of the thought process, moral knowledge, how do we know anything about morality in the first place? Where does moral knowledge come from? We have the fact of moral understanding as noted above, things we “know deep down.” We know of no purely naturalistic, biochemical or mechanical process that would produce such knowledge. Yes, our parents, teachers, and others impart these things to us. But if we look back far enough some original human beings first obtained this knowledge that is passed down the generations. It is hard to see any nontheistic explanation for that.

            What about the process of moral transformation, that is, the sense we all have that we want and need to be better and do better and attain a state of moral uprightness, even moral perfection? Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography writes of his youthful attempt to live a morally perfect life. He tried. But soon things intruded. He felt the pull of impulses and desires that warred against his resolve, and he soon concluded he could not do it, at least not of his own will power and strength. I am not perfect and have never met a perfect person, yet I feel the desire to “be good” and more than good. If we are mere biochemical amalgamations there would be no reason for us to care about this. There’s no reason to think beetles care about this.

But if we are beings made in the image of a creator and sustainer God, that would be a reasonable explanation for the pull of conscience. What we are looking for here is how to make sense of these phenomena. Human beings are valuable because they are made in the image of God, and our sense of right and wrong affirms this consciously or otherwise.

            Lastly, what about moral rationality, happiness, joy, and peace? That is, does virtue cohere with happiness and fulfillment? Sometimes the “right” thing and the desired thing will come into conflict. We want to steal that cookie, we want to cheat on our taxes, we want to tell a lie to escape shame or punishment, we want to seduce our neighbor’s attractive wife. Leaving aside the possible secular and legal repercussions of following such desires, what would make sense of foregoing giving in to the desire unless it would be our greater happiness, our better satisfaction, at knowing we did the right thing? The ancient philosophers taught that virtue produced satisfaction. From a naturalistic point of view, when the tension arises between caring about ourselves and caring about others, there is no reason not to indulge ourselves. But if there is a God, a good and loving God who assures the ultimate happiness and joy of those who do right, then it makes perfect sense.

            So, the cumulative weight of these moral considerations, I would humbly suggest, really gives us something to think about. It calls for serious reflection on the sources and reasons for our moral imperatives. For me such considerations lead to the conclusion the Christian God who creates us in his image, sustains us and draws us to himself makes the best explanation of these facts. That in turn leads us to consider what that God says to us about being reconciled to him, in the face of our failure or inability to live up to the moral standards we perceive. The answer, the only answer, is, through faith in Jesus Christ and the sure hope of an eternal future in which we are transformed.

1 Comment

Jesus Weeps for Jerusalem

Why do so many innocent people suffer in such terrible disasters? A traditional explanation of the presence of evil and suffering is that the world is fallen and corrupted because of the first sin of Adam and Eve, disobediently rebelling, through pride,

Do Beetles Have A Conscience?

Author

Archives

Categories