Transmitting The Fallen Nature
- Thread starter Olde Tymer
- Start date
e v e
Well-known member
Hebrew Word Definition: Scroll | AHRC
Defining Hebrew words within their original cultural context.
www.ancient-hebrew.org
GeneZ
Well-known member
Where did you go Civic?
I showed you where Jesus chose not to function as God in post #804.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/transmitting-the-fallen-nature.1078/post-44150
And, here is some information to confirm what I said about Satan knowing Jesus was God not wanting to function as God.
Satan was tempting Jesus to function as God.
I explained to you that the Greek in Matthew 4:3 has a first class condition for the word "if"..
Meaning, that Satan was acknowledging the fact that he knew Jesus was God.
First Class Condition - Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis.
Sorry to get technical.... But your question required it to make my point.
Again... In Matthew 4:3-4?
Jesus chose not to function as God!
You will know the truth and the truth will make you free.
But, it might humiliate you on the first take...
God gives grace to the humble.
grace and peace ..............
e v e
Well-known member
Scroll - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
GeneZ
Well-known member
Then we are both not correct....
e v e
Well-known member
1,500-Year-Old Text Has Been Digitally Resurrected From a Hebrew Scroll
Special software helped reveal the words on a burned scroll found inside a holy ark near the Dead Sea
e v e
Well-known member
I guess there really such a thing as a scroll.
Even wikipedia has a link.
en.wikipedia.org
Even wikipedia has a link.
Scroll - Wikipedia
e v e
Well-known member
now back to His reality.
Christ as His son is deity
having His father's nature,
and Christ's body is of His type nature
being the body given man in eden
as gorgeous gift
- not the perishable
decrepit
dying flesh
caused by adam
not the corrupt type of nature
of this world
which God warned adam of
He does not create
death and dying things.
Christ as His son is deity
having His father's nature,
and Christ's body is of His type nature
being the body given man in eden
as gorgeous gift
- not the perishable
decrepit
dying flesh
caused by adam
not the corrupt type of nature
of this world
which God warned adam of
He does not create
death and dying things.
e v e
Well-known member
God doesn't
ever
use words like protasis etc.
nor has He ever discussed indicative mood.
First you flaunt your Nestorian Heretical thoughts and now you flaunt the heretical idea that the divinity of Jesus can be seen as a created Angel. The JWs will love to incorporate you into their cult if you're not part of it already. Besides your Kenosis Heresy, another one of your many heresies, how many more heresies do you embody?
Here we're obviously talking that Jesus is a God Person. I highly recommend that you break out of the Nestorian Heresy of yours.
civic
Well-known member
Then show some humility
civic
Well-known member
Yes it’s how JWs deny He is God by the same reasoning with the angel’s argument.
As one poster likes to say God gives grace to the humble , the teachable and resists the proud.
civic
Well-known member
The question Jesus asked his disciples is still alive and well today: “Who do people say that I am?” (Mark 8:27). As in the first century, so today, there is much confusion regarding Jesus’ identity, even though everyone admits that Jesus is one of the most towering figures of history. The disciples responded to Jesus’ question by listing some of the diverse answers of their day, yet every answer only viewed Jesus in the category of a mere human. Today, similar to Jesus’ day, people continue to answer Jesus’ question with diverse and confused answers.
However, in total contrast to these views of Jesus, whether from the first century or today, Scripture, along with the Confessional standards of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), present a different answer to Jesus’ question. Who is Jesus? Jesus is the divine Son, the second person of the triune Godhead, the Lord of Glory, who in time assumed a human nature, so that now and forevermore he is the eternal “Word made flesh” (John 1:14). For this reason, Jesus is in a category all by himself as the unique, exclusive, and only Lord and Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). This is also why confusion about Jesus’ identity is no small matter. There is nothing more important than knowing who Jesus is. This is not merely an academic debate, something for theologians to ponder; it’s a question vital for all people and especially for the church.
Let’s think through who Jesus is as God the Son incarnate from Scripture and confessional orthodoxy by unpacking five summary statements about him.
civic
Well-known member
continued:
(1) Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, who has eternally shared the one, undivided divine nature with the Father and Spirit and is thus fully God.
John makes this point when he reminds us that the “Word with God” (thus a distinct “person”) yet also “was God” (thus equal with God), thus underscoring the triune person-relations and a fully shared divine nature within God (John 1:1). Jesus, then, is the divine Son, and as the Son, he is not a created being. Instead, he is the eternal Son through whom all things were created and are now sustained (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3). It’s this Son, who became flesh (John 1:14) and by virtue of the incarnation and his work becomes our Redeemer and Lord.
The biblical evidence for the Son’s full deity is abundant. From the opening of the New Testament, Jesus is identified as Yahweh by inaugurating God’s kingdom—thus doing God’s work (Isa. 9:6-7; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 34:1-31). This is why his miracles are not merely human acts empowered by the Spirit; rather, they are demonstrations of his own divine authority as the one who inaugurates God’s saving reign (Matt. 8:23-27; 14:22-23), rules over Satan (Matt. 12:27-28), and all things (Eph. 1:9-10; 19-23). With the Father and Spirit, the Son fully and equally shares the one divine name and nature (Matt. 28:18-20; John 8:58; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 2:9). The Son is also identified as God (theos) (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2Pet. 1:1) because he is the exact image and correspondence of the Father (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). As the Son, he inseparably shares with the Father and Spirit the divine rule, works, and receives divine worship (Psa. 110:1; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 5:11-12). This is why Jesus has authority to forgive sin (Mark 2:3-12), to say that all Scripture is fulfilled in him (Matt. 5:17-19), and to acknowledge that he is from the Father as the Son, but also equal to the Father as the divine Son (Matt. 11:25-27; John 5:16-30; 10:14-30; 14:9-13).
To account for what Scripture teaches about Jesus and his relation to the Father and Spirit, the Church distinguished between the person (or subject) of the incarnation, and the nature(s) the person subsisted in. The “person-nature” distinction was a theological distinction necessary to account for Scripture’s presentation of the one God who is triune. To explain all the biblical data, the Church distinguished the Father, Son, and Spirit without separating them into three Gods. Instead, Christian theology affirmed that there are three distinct divine “persons” who fully share the one, undivided divine “nature” and that the one divine nature wholly subsists in each of the three persons so that each person is fully and equally God (contra Arianism that denied Christ’s deity).
“Nature” (Gk: ousia; Latin: essentia, substantia), then, referred to what an object is. A divine nature is what God is in his one, undivided essence, which we describe in terms of God’s attributes. A human nature is what constitutes humanity, namely, a body-soul composite with corresponding capacities, such as a will, mind, and emotions. In Christ, there is one “person” (Gk: hypostasis; Latin: persona), the Son, who is the subject of two “natures” that subsists in both natures and acts through them. The “person” is the “acting subject”; natures are not. Yet, what is true of each nature is true of the one person (known as “communication of attributes”).
(2) Jesus is God the Son incarnate.
The word “incarnation” comes from the Latin (in + carnes [flesh]), which means “in the flesh.” Scripture teaches that the divine Son (person), who eternally shares the divine nature with the Father and Spirit, acted to assume a human nature without a human “person/subject” (contra Nestorianism that affirmed two “persons” in Christ). As a result, God the Son became incarnate.
It’s crucial to think of the incarnation as an act of addition, not subtraction, by the sovereign, effectual means of a virgin conception (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38). The Son, from the Father and by the supernatural and sanctifying agency of the Spirit, without change or loss of his deity, added a second nature to himself consisting of a human body and soul (John 1:14, Phil. 2:6-8). As a result, the Son permanently added a human dimension to his personal, divine life, and became present to us in a new mode of existence as the incarnate Son. The Son’s subsistence and action is now in both natures so that the Son is able to act in both natures and produce effects consistent and proper to each nature. Thus, as the incarnate Son, Jesus is able to render human obedience (Luke 2:52; 22:29-44; Heb. 5:8-10) for us as the last Adam (Heb. 2:5-18; Rom. 5:12-21), and to do a divine work by securing our eternal redemption (Eph. 1:7-10), and justifying us before God as covenant representative and substitute (Rom. 3:21-26; 4:25; 1Pet. 3:18).
The biblical evidence for Christ’s full humanity is also abundant. Jesus is presented as a Jewish man who was born, underwent the normal process of growth and development (Luke 2:52), who experienced a full range of human experiences (Matt. 8:10, 24; 9:36; Luke 22:44; John 19:28) including growth in knowledge (Mark 13:32), and the experience of death (John 19:30). Apart from his sinlessness, which Scripture clearly teaches (John 8:46; 2Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1Pet. 1:19), Jesus is one with us in every way.
(3) The human nature assumed by the divine Son was unfallen and sinless.
Christ’s human body and soul had all the capacities of original humanity thus enabling the Son to be human and to live and experience a fully human life, against Docetism (Christ only appeared to be human) and Apollinarianism (Christ only assumed an incomplete human nature). Also, it’s best to think of Christ’s body and soul as unfallen and not tainted by the transmission or transgressions of sin. This affirmation is against the view that Christ assumed a fallen human nature while remaining sinless, which is problematic for a number of reasons.
First, a fallen incarnation lacks biblical support. Expressions such as “born in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7), “being found in human form” (Phil. 2:8), and “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) refer to our common human nature, not our corrupt, fallen human nature. The object of the incarnation is always humanity, not sin. Christ came to represent a new humanity. We already have a representative of fallen humanity: the first Adam, in whose transgression we all sinned and came under the penalty of death (Rom. 5:12). Jesus is not “in Adam” as we are, and thus he is not fallen.
Second, a fallen incarnation seems to imply that corruption is essential to humanity since Christ cannot be like us unless he takes on a fallen human nature. No doubt, all humans now are fallen and live in an abnormal world, but it’s crucial to remember that this is an aberration of God’s original creation and glorification intent for us. Fallenness is not essential to us, and thankfully Christ was fully human yet sinless and unfallen, hence the reason why he is the head of the new creation (2Cor. 5:17), and the pattern of our glorified humanity (1Cor. 15:35-58).
Third, in the case of Christ, a fallen incarnation requires that we separate fallen from sinful and Christ’s person from the human nature he assumes. But this is difficult to warrant biblically and theologically. In Scripture, a fallen nature is the result of sin against God that places us in a state and condition of sinfulness under God’s judgment (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12-21; 6:23; Eph. 2:1-3). But Christ is not “in Adam” like us, and the perfect Son does not assume anything fallen.
For these reasons, it’s better to affirm that Christ’s human nature was unfallen and sinless by the sovereign, sanctifying agency of the Spirit. Our inborn inclination to anti-God rebellion was not part of Jesus’ human makeup. Jesus was fully human and experienced the effects of living in a fallen world, but he did not share the guilt or disposition of Adam’s sin passed on to us. Jesus never committed a sin, nor could he (Matt. 3:15; John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1Pet. 1:19). He was tempted like us, but he perfectly obeyed his Father, even unto death, as our covenant mediator, thus accomplishing our salvation as the man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 5:5-10).
But if Jesus could not sin (i.e., impeccable), were his temptations genuine? Although Jesus did not sin, how is he like us if he was not able to sin? To answer this important question, we need to remember the following points.
First, Jesus was genuinely tempted yet “without sin” (Heb. 4:15). As the obedient Son, from the beginning of his ministry to the cross, he faced temptations and sufferings for us (Luke 4:1-13; 22:39-46). Yet this does not entail that his temptations were identical to ours in every respect. Why? Because although Jesus is fully human, he is also the divine Son and his temptations reflect this fact. For example, Jesus was tempted to turn rocks into bread (not something we are tempted with) thus using his divine power instead of obeying his Father’s will to render human obedience for us (Heb. 2:5-18; 5:8-10; cf. Rom. 5:12-21). Also, unlike us, Jesus was not tempted by anything internal to himself. He was not enticed by sinful desires contrary to God’s creational and moral norms since there was no sin in him, not even a predisposition to sin, given the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Instead, Jesus was tempted by normal sinless human weaknesses and external forces. He was tempted by hunger, fear of pain, and his own holy affections. Foremost among these desires was his perfect fellowship with his Father, which he wrestled with in Gethsemane. In fact, we can say that Jesus’ temptations were not only genuine; they were more real than we could ever imagine or experience since he never yielded to temptation as we do. He unswervingly and joyfully obeyed his Father’s will at great cost for our salvation.
Second, Jesus is impeccable because he is the divine Son who assumed a human nature, and as such, his human nature never existed apart from its union in the Son (i.e., hypostatic union). Jesus is not merely another Adam; he is the head of the new creation, the eternal Son incarnate. And as the Son, it’s impossible for him to sin and to yield to temptation because God cannot sin. In fact, it’s this truth that grounds our assurance that God’s plan cannot fail and why the last Adam is greater than the first.
Third, although Jesus is impeccable due to his divine person, it’s also true that he, as our covenant representative, had to render human obedience for us. The Son’s action in and through his human nature did not change the integrity of the nature; he lived, acted, and faced every temptation as a true man to redeem us. And as Scripture wonderful reminds us, it’s for this reason that Jesus not only secured our eternal salvation but also became our sympathetic Savior (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16). Also, we must emphasize the Spirit’s work on Christ’s human nature. Jesus is impeccable because he is the eternal Son who subsists and acts in both natures, but Jesus did not sin because of his reliance on the Spirit at work in him. From conception, the Spirit sanctified, gifted, and empowered Jesus in his humanity so that he obeyed for us as a man.
All of this entails that Jesus’ temptations were genuine although he could not sin. As the sinless one who could not sin, he still had to choose to forgo his rights and privileges for us, even to death on a cross (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2-3). But by doing so, he perfectly fulfilled the Father’s will by the Spirit, secured our redemption, and in his humanity became the pattern of our glorified humanity (1Cor. 15:45-49).
(4) As a result of the incarnation, the divine Son now subsists and acts in two natures without changing the integrity of either nature, confusing them, or making them a hybrid of divine and human. Yet, the Son was not limited to acting through his human nature alone since he continued to act through his divine nature as he has from eternity.
In and through his human nature, the Son lives and acts within the normal physical, mental, volitional, and psychological capacities of an unfallen, sinless human nature. As the Son, he experienced the wonder and weaknesses of a human life. He grew physically and mentally (Luke 2:52), experienced tears and joy, and suffered death and a glorious resurrection for his people and their salvation (John 11:33, 35; 19:30; 1Cor. 15:3-4).
However, the same Son who experienced these things as a man also continues to live and act as he has done from eternity as God the Son in relation with the Father and Spirit. This truth is taught in Scripture’s affirmation that the incarnate Son continues to uphold the universe (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3), alongside Christ’s other divine actions during his life and ministry. In Christ, his two natures remain distinct and retain their own attributes and integrity (against Monophysitism that blended Christ’s two natures), yet he is able to act through both natures. The Son, then, is not completely “limited” by his human nature; he is also able to act “outside” (extra) of it in his divine nature as he has always done. The Son, who has always inseparably acted from the Father and by the Spirit, continues to do so. But now, due to the incarnation, he acts through both natures without changing or diminishing either nature.https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-incarnation-and-two-natures-of-christ/
hope this helps !!!
Excellent exposition about the two natures of Jesus but I would suggest that more should written about Jesus' Personhood. By explaining clearly that Jesus is purely a God Person (with two natures of course) that destroys Nestorianism completely. The Nestorianism of the Wrath against Jesus theory banks purely on Jesus' humanity and gets overthrown when one realizes that Jesus' Personhood is purely God.
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
This is from CCEL Library where the Chalcedon Creed addresses the heresies regarding the 2 natures in Christ.
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.
The Creed of Chalcedon was adopted at the fourth and fifth sessions of the fourth œcumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople, A.D. 451 (Oct. 22d and 25th). It embraces the Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the christological doctrine set forth in 30the classical Epistola Dogmatica of Pope Leo the Great to Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople and martyr of diophysitic orthodoxy at the so-called Council of Robbers (held at Ephesus in 449).
While the first Council of Nicæa had established the eternal, pre-existent Godhead of Christ, the Symbol of the fourth œcumenical Council relates to the incarnate Logos, as he walked upon earth and sits on the right hand of the Father. It is directed against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, who agreed with the Nicene Creed as opposed to Arianism, but put the Godhead of Christ in a false relation to his humanity. It substantially completes the orthodox Christology of the ancient Church; for the definitions added during the Monophysite and Monothelite controversies are few and comparatively unessential. As the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity stands midway between Tritheism and Sabellianism, so the Chalcedonian formula strikes the true mean between Nestorianism and Eutychianism.
The following are the leading ideas of the Chalcedonian Christology as embodied in this symbol:
A true incarnation of the Logos, or the second person in the Godhead (ἐνανθρώπησις θεοῦ, ἐνσάρκωσις τοῦ λόγου, incarnatio Verbi).) This incarnation is neither a conversion or transmutation of God into man, nor a conversion of man into God, and a consequent absorption of the one, or a confusion (κρᾶσις, σύγχυσις) of the two; nor, on the other hand, a mere indwelling (ἐνοίκησις, inhabitatio) of the one in the other, nor an outward, transitory connection (συνάφεια, conjunctio) of the two factors, but an actual and abiding union of the two in one personal life.
The precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance (essence, οὐσία) denotes the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; while person (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον) is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting and acting subject. The Logos assumed, not a human person (else we would have two persons, a divine and a human), but human nature which is common to us all; and hence he redeemed, not a particular man, but all men as partakers of the same nature.
313. The God-Man as the result of the incarnation. Christ is not a (Nestorian) double being, with two persons, nor a compound (Apollinarian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium quid, neither divine nor human; but he is one person both divineand human.
The duality of the natures. The orthodox doctrine maintains, against Eutychianism, the distinction of nature even after the act of incarnation, without confusion or conversion (ἀσυγχύτως, inconfuse, and ἀτρέπτως, immutabiliter), yet, on the other hand, without division or separation (ἀδιαιρέτως, indivise, and ἀχωρίστως, inseparabiliter), so that the divine will ever remain divine, and the human ever human, and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other, like the persons of the Trinity.
The unity of the person (ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, ἕνωσις ὑποστατική, unio hypostatica or unio personalis). The union of the divine and human nature in Christ is a permanent state resulting from the incarnation, and is a real, supernatural, personal, and inseparable union—in distinction from an essential absorption or confusion, or from a mere moral union; or from a mystical union such as holds between the believer and Christ. The two natures constitute but one personal life, and yet remain distinct. ‘The same who is true God,’ says Leo, ‘is also true man, and in this unity there is no deceit; for in it the lowliness of man and the majesty of God perfectly pervade one another. . . . Because the two natures make only one person, we read on the one hand: “The Son of Man came down from heaven” (John iii. 13), while yet the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin; and on the other hand: “The 32Son of God was crucified and buried,” while yet he suffered, not in his Godhead as coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature.’ The self-consciousness of Christ is never divided; his person consists in such a union of the human and the divine natures, that the divine nature is the seat of self-consciousness, and pervades and animates the human.
6. The whole work of Christ is to be attributed to his person, and not to the one or the other nature exclusively. The person is the acting subject, the nature the organ or medium. It is the one divine-human person of Christ that wrought miracles by virtue of his divine nature, and that suffered through the sensorium of his human nature. The superhuman effect and infinite merit of the Redeemer’s work must be ascribed to his person because of his divinity; while it is his humanity alone that made him capable of, and liable to, toil, temptation, suffering, and death, and renders him an example for our imitation.
7. The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ; for anhypostasia is a purely negative term, and presupposes a fictitious abstraction, since the human nature of Christ did not exist at all before the act of the incarnation, and could therefore be neither personal nor impersonal. The meaning of this doctrine is that Christ’s human nature had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine, and that the divine nature is the root and basis of his personality.
There is, no doubt, a serious difficulty in the old orthodox Christology, if we view it in the light of our modern psychology. We can conceive of a human nature without sin (for sin is a corruption, not an essential quality, of man), but we can not conceive of a human nature without personality, or a self-conscious and free Ego; for this distinguishes it from the mere animal nature, and is man’s crowning excellency and glory. To an unbiased reader of the Gospel history, 33moreover, Christ appears as a full human personality, thinking, speaking, acting, suffering like a man (only without sin), distinguishing himself from other men and from his heavenly Father, addressing him in prayer, submitting to him his own will, and commending to him his spirit in the hour of death. Yet, on the other hand, be appears just as clearly in the Gospels as a personality in the most intimate, unbroken, mysterious life-union with his heavenly Father, in the full consciousness of a personal pre-existence before the creation, of having been sent by the Father from heaven into this world, of living in heaven even during this earthly abode, and of being ever one with him in will and in essence. In one word, he makes the impression of atheanthropic, divine-human person. His human personality was completed and perfected by being so incorporated with the pre-existent Logos-personality as to find in it alone its full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage of its development.
The Chalcedonian Christology has latterly been subjected to a rigorous criticism (by Schleiermacher, Baur, Dorner, Rothe, and others), and has been charged with a defective psychology, and now with dualism, now with docetism, according as its distinction of two natures or of the personal unity has most struck the eye. But these imputations neutralize each other, like the imputations of tritheism and modalism, which may be made against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when either34the tri-personality or the consubstantiality is taken alone. This, indeed, is the peculiar excellence of the Creed of Chalcedon, that it exhibits so sure a tact and so wise a circumspection in uniting the colossal antithesis in Christ, and seeks to do justice alike to the distinction of the natures and to the unity of the person. In Christ all contradictions are reconciled.
The Chalcedonian Creed is far from exhausting the great mystery of godliness, ‘God manifest in flesh.’ It leaves much room for a fuller appreciation of the genuine, perfect, and sinless humanity of Christ, of the Pauline doctrine of the Kenosis, or self-renunciation and self-limitation of the Divine Logos in the incarnation and during the human life of our Lord, and for the discussion of other questions connected with his relation to the Father and to the world, his person and his work. But it indicates the essential elements of Christological truth, and the boundary-lines of Christological error. It defines the course for the sound development of this central article of the Christian faith so as to avoid both the Scylla of Nestorian dualism and the Charybdis of Eutychian monophysitism, and to save the full idea of the one divine-human personality of our Lord and Saviour. Within these limits theological speculation may safely and freely move, and bring us to clearer conceptions; but in this world, where we ‘know only in part (ἐκ μέρους),’ and ‘see through a mirror obscurely (δἰ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι)’ it will never fully comprehend the great central mystery of the theanthropic life of our Lord.
