The Humanity of Christ: Like us in Every Way

I. Introduction

In this video/article we will examine the doctrine of the humanity of Christ, comparing the Scriptures with the Early Church interpretation and post-Augustinian view from chapter 7 of my Practical Systematic Theology. The video can be found here. 

I have touched on much of this material in my refutation of Augustine’s monergism, especially in regards to it being the foundation of Calvinism, so here I will give a brief outline of that material before exploring the Scriptures in depth. If you already know the history, just skip to the next section. 

II. The Issues in Brief

The Arian controversy arose in the late 3rd century and was mostly settled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 with Arianism being declared heretical. Arius, who had been influenced by the writings of Origen, had basically taught that Jesus Christ was a created being rather than fully God, the second person of the trinity.

During this time there was a great deal of debate regarding how the human and divine natures in Christ co-existed. Cyril of Alexandria (375-444), having been heavily influenced by Augustine of Hippo (354-430) offered an idea of Jesus as barely human as he was convinced that human nature is fundamentally sinful.

Gregory Nazianzus (329-390) countered this argument saying that if Christ was not as human as we are, then He cannot atone for our sins, a similar argument to that which Athanasius used to refute Arius regarding Jesus' divinity. If Christ is not fully God, He cannot save us, for only God can save. If Jesus humanity is different to those He offers atonement for, then He cannot atone for them for He is not like them and, therefore, cannot be a fit or perfect substitute.

What is obvious here is that Augustine's idea of original sin/guilt has already taken root and been accepted by many theologians at this time. These theologians were living in the 4th and 5th centuries. Augustine went far beyond the idea of a corrupted nature which leads to death, and introduced the idea that humans are born sinners. For Augustine, this meant that every person is born with the guilt of Adam's sin, a form of inherited sin and inherited guilt. Augustine was using an old, and not very accurate, Latin version of the Bible. He understood  Romans 5:12  to mean 'in whom (Adam) all sinned', rather than ‘because all sinned’. In Augustine's words:

...all men are understood to have sinned in that first man, because all men were in him when he sinned.' 

C.ep.Pel.IV.7

The earliest Christian writers, such as Ignatius (?-108), Justin Martyr (100-165) and Irenaeus (120?-202) taught that Jesus Christ was born with the same human nature as every other human being since Adam. Both Irenaeus and Justin Martyr write of a ‘corrupted nature’ meaning a nature of death, of mortality, and there is not a hint of inherited sin or guilt until Augustine who introduced this idea around 396 AD.

Irenaeus and Justin argue that Christ had to take upon Himself the same corruption of death in order to free those under that corruption. He joined Himself to our corruption of death, so that we, by being joined to Him, could be freed from that corruption through His death and resurrection. These theologians were simply echoing the clear teaching of Hebrews 2:14-17 which states:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14-15) 

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

Irenaeus specifically addressed the issue of what Jesus inherited from His mother Mary. Keep in mind that the heresy of Docetism was spreading at this time, which John refutes in his first letter. That Gnostic doctrine claimed that all of the material world was evil, therefore, Jesus could not have had a real physical body. In Book 3, chapter 22 of Against Heresies Irenaeus refutes those who were teaching that Jesus did not inherit the exact same human nature as Mary, as did Justin Martyr. These theologians use the same Scriptures to prove their claims as we will now examine.

III. The Biblical Evidence

We firstly need to establish if Scripture declares that Jesus was Mary's natural son, a child whose DNA was that of His mother. Genesis 3:15 contains the first prophecy regarding Jesus Christ spoken to Satan.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal.

The word seed (zera) refers to our natural offspring, 'according to our kind'. In natural conception, a man's seed (sperm) and woman's seed (ovum/egg) bring about conception. But this word 'seed' can also refer to the Holy Spirit as in 1 John 3:9. Matthew tells us that the child conceived in Mary will be from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20). Notice also, that the Genesis prophesy points to Mary’s seed, Christ as ‘crushing the serpent’s head’, a reference to Satan’s authority over death being destroyed. Hebrews 2:14-15 are expressing the exact fulfillment of this prophecy that:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14-15) 

Jesus was conceived of the natural seed of Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was born with both Divine nature (through the Holy Spirit) and human nature (as Mary's natural son). Paul also refers to the 'Seed', tracing the ancestry of Christ back to Abraham in Galatians 3:16-19.

Romans 1:3 also confirms this saying that regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendent of David. 

In Greek, this literally says from the 'genome' (genes) of the sperm (spermatos) of David according to the flesh (sarx). Jesus was born as a natural descendent of David and carried the same genes as His mother, as His mother was a natural descendent of David. Romans 9:6 also states that the human ancestry of Christ is traced back to the Patriarchs.

Furthermore, Luke was a doctor (Colossians 4:14), and in his gospel he makes very clear that Mary was a natural descendent of King David. Both Luke and Matthew's gospels contain the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph. Matthew says that Joseph's father was called Jacob, and Luke says a man called Heli. Matthew's gospel establishes Jesus' royal claim to the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, but Luke's gospel establishes his physical ancestry through Heli, Mary's father and Joseph's father-in-law. 

This is to fulfill God's promise to give Jesus the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Matthew 1:1-17). In Galatians 3:16-19, Paul confirms that the 'Seed to whom the promise referred had come', 'meaning one person who is Christ'. Jesus is the Seed promised throughout the Old Testament. He is the natural seed of the woman (Mary) who crushed Satan's authority over death (Hebrews 2:14-15), and the promised Seed of the new covenant so that God's seed may live within us, the Divine nature (1 John 3:9). 

Yet Reformed theologians such as Wayne Grudem are willing to blatantly contradict Scripture in order to promote their monergistic Calvinism of inherited sin. In Grudem’s words:

 It is enough for us merely to say that in this case the unbroken line of descent from Adam was interrupted and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:35 connects this conception by the Holy Spirit with the holiness or moral purity of Christ, and reflection on that fact allows us to understand that through the absence of a human father, Jesus was not fully descended from Adam, and that this break in the line of descent was the method God used to bring it about that Jesus was fully human yet did not share inherited sin from Adam. 

(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine,  England: Intervarsity Press, 2000  p531)

To state that ‘Jesus was not fully descended from David’ is ignorant at best and heretical at worst. Grudem is simply parroting the claims of Augustine which led to the veneration of Mary as a sinless mediator who is Queen of Heaven and Mother of God. Grudem, like Augustine before him, fundamentally denies the entire bloodline of Jesus Christ from Eve to Mary and every prophesy and quote of His Davidic royalty. Christ was of the genome and seed of David according to His ‘flesh’ Romans 1:3, so what does Scripture mean by ‘flesh’? 

IV. ‘Sinful Nature’ (sarx)

In the previous video in this series regarding the desire for autonomy, I discussed the term ‘sinful nature’. This term is translated from the Greek sarx which refers to our human nature, bodies and emotions, and is more accurately translated as ‘flesh’ or the ‘flesh nature’. 

In keeping with Augustinian tradition, English translations use the term ‘sinful nature’ for sarx when speaking of people in general, but ‘flesh’ when a verse speaks of Jesus’ sarx. The KJV uses flesh for all verses and the NIV is going back to that practice. 

There are at least 15 verses which state that Jesus’ sarx was the same as ours. 

Luke 24:39. Speaking of Jesus human body after the resurrection.

John 1:14. That Christ was born with a body of flesh as we are.

John 6: 54-56. Jesus uses His physical body to symbolize communion, the bread and wine.

Acts 2:31. Jesus' body did not decay in the grave.

Romans 1:3. Jesus was a descendent of David according to His physical body, translated as 'human nature'.

Romans 8:3. Christ made in the likeness of flesh to save those of the flesh.

Romans 9:5. Christ's ancestry is traced back to the patriots according to His flesh.

2 Corinthians 5:16. When He was a man, we regarded Christ the same as all other men.

Ephesians 2:15. Christ abolished in His flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

1 Timothy 3:16. God (Christ) was 'manifest in the flesh'. 

Hebrews 5:7. In the 'days of His flesh' Jesus offered prayers to save Him from death.

Hebrews 10:20. The blood of Jesus' flesh open the veil into the Holy of Holies.

1 Peter 3:18. Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit.

1 Peter 4:1. Christ suffered in His flesh, so we must have the same attitude.

1 John 4:2.Every spirit that acknowledges Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

To claim that Jesus Christ had a different human nature to our own is heretical and denies the clear teaching of Scripture. Yet many evangelicals who reject monergistic Calvinism and its inherited sin/guilt, still use the term ‘sinful nature’ and end up promoting a Docetist Christ who contradicts Scripture. They translate John 1:14 as ‘the Word became flesh’, but Romans 8 as ‘sinful nature’. In doing this, they are fundamentally denying the real possibility of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, an extremely serious denial which is at the very foundation of salvation.

This is the exact message of Hebrews 2:14-17 which I will repeat.

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death - that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.   

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

The words ‘had to be made like his brothers in every way in order to make atonement for sin’ are absolutely emphatic. If one teaches anything other than this, they are promoting a Christ who cannot make atonement for sin because He is not like those he is atoning for. Furthermore, if Christ was not exactly like us in His human nature, He cannot be tempted in all things as we are. 

Galatians 5:19-20 lists the acts of the flesh, (sarx) sometimes translated as ‘acts of the sinful nature’. But it is in acting out the passions and desires of the flesh (sarx) which is sin, not sarx itself. 

V. Practical Application

If we teach a Jesus with a different nature to our own we will end up building a wall between Christ and those we minister to. Scripture states that we and Christ had the same ‘sarx’, the same flesh nature. When we falsely state that we have an inherited ‘sinful nature’ rather than ‘flesh nature’ and Christ did not, then we throw doubt on the fact that he was ‘tempted in all things as we are, but without sin’ and utterly discredit the Lord’s struggles against sin in which He even shed bloody sweat. We are tempted by the desires of our fleshly bodies and became slaves to those desires. Jesus took every though captive and never gave in to His flesh. 

Furthermore, we inhibit the prayers of struggling Christians. How do you come to Christ in prayer believing He never struggled with the same desires as we do? Hebrews 2:17 states that He is a ‘faithful and sympathetic high priest’.  Verse 18 states that ‘because He himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted’ He is sympathetic because He knows the power of the flesh, He suffered when tempted, and He is faithful to hear our prayers and give us the strength and help to live a holy life. 

VI. In Summary

Traditions are powerful things. The Roman Catholic Church controlled the interpretation of Scripture for over 1000 years, banning access to the Bible for all but priests, banning the use of any language but Latin in their services, persecuting and murdering any who dared to translate the Bible for the common people. Any who dared to challenge their dogma concerning inherited sin/guilt, the sinlessness of Mary or authority of the Pope , were labeled as heretics and often murdered and tortured, indeed the RCC had engineers who designed some of the most heinous and barbaric ways of torture and murder during the dark ages.

The Reformers such as Luther and Calvin were Augustinian to the core, Luther being an Augustinian monk and Calvin quoting Augustine over 1700 times. In many respects, although they abandoned the veneration of Mary, they also abandoned the biblical teaching of synergism in salvation. In reality they took Augustine’s monergism to its logical conclusion, denying free will, promoting determinism in double predestination, making God the author of sin and the ‘gospel’ bad news for all but the ‘elect’ who were lucky enough to be chosen by a means known only to God.

But sadly, if one challenges the traditions which led to these heretical views, they are charged with departing from the 2000 yr old traditions of the Church. This is blatantly false! No theologian until Augustine, some 300 years after the resurrection, ever taught inherited sin, that Mary was sinless, or that Jesus had a different human nature to our own.  

My challenge to pastors, teachers, lay people, lecturers and seminary students is this: If you are teaching that Jesus Christ was born with a different human nature to our own, you are teaching a heretical form of Docetism. Furthermore, you are denying the clear teaching of the passages we have examined, and that Christ ‘had to be made like his brothers in every way in order to make atonement for sin’ (Hebrews 2:17). Please, have the humility to examine what you are teaching and the courage to stand against any tradition which contradicts the word of God. 

God bless

Steve Copland