Page 91 - Biblical Theology Textbook - masters

more emphatically; “In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). Erickson adds; “what
Jesus emptied himself of was not the divine the nature of God,” but that verb should be understood as
53
“taking the very nature of a servant”

Hypostatic Union.

Grudem defines Hypostatic Union as the “union of Christ’s human and divine natures in one
person is sometimes. . . This phrase simply means the union of Christ’s human and divine
54
natures in one being.

False Teachings on Hypostatic Union in Jesus Christ

Apollinarianism
This teaching was proposed by the bishop of Laodicea; Apollinaris. He taught that “one person of
55
Christ had a human body but not a human mind or spirit, and that the mind and spirit of Christ were
from the divine nature of the Son of God.” In his response, Grudem notes that “we have the
56
statement that he was truly man, of a reasonable soul and body . . .consubstantial with us according to
57
the Manhood; in all things like unto us (Consubstantial means “having the same nature or substance).

Nestorianism
Nestorius was a popular preacher and bishop in Antioch. On two natures in one person (Jesus), he
58
claimed that “there were two separate persons in Christ.” In the Scriptures, we do not find places
where a plural pronoun is used to refer to a singular person. What we find is the use of singular
pronoun, “I.” But Jesus used “we” when he referred to both Himself and God the Father (John 14:23).
Grudem says that “Nowhere in Scripture do we have an indication that the human nature of Christ, for
59
example, is an independent person, deciding to do something contrary to the divine nature of Christ.”

Monophysitism (Eutychianism)
60
Monophysitism is a Greek compound word. Monos means “one,” and physis, “nature.” This teaching
states that “the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the divine nature, so that both
natures were changed somewhat and a third kind of nature resulted.” Scriptures are quiet concerning
the relationship between the divine and human nature after the incarnation. However, what is clear is
that it does not say that there was a third nature which was formed as a result of Jesus’ incarnation. His
teaching is not just foreign to Scriptures, but it is the most extreme.

nd
53 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 751.
54 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994),
558.
55 Ibid. 554.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid., 557.
58 Ibid., 554.
59 Ibid., 555.
60 Ibid.

90