On Two Natures

The core claim of the "two natures" doctrine is this: Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, one fully divine and one fully human. These natures are said to be unmixed, unchanged, undivided, and inseparable. This was formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, and it's considered a cornerstone of orthodox Christian theology.

The problem, however, is that this doctrine creates a series of unresolvable contradictions. It attempts to hold together two incompatible sets of attributes within a single person, and it ends up either dividing Jesus into two persons or denying the reality of His human experiences.

Let's start with the concept of "nature." What does it mean to say that Jesus has a "divine nature" and a "human nature"? A "nature," in this context, is not simply a collection of abstract qualities. It's the essence of a thing, what makes it what it is. To have a human nature is to be human, with all that entails: a physical body, a mortal existence, limited knowledge, susceptibility to temptation, and the capacity for growth and change. To have a divine nature, according to traditional Christian theology, is to be God, with all that that entails: omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, immutability, and impassibility (incapability of suffering).

Now, consider the implications of saying that Jesus has both of these natures, simultaneously, in one person. It means that Jesus is, at the same time:

• Mortal and immortal.

• Limited in knowledge and omniscient.

• Capable of suffering and incapable of suffering.

• Subject to change and immutable.

• Human and God.

These are not simply "mysteries" that we can't fully understand. They are contradictions. They violate the basic laws of logic. Something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. A being cannot be both mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, changeable and unchangeable.

Trinitarians try to get around this by saying that Jesus possesses these contradictory attributes in different respects. He is mortal according to His human nature, but immortal according to His divine nature. He is limited in knowledge in His humanity, but omniscient in His divinity.

But this doesn't solve the problem. It simply relocates it. It turns Jesus into a divided being, a being with two separate centers of consciousness, two separate wills, two separate sets of experiences. This is, in effect, two persons in one body, which is the heresy of Nestorianism.

Think about it: If Jesus' human nature is truly human, then it must have a human mind, a human consciousness, a human will. And if His divine nature is truly divine, then it must have a divine mind, a divine consciousness, a divine will. How can these two distinct minds, consciousnesses, and wills coexist in one person without creating a split personality?

The traditional answer is to say that the divine nature is the person, and the human nature is simply an "instrument" or a "tool" used by the divine person. But this dehumanizes Jesus. It turns His human experiences into a charade, a performance, not a reality. If Jesus' consciousness is always and only divine, then His temptations, His sufferings, His prayers, His death, all of these become illusory. He's not really experiencing them as a human being; He's simply acting out a human role.

And this undermines the very foundation of the Gospel. The Gospel is about the real, human Jesus, the Son of Man, who truly suffered and truly died for our sins. It's about the one mediator between God and humanity, "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). It's about the resurrection of a human being, a victory over death itself.

If Jesus is "fully God" in the same way that the Father is God, then He cannot truly die. God is immortal. He cannot cease to exist. To say that only Jesus' human nature died is to say that Jesus Himself did not die. It's to deny the reality of His death and the power of His resurrection.

But let's imagine, just for a moment, a Jesus who truly possesses both a fully divine nature and a fully human nature, as traditional Trinitarian theology claims. Let's see what that would actually look like, and how awkward and contradictory it would be.

Imagine Jesus, as a baby, lying in the manger. As a human infant, He's hungry, tired, and confused. He cries, He needs to be fed, He needs to be changed. But at the same time, as God, He's sustaining the universe, upholding all things by the word of His power. He's omniscient, knowing everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen. He's omnipresent, existing in every point of space and time. He's omnipotent, capable of doing anything. How does that work, exactly? Is baby Jesus consciously thinking about quantum physics while simultaneously crying for milk? Is He contemplating the mysteries of the cosmos while simultaneously struggling to focus His blurry infant eyes?

Or picture Jesus as a teenager, going through puberty. He's experiencing hormonal changes, mood swings, and the awkwardness of adolescence. But at the same time, He's immutable, unchanging, the eternal God who transcends all time and space. How does that work? Is teenage Jesus, while struggling with acne and voice cracks, also simultaneously ruling the universe with perfect wisdom and unchanging love?

And what about the temptations? The Bible says Jesus was "tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). But how can God be tempted? God is perfect, complete, lacking nothing. Temptation implies a desire for something that one doesn't have, a vulnerability to something that could harm or diminish one. But God has everything, and nothing can harm Him. So, was Jesus really tempted? Or was it just a show, a performance, a divine being pretending to be tempted while knowing, with absolute certainty, that He could never actually sin?

And then there's the cross. The central event of Christianity. The moment of atonement, of redemption, of victory over sin and death. But if Jesus is "fully God," how can He die? God is immortal. He cannot cease to exist. So, did Jesus really die? Or did only His human nature die, while His divine nature remained alive and conscious?

And then, the crucifixion. Jesus, the "God-Man," is nailed to a cross. His human body is in agony, bleeding, dying. But what about His divine nature? Is it also suffering? Is it also dying? Or is it simply observing, detached, unaffected by the physical pain?

If His divine nature is truly united with His human nature, then it must share in the suffering, in the death. But if His divine nature is incapable of suffering and death, then the union is not real. It's a separation, a division, not a true unity.

The "two natures" doctrine tries to have it both ways. It tries to affirm both the full humanity and the full divinity of Jesus, but it ends up affirming neither. It creates a being who is neither truly God nor truly human, a hybrid, a theological monster.

Another point I want to address is the claim that Jesus must be God because He knew the future. By that logic, should we say Moses is also God? (Exodus 3:19-20, then again, Moses is directly referred to as a god in Exodus 7:1.) In any case, Jesus knew the future because God revealed it to Him. It's the same way other prophets in the Bible knew the future: God told them. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is key here. God promises to raise up a prophet like Moses, who will speak God's words. Jesus, as that prophet, received revelation from the Father. John's Gospel emphasizes this: "I do nothing on my own... I speak just as the Father taught me" (John 8:28). "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority" (John 14:10). Jesus' knowledge, including His knowledge of the future, came from God, not from an inherent divine nature. It's about relationship and revelation, not ontological identity. He's the perfect prophet, the one who fully reveals God, but He's still human, receiving that revelation from God.

Let's have some fun for a moment, Imagine Jesus trying to explain the Trinity and His two natures to a group of first-century Jews, and even to Himself, with predictable results.

Picture this: Jesus is sitting with His disciples, trying to explain the finer points of Trinitarian theology.

Jesus: "Okay, guys, so, remember, I'm fully God, but also fully human. Two natures, one person. Got it?"

Peter: "Uh, sure, Rabbi. So, like, when you're hungry, is that the human nature, or the God nature?"

Jesus: "Well, it's... complicated. The human nature experiences the hunger, but the divine nature is also... there. Sustaining the hunger, I guess?"

James: "So, when you got tired and had to take a nap, was that God taking a nap?"

Jesus: "No, no, the divine nature doesn't sleep. It's impassible, immutable, all that. Only the human nature needed a nap."

John: "But... aren't you one person? How can one part of you be asleep and the other part be, you know, running the universe?"

Jesus: "It's a mystery!"

Andrew: "So, when you were a baby, were you, like, consciously aware of being the eternal Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, while simultaneously needed to be fed?"

Jesus: "Look, it's not like I had two separate brains, okay? It's one person, two natures. Somehow. It's... hard to explain."

Thomas: "So, when you prayed to the Father, were you... talking to yourself?"

Jesus: "No! I was praying to the Father! He's a separate Person!"

Thomas: "But you're also God, right? So, you're praying to... God, who is also you?"

Jesus: "It's a mystery of relationship! We're distinct, but also one. In essence. Somehow."

Judas (not Iscariot): "So, when you said, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' were you saying you're Yahweh?"

Jesus: "Okay, so, when I say, 'Before Abraham was, I AM,' what I mean is... I AM, but not just I AM, as in, the I AM, but also, there is He who is the I AM, but I am I AM, too, but not in the sense that I am I AM in the same way that the I AM is I AM, because there is I AM, and He is I AM, and we are both I AM, but I AM the I AM who I AM, and I AM the I AM who exists as I AM, and yet there is the I AM who is, like, the I AM before I AM, but I AM here now, and that I AM was before Abraham was, but when I say, 'Before Abraham was, I AM,' it’s not that I am I AM in a way that I AM the same I AM as the I AM who is I AM, because I AM, but I AM not only the I AM, because He is the I AM and I AM the I AM, but I am also the I AM who is with I AM, so there’s I AM, and there’s the I AM, and I AM in I AM, and when I say, 'I AM,' it’s because I AM... but also, He is, and I AM not just I AM, because there is I AM in Him, and He is I AM, and we are both I AM, but not in the same I AM way, because the I AM before Abraham was, but I AM now, but I AM I AM... you know?"

[The disciples exchange bewildered glances.]

Peter: "Rabbi, with all due respect, this is making my head hurt."

Jesus: "Mine too, Peter. Mine too."

[Later, Jesus is alone, talking to Himself.]

Jesus: "Okay, let's see if I've got this straight. I'm God, but I'm also man. I'm one person, but I have two natures. I'm eternal, but I was born. I'm omniscient, but I don't know the day or hour. I'm omnipotent, but I can't do anything on my own. I'm one with the Father, but the Father is greater than I am. I died, but I didn't really die, because only my human nature died, but I'm still one person, so... I died, but I didn't? And I'm supposed to make this make sense to a bunch of fishermen? Oy vey..."

[Jesus sighs, then shrugs.]

Jesus: "Well, at least I don't have to explain the Holy Spirit yet. That's a whole other can of worms..."

The point, of course, is that the Trinity, and particularly the "two natures" doctrine, is so convoluted, so riddled with philosophical jargon and logical contradictions, that it's almost impossible to explain without sounding completely ridiculous. It's a doctrine that was developed centuries after Jesus, in an attempt to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible, but it ended up creating far more problems than it solved. And trying to explain it to a first-century Jew, who had a very different understanding of God and the Messiah, would have been an exercise in utter futility.

The true Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is the human Messiah, the Son of God, who fully experienced human life, human suffering, and human death. He is the one who trusted in the Father, who obeyed the Father, and who was raised by the Father from the dead. He is not God Himself, but He is the perfect revelation of God, the one through whom we can know the Father and experience His love and grace. To make Him into a "God-Man," a being with two natures, two minds, two wills, is to distort the Gospel, to undermine His sacrifice, and to create a theological puzzle that cannot be solved.

The "two natures" doctrine, therefore, is not a solution to the problem of reconciling Jesus' humanity and divinity. It's a philosophical construct that creates more problems than it solves. It's a doctrine that, in its attempt to preserve the "deity of Christ," actually undermines the true humanity of Christ and the very essence of the Gospel. It's a doctrine that, ultimately, leads to incoherence and contradiction. The only way to have a coherent Christology is to affirm the full humanity of Jesus, recognizing Him as the Messiah, the Son of God, the one anointed and empowered by God, but not God Himself.