Last words in the light of Hebrews 2:9

[Paul Younan]

Hi Jasmine,

1 - Why does it necessarily create 'two persons'? The divine essense returns to G-d and the human essense is left to die.

Well, for one thing His human Nature was resurrected and a question that would be naturally asked is: at what point were the Divine and human natures united again in one Person? (Note that He specifically told Thomas that a spirit does not have flesh and bones as He had.)

2 - What if we take into consideration the fact that he was on the verge of death? A linguistic present tense doesn't necessarily have to be 'this very single moment', right? Especially considering imminent death. He could be referring to, for instance, a continuous action (as he is dying, his divine essense is leaving him), or an immediate, imminent future. Of course I'm talking about western languages, LOL. But wouldn't it be possible in aramaic?

I would be, yes. But I do think, theologically speaking, that the Divine nature never left Him at all, yet at the same time it was not the Divine nature that experienced suffering, or death. The exact formulation of these types of things are, of course, full of conjecture as the topic itself is one of ineffable mystery.

However, for people like myself who follow CoE doctrine, synods have made it very clear that the CoE holds that the Natures were always united in one Person - even though they were not always subject to the same passions or sufferings. For instance:

The heretics, that is, in their stubbornness, venture to ascribe the properties and sufferings of the nature of the manhood of Christ to the nature and qnoma of the Godhead and Essence of the Word, things which occasionally, because of the perfect union which the manhood of Christ had with his Godhead, are ascribed to God economically, but not naturally. (Synod of Mar Yeshu-Yahb, AD 587)

The last phrase there is critical: it allows for the fact that we ocassionally speak of of God "dying" on the Cross for us - not naturally - but economically, because of the perfect union which the manhood had with the Godhood.

At the same time, the declaration forbade any attempt to ascribe suffering and death to the Divine Nature. Again:

On the one hand, Christ, the Son of God, suffered in the flesh, while on the other hand, in the nature of his Godhead, the same Christ the Son of God was beyond sufferings - Jesus Christ, impassible and passible, the Creator of the worlds and the recipient of sufferings, who for us was impoverished though he was rich.

God the Word accepted the insult of sufferings in the temple of his body economically, in a perfect union without separation, though in the nature of his Godhead he did not suffer, as our Life-giver said, "Destroy this temple and after three days I will raise it up."......the Evangelist explained the word of our Savior, saying, "But he spoke concerning the temple of his body." (Yeshu`Yahb I, letter to Ya`qob)

These declarations strike a balance that I think is reasonable, simple and scriptural - of a topic that is anything but straightforward and knowable. Of course, I'm not a theologian. Some things we just have to chalk up to being mysteries. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->