Revisiting Jesus Christ's Continuing Humanity: Its Implications and Applications

By Patrick Nasongo Ph.D.

Most readers are familiar with Jesus’ deity and His humanity while He was here on the earth, but they seldom consider the fact of His continuing humanity. Dr. Nasongo investigates the insufficient treatment of this subject from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to the present, and then he presents the biblical evidence for Christ’s continuing humanity. In the process, he demonstrates its relationship to apologetics, hermeneutics, and systematic theology, with a special emphasis on eschatology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Sep 12, 2022
• ISBN: 9781664275782

Patrick Nasongo Ph.D.

Dr. Patrick Nasongo is a professor of the New Testament and Greek Bible. He is the author of The Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant: A Hermeneutical and Exegetical Analysis of Three Evangelical Views. Dr. Nasongo is an ordained minister and travels frequently to teach and preach the Word. He currently teaches at Virginia Bible College.

Book preview

Copyright © 2022 Patrick Nasongo, Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

This book is a work of non-fiction. Unless otherwise noted, the author and the publisher make no explicit guarantees as to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and in some cases, names of people and places have been altered to protect their privacy.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

844-714-3454

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

All scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-6642-7579-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6642-7578-2 (e)

WestBow Press rev. date: 09/06/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Chapter I: Introduction

Three Major Views of the Continuing Humanity of Christ

Contemporary Views of the Kenosis

A Summary of the Discussion

Chapter II: Historical Literature on Jesus’ Continuing Humanity

The Patristic Period (A.D. 100–680)

The Fourth-Century Fathers (A.D. 300–399)

The Post-Nicene Fathers (A.D. 325 & Later)

The Early Creeds of Christendom

The Apostles’ Creed

The Nicene Creed

The Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451)

The Middle Ages (A.D. 500–1500)

Late Middle Ages

Reformation Teachings (1500–1600)

Modern Period Scholars

Contemporary Period

Chapter III: Biblical Teachings on Jesus’ Continuing Humanity

Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection

The Form of Jesus’ Resurrected Body

Questions and Answers to Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection

Jesus’ Bodily Ascension

Questions and Answers to Jesus’ Bodily Ascension

Jesus’ Bodily Continuing Priesthood

Functions of a Priest

Intercessor

Mediator

Benediction

Jesus’ Bodily Return

Additional Perspectives of Jesus and Paul

Jesus

Paul

Chapter IV: Implications of the Continuing Humanity of Jesus

Implications to Jesus Christ

Implications to Believers in Christ

Chapter V: Conclusion and Application: Continuing Presence

Heidelberg Catechism

Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Nasongo is back again and has a better song this time. But first, I want to thank my wife, Sylvia. You read early drafts and advised me on how to proceed. Your council motivated me. Above all, I thank God who enabled me to write. His sufficient grace guided me through this laborious task.

Second, I deeply appreciate the dear friends I met at Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University) during my doctoral studies. These friends were terrific in reading, editing, and shaping my dissertation. Due to the great importance and contribution that dissertation made, I turned it into a book and is now making a lasting impact on many theologians around the globe. When this study came knocking, I could think of no other but my dear friends who carried me through the finish line during my doctoral years. These friends became part of the Scribe team, which greatly helped me. I am forever grateful.

Third, I want to acknowledge my dissertation reader, Dr. Frederick Bunts. He read through the first and final draft and pointed out errors I could not have discovered. I am so grateful to Dr. Bunts for his carefulness to detail, even pointing out my incorrect Greek grammar. He is a gifted reader. I know Dr. Bunts is a busy pastor, but he set aside his time to read through this book. May the Lord reward your time and sacrifice to his kingdom. God will reward your godliness and wisdom.

Additionally, I want to thank Dr. Gee Lowe, who birthed this idea for me. I recall Dr. Ghee saying that Jesus’ permanent humanity is a fundamental doctrine that deserves attention within the Evangelical Church. He observed, Although this aspect is assumed true within the Evangelical Church, studies from the Apostolic Fathers to contemporary times will prove otherwise. Simply, this issue is somehow overlooked, although there are scant discussions by scholars here and there. Furthermore, Dr. Ghee added, If Jesus’ humanity is permanent, then what is its significance to our salvation today? This concept is the reasoning behind this subject: The Continuing Humanity of Jesus: Its Significance. Although I didn’t follow his script, there is some resemblance. I owe all to him. Dr. Ghee not only taught me theology at International Theological Seminary, but he prepared me for a lifetime of learning God’s Word.

Last and not least, I would like to apologize to anyone I may have forgotten to mention your name. I know you played a fundamental role in the writing of this book. I pray that the Lord who sees in secret place bless and reward you abundantly. Thank you for everything. Patrick Nasongo, Ph.D.

Cover.jpg

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

T HE CONCEPT OF JESUS CHRIST’S continuing humanity is not new. Evangelicals are aware that Jesus is presently a human in a glorified body in heaven. However, most of them have not thought about how Jesus continues to be a man. Their conclusions about Jesus’ post-resurrection humanity are not explicitly stated. Instead, evangelical scholars have focused on the Christology of the historical Jesus, his resurrection, ascension, and current session. These doctrines are fundamental to the Orthodox faith but seem incomplete without a detailed analysis of this aspect. Furthermore, the teaching on the continuing humanity of Jesus is plausible and biblical. Since the 1 st century, the Orthodox Church merely addressed the matter, as we shall see later. But why the continuing silence on this matter? The Church either assumes this doctrine is true or settled. This is a resolution made by church councils over the centuries, especially the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds (A.D. 325 & A.D. 451, respectively). I will revisit the relevant resolutions on the creeds accordingly. However, a caveat is in order: I will not speculate on the details of the life of Jesus in heaven. It is sufficient to know that Christ Jesus is in heaven, continuing as a human yet fully God.

In the rest of this chapter, I discuss three major views concerning the nature of Christ’s humanity and some contemporary views of the kenosis. After that, I summarize my discussion and describe the rest of the book’s content.

THREE MAJOR VIEWS OF THE

CONTINUING HUMANITY OF CHRIST

Scholars hold several views on Jesus’ post-resurrection humanity. The first view claims that the person of Jesus is eternal, but not his humanity. Thus, Jesus’ humanity was temporal, while his divinity, which pre-existed, is eternal. Thomas Torrance writes:

The humanity of Jesus was assumed into oneness with the eternal Son and shares eternally in the glory of the only begotten Son of God which he had before the world was created. The doctrine of the hypostatic union asserts a union of the two natures in one person. It does not assert the pre-existence and in that sense the eternity of the human nature, for the human nature of Jesus was a creature of God, and in Jesus himself the human nature had no independent hypostasis prior to the incarnation. But we must assert of the humanity of Jesus that it was given hypostasis, reality, real personal being, in the eternal Word, in the eternal Son, in the eternal hypostasis of God the Son."¹

If the above view stands, then many questions linger in my mind. For example, isn’t Jesus the God-man? If Jesus’ humanity is in oneness with the Son of God, what is the possibility that He will come again in his human nature? These are complex questions deserving a response.

The second view holds that Jesus ascended to heaven bodily and continues in his humanity but is unlikely to return to reign and judge at the end. It teaches that Jesus is presently Lord and King, thus reigning on his throne. This view is held by some covenant theologians, who emphasize the exaltation of Jesus after the ascension. Keith A. Mathison, an advocate of Ligonier Ministry, writes:

Many people believe Jesus predicted His final return to judge creation when He quoted Daniel 7:13–14 in Matthew 24:30. But as John Calvin and other scholars have noted, Daniel 7 refers not to the Son of Man’s descent from heaven but to His entrance into heaven to receive His kingdom. Matthew 24:1–31 does not predict the end of the world. It foresees events associated with Jesus’ enthronement as King of kings and Lord of lords, events that culminated in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The ascension of Christ recorded in Acts 1:6–11 is one of these events, the Son of Man coming to receive His kingdom as foreseen in Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew 24:30.²

Similarly, Bruce Ware contends that Jesus is reigning now, not only in his divinity but also in his humanity. He writes, If one looks carefully at biblical teaching about the current reign of Christ over all things, it seems clear that one must conclude that he is reigning as a man who has won the right to rule over the world he has purchased and conquered.³

The third view is called Kenotic Christology. It is based on arguments on the Chalcedon Creed (A.D. 451). This creed sets forth monumental Orthodox teaching about the union of the two natures of Christ. The creed affirmed that Jesus is truly God and truly man, the same of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin; …⁴ This creed reiterated that the two natures of Christ are without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.⁵ These affirmations still endure and unite the evangelical church for over 1500 years.

But the rise of Kenotic Christology in the early nineteenth century was an attempt to corrupt the Chalcedonian affirmations. This movement set off with two goals: to affirm Chalcedonian orthodoxy and also to take seriously the humiliation and apparent lack of omniscience of the divine Son during his early years.⁶ It was based on the classic text of Philippians 2:7. Millard Erickson states, "— Christ Jesus ‘emptied himself.’ Indeed, the key word here, ἐκένωσεν (from kenoō), is evident in the very name of the theory— kenoticism."⁷ Another passage was Mark 13:32, whereby Jesus claims not to know the time of the end. The movement argued that the incarnate Jesus lacks the attribute of omniscience in his earthly life. Still, if Jesus possessed omniscience, how could divinity and humanity be compatible? Did the incarnate Jesus empty his omniscience? Thus, kenoticists wanted to reconcile this seeming ambiguity of the two natures of Christ (divinity and humanity). More so, this movement aimed at arguing against continuing aspects of Christ’s humanity. The view asserts that the two natures of Christ were not compatible, nor could they exist together at the same time as the Orthodox faith taught. Since the scope of this study is limited, I focus on the human aspect of Christ. I briefly investigate the kenotic perspectives challenging the permanence of the exalted Christ’s humanity. A few advocates of Kenotic Christology are Gottfried Thomasius,⁸ P. T. Forsyth,⁹ A. B. Bruce,¹⁰ Donald M. Baillie, David Brown, and John S. Lawson.

The earliest pioneer of this view was Gottfried Thomasius. He defends both natures of Christ. Thomasius also affirms the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Although his views on immanent, relative, and divine glory are unrelated, it is worth noting that Thomasius view leans towards orthodoxy. Regarding the humanity of Christ, Thomasius reiterated that Jesus Christ is truly human in both the state of humiliation and exaltation. He observes that the exalted Christ regains the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but without losing his true humanity, since being human is compatible with possessing these attributes. Thomasius raises two arguments for his conclusion, but the first one is critical to this study. He states, First, Christ, by his complete obedience to the Father ‘enabled’ his human nature to become the locus of the full glory of God.¹¹ Thus, Christ held to the continual humanity of Christ.

Donald Ballie disagrees with the notion that Christ’s attributes could exist simultaneously in both natures. Ballie thinks it was a mere temporary theophany or manifestation of God. He writes, "For though the Son of God thus keeps His personal identity in becoming the subject of the human attributes which He assumes, He has divested Himself of the distinctively divine attributes, which would imply, if language means anything, that in becoming human He ceased to be divine."¹² According to Ballie, when Christ became man, he gave up divine attributes. Ballie denies a simultaneous union of both divine and human attributes. Thus the assumption of the divine nature implies that Jesus’ humanity ceased upon exaltation.

Ballie emphasizes a similar view as stated in the Chalcedonian Creed that God and man are united simultaneously. He also questions whether Christ’s exalted humanity is ongoing. He contents:

The presupposition of the theory is that the distinctive divine attributes (of omniscience, etc, and the distinctive human attributes (of finite) cannot be united simultaneously in one life; that is why the incarnation is explained as a kenosis. Therefore when the days of His flesh come to an end, Christ resumes His divine attributes, and His kenosis, His humanity, comes to an end. His human life is left behind when He ascends to the right hand of the Father. Thus, on the kenotic theory in that specific sense, … He is God and Man, not simultaneously in a hypostatic union, but successively—the first divine, then human, then God again.¹³

Thus, Ballie openly denounces the orthodox doctrine of the perpetuity of Christ’s humanity.¹⁴ According to Ballie, the humanity and divinity of Jesus cannot exist in one person. He also rejects the continuing aspect of Christ’s humanity, a theme I promise to discuss in this study. So, this viewpoint is unfounded.

David Brown, Ballies contemporary, also observes:

divine attributes apply exclusively before the incarnation, human attributes exclusively to the period of the Incarnation and divine attributes again exclusively to the post-Incarnation period, and both divine and human predicates to the one continuing person who is the subject of all these experiences, when no temporal segment is indicated.¹⁵

From the above observation, Brown implies that Jesus lost his divinity when he became incarnate. Then after exaltation, he lost his humanity and returned to divine nature. This implies that Christ’s nature is reversible. This position is unscriptural since kenosis was a one-time event. Also, God, in his nature, does not change (Heb. 13:8). Thus, currently (post-Incarnation), Jesus is fully divine and lacks the shackles of human limitation. Brown’s view, if upheld, disregards the Chalcedonian two natures of Christ as united in one person. It also denies the perpetual humanity of Christ, a position at odds with the scriptures.¹⁶ Finally, it ignores the fact that the Second Person of the Trinity would always choose the divine will over his human will when the two were in conflict (cf. Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–41; Luke 22:39–46; John 12:27), as Rolland McCune notes, Since the Logos controlled the God-man, Jesus had only one direction in moral decisions—to do his Father’s will (Heb. 10:7).¹⁷

Donald Feenstra, a nineteenth-century traditional theologian, contends that the glorified Christ can regain the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience upon becoming incarnate. This was an orthodox view that stood against the Kenotic Christology. He writes, According to this response, Christ needed to empty himself of omniscience in order to become incarnate, regain this attribute without ceasing to possess true humanity.¹⁸ Feenstra affirms that these two attributes are compatible with being incarnate and not with becoming incarnate.

Kenotic theory also distinguishes between the ‘incarnation’ and ‘self-emptying’ of Christ. For instance, Ensign McChesney observes:

The kenosis is not set before us in the Scriptures as necessary preliminary to incarnation, but as an act of the Son of God wrought for the sake of redemption… Incarnation in and of itself, if what the Scriptures teach is true, does not necessarily involve humiliation … it was for incarnation plus redemption that the self-deprivation or self-emptying of the Son of God was affected.¹⁹

Feenstra objects to McChesney’s distinction of incarnation and self-emptying above. Regarding Incarnation, he writes, "the Incarnation is the becoming of flesh or becoming human, moreover, Christ remains so throughout his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation. The Incarnation does not, in itself, require the Son of God to lack attributes such as omniscience… The Incarnation simply is the Son’s taking on human nature."²⁰

Concerning self-emptying, Feenstra writes, The kenosis of the Son of God involves, among other things, his ceasing to possess certain attributes, such as omniscience. The Son of God divests himself of these attributes, not in order to become human or to become incarnate, but in order to share our lot or condition during his life on earth.²¹ Therefore, self-emptying is temporary, while