Question #397

Was Jesus both God and man at the same time?

The Athanasian creed and the decision of the council of Chalcedon both declare that Jesus is both God and man. Even some Protestants agree with this. Yet I see in the Bible that sometimes Jesus is not a man. When he gave the gospel to Paul, and later made him apostle, he was not a man (Col. 1:12, 1:1). Later, when Paul wrote to Timothy, Jesus was a man again (1 Tim. 2:5). But later, when he appeared to John, he was only like a man (Rev. 1:13). So I think he makes himself sometimes human and sometimes not, as needed. Do you agree?

The Answer:

The first 28 “verses” of the Athanasian Creed deal with the deity of Christ, specifically as a part of the Trinity. Beginning in verse 29 it deals with his incarnation. The Council of Chalcedon affirms “This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparately [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten. …”

The manhood of Christ did not begin until the incarnation, though it existed in God’s eternal plan and was described in prophecy. See, e.g, Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Both the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Chalcedon confirm that Christ was both God and man, deity and human in his earthly sojourn. Neither of them separates the two so that in his earthly sojourn Christ was at one time deity without humanity and at another time humanity without deity.

Neither does the scripture separate the deity and humanity of Christ. He is not at one time Christ (Deity) and at another time humanity. He is not God or man; he is both (at the same time) God and man. Gal. 1:12 is not to the contrary. Paul’s assertion there is the same as that found in 1 Cor. 1:1-13. Paul was not saying that Christ was not both deity and humanity. He was affirming that he did not receive the gospel that he preached from mere man or one who was only man, but from Jesus Christ. The contrast establishes that Paul knew that Jesus Christ was more than mortal man. Phil. 2:5-11 describes the eternal nature of Christ found in fashion as man. It was this unique combination of deity and humanity that led Christ to say "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father" (John 10:17-18). This statement could never be true of one who was only man.

1 Tim. 2:5 and Rev. 1:13 are not to the contrary. “The Son of man” is one of the favorite names of Jesus. It was in his capacity as “the Son of man” that he bought salvation. “The Son of God” was another name for the Christ. He was both at one and the same time. It was because of this unique nature that he could and does mediate between God and man – he can understand both because he is both. Any time any one of his names is used, while it may be used to emphasize one aspect of his nature, it cannot be and is not used to deny the existence of both aspect of his dual nature – both God and man.