CONFORMED TO CHRIST IN GLORIFIED HUMANITY (PART I)
%20copy.jpg)
“Christ Is Even Now Still Fully God and Fully Man”
By Akin Ojumu
To say that believers will be “conformed to Christ in glorified humanity” is to confess something much richer than merely saying Christians will receive better bodies after death. It is a statement about the Incarnation, the Person of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the union of believers with Christ, and the final renewal of creation itself.
The Christian hope of glorification is rooted in the identity of Jesus Christ. We cannot understand what believers will become until we first understand who Christ is.
And this is precisely where the great Christological confessions of the ancient Church become important.
THE NICENE FOUNDATION: THE SON IS TRUE GOD
The Christian faith begins by confessing that Jesus Christ is not a creature who later attained divine status. He is the eternal Son of God.
The Nicene faith confesses Him as:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.”
This matters enormously for the doctrine of glorification. The One who saves humanity is not merely another human being. He is the eternal Son through whom all things were made.
John writes:
John 1:1–3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made through him.”
And yet this eternal Word entered His own creation.
John 1:14
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
The Creator entered creation. The eternal Son assumed human nature. The One through whom humanity was made became human Himself. This is the mystery of the Incarnation.
THE INCARNATION: THE SON ASSUMED TRUE HUMANITY
When Scripture says that “the Word became flesh,” it does not mean that God merely appeared to be human. Nor does it mean that the divine nature was transformed into a human nature. Nor did the Son cease to be God in order to become man.
Rather, the eternal Son assumed a complete human nature while remaining fully divine. He became what He was not without ceasing to be what He eternally was. He remained God. And He became truly man.
Paul writes:
Philippians 2:6–8
“Though he was in the form of God… he emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”
His “emptying” was not the surrender of deity. It was the assumption of humanity and the humiliation of the servant. The Son did not exchange deity for humanity. He united humanity to Himself.
This is why the Incarnation is indispensable to the Christian doctrine of salvation.
Humanity is saved because the eternal Son truly entered the human condition. He possessed a true human body. A true human mind. A true human will. A true human soul. He experienced hunger. Thirst. Weariness. Sorrow. Pain. Temptation. And death. Yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
The humanity Christ assumed was real humanity. And what He assumed, He came to redeem.
THE CHALCEDONIAN CONFESSION: ONE PERSON, TWO NATURES
The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) gave classical expression to the biblical teaching concerning Christ.
“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”
This is what theologians call the hypostatic union.
Christ is one Person. Not two persons. But He possesses two complete natures: Truly divine and truly human.
His divine nature does not become human. His human nature does not become divine. The two are united in the one Person of the eternal Son.
This distinction is essential when speaking of glorification.
Believers will be conformed to Christ according to His glorified humanity. We are not conformed to Him by becoming divine in essence. We do not acquire His eternal divine nature. We do not become omnipotent. We do not become omniscient. We do not become omnipresent. We do not become self-existent. We do not become objects of worship.
Christ remains eternally what we can never become: God the Son. Yet the extraordinary Christian promise is that those united to Him will share in the glory of His perfected humanity.
CHRIST’S HUMANITY WAS NOT TEMPORARY
One of the most important implications of the Incarnation is that the Son did not merely borrow humanity for thirty-three years and then discard it.
The Incarnation is permanent. The risen and ascended Christ remains truly human. The One seated at the right hand of the Father is the God-Man.
Paul writes:
1 Timothy 2:5
“There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
The mediator remains human. The Son who took flesh has not abandoned flesh. The resurrection therefore does not undo the Incarnation. It glorifies the humanity the Son assumed.
This means that glorified humanity already exists. It exists in Jesus Christ. The Christian future is therefore not speculation about what redeemed humanity might someday look like. God has already shown us. Look at the risen Christ.
In Part II, we will examine the relationship between the risen Christ and the destiny of the human body.
The only problem with this presentation is the PICTURE at very top. Before the Roman Catholics began this imagination, true-believers never made any imagery/picture of the Lord Jesus(YahShua).
ReplyDeleteAbel Damina and those like him need to read this: "We are not conformed to Him by becoming divine in essence. ... We do not become omniscient. ... Christ remains eternally what we can never become ... The risen and ascended Christ [is a glorified human] ... This means that glorified humanity already exists ... not speculation about what redeemed humanity might someday look like. ..." . Amin, 1John 3v2 . Phil 3v20-21 . 1Cor 15v50-54 . Partakers of divine nature (2Peter 1v4).
The Iconoclastic Controversy of the Byzantine era was fought out in the eighth and ninth centuries. There is no need to resurrect it here.
DeleteAn image depicting Christ is not inherently idolatrous. It becomes idolatrous when the image itself is treated as a sacred object—when it is worshiped, venerated, or invested with spiritual power that belongs to God alone.
That is plainly not what is happening in this commentary.
The image is illustrative, not devotional; representational, not sacramental. It is being used to accompany the commentary, not to receive prayer, reverence, or worship.
So, please, let the Byzantine iconoclastic controversy remain buried in Byzantium.
Akin, i'm not aware of the "Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy". My logic/reason is based on the writings in 1Cor 8 to 10 which encourage the strong who have understanding to be mindful of the majority and Weak Christians who are under Deceitful Spirits taking such pictures seriously in a spiritual sense and would tell you Christ Appeared to them in their dream. Such may come-across this presentation and the Picture REINFORCES to them the deceitful spirit that Appeared in their dream which they are convinced is Christ as deceitful spirits continue Reinforcing this to the Majority whether via popular movies or social media.
DeleteI suggest you go read up the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy. There is nothing in the use of that graphic that would reinforce the dreams of any "weak" Christian.
DeleteFriend, i'm not stupid and i don't need to go read "Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy" when i already read your argument: "An image depicting Christ is not inherently idolatrous. It becomes idolatrous when the image itself is treated as a sacred object" . Yes, i understand that argument because 1Cor 8 gives me this light and it goes on to admonish the strong and Knowledgeable on that very argument you just presented.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the authority or basis by which you say that an image is depicting "Christ"?? It certainly is not based on Scripture.
Asking you to read up on a subject that you yourself admitted you were unfamiliar with is not the same thing as calling you stupid.
DeleteYou are not omniscient. Neither am I. None of us is knowledgeable about every subject under the sun—including theology. There is absolutely nothing insulting about being encouraged to study a subject more carefully, educate oneself, and learn something new. That is simply part of intellectual and spiritual maturity.
Likewise, your objection to the graphic accompanying this commentary is, frankly, difficult to understand.
By the logic you are advancing, virtually any visual representation associated with the Christian faith could potentially become spiritually dangerous to a “weaker brother.” A painting depicting the Crucifixion, an image of the cross, the Chi-Rho, or the Ichthus appearing in a Bible commentary could all supposedly lead someone into idolatry.
That stretches Paul’s argument far beyond anything he was addressing.
The context of 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 is participation in pagan idolatry. Paul is dealing with one sustained pastoral and theological issue involving Christian liberty, food sacrificed to idols, conscience, love for fellow believers, and the very real danger of participating in idolatrous worship.
The question confronting the Corinthian church was essentially this:
Since an idol is nothing, and since there is only one true God, may a Christian eat meat that has been sacrificed to an idol?
Paul’s answer carefully distinguishes between eating food as food and actually participating in pagan worship. His concern is not artistic representation. His concern is idolatrous participation, the exercise of Christian liberty, and the effect of that liberty upon the conscience of fellow believers.
So the propriety of using a graphic containing a depiction of Christ in a theological commentary is simply not what 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 are about.
To invoke those chapters as though Paul were addressing illustrations in Christian teaching material is not careful exegesis. It is importing a modern controversy into a text dealing with an entirely different question.
What is the authority or basis of presenting a "Satan" that looks terrifying or ugly?? as if the deceiver won't appear as the very picture you are using for "Christ" to bring a message to Weak Christians AS IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
ReplyDeleteI already read your argument saying: "An image depicting Christ is not inherently idolatrous. It becomes idolatrous when the image itself is treated as a sacred object", why should i read more Commentaries such as "Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy" APART FROM SCRIPTURE ITSELF ON THIS MATTER?? What is the authority or basis by which you say that an image is depicting "Christ"?? It certainly is not based on Scripture. What is the authority or basis of presenting a "Satan" that looks terrifying or ugly?? as if the deceiver won't appear as the very picture you are using for "Christ" to bring a message to Weak Christians AS IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
ReplyDeleteYou're paying lip-service to Scripture (Matt 15v8-9). Your thinking is actually heavily based in MEN'S Commentaries and Arguments (e.g., TULIP and Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy) more than Scripture itself which you're paying lip-service to . In shock, i wrote under your TULIP (Part 1): "Are there varying interpretations of 1John 2v2, ? Let me know how you interpret 1John 2v2" . I Got No Response even after i repeated this request many times.
You wrote of me, that i'm: "importing a modern controversy into a text dealing with an entirely different question" . But you rightly wrote that: in 1Cor 8 to 10, the concern being addressed is: "[IDOLATRY and] the exercise of Christian liberty, and the effect of that liberty upon the conscience of fellow believers" . 1Cor 8v11, "so the weak believer for whom Christ died is DESTROYED by your knowledge" . The weak believer and "the strong"(knowledgeable) are mentioned in 1Cor 8 to 10 . The fact that you (Akin) cannot be deceived by your "The image is ... representational", doesn't mean a lot of souls are not being deceived by this IMAGINATION which deceitful spirits are gladly using.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis/authority do you say that an image is depicting "Christ"?? It certainly is not based on Scripture but HUMAN Teaching and imagination. As i have already warned you: you're paying lip-service to Scripture but your mind is heavily influenced by Human Teaching more than Scripture which you clearly refuse (e.g., 1John 2v2) whenever it challenges your Human Imaginations (e.g., Calvinism, or the use of deceitful imaginations whether for "Christ" or the Deceiver).