Article 19 of our Confession of Faith speaks about the mystery of "the union and distinction of the two natures in the person of Christ." One of the old theologians has called this mystery of two natures in one person the greatest mystery which we find revealed in the Word of God. In this article our fathers first state that "the person of the Son (the Son of God) is inseparably united and connected with the human nature." The Mediator has a divine nature and a human nature. It is evident from His divine names that He is truly God. He is called the Lord our Righteousness, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and many other names. It is also evident from His divine attributes. He is the One who knew what was going on in the heart of the Pharisee without ever speaking to him. He is aware of what a person is thinking. He is omniscient. He showed His omnipotence by quickening from the dead. These are divine attributes.

His divine works prove His divinity. He is the One spoken of in John 1, "All things are made by Him." He is the One who rose the third day by His divine power as "the Lion out of the tribe of Judah." In His honors He is shown to be divine. We are baptized in His name. The benediction is in His name.

It is evident that He has a divine nature, but also that He has a human nature. He did not take His human nature out of heaven and pass through Mary like water through a pipe; no, He was born. He matured, He was hungry, He slept, He was tired, He ate and drank. He was grieved, He was sorrowful, He had pain. He suffered, He died, He was buried – all things which refer to His human nature. His human nature is complete, having both soul and body. We read that His "soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death" (Matthew 26:38). We read of Him in 1 Peter 2:24, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." He has a true divine nature, but also a true human nature.

But here is a mystery. How is it possible that two complete natures become one person and yet that they are not mixed or intermixed together so that the two natures, as it were, enter into a new existences, i.e., a God/man existence? No, His divine nature remains divine and His human nature remains human. Yet there are not two persons, but one person. He did not assume a human person, but He assumed a human nature. This was necessary in order to qualify Him for His mediatorial work.

In the course of history there have been many errors in regard to this doctrine, and therefore we must be very clear. There are two natures which are not changed; there is one Person. That one Person is the Mediator – Immanuel. There have been heretics who have denied either the divine or the human nature. They denied that Christ was truly God or that He was truly human, or they attributed to the human nature some divine characteristics. They mixed those two natures of Christ.

In early Christian history, for example, there were the so-called Ebionites, a Jewish sect, who denied the Godhead of Christ. They said He was man, a perfect man, the Savior, but not the Son of God, thus having no real divine nature. He was qualified by divine help and by divine power, but there was no divine nature. Also Socinus and his followers (the Socinians), the Unitarians (who do not believe in the Trinity), and many modern theologians today do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth had a true divine nature.

There are others, such as the Docetes, who taught that Christ had no true human nature. They denied His true humanity. Why did they do that? It was because they believed that sin originated from our body, from that which is material. They say that sin originated from matter. Thus the more spiritual we are, the holier we are. This promoted, in those days, people who withdrew from society and sometimes even starved themselves. They thought the more they crucified their flesh, their body, the holier they would become. You can understand that those people could not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had really assumed a material body, a body of flesh and blood, for they thought that having a body was the same as having sin, and therefore it must have been something like a body, a human appearance. They said He came in the fashion of man.

Later on in history, in 428 A.D., there was a certain man named Nestorius who believed Christ had a divine nature and also a human nature. However, he could not believe that the divine and the human natures were so close that they were bound together in one person. Nestorius claimed that was impossible, because there is such a distance between the Godhead and humanity that they cannot be bound or united together. Thus it had to be something else. He compared it with living in a house, or when speaking about the Godhead, God living in a temple. Nestorius said that when Christ, the Mediator, the Son of God, came on earth, He began to dwell in a human body, which was His temple. You will understand that when you dwell in a temple, you live there, but you can walk in and out. There is not a real union between the one who lives there and the temple. It is just a house in which you dwell.

He also compared the relationship between the two natures of the Mediator with a marriage. There are two persons, but they are not always together. The one may be at home while the other is at work. There is a certain relationship; it can be a good relationship, but they are two individuals. So he said it was with the human nature and the divine nature of Christ. They are not only distinguished, but they are also separated; they are divided. If there is one Person, one must divide the Person into a divine part and into a human part. Thus there is not only a distinc­tion between these natures, but also a separation. That is what Nestorius said. This is not the doctrine of Scripture. It is not what the Lord Jesus Himself revealed in His Word or what the apostles taught. Therefore there was opposition to his teaching. At the Synod of Ephesus in 431 A.D. the doctrine of Nestorius was rejected. The Synod said they consid­ered those two natures as not being divided or separated, not as two people, but the natures are united, undivided, and without separation.

Another error was taught by Eutyches, who was the head of a monastery in Constantinople. Eutyches believed that the two natures, divine and human, were intermixed together, as water and wine can be mixed, into a new God/man nature wherein the divine nature loses somewhat of its specific divine attributes and the human nature loses somewhat of its human qualities. The two become one new God/man nature. Those who supported this teaching were called monophysites, meaning "one nature." Others, who were called monothelites, said there were two natures, but with one will. Can that be right? How many wills did the Lord Jesus have? The monothelites said He had a divine-human will, but no truly human will. However, that would imply that His human nature was without a will and thus it would not have been a true human nature. The church of all ages (also the Reformed churches) has always maintained that the human nature which Christ assumed also had a will, a human will, which was never in conflict with this Divine will.

In John 12 we can find an example of the importance of this. The Lord Jesus was standing before His suffering; the last days were coming. He had just said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone." Thus He spoke about His death. "But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." And then He said, "Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say?" as if suddenly a strong fear and trouble overwhelmed Him. He said, "What shall I say? What shall I now say in this trouble?" Why was He troubled? He saw as clearly as can be, because He was omniscient, how heavy His bitter suffering would be. His human nature trembled. The human nature fears suffering. Thus Christ had a true human nature, and as such, His human nature would react with trembling, with fear for suffering. He could not like suffering as such, and therefore said, "Now is my soul troubled." He had a soul with passions and with desires and with a will. "And what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour? Shall I now ask, 'Father, please let Me escape this?' Whereas My human nature, as it were, trembles before this approaching suffering, shall I now ask My Father to please take this bitter cup away from Me?" Think also of Gethsemane where He also prayed, "O My Father, if it be pos­sible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." But then He says, "What shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour?" And then we hear the answer, "But for this cause (in order to suffer and die) came I unto this hour." It is God's way, as it were, which answers His trembling soul. It says, "This is now the purpose of My coming. I came in order to do God's will, and that implies suffering." And then we see how He completely agreed with God's will, and said, "Father, glorify Thy name." In other words, "That is now My only purpose – that God may be glorified. If God's attributes may be glorified, then I willingly take this bitter cup of suffering."

We see that He had a true human nature, that there was also a soul with passions, fear, and trembling, and not only a human appearance. He did not have a human nature without a will, but His will was never in conflict with God's will. That is so different with us. Our will often collides, often conflicts, with God's will. Then there is a battle; then our will has to be won over, has to be inclined. What a heavy struggle there can be in the life of God's children when the Lord calls them to follow in a way which is against their flesh and blood, against their human desires. But if they may be given to see how Christ had but one purpose, which was the glory of the Father and the honor of God, and how He denied Himself, then the Lord has a willing people in the day of His power. Christ was tempted in all points; He became like unto us. He had a will in His human nature, but it was never in conflict with His divine nature.

Luther also erred regarding the two natures of the Mediator, although he did not go as far as Eutyches. He did not believe that the two natures were completely inter­mixed, yet he ascribed some divine characteristics to the human nature. For instance, he said that the human nature of Christ became omnipres­ent when Christ ascended to heaven. So he somewhat mixed the divine nature with the human nature. A human nature cannot be omnipresent. That does not belong to humanity, but only belongs to divinity. So Luther also erred in this respect. It seems that at the end of his life he told his friend, Philippus Melancthon, one of his faithful helpers, that he possibly had erred in regard to the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ. This is recorded in a letter of Frederick III written in 1564. In it he stated that he had heard this from Melancthon. But officially Luther never retracted it.

A clear statement in regard to this doctrine was given by the Synod of Chalcedon which came together in 451 A.D. There it was stated that the two natures of Christ were without division and without separation (against Nestorius) and were also without mixture and without change (against Eutyches).

This article speaks about these two natures in such a tender way. It says that "the divine nature hath always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth"; but also that "the human nature hath not lost its properties, but remained a creature (not omnipresent, as Luther said), having beginning of days, being a finite nature"; although after His resurrection He had a glorified body, but without corruption. That will be the same for God's children. They will also have their own body and soul, but no longer having corruption.

This article speaks of a mystery. Yet our salvation depends on the things contained in this doctrine. If, for instance, the Ebionites were right and Christ had not had a divine nature, what should we think about His suffering, about His paying the price? What would have been the value of it? Would it have been sufficient? Those hours on the cross, that descending into hell, would that have been enough? Would that have had an eternal value? Would it have been sufficient for the sins of all His people, unless it had been done by a divine person, though the suffering was in His human nature? No, if that were true, then Christ could not have said, "It is finished."

But also in regard to the error of the Docetes – if Christ would have had only the appearance of a body, would He be able to comfort you when you are weary, when you are grieved, when you are mourning? Would He be able to really help you in days of sickness? Would He be able to really sympathize with you, people of God? No! Oh, therefore there is also no comfort in such a doctrine. You would say that He is powerful enough, for He is God. Yes, but what would He then have brought to heaven? Not our human nature, just the appearance of it, and then He would have put it away again. This also is robbing the church of its comfort.

And Nestorius? When one makes a real separation between those two natures, and you read in John 4 about the One who was sitting wearily by the well of Jacob, you cannot say, "This is the Savior with my flesh and blood." No, then you would have to say that it was still a separation. Then you would say, "God came close to our human nature, in the same house; He even came into the temple, but He was not really bound together with it. We cannot say that it is an incarnation."

And Eutyches? We would say to him, "You make a mixture of it. You just mix everything together. When you read about Christ being weary and hungry, you come into prob­lems. For how is that possible with a God/man nature? How could Christ nearly faint and perish under the cross when He was carrying it to Golgotha? Why was it necessary that Simon of Cyrene helped Him to carry the cross? Eutyches, you also diminish the glory of the Godhead, for you mix the Godhead together with our humanity."

Therefore, friends, we can only say that the statement of the Synod of Chalcedon is the right one. This Jesus arose from the dead, and in that resurrection in our human nature there is comfort. In that resurrection of the Greater Judah, of the Lion out of the tribe of Judah, is the proclamation of heavenly pardon. When the grave was opened, death was conquered; God's people bought; the entire church arose from a dark place of sin and death; and no sin can bring terror and corruption to them anymore forever. Satan is bound forever, too, and the cursing law is deprived of its power. The guilt of the sinner is paid for. The Lord gave the receipt to His Son on the third day. Therefore Paul could say in Romans 8:11, "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead (the Spirit) shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Does the Spirit dwell in us? Then He dwells in a temple. But are we really such a temple? Or are we still a synagogue of Satan? Are we a temple in which the Lord dwells, or are we a synagogue wherein Satan reigns? What a difference this makes. It is essential and decisive for our state for eternity whether we are a slave of the prince of darkness or a child of God.

May this precious Mediator, God and man in one Person, be needed and known by us, so that we might learn to flee to Him who can be the only true Refuge for us and our children.