
How Jesus Can Be One Person With Two Natures?
A Model With Little Metaphysics
In my last post, I discussed the flaws concerning William Lane Craig’s model of the hypostatic union (here). In that discussion, Craig expressed concern with Nestorianism and how we need a possible account of the hypostatic union that does not collapse into Jesus being two persons. Today, I’m going to provide a short post concerning how Jesus can be one person of two natures. This might seem daunting, but is rather simple once we simplify the metaphysics. By this, I mean I will make less claims concerning the noumenal realm. When it comes to seeing the world, idealists like Kant distinguished the noumenal from the phenomenal (for more on this, check out the following videos here, here and here). In terms of the phenomenal world, this is the world of qualities like taste, touch, see, etc. This is the world the senses speak of, colors, textures, brightness, and the like.
The noumenal realm on the other hand is the world in itself, the one we do not have access to (if you’re an idealist). Natures are a part of this realm, and for the idealist, while they can speak of the various qualities things we call ‘humans’ have, the term ‘human’ is a common noun that picks out these qualities we associate with humanity. The same is true for divinity, but in another, non-sensory way — for instance, one could hold with Anselm that the qualities which are ascribed to God are ones which ‘none greater can be thought’ [1]. There is some underlying nature which makes them what they are, but we don’t know what it is in themselves.
The name of a person is a noun which is more specific. Whereas ‘human’ and ‘divine’ refer to what is analogous to some set of things, a person’s name refers to only one member among any sets, with their own agency (analogous to ours), distinct from any other person. ‘Maximus’ is a specific noun some third-person uses in reference to myself. He is a member of beings who fit the common noun of ‘humans’. ‘Jesus’, or ‘Jesus Christ’, functions in the same vain. However, unlike every other agent, Jesus Christ would have two natures, particularly ‘human’ and ‘divine’, which can be both truly predicated of him, which the believer can say is correct by way of revelation [2].
We can therefore acknowledge that there is one person with two natures, use the language in reference to them, and without making claims on what those references are in themselves [3]. This enables us to avoid the problems Craig points out, and with no need of an elaborate metaphysical picture. Although, there are more heavier metaphysical pictures of the hypostatic union, this enables us to provide a simple and non-contradictory picture to present to non-believers as a starting point to forming doctrine.
For a heavier metaphysical picture, I encourage you readers to check out Richard Cross’ The Metaphysics of the Incarnation Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus. Like Craig, I am admitting this as one possibility, although a non-heretical one.
End Notes
[1] Saint Anselm, Proslogion, 93 (Translated by Jasper Hopkins) [http://jasper-hopkins.info/proslogion.pdf]
[2] Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus, pages 2–3
[3] Ibid

