NOTE TO READERS
This post is a revision of the original post with this title dated 5 July 2019. That post was labelled as Part 1 of what was projected to be two-part posting, but the second part was never completed due to other significant demands on my time and energy. I am now getting back to my irregular on-and-off blogging. This post is the revision and completion of the July 2019 post, with both parts rolled into one. This post, like most of my others, includes substantial engagement with two key Reformed doctrinal standards, the Belgic Confession (BC) and the Heidelberg Catechism (HC).
INTRODUCTION
Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was both human and divine. That belief is tightly connected to the doctrine of the Trinity, which attempts to define the specifics of Jesus’s two “natures” and how they relate to one another, as well as his relationship to God the Father and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the NT; it was developed gradually over several centuries, in an environment of theological (and political) conflict, by the post-Apostolic church. The doctrine was eventually codified in the Ecumenical Creeds of the 4th to 6th Centuries. The Protestant churches, including the Reformed, have adopted and affirmed the three earliest such creeds, as listed in the Belgic Confession Article 9: “…we willingly receive the three creeds, of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius.”
While the Apostles Creed is basically a concise summary of scriptural statements about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is the two later creeds which specify and formalize – within the context of Trinitarian categories – the doctrine of Jesus’s two natures. In so doing they go well beyond biblical language, using terminology and concepts derived from Greek philosophy. It is noteworthy that the Reformed BC and HC – although accepting those creeds – make no actual reference to them to support their teachings, but (in keeping with the sound Reformed principle of Sola Scriptura) reference only the canonical scriptures.
My objective in this post is limited to applying the principle of Sola Scriptura to develop an answer to the question posed in the title of this post; i.e. did Jesus access his “god-power” (1) to perform miraculous deeds during his life and ministry, and (2) to endure and/or accomplish his crucifixion, death, resurrection and exaltation? The BC and HC do not deal with the first point, thus only my discussion of the second point will involve engagement with these standards. My general approach to citing scriptures is to focus on those which are clear and unambiguous, to the extent required to establish an interpretation. All scripture quotations herein are based on the NASB.
DID JESUS USE HIS DIVINE POWERS DURING HIS LIFE AND MINISTRY?
The NT makes no explicit claim that Jesus while on earth ever made use of divine power accessible from his own godhood or divine nature. All of Jesus’s teachings, healings and other works of power reported in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts are ascribed to the power of God and/or the Holy Spirit working through him. Key NT texts are cited below, with key words bolded.
Luke chapters 2 to 4 are programmatic for characterizing Jesus’s ministry as that of a prophet. The following excerpts illustrate Luke’s emphasis on the Holy Spirit as the source of Jesus’s teachings and of his works of power:
21 …Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form… (Luke 2:21-22)
1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led about in the Spirit in the wilderness…14 And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit… 16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed, 19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” 20 And He closed the book, … 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” …22 …and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” … 24 And He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown. 25 But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, … 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet… (Luke 4:1-27)
If Jesus could have been expected to directly access his own divine power it seems fair to ask why Luke finds it necessary to say that “Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit”. This statement – made at the beginning of Jesus ministry – seems intended to be programmatic: Jesus’s works were to be done by the power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, with comparisons to Elijah and Elisha who (like other OT prophets) did works of power through the Holy Spirit, including raising the dead. Similarly, after being warned that Herod wanted to kill him, Jesus says “Nevertheless I must journey on…for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:31-33).
With regard to exorcisms (which have no clear OT precedent), Jesus says he casts out unclean spirits by the power of the Holy Spirit, as reported in Matthew 12:22-28:
“ 22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw…. 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.” 25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them…. 27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?…. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Like the opening chapters of Luke, Acts 2 is similarly programmatic as Peter preaches the first proclamation of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the advent of the Holy Spirit:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him up again… (Acts 2:22-24; my bolding).
Peter clearly states that Jesus ministered as a man whose works of power were done by God. Acts 2 goes on to state that God also worked wonders through the apostles, using intentionally similar wording:
43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. (Acts 2:43; my bolding).
It is clear that the apostles, having received the promise of the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), were thus enabled, like Jesus, to also do “wonders and signs” including raising the dead (Acts 9:36-42). This includes Paul: “ I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me…in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit” (Romans 15:18-19). Peter’s proclamation in Acts 3 includes the application of Moses’s words of a coming prophet to Jesus:
22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you. 23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’
Jesus’s core mission was to be the second Adam who would live in perfect obedience to God and so reverse the ruin caused by the first Adam (Romans 5). He therefore had to be a true human being. He came to “save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21) by offering himself to suffer and die for them and for everyone who puts his faith in him. Jesus as the one man who was without sin paid the penalty for sin which is death. Jesus lived and acted as a man, died as a man, and was resurrected as a man. That understanding is confirmed by Hebrews 2:17-18:
“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.
Jesus experienced growth in all respects in becoming a man: “The child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40); “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). Luke says the same about John the Baptist “And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit…” (Luke 1:80). Hebrews implies that even after growing into manhood, Jesus had to experience testing and training to mature to the point where he would be able to obey God in willingly submitting to death on the cross: “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).
If Jesus had used his divine powers at any time during his life, death and resurrection, he would at such times have acted as a “superman” beyond the limitations of a true man – and would thus not have been “like his brethren in all things”. I will now examine more closely the aspects of death and resurrection, engaging with the relevant claims made in the BC and HC.
DID JESUS USE HIS DIVINE POWERS DURING HIS CRUCIFIXION, DEATH, RESURRECTION AND EXALTATION?
THESIS STATEMENT
With reference to Jesus’s suffering and death on the cross, Paul’s argument in Romans 5 is especially relevant:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, ……15 ….much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many……. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one [man] the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12,15,19)
Paul’s argument is based on a comparison between two men: the man Adam who transgressed God’s command, and the man Jesus who obeyed God in all things. Jesus divinity has no role in Paul’s logic.
The two principal Reformed Doctrinal Standards – the Belgic Confession (BC) and the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) – do make claims that Jesus used his divine powers. In the following, the applicable statements from these two standards are quoted, and the supporting scriptural references cited therein are listed, quoted in full, and evaluated.
THE BELGIC CONFESSION (BC)
BC ARTICLE 19 – THE TWO NATURES IN THE ONE PERSON OF CHRIST
We believe that by this conception the person of the Son of God is inseparably united and joined with the human nature,1 so that there are …. two natures united in one single person. Each nature retains its own distinct properties: His divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life (Heb 7:3), filling heaven and earth.2 His human nature has not lost its properties; it has beginning of days and remains created. It is finite and retains all the properties of a true body.3 Even though, by His resurrection, He has given immortality to His human nature, He has not changed its reality,4 since our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of His body.5
However, these two natures are so closely united in one person that they were not even separated by His death. Therefore, what He, when dying, committed into the hands of His Father was a real human spirit that departed from His body.6 Meanwhile His divinity always remained united with His human nature, even when He was lying in the grave.7 And the divine nature always remained in Him just as it was in Him when He was a little child, even though it did not manifest itself as such for a little while.
For this reason we profess Him to be true God and true man: true God in order to conquer death by His power; and true man that He might die for us according to the infirmity of His flesh.
- Note 1. Jn 1:14; Jn 10:30; Rom 9:5; Phil 2:6, 7.
- Note 2. Mt 28:20.
- Note 3. 1 Tim 2:5.
- Note 4. Mt 26:11; Lk 24:39; Jn 20:25; Acts 1:3, 11; Acts 3:21; Heb 2:9.
- Note 5. 1 Cor 15:21; Phil 3:21.
- Note 6. Mt 27:50.
- Note 7. Rom 1:4.
Discussion
The Article’s statements on the two “natures” of Christ, although not the focus of this post, give rise to a number of questions about their coherence and biblical basis. For example:
- The equating of Christ’s “human nature” with his “body” does not seem to fully reflect what it means to be a human being created in the image and likeness of God; are not the soul and/or spirit more fundamental in that respect that the body?
- What did Jesus’ human nature consist of after his human spirit left his body upon his death, since only a dead body was then left?
- In what sense could his divinity remain “united with his human nature…in the grave”? According to Mosaic law a dead body was unclean and contact with it made one unclean (Numbers 19:14-22).
- How did Jesus get his human spirit back when he – as the BC claims – brought his dead body back to life?
- Why was his divine nature not manifested when he was a child? It would seem that a child would be more vulnerable than an adult and would therefore have greater need of help from his divine nature. At what point was it manifested and why?
These questions cannot be pursued further in this post and are simply posed to illustrate some of the problematic language and/or concepts used in BC Article 19.
BC Article 19 contains only two statements directly relevant to the question being considered here; the key portions of those two statements are bolded in the following quotes from the Article:
- “….by His resurrection, He has given immortality to His human nature….”
- “For this reason we profess Him to be true God and true man: true God in order to conquer death by His power; and true man that He might die for us according to the infirmity of His flesh.”
The two bolded phrases ascribe the resurrection of Jesus and his becoming immortal as being achieved by his own power, whereas the NT in many places explicitly state that it was God who resurrected Jesus. Neither of the two noted statements are provided with a scripture citation; presumably they are derived from the Ecumenical Creeds. The citation provided in Article 19 which is closest to these statements is Romans 1:4 (Note 7) which reads as follows:
… who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,”
This citation does not state that Jesus raised himself by his own divine power; rather it is implied that Jesus was raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit. That understanding is confirmed by many other scriptures, of which the following are only a sample:
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. (Romans 8:11)
32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. (Acts 2:32)
30 ….God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)
20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,…. (Hebrews 13:20)
The above scriptures clearly and unambiguously state that Jesus was raised by God through the Holy Spirit, and that believers will be raised in the same way. Note that the Acts 17 citation also describes the resurrected Jesus in his role as God’s agent in the final judgement as a “man”. It seems appropriate that all men will be judged by a man “…who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15).
The doctrine of Jesus’s self-resurrection and self-ascension as taught in the BC may have been drawn from the Apostle’s Creed, which uses active verbs to describe the resurrection and ascension (On the third day he arose from the dead; he ascended into heaven…), implying that Jesus was the acting agent. The NT on the other hand either explicitly states that God is the one who acts, or it uses “divine passive” language to indicate the same; for example Acts 1 carefully distinguishes what Jesus himself does by using active verbs (underlined), from what God does by using passive verbs (bolded):
The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen….. 9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” (Acts 1:1-2,9)
It is telling that BC Article 19, while stating that Jesus resurrected himself using his divinity, assigns the accomplishment of Jesus’ suffering and death to his humanity (we profess Him to be…true man that He might die for us according to the infirmity of His flesh). That contrasts with the HC which teaches that it was Jesus’ suffering and death which required the exercise of his divine power, as per Question & Answer 17: “…He must be true God so that by the power of his divine nature he might bear in his human nature the burden of God’s wrath….” (see further below).
THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM (HC)
Question and Answer 14
Q. 14. Can any mere creature pay for us?
A. 14. No. In the first place, God will not punish another creature for the sin which man has committed.1
Furthermore, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin and deliver others from it.2
- Note 1. Ezek 18:4, 20; Heb 2:14-18.
- Note 2. Ps 130:3; Nahum 1:6.
Discussion
The phrase in HC Answer 14 relevant to the issue under discussion is “..no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin and deliver others from it” (I will assume that by “creature” a human being is intended). The cited scriptures are Psalm 130:3 and Nahum 1:6. I will quote each passage in its context to provide the interpretive framework:
Psalm 130:3
3 If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?
4 But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared. … …. 7 O Israel, hope in the Lord;
For with the Lord there is lovingkindness,
And with Him is abundant redemption.
8 And He will redeem Israel
From all his iniquities.
Nahum 1:6
2 A jealous and avenging God is the Lord;
The Lord is avenging and wrathful.
The Lord takes vengeance on His adversaries,
And He reserves wrath for His enemies.
3 The Lord is slow to anger and great in power,
And the Lord will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.
………
6 Who can stand before His indignation?
Who can endure the burning of His anger?
His wrath is poured out like fire
And the rocks are broken up by Him.
7 The Lord is good,
A stronghold in the day of trouble,
And He knows those who take refuge in Him.
The Psalm 130 citation is the confession of faith of a son of the covenant: unless God were willing to forgive, there would be no hope: an unforgiven man cannot “stand” before God, but the next line (verse 4) states that God does forgive. The conclusion of Psalm 130 is that God keeps covenant with his chosen people Israel and – personifying them as an individual son (cf. Hosea 1:1 “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son) – God will assuredly redeem Israel from “all his iniquities”.
The message of the Nahum citation uses similar wording but the language is much stronger because in this case the focus is on those who are adversaries and enemies of God – verse 2d is especially relevant: “… He reserves wrath for His enemies”. Yet the final verse affirms that the Lord protects his people who trust in him.
The two cited scriptures do not even remotely address the question of what qualifications are required for “bearing God’s wrath” for the sin of others. Part of the problem here is that the HC has selected isolated “proof texts” and ignored the context. The problem is that if the HC does this here, can one trust the applicability of any of its other citations?
The language used in the claim that “..no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin” in HC Answer 14 (my bolding) seems intended to tilt the question to point toward the desired answer. The following comments can be made:
- The problem to be resolved is the wrath of God against sin, rather than the eternal wrath of God, because once atonement and forgiveness are effected, God’s wrath is satisfied.
- Atonement for sin did not involve “sustaining the burden of God’s eternal wrath” so much as submitting to the penalty for sin which is death.
The way Q&A 14 are posed fails to account for the vast difference between the repentant and the rebellious. The universal consequence of sin for all men is death. Jesus therefore had to suffer death and all its associated pain and agony to atone for sin; he did not have to “sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath…” Forgiveness of sins is, on the basis of Jesus’s atonement, available to the repentant; but not to those who persist in their rebellion and will not repent.
The above considerations indicate that there was no inherent necessity for Jesus to have required superhuman powers to undergo his atoning suffering and death. The work of Jesus as mediator is clearly stated in Scripture as being the work of a man, who as a man offered himself as a ransom:
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all…” (1 Timothy 2:5)
BC Article 19 apparently agrees that it was the man Jesus who suffered and died without needing to have recourse to his divine powers (see above). The man Jesus was without sin and submitted to God in all things. The man Jesus submitted to death on the cross and God vindicated him by raising him up from death and exalting him:
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,..” (Philippians 2:8-9)
The scriptures teach that it was a man without sin, who lived a life of perfect obedience to God, which included offering himself to die on a cross to provide an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and that man was Jesus.
Question and Answer 15
Q. 15. What kind of mediator and deliverer must we seek?
A. 15. One who is a true1 and righteous2 man, and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is at the same time true God.3
- Note 1. 1 Cor 15:21; Heb 2:17.
- Note 2. Is 53:9; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 7:26.
- Note 3. Is 7:14; 9:6; Jer 23:6; Jn 1:1; Rom 8:3, 4.
Discussion
The phrase in Answer 15 relevant to the issue under discussion is “…yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is at the same time true God.” The scriptures cited in support of that phrase are listed under Note 3 and are examined below.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
The two Isaiah citations each refer to a child who will receive a specific name. The name says something about God, not the child itself, who through the name given to him bears witness to who God is and what He is and/or does for His people. Notably, neither of these names was applied to Jesus in the NT. The prime example is Matthew 1:21-25:
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph… called His name Jesus.
Jesus was not named Immanuel but was named “Jesus” (Hebrew “Yeshua” or “Joshua” – meaning “YHWH saves”) because he – as God’s agent – would “save his people from their sins” and thus demonstrate that God (El) was with his people Israel. It most definitely did not mean that Jesus was El or YHWH. Note that similar unusual names are given to children in the surrounding context of Isaiah, e.g. Shear-Jashub (7:3) and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (8:3); see also 8:8,10,18.
Jeremiah 23:6
5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
6 “In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
‘The Lord our righteousness.’
The same argument applies to the Jeremiah citation. This passage refers to the Davidic Messiah whom God will empower as His king to rule over Judah and Israel. The Messiah will be given a name testifying to the righteousness of the God of Israel who will bring salvation to his people.
None of the three citations refer to an atoning death, much less that such would require divine status or power, and thus do not support the HC’s claim that the mediator had to possess and use divine power.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This text says nothing about Jesus’s divinity having any active and/or necessary role in his suffering and death.
Romans 8:3-4
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
This text says nothing about Jesus’s divinity having any role in his suffering and death. There are no scriptures that teach that the man Jesus had to also be God in order to be able to die for sinful man.
Question and Answer 16
Q. 16. Why must he be a true and righteous man?
A. 16. He must be a true man because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned should pay for sin.1 He must be a righteous man because one who himself is a sinner cannot pay for others.2
- Note 1. Rom 5:12, 15; 1 Cor 15:21; Heb 2:14-16.
- Note 2. Heb 7:26, 27; 1 Pet 3:18.
Discussion
Although Q&A 16 deal only with the humanity rather than the divinity of the savior of men, the first statement that “the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned should pay for sin” and the associated Note 1 cited scriptures have some bearing on the issue under discussion:
Romans 5:12,15
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned….. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.”
1 Corinthians 15:21
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.”
Hebrews 2:14-16
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.“
Note that the cited scriptures do not refer to a human “nature”. The scriptures only know of sin committed by actual human beings, not by “human nature”. Thus the cited texts speak of sin and death coming through the man Adam and grace and resurrection through the man Jesus. The arguments of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 are based on the correspondence between two men – the man Adam and the man Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is not mentioned and is not relevant to Paul’s argument in these texts.
Question and Answer 17
Q. 17. Why must he at the same time be true God?
A. 17. He must be true God so that by the power of his divine nature1he might bear in his human nature the burden of God’s wrath,2 and might obtain for us and restore to us righteousness and life.3
- Note 1. Is 9:6.
- Note 2. Deut 4:24; Nahum 1:6; Ps 130:3.
- Note 3. Is 53:5, 11; Jn 3:16; 2 Cor 5:21.
Discussion
The main claim that “…the power of his divine nature” was required to enable Jesus to bear God’s wrath “…in his human nature” is simply not addressed in the four scriptures cited in Notes 1 and 2. Isaiah 9:6, Nahum 1:6 and Psalm 130:3 were already cited above and shown to not support the HC’s claims. The fourth citation – Deuteronomy 4:24 – which states: “ For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God,” is also unsupportive. Thus none of the four cited texts support the main claim of Q&A 17. In fact the very language and terminology used in Q&A 17 seem completely foreign to scripture.
The secondary claim that “ He must be true God so that by the power of his divine nature he might… obtain for us and restore to us righteousness and life “ is based on the following scriptures as cited in Note 3:
Isaiah 53:5,11
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
………11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
2 Corinthians 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Not one of the cited scriptures affirms, or even suggests, that Jesus used his divine power to die an atoning death acceptable to God. The Scriptures do however assign a role to the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ atoning work as indicated in Hebrews 9:14:
… how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
The role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus suffering, death and resurrection is consistent with the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ life and ministry..
SUMMARY
Not one of the scriptures cited in BC Article 19 or HC Q&A 14 through 17 affirms, or even suggests, that innate divine power was necessary to enable an innocent and righteous man who – like the OT prophets – was empowered by the Holy Spirit, to voluntarily die an atoning death and so enable God to forgive sin and provide righteousness and eternal life to whosoever believes. The Scriptures teach that the voluntary death of the sinless and righteous man Jesus, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and in obedience to God, provided atonement and satisfaction for sin. The scriptures make no claim that Jesus’s divinity was necessary to enable Jesus to endure his suffering and death. The claim that Jesus used his divine power to “conquer death” i.e. resurrect himself, is explicitly denied in multiple NT scriptures which clearly teach that it was God through the Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. The role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus suffering, death and resurrection is consistent with the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ life and ministry. The scriptures teach that Jesus’ works of power were done through the power of the Holy Spirit, with whom he was anointed at his baptism at the beginning of his earthly ministry. From the time of his anointing, all the works Jesus did were done as a prophet – a man empowered by the Holy Spirit.