According to the hypostatic union, God the Son assumed a human nature, so that he is both fully divine and fully human. The two natures, although distinct, are not separated.

Does this mean god the son's divine nature is fully human?

If not, what does "without division, without separation" mean?

  • It's unclear what you're asking. I understand the concept of hypostatic union to be akin to emulsifying oil in water: the two distinct substances bound together for a single purpose. You appear to be asking if emulsification somehow turns oil into water. Can you state your question more clearly? – JBH Aug 17 '17 at 13:28
  • @JBH If you emulsify oil into water, the two substances are combined with a ratio of 50/50, or whatever ratio you choose. In order for that analogy to work, you would need a ratio of 100/100. I'm not really sure how to ask this question any clearer because I don't understand any of it. – Cannabijoy Aug 17 '17 at 13:35
  • 2
    I find the question perfectly clear. @JBH emulsifying oil in water is not a good analogy for the HU. They are easily separated and do not allow for the communicating of properties. It does seem a good analogy for Nestorianism. – bradimus Aug 17 '17 at 13:43
  • The union of the Devine with the body is the melding of two dissimilar parts. The Spirit of Jesus is a Devine Spirit being, while the body of Jesus is a mortal material being. That union is no less spectacular than the union of your material body with your eternal Spirit. – BYE Aug 17 '17 at 13:58
  • 2
    @BYE That description is not consistent with the Hypostatic Union the OP asked about. – bradimus Aug 17 '17 at 14:09

No, according to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the divine nature did not become fully human, or even partially human.

From the Formula of Chalcedon:


The divine nature is united with the human nature in person of Jesus Christ, but it is unchanged by this union.

Much of the confusion around the HU is placing the two natures in the same category with the person. The person is fully human and fully divine, but the two natures are unchanged.

You ask

What does "without division, without separation" mean?

It means that the two natures can not be separated from each other when discussing the person Jesus. We can not divide the properties of Jesus between the two natures. We all agree that the person Jesus was born of Mary. Under the HU, we can not separate the two natures and say that the man (only) Jesus was born of Mary. We must always say as well that God was born of Mary.

The two natures are united in the person of Jesus but are not changed by the union. The union is so ' stong' that we can not find any separation or division in Jesus.

  • Ignoring the fact that if you let an emulsified substance sit long enough it separates (it's an analogy, after all), how is what your answer described different from emulsification? "two natures, without confusion, without change." That's the definition of emulsification. Just wonderin'. – JBH Aug 17 '17 at 13:57
  • 2
    @JBH Communicatio idiomatum. Under the HU, when Jesus died, we can say God died because the two natures are united in the person of Jesus. We can't kill your mixture, so consider heating it. Heat it to 250F/121C. The mixture will boil because the water boils. But it is improper to say the oil boiled. – bradimus Aug 17 '17 at 14:22
  • 1
    Okay I think I get it now. So in Mark 13:32 when god the son says "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." what he means is his human nature does not know, so his divine nature does not know, but his divine nature knows, so his human nature knows. Is that correct? – Cannabijoy Aug 19 '17 at 20:21
  • @anonymouswho Yeah, that's a difficult verse. I sometimes favor Augustine of Hippo's reading of it or Basil of Caesarea's reading. But Gregory the Great offers something similar to what you stated "the Only-begotten, being incarnate and made for us a perfect man, knew indeed in the nature of His humanity the day and the hour of the judgment, but still it was not from the nature of His humanity that He knew it." I need to find what Athanasius, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus have to say on that verse. Maybe we need a question on the Church Fathers; views on Mark 13:32. – bradimus Aug 20 '17 at 1:16


Chalcedonian Definition

Absolutely not. The divine nature remains forever divine and not human, for that would be a change to the nature and a confusion of the natures.


No, only the Divine Nature (God) is divine.

The human nature (body, soul) of Jesus is not God, Jesus, the Person (the Son, intrinsic to the Divine Nature), to Whom that human nature belongs, is God. Not His human nature: else He would not be human; human natures are not divine. Jesus Christ is truly a "man" (1 Tim 2:5) as well as He is God.

  • 1
    "The human nature (body, soul) of Jesus is not God, " I'm not sure what you mean by this, but doesn't seem to be in agreement with the Hypostatic Union. Under the HU, you can not separate Jesus and say this part is God and this part is not. – bradimus Aug 17 '17 at 13:53
  • 1
    Inasmuch as the body and soul of Jesus belongs to the Divine and Eternal Word, i.e. to the Divine Substance, God, it is God. Inasmuch as it is a true human nature, it is not by itself, speaking solely of it, God; who is by definition, "not a man." The Hypostatic Union is indivisble, but there is a distinction (not separation) of the divine and human nature (which also means they are not each other, and thus the human nature isn't God per se). Inasmuch as Mary gave birth to Jesus, she gave birth to God. Were the exact same Body of Jesus not indwelled by the Word, the same could not be said. – Sola Gratia Aug 17 '17 at 14:03

Your Answer

