(a) Jesus Christ is one Person.

(b) He has a fully divine nature and a fully human nature, and the two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.

(c) He had two wills, one divine and the other human.

When our Fathers say that the two natures of Christ are “without confusion,”they are saying that His human nature is fully and properly human and that Hisdivine nature is fully and properly divine. When they say that the natures are“without change,” they are affirming that Christ’s human nature continues to be fully human and His divine nature continues to be fully divine. When they saythe natures are “without division” and “without separation,” they are affirming that though Christ has two natures, these two natures are hypostatically unitedand cannot be separated. Thus, it is not proper to say: “It is Christ as mandoing this” or “Christ as God doing that.” Although Christ has two wills, all that He does, He does as the theanthropos or the God-Man.

Let’s explore this a little more. When thinking of the life and work of Christ,we may see three categories of activities:

The first category of activities is such as are divine, which man cannotnormally engage in. This would include miracles, such as healing, multiplyingbread and fishes, and perceiving the thoughts of other persons. It is not aproblem for us to conceive of Christ doing such deeds, for God did sometimesperform miracles through His prophets, how much more, would it be proper forChrist as the God-Man to do these works. One difficulty, though we have toconsider, is that God is omniscient, which means that if Christ is fully God,fully man, He should know all things. Yet, He professed concerning the day ofHis return again, that “of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not theangels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mk 13:32). Doesnot the Son know all that the Father knows seeing that they are one in essence?This is a difficult question, for which I am not sure if I can have a perfectlysatisfactory answer in this life. But Calvin gives perhaps one of the bestanswers, I think:

Weknow that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such amanner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divinenature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever itwas necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to whatwas peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator. There would beno impropriety, therefore in saying that Christ, who knew all things (Jn 21:17), was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been likeus (Heb 2:17) (Comm. on Mark 13:32).

I shall not attempt to add any more to this explanation, except to say thatsuch a view is not inconsistent with our doctrine of Christ since theprerogative of the infinite divine nature and will cannot be questioned even ifa finite human nature is united to the divine nature.

The second category of activities is such as pertain to the human nature, whichcannot be attributed to God, as He is an infinite, eternal and unchangeableSpirit. This would include eating, drinking, sleeping, weeping, suffering ordying. These activities cannot be attributed to God, as it is contrary to thedivine nature. However, it is not impossible to think of Christ weeping,suffering and dying, etc., as the God-Man. Indeed, if Christ shed His bloodonly as man, how could His blood be sufficient to pay for our sin? The blood ofChrist is sufficient only because He bled as the God-Man. Thus, in Acts 20:28,the Apostle Paul speaks of God purchasing the church with His own blood.

The third category of activities is such as may be attributed to God, as wellas to man. This would include all acts of the will, which are within thecapability of man, such speaking and loving. Yes, although there is such athing as a feeling of love in man, we must not think of love merely as anemotion. If it is merely an emotion, how could the Scripture command us to love(Deut 6:5; Mt 5:44; Eph 5:25; Jn 15:12; 1 Jn 3:18; etc.). Loving, then, isproperly an act of the will; though it is closely tied to the disposition ofdelight or pleasure.

Now, it is in this third category of activities that your question addresses,and it is in this category that such as are inclined to Nestorianism will findsupport for their heresy. You see, it is clear that Christ has two natures andtwo wills, for He said unto His Father (with whom He shares the divine essence): “not my will, but thine, be done” (Lk 22:42). Does it then mean thatthere were times when Christ exercised His human will and times when Heexercised His divine will? Does it mean He loves some in His human will whilehating them in His divine will? But how can this be the case when the Scripturetestifies that Christ was without sin? If Christ did something in His humannature or human will that is contrary to the divine nature, then would He notbe sinning against God in His human nature? Christ Himself said in the Psalms:“I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart” (Ps 40:8; cf. Heb 10:5–7). We must conclude then that, even in this category of acts, Christ did all He did as the God-Man, where every act is consistent with the human and divine wills which are inseparable. And we conclude that whoeverChrist loves in His human nature, God loves.

How then do we explain Christ’s love for the rich young man? I believe thereare two possibilities. There first is that His love referred to is a love ofbenevolence (cf. Mt 5:44–45), which God also has for all His creatures. Thesecond possibility is that the rich young man was an elect of Christ. Why not?Did not the Lord say at that occasion: “With men it is impossible, but not withGod: for with God all things are possible” (Mk 10:27)?

What about the Lord’s statement concerning Jerusalem? Did He love all inJerusalem and desired to gather them all in? No, that would be contrary to thefact that God has His elect within the city. Who then were the “children” whomChrist desired to gather? Surely it cannot be everyone in Jerusalem, for theLord says: “how often would I have gathered thy children together,… and yewould not!” Surely the Lord is referring to how the unbelieving leaders of thepeople hindered the conversion of Christ’s elect children within Jerusalem!