What Is Partitive Exegesis? How the Church Has Read Scripture on Christ
“You just had to be there!”
We fall back on this excuse when words fail to capture the precise reality of an experience—often a comedic interaction or visual beauty. The reality is that reality itself is often hard to describe. We do our best to describe it with words, but we’ve all experienced the frustration of falling short.
This is especially true when we use our words to describe God. Herman Bavinck asks, “The moment we dare to speak about God the question arises: How can we?”[1] The same question can be asked of the person of Christ: When we dare to speak about the One who is both infinite God and finite man, how can we?
Scripture tells us Jesus slept, ate, walked, and learned new things. But it also tells us He created the universe, sustains it, and is omniscient. You can see the dilemma—how do we accurately describe Jesus when He has these seemingly contradictory categories?
We can navigate this difficulty through a practice known as partitive exegesis. Partitive exegesis presupposes that Christ’s two natures are unified in His person without confusion, change, division, or separation. Therefore, we must recognize and maintain the distinction between Christ’s two natures when we read the Bible.[2] While that may sound complicated, this practice arises from Scripture itself—it is an inspired way of describing the reality of the incarnation.
A Biblical Pattern
As we read through the New Testament, we see passages variously emphasize attributes of both Christ’s humanity and His divinity. Consider these five ways that the Bible makes statements about Christ.
1. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” the person is the subject, but the attribute (eternality) is only appropriate for the divine nature (John 8:58).
2. When Jesus said, “I thirst,” the person is the subject, but thirst is only appropriate for the human nature (John 19:28).
3. Titles like “Redeemer” or “King” are applied to Christ and is appropriate for both natures (Psalm 10:16; Luke 1:32–33).
So far, so good. But Scripture also contains more complicated statements about Christ.
4. Some things are ascribed to Christ that are appropriate to the human nature but predicated on Christ as divine. In Revelation 1:17–18, Christ identifies Himself as “the first and the last” (a divine title), then He says He “was dead” (something only possible for a human). A human quality (death) is applied to the person even though the Son as God is emphasized in this passage.
5. On the other hand, some things are ascribed to Christ that are appropriate to the divine nature but predicated on Christ as human. John 6:62 refers to “the Son of Man ascending to where He was before.” “Son of Man” emphasizes Christ’s humanity, but ascending to “where He was before” can only be truly said of Christ as divine.[3]
In each of these instances, Scripture applies a property true of one or both natures to the person. It is our job as interpreters to discern which attributes are appropriate for each nature.
While some people may object that we read too strong of a distinction between the natures, the Bible itself uses this logic as well. Romans 1:3 says that Christ “was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh.” Christ is not descended from David according to the divinity. This is logically obvious, but Paul makes it verbally explicit. [4]
Partitive exegesis is an attempt to apply this same inspired logic to every biblical statement about Christ. Some things are true of Christ according to His humanity and some things are true of Christ according to His divinity.
This way of thinking was worked out in the early church. As Chalcedon states, “The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person.” Because the two natures are unified in the person of Christ, anything said of either nature is true of the person (“concurring in one Person”) while remaining untrue of the other nature (“the property of each nature being preserved”).
Yet, some confusion may arise in light of examples 4–5 above. How do we interpret those verses that apply the property of one nature to the other?
The Communication of Properties
The properties of both natures are predicated on the person. However, because both natures are united in the one person, Scripture seemingly attributes properties of one nature to the other. This biblical way of speaking has become known as the “communication of idioms” or “communication of properties.”
This is described in the 1689 London Baptist Confession, 8.7: “Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.”
Consider these verses:
- Acts 20:28, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
- 1 Corinthians 2:8, “The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
- Zechariah 12:10, [Yahweh says] “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”
In each example, something human (blood, crucifixion, and death) is predicated of divinity (God, the Lord of Glory, and Yahweh). Does God, who is spirit (John 4:24) have blood? Can the Lord, who has life in Himself (John 5:26), be crucified? Can Yahweh be “pierced?”
The only way any of these statements can be true is if they refer to a single person who is both God and man. Concerning biblical passages like the ones listed above, Theodore Beza explains,
In the first place, these statements are made by means of the communication of individual properties, which truly does not exist. For if it were really true—that is, if the properties of the divine nature in actual fact belonged to the human nature, or vice versa—there would be no union, but a confusion. But it is put like this so that the unity of the person might be understood.[5]
When Beza says the statements like those from Acts 20:28 are not “really true,” he means that they are attributed verbally instead of ontologically. It is not that God has blood, but the person who is God has blood as a man. Therefore, it is appropriate because of the unity of the person to say “God has blood.” John Calvin explains, “It very frequently happens, on account of the unity of the Person of Christ, that what properly belongs to one nature is applied to another.”
How can both statements be true? How can Jesus be in heaven and with His disciples? The only possible answer to these questions is that He is both God and man. God is omnipresent (1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 139:7–10; Jer. 23:24) and this did not change when the Son assumed a human nature. This must be the case because it is impossible for God to change (Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17).[6]
Calvin gives us the Chalcedonian key here: The communication of properties is possible “on account of the unity of the Person of Christ.” And as Beza notes above, this close unity of the two natures in the one person teaches us about the person of Christ. We know that the natures are unified in the person by the very fact that both are predicated of Him—even to the point of verbally applying properties of one nature to the other.
A Test Case: Divine Presence and Human Distance
What does partitive exegesis look like in practice? We can use the divine attribute of omnipresence as a test case. On the one hand, Christ made it clear to His disciples that He was leaving them: “It is to your advantage that I go away” (John 15:7; see Acts 1:9–11). On the other hand, Christ makes statements that indicate His continuing presence with the disciples after His ascension: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).
God is omnipresent and this did not change when the Son assumed a human nature.
The Son lost nothing in the incarnation, but instead assumed a human nature. As it pertains to His presence, He did not lose omnipresence, but assumed locality as a man. His infinite being was veiled in a finite location, but not fully contained in it. So, although Christ is truly a man and localized in one place as such, He is simultaneously the omnipresent God.
This mind-bending reality was helpfully articulated in the period of the Reformation. The belief that Christ is omnipresent as God yet localized as man has come to be known as the extra Calvinisticum. This title is somewhat misleading because Calvin did not invent the doctrine. It is simply associated with his name because of how it played into the Reformation debates over the Lord’s Table.
Positively, the extra Calvinisticum teaches that God the Son retains all his divine attributes, specifically omnipresence. Negatively, (because of the positive point) the extra Calvinisticum teaches that God the Son is not contained within the human nature which he assumed.[7] Calvin poetically articulates this position,
For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning.[8]
The Genevan Reformer carefully avoids two errors here. First, he refuses to divide the person of Christ. The Son who fills all things is the same person who was born of a virgin. Second, he refuses to blend Christ’s two natures—humanity is not omnipresent and divinity is not contained locally.
Do you see how partitive exegesis helps us answer the question of how Christ is both personally present with us but also in heaven? It faithfully harmonizes texts like Matthew 28:20 and Acts 1:9–11. Those verses that indicate omnipresence refer to Christ by His divinity and those that indicate local movement or limitation refer to Christ by His humanity.
Why We Need Partitive Exegesis
Concerning the time of His return, Jesus says in Matthew 24:36, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” This verse tells us that the Son is ignorant of something (the time of His return).
Based on everything we’ve seen above, how should we interpret this statement? Is ignorance appropriate to Christ’s divinity, humanity, or both? We know that God is omniscient (1 John 3:20), so ignorance cannot be true of divinity. Therefore, it must be true of Christ according to His humanity.
Some will object that this interpretation neuters the force of Matthew 24:36, but this conclusion is not necessary. Christ’s statement is still true—the One who is God is ignorant of something as a man. Understanding that Christ’s ignorance is only possible for Him as a man in no way undermines the meaning of this verse. In fact, it should cause us to marvel at the fact that Christ is both ignorant and omniscient!
Furthermore, we frequently interpret the Bible this way without even realizing it. We don’t read a passage about Jesus getting hungry (Mark 11:12) and assume that God suddenly has a digestive system. Instead, we know that hunger indicates the genuine humanity of the Son. Likewise, when we read that Jesus upholds the universe (Col. 1:17), we don’t assume that He is doing so with human hands.
Whatever is said of either nature is true of the person, but what is said of one nature is not necessarily true of the other nature. So when Scripture makes a statement about Christ, we have to ask ourselves, “Is this statement true of both natures or just one?” Then, “If it is true of only one nature, which one?”
The One who is God suffered on the cross as a man. The One who is man upheld the universe while it happened.
If we do not interpret Scriptures concerning Christ correctly—in light of the reality they describe—we end up with a God who thirsts, sleeps, suffers, submits, and lacks knowledge. We also end up with a man who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. If we fail to retain the properties of each nature to themselves, we blend them and start on the short road to heresy. In fact, this is exactly how certain heretics have interpreted Matthew 24:36.[9]
Did My Sovereign Die?
Partitive exegesis is a way of making explicit what many Christians do intuitively. If you’ve ever sung Isaac Watt’s hymn “Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed,” you’re familiar with partitive language. The opening lines state,
Alas! and did my Savior bleed,
And did my Sovereign die!
The third verse goes even further:
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And shut its glories in,
When God, the mighty maker, died
For his own creature’s sin.
Did God die? Yes—as a man! God the Son suffered, bled, and died on the cross as a real human while retaining full divinity. Cyril of Alexandria embraces this reality: “To the same one we attribute both the divine and human characteristics, and we also say that to the same one belongs the birth and the suffering on the cross since he appropriated everything that belonged to his own flesh, while ever remaining impassible in the nature of the Godhead.”[10]
The One who is God suffered on the cross as a man. The One who is man upheld the universe while it happened. The one undivided person is the same in both cases. And instead of simplifying this mystery, we should be compelled by it to adore Christ more. This great mystery of God the Son in two natures should cause us to continue singing with Watts,
Was it for crimes that I have done,
he groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! Grace unknown!
And love beyond degree![11]
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, God and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 30. Emphasis added.
[2] I am borrowing terminology from Jamieson and Wittman here: “Partitive exegesis discerns the precise referent and scope of scriptural statements about Christ. Since Scripture proclaims a single Christ who is both divine and human, partitive exegesis recognizes and maintains a distinction between Christ’s divine and human natures.” R.B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 155.
[3] This list is adapted from John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 117–118.
[4] R.B. Jamieson and Tyler Wittman explain, “Why does Paul specify that Jesus’s human lineage is from the seed of David? Because that is not the only lineage he has. Jesus is not only David’s son but also God’s Son. So, even though Paul’s partitive qualifier [i.e., ‘according to the flesh’] only faces one direction, we can fittingly paraphrase Paul’s partition with a Chalcedonian parallelism. In Romans 1:3, Jesus is God’s Son as regards his divinity, and David’s son as regards his humanity.” Jamieson and Wittman, Biblical Reasoning, 157.
[5] Theodore Beza, A Clear and Simple Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 67.
[6] Some people have interpreted Paul’s claim that the Son “emptied Himself” in Philippians 2:7 to mean that He “set aside” or “gave up” certain divine attributes in the incarnation. Thankfully, Paul explains what “emptied Himself” means in the very next phrase. He writes that the Son “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” For a complete explanation of Philippians 2:6–8, see Mike Riccardi’s article “Veiled in Flesh the Godhead See: A Study of the Kenosis of Christ” in The Master’s Seminary Journal 30/1 (Spring 2019): 103–127 and Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 174–179.
[7] Paul Helm offers a succinct definition of extra Calvinisticum: “This is the view that in the Incarnation God the Son retained divine properties such as immensity and omnipresence and that therefore Christ was not physically confined within the limits of a human.” Richard Muller explains further, “The Reformed argued that the Word is fully united to but never totally contained within the human nature and therefore, even in the incarnation, is to be conceived of as beyond or outside of (extra) the human nature.” Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 58 and Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 116.
[8] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), II.13.4.
[9] See, for instance, the Socinian John Biddle, A Brief History of the Unitarians (1691), 4.
[10] Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. John Anthony McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladamir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 133.
[11] Some of the material in this post was originally posted here and here.
-
The Form of God Who Took Our Form
Forsaken, hated, and despised
A child of wrath, no hope, forlorn,
Cast down by sin, by anger torn
Our hopelessness was not disguised.
Who can reverse this solemn state?
Who can turn sour into sweet?
Who can our mortal trespass meet?
Who can our crooked souls set straight?
A Scandal! God breathed human air;
Unjust that good would die for sin;
Absurd that we must die to win!
Resist? Embrace sin’s deep despair.
The Form of God who took our form
An endless debt by blood to pay.
Both man and God appeared that day,
When Christ, the saving Lord was born.
No more forsaken, no more wrath
No longer hated or cast down
A tender babe, a cross, a crown
He came to set redemption’s path.
Based loosely on Ephesians 2 and Philippians 2
-
Don’t Be A Spiritually Passive Father: Lead In Family Worship
“Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4).
Perhaps you have heard this statement: “The family that prays together, stays together.” There is a lot of truth in that statement. One could probably also add, “The family that worships together, stays together.” My experience bears out that those families who are regularly involved in a good church environment have a more solid foundation and support system than those who are without spiritual involvement. In many families, unfortunately, the church is basically the only source from which the family receives its spiritual nurture.
However, the New Testament does not place the primary responsibility upon the church to provide family worship. That responsibility rests with the father. He is to be the spiritual leader in his home. He may choose to delegate some aspects of the family worship to his wife and to the church, but the ultimate responsibility rests with him. The command in Ephesians 6:4 is specifically addressed to the fathers, who are the God-ordained leaders of the home.
Certainly part of his responsibility is to have his family actively participating in a good local church. This is one of the ways each family member can hear the gospel, grow spiritually and mature as a believer. But this spiritual nurturing must begin in the home.
Sadly, there are far too many spiritually passive fathers, who leave the responsibility of the spiritual upbringing of the children to the mothers. Often the mothers are the ones who pray with the children, discuss spiritual matters with them and see that the children are taken to church.
This is a sad state of affairs. Dad is charged to lead both his wife and children spiritually. He is to first lead by setting an example before his family by his walk before the Lord, by his prayers, by his Bible study and by his church involvement. Only as He is personally faithful to the Lord can he truly lead his family spiritually.
Then he is to lead his family by verbally teaching them. The best way to lead his family verbally in spiritual worship is to talk to them in all the natural settings God gives to him. He can discuss God’s role in creation as he explores with them the natural world around them. As they learn of events in the world he can talk to them about how the Lord is not only the Creator but also the Sustainer and Controller of all events. When they see and experience the sinful world around them, he can talk to them about original sin and the effects of the fall of man. As they see hopelessness and despair among people, that can lead to discussions about how Christ came to redeem us from the curse and to bring about genuine hope. As they hear of people who have died, he can talk to them about the blessed hope of the resurrection. This type of spiritual instruction and leadership is an excellent means to reach the individual members of his family.
But there is also another dynamic in which he can corporately train and instruct his family—by collective family worship. There are some specific ways in which he can incorporate family worship in his household. Though each family will be different and each one will have its own schedule of activities, here are some suggestions of what can be done and what to avoid:
• Eliminate some activities which take up too much of the family’s time and thus prevent family worship. There is nothing wrong with spending fun time with our families, but we do need to constantly examine our priorities to make sure that we are living in light of eternal realities.
• Choose a proper schedule. It may be impractical to plan a family worship time every day of the week. If so, perhaps four, or five times a week would be a better possibility. You may find that the evenings are better times to get the family together. The mornings can be a bit hectic in getting everyone off to school or work.
• Vary the contents. The actual worship time probably is more effective if the activities are varied from day to day, or week by week.
• Make the event meaningful. Some components might be: individual prayers, Bible reading, explanation of the passage (along with specific application), praise time for the Lord’s goodness and for prayers answered, Bible memorization, biographical studies, missions concerns, Christian martyrs, discussing recent news events from a biblical perspective, even costumes or lessons with unusual visual aids, questions and comments, singing of familiar hymns or choruses and brief assignments to the family members for future worship times.
• If the children are small, some of the many good Bible storybooks could be read in which the interesting narratives of the Bible are covered. During those times the father could also provide additional details and interesting applications.
• Visual aids are very helpful and often will stimulate interest.
• Application of the truths covered should be brief, clear and on target.
• Involve each member. Encourage interesting and natural conversation back and forth among the family members during these times.
• In the Bible study portion, good interpretive and presentation skills must be followed. Passages should not be taken out of their context; otherwise the children will learn poor interpretive skills.
• Use a faithful, clear modern translation which the children can easily follow.
Here are some things to avoid in your family worship:
• Do not begin a session until family squabbles have been properly settled.
• The amount of time spent should be reasonable. Children will lose interest quickly and will begin to resent the entire session.
• Don’t use the session as an opportunity to correct the children.
• Do not allow members to complain about each other during these times.
• Keep your prayers brief. Remember that children’s attention spans are short.
• Do not embarrass family members. If you must deal with specific areas in their lives, do so individually and privately elsewhere.
Family worship can be wonderful experiences during which good, healthy spiritual relationships are built. Once you have started on such a program, stick to it. Vary the activities frequently and do not give up. Persevere in your plan, though you may not initially see positive results. Remember that you are embarking on a long-term goal. As a father, your responsibility as the spiritual leader of the family is to be faithful. The ultimate results are in the hands of Him who, alone, can bring about true spiritual change.
This article is an excerpt from Curtis Thomas’ book – Life in the Body of Christ: Privileges and Responsibilities in the Local Church. A new hardcover edition is now available for pre-order for $19.98 at press.founders.org
-
Maintaining Our Distinctiveness
The Christian life was never meant to be lived alone. Though God regenerates us individually, the path of growth and maturity He has designed requires following Christ together with other believers in a church. Christian growth and maturity happen in the context of committed relationships that arise in local congregations. That is, it takes a church to raise a Christian.
No believer, no matter how experienced or well taught, can navigate the challenges of the Christian life on his own. The road is too long, the opposition too great, and our weaknesses too pernicious for any single believer to stay on the path of faithfulness without the Spirit-empowered assistance of brothers and sisters who are traveling to the Celestial City with us.Jesus tells His followers that we are the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt. 5:13–16). Those metaphors illustrate ways that Christians are to relate to the unbelieving world. Both salt and light make an impact on their environments, retarding putrefaction and dispelling darkness, respectively. The Apostle Paul emphasizes this aspect of Christians’ calling when he describes believers as living in a “crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15).
At the heart of this responsibility is our duty to live as faithful children of God who accurately commend His saving grace in Christ and reflect His character to the world. “As he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’ ” (1 Peter 1:15–16). This is every individual Christian’s calling, and it is the calling of every church.
In fact, all the Scriptures cited above are in the plural. The call to holiness belongs not only to individual believers but also to local congregations. When a church fails to fulfill this calling, it undermines the very good news of salvation that it proclaims and dishonors the name of Jesus Christ.
The church in Corinth learned this the hard way when it allowed scandalous sin to go uncorrected in its membership. Its spiritual apathy about the Lord’s reputation brought an Apostolic rebuke:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. (1 Cor. 5:1–2)
The Corinthian believers undoubtedly thought they were being loving and nonjudgmental in the presence of this scandalous sin among their members. They were proud of their tolerance when they should have been grieved over the outbreak of such sin among them. In the rest of the chapter, Paul corrects their faulty thinking about sin, tolerance, and holiness.
When a church tolerates unrepentant sin within its membership, it demonstrates a lack of love for the one who is sinning, for the unconverted, and for God.
A church is the context in which individual Christians are taught, strengthened, and encouraged to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Brothers and sisters who know and love us help us overcome the inevitable idiosyncrasies that attend every believer, as well as resist the regular temptations that plague us all. They help us live in faith and repentance.
When a church tolerates unrepentant sin within its membership, it demonstrates a lack of love for the one who is sinning, for the unconverted, and for God.
When this kind of mutual care and encouragement is commonplace in a church, the power of the gospel is put on display to unbelievers. The truth of our message is given credibility by the character of our lives, thus providing a powerful apologetic for the gospel.
Finally, and most importantly, when church members love each other enough to hold one another accountable to live holy lives, they demonstrate that they love God and His glory more than they love their own ease, their reputations, or other people. Such supreme love to God will compel a church to obey the Apostolic command to deliver unrepentant members to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5).
By loving God supremely and loving people sincerely, a church will maintain its distinctiveness from the world. Then it will be properly positioned to carry out the mission that the Lord has given to us. As a holy people, we can humbly call sinners to join us in being reconciled to the holy God through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Only by being separate from the world can a church live effectively in the world, for the world.This article originally appeared in the July 2022 issue of TableTalk Magazine.
Follow Tom Ascol:
