The Coming of Jesus: Our Future Hope - What Now?

Luke J. Wilson | 03rd February 2016 | Second Coming Series

Welcome to Part Two of the Olivet Discourse! It’s been a while, so we’ll pick up right where we left off with Matthew 24 verse 15 onwards, after a small recap of the chapter so far. The Olivet Discourse begins with the disciples admiring the architecture of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus responds to this by telling them that it will all be thrown down and destroyed, to the point that not one stone will be left on another. Later on, when they are sat on the Mount of Olives, Jesus’ disciples come to him and ask “when will this happen?” and “what will be the sign” that all of this is about to commence? If we look at the account in Mark’s Gospel, we can see that it was actually only Peter, James, John and Andrew who came to speak with Jesus privately about these things (Mark 13:3), thus making the audience that Jesus was addressing quite specific! What follows is a long prophetic monologue from Jesus detailing what happens in the lead up to the temple being destroyed, what to expect and what to do they see it about to happen. Which is where we pick up this study. From verse 15 we start to see what happens after the initial signs and “birth pangs” are finished – now it’s no longer about looking towards an event; now it’s about the event itself! The main show, as it were: the “desolating sacrilege!” Matthew 24:15-18 So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat.   Now Matthew’s Gospel is traditionally understood to have been written to a Jewish audience due to the writing style and linguistic phrases used that were typical of Jewish thought and understanding. This is important to remember when reading the parenthesis in verse 15 which simply states “let the reader understand” as first century Jews would have been very familiar with Daniel’s prophecy more than Gentiles or Jewish converts, for example. This is where the parallel accounts of this passage in the other Gospel account can help us, as we should always endeavour to let Scripture interpret Scripture where possible, rather than jumping to conclusions or assuming things. So we’ll turn to Luke’s Gospel, which is the account typically understood to have been written to a primarily Gentile (non-Jewish) audience, and so it contains different phrases and wording which can often clarify certain things written in Matthew, for example. Luke 21:20-22 When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it; for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfillment of all that is written.   The “desolating sacrilege” and the “holy place” spoken of in Matthew can be made clearer for us by Luke’s plainer language of the event as being attacking armies (desolating sacrilege) surrounding Jerusalem (the holy place)! It’s also important to note that Luke adds an additional comment in verse 22 which Matthew and Mark omit: that these are the “days of vengeance” which fulfills “all that is written”. Written where? The Old Testament. This is the “great and terrible day of the Lord” which had long been prophesied in the Scriptures, which cannot be another time in history, other than the time in which Jesus is speaking of!   The book of Malachi speaks of the coming of the Lord to his people, and the messenger which he will send first (Mal 3:1), which will lead up to God bringing judgement on the nation (Mal 3:5). The book ends with a prophetic statement about this “Day” which says more explicitly that God will send “Elijah” to his people before the judgement comes. Malachi 4:5...

Luke J. Wilson | 06th January 2016 | Second Coming Series

This is a sort of ‘addendum’ to the Revelation Fulfilled? article    Yes you read the title correct: WHO (not what) is the New Jerusalem?   To answer this, you must ask yourself: who is the Bride of Christ?   If you answered “the Church” (as in, the body of believers, not buildings) then you’d be correct as they are both one and the same!   Roughly 1500 miles square.   Maybe you’ve always wondered why the Church is called the “bride”? Well, let’s examine some Scriptures and see! 2 Corinthians 11:2I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.   Here is Paul pleading with the Corinthian church to stay pure and true to the Gospel message they received, like a virgin on her wedding day; and also true to Jesus, as he is the husband of the believers. Again, we see Paul use this imagery of marriage in terms of Christ and his Church in the letter to the Ephesians. Paul is teaching them (and us) on how to conduct ourselves within the bonds of marriage with the instruction for husbands and wives to lay down their lives for one another in love; this is also the analogy of how Jesus relates to his Church: Ephesians 5:24-25, 32Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. What has this got to do with the New Jerusalem? Now when it comes to verses on the New Jerusalem, most people read the first two verses of Rev 21 and stop there, assuming that because it is called “the new Jerusalem” and “the holy city” that it must be an actual, brick-and-mortar city.   But the description doesn’t stop there.   Keep reading past Rev 21:1 and see how the Bride is described: Revelation 21:1-2Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:9-10Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.   Here we see the new heaven and earth, with the “holy city” – the new Jerusalem – coming down out of heaven.   Next we see that the new Jerusalem IS the bride of Christ.   So, if the Church/body of believers is the bride, and the new Jerusalem is also the bride – then they must be one and the same, and therefore symbolic of the physical reality of what the Church is! Unless of course you believe Jesus will be getting married to a literal city...   This vision of the new Heaven and Earth isn’t talking about a doing away with the current, physical realm, no; it’s a beautiful, poetic image of the marriage between God and his people – of the new way of the world now that Christ has accomplished his goal: defeating death and ushering in the New Covenant!   This is God showing that things work differently now. No longer is he only found in a temple, or a specific holy place (a lá John 4:21) – now he lives with us and in us!   This is why everything is new! Heaven will never be the same again, and neither will the Earth! God has set up a new temple where he dwells permanently now: in us, the Church!   Everything is New! If we go back to Paul’s letters for a moment and read 2 Corinthians, we can see that this is what Paul was getting at too. He had grasped this and was desperately trying to get it across to the Corinthian church. Oh, how slow are we on the uptake too? 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 S...

Luke J. Wilson | 31st December 2015 | Second Coming Series

Don’t let the title put you off, we’re about to go on a mad journey through the annuls of history and the Roman Empire, contrasting what John saw in his vision with what has already played out on the “world’s stage” and what we possibly have to look forward to! First though, let’s look at a little history concerning the book itself before delving into its contents. Why do this? For a couple of reasons really: one, Revelation has some dispute over the year in which it was written, which can impact on the interpretation. Two, at various points in early church history, the book was held in suspicion of being spurious and almost didn’t make it into the Canon of Scripture. We should always endeavour to understand the history and context of a book of Scripture in order to fully understand its intended meaning, and thus, “rightly divide” (2 Tim 2:15) and interpret the Bible properly.   Two Dating Views There are two main views on the dating of Revelation: the “early date” and the “late date”. The early date places John writing Revelation around 64-68 AD, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem and just as the Jewish War was getting underway during the reign of Nero. The late date puts the writing towards the end of the reign of Domitian around 95-96 AD. From John’s own testimony, we know that he was suffering persecution at the time of writing: Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.   Both of these Roman Emperors persecuted the Christians, though none quite so severely as Nero did. There’s varying accounts of when Revelation was penned by John. I won’t spend too much time on this as many, many others have wrote books on the topic of dating, so I’ll just give a brief overview of both sides of the argument.   One of the earliest accounts mentioning a possible early date for Revelation is from the “Muratorian Fragment” which dates back to the around 170-190 AD. This fragment is one of the earliest lists we have of the accepted Canon of Scripture (or books which were approved to be read in the Churches), and in it there is a curious sentence about Paul “following the rule of his predecessor John, [writing] to no more than seven churches by name.” This is interesting because Paul’s letters are widely accepted to be amongst some of the earliest New Testament books we have, as well as historical tradition and writings saying that Paul was martyred under Nero’s reign around 67 or 68 AD, which means if he followed “his predecessor” John, Revelation must have been written before 70 AD! There’s also one other reference which offers some insight (though is quite hard to find many sources on), in which the Syriac Vulgate Bible from the sixth century has an opening title to Revelation as follows: "The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."   The late date theory is mainly due to a single quote by Irenaeus (plus a couple of other historical references about John which indirectly impact the early date), where he somewhat cryptically mentions John and/or his vision as possibly being seen during Domitian’s reign: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." — Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30:3   What exactly Irenaeus was referring to being seen “almost in [his] day” has been questioned over time due to the cryptic nature of the sentence, and because just a few paragraphs before this statement, he refers to “ancient copies [of the Apocalypse]�...

Luke J. Wilson | 19th October 2014 | Second Coming Series

Hello again, it's been a while since I've wrote anything, and longer since getting back to this series on the Second Coming of Jesus. This isn't for lack of motivation, but rather because this is such a huge topic that I've been reading and thinking about this next part for a very long time to make sure I know what I'm saying, and am well read enough to do the topic justice. Having said that, there will always be far more to say on this than I can give time for here, but I hope to give enough of an overview to expound this prophecy faithfully without being too technical as to cause confusion! You can also catch up on the previous parts in the series here and here.   Birth Pangs I'm going to do this part of the series in two sections, otherwise it would get too long and wordy! This part will focus on the "birth pangs" Jesus warned about which would lead up to the coming judgement and destruction of the temple. The Olivet discourse is the prophecy given by Jesus in the Gospels of Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21. Most Christians are probably more familiar with the Matthew 24-25 version than the others, though they are all the same prophetic message of impending judgement. If you're at all familiar with any doctrine or teaching on the "Second Coming" or "End Times", then these passages in the Gospels are most often quoted and used to say that Jesus is talking about a terrible time that is coming in the far, far, far off future, usually interpreted to mean within our lifetime (for some reason). I, too, used to believe this as it was what I was taught in the churches I attended and told by the people I met, all with that eager expectation that Jesus could suddenly swoop down from the clouds any day now! What I didn't ever do was investigate these claims properly for myself, except read the parts of Scripture they said meant Jesus was coming in the future and then try to accept that it must be right since our church leaders were obviously more knowledgeable on this than I. Although I did spend a lot of time studying and trying to interpret Revelation as a new Christian (without much success I might add), I couldn't shake the feeling I got that the Apostles and Jesus all seemed to speak and write as though they expected something to happen then and very soon. Back in the early 2000's, searching the internet for theological help generally brought up lots of odd and wacky websites, complete with animated fire GIFs, or forums full of equally as confused believers trying to wrangle the "soon-ness" of the Scriptures with a far-future interpretation. So I did what any good Christian did, and just chalked it up to "God's ways are not our way" or "God's soon/time isn't the same as how we understand it". This is where I wish that the Church would know its history better and have a desire to exegete things well, rather than fob off the confusing/hard passages with catchphrases. Think of it this way: if God was going to give a prophecy and be accurate and precise in all the details, why would he then be obscure about the timing of it? With that said, lets look at the prophecy Jesus gives.   Apocalypse then (not later) Something that seems to go unnoticed, or is overlooked, in discussions about this prophecy, are the "timestamps" that Jesus uses to say when this will be fulfilled. Even in the preceding chapter in Matthew and its parallel in Luke, after Jesus has said all his woes about the Pharisees, he says something quite interesting which I admit, I hadn't really noticed until the other day: Luke 11:49-51 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation. (cf. Matt...

Luke J. Wilson | 15th December 2025 | Hell

Christian conversations about hell have never been especially calm, but the recent online reaction to Kirk Cameron’s comments in favour of annihilationism has been particularly revealing. Social media has erupted with accusations of heresy, doctrinal collapse, and theological compromise.  It’s the “Rob Bell Incident” all over again (if anyone remembers that).  The infamous John Piper tweet about Rob Bell A lot of comments I saw were wondering what Ray Comfort thinks of this, as he and Kirk worked closely together in ministry for about 25 years, and while Ray wasn’t as dismissive as John Piper was of Rob Bell, he still calls out Kirk’s new views as “erroneous”: While we believe Kirk is sincere, we believe that conditional mortality and annihilationism are erroneous views, and that the Bible’s clear teaching on hell is known as eternal conscious torment. We firmly believe that this is the only correct biblical view. (source) Yet beneath the noise of social media grinding its gears is something far more ordinary and far more Christian: a believer wrestling seriously with Scripture, or as some would say, “being a Berean” (Acts 17:11). This is something we all should be doing, forming our views and doctrines from Scripture, not out-of-context social media video snippets and memes. Whether one agrees with Cameron’s conclusions or not, what is happening is not the abandonment of orthodoxy, but the resurfacing of a long-standing and legitimate theological discussion. Annihilationism, or, more precisely, Conditional Immortality — is neither novel nor liberal, nor is it an attempt to make Christianity and hell more palatable, as many people presume. It is a position grounded in Scripture, represented throughout Church history, and held by Christians who take divine judgement every bit as seriously as their eternal-torment counterparts. This is not a debate invented by Twitter (or “𝕏” as it’s called now…). It’s been around for a long, long, time. Watch Kirk’s video in full here before forming an opinion Immortality Is Assumed, Not Taught One of the quiet assumptions behind Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is the idea that all human souls are inherently immortal, and therefore must exist forever somewhere. Once that premise is accepted, eternal suffering becomes unavoidable. The difficulty is that Scripture does not teach innate human immortality. In fact, it repeatedly teaches the opposite. Immortality is consistently presented as a gift, not a default state. Eternal life is something God grants, not something humans naturally possess (Rom. 6:23).  In Genesis, humanity is barred from the tree of life precisely so that they might not “live for ever” in a fallen state (Gen. 3:22–24). In the New Testament, immortality is something Christ “brings to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10), and something believers “put on” at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54). Conditional Immortality simply takes that biblical theme seriously. It argues that only those united to Christ are granted immortality, while the wicked ultimately perish. Judgement is real, severe, and final — but it does not require endless conscious suffering. This distinction matters, because much of the outrage directed at annihilationism is based on inherited philosophical assumptions, which come from Plato, rather than careful exegesis. Biblical Language: Death Means Death One of the most compelling aspects of conditionalism is the sheer consistency of biblical language concerning the fate of the wicked. Scripture repeatedly speaks in terms of: Death — “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4) Perishing — “God so loved the world… that everyone who believes in him may not perish” (John 3:16) Destruction — “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9) Being consumed or brought to an end —�...

Luke J. Wilson | 23rd January 2025 | Science

Have you ever wondered why God asks us to resist temptation and practise self-control? At first glance, it might seem like God is just trying to limit our enjoyment of life, especially when the world tells us to “follow your heart” and “give in to what feels good.” But what if I told you that resisting temptation is not about taking away your joy, but about protecting and blessing your life — spiritually, emotionally, and even mentally? I was recently watching a TV series with my wife (called Perception, if you’re interested) about a neuroscience professor who consults for the FBI. The series often gives some interesting facts about the brain and human behaviour, and in one episode the main character capped off the episode by talking about how resisting temptations benefits your mental health. This piqued my interest, as it made me think of the obvious Scriptural connections, so I looked it up to see if the episode was accurate. And it was! A 2017 neuroscience research study highlights how beneficial self-control and resisting temptation are for your brain and mental health. These findings echo the timeless truths of Scripture, showing us that God’s design for self-control is not just a moral obligation but a pathway to wholeness and flourishing as a healthy person. The Science Behind Resisting Temptation The study on self-control and temptation explored the brain’s salience network — the system responsible for detecting what’s important — and found something really very interesting: people better at resisting temptation have a healthier dynamic between this network and other parts of the brain, such as the visual system. In other words, their brains are better at ignoring distractions and focusing on what truly matters. Here are some of the benefits of self-control revealed by the study: Improved Focus — Resisting temptation strengthens your ability to stay on task and avoid distractions. Emotional Resilience — Self-control helps regulate emotions, making you less reactive and more at peace. Mental Clarity — It improves how your brain processes information, aiding decision-making. Protection from Harm — It reduces the risk of mental health issues like depression, addiction, and impulsive behaviour which may help mitigate some symptoms of ADHD by strengthening attention regulation and executive function. Spiritual Growth—Though not a part of the study, self-control aligns with God’s call for holy living and leads to greater spiritual maturity. This isn’t just science talking; it’s evidence of God’s amazing design for your body and mind which has been testified to in the Scriptures for thousands of years, long before neuroscience could confirm it. I couldn’t help but be struck by this connection when I came across this study. What Does the Bible Say? The New Testament repeatedly highlights the importance of self-control and resisting temptation. These teachings are not arbitrary rules to suck the “fun” out of life, but divine guidance to help you thrive. Let’s explore how the Bible speaks to this: Self-Control is a Gift from GodThe Bible teaches that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23) and that God has given us a spirit of “power and of love and of self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7). The ability to resist temptation is not something we muster up alone; it’s a gift God gives to help us grow in Him and rely on His strength. Resisting Temptation Brings FreedomJames 1:14–15 warns us that temptation, if left unchecked, leads to sin and ultimately to death. Science backs this up, showing that unchecked impulsivity can lead to destructive behaviours like addiction and emotional instability. God’s commands to resist temptation protect us from harm and lead us to freedom in Christ (John 8:36). Your Mind MattersRomans 12:2 urges us to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds.” Resisting temptat...

Luke J. Wilson | 21st July 2024 | Trinity

Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while upholding their unity in essence. It is essential to distinguish this from Monarchianism, a heretical belief condemned in the 4th century, which posited that God is a single person rather than three distinct persons. The Eternal Begottenness of the Son The term “created” used by the early pre-Nicene Fathers does not align with the Arian view, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), making Him a creature. As Arius infamously declared, “there was a time when the Son was not”. Rather, the Fathers articulated that the Son was begotten out of the Father, emphasising His divine origin and eternal existence within the Father’s bosom (cf. John 1:18 in Greek). As Justin Martyr explains, “For Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46). This highlights that the Son, the Word, existed eternally with the Father before being begotten and manifested. Similarly, Hippolytus expounds on this concept, noting that “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world … For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him He made all things. … And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word. And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God.” (Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 10–11). Here, Hippolytus underscores the eternal existence of the Word within God, proceeding from the Father and being of the same essence. The Procession of the Holy Spirit The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is another essential aspect of Monarchical Trinitarianism. The Spirit, like the Son, derives His essence from the Father, ensuring that He is co-equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Tertullian speaks to this procession in his work, Against Praxeas, explaining how the Word and Spirit derive their essence from the Father. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. … Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8). Looking at how Tertullian describes this doctrine, we can see how he has gone to lengths to carefully explain how the relationship within the Trinity exists together and relate to one another, while keeping intact the source and essence of divinity united and uncompromised. When we talk about these things, we use terms like “ontological” and “economy” to help to describe the Godhead. Ontology is the study of being, and what make...

Luke J. Wilson | 01st July 2024 | Trinity

The Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian faith, defining God as one Being in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, throughout history, various misunderstandings and false teachings — known as heresies — have arisen, challenging this core doctrine. Understanding these heresies can strengthen our faith and deepen our appreciation for the truths held by the Church since its earliest days. What Is the Trinity? Before diving into the heresies, let’s briefly review what we mean by the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one essence in three distinct Persons: The Father: The Creator and sustainer of all. The Son (Jesus Christ): God incarnate, who lived, died, and was resurrected for our salvation. The Holy Spirit: The presence of God active in the world and within believers. This concept is rooted in Scripture and has been affirmed by the Church through various councils and creeds. Common Historical Heresies Arianism What It Taught: Arius, a priest in the early 4th century, claimed that Jesus Christ was not of the same substance as the Father. He taught that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the Father. Church’s Response: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father. This is reflected in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God… of one Being with the Father.” Patristic Quote: Athanasius, a staunch defender against Arianism, wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (On the Incarnation, 8:54). Modalism (Sabellianism) What It Taught: Sabellius proposed that God is one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes or aspects: as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. This denies the distinctiveness of the three Persons. Church’s Response: Modalism was rejected because it undermines the relational aspect of the Trinity. The distinct Persons interact with each other, as seen in Jesus’ baptism where the Father speaks, the Son is baptised, and the Spirit descends like a dove. Patristic Quote: Tertullian argued against Modalism by affirming the distinctiveness within the Godhead: “We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation… there is the Son, who has issued from the Father, and the Spirit, who has issued from both Father and Son” (Against Praxeas, 2). Nestorianism What It Taught: Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop, suggested that Jesus Christ was two separate persons — one human and one divine — rather than one Person with two natures. Church’s Response: The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD declared that Jesus is one Person with two distinct yet united natures: divine and human. This ensures that Jesus is fully God and fully man, capable of bridging the gap between humanity and divinity. Patristic Quote: Cyril of Alexandria emphasised the unity of Christ: “Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” (Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch). Docetism What It Taught: Docetists believed that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion and that He only seemed to suffer and die on the cross. Church’s Response: The Church affirmed that Jesus’ incarnation and suffering were real, as this is essential for our salvation. Jesus’ true humanity allows Him to truly represent us and atone for our sins. Patristic Quote: Ignatius of Antioch stressed the reality of Jesus’ incarnation and suffering: “He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and powe...