More About Christian Beliefs:
The Incarnation


 
 

Much of Christian theology has been focused on defining the relationship between God and Jesus. These issues are dealt with in two Christian doctrines, called the Trinity and the Incarnation. These doctrines were formulated during the 4th and 5th Century (with some discussion continuing at least as the 9th), in reaction to teachings that most Christians regarded as incorrect and dangerous. While the detailed definitions were new, they are more precise expressions of ideas that had been around from the beginning of Christianity.

The Incarnation deals with the relationship between Jesus and God. This doctrine tries to walk a narrow line. On the one side, Christians are committed to monotheism: there is only one God. Jesus is not to be seen as a second God. However, from the earliest days, Jesus was seen as somehow being God's presence on earth. Based on the accounts in the Bible, it is clear that his followers had the experience that in Jesus they were encountering God. This is expressed in the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.

In the following discussion, I will use the term Logos to refer to God the Son, who is one of the Trinity. The terms "Christ" and "Son" can also be used of Jesus viewed as a human being, so Logos is the clearest term when it is necessary to refer to the God the Son.

("logos" is Greek for "Word". It is used in the New Testament to refer to Christ as God's word personified. Logos has a wider range of meanings than the English "word", including also such concepts as wisdom and creative power. It has a background in Greek philosophy, and is used by both Jewish and Christian writers at times when they are trying to explain the faith to those with a background in philosophy. However the immediate background of the term for New Testament writers is as a translation of "Wisdom" in the Old Testament book of Proverbs. In that book, "Wisdom" is used as an attribute of God which is at least partially personified. In Christian theology, "logos" is used to refer to God's creative power, embodied in Christ.)

Christ: God and Man

Jesus said many times that he came to save us, and in particular that he came to reconcile us to God. Christian theology understands him as acting in effect as a bridge between God and humanity. By spiritual union with him we are united with God. Through this union we are regenerated, becoming humans of the sort that God originally intended.

In Eastern Christianity it is said that we are "divinized," although that term could be misleading. (It is not meant that we actually become God, of course.) In Protestant thought, Calvin said that faith is based on a mystical union with Christ. It creates a "community of righteousness" through which Christ's righteousness is initially credited to us and over time transforms us.

Christian theology said from the earliest days that in order for these things to happen, Christ must be both God and man. In order to function as the bridge, he has to have common ground with both parties. Otherwise he can't effectively unite us with God.

One widely referenced comment is from Irenaeus, shortly before 200 AD:

For He came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.

Christians also believe that Christ died for us. This isn't the place to discuss why that death matters, but it is relevant here because the explanation again requires Christ to be both God and man. He has to be man in order for him truly to die on our behalf. He has to be God in order to turn that death to victory.

While there are several understandings of how Christ could be both God and man, the most common explanation speaks of the Logos, who is God taking on ("assuming") human nature. In this understanding, Jesus is a true human being, however his humanity is not "self-contained."

All Christians are called to have their lives centered on God. However Jesus is the prototype and source of that kind of life. As such he is the "natural" son of God, while we are "adopted" through our relationship to him. What occurs with us over time and incompletely is basic to Christ's existence. Thus Christ's personhood comes from the Logos.

Basic to this analysis is separating the concept of human nature, and human beings, from personhood. In all cases except Christ's, human beings are independent persons. However Christ is not self-contained in this way: This human being was a vehicle for the Logos to join us in human life, in order to connect us to God. Thus Christian theology says that Christ's very existence as a person is rooted in God. Or equivalently, in Christ there is a single person, the Logos, who lives both eternally as God and as a human being.

It is important to note that Jesus as a human being has nothing missing: Christ has a human soul, and a human will which is distinct from God's will. He is really a human being. The difference is that he is not complete in himself, but takes his personal existence from the Logos.

There were a number of discussions among medieval theologians about the difference between a human being and a human person. While the details get complex, a simple summary is that the only thing that being a person adds to a human being is completeness. So when we say that Christ is a human being, but that his existence as a person is the Logos, we are saying that this human being is not complete in himself. To understand who is really is, we have to look at the Logos. However he is truly a human being.

How this is formulated in Christian theology

There are several different ways of talking about the relation between God and humanity in Christ. Some of them have been judged as being "heretical." Most commonly this is because they overemphasize one aspect of the situation, thus obscuring key elements. For example, the "monophysites" (the term means "one nature") emphasized the unity between God and humanity to the extent that Jesus was no longer really a human being. On the other end, the "Nestorians" emphasized the distinction between God and humanity to such an extent that the Logos was no longer seen as the true subject of Jesus' actions.

These matters were complicated by differences in the way key terms were used. Thus modern descendants of the monophysites are considered by many to hold an understanding that is orthodox, even though it is expressed differently. There are some scholars that are prepared to say that most of those considered to be Nestorians really were not.

This page will describe the standard defined at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451. This took into account a variety of views, including major writers such as Athanasius (c. 296-373 AD), who is considered to be representative of a view that was common in Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopseustia, who was a key figure in another major center of Christian thought, Antioch.

[The historical situation is complicated by the fact that Theodore's writings were not well preserved. It now seems almost certain that Theodore's views were more similar to Athanasius than to some other writers at Antioch, such as Nestorius. Many treatments of this period speak of Alexandrian and Antiochene theology. However because of the similarity between Theodore's actual views and Athanasius', it's questionable to group him with Nestorius under the term "Antiochene."]

The language adopted at Chalcedon speaks of the relationship between man and God in Christ as a "hypostatic union", because the basic concept is a union of natures in one "hypostasis," or person. This one hypostasis is spoken of as having two "natures," God and human nature. There is one person, one subject, in Christ. However he is both God and a human being.

This explains that somewhat odd pattern seen in the Gospels, where Jesus acts as God, doing miracles, forgiving sins, but also experiences pain and has other human weaknesses. Christ -- being the eternal Logos -- has all the powers of God. But because he has taken on humanity, he also suffers hunger and can die.

Note that the intent is not that Christ is a compromise between divine and human, but that he has both natures complete and unmodified. Some acts reflect one nature more than the other. However because these two natures are associated with a single person, everything he does can be viewed as both the action of God and of a human. He is a single God-man, who acts as a single subject.

Because of Christ's unity, there is a "communication of properties." That is, "we may truly say that God was seen and heard and touched, that God suffered and died. Thus when Christ walked on the water this was neither a human action, since it is not human to walk on water, nor was it divine, since it is not of God to walk, but it is an evidence of the union of humanity and Divinity, without confusion such that we see always One Christ and not God and a man with him." [http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article03.html] Of course the communication doesn't go to the extent of modifying the natures themselves: God's nature doesn't actually become mortal.

At times discussions made it seem that Christ's humanity is somewhat truncated: he had a human body with the usual human weaknesses, but that body was really manipulated by the Logos, in a way that made one wonder whether there is actually a human being there. However the Church eventually rejected this kind of presentation -- as it clearly must. In order to act as mediator connecting us with God, he must be a full human being, not just a human body animated by the Logos.

In order to reflect his full humanity, orthodox doctrine says that in Christ there isn't just a human body, but a separate human will, as well as a human soul, human mind, etc. This human nature took its own human actions.

The term "nature" has a long history in philosophical thought. One might think of "humanity" as being simply a set of attributes, such as being a featherless biped. Thus it sounds like we are saying that a single person (the Logos) has contradictory properties, immortality from his divine nature and mortality from his human nature. In fact, "nature" was being used in a sense where it represents an actual thing (a "substance"). It is this nature that is mortal. The only difference between Christ's "human nature" and a person is that a person is complete in itself. Christ's humanity is not complete: its personal existence is the Logos. (The standard terminology speaks of the Logos as "assuming" humanity.)

When Christian writers talk about Christ, they don't speak of the Logos and a human being as separate individuals doing thing own thing. Rather, they speak of the Logos as being the subject of both divine and human actions. In taking human actions, the Logos acts through the human nature which he has assumed.

While there were continuing developments later, the standard explanation of the hypostatic union was set out in the Council of Chalcedon, in 451:

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ -- Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers {the Nicene Creed} has handed down to us.

[Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm.]

The Council approved a number of other documents, but for a more detailed explanation of their view, the best reference is probably a letter from Pope Leo I, called the Tome of Leo. A good translation is available at http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/leo_tome.shtml. Should that link be broken, consult www.ccel.org.

Discussion

So far, I've done my best to give an orthodox explanation. This section contains my personal reflections. I need to warn you that not everyone will consider them to be orthodox.

This doctrine has been criticized, both in ancient and modern times, on several grounds, including coherence (does it make any sense?) and consistency with the Bible.

The most obvious question is whether we can make sense of a single person with two natures. It's unusual, but since God is a different type of being from anyone we meet in human life, it's not altogether surprising that descriptions of him are unusual.

It seems odd to add human weakness to someone who is all-powerful. This is answered to some extent by the concept of "kenosis," that the Logos voluntarily accepts the limitations of human life. The classical text would be Phillipians 2:6-8:

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of deatbh even death on a cross.

I see nothing inherently contradictory about God voluntarily accepting the human condition. Since the divine nature is unchangeable, in doing so he wouldn't abandon his divinity, but would accept human limitation.

The more serious question is whether it is consistent with Jesus as he is portrayed in the New Testament. The criticism that concerns me the most is that in the Gospels Jesus looks like a normal human being who depends upon his Father for his power to do miracles, rather than an entity who has both human and divine powers bundled together. The orthodox explanation deals with this by saying that Christ has a separate human nature, which is complete, with a normal human will, and that Christ acts as a human being, with human actions.

The Chalcedonian language is accepted by virtually all Christian bodies, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. However a few theologians have developed alternative approaches. A number of these can be looked at as attempts to rehabilitate Nestorian theology. This alternative stresses the concept of "indwelling".

In some cases these attempts try to avoid identification as Nestorian by citing Theodore of Mopseustia. However it now appears that Theodore held views that are essentially Chalcedonian. Because related concepts were used by a number of people associated with Antioch, it is sometimes referred to as the Antiochene view. Unfortunately its best-known representative is Nestorius. He is notorious because the Council of Chalcedon was called primarily to reject his theology. Theodore of Mopsuestia and others were rejected by the next major council -- in my opinion this rejection was based on particularly nasty politics, aided by an erroneous account of Theodore's theology.

Modern attempts to use this approach are not necessarily identical to the original theology of Nestorius. There is an attempt to deal with the concerns that caused him to be rejected.

These theologians took as their primary understanding the concept of "indwelling." Several New Testament texts seem to point in this direction:

2 Corinthians 5:18-19: 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.

Colossians 1:15-20: Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powerbsall things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

These suggest not that Christ was God in a direct way, but that God was working through him. In the second passage, he is the human "image" of God. In this concept, there is a more complete distinction between Jesus and the Logos than in the standard doctrine. Jesus is not God directly, but is the incarnation of God, i.e. a human form or image of God.

There's a danger here: Some people understand this as describing a human being who is simply inspired by God. The usual concept of salvation is based on God himself being united to us through Christ. Jesus as an inspired man won't do the job. Note that the quotation above ascribes the blood of the cross to God, not just to a human being. Christians have since early times seen God himself dying for us, though obviously that death is only possible because of the fact that God assumed human nature. (Deity can't die.)

The basic concept here is that God works through Jesus, being present in and through him in a special way that differs in kind from the way he is present in everyone else. Jesus is special because God has chosen him as his Son, seeing to it that Jesus' character and life reveals God, and acting through Jesus to the extent that Jesus' actions are also God's.

However the question is whether this is enough to support the rest of Christian theology. That depends upon Christ as a link between us and God.

One approach used by modern writers speaks of the incarnation as being based on a "functional" union between God and Jesus: that is, Jesus is God in the sense that he acts for and as God, and that God is present in him so intimately that what happens to Jesus actually happens to God. So Jesus is God in the sense that he functions as God for us. While the term "function union" is a modern one, some writers from the corresponding school in the early church used a related concept: that Jesus and the Logos worked with a single action.

In this presentation, Jesus' miracles would be seen as actions which Jesus performs through God's power. While dependent up God's power, they do not require a separate divine nature, since any human being can be used by God in this way. In fact Christ promises that his followers will be able to do similar things. Thus in this model every action of Jesus is seen at the same time as an action by a human being and an action of God who is working through the human being. There is no need to explain different actions by reference to two different natures. It is precisely Jesus' human life and character in which God is active and which shows us God.

One example of this approach is John A. T. Robinson, in The Human Face of God. J.A.T. Robinson was a New Testament scholar. He was particularly concerned to develop a theological understanding of Christ that reflects the current critical assessment of the New Testament.

A related approach is described in D.M. Baillie's well-known book God was in Christ. Baillie does not explicitly reference Theodore, nor use the term "functional union." However his idea is similar. He also sees Jesus as a full human being. He connects Jesus with the Logos using an analogy based on God's grace. Due to God's grace, we are enabled to live as God's children. Our actions under the influence of grace are both our own and God's. Similarly, Jesus' actions are both the actions of him as a human being and God's.

Most ancient Christian writers would not regard these presentations as being good enough. Classical theology insists on an "ontological" identification of Jesus with God, i.e. an identification based on what Christ is, not just how he functions.

The Definition of Chalcedon is broad enough that it can probably be stretched to include at least some approaches of this kind. For political reasons, Chalcedon was intended to be acceptable to moderate followers who tended in the Nestorian direction, as well as moderate followers of the hypostatic union.

My personal preferences is to use functional union to explain the way in which Jesus has his personhood in the Logos. Thus my intention is to use ideas along the lines of J.A.T. Robinson or Baillie, but as an explanation for orthodox theology. However most theologians, even among modern Protestants, would not consider this orthodox.

It is worth noting that some medieval approaches to the Incarnation come very close to a functional view. In this analysis, the difference between Jesus and other human beings is that Jesus is not a self-contained human person. He has an individual human nature, just as we all do. That nature includes all of the standard things one thinks of as being associated with a human: intelligence, will, etc. In the case of Jesus, these things are just as human as ours. He is a real human being, whose acts must be intelligible as the acts of a human being (although one who is so closely united with God that he does things that we can't). The difference is that there is no separate human "person". While there are two natures in Christ, human and divine, there is only one person (Greek: hypostasis), and that person is the second person of the Trinity.

The question is what the difference is between a human nature and a "person." Recall that in this context, it is the nature that is the "substance." The only thing being a "person" adds to a human being is completeness. That is, all humans other than Jesus are self-contained. Jesus, seen as a human being, is not.

Several medieval writers asked hypothetically what would happen if God decided to make someone other than Jesus the Messiah. (I should note that not all writers thought this train of thought makes sense. E.g. Aquinas did not.) At that point Jesus would no longer be the incarnation of God. Therefore he would be complete as a human being, and he would immediately become a human person.

At first glance, the orthodox doctrine looks like it is based on ontology, i.e. the metaphysical makeup of Christ. This contrasts with roles such as king or prophet, which are "offices" that do not make the person different metaphysically. However the strain of thought just mentioned seems to be pushing Jesus' role very close to being an office. However it's an office that is different than that of prophet or king, because the specific function of this office is that of being God's presence in human life. Thus it is not possible to understand Jesus purely in human terms. Everything he is and does is true both of a human being and of the eternal Logos. Thus his human nature alone is not complete. The Logos is the subject of all of Jesus' attributes and actions. But the difference between Jesus and us is not in his makeup (except that he is perfect and without sin), but in the way that he reflects and embodies God.
 

Next: More about Christian beliefs: the Trinity