The Humanity of Christ: A Comparative Analysis of the Theories of Edward Irving and Oliver Crisp - Research Paper Example

“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The Word, being Christ, thus assumed human form. However, well into the 18th and 19th centuries, the radical idea was proposed that Christ assumed not only human nature, but specifically the fallen, sinful human nature. The question of the nature of Christ’s humanity and how it relates to his divinity finds its roots in the hypostatic union and perichoresis. The concept of the hypostatic union refers to the co-existence of two natures (i.e., the divine and the human) in perfect union within one body, however without confusion of substance or commingling of the natures.

The doctrine of perichoresis asserts that the two natures of Christ and the three persons of the Trinity (likewise united in perfect union without confusion) somehow mutually interpenetrate each other and yet remain distinct and separate from one another (Crisp, 2007, p.1). It is the implications that are brought about by these converging yet separate natures that has drawn interest to the implications of Christ’s human nature on the mystery of salvation. This brief discussion will delve into the implications of the fallen nature theory espoused by Edward Irving in the 19th century, juxtaposed with the unfallen nature argued by Oliver Crisp in the present day.

  Chapter 2: Edward Irving’s theory of Christ’s “Fallen Human Nature” 2.1 “Fallen Human Nature” theory explained Edward Irving’s contention is that Christ assumed a human nature that was characterized as “fallen flesh.” The position of Irving is not only that of mere appearances or symbolisms, but that Christ’s “fallen” human nature was infected with sin, mortal and corruptible, and comparable to “a wide-ranging, systemic, viral infection” that Christ possessed the whole of his life, until his resurrection purged his human nature of the effects of sin (Whidden & Tornalejo, 2009).

The crux of Irving’s belief in the sinfulness of Christ’s flesh is directly related to the Incarnation, that Christ’s humanity is “fully consubstantial” with the rest of humankind (MacLeod, 2009, p. 16). Christ’s fallen nature was derived from his humanity, but by his perseverance consistently suppressed or subjugated the evil effects of this sinful nature until his atoning death. Irving’s assertion is that the human body of Christ was by nature sinful, mortal and corruptible. Irving was mentioned by Cole to have said: “Christ did no sin: but his human nature was sinful and corrupt; and his striving against these corruptions was the main part of his conflict.

” (Cole, 1827, pp. 7-8 as cited in Martindale, 2008, p. 13). According to Irving, “There was united in Jesus Christ, the Godhead, in the person of the son, and in the manhood, in its fallen state; that they subsisted together in one person, in such a wise as that He was wholly without sin, holy and blameless in the sight of God” (Carlyle, 1864, p. 157). The context in which Irving used the term sinful when describing Christ’s human nature never implied that Christ was born with original sin, or that he committed actual (moral) sin.

Instead, Irving argued that the substance of Christ’s flesh was inherently similar to ours in that it had “sinful capacity” or was inclined to sin. This is the essence of the “fallen human nature;” however, Christ, although he assumed a human form capable of sinning, did not give way to the act of sin – otherwise stated, Christ remained sinless and never gave way to the sinful nature of his flesh (Dorries, 2002, p. 83). 2.2 Strengths of “Fallen Human Nature” theory 2.2.1 Incarnation as the crux of Christ’