Concept of Incarnation in Christianity - Research Paper Example

? Table of Contents Introduction 3 Early Christian – Views of the Nature of God 5 The Arian Controversy and the Nicene-Athanasian Creeds 7 The Middle Ages 10 Alternative Views 14 Kenotic Christological Theories on the Incarnation 15 Conclusion 16 Bibliography 17 Introduction The belief that Jesus Christ was born, lived among people and died on the cross into our material world, and was subsequently resurrected from the dead, constitutes the very essence of Christianity1. Inasmuch as the Gospels’ writers are thought to have had either personal experience of Jesus, or access to people who did have such experience, their explanation of Jesus, most notably His life, teaching, death, and resurrection, was partly grounded in this experience, as well as partly in their own interpretation of His words2. Thus, in the earliest state of Christianity, the Evangelists did neither elaborate on Jesus’s words “The Father and I are one”3 nor expound on the baptizing formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”4; which, according to Dibb, indicates that they were more concerned with the message of salvation, rather than with the theological detail.5 On the other hand, identifying Jesus as Christ and linking Him to the Father (Lord), the New Testament writers not just suggested the fulfillment of Jewish expectations of the Messiah, but also His divine status – the latter being considered the central point that has made the uniqueness of Christianity6. All in all, the whole Christian tradition could be considered as “recording and interpreting various collective and individual experiences of Jesus”7; while the experiential knowledge of Jesus, in turn, became more or less the basis of ‘philosophy’ in the context of Christology89. However, the search for answers to certain issues concerning Jesus’s “being” and “doing” raises a number of questions of philosophical nature, like about the status of experiential knowledge, the preference for certain witnesses within a particular tradition over others, hence the level of certainty in the historical knowledge of Jesus, etc.10 On the other hand, the experience, or experiential knowledge of Jesus, did not sufficiently answer all-important questions about His divinity, thus leaving them open to interpretation11. This paper is focused on the central concept in Christology, namely the incarnation, which actually represents the greatest challenge faced by theologians, philosophers and apologists concerned with the Christian faith and worship. The following sections explore the concept of incarnation as viewed by representatives of different schools of thought and traditions within the Christian Church, as well as by contemporary theologians and researchers in the field. Thus, the paper traces the development of this concept over the centuries and attempts to address its acceptability nowadays. Early Christian Writers – Views of the Nature of God The relationship between the human and the divine, the finite and infinite, in the person of Jesus, appeared an issue that increasingly required further articulation. St Ignatius, who became the Bishop of Antioch in 69 AD and was sentenced to death in about 107 AD, wrote a series of Epistles to the Christians, in which Jesus Christ is depicted as “God becoming visible”, “God existing in flesh, true life in death”, representing the mind of the Father12. Ignatius had philosophically described a progression “from divinity to humanity”, where Jesus Christ is not considered a separate being but a part of the progression whereby the mind of God had become flesh, and the “doorway to the Father”13. However, according to Ignatius, the human and divine in Christ does not interfere with the unity of God14. One of the earliest Christian writers, St Irenaeus of Lyons (120 – 202 AD), who served at Lyons as a presbyter to Polycarp, wrote his magnum opus – Against Heretics – at about 180 AD15. In this work, having exposed the errors of Gnosticism, Irenaeus set forth his view of God as indescribable, abstract Being16; or according to his own words “He is simple and uncompounded, …, and Himself entirely like and equal to Himself; being as He is all Mind, and all spirit, and all perception and all thought, and all reason, and all hearing, and all eye, and all light, and all over the fountain of all good things”17. Since God’s creation reveals the things of His mind, Irenaeus concludes that God cannot be seen but the conception in His mind or Word (Logos), by which He had created, could be known18; the incarnation, in turn, took place “by the pure generation of the Word of God”19, where the Word of God (or the thought and conception in God’s mind), “…was made flesh”20, i.e. Jesus Christ was born. Thus, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, who was not born of the will of a man, is the Son of Living God21. Being one of the earliest systematizations of the Father-and-Son relationship, Tertullian’s work, Against Praxean, elaborated on the creed of the Church that the Son of God (His Word) is actually God incarnate22. Tertullian pointed out that the divine unity in unquestionable as the Church admits one divine substance in three persons, namely Father, Son and Holy Spirit23; thus he was the first theologian to use the term ‘Person’ while describing different characteristics of God, which, however should not be misconstrued as ‘individual’24. The point at issue within Tertullian’s treatise appeared the divine economy, which is described as one only God, and a Son – His Word – who proceeded from himself, and was brought into the world in the form of Jesus Christ, who lived, suffered, died and was resurrected25. Tertullian is considered to have bridged the divide between the earliest Apostolic Fathers and those who came after them, whose controversies led to the Council of Nicaea26. The Arian Controversy and the Nicene-Athanasian Creeds During the reign of Constantine the Great, who had been proclaimed emperor of the western part of the Roman Empire in 306 AD and became sole emperor of the entire Roman Empire in 323 AD, a monumental event took place in the Church’s history27. Arius, who had been trained in the Antiochene School and followed a Christology from below, hence emphasizing the human nature of Jesus Christ, was ordained as a presbyter in Alexandria in 311 AD. Being part of a flourishing succession of theologians, who questioned the existence of the Divine and human in one, Arius contradicted the newly ordained Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, who was schooled in the Alexandrian School and believed in the Christology from above, i.e. stressing the divinity of Christ28. Thus, viewing Christ as the Word, distinguishable but not separate from the Father, Alexander was much more in tune with the earlier Apostolic Fathers29, which made the controversy between him and Arius inevitable. Consequently, Arius was censured in 319 AD; the interference of Constantine the Great, who had allegedly entered the fray by reason of his concern for the integrity of the empire, led to the Council at Nicaea, convened in 325 AD30. The Arian faction’s proposal, stating that the Son was a Creature, had been rejected by the majority of the Bishops and the final result was a creed, deliberate in refuting Arianism, which became later known as the Nicene Creed31. Having begun with the affirmation of the Oneness of God, the Nicene Creed emphasizes the unity of God and establishes the divinity of the Son – “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in substance with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on earth”32. The Athanasian Creed, in turn, appeared a more complete exposition of the doctrine than the Nicene Creed, dealing far more fully with the expression of the Divine substance in the hypostases of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; St Athanasius explains the Father as the appearance of the Divine in the process of creation of the universe, while the Son is viewed as the appearance of the Divine in redeeming the humanity33. According to St Athanasius, inasmuch as the creatures (mankind) made by God were on the way to extinction due to both their own transgression and the deceit wrought upon man by the devil, God Himself was faced by a divine dilemma – to allow corruption and death to ruin His noble work, or, being Good, to ensure the continued existence of humanity34. For that reason, in order to avoid the disappearance of the very things God has once created, hence the work of God to come to naught, the “incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world”35; as Athanasius states, having stooped to the human level in His love and self-revealing to mankind, He (the Word) took a human body, directly from a virgin, without the agency of a human father – “He, the Mighty One, …Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt”36. The very reason why God has taken a human body is set forth as follows – because all human bodies are liable to the corruption of death, this is a deliberate act of surrendering “His body to death in place of all”, and offering it to the Father37. Inasmuch as the Word perceived that the only way redeem mankind was through death, but God Himself as the Word is immortal, and the Father’s Son could not die, He assumed a mortal body. In other words, the law of death was abolished and mankind was made alive through death, “by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection”38. Thus, according to St Athanasius, the incarnation appeared the solution to the divine dilemma; by the sacrifice of His own body the Word destroyed the law of death and made a new beginning of life for the human race39. Or as Apostle Paul has said, “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ”40. The Middle Ages After Nestorius had been inaugurated as Archbishop of Constantinople in 428 AD, the growing dispute about the duality of natures in Christ was given a fresh impetus; being a “proud and arrogant man”, according to the historians, Nestorius heated the dispute ruling against the name “Theotokos”, or “Mother of God”, which was ascribed to Mary, on the grounds that God could not have a mother41. Instead, he proposed calling her “Mother of Man” – Anthropotokos – but having met a wide rejection, he suggested the term “Mother of Christ” – Christotokos – as a compromise42. Nestorius’s theology regarded Christ as both fully human and fully divine, with His divine side being consubstantial with the Father, unchangeable, and therefore not susceptible to suffering; thus, Christ’s human side with all its limitations appeared unnecessary, except for the purpose of redeeming the human race43. On the other hand, according to Nestorius, Jesus Christ was not a body filled with the Divine, but His human side appeared akin to mankind, hence carrying every human characteristic except sin44. Nestorius claimed that the two sides, or natures, of Christ are “distinct, unaltered and unconfused”, and used the term ‘face’ to explain the duality in one Person45. Among those who ardently rejected the ideas of Nestorius was Cyril of Alexandria, who is ranked today as one of the finest theologians and greatest patristic writers of all generations; however, in his own time he was considered a heretic46. The solution to the controversy was finally produced by the Council of Ephesus, which became known as ‘communicatio idiomatum’ – the sharing of qualities between the human and the divine47. The concept stated that Christ has two natures, human and divine, which are completely distinct but do share properties – divine attributes within the human and vice versa48. The compromise, however, could not heal the discrepancies between Alexandria and Antioch, and by 450 AD, there was another flare-up of controversy, incited by a priest in Constantinople, Eutyches49. The Alexandrian school of thought, led by Cyril’s successor, Dioscorus, backed Eutyches and following the Pope of Rome’s refusal to join them against ‘communicatio idiomatum’, the Church was on the path of fragmented Christology50. Being convened by Emperor Marcian, the Council of Chalcedon – a city outside Constantinople – issued Definitio Fidei, a binding expression of faith in the duality of human and divine in the Person of Christ51. Thus, from Nicaea – where the idea of the Persons, or hypostatses, was introduced – through Ephesus, to Chalcedon, the Trinitarian concept, along with the concept of incarnation, underwent a great deal of philosophical reflection, and controversy52. In the second half of the thirteenth century AD, St Thomas Aquinas set forth the fitness of the incarnation and the mode of union of Word of God incarnate, as well as the consequences of that union53. The mystery of the incarnation is explained as God having united with the creature, without changing His state from the eternity; while the necessity for the incarnation is seen in the restoration of the human nature54. St Thomas Aquinas explains the mode of the union of the Word incarnate as “the Nature of the Word of God united flesh to Itself in Person”55. The Eastern Church considered the incarnation corresponding to deification; moreover, according to St Maximus both incarnation and deification mutually imply each other56. According to a Byzantine theologian of the 14th century, Nicholas Cabasilas, “the Lord allowed men, separated from God by the triple barrier of nature, sin and death… to be directly united to Him by the fact He has set aside each barrier in turn: that of nature by His incarnation, of sin by His death, and of death by His resurrection”57. St Maximus the Confessor held a doctrine as follows: since the union of two natures – divine and human – is thought to have been determined in the eternal council of God, as the final stage of the creation of the world, the incarnation would have taken place anyway in order to unite the created being and the divine nature into Oneself, whether or not the original sin had occurred58. In other words, Christ succeeded where Adam failed – through the birth of the Virgin, He suppressed the division of human nature, while on the cross He united paradise, or the dwelling place of men before the fall, and the terrestrial reality where the fallen descendants of the first Adam lived59. To put it in a nutshell, Christ, being regarded as the second Adam, “presents to the Father the totality of the universe restored to unity in Him, by uniting the created to the uncreated60. Alternative Views Michael Servetus believed that had the doctrines of the Church been reformed, it would have returned to the primitive, simple Christianity from the very beginning; thus Servetus is considered to have surpassed the radicalism of the Protestants of his time61. In that regard, he held the position that anything in theology not directly sourced in the Bible should be ignored, thus moving beyond the ecumenical creeds of Christianity62. He asserted that the Son is a manifestation of the One True God incarnate, since “They were initially Word, but now they are the Word made flesh, and the glory of God …is revealed and shown in the person of Jesus Christ”63; therefore, “Before the incarnation the Word, which was also the Logos and Elohim, were in shadow, barely understood by people”64. Kenotic Christological Theories on the Incarnation According to Davis, kenotic Christological theory is one that interprets the incarnation in terms of the Logos divesting itself of certain properties that as a rule belong to Divinity65. Kenotic Christological theories had been first proposed in the early nineteenth century, whereas kenotic notions could be found much earlier within the Christian tradition, and the scripture66. Among the explicit kenotic theologians should be distinguished Gottfried Thomasius (1802-1875), W. F. Gess (1819-1891), P.T. Forsyth (1848-1921), Charles Gore (1853-1932), etc.67 While some theorists consider such “divestment” to be temporary, i.e. corresponding to the time-span of the early life of Jesus, kenotic theories always stress the voluntary and redemptive aspect – it was performed out of love for the mankind and for the sake of human redemption68. Davis explains the incarnation modus operandi as follows – since, Christ has apparently properties of divine nature and other properties of human nature, as well as properties of both natures, He was both able to die as a human and unable to die as divine69. Conclusion Being a fundamental theological teaching, the incarnation concept, as closely related to the concept of Trinity, underwent heated debate over the centuries in order to establish whether or not Jesus Christ was divine and in what matter He relates to God70. However, as Davis points out, there is no escape from the fact that the notion of incarnation – whether orthodox, protestant, or alternative – is somehow paradoxical and impregnated with mystery, which cannot be removed, despite the efforts of Christian theology to provide coherent way of understanding incarnation71. Therefore, it should be accepted as it is - a voluntary and redemptive divine act, performed with the aim of human salvation. Bibliography Dibb, Andrew M. T. Servetus, Swedenborg and the Nature of God. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America Inc., 2005. Davis, Stephen T. Christian Philosophical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Self-Designation ‘The Son of Man’ and the Recognition of His Divinity”, in Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology, Vol.1: Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, edited by Michael C. Rea. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. by members of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. London: J. Clarke, 1957. O’Collins, Gerald, SJ. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1995, 2009. Rea, Michael C. “The Trinity” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, edited by Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. St Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c.296 – 373 AD). On the Incarnation, with an Introduction by C.S. Lewis, trans. and edit. by a Religious of C.S.M.V. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993. St Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros., 1947. The Rev. Keble, John, M.A., trans., Five Books of S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons: Against Heresies. Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1872. Brevard S. Childs. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1979. Brueggemann, Walter. “Unity and Dynamic in the Isaiah Tradition”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 9 (June 1984): 89-107 Hanson, Paul D. Interpretation: Isaiah 40-66. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1995. Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. Quinn-Miscall, Peter D. Reading Isaiah: Poetry and Vision. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998. Sawyer, John F.A. The Daily Study Bible Series: Isaiah, Vol.I. Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press and Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1984. Sawyer, John F.A. The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Souvay, Charles. “Isaias”, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910, accessed 25 June 2013, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm Read More