Rough notes on the Incarnation

Vancouver, BC

I am not an expert on the Incarnation, but the Incarnation, like theodicy, does deal with the nature of God. A pastor at church asked me for some notes for his upcoming sermon, so here goes. 

WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP. Colossians 2:9 'Bodily form' can be translated as actually or in solid reality. p.103. 

The Greek word theotes (Deity) is to be distinguished from theiotes (divinity). The term for divinity could be of a lesser being than God, and Jesus is called Deity. p.103. There is thus no need for Christian to pay homage to lesser supernatural beings. p.103. Christ is not a second Deity. p.103. 

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. Colossians 2:9 Mentions that Lightfoot thinks that the term bodily form refers to both the incarnate and glorified Christ. 

Others see fullness of Deity not being as much corporeally, but corporately. p.1456. There are of course three distinctions or persons within the Trinity, but if the first interpretation is correct, somehow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all work together within the incarnate and glorified body of Christ. Since God has one nature (Christ has nature of Father, Hebrews 1:3) even with the distinctions within the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, work together in all things including the literal body of Christ. 

MARTINS, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP. Philippians 2:6 Christ being in very nature God, refers to his pre-incarnate existence. p.100. Being in a form of God could mean the essential attributes of God. p.101. Concerning equality with God, one view is that the pre-incarnate God already had equality with God and chose not to cling to it. p.101.

Another view is that it that the pre-incarnate Christ could have claimed equality for himself but refused to do so. p.101. I would think that the first view is the Biblical one in light of Christ being the eternal word in John 1, and claiming the eternal nature and the name of God for himself in John 8:58 (I AM). Second view does not do justice to the Biblical text. p.101. Concerning something to be grasped at, one writer is quoted as saying that Christ existed in the unique position of having the divine rank or condition of being the unique image and glory of God, but chose not to oppose the Father. p.102. Perhaps although Christ was and is fully God, there was hierarchy in the Trinity before the Incarnation. Christ was proclaimed as being equal with God by accepting his position as the incarnated, humiliated one. p.103.

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. Philippians 2:6 The participle hyparchon, means that Christ was already in existence. p.1444. Christ was in very nature God and could not be Deity without being fully God. p.1444. Not grasping at equality was not concerning nature, but state and circumstance according to Gifford. p.1444. Christ would not exploit his Deity for his own advantage. p.1444. He was concerned instead with submitting to the will of his Father in order to complete the atoning work, resurrection and culmination of the Kingdom of God. 

Erickson, Millard J. (1994). Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. Implications of Christ’s Deity : We have real knowledge of God when we see Christ. p.703. Redemption is available through his death. p.703. God and humanity can be reunited. p.704. We can worship Christ. p.704. Implications of Christ’s humanity Jesus as a human had limited knowledge. p.711. Some heresies Docetism Jesus only seemed to be human, because matter is evil, influenced by Platonic thought. p.713. Apollinarianism Denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity. It assumed that if Jesus had two natures that he must have both a human soul and a divine one. He saw this as absurd and thus denied that Christ had a human soul. p.714. 

Erickson noted that orthodox, Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet was not two persons. In my mind this is a correct, yet difficult concept and Erickson admits that it is paradox. Jesus on the cross gave his spirit to the Father (John 19:30), so he possessed a human spirit and was fully human. My take is that in a sense there is one spirit that is a unity of both human and divine nature. It is one spirit that is a unity of two spirits, which do not mix yet work together as one place of personality. In the Incarnation, the divine nature of Christ was unified with a human spirit/nature. 

To say that Christ has two spirits or souls will perhaps lead some to the idea that Christ is two persons rather than one person with two natures. The human soul of Christ is unified with the divine soul of Christ, in such a way that the two natures do not mix, yet they work together as one spirit. Therefore when Christ died he did not give his spirits, but spirit. This one soul/spirit would allow Christ to be fully human, but without a sinful nature. 

So, Jesus as a human being would be like Adam before the fall. Sin would not have been within the nature of Christ, but it was not within Adam's nature before the fall either. Christ would have been tempted by sin as a human being, and if he would have been a perfect man alone he could have technically sinned. However, due to the fact the Christ was also God incarnate, and God cannot sin, I would conclude that Christ unlike Adam could not sin. 

THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. Christ did not empty himself of his divine attributes but simply surrendered the exercise of them. p.296. He quotes Strong who states that the incarnation purged depravity from Christ. p.305. He did not have a sinful nature. Concerning Christ nature as God and man, Theissen quotes Hodge who states that Christ’s personality resides in the divine nature, not the human one. A divine person and not just a divine nature became incarnate. p.305. 

REYMOND, R.L. (1996) 'Incarnation' in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. Essential that the divine Logos did not take himself into union with a human person, otherwise he would become two persons, with two centers of self-consciousness. p.556. 

HEBBLETHWAITE, BRIAN, 'Incarnation' in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press. Liberal. In modern times the doctrine of the Incarnation has been challenged by Unitarians, by deists of the enlightenment, and by liberal protestants. It is seen as mythical, and a barrier to other faiths in a pluralistic world. p.290-291.

Lecture and study notes

Lecture and study notes

FOUR VIEWS OF HELL-INTRO: Hell is a controversial topic; however it is a New Testament concept that cannot be ignored, so let us look at it both Biblically and theologically. Hell is often known as everlasting or eternal hell. According to Leon Morris, the Greek word aionion means eternal and everlasting. In regard to hell, Morris sees the idea as representing endless duration. According to Strong, aionios which is the same root word as previous, means perpetual, eternal, for ever and everlasting. According to John Walvoord, aionios usually means eternal, meaning without beginning or end, but can simply mean without end, which would be everlasting. I view God alone as being eternal, and do not view hell as part of his eternal nature, so I would conclude that hell is everlasting and not eternal. 

HELL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: The concept is not clearly explained in the Hebrew Bible. The key word describing hell is Sheol. According to Robert A. Peterson, and others, there is a debate whether or not Sheol simply means the grave or also a hell of everlasting punishment. From my reading, this debate was not conclusive for building an O.T. case for hell. Progressive revelation is the Biblical concept that the New Testament is a further, not contradictive, more comprehensive revelation than the Hebrew Bible. It would not be shocking if hell was only eluded to, or not mentioned, in the O.T. 

HELL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: Gehenna is one word used for hell. It represents the valley of death, and also the place of everlasting punishment. God is sovereign over Gehenna, and serves as punishment for those who reject God. There are several verses in the New Testament that use this word, such as Matthew 5:22 and 29. Sometimes the word for hell in the New Testament is Hades which is known as the grave, and where departed souls are located. This concept is seen by many to equal Old Testament Sheol. Hades, according to many including R.P. Lightner, is considered to define the intermediate state between death and future resurrection. 

In the New Testament, according to Paul, in 2 Corinthians. 5:8, departed Christians are in the presence of the Lord. They are not in Hades, as were Old Testament believers. Non-believers likely go to Hades, as is described in Luke 16, although this is a parable which some see as metaphorical only; and others see it not as metaphorical but representing an actual place out of our dimension. It appears that non-believers are resurrected and cast into the Lake of Fire, which is described in Revelation 20. The Lake of Fire, was quite possibly, another name for Gehenna. 

THE LITERAL VIEW-John F. Walvoord states that many theists who believe God is loving reject everlasting hell; however, he believes that Scripture clearly teaches everlasting punishment. He agrees that Sheol usually represents the grave in the Old Testament. However, he did explain that scholars such as Shed saw Sheol as equally Hades before the resurrection of Christ. In other words, Sheol/Hades would contain all the dead, some in the heaven part and some in the hell part. He quotes Psalm 73:24 as example of a verse that highlights the Old Testament idea of everlasting life. The writer of that verse is trusting God's council and expecting God to take them to glory, with God after death. Walvoord dealt with Jesus teaching on hell. In Matthew 5:29 and 30 Jesus talked about someone being cast into Gehenna, and in Matthew 22:33 he warned the Pharisees of hell. In Luke 12:47-48, Jesus warned of the degrees of punishment in hell. 

This seems to indicate something other than annihilation, but actual different degrees of suffering. Walvoord states Revelation 20 points out the devil, the beast and the false prophet, are thrown into the Lake of Fire along with unbelievers, and this is listed as going on forever and ever. Walvoord believes that the nature of sin against God is infinite, and thus it demands infinite punishment. I disagree and think that only God is infinite, but resurrected everlasting rebellion seemingly deserves everlasting punishment. 

THE METAPHORICAL VIEW- William V. Crockett suggests that his view is similar to that of John Calvin, and that eternal fire texts are better understood metaphorically. Crockett pointed out that metaphorical language was used throughout the New Testament, for example, heaven as a city was described in first century terms, a city surrounded by walls and gates. Today that type of metaphorical language would be obsolete. Crockett also pointed out that hell is described in places like Matthew 8:12, 2 Peter 2:17, and Jude 14 as a place of darkness. So if it were a literally fiery hell, it would not be a place of darkness. Crockett believes that hell is a place of everlasting punishment, but that it is described metaphorically in the New Testament. Crockett noted that Hades is a temporary resting place for the unsaved, until they are thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is Gehenna. 

THE PURGATORIAL VIEW - Zachary J. Hayes noted that the idea of purgatory was the interim period that attempted to explain what happens to people when they die. He stated that there is something incomplete about the situation about those who have died before the end of history, before the 2nd Advent and final judgment. The notion of purgatory is that everlasting destiny is decided at death as either heaven or hell, but not everyone seems bad enough for everlasting hell, and most do not seem good enough for heaven. Therefore, purgatory is a cleansing process postulated between death and the entrance into heaven. Hayes points out that Roman classic tradition, Christians never dealt solely with scripture for developing doctrine. So through years of reflection and experience, tradition could develop further doctrine such as purgatory. Hayes listed a verse from 2nd Maccabees Chapter 12:41-46. However, it is not accepted in the Protestant Canon or Hebrew Bible. For a New Testament example, he lists 1 Corinthians verse 3, and in 3:11-15 Paul states that there will be a day when each person's life works will be judged by fire, and Hayes suggests that it could be describing purgatory. 

However, contextually, final judgment seems to be the context, as Hayes submits many see it that was. In fact, Hayes admits that there is no clear textural proof of a doctrine of purgatory in scripture. Also, as Walvoord pointed out, the 1st Corinthians 3 discussion of things being burned up, could relate to rewards after judgment, and not one's salvation. 

THE CONDITIONAL VIEW - Clark H. Pinnock states that the traditional orthodox view of God torturing people forever is very disturbing and needs reconsideration. He favours annihilationism which allows the wicked to finally perish. Pinnock believes that terms such as everlasting punishment need not be taken to be endless torment, but rather can be defined as meaning a judgment which cannot be reversed, that leads to everlasting death. In his notes, that the concept of everlasting destruction in regard to sinners, is used throughout the New Testament such as in 2nd Thessalonians. 1:9 and Galatians 6:8, God states he will destroy the wicked. In 1st Corinthians 3:17, and Philippians 1:28, and also Romans 6:23 states that the wages of sin are death. Pinnock believes that the soul is not necessarily a mortal, but rather verses which describe soul in the New Testament, are not to be taken plain literally. Rather, human beings were created mortal and would only be immortal if resurrected by following Christ. He claims that Greek philosophy heavily influenced the Christian belief in the immortal soul. Pinnock argues that human sins are not infinite because they are committed against in infinite God, and I agree. However, sin can be everlasting and require everlasting punishment.

Pinnock suggests that evil would not be defeated if it existed in hell, and that a cosmic dualism would exist. This is a good point, however, for all intense and purposes, after final judgment, evil would no longer be a problem in God's creation as far as the universe and planet earth, which he originally created perfect and would be restored to that perfection without the problem of evil. Hell would simply be everlasting hell, and would be a special place designed for rebellion; it would not have a negative impact on God's original creation. Concerning Gehenna, as in Mark 9:48, Pinnock sees unquenchable fire as not being everlasting, but rather continuing until all the dead bodies are destroyed. This would not be everlasting punishment but would be everlasting death. He defined Luke 16:23-24 which describes Lazarus as a rich man, as metaphorical. 

Walvoord pointed out that Hebrews 9:27-28 notes a persons dies and then is judged. So the wicked exist, in his view, after death. He also points out that Revelation 20 shows people who, in Hades, being cast into the Lake of Fire, again showing that at least they exist as souls, if not soul and body. John Stott is noted to tentatively, and not dogmatically hold to an annihilationist position. He has four reasons according to Peterson. 

Firstly, the use of the word destruction in the NT is often used in regard to death, as in destruction. For example from John 3:16 those who will not believe in Christ will perish mention, everlasting hell. However, one must wonder why the Bible uses hell terminology which certainly confuses the issue, if there were no everlasting hell, and simply death. For those who will die outside of Christ, would it not be better to convey the idea of simple physical death as final judgment without facing God, or physical death, followed by judgment by God and then final death? The use of everlasting and for ever language certainly does not seem to simply convey death, although I admit that this is a possibility. Secondly, Stott views the use of the eternal fire imagery as pointing out that this will lead to the ultimate destruction of the dead outside of Christ, not their everlasting punishment. Thirdly, as did Pinnock, Stott thinks that everlasting hell is not just punishment for finite, temporal sin. However, as I pointed out in my MPhil and here tonight unbelievers whether existing in soul alone, or as it appears from Revelation 20, resurrected body and soul, will still willingly, and everlastingly reject God, and thus everlasting punishment would not be unjust. They had lived their lives apart from God, and the only reason they had experienced before their initial death, any peace and happiness at all was because God withheld his judgment in grace. Once the grace is removed and judgment proceeds, in my view hell is just punishment and an allowance by God of human beings to oppose God and live. God is a sense is lovingly allowing his creatures to freely, to some degree live apart from his rule forever, although they are being punished simultaneously. Fourthly, he shares Pinnock's concern that evil will not really be ultimately defeated if hell exists in some form. I think that annihilationism is philosophically reasonable, and Biblically possible, although the argument from Scripture for everlasting punishment seems stronger. As well, if annihilationism is true, and a non-believer does not face God after death, there seems to be a lack of justice. The sinner never is really faced with the trueness of his/her sin, and the foolishness of rejecting God. 

If one is annihilated after judgment facing God, one must wonder how God can make one sinner's punishment worse than another person's? Everlasting death would seemingly be equal punishment for all. Points from session and discussion: I mentioned that in philosophy and theology, infinite meant limitless and finite meant limited. My view was that only God is infinite, and that everlasting hell was finite. 

Howard stated, that in mathematics, infinite could mean without a beginning and end, or with a beginning and no end. Seemingly this was because numbers were both negative and positive in an unlimited way. I agreed with this math concept, but the theological answer to that point is that numbers were not real things. As finite beings we could grow in knowledge, but God was considered to have always existed and did not need to learn, as he was omniscient. Anything God would create, including creatures and hell would be finite and at best everlasting. 

Thanks Howard, good mathematical point, and I do have to be aware of how other disciplines use terms...Darren commented in regards to the metaphorical hell view that denied that flames and darkness could be together in a literal way as described in the Bible. He noted a scientific theory that black holes in space contained both heat and darkness. This meant that perhaps hell could have intense heat and darkness, and could be literal fire, and yet darkness as it is described in the Bible. I noted that it would take a different, supernatural type of fire to harm non-physical souls, or if unbelievers have bodies as Revelation 20 may indicate, resurrected bodies that may or may not be imperishable as the bodies of the saints will be. Thanks for the music, Darren.

CROCKET, WILLIAM (1992) Four Views On Hell, William Crocket (ed.),Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.