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.