Difference between revisions of "Incarnation"

<p> The word ‘incarnation’ is commonly used to denote the truth that [[God]] became a human being in the person of [[Jesus]] Christ. The word itself is not found in the Bible, but comes from a [[Latin]] word meaning ‘in flesh’. In relation to Jesus it means that, in him, God took a bodily form (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16). (For details see JESUS CHRIST, sub-heading ‘God in human form’.) </p>

<p> The act whereby the [[Son]] of [[God]] assumed the human nature; or the mystery by which [[Jesus]] Christ, the [[Eternal]] Word, was made man, in order to accomplish the work of our salvation. </p> <p> See NATIVITY, and Meldrum on the Incarnation. </p>

Acts 20:28Romans 8:321 Corinthians 2:8Hebrews 2:11-141 Timothy 3:16Galatians 4:4

<p> Definition of [[Doctrine]] [[Incarnation]] [Lat. incarnatio, being or taking flesh], while a biblical idea, is not a biblical term. Its [[Christian]] use derives from the [[Latin]] version of John 1:14 and appears repeatedly in Latin Christian authors from about A.D. 300 onward. </p> <p> As a biblical teaching, incarnation refers to the affirmation that God, in one of the modes of His existence as [[Trinity]] and without in any way ceasing to be the one God, has revealed Himself to humanity for its salvation by becoming human. Jesus, the Man from Nazareth, is the incarnate Word or [[Son]] of God, the focus of the God-human encounter. As the God-Man, He mediates [[God]] to humans; as the Man-God, He represents humans to God. By faith-union with Him, men and women, as adopted children of God, participate in His filial relation to God as Father. </p> <p> The [[Humanity]] of [[Jesus]] The angel of the Lord, in a prophecy of Jesus' birth, plainly stated the purpose of the incarnation: “[Mary] shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21; compare Luke 19:10; John 3:17; 1 Timothy 1:15 ). The liberation of humanity from everything that would prevent relationship with God as Father requires incarnation. The biblical materials related to incarnation, though not systematically arranged, portray Jesus as the One who accomplished the mission of salvation because He was the One in whom both full divinity and full humanity were present. </p> <p> Jesus referred to Himself as a man (John 8:40 ), and the witnesses in the New [[Testament]] recognized Him as fully human. (For example, Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost, declared that Jesus is “a man approved of God among you ,” Acts 2:22 ). That the Word was made flesh is the crux of the central passage on incarnation in the New Testament (John 1:14 ). The respective genealogies of Jesus serve as testimonies to His natural human descent (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-37 ). In addition, Jesus attributed to Himself such normal human elements as body and soul (Matthew 26:26 ,Matthew 26:26,26:28 ,Matthew 26:28,26:38 ). He grew and developed along the lines of normal human development (Luke 2:40 ). During His earthly ministry, Jesus displayed common physiological needs: He experienced fatigue (John 4:6 ); His body required sleep (Matthew 8:24 ), food (Matthew 4:2; Matthew 21:18 ), and water (John 19:28 ). Human emotional characteristics accompanied the physical ones: Jesus expressed joy (John 15:11 ) and sorrow (Matthew 26:37 ); He showed compassion (Matthew 9:36 ) and love (John 11:5 ); and He was moved to righteous indignation (Mark 3:5 ). </p> <p> A proper understanding of the events preceding and including His death requires an affirmation of His full humanity. In the garden, He prayed for emotional and physical strength to face the critical hours which lay ahead. He perspired as one under great physical strain (Luke 22:43-44 ). He died a real death (Mark 15:37; John 19:30 ). When a spear was thrust into His side, both blood and water poured from His body (John 19:34 ). Jesus thought of Himself as human, and those who witnessed His birth, maturation, ministry, and death experienced Him as fully human. </p> <p> Although Jesus was fully human in every sense of the word, His was a perfect humanity—distinct and unique. His miraculous conception highlights distinctiveness and originality of His humanity. Jesus was supernaturally conceived, being born of a virgin (Luke 1:26-35 ). To be sure, the [[Bible]] records other miraculous births such as those of [[Isaac]] (Genesis 21:1-2 ) and John the [[Baptist]] (Luke 1:57 ), but none attained to the miraculous heights of a human being supernaturally conceived and born of a virgin. </p> <p> The New Testament also attests to the sinless character of Jesus. He, Himself, asked the question, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8:46 ). [[Paul]] declared, God “made him to be sin for us who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21 ). The writer of Hebrews held that [[Christ]] was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15 ). The New Testament presents Jesus as a man, fully human, and as a unique man, the ideal human. </p> <p> The [[Deity]] of Jesus Paul, in a statement on the supremacy of Christ, asserted, “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” (Colossians 1:19; compare John 20:28; Titus 2:13 ). Jesus, was aware of His divine status (John 10:30; John 12:44-45; John 14:9 ). With the “I am” sayings, He equated Himself with the God who appeared to [[Moses]] in the burning bush (Exodus 3:14 ). The assertion of the New Testament is that Jesus was God (John 6:51; John 10:7 ,John 10:7,10:11; John 11:25; John 14:6; John 15:1; esp. John 8:58 ). </p> <p> The Bible affirms the preexistence of Jesus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2; see also John 1:15; John 8:58; John 17:5; Philippians 2:5-11 ). Jesus realized accomplishments and claimed authority ascribed only to divinity. He forgave sins (Matthew 9:6 ) and sent others to do His bidding, claiming all authority “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18-20 ). The central proclamation of the gospel is that He is the only way to eternal life, a status held by deity alone (John 3:36; John 14:6; compare Acts 4:12; Romans 10:9 ). The New Testament pictures Him as worthy of honor and worship due only to deity (John 5:23; Hebrews 1:6; Philippians 2:10-11; Revelation 5:12 ). He is the [[Agent]] of creation (John 1:3 ) and the [[Mediator]] of providence (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3 ). He raised the dead (John 11:43-44 ), healed the sick (John 9:6 ), and vanquished demons (Mark 5:13 ). He will effect the final resurrection of humanity either to judgment or to life (Matthew 25:31-32; John 5:27-29 ). </p> <p> The titles ascribed to Jesus provide conclusive evidence for the New Testament's estimate of His person as God. Jesus is “Lord” (Philippians 2:11 ), “Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15 ), “the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8 ), “the mediator” (Hebrews 12:24 ), and “who is over all, God blessed for ever” (Romans 9:5 ). In addition, the New Testament repeatedly couples the name “God” with Jesus (John 1:18; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20 ). </p> <p> Formulation of the Doctrine The problems of the incarnation begins with John's assertion, “the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14 ). [[Clear]] expression of the relation of the Word to the flesh, of divinity to humanity within the person of Jesus became a matter of major concern during the first five centuries of the Christian era. The unsystematized affirmations of the New Testament were refined through controversy, a process which culminated in the ecumenical councils of [[Nicaea]] (A.D. 325), [[Constantinople]] (A.D. 381), [[Ephesus]] (A.D. 431), and [[Chalcedon]] (A.D. 451). </p> <p> The [[Council]] of Nicaea marked the meeting of church representatives from throughout the Christian world. Its purpose was to settle the dispute over the teachings of Arius, a presbyter in the church of Alexandria. He taught a creature christology—that is, he denied the Son's eternal divinity. Against Arius, the council asserted that the Son was of one substance with the Father. Jesus was fully divine. </p> <p> The Council of Constantinople met to clarify and refute the christology of Apollinarius, [[Bishop]] of Laodicea. Apollinarius insisted that Jesus was a heavenly man dissimilar to earthly men. If a human is body, soul, and spirit, the bishop asserted that Jesus was a body, soul, and [[Logos]] [lit. “word”], a man not having a human spirit, or mind. Against this doctrine, the council affirmed the full humanity of Christ. </p> <p> The Council of Ephesus considered the marriage christology of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. He held that the union of the human and divine in Jesus was like the marriage of a husband and wife. As a result, the Council accused him of teaching that there were two separate persons in Christ. </p> <p> The Council of Chalcedon was perhaps the most significant church council for Christianity. It met in debate over the teaching of Eutyches, a monk from Constantinople. He denied that Jesus had two natures. This reaction against the christology of [[Nestorius]] prompted the council to express the incarnation of Jesus in terms of one person with two natures—human and divine. </p> <p> The mystery of the incarnation continues, and the statements of the first four councils of the Christian church preserve that mystery. Jesus, God incarnate, was one [[Person]] in two natures—fully divine and fully human. See Christ. </p> <p> [[Walter]] D. Draughon III </p>

<p> <strong> INCARNATION </strong> . It is a distinguishing feature of [[Christianity]] that it consists in faith in a person, [[Jesus]] Christ, and in faith or self-committal of such a character that faith in Him is understood to be faith in God. The fact on which the whole of the [[Christian]] religion depends is therefore the fact that Jesus [[Christ]] is both [[God]] and man. Assuming provisionally this fact to be true, or at least credible, this article will briefly examine the witness borne to it in the hooks of the OT and NT. </p> <p> <strong> 1. The [[Incarnation]] foreshadowed in the OT </strong> . [[Early]] religions have attempted to explain two things the existence and order of the universe, and the principles of conduct or morality. The Hebrews attained at an early period to a belief in God as the creator and sustainer of the universe, but their interest in metaphysic did not go beyond this. It is in their moral idea of God that we shall find anticipations of the Incarnation. ( <em> a </em> ) <em> The OT conception of man </em> . Man is made in the image of God ( [[Genesis]] 1:26; Genesis 9:6 ). Whatever may be the exact meaning of this expression, it appears to imply that man has a free and rational personality, and is destined for union with God. ( <em> b </em> ) <em> God reveals Himself to man </em> . A belief in the self-manifestation of God, through visions, dreams, the ministry of angels, the spirit of prophecy, and in the possibility of personal converse between God and man, is apparent upon every page of the OT. The ‘theophanies’ further suggest the possibility of the appearance of God in a human form. It is also remarkable that, although the sense of the holiness and transcendency of God grew with time, the [[Jews]] in the later periods did not shrink from strongly anthropomorphic expressions. ( <em> c </em> ) <em> Intimations of relationships in the [[Deity]] </em> . [[Without]] unduly pressing such particular points as the plural form of <em> [[Elohim]] </em> (God), or the triple repetition of the [[Divine]] name ( Isaiah 6:3 , Numbers 6:23 ), it may at least be said that the idea of God in [[Jewish]] monotheism is not a bare unit, and ‘can only be apprehended as that which involves diversity as well as unity.’ Moreover, the doctrine of the Divine [[Wisdom]] as set forth in the Books of Proverbs and Wisdom ( Proverbs 8:22 , Wis 7:23-25; Wis 8:1 etc.) personifies Wisdom almost to the point of ascribing to it separate existence. The doctrine was carried further by Philo, with assistance from [[Greek]] thought, and prepared the way for St. John’s conception of the Logos, the Word of God. ( <em> d </em> ) <em> The Messianic hope </em> . This was at its root an anticipation of the union of Divine and human attributes in a single personality (see Messiah). It developed along several distinct lines of thought and expectation, and it will be noted that these are not combined in the OT; but Christianity claims to supply the explanation and fulfilment of them all. </p> <p> <strong> 2. The fact of the Incarnation in the NT </strong> </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) <em> The humanity of Christ </em> . It is beyond dispute that Christ is represented in the NT as a man. He was born, indeed, under miraculous conditions, but of a human mother. He grew up with gradually developing powers ( Luke 2:52 ). The people among whom He lived for thirty years do not appear to have recognized anything extraordinary in Him ( Matthew 13:55 ). During the period of His life about which detailed information has been recorded, we read of ordinary physical and moral characteristics. He suffered weariness ( Mark 4:38 , John 4:6 ), hunger ( Matthew 4:2 ), thirst ( John 19:28 ); he died and was buried. He felt even strong emotions: wonder ( Mark 6:6 , Luke 7:9 ), compassion ( Mark 8:2 , Luke 7:13 ), joy ( Luke 10:21 ), anger ( Mark 8:12; Mark 10:14 ); He was deeply moved ( John 11:33 , Mark 14:33 ). He acquired information in the ordinary way ( Mark 6:38; Mark 9:21 , John 11:34 ). He was tempted ( Matthew 4:1-11 , Luke 22:28 ). And it may be further asserted with the utmost confidence, that neither in the [[Gospels]] nor in any other part of the NT is there the smallest support for a Docetic explanation of these facts (that is, for the theory that He only <em> seemed </em> to undergo the experiences narrated). ( <em> b </em> ) <em> The [[Divinity]] of Christ </em> . [[Side]] by side with this picture of perfect humanity there is an ever-present belief through all the NT writings that Christ was more than a man. From the evidential point of view the most important and unquestionable testimony to the early belief of His disciples is contained in St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, which are among the earliest books of the NT, and of the most undisputed genuineness. In these [[Epistles]] we find Jesus Christ ‘co-ordinated with God in the necessarily Divine functions, in a manner impossible to the mind of a Jewish monotheist like St. Paul, unless the co-ordinated person is really believed to belong to the properly Divine being.’ In the Gospels we have an account of how this belief arose. The Synoptic Gospels supply a simple narrative of fact in which we can mark the growing belief of the disciples; and the [[Fourth]] [[Gospel]] definitely marks stages of faith on the part of Christ’s adherents, and of hatred on the part of His enemies. The following points may be specially noted in the Gospels: </p> <p> (1) Extraordinary characteristics are constantly ascribed to Christ, not in themselves necessarily Divine, but certainly such as to distinguish Christ in a marked degree from other men. There is a personal influence of a very remarkable kind. This is naturally not described or dwelt upon, but every page of the Gospels testifies to its existence. The earliest record of Christ’s life is pre-eminently miraculous. In spite of economy and restraint of power, mighty works are represented as having been the natural, sometimes the almost involuntary, accompaniments of His ministrations. Two special miracles, the [[Resurrection]] and the Virgin-birth, are noticed separately below. He spoke with authority (Mark 7:29 ). He claimed to fulfil the Law a law recognized as Divine to be Lord of the Sabbath, and to give a new law to His disciples. In all His teaching there is an implicit claim to infallibility. In spite of His being subject to temptation, the possibility of moral failure is never entertained. There is nothing that marks Christ off from other men more than this. In all other good men the sense of sin becomes more acute with increasing holiness. In Christ it did not exist. The title of ‘Son of Man’ which He habitually used may have more meanings than one. But comparing the different connexions in which it is used, we can hardly escape the conclusion that Christ identifies Himself with the consummation and perfection of humanity. </p> <p> (2) He claimed to be the Messiah, summing up and uniting the different lines of expectation alluded to above. As has been pointed out, the Messianic hope included features both human and Divine; and although this was not recognized beforehand, it appears to us, looking back, that these expectations could not have been adequately satisfied except by the Incarnation. </p> <p> (3) Of some of the things mentioned above it might be a sufficient explanation to say, that Christ was a man endowed with exceptional powers and graces by God, and approved by mighty wonders and signs. But even in the Synoptic Gospels, which are for the most part pure narrative, there is more than this. In the claim to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2-6 ), to judge the world ( Mark 14:62-63 ), to reveal the will of the Father ( Matthew 11:27 ), in His commission to the [[Church]] ( Matthew 28:18-20 , Mark 16:15-18 , Luke 24:44-48 ), and above all, perhaps, in the claim of personal adhesion which He ever made on His disciples, He assumes a relationship to God which would not be possible to one who was not conscious of being more than man. </p> <p> (4) In the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, Christ plainly asserts His own pre-existence and His own essential relation to the Father. If these discourses represent even the substance of a side of Christ’s teaching (a point which must be assumed and not argued here), He explicitly bore witness to His eternal relation to the Father. </p> <p> (5) What crowned the faith of the disciples was the fact of the Resurrection. Their absolute belief in the reality of this fact swept away all doubts and misgivings. At first, no doubt, they were so much absorbed in the fact itself that they did not at once reason out all that it meant to their beliefs; and in teaching they had to adapt their message to the capacities of their hearers; but there can be no question about the place which the belief in the Resurrection took in determining their creed (see Jesus Christ, p. 458 a ). </p> <p> (6) One miracle recorded in the Gospels, the <strong> Virgin-birth </strong> , naturally did not form part of the first cycle of [[Apostolic]] teaching. The [[Apostles]] bore witness to their own experience and to the growth of their own faith, and they knew Jesus Christ first as a man. [[Apart]] from the evidence for the fact, it has seemed to most [[Christians]] in all ages that the idea of a new creative act is naturally associated with the occurrence of the Incarnation. </p> <p> <strong> 3. [[Purpose]] and results of the Incarnation </strong> </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) <em> [[Consummation]] of the universe and of humanity </em> . St. [[Paul]] ( Ephesians 1:10 ) speaks of the purpose of God ‘to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth’ (cf. Hebrews 2:10 ). This is a view which is not often explicitly dwelt upon in the Scriptures, but the idea appears to pervade the NT, and it is conspicuous in Eph., Col., and Hebrews. Christ is represented as fulfilling the purpose of humanity and therefore of the universe, as being its first and final cause, ‘for whom are all things, and through whom are all things.’ It is hardly necessary to point out that the modern teaching of evolution, if not anticipated by Christianity, at least adapts itself singularly well to the expression of this aspect of it. </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) <em> [[Supreme]] revelation of God </em> . Christians have always believed that even the material universe was destined ultimately to reveal God, and St. Paul appeals to the processes of nature as being an indication not only of the creative power, but also of the benevolence of God ( Acts 14:17 , cf. Romans 1:20 ). The OT is the history of a progressive revelation which is always looking forward to more perfect illumination, and the whole history of man is, according to the NT, the history of gradual enlightenment culminating in the Incarnation ( Hebrews 1:2 , John 14:9 , Colossians 1:14 ). </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) <em> [[Restoration]] of man </em> . It has been a common subject of speculation in the Church whether the Incarnation would have taken place if man had not sinned, and it must be recognized that to such a question no decisive answer can be given. As a fact the Incarnation was conditioned by the existence of man’s sin, and the restoration of man is constantly put forward as its purpose. Three special aspects of this work of restoration may be noticed. (1) Christ offers an example of perfect and sinless humanity: He is the unique example of man as God intended him to be. The ideal of the human race becomes actual in Him. His life was one of perfect obedience to the will of God ( Matthew 17:5 , Luke 3:22 , John 8:29 ). (2) He removed the barriers which sin had placed between man and his Creator. This work is invariably associated in the NT with His death and resurrection. It is described as an offering, a sacrifice, of Himself ( Hebrews 9:26 ), which takes away the sin of the world ( John 1:29 ). [[Many]] metaphors are used in the NT to describe the effect of His death and resurrection, such as redemption, which conveys the idea of a deliverance at a great cost from slavery; propitiation, or an act or process by which sin is neutralized; salvation, or bringing into a condition of health or safety; reconciliation with God, and remission of sin (see Atonement). (3) These two parts of Christ’s work for man were accomplished by His earthly life, death, and resurrection. But they do not comprise all that the Incarnation has done for the restoration of man. The completion of His work Christ left to His Church, the society which He founded, and in which He promised that He would dwell through the [[Holy]] Spirit. The Church, St. Paul says, is His body, living by His life and the instrument of His work. [[Thus]] the [[Kingdom]] of God which Christ brought to the earth, and which He constantly speaks of both as being already come and as still to come, is visibly represented in His Church, which is ‘the Kingdom of heaven in so far as it has already come, and prepares for the Kingdom as it is to come in glory.’ </p> <p> <strong> 4. Relation of the NT doctrine to that of the Councils </strong> . It has been seen above that the disciples knew our Lord first as a man, and that they advanced by degrees to a belief in His Divinity. Men educated in Jewish habits of thought would not readily apprehend in all its bearings the Christian idea of a [[Person]] who could be both God and man. It is therefore not surprising that there should be in the NT a diversity of treatment with regard to the question of the Person of Christ, and that it should he possible to recognize what may be called different levels of Christological belief. Before our Lord’s death the disciples had recognized Him as the Messiah, though with still very inadequate ideas as to the nature of the Messianic Kingdom which He was to set up. The Resurrection transformed this faith, and it naturally became the central point of their early teaching. The conception of Christ prominent in the earliest Apostolic age, and emphasized in the first part of the Acts and in the Epistles of 1Peter , James, and Jude, regards Him primarily as the Messiah, the glory of whose Person and mission has been proved by the Resurrection, who has been exalted to God’s right hand, and who will be judge of quick and dead. St. Paul in his earlier Epistles regards Christ’s Person more from the point of view of personal religion, as One who has bridged over the gulf which sin has caused between God and man, and in whom man’s desire for reconciliation with God finds satisfaction. St. Paul’s later Epistles, as well as the Ep. to the Hebrews and St. John’s Gospel, deal with the cosmological and mystical aspects of the Incarnation, and contain the most definite statements of the Divinity of Christ. </p> <p> It has been further maintained that the definitions of the doctrine made by the great Councils and embodied in the Creeds show an advance upon the doctrine contained in the NT. This was not, however, the view of those who drew up the definitions, for they invariably appealed to the NT writings as conclusive, and believed themselves to be only formulating beliefs which had always been held by the Church. The language of the definitions was undoubtedly to some extent new, but it has never been shown that the substance of the doctrine expressed by them in any respect goes beyond what has been represented above as the teaching of the NT. If the NT writers really believed, as has been maintained above, that Christ was a Person who was perfectly human and who was also Divine, there is nothing in the dogmatic decrees of the 4th and 5th centuries which asserts more than this. What these definitions do is to negative explanations which are inconsistent with these fundamental beliefs. It is not surprising that men found it difficult to grasp the perfect Divinity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ, and that attempts should have been made to explain away one side or other of the doctrine of the Incarnation. The attempt which met with the widest success, and most threatened the doctrine of the Church, was that of Arius, who taught that the [[Son]] of God was a created being, a sort of demi-god. This teaching found ready support and sympathy among men who had not shaken off pagan habits of thought, and in opposing it the Church was contending for a true Theism, which cannot endure the multiplication of objects of worship, no less than for Christianity. But although a word was used in the definition finally accepted, the celebrated <em> homoousion </em> ‘of one substance with the Father’ which was not used by any NT writer, it was used unwillingly, and only because other attempts to assert beyond the possibility of cavil the true Divinity of Christ had failed. Again, when the Divinity of Christ was fully accepted, the difficulty of believing the same Person to be both God and man led to attempts to explain away the perfect humanity. Apollinaris taught that the Word of God took the place of the human mind or spirit in Christ, as at a later period the [[Monothelites]] held that He had no human will; [[Nestorius]] practically denied an Incarnation, by holding that the Son of God and Jesus Christ were two separate persons, though united in a singular degree; [[Eutyches]] taught that the manhood in Christ was merged in the [[Godhead]] so as to lose its proper and distinct nature. These explanations contradicted in various ways the plain teaching of the Gospels that Christ was a truly human Person, and they were all decisively negatived by the Church in language which no doubt shows a distinct advance in theological thought, but without adding anything to the substance of the Apostolic doctrine. </p> <p> J. H. Maude. </p>

<p> See Christ, Christology. </p>

<p> (1): </p> <p> (n.) The union of the second person of the [[Godhead]] with manhood in Christ. </p> <p> (2): </p> <p> (n.) An incarnate form; a personification; a manifestation; a reduction to apparent from; a striking exemplification in person or act. </p> <p> (3): </p> <p> (n.) The act of clothing with flesh, or the state of being so clothed; the act of taking, or being manifested in, a human body and nature. </p> <p> (4): </p> <p> (n.) A rosy or red color; flesh color; carnation. </p> <p> (5): </p> <p> (n.) The process of healing wounds and filling the part with new flesh; granulation. </p>

<p> ''''' in ''''' - ''''' kar ''''' - ''''' nā´shun ''''' . See [[Person Of Christ]] . </p>