Questions 132-134, from Paul, United Kingdom

I have a few questions that I wondered if you could help on.

Question 132: The Bible tells us that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. How can this be true after the incarnation? When Christ returned to heaven surely he took with him a human nature that wasn’t present in the Godhead before. Doesn’t this suggest a change in God?

Question 133: During the incarnation, how can God not be affected by the fact that Jesus is not omnipresent and omniscient? Surely this causes problems for the trinity as although God is three in one, we cannot just divide him up and say that only one person of the trinity is affected.

Question 134: In Gethsemane, Christ prays to the Father saying “Yet not what I will but what you will.” But don’t they have the same will?

The Incarnation has been one of the key areas of Christian inquiry since the earliest Christian writers committed words to paper. Many of the issues raised in these questions have been grappled with over centuries, and in some respects, remain unanswered.
(more…)

Question from DN, United Kingdom

In Luke chapter 7, verse 9 it says that “Jesus was amazed.” How can Jesus be “amazed”? Jesus as God should know stuff about people and therefore not be surprised by them.

This is quite a complicated question to answer and has been since the earliest days of Christian theology. One of the big problems facing many early theologians was how to reconcile the assertion that the fullness of God was in Christ (to use Paul’s description in Colossians chapter 1, verse 19 and account for the ‘high’ Christology encountered in the first few verses of John’s gospel) with the obvious human-ness found in the gospel accounts. These thinkers wanted to avoid the idea that Jesus was only ‘pretending’ to be human (a heresy called docetism) and yet struggled with the idea that Jesus as God incarnate did not know some things, or felt physical pain and wept from the emotional pain of bereavement.

One solution is the ‘two-natures Christology’. This was the preferred formulation to arise from the huge doctrinal debates of the fourth and fifth centuries. By saying that Christ was both fully God and fully human, theologians could attribute the supernatural things to Christ’s divine nature, while the awkward bits could be assigned to his humanity. The central criticism of this approach, recognising that it still forms the basis of orthodox doctrine concerning the Incarnation, is that it splits Jesus down the middle and while it explains why he could be supernatural one minute and all-too-human the next, it does not adequately explain why he acted one way in one situation and a different way a few minutes later.

Another option, and one that has come into vogue in recent years, is ‘kenotic’ theology. This is based on the passage in Philippians chapter 2, where Paul describes Christ as ‘becoming nothing’ or ‘emptying himself’ (the Greek word is ‘kenosis’). This idea effectively explains why Jesus is so human, because the divine nature is somehow swapped for true humanity. The explanation within kenotic theology for the supernatural things Jesus did involves seeing Jesus as a ‘true human’ (in fact, the only real human being unmarred by sin since the prehistoric fall of man). As the ‘archetype’ of true humanity, Jesus is therefore in touch with God in a way that other human beings are not. Therefore it is only natural that God can work through him in supernatural ways. Those who follow him and are set free from sin are similarly ‘put in touch’ with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for your question, DN.

Recently freelance theology has received some questions/comments relating to the divinity of Christ.

One was from AL, Australia, who says:

For me, Christianity has little to do with Jesus, especially the fundamental Christianity of today.I also don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus and I cannot relate to ‘Christ’. He was a man with a message, and the message was the important thing. To me, he wasn’t a god, or son thereof, at least not any more than the rest of us are.

I ask this because it seems to me that they concentrate so much on the idea that he died for their sins and then was resurrected, that they’ve missed the point of the message (which is focused on you caring for others). What is the good of believing the former (which is rather selfish when you think about it because that idea is focussed on yourself, not others) if you then go to war against your neighbour, love and take care of yourself more than others, extol the benefits of greed and not taking care of the less fortunate? It seems to me that religion has increased the violence and darkness of the world, whereas the message of love that Jesus spoke of was supposed to decrease it.

Another, similar statement about Jesus’ divine nature was made by DL, United Kingdom:

Trouble is, I have already read loads and discussed for hours. But the more I learn the more I am convinced that God is not a trinity, and Jesus is not God. The options I’ve been given is that Jesus is either God or just a man. I don’t believe either of these notions. I do believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that he is sitting at God’s right hand as the bible says. In fact Jesus himself talks about “your God and my God”. The difficulty about all this is that there is no single question / answer which will convince me of a Jesus / God relationship that I believe was conceived by man some 400 years after Jesus death.

It’s the big question…
The study of the person of Christ is known in theology as ‘Christology’ and, broadly speaking, there are two types of approach. ‘High Christology’ emphasises the divinity of Christ, relating to those aspects of doctrine concerning Christ’s pre-existence, position as second person in the Trinity and installation at God’s right hand after the Ascension. In contrast, a ‘low Christology’ would reconstruct the historical life of Jesus, accentuate his human-ness and his identification with the rest of humanity.

There are some starting points to make. Firstly, Christian tradition has always stated that Jesus Christ is fully human (note the use of the present participle in that statement). The New Testament accounts show quite clearly that Jesus has a human body, a human mind and human emotions. People near him thought he was a man just like them, which is why he was rejected in his ‘home town’ of Nazareth (see Matthew chapter 13, verses 53-58). Above all that, he also experienced mortality. In short, he lived a human life and he died a human death.

However, to only state that would be to miss out the paradoxical fact that the New Testament, while affirming Jesus’ genuine humanity, also indicates that he was divine. This is much starker in the original Greek texts than in our English translations. In the opening line of Mark’s gospel, which is generally thought to be the earliest one written, the gospel writer describes Jesus as ‘uiou theou – literally ‘son of God’, a popular term in use among pagan worshippers of the Roman Emperor. From the outset, the gospel of Mark affirms the divine nature of Christ. There are seven passages in the New Testament that explicitly refer to Jesus using the Greek word for God, theos.

The word kyrios is also used, often translated as ‘Lord’ in English, and, again, carrying divine connotations as it was commonly used by Greek-speaking Jews instead of the divine name Yahweh and in the pagan cults for whichever god was being worshipped. There is also the designation ‘saviour’ (the word sote and derivatives) – an attribute that belonged solely to Yahweh in Jewish thought. As an action, God could only effect salvation in Greek neo-Platonist philosophy, so to be a saviour Jesus had to be divine. So, to both the Jewish communities and pagan Graeco-Roman culture, the use of these words would have been interpreted as statements regarding Jesus’ divine nature and would have been blasphemous to Jews and ridiculous to ‘gentiles’.

Secondly, the comment from AL regarding an emphasis on personal salvation at the expense of Jesus’ ethical and moral teaching is a legitimate concern and well worth raising. The point of the Incarnation, i.e. God becoming human, is often distilled to something that had to happen in order for an adequate substitutionary sacrifice to occur that would cancel out human sin and restore the original relationship between God and human beings. What is forgotten is that, in his earthly life, Jesus acts as a role model and template of what humanity should be like.

The thought that any ‘ordinary man’ could also be divine might seem “unbelievable”. However, Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner comments: “Only someone who forgets that the essence of Man is to be unbounded… can suppose that it is impossible for there to be a man who, precisely by being man in the fullest sense (which we can never attain) is God’s existence into the world.” [Quoted in John Macquarrie, Stubborn Theological Questions, SCM 2003, pp135-6]. Christians would assert that Jesus was a perfect example of what humanity was supposed to be and, while admittedly this necessitates a certain amount of faith to say, therefore led a sinless life. It follows that his sinless life should act as a guideline to Christians.

The thing is, though, Christian theology (and human experience) would point to the fact that human beings generally lead sinful lives. The emphasis on personal salvation is heavily influenced by modernity’s obsessive individualism, which naturally means it becomes all about the individual concerned. Yet that does not negate the fact that a way has to be found to mimic the authentic, “unbound” human life of Christ. Something has to effect that change.

The transformation comes, in Christian theology, through accepting that Jesus Christ’s death in some way atoned for the sins of human beings. That has always been the central claim of the Christian message, although the actual mechanics of how Christ’s death works to do this is still a matter of intense debate. A Christian might respond to AL’s comment by arguing that it is impossible to live the way Jesus lived without accepting that his death atoned for sin. ‘Salvation’ is therefore a rediscovery of true humanity (frequently described in the Bible as the ‘image of God’).

Christology is a huge area to study and the above comments are really only a starting point. In response to some of the specific comments made, it’s worth saying the following:

DL’s statement about the “Jesus / God relationship that I believe was conceived by man some 400 years after Jesus death,” indicates a common misunderstanding concerning the development of Christian doctrine. It is true that the ‘final word’ on the confusing paradox about how Jesus can be both divine and human at the same time was made at a council of theologians and church leaders in a place called Chalcedon in AD451. The ‘Chalcedonian definition’ of the ‘one person in two natures’ is highly technical in its language and description. However, those present at Chalcedon regarded themselves as trying to find a way to describe the historical communicated truth of the gospels and the earliest Christians. They would not have seen the product of that Church Council as something new in content.

AL’s comment that Jesus was “a man with a message, and the message was the important thing” is also slightly simplistic. The implications of many passages in the New Testament is not just that Jesus had something to say, but that he was, himself, a message. His very life was a message. The Gospel of John says that “In him was life and that life was the light of men” (chapter 1, verse 3), which would seem to indicate that Jesus had an exemplary role that went beyond just ethical teaching. The gospels are all written after the resurrection event, so naturally there is an element of hindsight at work. A large percentage of each gospel account is taken up with the final days of Jesus’ life; death and resurrection – indicating how important his followers thought those events were. Jesus’ actual teaching takes up far less of the gospel accounts. The important thing to the writers lies in what happened to Jesus, which means any view of Jesus as solely an ethical teacher ignores the priorities of the first followers of Jesus.

However, that said, AL’s posed question: “Why don’t Christian churches actually practice and teach their followers the true importance of following the social teachings of love and compassion of Jesus?” relates to the question of which Christological model is followed. The inherent danger in many fundamentalist churches is that they concentrate on doctrinal correctness and spiritual purity, which relate, in a sense, to a ‘high’, supernatural interpretation of Christ, ignoring the ‘low’, human revelation of the Jesus who is both compassionate and prophetic, concerned for the poor and the excluded and calling for justice. The particular excesses of fundamentalism, which, for example, in America has aligned ‘Christianity’ with Neo-Conservative, pro-war, pro-multinational corporation politics, are not solely due to this view of Christ. It has as much to do with that particular form of Christianity being firmly wedded to modernity and the institutions, governmental or otherwise, thereof.

The challenge for Christians is to recognise both natures at work in Christ – the ‘unbound’, sinless human life that we seek to emulate and the divine life that empowers us to do so. To that end, faith is a necessary part of any recognition; faith not only in Jesus as a man, but also as God Incarnate.

Question from MF, USA

Why do we speak of three persons or incarnations of God, when the OT cites numerous different and separate incarnations of God between Creation and Christ? I.e., as the voice speaking to Abraham, the burning bush, as angels, and so on. Each time this happened, God needed in some way to be “incarnated” to be seen and heard in the physical realm. Why do we distinguish between these incarnations and the life of Jesus?

This is a very technical question and it helps to understand that theological terms tend to be very precise in their usage. The Christian concept of the Trinity is ‘God in three persons’, not three incarnations. The Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity (the eternally begotten Son) as Jesus the carpenter from Nazareth, meant that God became a human being, i.e. took on a body. The phrase from the prologue of John’s gospel ‘the Word became flesh’ sums up the idea of ‘incarnation’. ‘Incarnation’ means ‘in flesh’, from the Latin word ‘caro’ (‘flesh’).

In theological terms, the other ways in which people ‘meet God’, e.g. through a disembodied voice or a voice heard through a burning bush, or in a dream are known as ‘theophanies’, from the Greek words ‘theos’ (God) and ‘phainein’ (to show or reveal). In those instances in the Old Testament where humans interacted with God in His own nature (e.g. Adam in Eden, Moses on Sinai, the high priest in the Holy of Holies in the Temple), there is no mention of God having a physical body.

Thanks for your question, MF.

Freelance theology is dedicated to answering every theological query, but obviously some of the answers encourage further questions. Here is one such dialogue between Jon the freelance theologian and MM, United Kingdom.

MM wrote
I have just read your response to the question posted about the ‘eternal gulf’, as experienced by CM in relation to their Muslim friend. It was good to read an independent and serious Christian opinion on this, but I feel you have made one crucial mistake. Referring to the Incarnation of Jesus, you describe the claims surrounding it as ‘incredible’; whilst this may be understood as an expression of awe, in literal terms the word chosen means ‘not able to be believed’. As you have explained the root of the word ‘creed[s]‘ in your response to the question ‘What does the Bible say about the Trinity?’, it seems a shame to use the word in a way that could trip up a pedantic reader, or one who does not accept the truth of the Incarnation.

Jon the freelance theologian responded
There is a reference within the context of the article (‘Uncommon Ground’) to how the Islamic comprehension of God allows no possibility for the Incarnation: “The claim that Jesus is the “Son of God” is nonsensical to a Muslim, because the Qur’anic view of God is absolutely monotheistic.” In this sense, something that Christians take for granted is ‘beyond belief’ for a Muslim.

Even within Christianity, the Incarnation remains a difficult concept to grasp, involving as it does various paradoxical statements. Most theologians would eventually admit that a certain amount of faith comes into play once the spheres of reasoned argument and historical study come to an end. Technically, ‘incredible’ means ‘hard to believe or imagine’, and can be used informally to mean ‘marvellous or amazing’ (Collins English Dictionary). All of those definitions can be applied to the Incarnation.

Original questions or comments on previous posts are welcomed – just write to freelance theology.

Question from PM, United Kingdom

What does ‘Begotten not created’ mean?

To understand this phrase from the Nicene Creed (that also appears in the carol ‘O Come All Ye Faithful’) we have to understand the theological background to the Council of Nicea in AD 325.

At this time Christianity was the newly established official religion of the Roman Empire and as a result a huge amount of philosophical and other religious ideas were impinging on the Church. One such idea was the exclusive monotheism that became known as Arianism, named after the figurehead leader of the movement Arius.

Broadly speaking Arianism regarded God the Father as the one God, with Jesus the first created being, created specifically as a means to create the rest of the world. Jesus was given the ‘honorific’ title of ‘Son’ because he was the first created being and ‘through him all things were made’.

This obviously caused problems because if salvation came through God alone and Jesus was a created being, then Jesus could not have been the means of salvation for the world. Theologians who recognised this and wanted to assert that Jesus was the means that humanity was saved, and therefore that Jesus was in fact God, had to be careful not to seem to be proclaiming a dualist of polytheist viewpoint (that is they somehow had to avoid making it sound like there were two or more Gods).

The arguments came to a head at the Council of Nicea. Two key themes were included in the creed to specifically counter Arianism. Firstly that the Son was begotten, not created, so Jesus was not a part of the created order and shared the divine nature with his Father. This ‘begetting’ was seen as an eternal process, sot here was never a time when the Father existed alone. Secondly the word ‘homo-ousios’ was used. Literally this means ‘of the same stuff’, i.e. Jesus was, in his eternal nature, no less God than God the Father.

‘Begotten not made’ remains a very important part of Christian theology because it gives us an insight into the relational nature of the Godhead. In the first few centuries, while these theological debates raged, ‘homo-ousious’ became the benchmark word. If you accepted the Son was the same stuff as the Father, then you were orthodox. If you did not then you were a heretic.

Question from JM, United Kingdom (again)

“Did Jesus know he was God? If so, at what stage?”

Jesus’ self-awareness seems to have been quite high from the beginning of his ministry. In John’s Gospel he is announced as ‘the Lamb of God’ by John the Baptist (chapter 1 vs29-34) and in Matthew, Mark and Luke proclaimed as ‘the Christ – the chosen one of God’ by Peter. In Luke chapter 4 he starts off his public ministry claiming to be the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophetic statement regarding the ‘anointed one’ (Messiah).

Whether Jesus regarded himself as the Son of God, as has been stated in Christian theology ever since, we simply do not know. The gospels are not tell-all autobiographies or even objective studies of the man Jesus. People who knew Jesus and were convinced that he was the Son of God wrote the books.

Jesus often described himself using the phrase ‘Son of Man’, but then he also referred to God as Father and implied that his will and the Father’s will were inseparable (e.g. see John 5 v19). If Jesus was aware of his own divinity at this point, he was also constrained by his humanity. In the gospels he is weak, fearful, hungry, tired (napping during a serious storm on the Sea of Galilee for example) and he frequently asks questions. He is hardly the all-knowing, all-powerful God that Christians claim that he is.

This duality of natures, divine and human co-existing caused a number of theological headaches in the early Christian debates. It was common for the aspects of Christ’s life that revealed his limitations to be ascribed to his human nature, while the miracles and other inexplicable things to be ascribed to the divine nature.

Another, and neater, explanation of this is found in ‘kenotic theology’. ‘Kenosis’ is a Greek word literally meaning ‘self-emptying’ and is used in Philippians chapter 2. According to kenotic theology, the second person in the Trinity, the eternally begotten Son, surrendered his divine status in order to live a fully human limited life. The ‘divine activities’ of the Incarnate Son have been explained, e.g. by John Wimber, as the human Jesus acting in the power of the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.

Pre-resurrection, Jesus must have known he was different. As an empowered human working in close conjunction with the Holy Spirit to carry out the Father’s will, he discouraged people from calling him the messiah as he knew they had an inadequate earth-bound view of messiah-ship. After the resurrection he had resumed his rightful place at the right hand of the Father and his followers were left in no doubt as to who he really was.

In between, there was still room for doubt. “Will you leave too?” he asks his disciples (John 6 v67). He prays that a different path could be shown to him (Luke 22 v42). And on the cross he cries out in abandonment (Matthew 27 v46). It was only after the resurrection that all doubts ceased, including those of his followers.