120. I. Doctrine Of The Incarnation.

I. Doctrine Of The Incarnation.

1. Ground of the Person of Christ.—When we speak of the personality of Christ we have in view, not that of the unincarnate Son, nor that of a man simply, but the unique personality which arises from a union of the divine nature with the human. Only in this union could there be such a person as Christ. He is God m his divine nature and man in his human nature, but in personality he is the God-man. Hence the incarnation of divinity in humanity is the necessary ground of such a personality. The necessary union of the two natures is possible only in the mode of a divine incarnation. The divine nature is eternal, while the human originated in time. The divine was therefore eternally before the human. Hence the union of the two in the person of Christ must have been an event in time. The divine Son did incarnate himself in human nature, or did take the nature of man into personal union with himself; and this union is the ground of the unique personality of Christ.

2. The Incarnation a Truth of Scripture.—A few appropriate texts will suffice for the setting forth of this truth. Those that we shall use are more or less familiar to students of theology, and, therefore, need not be formally cited.

We begin with the words of St. John (John 1:1-3; John 1:14). The Word was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, by whom all things were made. The Word must be a personal being, for only a personal being can be the subject of such predications. Also, he must be a divine being. The predications are as conclusive of divinity as of personality. He who was in the beginning, and the creator of all things, must possess the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, and, therefore, must be God. Accordingly, the text declares that the Word was God. Then, in the fourteenth verse, it is declared that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us—made flesh, not by transmutation of his nature into a body of flesh, but by the incarnation of himself in the nature of man. The words “and dwelt among us” forcibly mean such an incarnation. Then this same verse clearly identifies the Word with the Son of God: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

We have a great Christological text from St. Paul (Php 2:6-8). Three facts are specially noted: Christ in the form of God; Christ in equality with God; Christ in the likeness of men. These facts contain the truth of a divine incarnation. “Who, being in the form of God”—ός έν μορφή Θεοϋ ύπάρχων. Mostly, these words have been interpreted to mean an existence in the nature of God. Such a sense of μορφή is fully warranted by its use; and such must be its meaning here; or, at least, the words together must mean an existence in possession of the divine perfections. Such, for the most part, has been their interpretation since the time when the great questions of Christology first came into formal discussion. They are still so interpreted by some of the ablest expositors. “Though μορφή is not the same as φύσις or ούσία, yet the possession of the μορφή involves participation in the ούσία also; for μορφή implies not the external accidents, but the essential attributes” (Lightfoot: Philippians, in loc).

Only with such a sense of μορφή—form—can the several parts of the text be brought into harmony. The pre-existence of Christ in the form of God is clearly the ground of his rightful claim to an equality with God—τό είναι ίσα Θεώ. Wherein equal? Not in divine perfection, for that would identify the object of his claim with its ground; but equal in estate, in the glory which he had with the Father. Only the possession of divine perfection could be the ground of a rightful claim to such an equality with God. Thus these two facts come into harmony, and each interprets the other. With these facts in possession, other facts of the text are easily interpreted. The equality of estate with God and the form of a servant in the likeness of men appear in their proper antithesis, while the Son freely surrenders the former and accepts the latter instead. “Being made in the likeness of men” and “being found in fashion as a man” can mean nothing less or other than the assumption and possession of a human nature. Thus we have the truth of a divine incarnation. In another passage St. Paul clearly gives the same truth (Colossians 1:13-17). Here the facts are presented in an order reverse to that observed in the texts already noticed, but none the less definitely on that account. The subject of the text is the Son, “in whom we have redemption through his blood.” The blood means the Son’s possession of a body like our own. Then the facts which follow in the same text are conclusive of his true and essential divinity. This was shown before in treating the works of the Son as the proof of his divinity. No text in the Scriptures more clearly or surely expresses the work of a divine creation: “For by him—the Son through whose blood we have redemption—were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, principalities or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” The divine Son, thus proved to be truly and essentially divine, must have incarnated himself in our nature before he could redeem us with his blood.

“God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). This is the explicit truth of the divine incarnation. No reason of doubt whether θεός belongs to the original text can affect its meaning respecting the incarnation. It is the divine Son who was manifest in the flesh. This is determined by the facts which immediately follow: “Justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” The truth of the divinity of the Son is in no sense dependent upon the genuineness of θεός in this text. His divinity has the most thorough proof in the Scriptures, and the text now in hand clearly and definitely asserts his incarnation. The Epistle to the Hebrews is replete with Christological facts. Among these is the incarnation of the divine Son. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same” (Hebrews 2:14). This text is central to others which fully determine its meaning. The divinity of the Son is clearly given in the first chapter of this epistle. He is the maker of worlds and the upholder of all things by the word of his power. He is Lord of the angels and the object of their supreme worship. In the beginning he laid the foundation of the earth and framed the heavens; and while they shall wax old and perish he is the same, and his years fail not (Hebrews 1:2-3; Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 1:10-12). This is the divine Son who incarnated himself in the nature of man. Therein he was made a little lower than the angels, that through death he might redeem mankind. Thus he entered into brotherhood with men in the assumption of their nature, that by his own death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them, who through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage (Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 2:11; Hebrews 2:14-15). This is the truth of a divine incarnation.

3. Incarnation of the Personal Son.—The full truth of the incarnation is not contained in the notion of a union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature. The subject of the incarnation was not a mere nature, but a person—the personal Son. The divine nature is common to the persons of the Trinity; therefore any limitation of the incarnation to the divine nature would deny to the Son any distinct or peculiar part therein. This would contradict the most open and uniform sense of Scripture. The Father and the Holy Spirit had no such part in the incarnation as the Son. Nor could any union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature give the profound truth and reality of the incarnation. It could mean nothing for the unique personality of the Christ; nothing for the reality and sufficiency of the atonement. The Scriptures are most explicit respecting the incarnation of the personal Son. We have already seen this in the great texts of the incarnation, and it may suffice for the present point that we recall a part of them. In the statement of the first text it was the Word that was made flesh and dwelt among us; but in the same text the Word is identified with the divine Son (John 1:14). In the next it is the Son through whose blood we have redemption and remission of sins, the Son who created all things (Colossians 1:13-16). This must mean the incarnation of the personal Son. This same truth is clearly given in the texts of the incarnation, which we found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Again, it is the Son who created all worlds, who is Lord of the angels and the object of their supreme worship, that was made a little lower than the angels by an incarnation in which he assumed a body of flesh and blood (Hebrews 1, 2).

We have specially noted this fact of the incarnation for the reason of its relation to the person of the Christ. There is an intimate, even a determining relation of the one to the other. Christ could not be a wholly new personality, because the personality of the Son could not be suspended or neutralized by the incarnation. His true and essential divinity forbids the notion of any such result. The personality of the Son, as verified to himself in the facts of his own consciousness, must forever abide. The immutability of the Son in his essential being and in his personal attributes affirms this truth. Therein lies the ground of the immutability of Christ: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). With all his mutations of estate, he is eternally the same, because he is the incarnate Son. The personality of the Son must forever abide.

What, then, is the result of the incarnation in the personality of the Son? Not a new personality, but a modified personality—modified by the possession of new facts of consciousness. The reality of the incarnation will not allow us to stop short of this result. We here face a profound question, but shall find a more appropriate place for its discussion. Any question which involves the reality of the incarnation must be profound. Respecting these new facts of consciousness many questions of difficulty and doubt might readily be asked. How could the divine Son come into the possession of new facts of consciousness? No definite answer may be given as to the mode, but surely the possibility lies in the fact that he is a person, with the ceaseless exercise of a personal agency. What are the new facts of consciousness? Such as came to him through the human nature assumed in the incarnation. What could the incarnation mean, or what could be its reality, without such result? Not else could there be a union of the two natures in a personal oneness; not else the unique personality of the Christ; not else the God-man.