A Defense of The Incarnate Christ

By Robert Von Schriltz Revised: October 17, 2011 In The Incarnate Christ, I developed a theory of the trinity and a one-nature theory of the person of Christ. I also compared and contrasted the proposed one-nature theory with the orthodox two-nature theory. In the end, I left it up to the reader to decide which solution is better based on how each solution interprets selected biblical passages relating to the incarnate Christs knowledge. In this short article I take a more apologetic approach. My goal is to show that the proposed solution began at the right place, goes in the right direction, and arrives at the right destination. Decision, Direction, and Destination Is there one main thing that accounts for the difference between the orthodox solution and the proposed solution? I believe that the difference between the orthodox solution and the proposed solution is based on a critical decision that was made early in theological development. This decision determined a direction and ultimately the destination of each theological quest to define the person of Christ. This decision is the rudder that steers the ship. 1. Decision The authors of the orthodox solution saw the deity of Jesus Christ throughout the New Testament, and this observation raised a thorny problem. The deity of the Father and the Son conflicts with the existing idea of monotheism: there is only one God. To resolve this problem, they chose to begin with the how question: how is God defined? This question was the beginning of a long journey to define the inner being of God. The authors of the orthodox solution used the biblical evidence as the building blocks of their theory, but they also borrowed from philosophy. They concluded that God is three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of one substance (i.e., a single, unitary essence). The decision to use the word substance makes sense in light of their background. They came from an environment saturated in Greek thought, an environment where speculation in metaphysical matters was commonplace. Thus they chose to define God using categories and terminology that made sense to them. This is understandable . . . but not necessarily the best decision. The proposed solution does not address the how question. I made no effort to define the inner being of God. Instead, I chose to begin with the where question: where is God found? This is a very biblical starting point. It is well grounded in Old Testament scripture. The Old Testament places a great deal of importance and emphasis on where God is found. God is in the wilderness. God is on the mountain. God is in a burning bush. God is in the tabernacle. God is in the temple. Sure, the Old Testament writers believed that God is everywhere, but they also believed that his special presence is located somewhere, and this somewhere is the best place to meet with God. The New Testament continues this theme. In fact, it is central. The New Testament shows where the perfect manifestation of Gods presence may be found: God is in Christ. Christ is the

A Defense of The Incarnate Christ

antitype of all earlier types. Thus the proposed solution begins with a major theme of the Old and New Testament. 2. Direction The authors of the orthodox solution chose to speculate on the inner being of God. They defined the one true God as three persons of one substance. Furthermore, since each person of the trinity is God, they surmised that each person must have a divine nature with all divine attributes. Attributes are defined as characteristics or qualities that define God as God. Typical attributes of God are omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. The proponents of this theory believe that this concept of God reflects the way things truly are, and the way things have always been. This trinitarian God was present in the Old Testament, though admittedly veiled. With this new concept of God, the light has been switched on to reveal what was unknown to the people of the old covenant. The one true God of the Old Testament was in fact a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus the authors of the orthodox solution moved in a backwards direction. They redefined God, and read their concept of God back into the Old Testament. The end result was a new form of monotheism. You can address the where question without creating a new form of monotheism. This is the approach I took. I believe that the monotheism of the Old Testament was adopted by the writers of the New Testament. This is a solid position. Most of the New Testament writers were Jews, and their creed was etched in their minds since childhood: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Deut. 6:4, NIV). The God they knew had a single personality, with one mind, one will, and one emotional center. No one in the first century would have questioned this. Jewish monotheism professes one true God called Father. To all Jews, both then and now, Jewish monotheism is not negotiable, and I believe they are right. I constructed a theory of the trinity and the person of Christ without sacrificing this truth. In the end, I believe that I too constructed a theory of the trinity that switched on the light and revealed truth hidden in ages past, but I did so by moving in a forward direction. I adopted a concept of God that was taught in the Old Testament and professed by all first-century Jews, and I built upon this belief. 3. Destination The authors of the orthodox solution began with the how question; and this decision ultimately determined the destination. The new trinitarian concept of God had a direct impact on Christology. Jesus divine nature and divine attributes must be squared with the all-to-human Jesus found on the pages of Scripture. After a great deal of theological debate, the majority affirmed both the divinity and humanity of Jesus. Jesus is fully God and fully man. As God, he has a divine nature with all divine attributes. As man, he has a human nature with all human attributes. Furthermore, the early church theologians surmised that both natures exist within Jesus without confusion and mixture. His divine nature and human nature always operate in harmony with one another. The operation of either nature is attributed to the same person, Jesus Christ. Admittedly, if you begin with the how question, the orthodox two-nature theory is the best conclusion. But this solution comes with a price; it sets deity against humanity, casting them in mutually exclusive categories. Thus we are left with a God-man with conflicting

A Defense of The Incarnate Christ

attributes he is short on knowledge yet all-knowing, limited in power yet all-powerful, localized in presence yet present everywhere, etc. I did not choose to answer the how question, and therefore I was not forced to conclude that Christ has two natures. I was also not forced to conclude that divine nature and human nature belong to mutually exclusive categories. Instead, I adopted the Jewish concept of God and set out to find him. The teachings of Jesus and Paul led me to the same place: God is in Christ. To flesh out this truth, I developed a one-nature theory of the incarnate Christ. Like all men and women, Christ is a conditional unity of inner-man and outer-man. His outer-man is a physical body, while his inner-man is a divine personality. Since divine personality was the pattern for human personality, his divine personality is a natural substitute for human personality. Christ was an authentic human being who experienced life like we do. Yet Christs personality is anything but common. His personality is uniquely set apart and infinitely superior to human personality. While he walked among us, his divine personality allowed him to manifest the fullness of God in and through himself. He was a living tabernacle with the flap pulled back. Those who had eyes to see (i.e., spiritual discernment) could look inside and see God, both God present and God at work. Closing Comments The concept of God is the centerpiece of any religion. In fact, it defines a religion. To change the God is to change the religion. The authors of the orthodox solution chose to begin with the how question: how is God defined? This choice led to a new concept of God: God is three persons of one substance. When the existing Jewish concept of God was replaced with a trinitarian concept of God, the chord that links Christianity to her past was severed. A new religion was born. This quest ends at a place called Replacement. On the other hand, I chose to begin with the where question: where is God found? The proposed solution begins with the existing concept of God. I embraced the concept of God that was the norm for all first-century Jews, and then sought to understand this God as he is revealed in Jesus Christ. The chord that links Christianity to her past is in place and holding strong. Yet, the old faith is renewed and clarified. This quest ends at a place called Fulfillment. The New Testament was written in Greek, but it is not about a Greek messiah or written by Greek philosophers. To interpret the divine titles applied to Jesus as statements about his own deity who he is in and of himself is to throw the New Testament context out the window. Jesus and Paul were thoroughly Jewish in thought and deed. Anything they said must be consistent with a first-century Jewish worldview. When Philip asked Jesus to show them the Father, Jesus said, Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9, NIV). Jesus was not dabbling in Greek metaphysics, and Philip wasnt interested in such things. Every devout Jew longs to be with God like an expectant bride, so Jesus points Philip to the perfect tabernacle where the full manifestation of the Fathers presence may be found, a manifestation so complete that the vessel was labeled with the contents of the vessel. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (Col. 2:9, NIV).

A Defense of The Incarnate Christ

Reflection The orthodox solution and the proposed solution are firmly planted in different worldviews. The proposed solution was consciously centered on a Hebrew worldview. When I say Hebrew worldview, I am referring to a Hebrew mindset and way of thinking about God. To the Hebrew mind, God is understood through revelation. Thus God is not what we imagine him to be, but what he has revealed himself to be. To the Hebrew mind, the goal is not to define God, for he has already revealed who he is by how he has revealed himself to his people through actual historical events. But the goal is to find God and worship him appropriately, both as an individual worshiper and as a faith community. Furthermore, the Hebrew mind is thoroughly committed to Jewish monotheism, to the belief in one true God called Father. This is how God revealed himself to the Hebrew people. This is how God is and will always be to the faithful Jew. To the Hebrew mind, Jewish monotheism is not negotiable. It is a fact that does not change under any and all circumstances. On the other hand, the orthodox solution, which was developed by second and third century Western thinking theologians, is centered on a Greek worldview. The Greek way of thinking has its roots in Greek philosophy. The Greek mind seeks to understand God through learning and logic. The Greek mind is not committed to Jewish monotheism. Jewish monotheism is a revelation of God given to the Jewish people, but it is not necessarily the final word on God proper. Thus the old Jewish form of monotheism is subject to modification as learning and logic dictate. The Greek mind believes that through study it is possible to define the inner being of God, at least as far as language and human weakness can allow. The Greek mind is also open to the possibility that philosophy can help fill in the gaps left behind by biblical revelation. As I discussed earlier, the early church theologians began with the deity of Jesus, and then sought to define God in light of this revelation. This approach is not a possibility for a Jew, for Jewish monotheism is an unalterable fact firmly established by earlier revelation passed down from their ancestors. Why did so many great Christian theologians Augustine, Luther, and Calvin to name a few accept the orthodox doctrine of the trinity and the two-nature theory as the best solution? The answer is simple: they all accepted the Greek paradigm as valid. They all accepted, to a greater or lesser degree, the idea that it is possible through learning and logic to define the inner being of God. Thus, to all who accept the Greek paradigm, a single God with three personalities or three modes of being is within the realm of possibilities and a reasonable extension of the biblical revelation. I too believe that, if you accept the Greek paradigm as valid, the orthodox theory of God and by extension the two-nature theory is the best solution. Within this context, all theories outside of the orthodox solution inevitably fall into one of several early church heresies. Millard Erickson makes the following keen observation: There are basically six [heresies], and all of them appeared within the first four Christian centuries. . . . they either deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Jesus deity, deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of his humanity, divide his person (Nestorianism), or confuse his natures (Eutychianism). Every departure from the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ is simply a variation of one of these heresies (Introducing Christian Doctrine,

A Defense of The Incarnate Christ

second edition [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001], p. 240). For the most part, the majority of the early church theologians both those who accepted the orthodox solution and those who did not accepted the Greek paradigm as valid. Consequently, within the confines of the Greek paradigm, it is not surprising that the orthodox two-nature theory won the day and all alternatives were rejected and rightly so. However, I also believe that the Greek paradigm is not the proper lens through which to view and interpret the biblical evidence. For, unlike orthodox theologians who believe that defining the inner being of God is a reasonable step forward in theological development, I believe it is a wishful leap to a ledge that is far out of reach. Once cut loose from Jewish monotheism, theological development will drift in the murky sea of manmade philosophy. The end result is speculation and self-contradiction. To borrow the word essence from philosophy and define Gods inner being as such is to submit to captivity through hollow and deceptive philosophy, something Paul warned us about (Col. 2:8, NIV). I believe that when it comes to God, the Hebrew paradigm is the only valid context to understand God, for it is the context in which the God of the Bible has revealed himself. There is nothing more we can do to further lift the veil that hides Gods inner being. To go further is to risk worshiping a God of our own creation, and thus be guilty of idolatry. Jewish monotheism is the anchor that grounds all theology in the one true God revealed in the Bible. To be Biblical, we should be as committed to Jewish monotheism as the biblical writers. If I am right, and the church should not have rejected Jewish monotheism, the church needs to turn around and get back on the right track. Such a change in direction would greatly impact contemporary Christianity: new educational material, new faith statements of Christian schools and churches, and so on. However, the biggest impact of this new direction concerns the relationship between the Christian community and other faiths, namely the Jewish faith and Muslim faith. If I am right, we have set up an artificial barrier to faith, preventing both Jews and Muslims from seeing the real Jesus of the Bible and wrestling with the real message he came to deliver. Both groups have been right all along in rejecting the orthodox definition of God: one God with three personalities. But I do not believe that this makes it easier for members of these faiths to accept Jesus. After the easy out provided by bad theology is removed, both groups must still wrestle with the demands of the gospel. Of course, what I am proposing will take a huge amount of humility, for admitting you are wrong is never easy, especially when your mistake has resulted in the needless suffering of so many Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Thankfully, Gods grace is sufficient to overcome such hardship and enable the church to emerge victorious on the other side.