Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The meaning of the IncarnationGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The meaning of the Incarnation | Login/Join |
 |
With Christmas coming soon, I thought this would be a timely subject for us to reflect on together. I'm also aware that many Christians today have reservations about the claims made by the Church regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The faith of many has been weakened by such factors as: - emerging postmodern worldview - contact with other religions and the realization that God is present there as well; - liberal biblical scholarship like the Jesus Seminar; - modernity's emphasis on "proofs" and empirical knowledge as superior to religious faith; - teachings that promote a gnostic kind of Christianity as being what Jesus really taught; - poor theological formation of Christians; The list could go on . . . I'm guessing most people would be willing to say that Jesus was a good man, a moral teacher, a prophet, even a great and holy mystic. Christianity says as much, of course, but also much more: that He is the incarnate Son of God -- God manifesting in human form. No other religious tradition says this of its founder except, perhaps, Hinduism and its teachings about avatars. That's a whole other subject, however, although it can be part of what we discuss here as well. This Christmas we celebrate the Incarnation: that God became man through the consent of Mary, who conceived Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. We celebrate an "upgrade," as it were, to the fallen human nature we were all born with, thanks to Jesus, the New Adam, who brings together humanity and divinity in his own person, thus introducing divinity into human nature through his own sacred humanity and the gift of his Holy Spirit. We marvel at the amazing, incredible, good fortune that has come to the human race in Jesus. We proclaim him as Son of God and Son of Mary, for to say anything less about him would be to diminish the meaning of Christmas. ------ Points we might explore: - why Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus - can Jesus have a real human nature and still be divine? - how does the human nature of Jesus co-exist with his divinity? - low Christology vs. high Christology - heresies that distorted the meaning of the Incarnation - whatever else . . .  | ||
|
I was thinking about what you call an "upgrade" of human nature through the grace of the Incarnation, and I wondered if we can think about it historically - as the Church used to do. I mean - that people before the historical event of the Incarnation were in a far worse condition than people after the even of Christmas. The Biblical images suggest this, like in Isaiah - "the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light..." On the other hand, God is beyond time, so for Him there's no "waiting" for the Incarnation - the Incarnation happens in the "eternal now", but we, living in time, have a different perspective. Jesus suggested that Abraham rejoiced seeing Him, which for me always meant that the people before Jesus of Nazareth was born could still enjoy the grace of His Incarnation, because of its timeless dimension in God's eyes. Sometimes it is said that Jesus saved all the man of good will when He descended into the Abyss after death, but I can't image them "waiting" for Him in time... So I imagine the grace of Incarnation spreading from the night of Jesus' birth both forward and backward in time, just as it spread in all directions in space, East, West, North and South. But there must be a difference for us who live luckily after Jesus came into history, and people who lived before that, even though they could still participate in the event by spiritual "waiting" for it, consciously, like the Jews, or unconsciously, like other peoples. Aren't we all - in a way - always "waiting" for Him to Incarnate. Even in between the First Coming and the Last Coming, we can spiritually empathize with Abraham, Isaiah, and - in a certain fashion - the sages of India, China, Greece, and others - in our waiting for the transcendent God to come and become Emmanuel, God with us. During the Advent we wait for Him. But we can also rejoice in His real Coming during Christmas and Epiphany. They only expected something to happen, consciously or not; we know that IT HAPPENED, that they hope was fulfilled. So it means a lot to us, it means a lot to me, that I can live after Jesus and know Him, and love Him as a human being and God. But from the perspective of God - all of humanity is delivered by Jesus, before or after, near or far from Him. For the Word of God there wasn't any "time" when He wasn't Incarnate, because there's no time for Him. But for humanity there was a time, when He didn't walk among us. Jesus is a human face of God. Is it possible that this Face was somehow accessible to people before the event in Betlehem? When they loved their neighbour, gave food and drink to the starving and thirsty, didn't they unconsciously touch the Face of God-Human? Can we think of Bhagavadgita as a hunch that God can walk among us? Aldous Huxley called the birth of Jesus in Nazareth "a scandal of particularity" - but who is "particular". Certainly not our God who united with Himself all of fallen humanity. At the same time, we can think of those two teenagers, Joseph and Mary, barely understanding what happened to them, amazed, frightened, in the cave of Betlehem, looking at a Baby who was born, touching Him, caring about Him, thinking what does it all MEAN... | ||||
|
|
Yes, there are high mysteries to contemplate here, Mt. Clearly the Incarnation does have a grounding in human history -- a time and place when Jesus lived -- and yet the risen/ascended Christ is present to all of space and time. There is an historical before/after, and also an eternal dimension (we don't understand that part very well). It's not either/or; to separate one from the other or to emphasize one at the expense of the other would lead to some kind of theological error.
Yes indeed. That is precisely what Christian faith lays claim to.
This one's difficult to grasp, for sure. The human nature of Jesus comes to subsist in the Word at a particular time in history, and yet with the Word there is no before/after. That ancient teaching about Jesus descending to Sheol to preach to the souls of those who'd gone before is surely saying something about the "retro-active" dimension of his saving work. And after his Ascension, he is surely present to everyone who lives henceforth.
Sure, I think the Bhagavadgita is an expression of longing for something like the Incarnation. Re. "who is particular" - I'm not sure what you mean. God is not a particularlity, but Jesus surely was. During his time on earth between conception and resurrection, he occupied a definite place in space and time. Although his humanity subsisted completely in the Word, it does not follow that the Word's existence and presence was completely confined to Jesus. Later, after the ascension, Jesus takes on a cosmic presence with the Word "at the right hand of God." | |||
|
This year I'm particularly close to the beginning of the John's Gospel. I felt inspired to read it in Greek, and for two or three days I've carried it in my heart and reflect on that. What struck me today was the similarity of John's "En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon" with the beginning of Genesis: "En arche epoiesen ho theos ton ouranon kai ten gen...". Pretty obvious as it seems and seemed to ancient Christians it gave me an insight that the Incarnation is like a new Creation. I remember that Rahner beautifully described how all of the evolution subsists in Jesus Christ - from the smallest particles which were there "in the beginning", a living organism of a mammal, that developped emotions and rational thinking to the point that God could communicate through the "flesh" of Jesus. In Jesus of Nazareth exist and live billions of years of our universe, the miracle of life on the planet Earth, and the miracle of human existence - enspirited matter... So Jesus IS the whole universe in a small human being, "ho mikros kosmos" as the Greeks would say. It's almost as if God created the world anew, becoming a man. In the beginning - En arche... But in the beginning wasn't lifeless matter, random set of tiny particles - in the beginning was Logos - Intellect, Life, Light. So our end and our goal is already in the beginning, because our Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, Intellect as the source of existence and Intellect as the perfection and salvation of all irrationality and chaos we see daily and bring about to ourselves and others. This Intellect, this true living Light was in the world/universe as a human being and the world/universe doesn't know it, doesn't recognize it. "En to kosmo en..." - "It was in the world..." - I wonder why John didn't write "came" to the world, but "was" in the world? Laurence Freeman interprets this as a Zen-style joke that no-one recognized Logos in the world. I don't see much joke in that, rather a tragedy - even in a Greek sense of the word. "The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness didn't comprehend it". The darkness may refer to all of us when we don't see, don't recognize the shining Light in the world, we don't comprehend It. I realized also that I don't understand the importance of John the Baptist. I know the Orthodox Christians have a great reverence for him, they call him the Precursor, and he appears on a lot of Eastern icons. But who was he? Why was he so important that John puts him inside this marvelous passage on the new creation, inside this hymn about the Light? Jesus said there was no greater man that John the Baptist. Reading the Gospel I see an austere, severe man, I'd probably be afraid of... An ascetic. A prophet. He ate bugs and lived in the desert. I don't "get" him... John writes that the purpose of John was to make everyone believe that Jesus is the Light. Did he succeed? Does he do it for me in my life? Does he prepare the path in my life? Does he make me believe in Jesus? I don't know, I think not. The moment I can approach John the most is when he's not even born! When he moves in the womb of Elisabeth, moved by joy of recognizing the Light. The Light was in the womb of Mary, probably a size of a tip of a finger at the moment, and John, maybe 5 or 6 months in the womb already, was overflown by joy that the Light was there, made flesh. Perhaps that's John the Baptist I can get - the one who sees, who feels, who recognizes the Light when It's present in the world. Any thoughts on the Baptist? On the Incarnation as the new Creation? | ||||
|
|
Show off! 
Nice reflections, Mt. And of course I'm sure you're aware of the significance of John the Baptist as "harbinger" of the Messiah and the O.T. prophecies about that. God is not leaving proper introductions of the Messiah to chance.  - - - I have a few observations that were impressed on me in prayer this morning, and it that this Word we read about in John's Gospel became flesh (sarx in Greek, I believe -- no, I don't read Greek, but I do read the exegetes -- and that means literal flesh, the stuff that rots). There's no doubting that the Word is present to all creatures and that all religions have discovered some way to connect with the Word interiorly. We do the same in Christianity, and so, in that sense, we are just one of several examples of the "perennial philosophy." But that's not where the uniqueness of Christianity lies: we're not simply another (or even better) way to connect with God within. The Word became flesh: God takes on human flesh. We say this all the time, but I don't think we've begun to grasp the enormity of its implications. First, there's the revelatory aspect, that in Jesus we SEE God living and acting among us, and discover, in him, God's "character" and "attitudes" about a wide range of issues. No more need to guess about that or rely on vague intuitions borne of mystical experience. God is like Jesus, not the other way around. Another observation is that Jesus redeems the whole person, including the body. The body is an integral aspect of our humanity, and so it could very well be that there's still something metaphysically deficient in coming to a spiritual union with God that leaves the body out of it. That's always been the Church's objection to gnostic systems. But, if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. (Rm. 8: 11) Jesus saves us, body and soul, preserving the fullness of our humanity. His resurrection is not simply of the spirit, but of his flesh as well. In some mysterious way we do not understand, his very body came to subsist in his divinity so completely as to become thoroughly transparent to his divine nature. And yet his human nature is still there, even in the Trinity. He is forever Jesus, God and Man; he did not lose his body or his human nature with the resurrection and ascension. This is the paradigm for all who become deified through the gift of his Spirit; that our human nature will be transformed and we will be resurrected one day. Without a body, we are metaphysically deficient -- not even dumbed-down angels, but creatures empty and broken. We need a body to be fully human and God, through Jesus, has made provision for the full redemption of the body. There are implications here for Eucharist as well. You can be a mystic without the Eucharist, but God's saving grace through Christ is communicated to our bodies via the Eucharist in ways that surpass mystical experience. The Bread and Wine that we consume and which become part of our bodies is infused with his divine energy. Through Eucharist, we, too, incarnate the Word in a most literal manner. We are living tabernacles of the Real Presence. I will stop here with a busy day ahead. A Merry Christmas to all of you! Peace, Phil | |||
|
As perhaps a sort of confirmation of this, let me share with you: Just a several weeks after I became baptized in the Holy Spirit, I would go into various raptures with the Lord. One day while locked in a passionate Love embrace, the Lord said to me: “I am preparing a new body for you.” -------------------------------- I am moved with great tenderness for all you, dear people at Shalom Place. Thank you all for everything you share with me. Merry Christmas and a beautiful, God-filled new year. | ||||
|
This is no attempt on my part to be theologically correct, for I admit I will utterly fail a graded standard in that department. I speak with the voice of a poet and John is one person I felt I totally “got”…his voice…as I could identify with one calling out in the wilderness. For, as a child, I felt that wilderness inside of me…and reading John’s words, I heard them inside of me as, “Come, God, that we may see you and know you.” “Come, show us your love and kindness,” sort of thing. And I “anticipated” and “expected” that indeed “He” would come. I don’t see John as austere in some hard or harsh kind of way, but as one who knew the austerity under which mankind then lived (and indeed, still does)…the privations, the harsh oppression of that time. I see him as but ‘one’ voice that was ‘calling out for the many;’ as one who was in tune with the austere plight of the many, saying, “Come now and ready to receive the Spirit that will refresh your thirsty souls.” Wildernesses / Deserts are pathless and dry places and while John may have actually lived in the desert/verses the city, the aridity of God was everywhere then. I see John as the trumpeter, announcing, “Now, there comes the Light our souls have ached for.” “Now, there comes the Love of the God our hearts have longed to know.” When I read the language of John’s bug eating, I envision a mighty man with a mighty heart and spirit, courageous enough to stand and declare the arrival of Jesus. Kristi | ||||
|
Mt, Since you’ve asked … and for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on your post’s questions. *************************************************************************************** Mt wrote: “John writes that the purpose of John (The Baptist) was to make everyone believe that Jesus is the light. Did he succeed? Does he do it for me in my life? Does he prepare the path in my life? Does he make me believe in Jesus? I don’t know, I think not.” **************************************************************************************** Let’s break down your comment and questions as stated above and respond in steps. “Did he (the Baptist) succeed at making everyone believe that Jesus is the light?” (Methinks): Nope. But who says he had to? … Indeed, Jesus didn’t succeed in getting everyone to believe in Jesus either. Was John the Baptist a failure? Was Jesus a failure? Was the mission of either of them in any way dependent on man’s response? Or was their mission to do the will of the Father in obedience? I say the latter; and I say they both fulfilled their missions wonderfully -- even at the cost of both of their lives! The Baptist dedicated himself to the Lord fully; lived the prayerful and ascetic life you’ve mentioned and preached repentance and performed a baptism of repentance to the people of his day, in the days in which he lived, which were as we know the days of the first coming of Christ. Indeed, he was actively engaged in doing so when He encountered the Lord in a moment of recognition or insight as to who Jesus must be. …... In a similar though not exact way, we are all called to do the will of the Father in obedience during the days in which we live. Our missions are not exactly identical, but they are the same relative to living in obedience to the Father wherever He has placed us, and with the graces and gifts He gives us. ‘Does John the Baptist prepare the path in Mt’s life?’ (Methinks): Who says he has to? That’s not the Baptist’s role. He did his work in the time in which he lived. He is not a member of the church militant. He played his part in salvation history. These are the days for us to play our parts in salvation history. Hopefully we will perform with a reasonable fraction of the goodness and commitment that John manifested. ‘Does he (the Baptist) make Mt believe in Jesus? Does he (the Baptist) do it for Mt in Mt’s life?’ (Methinks): Only Mt can make Mt believe in Jesus. Its Mt’s free will that must be exercised in response to the revelation of Jesus that Mt has received. The parable of the sower bears on this. Each of us determines the kind of soil we are. ‘Mt doesn’t know if the Baptist makes him believe in Jesus, and thinks not‘. (Methinks): Mt probably wasn’t thinking correctly when he wrote that. It was the kind of clumsy thinking we can all fall prey to at times. ***************************************************************************************** Mt wrote: “ Any thoughts on the Baptist” ***************************************************************************************** Re thoughts on the Baptist (besides his being the greatest man that ever lived -- in Jesus’ opinion): 1. John the Baptist didn’t believe he was Elijah. When asked he said he wasn’t (Jn 1:21). Jesus said he was (Mt 11:14), others thought so too (Mk 6: 15). Now Jesus said so and others thought so, because the role that the Baptizer fulfilled was that of Elijah’s. (See also Mt 17: 12 &13; Mk 9:13;and Sir: 48: 9-12 & Lk 1:76). This being identified by the prophetic role one plays is kind of analogous, but in an opposite way, to being identified as an anti-Christ based on the role one might be playing at a given time based on one’s actions or teachings. 2. An Elijah figure will appear prior to the second coming of Christ, as well. Will he show up in a fiery chariot? TBD. But he didn’t show up in a fiery chariot at the first coming of Christ, so possibly he won’t come in a fiery chariot at the second coming -- maybe he’ll come in a fiery Vine. Jesus said he had come to set a fire on the earth. A Vine ablaze with ‘Maranatha!’ ‘Maranatha!’ might just extinguish any and all Antichrists with that Word from its mouth. My thoughts on the Baptist -- I think he was quite a dude. Certainly, he was a far better man than I, when it comes to dedication and commitment to God. I am already twice his age and nowhere near where he was in fidelity. Yet, how fortunate I am to have been grafted into the Vine; to be sharing in its sap. A blessing John the B never had going for him prior to his death. ***************************************************************************************** Mt wrote: “ Any thoughts on the Incarnation?” ***************************************************************************************** The Incarnation brought mankind access to Vine-life. How blessed we all are to have such access. Glory to God in the Highest! I’m not a scripture scholar of course, but those are my thoughts as a bible reader. Merry Christmas, Pop-pop | ||||
|
|
There's an approach to scripture going all the way back to Origen that emphasizes several senses of interpretation/understanding, one of which is a spiritual or mystical perspective. It would be interesting to consider John from that perspective, and I think Kristie is doing something like that. So we could ask: in the spiritual life, what does John represent? What are the implications for my own relationship with Jesus? Lots of fruitful reflection can come from this. ----- Returning, now, to a more direct reflection on the thread topic: here's a quote from the opening of the book of Hebrews that pretty much summarizes the faith of 1st C. Christians.
There's little doubt that the early Christians considered Jesus to be in possession of divinity in a manner that neither we nor even the angels possess it. But the question is, then, why did they believe this? The traditional answer is that Jesus' divinity was revealed by: a. the resurrection b. his miracles, especially over nature c. fulfillment of prophecies d. his promise to send the Spirit, then its fulfillment at Pentecost (only God can send the Holy Spirit; if you don't believe me, try doing so )Any one of these four would be strong evidence for his divine nature, but taken as a whole, they are all the more persuasive. I realize these affirmations are somewhat intellectual and "external," but they are nontheless important. It would not do to have his divinity based on a matter of subjective affirmation alone -- e.g., "Jesus is God for me." No, he is God whether for you or not. That's who he is. And so the Church insists on this objective affirmation as well, and points to these signs as proofs of his divinity. A problem in this day is the manner in which certain schools of biblical scholarship undermine our confidence in his having performed miracles. Even the resurrection is questioned by some. Then there is the postmodern complaint about these exclusive claims regarding Christ, for, if they are held to be true, then Jesus is indeed the definitive revelation of God and Christianity trumps the other world religions. Postmodernity scorns such hierarchies! All of which can leave the mind on shakey ground regarding the divinity of Christ--hence, the movement toward a primacy of subjective affirmation. That doesn't hold up very well in the spiritual life, however. | |||
|
|
I woke up this morning with a dream fresh in my memory. I had been riding in a car, arguing with some liberal professor about the nature of Christ, and he was telling me there's no difference -- Jesus just realized the God within better than the rest of us, maybe even better than anyone in history. He asked me to explain, then, the Christian understanding of the Incarnation in another way that would make more sense to him. My reply was a short and simple analogy: that Jesus is to the rest of us what wine is to grape juice. The grape juice is still there in the wine, though radically transformed, just as his human nature is present in his divinity. We, too, can become wine through the fermenting action of the Holy Spirit, but we're not born wine. We're born grape juice, and rotten vinegary stuff, at that. Jesus is born wine, but we must be fermented. I don't know if the prof. got it. Of course, he could have come back and said that the affirmation of Jesus as wine was a gratuitous assumption . . . Oh well! Fermentation is a good image of theosis, however, and Jesus as Wine has strong Eucharistic implications. It was a good dream. | |||
|
 |
It was a beautiful dream! Thank you. | |||
|
Sure was, Phil! Amazing that your intelligence works so well even in your sleep...and you just can't help but be a teacher! | ||||
|
I did not know that there might be a description (as in from Origen's time) of looking at scripture this way. This is something I do with all scripture I read. It has always been a natural way for me to relate to scripture, or any story. The characters/story sort of comes alive in me. I have a visceral experience. Phil, you wrote above: I understand the why of this and also the importance of the Church insisting on the objective proofs of Christ's divinity. But could you explain for me why the subjective "doesn't hold up very well in the spiritual life." Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by the "spiritual life." I have found the subjective experiences important for me because it makes the experience more personal, hence more real, to me. Kristi | ||||
|
Phil, I read your post just now, and I remembered I'd had a dream, too, about Jesus, few days ago, I guess. I don't remember the details, but I was traveling in a car, it was night, and I talked to someone, but don't know who. I discussed with this person the Orthodox idea of "perichoresis", the exchange of qualities between human and divine natures in the person of Jesus. I told him: "It's all mixed together, you know, human and divine, thanks to Jesus." I remember I was full of joy when I said that. Later I thought about this dream, and I think that by "all mixed together" I did't mean that divine and human blend, but rather than in our actual experience those two dimensions can be lived as if they were mixed. The closeness. Thomas Merton (in the "Inner Experience") says that the right understanding of Jesus is the key to right contemplation. Human and divine become one through the Person, but they are not the same. The same thing that in Jesus was essential, in us can happen through grace. But what a wonder is that?! Through theosis we will be persons who contain in themselves human and divine natures, "all mixed together" in our actual life. But since the only Person who unites those two natures is Jesus, we have to, in a sense, "become Jesus" or Jesus has to become our "center" in which we can experience the union of human and divine qualities. I don't think, of course, becoming Jesus is ontological, but the union of wills (and beings) becomes so powerful that experientially there is one Person possessing two natures. "Who joins with God is one spirit with Him", "No longer I live, but Christ lives in me" - point to that. But this mystery of our faith can be easily confused with New Age notions of innate divinity or annihilation of the human person. Perhaps, a safe thing to say is that it appears to us that "we are the Word" (as the point of hypostatic union), although we know by faith that we are ontologically different from Him, being humans. Kristi - if I may - perhaps "subjective" could be deceiving without an objective point of reference (the Revelation and the Tradition), because every experience is modified by our interpretation. An example would be Ruth Burrows who teaches that contemplation is a non-experience. She doesn't have mystical experiences and she knows a lot of holy people who don't have them either, so she interpreted this situation that mystical union with God must be something different from obvious, "felt" mystical experiences known to us from the tradition. | ||||
|
Hi Mt, Yes, you may, and thank you. Yes, I see where a subjective experience of of things may be deceiving - esp. if there were no objective reference for whatever is the inner experience an individual is having. We might call such a one delusional (or ascribe a deficient state of mental health to them) if we cannot see the causes of their experience. But I see any personal experience taken from an objective something and made part of a persons interior life as subjective. Once taken from the object and made part of the subject it becomes subjective, and perhaps even mystical in their experience, despite the fact that they may not have had what are commonly referred to as classical mystical experiences. So, I see spiritual life, as experienced by any one individual, as subjective, even though we may draw from the same more objective source. I agree with Ruth, pomp and light shows, are not a requirement to mystical experience/union with God. But I maintain that all experience in the individual is subjective and while I may see evidences of their inner life manifested in their behaviors, I cannot truly know any others' inner experience of God, even though we read the same Bible, worship the same God. Kristi | ||||
|
|
Here's what I wrote about subjective/objective affirmation of the Incarnation.
I bold-faced the term "alone" as that's the important qualifier. I wasn't meaning to say that the subjective is not important. - - - Mt, your point about the divine and human natures being "mixed together" is one I was hoping we'd get around to discussing. For many people, the image they have is of a layering, sort of like oil and water, I guess. The way I understand the principle of subsistence, however, is that Jesus' humanity subsists in his divinity in a manner analgous to our animal nature subsisting in our spiritual soul. We still have an animal nature, but it has become thoroughly spiritualized so that it now exists for the soul itself and manifests the spiritual qualities of the soul. Same goes for the body. Go up one ontological step and we have the humanity of Jesus existing for the divine person and revealing the qualities of the Son. I understand this to be happening without in any way interfering with the natural developmental needs of Jesus' human nature. You might say that Jesus, in his humanity, alwaysreveals divinity as fully as it is possible for him to do (to me, this simple statement reconciles the debates between the high and low christology arguments). So the little infant cannot reveal as much as the boy, who cannot reveal as much as the man, but each is definitely revealing divinity. The resurrection and ascension, then, would be the fullness of integration between his spiritual soul and divine nature: the cosmic Christ. | |||
|
Phil, I thank you for your comments on "subsistence". It really gave me an insight. Especially the analogy of the relationship between animal soul and human spirit on the one hand, and the relationship between human and divine in Christ and in the adopted children of God. It's a wonderful idea, because some aspects of our experience are truly "animal" - eating, drinking, defecating, sex, sleep, and the whole biological, hormonal dimension of our existence. If this is damaged, we cannot function spiritually or psychologically, so positivists think this is what we are - highly intelligent animals, nothing else. But when you look into it, eating, sex, hormons etc. it all has a very different quality in us, humans, because it is a means of expressing our immaterial spirit in the material world. Human sex from without seems similar to animal to some extent, the same with eating or sleeping, but, of course, I don't have to explain the difference to anyone... This helps me a lot to understand the humanity of Christ - how it is just like our humanity, but has an entirely different meaning, because it expresses the infinite Word. And - the most marvellous part! - through theosis we will come to share this miracle. Our human nature will be an expression of God's wisdom and love. Just as we are truly animals, but also totally above all animal nature, we can be truly humans, but also totally above human nature through the gift and work of the Holy Spirit. | ||||
|
|
Hey Mt. Yes, Yes and YES! Analogical reasoning can be helpful at times regarding these kinds of issues.And so we would say that the human nature of Jesus "constrains" the degree of divinity he is capable of experiencing and revealing in a manner analogous to how our human body and psyche constrain our experience and exercise of the spiritual soul. This isn't something we need to try to be free of, however, since our spiritual nature is suited to life in a body and finds its stimulation and action geared toward the body. Jesus had a human soul and so this was his situation as well. Additionally, we would say that his human nature was oriented to direction by the Son, Who had taken the lowly place of being constrained by a human nature. Kenosis! That said, there is really only one "I" in Jesus, to my understanding, and that is the Word itself. And yet, because Jesus did have a human soul and human nature, he also had a human psyche, reason, and even a human will, just as we do. We might even say that he had a Self and an Ego as we do, but we would quickly have to add that these all subsist in the Word and so reveal the Word on a psychological level. Just as our emotions and imagination (from our animal nature) are now windows into the spiritual soul and means of its exercise, so, too, Jesus' psyche, and spiritual soul are windows to his divine nature and the means by which he expresses. Acknowledging all this -- and especially how the human nature of Jesus constrains the full exercising of his divine power (until the resurrection and ascension, that is) -- we can affirm that Jesus really did experience human life as we do, though without sin. But even without sin, one still develops a cultural conditioning, including certain biases that aren't necessarily sinful per se, but which reinforce something of a mythic membership identity. Jesus was a Jew, for example, and not merely the divine Word pretending to act like a Jew. We see instances in the Gospel when he kept bumping into the boundaries of his Jewish conditioning, and it must have been a real struggle for him. None of that has anything to do with sin, unless one deliberately chooses the narrower conditioning at the expense of one's growth and to the detriment of others. Jesus never did this, but, then, his ontological situation was such that he could not sin. At this point I think I will just refer to Jim Arraj's chapter on "The Human Consciousness of Jesus" in his book, Mind Aflame, which is based on the theology of Emile Mersch, a very fine Thomist. - http://innerexplorations.com/catchtheomor/mind4.htm A short passage from it:
| |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The meaning of the Incarnation