Thinking about Peter Enns' incarnational analogy has, coincidentally enough, got me thinking about the incarnation (you know the one I'm talking about). God didn't climactically, definitively, irrefutably reveal Himself as some otherworldly being; a majestic entity so far removed from humanity that its onlookers were forced to conclude that this must be God. No. God revealed Himself as a man. A Jew raised in Nazareth embodied the fullness of deity. Do you want to know what God is like? Look at Jesus. He is nothing less than God with us.
Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but the incarnation -- the enfleshment of God in the person of Jesus -- seems to me to be something many of us have a problem with. Not in the sense of not being able to fully wrap our minds around it, because lets face it, we're never going to solve such a mystery. The problem I think we have is more that it's rather offensive to our minds. It's like hearing that the inventor of the television is about to unveil the full power of his creativity and imagination on an unprecedented scale, only for him to come out from behind the curtain with a television, and one that looks pretty much like the others already available. We expect more from this brilliant inventor, and we certainly expect more from someone worthy of the title "God".
The humanity of Jesus certainly offended people of His day, some of whom were outraged at the way He talked and acted as if He were Jehovah Himself. They expected so much more from God, and so it is with many today who disbelieve, and dare I say, a few who do. To these (and I can include myself in the mix), Jesus' humanness is either proof that He ain't no God, or it is something not to be taken too seriously if one wants to think of Jesus as God. Some part of us (be it big or small) feels that the incarnation was inadequate as revelation, and we don't take Jesus at His word when He says that His disciples had seen the Creator simply by looking him.
Of course like all Christians I will affirm the incarnation, knowing that it was necessary for salvation. But this line of thinking makes it seem like what was going on in God's mind pre-incarnation was the following:
"Alright. So the humans have disobeyed me. The only way to sort this mess out is to die on their behalf, and I can only do that if I become human, so that's what I'm going to do. It won't be particularly God-like of me, but it's got to be done."
I don't know about you, but such thinking doesn't sit well with me.
What if, and bear with me on this, the incarnation was the most God-like thing to be done? What if becoming human was not only something God did out of necessity, but out of desire (and not only desire to save)? God's actions spring from Himself. He is not forced into action by any external system or law. To say God became man because it was necessary for our salvation is true, but does the truth go even deeper? And if so, does the incarnation begin to be less of a problem, less of an offense to our minds and hearts?
Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but the incarnation -- the enfleshment of God in the person of Jesus -- seems to me to be something many of us have a problem with. Not in the sense of not being able to fully wrap our minds around it, because lets face it, we're never going to solve such a mystery. The problem I think we have is more that it's rather offensive to our minds. It's like hearing that the inventor of the television is about to unveil the full power of his creativity and imagination on an unprecedented scale, only for him to come out from behind the curtain with a television, and one that looks pretty much like the others already available. We expect more from this brilliant inventor, and we certainly expect more from someone worthy of the title "God".
The humanity of Jesus certainly offended people of His day, some of whom were outraged at the way He talked and acted as if He were Jehovah Himself. They expected so much more from God, and so it is with many today who disbelieve, and dare I say, a few who do. To these (and I can include myself in the mix), Jesus' humanness is either proof that He ain't no God, or it is something not to be taken too seriously if one wants to think of Jesus as God. Some part of us (be it big or small) feels that the incarnation was inadequate as revelation, and we don't take Jesus at His word when He says that His disciples had seen the Creator simply by looking him.
Of course like all Christians I will affirm the incarnation, knowing that it was necessary for salvation. But this line of thinking makes it seem like what was going on in God's mind pre-incarnation was the following:
"Alright. So the humans have disobeyed me. The only way to sort this mess out is to die on their behalf, and I can only do that if I become human, so that's what I'm going to do. It won't be particularly God-like of me, but it's got to be done."
I don't know about you, but such thinking doesn't sit well with me.
What if, and bear with me on this, the incarnation was the most God-like thing to be done? What if becoming human was not only something God did out of necessity, but out of desire (and not only desire to save)? God's actions spring from Himself. He is not forced into action by any external system or law. To say God became man because it was necessary for our salvation is true, but does the truth go even deeper? And if so, does the incarnation begin to be less of a problem, less of an offense to our minds and hearts?
Discuss!
wow that is cool..we say it so quickly, "God became man", it sounds so simple, but in reality it is so so profound. It does offend the mind.. I like the Mesage translation where it says, "The Word became flesh and moved into the neighbourhood". That is really cool.
ReplyDelete