Skip to main content

Does the Incarnation Denote a Change in God?


An objection that has been raised against the doctrine of divine immutability pertains to the Incarnation.[1] It seems that the Second Person of the Trinity taking on human flesh represents a change in God. But does it? This is an age-old question, which the fathers of the Church noted and addressed. Taking on humanity does not denote a change in the being of God; rather, in the Incarnation, divinity takes on—not converts to—a human nature (a real being) becoming the person of Jesus Christ. According to Chalcedonian Christology,

the one and the same Christ is to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.[2]

The precise language of the incarnation protects the divine essence from corruption but also the human nature from deification.[3] If God’s nature changed with the mixture of humanity, then God would no longer be God. The eternal nature of God cannot become an immortal substance, which a mixing of humanity with divinity would produce (a mutation) and is a violation of scriptural teaching. To use Thomistic language, the Incarnation must be a supposit,[4] a substantial union in the one Person. It cannot be an accidental union, where the human nature of Christ is something superadded to the Logos. “It must really be God who is man and man that God is.”[5] The Word enfleshed, as Oliver Crisp carefully articulates, is “an essentially incorporeal being that has assumed [assumptio carnis] a human nature that includes a corporeal body. . . . [The Word] is the one entity in whom humanity and divinity are united personally as parts of one composite whole that comprises Christ.”[6]

While there is a stream in contemporary theology that places a strong emphasis on God as relational with humanity (in a manner where the being of God can undergo change),[7] assuming it must be an ontological relation would be disastrous. While those who challenge this doctrine claim it on exegetical grounds, as Richard Muller notes, the issue is actually metaphysical. Contemporary theology has ontological options to choose from.[8] Classical hermeneutics favors the practice of interpreting difficult texts in light of simpler ones. John 1:14, then, does not stand on its own; rather, the verbs of 1 Timothy 3:16, “manifested” and 1 John 4:2, “has come,” provide a more nuanced, rather, a fuller, interpretation of the act of the incarnation. Pinnock, and contemporary mutabilists, have chosen, arbitrarily, a Hegelian ontology, from which the grounding principle of becoming is then assumed when “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14, emphasis added). Therefore, the ontological “swap,” rather than a misstep in exegesis, produces the contradiction.[9]

For the Incarnation to fulfill God’s purposes in redemption, the God-Man must remain separate in nature. If the being of God could fully experience and participate in humanity as man qua man, then the Incarnation is superfluous; it is not needed. The mystery of the Incarnation is that the person of Jesus Christ is true flesh and true God. And the eternal Logos, through whom and for whom all things were made (Col 1:16–17), has always functioned as the mediator incarnandus (i.e., a revealed person of the divine God-head) between God and Israel (e.g., Gen 19; Judg 6:11, 12, 20–22; 7:5, 9).[10] But, in the NT, the Word is then incarnatus; the Word becomes (incarnatio) the divine-human person of Jesus Christ, in the carrying out of his will in time, with the change manifesting, not in God, rather, in the relationship between God and man, in and through the incarnation.[11]

—Romans 11:36

__________________________________
[1] For example, Clark Pinnock raised this objection forty years ago, as his chief example of God’s ability to change. See, “The Need for a Scriptural, and Therefore a Neo-Classical Theism,” in Kenneth Kantzer and Stanley Gundry, Perspectives on Evangelical Theology: Papers from the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, (Baker, 1979), 40. The force of this objection has clout due to Barth’s critique of the language of immutability being primarily philosophical instead of theological or scriptural. However, as Richard Muller points out, Barth’s preference for the language of “constancy” rather than immutability does not “propose a changing God.” Richard A. Muller, “Incarnation, Immutability, and the Case for Classical Theism,” The Westminster Theological Journal 45, no. 1 (1983): 26. Muller goes on to note that Barth’s (and thus Pinnock’s) challenge to the doctrine of immutability that it ascribes immobility in God is a mistaken implication. Immobility in scholastic thought denotes a being that has not been brought into existence by another being; it has no bearing on the stasis of the Divine Essence. Muller,
Incarnation, 27.
[2] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations, vol. 2 (Harper & Brothers, 1890), 62. The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Art. VIII, Sec. 8.2, on the person of Christ, states, “Two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without converting one into the other or mixing them together to produce a different or blended nature.” Stan Reeves, The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Modern English (Founders Press, 2017).
[3] I am not referring to the doctrine of theosis; rather, I am talking about the human nature becoming ontologically consumed by deity.
[4] A supposit is the subsistence of a complete nature that exists and really acts. It is an individual subsisting of that nature. See, Joseph Owens, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics, Reprint edition (Houston, TX: Center for Thomistic Studies, 1985) 151–54.
[5] Thomas Weinandy, Does God Change?, First edition. (Still River, MA: St. Bede’s Press, 2002), 83.
[6] Oliver D. Crisp, The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 165. Assumptio carnis, the assumption of the flesh, is the traditional term used to articulate the Word became flesh, rather than the contemporary articulation of divine becoming, where the Logos needs the incarnation as a step forward toward completeness, his self-realization.
[7] Those who place a greater emphasis on the relational element of God denote that the change in God is moral not ontological; however, the classical position on the being and essence of God is that his morality is inextricably connected to his divine essence (i.e., God is his attributes), thus any change would in fact be an ontological change.
[8] Muller,
Incarnation, 34.
[9] Ibid., 34–5.
[10] John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2.13.10.
[11] See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 1st ed. (Baker Book House, 2006), 152–3.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

    John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus   One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’.   Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Clement of Alexandria: Nuances of the Classical God

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) was the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (c. 190), and the teacher of Origen. Concerned that Christianity is not seen as an unsophisticated religion, Clement sought to reconcile his faith with the best of Greek philosophy, specifically in the usefulness of Middle Platonism.[1] He believed that the kernels of truth found in Plato and Greek Philosophy were preparatory for the Gentiles in leading them to Christ, just as the Law was a guide or guardian for the Hebrews. Clement’s esoteric exegesis and speculative theology emphasized a higher knowledge, but this knowledge was obtained only through the Logos.

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Origen: How is the Son the Invisible Image of the Invisible God?

Early Church Father Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), considered the “greatest theological luminary of his age,” [1] his prolific writings amassed to some six thousand works. While his exegetical contribution to the formulation of Christian doctrine greatly shaped the theology of the fourth century, he is also a controversial fellow. Nevertheless, it is important that when we read such figures writing theology in the nascent stages of the Christian Faith, we must do our best to keep them in their context—to prevent hasty anathematizing. We have the privilege of 1900 years of theological development to stand on, passed on to us through toil, tears, and even death. Anyway...   I have been studying Origen’s writings, particularly his First Principles ( De Principiis) , and came across a wonderful insight that illuminated my thinking on Christ as the image of God. I am working on a doctrine of God course. Below is an excerpt from my lecture material. So, we are going to drop right i

“A New Heaven and New Earth” ~ A (Partial) Preterist Reading of Isaiah 65:17–25

When God says he will create a new heaven and a new earth, what will this new heaven and earth be like? Is it describing an obliteration of the material world, with a new material heaven and earth to follow? Early Church Father Jerome did not see a destruction of the elements; instead, he saw newness , a change into something better. Commenting on this passage, he writes, “The Apostle Paul said, ‘for the form of this world is perishing’ [1Co 7:31]. Notice that he said ‘form,’ not ‘substance.’”[1] Thomas Aquinas sees the new heavens and earth to be “the restoration of goods, for behold I create a new heavens , with new help from heaven, and a new earth , new benefits from the earth; this refers to the day of judgment, when the world will be renewed to the glory of the saints: the former things have passed away (Re 21:4).”[2] Closer to the immediate historical context, another understanding sees this as “a hyperbolic expression of the future restoration of the people of Judah after the