Lecture Notes on The Incarnation (THEO 505) - October 3, 2024

**Lecture Notes (THEO 505: The Rule of Faith)** **Session 5 (Oct 3, 2024) -- The Incarnation** **Incarnation (56:11)** Look at the progress we made in regards to the Creed. See first slide. The center of this course are the mysteries of the Christian faith. This week we are moving to Christ himse...

**Lecture Notes (THEO 505: The Rule of Faith)** **Session 5 (Oct 3, 2024) -- The Incarnation** **Incarnation (56:11)** Look at the progress we made in regards to the Creed. See first slide. The center of this course are the mysteries of the Christian faith. This week we are moving to Christ himself. "For us men and for our salvation, he came down from Heaven." First, some terms: Incarnation: the taking on of flesh, referring to the Word of God who exists from eternity, taking on flesh. See John 1. Christ didn't just come to visit us. Christology: the study of Christ. Who is he? How do we properly describe him. CCC 422. The Incarnation is the Gospel. See verse from Mark. That's Jesus talking. Why is the kingdom of God at hand? Because Christ himself is God, the king and his being present makes the kingdom present. Watch the first episode of Barron's series on Catholicism. Recommended! The Apostles were amazed and afraid. What kind of person enkindles awe and fear in us at the same time. The goal is to bring people to Christ, even though it takes time to examine and explore the doctrines. All of these are to make us see clearer. Catechesis is always relational. Pope Francis encourages all of us to have a personal encounter with Jesus every now. This is what all of our teaching is about! CCC 425. CCC 463: Belief in Christ is the distinctive sign of Christian faith. Why not the Trinity? Think of the order of reality vs. the order of discovery. In the order of reality, the Trinity comes first. But in the order of discovery, Christ comes first. He gives us the knowledge of the Trinity. He reveals the father to us, showing us who Jesus himself truly is. Christ is who we encounter first, so this is the central mystery. This tells us that we should teach the Trinity through an authentic love of Christ. A second reason of the Incarnation being the distinctive sign is that salvation comes through Christ. And it's only through Christ that we know the Father. The order of the Trinity, father first, then son second, then spirit third, is the reverse of our experience. The HS illuminates us to see Christ who brings us to the father. If we bring these two concepts together, we see how the mystery of the Trinity is the central mystery of Christianity, and the Incarnation is its distinctive sign. They don't compete, but go together. The doctrine of the Incarnation is what distinguishes Christian faith from every other religion, that God truly became man. And in that sense the mystery of the Incarnation is a sign that reveals to us the profundity of the relationship between the father and the son and the love between them. The Incarnation conveys the infinite reality of God's love for us, not just as an idea, something that sort of something that is interesting to imagine but has no impact on our life. It concretizes God for us. Gaudium es Spes 10. Christ is the definitive response of God to all of the deepest human questions and longings. To be Christians is to be little Christs. So clearly Christ is the center of our religion. There was no Christianity before the Incarnation. But we don't have to trade one for the other between the father and Christ. Why is Christ the key? Because whatever the question, in some way, Christ is the answer. We have to prove this by demonstrating it. But this is our intuition and it's proper to begin there. Christ is the singular meeting point between God and humanity. This means that in one sense it's a cold, logical fact that there is no one else like him. This is a glimpse to why the answer to every human and divine question points back to him. Compare Hebrews 1:1-3 versus 2:9. First, there is no doubt he is unique, and yet second, he made himself lower than the angels. We truly think that the one who is truly equal to God assumed all that is human, to the point of death. Why did God do that? And how can this be the case? Start with the WHY question. Look at several passages in Scripture, which provides a whole range of why he came. See slide with nine verses. People gravitate sometimes to one or two, but we should try to hold the whole thing together. Aquinas, in his first question, does a good job of holding it all together. So we looked at Scripture, now at Aquinas. The synthesis will be in the CCC. Aquinas. See slide with the six questions and Aquinas's answers. Let's focus on the second one. It's not absolutely necessary for the restoration of the human race. We don't want to say that God was forced, had an obligation to do so. The Incarnation is a gift, done freely out of God's generosity. It is necessary for God to attain certain ends. So, in ways we can say that a gift was necessary, but not absolutely so, otherwise it wouldn't be a gift. That's the distinction. Aquinas preserves the gratuity of the Incarnation. It was necessary only because God desired human salvation and the ends that came about by the Incarnation. In the second article, Aquinas gives all the good things that came about through the Incarnation. God did all of this generously and freely. And then Aquinas admits that there are many other good things that he doesn't even try to list. Aquinas says that God would not have become incarnate if it weren't for sin. He's limiting his answer to what Scripture says, what God revealed. God said he did this in order to take away sin. For the fourth question, did he do this for original sin or all sin? Both, but primarily OS to destroy sin at its root, to tackle sin at its very depth. Articles 5 and 6. Was it fitting for him doing so at the beginning? How about the very end? Who cares? Because when we read the agonizing path Israel had to take, we may start wondering why God didn't save the human race sooner. Or, you may think, why didn't he wait until later, given it was his greatest response? God entered our time. Focus on the first article. Is it fitting for God to become man? Objection 1 says that God was not flesh for eternity, and so it was not fitting for him to become flesh. It seems that part of this objection contains the question "why didn't God just do so at the beginning?" Or, God, as eternal, seems to be infinitely removed from flesh and from time (objection 2). If God wanted to become man, it implies some kind of change. Why would this be fitting for God. Aquinas will explain. Objection 2: he's comparing incarnation to a jarring thing like the head of a horse on the body of a man. It's unseemly for these totally incongruous things to be brought together. God and flesh are infinitely apart, since God is most simple and flesh is most composite. God doesn't change. Flesh changes constantly. We can't even keep all of ourselves inside of our bodies: we bleed, sweat, decay. We're actually pretty disgusting. Why would God unite himself to this in any way? So, it wasn't fitting that he united himself to human flesh. Objection 3: another way of thinking of the radical extremes between God and human flesh. The body is as distant from the highest spirit as evil is from the highest good. There is an infinite distinction between God and humans. Why cross it? These objections parallel questions we may have about creation itself: why create anything? It would be unseemly because God is eternal and the universe is in time. Why make anything in time? For all eternity he had been without creation, and without flesh. Why invest himself in a created world? It seems not fitting that God who is infinitely distinct from created things to have anything to do with creation. Why would God get mixed up with all of our failures? We see that the fittingness of the Incarnation maps onto God creating things in the first place. Objections to the incarnation could be objections to all of creation. All the problems God exposes himself to by becoming man are already problems he exposed himself to by creating the world. The simpler thing would be to not become man, just like the simpler thing would be to not create the universe in the first place. So, the incarnation is consistent for the God who made creation in the first place, to become man for the sake of his creation. Aquinas says what makes sense for God to do. What is fitting for God to do? To always communicate and spread lavishly his goodness. This is who God is, goodness himself. The nature of goodness is to overflow. So, if it was fitting for God to make the world, it is fitting to God's overflowing goodness, to the extent of uniting himself in the fullest way possible in the Incarnation. It's important recognizing the continuity between God's decision to create in the first place and the Incarnation, for seeing that the Incarnation is not plan B. Even if the Incarnation is a response to sin, it's not as if God's real plan was for humans to NOT sin, and then because we did sin he had to come up with something to do after the fact. The incarnation is a result of the exact same logic that led to the creation of the world in the first place. We see in the Incarnation the true extent of God's goodness. It's unlimited, overflowing. The glory of God is his manifest goodness. It's humanity reconciled in the body of Christ. It's another manifestation of the glory of God. So, the incarnation isn't necessary, but Aquinas says it is fitting, consistent for the character of God. CCC summary for the reasons for the Incarnation. Four reasons: CCC 458-460: 1. In order to save us by reconciling us with God (particular speaks to our separation from God) 2. So that we might know God's love 3. To be our model of holiness 4. To make us partakers of the divine nature The first is by taking away sins. The second is the love of the Trinity. So that we may know and see God's love in its fullest abundance. Aquinas quotes Augustine on this. Third, Christ is the holiest role model. He is our teaching, showing us the way. Fourth, we are able to become participants in the very nature of God. **MEMORIZE THESE FOUR!!** The first three are ordered to the fourth. The fourth isn't possible without the fourth, which is the greatest one. In baptism, faith, hope and love begin in us. They don't make it impossible for us to sin, but they really do unite us to God in a real way in this life. They remove from us the alienation, lack of hope, knowledge and love of God. Removing OS, the guilt and the stain of OS, restores our minds, our intellects and wills back to the knowledge and love of God. This is a tremendous difference on its own! Baptism restores us back to that state, which is a giant leap. But we can still sin. The barrier of OS is huge and can't be underestimated. We are reconciled with God after the words effects of OS are removed at baptism. Just because we are still able to sin after baptism, doesn't mean that OS wasn't removed. Why didn't God do for us what he did for Mary? She did have a life easier to remain sinless. Who knows? Paul asks for the thorn to be removed. God responds that his grace is perfect for him to deal with it. Maybe this is a hint. God could have done things in a different way. But there must be good reasons he did things the way he did them. He's God. He knows! **Christology (55:35)** How can we make sense of the Incarnation? But why is this a difficult issue in the first place. For us it might seem easy for God to become man? Two important difficulties. A major issue is that how can we say that God became man or that God suffered. These might be comfortable for us. But these aren't easy things to say. Why not? Because we believe in God, infinite, unchanging, and so on. The true God doesn't change. Stories of gods who change are just fables. To talk about God becoming man sounds like another ancient myth or fable. It's an absurdity. Example: the oldest depiction of the crucifixion. See slide. It's a piece of mockery. The Lord is depicted with a head of a donkey. A story of a crucified god is absurd and worthy of mockery. In the ancient world, this doesn't make sense. It's ridiculous. Classically, God is impassable, incapable of suffering or change. This is also in Scripture. James says God is without any shadow of alteration or change. He doesn't, properly speaking, change or suffer. God has no body, he's not the victim of anything. God can't suffer because he is already absolutely simple perfection. Nothing happens to God. If we mean by God the source of all things, that everything else is contingent on him, then God is the cause of all things, not the other way around. He's never passive, never simply responsive to the world. God endures no evil unwillingly. God is supreme acts. He also acts, never merely reacts. So, how to interpret passages in the Bible where God seems to react, get angry at certain people? It's metaphoric, the way Scripture speaks about God's right hand, which signifies his strength and power, not his five fingers and fingernails. So, when Scripture speaks about God getting angry, it's not like we experience it, when our blood boils. God doesn't have neurons and hormones. So, when God gets angry, it's a way of expressing his judgment against sin. We have to think this way to preserve the sense of God in Scripture. We should properly read it as metaphoric. God reveals himself this way to accommodate and condescends to us, using images that are relatable to us. God's anger is not literal anger, but really points to something real and higher. That image is useful to us, but shouldn't be taken literally. God doesn't get angry because he was caught off guard, but rather an example of God's ETERNAL judgment of sin. We are in time, so we experience his judgment in this way, but he doesn't. We should be glad to believe in a God that can't suffer, because he is our only hope to protect us from eternal suffering. If he can't protect himself from suffering, he can't protect us. The only one who can save us from eternal suffering is a God who can't suffer. He does suffer with us in Christ, and this is a great consolation to us in the Christian faith, but ultimately our hope is that God through having assumed our suffering saves us from that suffering because he has the power to not suffer in himself. One last point related to God's anger: when emotions are attributed to God, it's never a bodily or passive thing, but an active thing. When God is said to be feeling a certain way (anger, sorrow), it's an active expression of God's response in our world in our time to evil. God's sorrow can be his love for what's good and his hatred of what's evil coming together all at once. God does not suffer sorrow, but when he sees evil, he has a perfect mingling of a love for what is good that is undergoing an evil that he does not want or will. And in that sense, the best we can do is to come up with saying it's the sorrow of God. So, the first difficulty is, if the true God can't change or suffer, how can we say he became man? Second difficulty: it's very hard to interpret to several passages in Scripture. See slides for examples. These are examples of how we can misread the Bible. Luke 4:29-30, Jesus does NOT have a make-believe body that walks through them, like a ghost. John 1:14, God didn't clothe himself in flesh, like an astronaut in a space suit. John 6:38, Jesus is not a man perfectly infused with God. We can almost say he's God, even closer to God than Moses was. 1 Cor 5:19, Christ and God are not two different people. It\'s difficult to find the right thing to say. We will look at some of the major errors that have occurred in Christianity. After considering those missteps, we can think of better ways to talk about Christ. CCC 465: Gnostic Docetism claimed that he only appeared to be human. These were the first errors about Christ, denying that he was human. CCC 466: Nestorianism, from the fifth century, Christ was a human person JOINED to the divine person of God's Son. Jesus is a person, just like you and me, in whom the Son of God dwelt, so closely that those two persons looked like one. It's as if you were to say that the Incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus is like the union of the HS with the prophet Isaiah. It's like they were one. But of course, Isaiah and the HS are two different people. But Jesus and the Son are NOT two. CCC 471: Apollinarianism is like the spacesuit analogy. The Son of God clothed himself with human flesh. He didn't have what it means to be fully human. He didn't have a human soul. The worst fighting was AFTER the Council of Nicaea, not before. The Council of Constantinople added a bit to the Nicaean Creed. It was these first two ecumenical councils which affirmed the divinity of Christ. More on this in the next lecture (below). We DO affirm that Jesus is truly human! We DON'T split Jesus into two persons (Christ the man, and the Son who is God)! We DO believe that Christ had a true human soul and a full human nature. What does this lead us to? He draws a chart on the board (see screenshot below). The persons are numbered differently, but the divine nature shared by all three. The Son, though, is the only one with human nature. See part to the left. Jesus, the Son of God, who is divine by nature, takes to himself a human nature, meaning a true human body, soul and a spirit/mind (all three combined could be called a spiritual soul). To say that God created all things implies NO change in God. It implies change in everything else, but NOT in God. The act of creation from God's POV is simple and timeless. From our POV, creation began at a certain point, **because time itself is a creature.** Time began to be at a certain point because time is something that God created. God did not create the world at a given time. He created the world WITH time. He created time with the creation of the world. God's relation to creation is timeless. There was no time before the creation. There is no time relationship between God and the created world. God creates the world simply and eternally, but the result of that in the world is a creation WITH time. In a similar way, regarding the Incarnation... Aquinas question 2, article 8. Skip to that slide now. He is answering the question of what we man when we say that God became man. If we believe that God can't change, how can we say that God became man? Because, properly speaking, the Son of God takes a human nature up to himself. He does not change. What changes is the human nature he makes and assumes to himself. See drawing on the board (near the right side). Human nature does not assume the Son of God to itself; it's the other way. And then both are united to each other.  If human nature assumed the Son of God to itself, then we would have to say that the son of God changed. The assuming only goes in one direction. From our perspective, from the level of human nature, while God assumes our nature to himself, it appears to us that he is coming down to us. But it's not a lowering, a descent of the son of God. Crucially speaking, that is how the Incarnation avoids being a fable about gods who change, who get better or get worse. As Aquinas says "the union determines none of these things," referring to change. In this manner, the divine nature caused a change in the world, rather than human nature causing a change in God. Creation, like the Incarnation, goes in only one direction. Both are effects of God's actions, not the other way around. That action from God is not in time, but eternal. From our perspective it's in time, but not in God's. During the Incarnation, there is a change to creation in time, when it is united to the son of God. We experience this time, not God. From God's perspective, the Incarnation is a simple and whole act, the mystery of God assuming humanity to himself. From God's perspective it's eternal, not in time. But for us it's spread out in time and we can see Jesus life from birth to death, so we can appreciate it more fully. During the Transfiguration, we can think of the Apostles now finally seeing the one person with two natures. Previously they had seen only his human nature. Now they see additionally his divine nature. He is one person with two natures, not two people. They see Jesus as he was all along. And he's not the father, because the father appears there as well. Jesus's two natures is called a personal relationship. The other two persons of the Trinity don't have this relationship with human nature. The union does not take place on the level of nature, but on the personal level. This is why the HS and father are not united to a human nature. They have not become man. It's only the son who has united himself to the human nature. So, getting back to the heresies: Docetism denies that Jesus truly had a human nature. Nestorianism, thinks the son of God and the human nature are two different persons. Apollinarianism gives us only have of that human nature. A common analogy among the Church fathers is that Christ is fully human and fully divine, similar to how we are soul and body in us. We are not two different persons, a soul and a body, but one. Christ is also one person. Implications. God, who is invisible, has truly taken on human nature and we can portray him in icons. Also, because the son of God has fully united an entire human nature to himself, nor has he remained aloof, but taken it intimately to himself, that we recognize God's care for everything human. God's desire is to transform everything human. The Incarnation shows that God truly cares about humanity. He didn't just take on our soul, but our body as well. Gregory of Nazianzus said in the 380s: See slide. Christ assumes all of what it means to be human, all of which is damaged, in order to heal all of it. It's not a healing at half measure. One last point. In light of all of this, how do we speak about Christ? From the reading from Gregory (Oration 29.18). The "compound" refers to what the Son has taken on, in other words, humanity. Gregory says that we can say human things about Christ and divine things about Christ, and yet he remains one person. What does that mean? Think of Christ as being one subject. He is one person with two natures. He is still one subject of action and one subject of our speech. Imagine the sentence: "the professor drinks coffee". The subject is "the professor". You also have a verb and an object. The subject is the one who does the action. If you merely say "drinks the coffee", you ask "who?" Actions require subjects or agents, doers of the action. In Christ, there is always only ONE subject, ONE agent, ONE actor, ONE doer, ONE who answers the question: "who does it?" The answer may go by different answers (son of Mary, son of God, Christ), but he's always only ONE subject. Passage from the end of Gregory, section 20 on page 87. "As man..." Who is the subject? Always the same ONE subject: Christ. Christ shouted human words to Lazarus to come out of the tomb. And yet by the power of God, Christ raised him from the dead. The same person at the same moment, speaks HUMAN words and raises Lazarus from the dead. He says what only man can say, and does what only God can do. SAME PERSON. So, remember: persons are subjects who act. We don't have twins stuck in one body. The one person of Christ has two natures, but is NOT two persons. **Athanasius on Christ (26:33) \*\*POSSIBLE MATERIAL FOR ESSAY 2\*\*** Debate between Athanasius and Arias. We will see points on why God became man? It's an illustrious way of reviewing the previous two lectures of this session, what difference does it make for us. In order to make us partakers of the divine nature. What does this mean for us? Athan wrote this after the Council of Nicaea, which was the first ecumenical council which defended the true divinity of Christ in 325, did not bring an end to Arianism. Arias, in the decades previous, denied the true divinity of Christ. The Council was a response to this, but this led to a longer and greater controversy. This is when Athan wrote this document that we read for homework. (Things usually do get worse after councils, at least in the short term.) So, what is Arianism exactly? See the passage on the first slide. This is Athan summarizing Arius's view. "God was not always Father..." The Son came into existence at a particular moment in time. And the Father wasn't always the Father! Christ was not true God, but he was made so by participation. [Arius's view] Father (God) \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- Son/Word/Jesus Humanity Arianism does NOT believe that Jesus was merely a man. Jesus is the greatest creature possible, who existed before every other creature, and who made humanity. But, he's not quite on the level of God. He's a creature, just on the other side of creature/creator. What does Athan think? Second slide. Homoousios is Greek for having the same substance. It was a big word at Nicaea. Consubstantial means this word, it's the same thing. [Athanasius's View] Father + Son \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- Humanity The son is NOT a creature, and NOT a work. He is God with the father. The HS doesn't come up with Arius. So, for Arius, we have God the father, and under him the son, who is a creature, a god, a god-like being, but not truly God. So, Jesus receives the title "the Son" by the grace of God. It's not who he is naturally. Whereas, for Athan, the title son is true of his nature. One more passage from Athan, explaining his view: "For if you say that the Son..." And then he quotes John 1:1. All this lays the groundwork for what will follow. Dr. Mooney wants us to think about this: what do we see when we see the Incarnation? What can we say about Jesus as a consequence? Why does it matter who Jesus is? What does the story tell us about what it means to be a Christian? So, the difference between Arius and Athan is not subtle, but huge. In Arius (according to Athan), we get a story of creatures advancing to God by means of their merit. But only in Athan, if the son truly is God, if we look at Jesus and see one who is truly God, we can tell a story of an absolute divine condescension, in which Jesus gains NOTHING, and we gain EVERYTHING. The picture Athan tells defends this story, about one who gains nothing and gives everything to us. And Athan says that we can only tell this story if Christ really is God. Some examples of Athan building this case. 1.38. The Son received this honor by grace alone, and only he has received it. So, Jesus belongs on the creature side of the line. Athan says that if we believe Arius, then Jesus and we have the very same goal: to make our way to God, the father. And what Jesus receives by God is not by nature, but as a gift he receives while making his way to the father. All creatures come from God, and they all find their satisfaction in making their way to God. If Arius is right, then Jesus has the same goal, the same end. What, by contrast, does Athan think we should see? Self-emptying. Again 1.38. "Therefore, if even before..." This is NOT Arius's view, but Athan's. In other words, if it's true that Jesus is a creature (Arius's view), then he became a man while making his way to the father, like all other creatures. Becoming man is part of that journey. But, if Jesus is truly the Son of God by nature, then the story we tell, of his becoming man, is in no way (and can't be) part of a story of a creature making his way back to its creator. He is the creator! There is no possible way for this to make sense. We simply can't say that the Son became man for his sake. He gained nothing by it, nor did he improve. If he were a creature at the beginning, then he would have improved. Jesus can gain NOTHING by becoming man. We can only and always say that he was NOT improved, gained nothing, received no reward. In everything he did, he improved the things (humans) that needed improvement. And he gained nothing in return. In the Arian picture, you have to tell a story of a god-like being who became man in order to exalt himself. Whereas, if Jesus is truly God, this story makes sense. Only the story of EMPTYING makes sense. Athan, 1.41: He was exalted in order to exalt us. His exaltation, his rising up, can refer to only one thing: the exaltation he gives to us, that we receive in him, because he can't BY NATURE gain anything. Athan brings it all together in a conclusion, 1.48: "Therefore, what kind of..." When we explain the motive of the Incarnation, Athan helps us to see that it's only because Jesus is truly God, we can say with no hesitation, that Jesus didn't gain anything by it, that he did it only for our sake. What we get from Arius is that Christ is a model for us: for how we can advance to God like Jesus did. But from Athan, Christ empties himself entirely for us. This is the Church's teaching. The incarnation is not a story of self-exaltation, but a story of self-emptying for the sake of us. He lowers himself, taking to him what is lower, for us. It's the same kind of lowering that we see in creation to begin with. God had nothing to gain by creating the world, he didn't gain anything, it gives him no satisfaction. The only explanation that we can give for the world is that it is a gift for our sake. And if the creator is the same one who saves us, and NOT someone who is LESS, then we tell the exact same story about the incarnation: self-giving love, self-emptying, not self-exaltation. Hebrews 2:17, Phil 2:6-7. What we see in Christ, how we tell the Christian story, whether we tell a story of God's total self-gift, or a story of a creature advancing to God, determines the type of story we can tell about ourselves, as Christians. How we see ourselves Christians depends on who we think Christ is, and why we think he came. If we think we're simply imitating Christ on his way to God, a role model, a trailblazer, that shapes what it means for me to be a Christian. If we think, rather, the Christ is one who emptied himself for no gain, but only for our sake, that tells a totally different story on what it means to be a Christian. It is centered on the gratuity of God, where everything else flows out of that, rather than the other way around. The Incarnation is a profound, as can be seen in reading Athan. And it lays the foundation of everything else we say about Christ, which is so crucial to our understanding of Christianity, and what it means to be a Christian. You can't get to what it means to be a Christian unless you have everything else in place as well! It all hangs together. These pieces are also crucial with next week's lesson on how Christ saves us through his death.