Christological Loci Synthesis Paper

Systematic Theology S.D.L. Jenkins Ph.D Christological Loci Synthesis Sermon 3/11/2008 Incarnation, Not Relocation We declare that Jesus is the Son of God. We say that he is the Son of Man. We say that he is both fully God and fully man. We say that he is “God with us”. We sing songs declaring “You came from Heaven to Earth to show the way” and we read that he has returned (John 13:3) to the Father. Who is this Jesus? From the looks of things, it could appear that Jesus showed up one day, arriving on Earth after previously residing somewhere else. He evidently went back to where he came from. So, is it that simple? Are we to accept this simple declaration that Jesus was somewhere before the womb of Mary, then showed up in the womb of Mary, then was born, lived, died, resurrected, and then returned to that previous somewhere? Sure, we can agree to that… if we want to be completely wrong! I tell you now, if this Jesus who we now call Christ simply showed up, simply relocated from Heaven, and simply went back to where he came from, then we can say we are still lost and in need of salvation. Yes, that’s right. If that is the Christ you worship, get a new one, because that one didn’t work. Am I saying Christ did not come from God? No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Am I saying Christ didn’t pre-exist his birth? Well, for now, let us say, “Yes, he did.” That’ll keep things simple in the meantime. Okay, let’s run with that idea. Let’s begin with John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (NKJV). We’ve all heard this many times before. The Greek word used for “Word” is Logos. Logos is viewed here in connection with creation. Notice the connection between John 1:1 (“In the beginning”) and Gen 1:1 (“In the beginning”). Genesis 1:1 states “…God created the Heavens and the Earth.” John 1:3 states “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made.” It is very obvious that the Logos is the same God who created the universe. It is also obvious that the book of John is saying that Jesus is the Logos. “And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14). The word “became” also hints at a preexistence. Since the Word became something, it obviously was not always that something. This same principle is played out in a number of other scriptures as well. The classical pre-existence text would be Philippians 2:6-8. “…who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man.” Taking the “form of” denotes a prior state. Also, “coming in the” likeness would suggest being somewhere previous. And “being found in appearance” would denote being discovered as something new, also meaning a prior state would apply. There is definitely a before aspect to this one we call Jesus. Let us consider the word “Logos” to help us secure for our theology the pre-existence of Christ. The Logos has been understood as meaning the plan of God, the force of rationality, and the framework of creation. Humans could then be considered little logoi because we also possess the ability to reason. The fact that the Logos pre-exists us (because he is the creative force) secures the pre-existence of the Logos. Since the Logos

became one with the logoi, could this be the intention of creation? The problem is that this theology falls short of securing the eternality of the Logos, only securing the pre-existence. So how do we take this idea a step further to secure the eternality of the Logos? How can we do it? Well, we could use titles! We all recognize that Jesus has been given numerous titles (i.e. King, Lord, Messiah, Wisdom, Priest, Judge, etc…” But we can use the title “Son” to secure eternality. “Son” suggests relationship. If the incarnate one is the Son, then it is a part of a relationship with the Father. This is called relational reciprocity. How does this secure that the Son is eternal? It is quite simple, actually. There could never have been a time when the Father had not been the Father. It would be inappropriate for God to become something that he is not. If there was always a Father, then it only makes sense that the Son was always a Son. Therefore, we have discovered an eternal relationship, made up of these two distinct existences, Father and Son. So, an eternal relationship would make it clear that both Father and Son are both eternal, thus securing the eternality of the Logos. What does all this have to do with our salvation, you may ask? Don’t we already know that Jesus is God? Don’t we already know that God pre-exists us? Yes, at least if we call ourselves Christians. But I tell you, this is not enough! It is not enough to simply say that Jesus is God, or to say that he came before us. These statements alone, as pious as they may sound, tell us nothing as they relate to our own salvation and our subsequent understanding of Jesus (and God). So, now that we know why we know that Jesus is eternally pre-existent, what does this mean concerning his human existence? How can the eternal Logos also be a human? We proclaim it, but why do we? We say that Jesus was fully God and fully man, so how does the man part fit into the big picture. Well, let’s start with the wrong answer, because many of us may still believe it to be the correct one. Old philosophies still have a presence today. One philosophy in regard to my point is basically this. There are only two types of materials in the universe. The first kind is “immaterial”. This would mean the uncreated, intangible, and stable material which can be found in God. Everything outside of God is classified as “material”. This, of course, means tangible, corruptible, and very unstable. To be material is to be alterable. God is unchanging. We are changeable (through age, deterioration, death, etc). This concept of the spiritual world and the physical world is still very much alive in the world and the Church today. By using this philosophy it could be said that humans are composite in makeup, meaning a human is the composition of different parts. So, one could use this logic to say that humans are made up of a material body and an immaterial soul. So, since humanity is unstable, the meaning of salvation could be to become stable. For this to occur, material physicality must become stabilized or inalterable. But humanity could not possibly accomplish this feat on its own. Who could do it for us? Well, it would seem that the immaterial (God) would have to join with the material. God uniting with unstable humanity would bring about stability in our material existences. This was accomplished through the incarnation, right? When the Logos united with a human body, material must have attained its stability. Where does this fit in with a wrong answer I alluded to earlier?

The problem is this. The previous logic would suggest that Jesus had a physical body, but instead of a human soul he possessed the divine Logos. The material was his body and the immaterial was the Logos. This is how a composition of human material and divine immaterial would play out. Alternatively, would we be so delusional to go the route of thinking that somehow the Logos brought with him his own “Heavenly flesh” at the Incarnation? This would suggest the heresy of relocation, the idea that Jesus just showed up here. I would assume that “Heavenly flesh” would be fairly stable, so that idea would not play out either. But, even if we exclude the idea Heavenly flesh and simply stick with the Logos taking on human flesh, it is no less ludicrous. So basically, God is walking around on earth with a “flesh suit”. God has shrunk down, spring-boarded off of the heavenly diving-board, and landed inside a fetus. The omnipresent has become simply… present. A common misconception in this day and age is that God simply put on a body. Please excuse me while I vent. Anathema! Anathema! A response to this heresy should come quickly. Does not the previous idea make Jesus less than God? Well, let us think about it. Humanity is a composite of a material body and an immaterial soul, right? So, if Jesus was a composite of a material body and the immaterial Logos, this equation would mean Jesus is only half human and fully God. Why? It is because Jesus does not possess a human soul in this scenario. Jesus can not be said to be fully God and fully man unless he possesses all that it means to be God and human. This theology has given us a Jesus without a soul. The term soul relates to the mind and will, and to say that Jesus did not possess a human mind and will is obviously incorrect. Either we believe in the hypostatic union (fully-God, fully man) or we do not. What does Jesus have to do with us if he was not fully one of us? Did the Logos just get bored with his wardrobe and think flesh and blood would be a nice change? This brings us to a new revelation. A deeper logic would declare that whatever is not assumed in the Incarnation is not healed. If Christ did not possess a human soul, then he could not heal our souls (i.e. mind and will). Salvation takes on a new definition. Salvation is not a matter of stability, but of healing. God became man to heal humanity. If the Logos did not fully assume all that it means to be human, then humanity was not healed in the Incarnation. Therefore, reason helps us see the falsity of this idea of relocation or fleshly transformation. This idea that Jesus existed before his birth, bringing with him his own Heavenly flesh or simply immaterial self, and just showed up here for a change of venue is heresy. If we want to use logic, which I pray we all do, we can plainly see that Jesus did not simply show up, take on a body, and save us. Not even the death and resurrection have any bearing on the outcome, because Jesus simply showing up does not mean anything for us if he does not possess everything that we possess as humans. Therefore, the issue is not stabilization, nor is it relocation. The issue is very clearly one thing, and that is healing. So, like I said in the beginning, if your Christ is the one who simply came from Heaven, then get a new one. But wait, we already did cover the issue of pre-existence. This suggests something significant as to the “before” element. So how does that fit in? Let us review what we do know about Jesus.

Jesus is pre-existent. Jesus is eternally pre-existent. Jesus came from God. Jesus is God. Jesus is man. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus saved us by healing us. Now we must still go a bit further to see how these all tie in together. I told you to get a new one (Christ) and I will deliver, in thirty minutes or less. Some have tried to penetrate the mystery of the hypostatic union inappropriately. Yet sometimes heresy has a bit of truth to it, but of course it always lacks a legitimate conclusion. Let us tackle the issue of personhood and nature. We confess by faith that Christ was fully God and fully man, and this same confession could lead some to make a very bold (and wrong) declaration. Everything that we see around us has a nature, meaning everything has qualities unique to itself that make up what that something is. For example, a dog has a dog nature. These two things are inseparable. If there is a dog, the dog will have external identifiers which instantly confess the truth of the object actually being a dog. The dog possesses everything inherent to “dog-ness”. Now, this “dog nature” can not exist without the actual dog being present. We can’t ask our Mommy, “How much is that doggy nature in the window, the nothing with the waggily tail?” If there is no dog, there is no dog nature. Logically, every nature must be actuated by a distinct individuation. The dog nature must have a dog actually present. So, how does this apply to Christ, the God-man? Well, if we believe that he is fully God, then there must be a divine nature and a divine person actuating that nature. If we believe that he is fully man, then there must be a human nature and a human person actuating that nature as well. So, what it adds up to in this scenario is this. There must be a divine person (God) with a divine nature, as well as a human person (Jesus) with a human nature. There are now two persons, each with its own nature. Jesus is not God, because he is a human person actuating a human nature. God is not Jesus, because God is a divine person actuating a divine nature. Then the hypostatic union would be what, a union of wills? Two persons and two natures would be united by one will. So, Jesus is just a human like the rest of us. But Jesus just happens to have a really good relationship with the Logos. Triple anathema! This, of course, is heresy. We worship Jesus, not because he’s God’s favorite human, but because he is God. But how can we say he is God when we consider the truth behind the “person” and “nature” equation. Love this equation or hate it, you have to admit the legitimacy regarding every nature requiring an actuating principle. If we confess Christ as having two natures, how are there less than two persons since each nature requires a person? While we may be tempted to fall back on the old “it’s a mystery” theology, letting reason be trumped by volumes of voices and blind faith, let us come into the light, thus bringing us closer to our understanding of who this Jesus really is. I’ll begin by saying the previous logic was right to begin with. Each nature requires an activating principle. But the conclusion need not be such a heretical one. I have a very simply solution to the issue at hand. Basically, each nature does require a person. But that person is the none other than the Logos, who possesses both its inherent divine nature as well as its assumed human nature. So, the equation is this. There is one person (the Logos) and two natures (divine and human). Therefore, original logic prevails. Each nature is actuated by a person, but instead of Jesus being one person and the Logos being the other, the Logos possesses each nature.

So, what does this all mean? Why have I gone to such lengths to get this issue ironed out? If you’re asking me this question, please stop talking because it is very rude to interrupt in the middle of a sermon. I will now tell you. I will now tell you who this Jesus is. Not only that, but I will tell you who this Jesus is not. And I’ll even throw in why it is important to know the difference. Before the womb of Mary, before the creation of the world, and before the universe, there was God and only God. We believe that God is one God, however we believe God to be Triune, being three persons. Each of these persons possesses all that it means to be God. To dumb this down, each person would seem to possess a divine nature. However, technically none of them possess a divine nature, they simply are God, but for sake of this explanation, just use that category. So, within the Trinity we have the Eternal Father, the Eternal Son (or Logos) and the Eternal Holy Spirit. Each possesses a divine “nature” be virtue of being divine persons. Now, how does this apply to the Incarnation? The Eternal Son could not have simply relocated from Heaven to the womb of Mary, as if Jesus was really big, sitting on a cloud somewhere, and just shrank down to a human size after he “arrived” on Earth. Nor could the Eternal Son simply wear a human body as a flesh suit. This would make the Logos, or Jesus, less than human. The life, death, and resurrection would be reduced to a very intense lecture/presentation about how God is awesome and we are not awesome, thus accomplishing nothing of any soteriological (salvific) value. If he was not completely human then humanity could not benefit from the Incarnation. Not to mention, the Eternal Son possesses all of the qualities of God, including omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. To suggest that God (regardless of which person) completely transformed into a locatable human body is ludicrous. The Logos who pre-existed the womb, the Earth, and the universe, and also possessed (in a sense) a divine nature, assumed a human nature. By assumed I mean “took on” or “added” or “took possession of”. The Logos, who possessed all that it meant to be God (including omnipresence!) added to itself a locatable and human body. Therefore, the Logos never stopped being the Logos. The Logos never stopped being everywhere in the universe, being all-knowing, or even being all-powerful. The Logos did not transform into a human being with super powers. The Logos remained the Logos, but added or assumed an extra feature, that being a human nature. So what does this mean when we are talking about the one we call Jesus? It means that Jesus is not a human person. Jesus is a divine person. But what do we say about the name? At the Incarnation, the Logos actually took on a different name is a sense. Therefore, we can see that Jesus didn’t actually pre-exist. Jesus did not exist until the Incarnation because the Logos had not actually taken the name yet. Before the womb of Mary, it was simply the Eternal Son, the Logos. At the Incarnation, the Logos assumed a human mode of existence, taking a human name. But since Jesus is the Logos, we can say (sort of) that Jesus pre-existed. Why is this all so important? For starters, it is crucial to our understanding of God. For thousands of years, countless individuals have strived to understand the meaning of the Incarnation. To understand the Incarnation completely wrong is to understand God completely wrong!

To reduce Jesus to a relocated Logos is

to downgrade God, also downgrading our own salvation. Also, to retreat from proper theological inquiry into the Incarnation is to make Jesus relative concerning humanity. If the Incarnation means whatever you want it to

mean, Jesus’ work becomes less significant to us, and the gospel message becomes vulnerable to opposing voices that do not see God properly as a result of our poor presentation of Christology. Should we settle for a one-sizefits-all Jesus? Again I say anathema!

Endnotes To begin my argument, I drew from NT Trends as communicated through the lecture material, using references from Genesis 1:1, John1:1, 14, and Philippians 2:6-11 to demonstrate the witness of scripture in the case for Christ’s connection with the Logos and a pre-existent mode of existence. The obvious parallel between John’s “In the beginning...” and Genesis’ “In the beginning…” is of vast exegetical significance tying Christ to God’s pre-existent creative power. The remaining arguments are drawn from the Historical Framework as also communicated through the lecture material, beginning with Justin Martyr and the basics of Two-Stage Logos Theology to secure theologically the pre-existence of the Logos. Stage 1A: God constructs a plan. The Logos is the plan. 1B: Plan is worked out and (Logos) is framework for creation. 2A: Human beings (little logoi) can recognize the Logos. 2B: Logos becomes one with the logoi, revealing the real intention for creation. This approach lacks in securing eternality of Logos. It also gives no explanation or consideration of the cross. I then developed the argument by expanding into Origin’s Title Christology, using the term “Son” to secure the eternal pre-existence of the Logos by virtue of relational reciprocity. For Origin it was inappropriate for God to become something he was not, therefore the Father was always the Father, implying the Son was always the Son. Also, the fact that this second “thing” had a distinct operation (rationality) secured distinct existence. Apollinaris’ theology of the composite Christ made up of a material body and the immaterial Logos belittles the hypostatic union, making Christ less than God due to lack of a human soul (mind/will) which requires the Gregorian rebuttal of “Whatever is not assumed is not healed”. This idea shows the heresy of relocation and how such a theology is problematic when dealing with soteriology. The soteriological motif must change from stability to healing in light of the Apollinaris’ inadequate Christology. The theme shifts to the tension between fusis and hypostasis as relates to Nestorius. Nestorius’ logic reduces the hypostatic union to a relationship between two persons, two natures, and a unified will. Cyril of Alexandria’s response to the controversy, resolves issue by attributing two natures to the one hypostasis (the divine Logos). During this discussion I reference a divine nature to more or less keep the concept within grasp of the audience, yet I briefly attempt to explain the absence of an actual divine nature. Also, Jesus does not technically pre-exist the Incarnation or exist eternally, but by using Communication of Attributes Theology (attributing all qualities of nature to actuating principle) the Logos possesses all pertaining to its two natures,

including the name Jesus following the Incarnation, thereby allowing the proclamation that Jesus does pre-exist (sort of). I am dialoguing with a Christian audience who sees the Incarnation as relocation, or who sees the Incarnation as something left up to opinion or personal preference, with no real bearing on their understanding of God or the presentation of the gospel message. A proper and responsible treatment of Incarnational theology is essential for apologetics and the continuity of the Doctrine of Christ.