The Incarnation and Christ's Solidarity with Us

One thing that I think we too often miss during the Advent season is that the incarnation revealed Jesus’ incredible solidarity with man.  In the incarnation Christ left his abode in eternal glory, “who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man” (Nicene Creed; cf. Phil. 2:5ff; Heb. 2:6—18).  The divine Word took to himself our human nature and a reasonable soul and dwelt, or better, tabernacle among us (Jn. 1:14).  Indeed, in Christ we have the one and only Immanuel, that is, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).  Additionally, because of the incarnation, and Christ’s solidarity with us therein, the reverse is also true, “that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that he, as the head, will also take up to himself, us, his members” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q 49). 

Christ assuming human nature was necessary for several reasons.  For one, “By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).  It was man that rebelled against God, so it was in man that the just punishment for sin must be meted out.  “Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin” (HC, Q 16).  Secondly, his assuming our nature made Jesus a most gracious, empathetic High Priest, mediating on behalf of us his people; and, because he stands as our Advocate before the Father, we may approach the throne of grace with assurance and confidence (Heb. 4:15—16; 1 Jn. 2:1).  In a word, Christ, by taking on our nature, became our faithful Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5).  Thus, by means of his humiliation in the incarnation, Christ Jesus is the “one who is very man, perfectly righteous; and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God” (HC, Q 14).  In Christ, we have our God and our Man, and the perfect union of these two; thus, in him, the solidarity between God and man is perfected! 

Finally, the incarnation is the grounding for Jesus’ resurrection.  And, of course, if Christ be not raised, then our hope and faith and gospel ministry is a sham (1 Cor. 15:14).  Jesus is that man through whom the resurrection of the dead comes (vv. 20—23).  “The resurrection of Christ is a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection” (HC, Q 45), that is, “the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23).  Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift! (2 Cor. 9:15). 

IRENAEUS: ADAM, CHRIST, AND REDEMPTIVE HISTORY

I love patrology (i.e., the study of the early Church Fathers); I love apologetics; I love good theology, and I love a redemptive-historical view of the Bible, one that holds Jesus high and centered. These are just a few reasons why I love Irenaeus and his works.

Reading the patristics often requires a critical eye. Few early Church fathers were thoroughly orthodox in their theology, oftimes, being influenced by their heritage and saturation in Platonism and the spirit of the age. With Irenaeus, however, one may relax and enjoy. His mind and subsequently his theology were radically transformed by the Rule of Faith (i.e., the essential gospel) and a Christological reading of all the Scriptures.

James Dennison, Jr. has written an insightful piece titled “Irenaeus and Redemptive History”, which covers Irenaeus and his redemptive-historical hermeneutic, particularly the “recapitulation” theme. Something very central to Irenaeus’ eschatology, Christology, anthropology, and soteriology—in a word all his theology.

Thoughts from Irenaeus on the Incarnation

It never fails. Tis the season to hear from every facet of the media, both local and national, attacks on the miraculous birth of our Savior and King. Inevitably, toward the end of most of the letters, columns, articles, or interviews, the author will make a vain attempt at consolation, concluding their drivel with Gnostic-like remarks about how one needn’t believe the reality and/or historicity of the event of the Incarnation to see the ‘real spiritual message and meaning.’
Hear this word from Irenaeus against the Gnostics of his day (...and ours as well):

“And, if one does not accept His birth from a virgin, how can he accept His resurrection from the dead? For it is no astonishing, nor marvelous or extraordinary thing if, without being born, He neither rose from the dead; moreover we cannot even speak of the resurrection of one who is unbegotten, since one who is unbegotten is also immortal, and one who has not undergone birth will neither undergo death—for one who has not had the beginning of a man, how is he able to assume his end? So, if He was not born, neither did he die; neither was He raised from the dead; and if he was not raised from the dead, death is not conquered nor its kingdom destroyed; and if death is not conquered, how are we to ascend to life, having fallen under death from the beginning?” (Demonstration on the Apostolic Preaching, 38—9)

Irenaeus got it right. For those who deny the time-space reality of the Incarnation, there is still a ‘real spiritual message and meaning’ left for us to hear, namely that we all remain “fallen under death from the beginning.”

So, as Christmas season rushes upon us, let us be all the more convinced of the hard, earthy realism of our most holy Faith, of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Who “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:7—8); the eternal One, who “became flesh and dwelt among us,” and so became the Self-same historical One (Jn 1:14). And let us, “being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him (the devil) on behalf of the weak” (Justin, On the Resurrection, 1, read in full here), following in the steps of the Master whose appearing was to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8)!