storiesofvalue

This brings us to an important self-revelation.  If we have been created in the image of God, and if He is undeniably incarnational in His nature, it is only natural to assume we are reflections of the same.  No, we are not capable of inhabiting other bodies, as the special effects gurus in Hollywood would have us believe, or becoming “very God.”  But we can enter the lives of others with the grace of Jesus and act as His presence.  God can be seen in us through the indwelling Spirit He has given us.

Is the idea of incarnational living a new concept for you?  Perhaps you have read about it before in God’s Word, but never connected it with your daily walk.  The Apostle Peter wrote, “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).  In the Old Testament, priests stood between God and His people, drawing worshippers into the presence of their Creator and administering grace on His behalf through the sacrificial system.  Similarly, when we invite others who don’t know Christ to experience His grace with us, we are fulfilling our priestly, incarnational ministry.

People often say Jesus’ followers are His “hands and feet” in the world.  I think this is an accurate depiction, however, I would like to suggest it is somewhat narrow.  We are a living sacrifice, and with our hands and feet we also offer our hearts, mind and soul.  Our goal is to pour out all that we are so those around us can see all that He is.  We must be the incarnate of the Incarnate.  If we represent anything else, it is possible the people we reach might miss the point.

God’s attitude toward us is further reinforced by biblical metaphor.  We are called His children (1 John 3:2), sheep (Psalm 100:3) and servants (1 Corinthians 6:4).   The prophet Isaiah portrays us as lumps of clay on the Potter’s wheel where God gently molds us into the people He needs us to be (Isaiah 64:8).  God’s plan to be intimately involved in our lives is undeniable.  Can you imagine what it would be like to sit with Him the equivalent of one human day in heaven, if only to watch His creative process in deciding how He is going to show Himself to His people?

This perspective cuts to the core of deistic thought, where we are left to know God only through reason and the observation of the universe.  While these are perfectly valid paths to truth, they not only limit our ability to know about God, but also overlook many of His attempts to connect with us as Creator.

Do you believe it is possible for God to be driven to insanity?  In order to put your mind at ease: I don’t either.  But if it was possible, I believe nothing would bring Him to the brink faster than His inability to be involved in our lives.  I pose this question because it is something we can understand.  Can you imagine welcoming a new baby into your home, preparing a crib, stocking up on diapers and clothes, only to sit in a rocking chair while the baby fends for himself?  Absolutely not!  Either you would go crazy in the process or be declared crazy for your negligence.  Your behavior would be the antithesis of your nature as a parent.  In the same way, it is impossible to imagine the God who made us, redeemed us and sustains us functioning at a distance.  He is incarnational in His thinking.  He is incarnational in His being.

Incarnational Thinking 

When we consider the length to which God went to bring about our salvation, we cannot miss an underlying thought process embedded in His divine nature: God pursues us with an unstoppable passion.  This truth not only helps us understand His heart, but also the devotion He expects of everyone who takes up the cross.

Consider what God did when Adam and Eve sinned.  He could have sent an angel to lower the boom and kick them out of the Garden.  Instead, He came Himself, walking in the “cool of the day” to engage the man and woman He had created.  Their sin saddened God, but He wasn’t about to send someone else to address such a pivotal moment in human history.

Throughout the Old Testament, we find God’s desire to mark His presence among His people.  In the wilderness His glory appeared in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night (Exodus 13:21).  On Mt. Sinai, His finger carved His commandments into tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18).  The tabernacle, and later the temple represented God’s presence, and in a time of great national crisis He spoke through and cared for His prophets (1 Kings 17:1-8).  These are merely notable highlights in a pattern we find throughout scripture, and one that found its culmination in the birth of Jesus.  Coming to be with us was more than a solution for God.  It was His way.

It is worth noting, while the death of Jesus on the cross was cruel and some have a problem with God using human blood as a means of justification, it was a fortunate substitute to the alternative.  The only other option God would have, if He was to remain consistent in His justice, would be to pour out eternal punishment on us all as He did in the time of Noah.  In other words, the choice was between a hellish experience for Himself on the cross, or Hell for us.

We should also recognize this is the only time God shed human blood as a sacrifice.  Throughout history there are those who have been put to death for their sins.  An early biblical precedent for capital punishment can be found in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man”.  There have also been countless individuals who have willingly given their lives for others.  But only Jesus shed human blood to atone for the sins of the world.

Our Living God stands opposite pagan idol worshippers who have used self-abasement and human sacrifice to appease false gods.  This difference is clearly illustrated in the account of the frenzied prophets of Baal atop Mount Carmel.  They cut and slashed themselves to evoke fire from their god in order to light an altar.  In contrast, Elijah prayed and God sent a bolt of fire that consumed the altar, even after it had been thoroughly soaked with water (1 Kings 18:20-39).  It is also seen in the example of Abraham who was willing to sacrifice Isaac on a mountain.  At the last moment God stopped Abraham’s hand from killing his son and provided a Ram in a thicket as a worthy substitute.

The only innocent blood ever shed to atone for our sins belonged to Jesus, and He was indeed Immanuel, “God with us.”  When it was time to offer a human sacrifice for the sins of the world, God came in the flesh to accomplish the work personally.  It cost us nothing.  It cost Him everything.

From Yesterday: The first passage is Romans 5 where the Apostle Paul identifies Jesus as a second Adam.  In the Garden of Eden, Adam disobeyed God and brought sin into the world.  We know Eve sinned as well, but Paul uses Adam to make his point, and to represent the entire human race.  Adam’s sin was devastating.  It ruined the perfect life God planned for His creation, gave Satan a foothold in our hearts, and introduced death and decay everywhere (Romans 5:12).

Since Adam’s sin tainted all humanity it was necessary, in God’s system of justice, for another man to shed his blood as payment.  Jesus was that man! “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (Roman 5:8-9)

Because Jesus was perfect (Hebrews 4:15) He was able to assume the role of justifier and reverse the unrighteous act of Adam with His own righteous act on Calvary (Romans 5:18-19).

Therefore, as our second Adam, our sinless Redeemer Jesus made us just by paying our debt on the cross.  Was it possible for Jesus to sin?  The answer to this question must be “yes” or His temptation in the wilderness after His baptism was nothing but an interesting story.  This gives us another reason to praise our Savior as we imagine Him battling Satan on every turn in order to remain sinless for our sakes.  The first Adam sinned to satisfy his personal appetite, but Jesus refused sin to satisfy righteousness and save us from eternal separation from the Father.  We would expect this from Him, but it is still astonishing to know He pulled it off while living in human flesh…

The second scripture relates more to the nature of a sacrifice under the Law.  The writer of Hebrews reminds his readers, “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).  This role blood played in the Old Testament sacrificial system was one reason God’s people were prohibited from including it in their diet.  Blood was viewed as a cleansing agent, and when offered with the right heart, a means of being made righteous before God.

In Leviticus we read, ^“For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Leviticus 17:11).  It was relationally important for God to come in human flesh to show us He wanted to share with us on our level.  But it was absolutely critical that He exist in a body capable of shedding human blood to make Him an adequately atone for our sins.

When we put the Romans and Hebrews passages together we discover a very simple, yet profound rationale for the incarnation.  God needed to come in human flesh to counter the actions of the first Adam, and to shed innocent blood as a means of satisfying God’s system of justice.  Neither of these could have been accomplished without a human body, or without the appearance of the One who was “fully God” and “fully man.”  It was necessary for God Himself to make the sacrifice we were incapable of making, and that the sacrifice involve human blood which only the flesh could supply.

The Only Answer to Sin

We will spend a considerable amount of time with Jesus’ death on the cross in a later section devoted entirely to the subject.  But for now, it is important to establish the need for an incarnation in relation to our redemption.  A few criteria have already been referenced for a redeemer.  He must possess authority, be perfect, and willing to suffer.  It is important to note two important passages of scripture which qualify Jesus as this Redeemer, and demonstrate how His story revealed the eternal strategy of the Father.

The first passage is Romans 5 where the Apostle Paul identifies Jesus as a second Adam.  In the Garden of Eden, Adam disobeyed God and brought sin into the world.  We know Eve sinned as well, but Paul uses Adam to make his point, and to represent the entire human race.  Adam’s sin was devastating.  It ruined the perfect life God planned for His creation, gave Satan a foothold in our hearts, and introduced death and decay everywhere (Romans 5:12).

Since Adam’s sin tainted all humanity it was necessary, in God’s system of justice, for another man to shed his blood as payment.  Jesus was that man! “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (Roman 5:8-9)

Because Jesus was perfect (Hebrews 4:15) He was able to assume the role of justifier and reverse the unrighteous act of Adam with His own righteous act on Calvary (Romans 5:18-19).

Therefore, as our second Adam, our sinless Redeemer Jesus made us just by paying our debt on the cross.  Was it possible for Jesus to sin?  The answer to this question must be “yes” or His temptation in the wilderness after His baptism was nothing but an interesting story.  This gives us another reason to praise our Savior as we imagine Him battling Satan on every turn in order to remain sinless for our sakes.  The first Adam sinned to satisfy his personal appetite, but Jesus refused sin to satisfy righteousness and save us from eternal separation from the Father.  We would expect this from Him, but it is still astonishing to know He pulled it off while living in human flesh.

Why an Incarnation

Ironically, God chose to come in the flesh for the very reason some try to reject the possibility that He could.  God wanted to draw as near to us as possible to show us how much He loves us.  If we dismiss the idea of a personal God, this passionate overture means little.  But if we embrace it, we can’t help but love God back.

Not long ago a husband in our congregation called to let us know his wife had been in a car accident and to ask if someone could go check on her.  She had just dropped him off at an airport and he was already in the terminal ready to board when he received her call.  A few moments later I arrived at the crash scene with another staff member and we called her husband to give him an update.  By that time he had already left the terminal and asked if we could pick him up and bring him to see his wife, which we did.

Why did this husband risk messing up his travel plans even though his wife assured him she was alright and we confirmed she was not injured?  We even sent him pictures of the car so he knew the extent of the damage.  Why?  It was because sometimes there is no substitute for being there.  It is hard to convey love and concern in a text message, but being there in person speaks volumes.

Why didn’t God create a son and put him on the cross?  He could have, but this wouldn’t have accomplished the same thing.  First, a mere human, even if he was created for a purpose, would not have the authority to suffer the punishment we deserved.  A special creation would be no different from God choosing any one of us to die for the world.  No, the only way to bring about our salvation was for the One who was perfect to settle the account no one else could afford.

But would it not have been possible for God to drop in for a quick visit to Calvary, die there to satisfy the Law, and return to heaven?  The soldiers wouldn’t have had to show up.  It could all have been handled quickly and discretely.

Yet, if God had handled things this way, how would we know how much He loved us?  How could we know He understands what it is like to live here?  And what hope would we have had the disciples not witnessed His agony, death, burial and resurrection?  As the writer of Hebrews reminds us, “Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).

Please realize.  The incarnation was important in communicating love, but it was also necessary in striking down the charge of sin against us.  To this important point we turn our attention.

All of these attempts lead one to think Jesus’ death on the cross is inadequate, and in different ways they deny God’s plan to come in the flesh and die for the sins of the world.

Opposition to the idea of a God in human flesh didn’t end with these early controversies.  In our earlier discussion on the eternal nature of Jesus and the Arian problem, we noted the Nicene Creed was an attempt to establish, for the church universal, the “full God-full man” principle.  But even this didn’t completely settle the matter, and as we have mentioned there are church bodies today who claim Jesus was a created being.  As problematic as this might be for orthodoxy, there is yet another influence which continues to reject the incarnation.

Modern liberal scholarship has been relentless in its attempt to put the biblical teaching of God incarnate in the category of myth.  The onslaught was fueled by German theologians in the nineteenth century, when some tried to label Jesus as a mythological recreation of ancient folklore, and continues to this day.  The present arguments range from the proposal that the scriptures never claim God literally came in the flesh to, and often including the dismissal of biblical authority altogether.  Interestingly, those who make these assertions place a high value on their personal academic accomplishments, and strive to show how it is possible to practice Christianity without accepting one of its most basic tenets.  Sound familiar?

We could spend much more time discussing Gnosticism or other philosophies that sought to degrade the notion of an incarnation.  What is more important, however, is to recognize their presence in the church, and to consider how people might have used them as a tool of rebellion.

In Colossae, it appears Gnosticism was only one part of a complex heresy, which targeted the sufficiency of the cross to save.  The Gnostic portion of the error is likely reflected in Paul’s reference to angels when he writes, “Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize.”  (Colossians 2:18)  Since, in Gnostic thinking, it was impossible for God to have created the earth, a hierarchy of angels was developed as intermediaries.

Closely tied to this system was the belief its truths could only be understood and applied by those with secret knowledge or “gnosis.”  This illustrates another characteristic of the Colossian problem, which was a false sense of intellectual and spiritual superiority.  Paul describes this mentality in his section on angel worshippers:  “Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.” (Colossians 2:18)

It appears there were Jewish legalists in the Colossian church who believed true righteousness was only possible if followers of Christ followed Old Testament practices under the Law.  While there was nothing inherently sinful in following these practices in the church, the scriptures remind us they were made obsolete by the cross.  This important point is addressed in the book of Colossians when Paul writes, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossian 2:16-17)

Finally, there was an ascetic element at work in Colossae.  As with Old Testament regulations, it is not necessarily sinful to live an ascetic life of self-abasement, unless one has convinced himself his lifestyle is attaining a higher level of righteousness.  For example, the biblical practice of fasting requires a denial of self, and can help us focus on the Lord and His will for our lives, but it won’t do anything to cover our sins.  Only the blood of Jesus can save.  This misunderstanding is the likely cause for Paul’s rejection of the rules “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” (Colossians 2:21).

Volumes have been written on the “Colossian Heresy” and I have only provided a basic framework here for the purpose of making my point: attacks on the incarnation of Jesus are often more of a tool for personal rebellion as they are a sincere theological pursuit.  If I dismiss God as my Creator and adopt a dualistic view of life, then I can also justify sin in the flesh while claiming righteousness in the spirit.  If I can somehow convince by spiritual brothers and sisters they need more than the cross for salvation, then I can bully them into obeying me instead of the Lord.  And if I can claim superiority through secret knowledge or self-abasement, I can take the attention off of the love that led Jesus to the cross and make myself out to be somewhat of a savior.  All of these attempts lead one to think Jesus’ death on the cross is inadequate, and in different ways they reject God’s plan to come in the flesh and die for the sins of the world.

Early Controversy 

Controversy over the incarnation didn’t take long to make its way into the early church.  It is generally assumed a considerable part of the problem had its roots in popular dualistic philosophy, which played the spirit against the flesh.  While it is biblical to say we have souls that survive the death of our bodies (2 Corinthians 5:8), it is wrong to think our bodies are inherently evil, or that the divine nature of God could not live in flesh without being corrupted in some way.

My grandmother was from the mountains of eastern Kentucky, and when something seemed to go against common decency she would say, “That’s just ugly!”  Had some of these ancient philosophers, such as the Gnostics, been from my grandmother’s hometown, I believe they would have used this phrase to describe the incarnation: “That’s just ugly!”

Who were the Gnostics?  The name Gnostic is from the Greek word “gnosis”, meaning knowledge.  Gnostics believed they had special insight into all things divine, which included the conviction the earth could not have been created by God.  How could God be responsible for something so flawed and temporal?  Instead, creation must have been accomplished through the existence of a “demiurge” who acted as an intermediary between God and the physical world.  Many Gnostics carried this logic to its natural conclusion in denying the divinity of Jesus.  Since it was crude to think a holy God could inhabit a human body, they believed Jesus was a created being who became divine by attaining knowledge, which He, in turn, shared with the other disciples.

There are many nuances in Gnostic philosophy which are important, but perhaps not as important as its basic threat to the church: Gnostic philosophy, and other forms of dualistic thinking, rendered the incarnation quite impossible, if not “ugly” in every way.  It is obvious this line of thinking was present in the early church.  Just how much it emerged within the church, or trickled into the church from outside influences is something scholars continue to debate.  The doctrines and adherents of Gnostic thinking were “all over the map” as they say, meaning it could be found in a variety of forms.  But an attack on the divinity of Jesus seems to be a common thread in its influence, and one that biblical writers attempted to counter with some regularity.

The Apostle John begins his first letter with a clear picture of the disciples’ personal interaction with Jesus.  He writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched” (1 John 1:1).  It is easy to see here that John wants his readers to know God walked on the earth in human flesh.  The Apostle Paul reminded the Colossians God was pleased to have “all his fullness” dwell in Jesus (Colossians 1:19).  He also said the mystery surrounding the gospel had already been revealed, in that Gentiles were intended to be a part of God’s kingdom all along (Colossians 1:256-27).  If we take time to read the entire book of Colossians with the assumption Paul is addressing a Gnostic heresy in the church, we notice numerous affirmations of the deity of Jesus and His place as the incarnation of God Himself (Colossians 2:8-10).

We could spend much more time discussing Gnosticism or other philosophies that sought to degrade the notion of the incarnation.  More important to our purposes here, however, is to recognize its presence in the church, and to consider how people might have used it to as a tool of rebellion.