Basic HTML Version
318
a. The subject of the incarnation.
It was not the triune God but the second person of the Trinity
that assumed human nature. For that reason it is better to say that the Word became flesh than
that God became man. At the same time we should remember that each of the divine persons
was active in the incarnation, Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 1:14; Acts 2:30; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4;
Phil 2:7. This also means that the incarnation was not something that merely happened to the
Logos, but was an active accomplishment on His part. In speaking of the incarnation in
distinction from the birth of the Logos, His active participation in this historical fact is stressed,
and His pre-existence is assumed. It is not possible to speak of the incarnation of one who had
no previous existence. This pre-existence is clearly taught in Scripture: “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John 1:1. “I am come down
from heaven,” John 6:38. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was
rich, yet for our sakes He became poor,” II Cor. 8:9. “Who, existing in the form of God, counted
not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the
form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,” Phil. 2:6,7. “But when the fulness of the
time came God sent forth His Son,” Gal. 4:4. The pre-existent Son of God assumes human
nature and takes to Himself human flesh and blood, a miracle that passes our limited
understanding. It clearly shows that the infinite can and does enter into finite relations, and
that the supernatural can in some way enter the historical life of the world.
b. The necessity of the incarnation.
Since the days of Scholasticism the question has been
debated, whether the incarnation should be regarded as involved in the idea of redemption, or
as already involved in the idea of creation. Popularly stated, the question was, whether the Son
of God would have come in the flesh even if man had not sinned. Rupert of Deutz was the first
to assert clearly and positively that He would have become incarnate irrespective of sin. His
view was shared by Alexander of Hales and Duns Scotus, but Thomas Aquinas took the position
that the reason for the incarnation lay in the entrance of sin into the world. The Reformers
shared this view, and the Churches of the Reformation teach that the incarnation was
necessitated by the fall of man. Some Lutheran and Reformed scholars, however, such as
Osiander, Rothe, Dorner, Lange, Van Oosterzee, Martensen, Ebrard, and Westcott, were of the
contrary opinion. The arguments adduced by them are such as the following: Such a
stupendous fact as the incarnation cannot be contingent, and cannot find its cause in sin as an
accidental and arbitrary act of man. It must have been included in the original plan of God.
Religion before and after the fall cannot be essentially different. If a Mediator is necessary now,
He must have been necessary also before the fall. Moreover, Christ’s work is not limited to the
atonement and His saving operations. He is Mediator, but also Head; He is not only the arche,
but also the telos of creation, I Cor. 15:45-47; Eph. 1:10,21-23; 5:31,32; Col. 1:15-17.