The final day of the year usually comes with reflections on the past and hope for the future. The ending of one event and the beginning of another. With Christmas having just finished, I have been thinking through the impact of the incarnation of God taking place in a humble manger. But the incarnation is not just about the Alpha and Omega becoming a human being and bringing salvation to us. The incarnation also effects God's future as well. Not only did the 2nd person of the Trinity feel the wrath of the 1st person of the Trinity (consider propitiation), but also the 2nd person of the Trinity is forever a human being - Jesus. It does not appear from Scripture that the God/Man reverted back to what He was prior to the incarnation. In fact the appearances of Jesus Christ point to the fact that He is forever Jesus. Just consider Stephen's sighting of Jesus in Acts 7 and John's vision of Jesus in Rev. 1. In both instances Jesus is a recognizable human. Now some may argue that God can assume human form, and that is certainly true. But a straightforward reading of the NT post-resurrection accounts of Jesus Christ indicate that He is forever the God/Man.
Honestly, I can't explain this. I don't think we know enough about God to be able to navigate intra-Trinitarian metaphysics. But I think there is still a good lesson we can draw from this: the permanent incarnation of God clearly shows the extent of the love, mercy and grace of God in the fulfillment of His plan of salvation.
My musings on the incarnation started with the manger but ended in Rev. 21 as the King of Kings is ruling the New Heavens and New Earth in righteousness. So even our futures are going to be affected by the incarnation, because Jesus is/will be our King.
I hope everyone has a great New Year! Thanks for being a part of this blog which started only 6 months ago!
Thanks Michael- Yes, I think you are right. There is at least no indication or hint that it is otherwise way. It certainly fits with the Christologies of Nicaea and Chalcedon.
ReplyDeleteOrigen, perhaps, would have disagreed, since he liked everything to be symmetrical (everything restored to the same way that it was in the beginning), but I think most of the later "orthodox" Fathers viewed the Union as a permanent.
@Mike: Thinking aloud:
ReplyDeleteWasn't this one of the main/primary issues that lent toward the development of those early Creeds? To what degree was God-man, and man-God? What an interesting thought/reminder. Neither one, as more than that of the other, yet still wholly unique, yet one, in regard to function, even though the terms "unique" and "function" seem a bit contradictory given such said "oneness" language and all. Hmmm.
O ya, what about the 3rd person of the Trinity? Chopped liver?? ;v)
Really great thoughts here Mike. Thanks for the insight.
~ The 'forest' is chilly ~