Beating a Dead Horse

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NASB

The Word – There is an amazing little fact about the gospel writers that is often overlooked. It is simply this:

The New Testament provides little information on Jesus’ family. Outside of the nativity stories, the Gospels hardly mention Jesus’ family. Christians historically have struggled with the reality of the incarnation—God became man. While they have had little problem looking at Jesus as divine, the struggle comes in viewing Jesus as man—the principal point of the incarnation. His family, however, ties Jesus to history, joins Him to humanity, and connects Him with the Jewish people. His family makes the incarnation real, and like any other person in human history, His family shaped who He became as a man.[1]

Now let’s read Turnage’s remark from the perspective of Jewish writers in the first century. Jews don’t have any problem at all with Yeshua as a man. How could they? He is just like every other man, born to this world, growing up in a Jewish household, speaking the languages of Israel in the first century, following an orthodox faith, participating in customary rites and rituals, living among his native people. Is there anything controversial about this? No. But notice what is disconcerting to Jewish readers of the story of Yeshua—the claim that he is God, precisely what Christians apparently don’t have any problem accepting.[2] This is quite odd. Christians seem ready to accept Yeshua as unlike any other man ever born, but struggle to imagine that he really is like every other man. Jews have no problem thinking of Yeshua like every other man, but balk at the idea that he is different than every man ever born. In fact, Jews would argue that Turnage’s statement, “His family makes the incarnation real, and like any other person in human history . . .,” is nonsense. By Christian definition, he is not like “any other person in human history.” That is why Christians struggle with the incarnation. Whatever the incarnation is, it excludes Yeshua from being like anyone else. It does not include him in the history of every other person. It can’t! If it did, he couldn’t be God.

Do you find it rather odd (perhaps distressing) that Christians assert what is patently nonsense from the human perspective while Jews assert what is nonsense from a divine perspective? How did this genuinely perplexing state of affairs come to be? Just for a moment, put aside your presuppositions about the incarnation and read Turnage’s statement again. Does it make any sense to you if you don’t assume the doctrine of the incarnation is true? And if you have to assume that the incarnation is true in order to claim what Turnage says, then where did the idea come from? It certainly did not come from the absolutely ubiquitous experience of human beings. If Turnage has to employ vocabulary about “Jesus” humanity that has no equivalent in any human experience, then what in the world do his words really mean? Isn’t it something equivalent to saying that it’s raining, but meaning that I’m standing in the Sahara desert sunshine?

Just one last thought before we stop beating the dead horse. If you were a rational human being, unfettered by the cultural history of Western Christianity, what position would make more sense to you: that Yeshua is a man or that he is God? Is it any wonder why Millard Erickson suggests that we believe this Christian idea because it doesn’t make sense and therefore must be from God? What kind of a God would play that colossal re-definition trick on human beings? OK. Enough. Let’s go back to thinking about things that actually have meaning in the human world, like what to eat for dinner.

Topical Index: incarnation, Word, Marc Turnage, John 1:1

A theological notice: Some time ago I was advised to avoid the topic of the Trinity. “Stay below the radar,” was the instruction. But, as things progressed, I found it impossible not to investigate the origin and language of this doctrine. The discussion has been lively, and worthwhile, I trust. But I have concluded that the real analysis of this doctrine must occur at the meta-theological level, that is, this is about paradigms, not exegesis. So the analysis must involve the culture, perspective and context of the authors, not the exegetes and certainly not the Church since it was not yet formed when men wrote the words of Scripture. At this point, I think we have articulated these real concerns. Continued exegetical analysis is really rather pointless if we are not willing to ask, “What did these men think within their own context?” So, now perhaps it’s time to duck below the radar. Thanks for letting me poke my head up over these last few years.

[1] Marc Turnage, Windows into the Bible, p. 211.

[2] While common understanding of the divinity of “Jesus” is mainstream Christianity, that does not mean there have been no discenters throughout the history of Christianity. If you want to know the full argument about this doctrine, it might be instructive to read the writings of these theologians from the earliest fathers until today.