Divinity, Humanity, and Incarnation 3

In reading through Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy this evening, I received just the spark I needed to bring this series to an end (and perhaps even a new beginning?). Using the motif of a courtroom, Brueggemann interprets the polyphonic nature of the Old Testament as a cacophony of witnesses testifying about YHWH. I am in the section where Brueggemann discuses Israel’s countertestimony. Here is a snippet that explains how Brueggemann understands Israel’s countertestimony:

Thus, while my extended discussion of cross-examination runs counter to my extended discussion of testimony, it is not a case of either/or. The cross-examination is not intended by Israel to obliterate the core testimony. In the disputatious propensity of Israel, rather, core testimony and cross-examination belong to each other and for each other in an ongoing exchange. Thus there will never be a “final” testimony in Israel that will not be subject to cross-examination. Nor will there ever be a cross-examination to which the consensus testimony does not make a vigorous response. Thus a reader of the Old Testament, I suggest, must accept cross-examination as a crucial part of the way in which Israel makes its presentation of disputatious testimony concerning Yahweh. It does not know any other way to speak. As a result, it is evident that Israel’s countertestimony is not an act of unfaith. It is rather a characteristic way in which faith is practiced. (317-18)

On a cross-examination of YHWH’s reliability, Brueggemann finds in the narratives of Samuel, Saul, and David, evidence certain (counter)testimonies, one of which includes YHWH’s willingness to “deceive in order to advance David (1 Sam 16:1)” (371). He adds to this the Davidic census which YHWH both incites and condemns (2 Sam 24). Earlier, he discusses the prophetic tale in 1 Kings 22:20-22 where YHWH devises a strategy “to entice Ahab into fullish policy by a prophet who is credentialed by Yahweh to give bad advice to the king. . . . What is being planned is a massive deception of the king” (361).

If these voices were not challenging enough for discerning a coherent Old Testament theological image of YHWH, the challenge only increases when we expand our scope to address the biblical theological testimony about God. Consider the words of James. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (1:13). Perhaps such a verse demonstrates Brueggemann’s own contention that “there will never be a ‘final’ testimony in Israel that will not be subject to cross-examination. Nor will there ever be a cross-examination to which the consensus testimony does not make a vigorous response.”

I want to use this verse as the fulcrum into my discussion on Divinity, Humanity, and Incarnation. The previous discussion can be found here and here. If certain verses in the Old Testament serve as a countertestimony to James’ contention that God “tempts no one” (or perhaps if James serves as a countertestimony to the narratives of Samuel, Saul, and David), then the Gospels and the letter to the Hebrews might be considered a countertestimony to the James’ contention that “God cannot be tempted with evil.”

The synoptic gospels, particularly Matthew and Luke, have no shame in portraying Jesus in the wilderness tempted by Satan. While the whole event is surely a recapitulation of Exodus, the three temptations seem to also reflect the temptation Eve faces in the Garden (Gen 3:6). These become in the New Testament the three-fold understanding of temptation. “For all that is in the world- the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions- is not from the Father but is from the world” (1 John 2:16). (Again, we detect here the desire to distance such things from the Father, the other concern which James shares.) One can see the author of Hebrews making use of the synoptic temptation story along with this three-fold nature of temptation as he reflects on the priestly role of Jesus. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

What do we do with this testimony in the Gospels and Hebrews regarding the Jesus experiencing temptation? Do we dismiss his divinity? Do we exalt his humanity? The latter move would be, in my opinion, the type of move made in kenotic Christology. Thus, in order for divinity to be clothed in humanity, in order for incarnation to be possible, the divinity must in some way “empty himself” of certain things which characterize his divinity (i.e. divinity cannot be tempted with evil).

Along with Brueggemann, I question whether we should make a move that provides the interpretive finality our Western minds so desperately crave. Is this type of tension not elsewhere tolerated in our Bible? Observe Habakkuk in the span of a single verse make a claim about YHWH’s nature and then provide an instance in which YHWH is seen acting in opposition to that claim. “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look (nbt) at wrong, why do you idly look (nbt) at traitors and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?” (Hab 1:13). Kenotic Christology does nothing to resolve the tension here in Habakkuk, and using it to reconcile one tension in Scripture places a heavy burden on the rest of Scripture where similar tension can be found.

Is it a necessary (or even an expedient) move to resolve the type of tension outlined above? At this point, I am inclined to say no. To resolve the tension in one place would place a burden in every such place where similar tension exists in Scripture. How does one reconcile a verse like Habakkuk 1:13? We could call it hyperbolic language, but that then brings into question the reliability of any such claims about YHWH/God. Perhaps James was merely speaking hyperbolically!  To recognize the tension, to choose to leave the tension alone is by no means the end of the interpretive enterprise. It is only the launching point, the place where we begin our theological inquiry.

What do you think? Should we leave the tension alone? Should we seek to resolve it?

References

Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

Divinity, Humanity, and the Incarnation

I would like to transition from my thoughts on anthropomorphic/pathic language to a discussion of the incarnation.  I believe, in light of the present theological climate, that these comments need to be discussed in chorus, something I plan to do in the course of this series of posts.

I recently heard an apologetic debate between a creationist in my own faith tradition and an evangelical preacher turned atheist. One of the questions the atheist asked the creationist was, “What does it mean, ‘God is spirit’? What is spirit?” The creationist proceeded to discuss the incorporeality of God. Had I been the evangelical preacher turned atheist, I would have responded with these two questions. “Is Jesus incorporeal?” “Is he God?”

John was not a dualist; he did not share the worldview of the Greeks. This, unfortunately, was an assumption that the creationist made. But as far as Christendom was concerned, I imagine that he is largely in the majority, if not in how John should be interpreted, in the very least, how God should be understood.

In Philippians 2:6-11, there is a highly stylized poem that (arguably) constitutes the theological core of Paul’s letter. The first half reads,

Who, though he was in the form of God (εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων), did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing (εαυτου εκενωσεν), taking the form of a servant (μορφην δουλου λαβων), being born in the likeness of men (εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος).  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

I do not know whether systematic or exegetical concerns is to blame, but this has historically been used to explain the ontological mystery of the incarnation. Thus, εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων is understood as Jesus’ prior ontological form while μορφην δουλου λαβων is his incarnational ontology, further qualified by the phrase εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος. The verb εκενωσεν then marks Jesus’ ontological change. This verb has become the label for a Christiological perspective which attempts to explain away the contradictions tensions between Jesus’  incarnate life and the nature of one who is divine. He empties himself of certain divine attributes/qualities/prerogatives when he becomes a human.

If I understand correctly, Phil 2:6-11 is no longer recognized as a proof text for kenotic Christology, at least not by those who study Paul. The particular way of thinking (τουτο φρονειτε; 2:5) that Paul is exhorting his readers to model their lives after (πολιτευεσθε; 1:27) has nothing to do with Jesus’ pre- or post-incarnate ontology. Being in the form of God (εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων) concerns his being equal with God (το ειναι ισα θεω), not his ontological essence. Yet even still, I believe that the concept of kenotic Christology lives on for those who recognize a tension between Jesus’ life while incarnate and the attributes/qualities/prerogatives that pertain to one who is divine (θεος).

I am not persuaded that kenotic Christology resolves tension in the biblical text any more than it creates tension. I make my appeal to two very explicit passages about Christ. The first one says, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3). The second one says in a similar vein, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). These verses seem to disallow the type of move made from a kenotic Christological perspective.

In my next post,  I will flesh out why I find these verses to be incongruous with kenotic Christology as well as explore potential connections between the type of Christology imbedded in these statements and how we go about doing Old Testament theology.