The Man-God: does it make sense? (18. 12. 2024)

The Man-God: does it make sense?

It’s the run-up to Christmas, so I thought I’d see if philosophy can make sense of the Incarnation (God taking on human flesh).

This is a controversial belief because it seems to break the law of non-contradiction. Just as I can’t be both a human and a dog at the same time, non-Christians insist that Jesus can’t be both human and divine. Yet, to be a Christian, is to say just that, and many intelligent people have died for their faith. 

So, how could it work?

One possibility is to think about our nature and the different roles we play in our daily lives. I’m both a sister and an aunt; I’m also a friend and a teacher. In each case, I’m the same person but not the same individual because my properties differ depending on my role. I may be a bossy teacher but not a bossy aunt! In the same way, Jesus and God are the same person yet different because Jesus has the properties associated with being the Saviour, while God has the properties associated with being the Creator.

Another possibility is the difference between being merely something and fully something.  Take a cube. It’s made up of four squares and each square is a two-dimensional shape, yet it isn’t merely a square because it has the higher-level property of being three-dimensional. So, a cube is fully a cube made up of merely squares. In the same way, Jesus is

both merely human and fully God because he has the higher-level properties of divinity.

Let’s try one last approach.  Eleonore Stump doesn’t think the Incarnation breaks that law of non-contradiction. She asks us to consider an apple: it is both red and not-red at the same time. Why? Because its skin has the property of being red but its flesh has the property of being white. In other words, it has two distinct properties while being one apple, and it does this without contradiction. We can take a knife as another example: it has both the property of being sharp and not sharp simultaneously (the blade is sharp but the handle isn’t).

Just as the apple is red in respect of its skin but not red in respect of its flesh, so Jesus has properties in respect of being human and properties in respect of being divine. His human nature can lack the property of being all-knowing while his divine nature doesn’t. Or, his divine nature has the property of being all-powerful while his human nature doesn’t.

Of course, I’m not saying these theories resolve the mystery of the Incarnation; I don’t think any theory can do that. But I am showing how it could work. In other words, it isn’t a ridiculous claim to make; Christians don’t abdicate their reason when they choose to believe. Anselm of Canterbury put it rather well when he wrote: "I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand."

If you’re tempted to scoff at this (many are!), think how often you do the same. Take love for example: most of us start from the belief that we’re loved, and then we find ways to show this to be the case. I don’t think anyone starts with rationalising love. If you do, you’re never going to have enough evidence to show you are truly and fully loved; it isn’t possible.

So, here’s to faith first and reason second.

Happy Christmas.