INCARNATION
A PROBLEM FOR SCIENCE AND
THEOLOGY?
1d: Miracles
incarnation
In Christian Theology the word Incarnation refers to the belief that
God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. (Latin. in and
caro, stem carn, meaning “flesh”).
Traditional understandings of this are linked to the doctrine of the
virginal conception whereby, in the words of the Apostle’s creed,
“...Jesus Christ ... was conceived by the Holy Spirit (and) born of
the Virgin Mary...”
The Nicene Creed underlines the pre-existence of Christ in the
words, “Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of
his Father before all worlds, God of God ... not made, being of one
substance with the Father...”
UNIQUE GOD-MAN?
Essentially yes - this is precisely what the historical
Christian understanding is affirming.
Jesus is seen as a unique individual who is both fully
God and fully man. His nature is unique. He is one
person with a divine and human nature.
It is theologically important that Jesus does not share in
Adam’s nature. He is the sinless one. Hence the
emphasis on his not having a human father. Christians
historically believe that Mary was a virgin at the time
that she became pregnant.
BIOLOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS
We would now have to translate this
miraculous conception into something like the
following story.
Mary supplied the ovum containing the
relevant chromosomes and the rest came by
supernatural intervention. Crudely speaking,
X from Mary and Y from God.
theology and science
together?
•
The Reverend Dr. John
Polkinghorne described it thus:
‘the dual origin of the X and Y
chromosomes ... seems a
possible physical expression of
the belief, in the words of the
Nicene Creed, that Jesus “by
the power of the Holy Spirit
became incarnate of the Virgin
Mary and was made man”.’
Theology and science
apart?
•The
Reverend Dr. Arthur Peacocke
represents a rather different position
arguing that we should not confuse
the notion of incarnation with the
need for virginal conception and the
miracle that this supposes. God
does not ‘intervene’ in creating ‘part’
of the genetic material for the
embryonic Jesus. He was
conceived, in biological terms, like
any other person.
ARE THE STORIES
OF THE VIRGIN
BIRTH TRUE?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm is a
site which in a three part essay discusses the
virginal conception without coming to a firm
conclusion about what actually is the truth.
The Lion Handbook of Christian Belief (1982, p71)
set out the positive and negative answers in the
following bullet points:
For
√
Attempts to demonstrate them to be fictitious have been
unsuccessful.
√
Mark and John were not concerned to discuss the details of
Jesus’ birth.
√
Apparently independent stories in Matthew and Luke.
√
Could well have been preserved in a comparatively small circle
round Jesus’ family.
√
Those who believe on other grounds that Jesus was God
incarnate will see it as fitting and probable that his birth was
unique.
against
X
Their truth cannot in the nature of the case be proved.
X
No sign of them in Mark or John
X
No trace of knowledge of them before the gospels were
written.
X
Constructed to show that certain Old Testament prophecies
came true.
X
Not used in the earliest days to show Jesus was the Son of
God.
X
They are wholly fictitious - attempts to give story form to the
church’s understanding of Christ.
QUESTIONS
If you believe in God is it reasonable to
believe in the virginal conception of Jesus?
Does it matter to Christians whether or not
Jesus was supernaturally conceived?
If you do not believe in God is it reasonable
to believe in the virginal conception of
Jesus?
Is it a question of evidence for the atheist
or an issue which is settled a priori?