The A-Z of Believing: I is for Incarnation

How does God come down to meet us? Ed Kessler, head of the Woolf Institute, presents the next part in a series on belief and scepticism

Incarnation is not a Zeus-like metamorphosis into a man, but a union of the divine and the human (Shutterstock)

Written and presented by Dr Ed Kessler MBE, founder and director of the Cambridge-based Woolf Institute, this compelling guide to religious belief and scepticism is a must-read for believers and nonbelievers alike.

Founded in 1998 to explore the relationship between religion and society, the Woolf Institute uses research and education to foster understanding between people of all beliefs with the aim of reducing prejudice and intolerance.

Says Dr Kessler: “Latest surveys suggest that 85 per cent of the world’s population identify themselves as belonging to a specific religion, and in many parts of the world the most powerful actors in civil society are religious. Understanding religion and belief, the role they play and their impact on behaviour and decision-making is, therefore, vital.”

Dr Kessler – who was awarded an MBE for services to interfaith relations in 2011 – is an affiliated lecturer with the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University, a principal of the Cambridge Theological Federation and additionally teaches at the Cambridge Muslim College.

He says: “This A-Z of Believing aims to show how the encounter between religions has influenced and been influenced by the evolution of civilisation and culture, both for good and for ill. I hope that a better understanding of believing will lead people to realise that while each religion is separate, they are also profoundly connected.”

I is for Incarnation

By being partakers of Christ incarnate, we are partakers in the whole humanity which he bore – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Bear with me for the letter “I”, because we are going to tackle something a little bit more technical. For Christians, Jesus is the incarnate – that is “enfleshed” – word of God, in Greek, logos. In Jesus dwells the divine glory. Incarnation is not a Zeus-like metamorphosis into a man, but a union of the divine and the human in one person in a way that maintains the transcendent character of the divine and the dependent status of the created order.

Incarnation reveals something of the nature of the divine, suggesting that a remote God “up there”, or characterless Pantheism everywhere, are not enough for human needs. South Asian religion echoes incarnational belief, describing a “downcoming” (ava-tara) of the god in human or animal form as an avatar, for the sake of humans in need. As the Bhagava Gita says: “Whenever there is a decline of righteousness and a rise of unrighteousness, then I send forth myself.”

Of course, it’s debatable as to how much common ground there is between the concepts of avatar and incarnation. The most significant difference is that Christians believe that Jesus is the only human incarnation of God. Many Hindus, however, adapt and adopt Jesus to their own vision of divine reality. It’s not unusual to see pictures of him alongside those of Hindu gods and goddesses in Indian homes and, in a similar way, the Buddha has also been appropriated, becoming thoroughly Hinduised as the ninth incarnation of the god Vishnu: somewhat ironically, since he had no conviction that the gods could help humans negotiate their path through this life’s impermanence towards nirvana.

Since an avatar is understood as the one who becomes, if not the many, then a plurality, many Hindus regard Christian Trinitarian theology – that is, “three in one” – as divine stinginess. For to them, the nature of transcendence is a kind of divine lavishness, overflowing in myriad forms in this world.

Judaism and Islam seem, by comparison with Hinduism and even Christianity, to be stern monotheistic religions, lacking in colour and plurality. At first sight, therefore it would seem Jews and Muslims have nothing much to contribute to a reflection on incarnation. However, there is an impulse in them that is, at least, analogous to notions of downcoming or incarnation.

For example, the debates in early Islam about whether the Quran is eternal or a divine creation can be taken to indicate an impulse towards an understanding of the divine reality that does not, from a very austere point of view, cohere with a strict monotheism.

In addition, the biblical and rabbinic concept of wisdom was understood as an expression of divine personality from the late biblical period in Judaism, and the Christian understanding of the incarnation develops Jewish themes, even though it is generally viewed as one of the main dividing lines between Judaism and Christianity. In fact, there is almost a Jewish analogue to incarnation – the Hebrew term Shekinah, which refers to God’s glory “dwelling” over the tabernacle, indicating both divine presence and continuity. And when the children of Israel went into exile, the early rabbis depict God as going into exile with them. God’s presence is not only seen in the cloud and fire leading the people in the story of the Exodus but also continued after the canon of the Hebrew Bible was closed. God was present, for example, after the fall of the Temple in the year 70.

The New Testament also alludes to the Shekinah, describing the “tabernacling” of the Logos. Drawing upon a pun in Greek where the word for “tent” is related to the Hebrew for “to dwell”, Jesus, the word of God, is depicted in the Gospel of John as encamping with the people of the world and, I quote, “the word became flesh and dwelt (literally tabernacled) amongst us”.

Like the Logos, both the Quran and Torah are understood in Islam and Judaism respectively as being in existence before the creation of the world. The first century Jewish philosopher Philo wrote about the pre-existence of the Logos, which he identified with the Torah. Although he didn’t have the same understanding of the incarnate logos that is found in Christianity, it is striking that a Jew who lived at the same time as the authors of the New Testament, and who probably never even heard of Jesus, spoke of the fatherhood of God and of the Logos as his image, and I quote, “Even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons and daughters of God, still we may be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word (logos)”.

Later, rabbinic Judaism personified the Torah, that God discussed the creation of the world with the Torah, describing it as Israel’s bride and eternal. Jesus’s statement in Matthew that he has come not to destroy but to fulfil the Torah is reminiscent of the rabbinic teaching of its non-abrogability, that is, it lasts for ever. The rabbis taught that the Torah would exist in the world to come, but interestingly it was also argued that changes to the Torah would take place in the messianic age.

But that has to be left to another letter.

Next week: J is for Jokes

Listen to each episode of An A-Z of Believing: from Atheism to Zealotry on the Woolf Institute podcast site or wherever you get your podcasts