Scripture and God in Christianity

ally (not mere metaphorically) divine and also literally (and not mere metaphorically) man. As
divine he was not analogous to God, or poetically-speaking God, or as-if God; he was, actually
and literally God-incarnate. And again, as human he was really, truly and literally a man." 822 He
goes on arguing that "orthodoxy has never been able to give this idea any content. It remains a
form of words without assignable meaning. For to say, without explanation, that the historical
Jesus of Nazareth was also God is as devoid of meaning as to say that this circle drawn with a
pencil on paper is also a square. Such a locution has to be given semantic content: and in the
case of the language of incarnation every content thus far suggested has had to be repudiated." 823
The problem with the traditional Christian belief, to quote V. A. Harvey, is that "in contrast to all
other texts, it sets aside our present critically interpreted experience when it comes to interpreting
the New Testament. It assumes that in this case alone what our critically interpreted experience
tells us is "impossible" is not only possible but probable and certain." 824
According to Hick's understanding, the doctrine of `Incarnation' is a mythological idea and literally
not true at all and "a Christian does not have to accept those philosophical and theological
theories of the third and fourth centuries." 825 Like every other myth it was introduced to "evoke
an attitude." 826 The real significance of Jesus does not lie in his divinity or incarnation but in his
example and model. For "He is the one in following whom we have found ourselves in God's
presence and have found God's meaning for our lives. He is our sufficient model of true humanity
in a perfect relationship to God." 827 Though the concept of "sufficient model of true humanity"
should be understood in the light of such a data available in the New Testament books, the
limitations of which have already been discussed above.
Paul Badham takes a different route to reach the same conclusion as that of Hick. He rejects the
literal interpretations of the doctrine of `Incarnation' due to two valid theological reasons. He observes
that, "all attempts to speak out the doctrine of the incarnation as literal proposition face the
following conundrums:
(a) if the historical Jesus had access to divine knowledge or power then he cannot truly be described
as God incarnate for he did not, in terms of our present understanding of what it means to
be human person, genuinely become a "man like us in all respects save sin";
(b) If Jesus was a "man like us in all respects save sin" no grounds can be adduced for supposing
him to be God incarnate." 828
Badham disagrees with Hick that the Fathers took the incarnation literally, "I find this quite impossible
to accept." 829 I think it is an oversimplification of the issue. The traditional phraseology,
concepts of atonement and salvation, understandings about the deity, person, nature, union and
body of Christ, the outcome of these understandings in regards to Jesus' worship, images and also
images of Mary and God, in short all history of the 'Incarnational Thought' points to the validity
of Hick's thesis and denial of what Badham himself argues as valid theological reasons. In the
light of what has been discussed in the previous pages, it becomes fairly difficult to accept Badham's
thesis.
102