Many Christians no longer affirm the key to classical Christology doctrine, namely, that the infinite, immutable, impassible one unites to finite, mutable, and passible humanity. Some Christians even affirm neo-apollinarianism. And rarely do churches proclaim Christology from the pulpit (at least in its more theological form). 

As we have debated the doctrine of Trinity doctrine over the past few years, so now I think we are about to enter a time of renewed debate about Christology. The reason is twofold. First, we have forgotten about theological anthropology whose language provides the linguistic and metaphysical framework for the incarnation. Second, we have underappreciated doctrines like immutability and impassibility, which stand at the very heart of Christ’s identity (and thus the Gospel). 

I will explain what I mean in more detail below, but in short Christology has lost its twofold basis. And with such loss, almost every other doctrine of Christianity suffers because such doctrines require Christology to make sense. 

Many Christians no longer affirm the key to classical Christology doctrine, namely, that the infinite, immutable, impassible one unites to finite, mutable, and passible humanity. Some Christians even affirm neo-apollinarianism. And rarely do churches proclaim Christology from the pulpit (at least in its more theological form). 

So I think it is worth remembering some of the patterns of theological and scriptural thinking that Christians have used over the years. If we remember the past, we might just overcome the looming civil war that is coming on the horizon. 

The Meaning of “Become”

We need to start somewhere, and we might as well start with some of the key Christological debates over the years. When it comes to such debates, it can be helpful to consider how the various theological positions might have understood the word “become” in the phrase “Word became flesh” from John 1:14. It at least provides a conceptual rung to hang our thoughts. 

In other words, in the following, I want to show how the way in which one views Christ’s two natures relating to another will make one trend in certain theological directions. 

First, some advocated that the Word came into flesh, in the sense of indwelling flesh substantially. Such a view trends towards docetism, various forms of gnosticism, and paulicanism (Paul of Samosata). 

Second, some advocated that the Word changed into flesh, in the sense of mixing together to form one nature. Yet such advocates only did so for the sake of making an argument ad absurdum since God cannot change; and so they found it obvious that the Son of God could not be divine like God is. This view trends towards arianism and eunomianism.  

Third, some advocated that the Word substantially unites divinity and flesh according to nature, in the sense of completing one single subject who is Christ. Such a view trends towards apollinarianism, eutychianism, and miaphysitism. 

Fourth, some advocated that the Word seemed to become flesh but really the Word and the flesh maintain their distinct properties without any natural union. Such a view trends towards nestorianism. 

Fifth, some advocated that the Word became flesh by assuming flesh into the Word, in the sense of the Word uniting divinity and humanity into himself personally. Such a view trends towards chalcedonian dogma. 

Each view attempts to define what happens when the Word becomes flesh. When it comes to the scriptural passage itself, the grammatical and near scriptural context of John 1:14 really provides no easy answer since the statement “the Word became flesh” occurs without explanation. 

However, earlier and later passages in John do provide theological reasoning for which option best accounts for what Christ is and, as I shall note, does. 

Theological Reasoning

Jesus claims that if one has seen him then one has seen the Father (John 14:9). He also claims that he and the Father are one (John 10:30). Such statements reflect the prologue’s statement that the Word is God (John 1:1) and that the Word reveals God (John 1:18).

These statements of divinity and oneness along with the fact that the Father and Word (or Son) somehow differ from another leads to a particular problem implicitly evinced above. First, how can God be one if two names (Father and Son) make up the definition of God? And second, since God by nature must be immutable, then how can one God become flesh? 

In this respect specifically (and not generally), Arius followed the right line of logic. God changing into flesh would entail that he is not God. And so “became” in John 1:14  must take on a different sense than transformation or else we lose God.

Read More