The Incarnation:

The word “Incarnation” comes from the Latin incarnatio, which means “to make flesh” or “to embody in flesh.” The concept finds its roots in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, where it states, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

The Church Fathers wrote extensively about the Incarnation, emphasizing its importance for salvation.  Through sin, humanity broke its relationship with God, and only God could restore it.  The Incarnation was necessary for salvation because human beings could not repair the damage caused by sin on their own. Only God could provide an infinite and perfect sacrifice for sin, but this needed to be offered in a human nature. By becoming man, God could offer a sacrifice on humanity’s behalf.  The early Church understood this sacrifice to not only be Christ’s death on the cross, but rather His entire life, which He offered in humble obedience to the Father.  From the moment of His conception (the Annunciation), salvation was at hand.  The death of Christ on the cross was seen as the culmination of a life lived in loving servitude to the Father and as a shining example to humanity that began with the Incarnation.

Irenaeus of Lyons taught that the Incarnation was not just a prelude to Christ’s death, but it was the very act through which humanity was being restored. Christ, by assuming human nature, redeemed humanity, leading it to its full potential of union with God.  In his work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus said;

“The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” (Against Heresies, Book V)

 Athanasius of Alexandria echoed this thought, teaching that by becoming human, Christ took on human nature to heal and redeem it. In this sense, the Incarnation was the first and necessary step toward salvation, without which the cross and resurrection would not have been possible. While Athanasius affirmed the necessity of Christ’s death and resurrection, he argued that the Incarnation was the means by which humanity was united to God, sanctified, and prepared for this ultimate act of salvation.  Athanasius is famously quoted as saying;

“He became what we are so that He might make us what He is.” (On the Incarnation 54)

Gregory of Nazianzus insisted that it was necessary for Christ to take on every aspect of human nature in order for every aspect of human nature to be redeemed.  Christ’s taking on of human flesh, mind, and will was essential for the redemption of humanity.  Augustine taught that Christ’s humility in becoming human and His obedient life, culminating in His death on the cross, were both integral to salvation. Without the Incarnation, the cross would have been meaningless, and without the cross, the Incarnation would not have accomplished its full purpose.

Within the first few centuries of the Church, the Church Fathers began formally articulating the doctrine of the Incarnation in response to several heresies.  As each new heresy presented itself, the Church Fathers found it necessary to further clarify what they meant by the Incarnation.  One of the earliest heresies they needed to address was Docetism.  Docetism (from the Greek dokein, meaning “to seem”) claimed that Christ only appeared to have a physical body but did not truly become human. According to this view, Jesus’ physical sufferings, death, and resurrection were illusions, as the divine could not experience human suffering.  This would, of course, render His entire sacrifice impotent.  As Ignatius of Antioch said;

“For He suffered all these things for our sake, that we might be saved; and He truly suffered, as He also truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer.’ (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 2)

Arianism, a heresy taught by Arius in the early 4th century, denied the full divinity of Christ, claiming that he was a created being, distinct and subordinate to God the Father.  According to Arians, Christ was the highest of all creatures but not of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father.  Another early heresy, Apollinarianism, was named after Apollinaris of Laodicea, who proposed that Christ had a human body and soul, but his mind (or rational soul) was replaced by the divine Logos. Thus, Jesus lacked a fully human mind, making him less than fully human.  Nestorianism, named for Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, argued that the divine and human natures of Christ were so distinct that they could be considered two separate persons— one divine and one human— working in moral union. Nestorius also rejected the term Theotokos (“God-bearer”) for Mary, suggesting she only bore Christ’s human nature, not his divine nature.  St. Cyril of Alexandria responded to this claim by pointing out that a mother gives birth to a person, not a nature.  He said;

“We must follow these words and teachings, keeping in mind that although Christ is of two natures, he is still one Christ, one Son, one Lord, by the harmony of the divinity and humanity into an indivisible unity.” (Second Letter to Nestorius)

In reaction to Nestorianism, a new heresy broke out known as Monophysitism.  Monophysitism (from mono meaning “one” and physis meaning “nature”) taught that after the Incarnation, Christ had only one nature-either a mixture of divine and human, or purely divine. This view effectively denied the full humanity of Christ.  This was followed shortly after by the Monothelite heresy, which asserted that while Christ had two natures, he only had one Divine will.  This would mean that Christ’s suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane as well as His words “not my will, but thy will be done” were nothing more than a farce.

In response to these numerous heresies, the Church held several ecumenical councils in the hopes of clarifying the faith that had been taught by the Apostles and handed down by their successors, the Bishops. The first of these Councils was the First Council of Nicaea (325) which denounced Arianism and affirmed Christ’s full divinity, declaring him to be of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.  The next of these was the Council of Constantinople (381), which addressed both Arianism and Apollinarianism.  It affirmed that Christ had a full human soul and mind, as well as a full divine nature.  The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned Nestorianism and affirmed the unity of Christ’s person and upheld Mary’s title as Theotokos, while the Council of Chalcedon (451) condemned Monophysitism and concluded that Christ is one person in two natures, without confusion or separation.

During these Councils and in their own personal letters, the early Church Fathers used Scripture extensively to refute the heresies that threatened the orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.  Some of the common verses brought forth were John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 10:30, Colossians 1:16-17, Philippians 2:7-8, 1 John 4:2-3.  Pope Leo the Great, in his Tome, addressed Monophysitism by quoting Hebrews 4:15 and Philippians 2:7 to affirm Christ’s full humanity:

“For each form [nature] does what is proper to it, in
communion with the other; the Word performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh.” (Tome of Leo)

Pope Leo’s Tome was foundational at the Council of Chalcedon, which affirmed the Incarnation and that Christ exists in two natures.

return to top ⇑