Many years ago I came across a reprint of a story told by the great Paul Harvey. You've heard of him, right? "And now... the rest of the story!" What a great line! He had a wonderful way of telling the simplest thing. This particular story was called "The man and the birds" which he told at Christmas time. It's been many years since I first read it and I no longer have the paper copy. Since I must rely strictly on memory, I'm certain I won't get all the details right, but It went something like this...
"A man was at home on Christmas Eve with his wife and children. The Church was having a special service that evening so the wife was busy getting herself and the children ready to go. The man was not a Christian, but she hoped he would go with them, just this once. After all, it was Christmas Eve! But as always, he said, 'no, I don't believe in that stuff... you go ahead.'
He watched from the window as they drove down the long drive from their house to the highway. It was just beginning to snow, and much more was expected before the night was over. When the car disappeared from view he sat down in his favorite chair by the big picture window, intending to settle into a good book. After a short while he heard a noise like something had hit the window, but he just shrugged it off. Then he heard it again... thud. This time he got up and looked outside. To his amazement, he saw a flock of birds in the snow. By now it was snowing much harder, in fact it appeared to be a blizzard, and the birds had apparently been caught in the storm and grounded. They must have seen the light from the window and attempted to fly to safety.
He thought to himself, I must do something to help. So, he bundled up and went outside to the barn. Once there, he flung the doors open wide and turned on the lights. 'There, he thought, that should do it, they will see the light from the barn and make their way into safety!' But alas, they just kept flopping around in the snow. He approached them now from the other side and tried to shoo them towards the barn, but this just seemed to scare them all the more!
At the end of his wits, he thought to himself... if only I could become a bird, if I were one of them I could show them the way to the barn, the way to safety! If only... and just then the Church bells began to ring. Ding! Dong! Ding! Dong! At that moment, the man understood - it all became clear - and as he sunk to his knees in the snow, he said to himself, 'that is exactly what God did - God became a man!"
After reading that story for the first time I remember being extremely impressed with it's simplicity and thinking that nobody would have trouble getting the concept of the Incarnation after hearing it. And this is what has always been taught, right? God became a man in order to communicate His love for His creation. He became a man to show us the way to safety; the way to heaven. This is how a holy God could relate to sinful humanity; by becoming one of us!
However, as good as it may sound, there is one big problem with this story! The idea of God becoming a man is nowhere taught in the Bible. The doctrine of the incarnation is as fanciful as the story of "The Man and the Birds" told by Mr. Harvey! Although entertaining and emotionally charged (at least when Mr. Harvey told it) it's only a story. Likewise the doctrine of the incarnation is little more than a religious fairy tale conceived by men who were driven by Greek philosophy more than Hebrew Scripture!
I lost my faith! Not in God, just in the idea that God became a man! But, if God did not become a man as tradition demands, "how does a holy God relate to sinful humanity?" After all, what better way to communicate to us than to become one of us, right?
Actually, I think there is a very simple answer to this question without resorting to the mysticism of an incarnation. The concept of Jesus literally existing prior to His human birth, leaving the glory of his heavenly home to enter the womb of a young virgin girl and "take on" human flesh, is really more of a Gnostic idea than a Biblical one. And the argument that God had to become one of us in order to relate to us, is entirely without Scriptural evidence.
Consider this scenario. Anyone who has ever created or invented anything went through a certain process in order to bring it into being. Lets take something simple like a desk, for instance. Without belaboring the point, the one who conceived of, and made the desk, made it according to the image he saw in his mind. Once the image was fixed there had to be a plan, a blueprint, to bring it into being. When the desk finally took physical shape, there would be nothing about it that the creator/inventor did not fully know and understand! After all, he made it!! If anyone could relate to the desk, if anyone could completely understand the desk - what it was made of, what it was designed for, it's purpose, how it could best be utilized, how long it was meant to last, etc. - it would be the one who invented it; the creator. I think you see my point. And in this example we're talking merely of an inanimate object. How much more a human being made in the very image of his Creator?
Now consider the other side of it as well. Man was made in God's own image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27). Not only can God totally relate to His creation without becoming one of them, but His creation can also relate to Him! How? Because He put something of Himself in each and every one of us! His image! Men have long debated what, exactly, the image and likeness of God is, but whatever it is, we are like Him in some way so that we can know and understand Him. Until he sinned, Adam, the first man, walked with God in the garden without fear, and in perfect relationship. And even though the "image of God" in us has been tarnished by sin, yet in every man is something of the image of God that draws us toward Him! Abraham was the 'friend' of God, and Moses talked to God! The very fact that we have the capacity of thinking about these ideas is, in a sense, proof that we can know and relate to our creator, is it not?
Paul is helpful on this point in the epistle to the Romans. Beginning in Romans 1:19 we see that men have an innate knowledge that there is a God, along with a need to worship. Of course, because of sin, the need to worship and the object of that worship get twisted and perverted. But anyone willing to be honest with him/herself can discern that God reveals Himself through His creation. Further, through our own sense of morality, of right and wrong, of justice and mercy, and our ability to love, we can relate to our creator because these traits are all extensions of His own.
I remember reading somewhere, and I believe it's true, that in ancient Eastern cultures like that of the Hebrews, the essential question asked about God was basically, "what does He expect from me?" In other words, they related to God in a very practical way because they understood that they were made in His image. To the Greek mind, however, the question was quite different. Greeks, whose philosophical foundations tended to be a bit more complex asked, "what is God?" They related to God on a more philosophical and metaphysical level. Therefore, they could not perceive how God could relate to them at all.
This fundamental idea seems to be a contributing factor to the gnostic system in which God Himself could not possibly have created this world. To the gnostic, the world and the flesh is inherently evil. Only spirit is good. Therefore, through a series of emanations from God, each emanation becoming more detached from God, the world and man was finally created. This kind of thinking was already making "in-roads" into the Christian church of Paul's day. Many of the church epistles issue warnings which address Christ's essential nature as a real, flesh, human being, but exalted and given supremacy. (Col 1:18; 2;18-23; Phil 2:9; 1John 4:2)
Some scholars believe that John's writings were designed, in part, to combat gnostic thought. Particularly John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and word was God." In traditional orthodox thought, this verse is positive proof that Jesus is God, making the Word equal to Jesus (which is why trinitarian translators use the capital "W"). If Jesus and God are of the same essence then it tears down any gnostic assertion that God is so detached from creation that He could not have created it Himself.
"All things were made through him (the Word), and without him (the Word) was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3 - ESV)
But this purpose of combating gnosticism can be easily accomplished without resorting to making the word (logos) a pre-incarnate being. Logos is a common word throughout the Greek New Testament and is most often translated as "word". But it really goes beyond the meaning of a single word to define "the idea, the complete thought." It denotes both reason and speech. As such, it is the expression of God's mind. This logos which was in the beginning with God, and in fact, was God, became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us! (John 1:14) However, it is illogical to change the meaning of logos in John 1:1-3 and force it as a synonym for Jesus when it is never employed as such anywhere else in the Bible. The word that became flesh in John 1:14 was most certainly Jesus, but in John 1:1 the word was not yet a person. The verse does not say "in the beginning was the 'Son', and the Son was with God and the Son was God.'
Think about it. God reasoned; He had a plan (logos); He spoke and the world came into being. ("And God said, let there be..." - Gen 1:3,6,14). This is logos. His word was with Him and not with another. (Isa 44:24; Isa 37:16 - ASV) Likewise, God reasoned; He had a plan; and "when the fulness of time had come" (Gal 4:4) His plan became a reality, a real flesh human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ! This expression of God's mind was fully God's own and not another's (with Him), and the word was God in the sense that it totally expressed His thoughts and His person. The NEB translation renders this phrase in John 1:1 as "what God was, the word was." This is not difficult to understand. It is still an effective refutation of the gnostic idea of creation, but even more, it refutes any notion that Jesus was an angel or had any physical pre-existence.
In spite of all this, however, the early Church, after the death of the apostles, fell into the very errors the apostles warned them about. One can readily see how the early Church fathers fell into the trap of gnostic thought, given their extensive backgrounds in Greek philosophy. I'm not suggesting they purposely changed the message of Christianity to suit their needs. But without Hebrew roots to guide them in their interpretation of Scripture, and their desire to make Christianity palatable to the world, making Jesus into a "God-Man" based on a few misunderstood passages from New Testament writings, was likely a very natural progression for them.
In conclusion, God relates to His creation perfectly. There is no need for Him to be one of us. Jesus, the unique Son of God, is the perfect example of what the image of God is suppose to look like in a man (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). This is demonstrated to us in His life. In His death, the sin barrier is removed so we can come to God without fear or condemnation. And through His resurrection and ascension, God has made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), highly exalting him and bestowing upon him the name that is above every name (Phil 2:9). In following Jesus example of faith and obedience, we are promised a glorious entrance into the kingdom of God when He returns.
