NEW SERIES: 'The Creed in Slow Motion.' Part 6: HIS ONLY SON
Hoping to help edify readers on the significance and implications of every line in the Creed, the Credo, or the “I Believe…” in our beliefs and daily lives, with help from English Catholic priest, theologian, Bible translator, fiction writer, essayist, radio broadcaster, and famous convert from Anglicanism, Monsignor Ronald Knox.
Part 6, in a limited series.
CHAPTER VI: HIS ONLY SON
On the “Hypostatic Union,” the human and Divine Natures of Christ, and why Christ became Man: because of the nature of the Atonement.
(Please scroll all the way down for the text.)
PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:
Part 1: I BELIEVE IN GOD (1), including the Introduction: CLICK HERE.
(To learn what this book, The Creed in Slow Motion, is about, and who wrote it)
Part 2: I BELIEVE IN GOD (2): CLICK HERE.
Part 3: THE FATHER ALMIGHTY: CLICK HERE.
Part 4: MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH: CLICK HERE.
Part 5: AN IN JESUS CHRIST: CLICK HERE.
→ Christ is the Son of God the Father: fully human and fully Divine.
John ch. 10:
Feast of the Dedication.
22The feast of the Dedication* was then taking place in Jerusalem. It was winter.l
23* And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon.
24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense?* If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”m
25Jesus answered them, “I told you* and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify to me.n
26But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.o
27My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.p
29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,* and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.q
30* The Father and I are one.”r
Matthew, ch. 3
16* j After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him.
17And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son,* with whom I am well pleased.”k
The Creed in Slow Motion
Ronald Knox
VI
His Only Son
I DON'T know if YOU remember what we were saying in the second of these sermons I've been preaching to you about the Credo. I don't see any reason why you should; after all, it's a very long time ago; it must be nearly a month and a half ago, and that's a very long time to expect you to remember anything. So let me remind you that we were talking, then, about believing in God; about how some people, when they are in great distress of mind or when, unhappily, they have fallen into sin, try to forget about God; and about how God won't let them forget him, because everything in his creation goes on shouting out to them, "No, God exists". And it made us think of that impressive scene in the third chapter of Genesis, where Adam and Eve, after they have fallen into the sin of disobedience, try to hide themselves from the presence of God, among the trees of the garden. And of course, that doesn't work. It isn't long before they hear the voice of the Lord God calling out, "Adam, where art thou?" You see, we are God's children; and if it isn't very irreverent to put it like this—I hope it's not irreverent—he does for us what grown-up people do for children: he plays hide-and-seek with us. That story in Genesis only gives us a kind of fancy picture, I suppose, of what really happened; because God is everywhere, and sees everything; he doesn't really have to go about hunting for people among the bushes, as you and I do when people hide themselves. But that was the best way for us to understand what happened after man fell; this fancy picture which the Bible has given us of eternal God treating us as grown-up people treat children, playing a game of hide-and-seek.
Well, you don't need to be reminded what happens at hide-and-seek when the person who has hidden has been found. It's the turn of the other person, the person who was seeking before to hide this time. And God is so awfully good to us that he would keep to the rules of the game. Man had tried to hide from God, and God had found him. And now God hid from man, and man had got to try and find him. How was it that God hid himself? We were talking about that last Sunday. He came and hid himself as a little Child, lying on his Mother's breast in a dark cave, in a very unimportant little town called Bethlehem, somewhere in Judea. That was a pretty good way to hide, wasn't it? And of course we men are awfully stupid compared with God. So, for fear we should be too stupid to find him, he did what grown-up people do on such occasions: he gave himself away—gave us hints all over the place. That was what the prophets were for. " Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son. . . . And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the cities of Juda. . . . The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib. . . . A branch shall come up from the root of Jesse"—Jesse was the father of King David—"and thus a flower shall spring from that root;" hints like that made us prepared to go and look for a child, born of David's family, at Bethlehem. "Go on," said the prophets," you're getting warm." And then a star appeared to the Wise Men in the East, and that was better still. "Go on," said the star, ''you're getting warmer." And then an angel appeared to the shepherds, and told them about a child lying in a manger, and that made it too easy for words. "Go on," said the angel, "you're getting boiling hot now." And so the secret was given away; stupid as we were, we could hardly fail to find out where God was hiding after that.
Well, what did God do all that for? In the first place, as we were saying, because he wanted to reveal himself; because he wanted to tell us more about himself than we should ever have been able to guess by the use of our unaided reason. But, remember, there was another purpose he had in view as well. Man had sinned; he had been shut out of Paradise, and he would never find his way back to Paradise again unless atonement was made for his sin. At least, when I say that, I'm not being quite accurate. It was not, in the strict sense, NECESSARY that atonement should be made; God could have said, " Very well, if you will say you are sorry, I will forgive you." But he preferred not to do it like that; he preferred that atonement should be made in full. You know how it is when you've done something very unkind to somebody you are really very fond of; you don't want merely to go and say you're sorry, you want to do something to make up for it. You've got into a temper with your mamma and called her names; and so you wait till she isn't looking, and go out and feed the hens to save her trouble, or you buy her a mug with A PRESENT FROM BRIDGENORTH written on it—you do something to make up for the beastly way in which you've treated her. That's what atonement means. And God decided that the sins of mankind should be not merely forgiven, but atoned for; something should be done to make up for them. And that, if you come to think of it, wasn't easy.
You see, theologians will tell you that the greatness of an offence is measured by the dignity of the person against whom the offence is committed; whereas when it comes to making reparation for an offence the greatness of the reparation is measured by the dignity of the person who is making it. That isn't really as difficult as it sounds. You see, if you put out your tongue at the girl who sits next you in class, it isn't a ladylike thing to do, but it doesn't matter frightfully. But if you should so forget yourself, which I hope you never will, as to put out your tongue at Mother Margaret, that would be a dreadful thing to do. And what is the reason of the difference? Why, that Mother Margaret is a very much more important person than the girl who sits next you in class. The offence is measured by the dignity of the person against whom it is committed. Whereas when it comes to making reparation it is the other way round. Let's suppose, for example, that Hitler had wanted to make peace, and we stated what our terms were, and one of our peace terms was that Hitler should walk all the way from London to Birmingham carrying a large sandwich-board with the words I AM A CAD written on it. And then, suppose Hitler wrote back and said, "What about Goering doing that London to Birmingham walk? Wouldn't that do as well? " We should have said, " No, of course it wouldn't do as well. We don't want Cad No. 2, we want Cad No. 1 ". Hitler was a more important person than Goering, therefore reparation made by Goering wouldn't be as good as reparation made by Hitler. The greatness of the reparation is measured by the dignity of the person who offers it.
Now apply that principle to the question of man's sin, and the atonement for man's sin. Whom did man's sin offend? God. Then the offence of man's sin must be measured by God's dignity. How great is God's dignity? Infinite. Therefore the reparation made for man's sin will have to be infinite. But if man makes that reparation, it will have to be measured by man's dignity. How great is man' s dignity? Finite. Therefore, you see, the sum won't work out. If all the human beings that have ever existed were to make all the reparation in their power, that reparation would still be finite. And reparation which is finite can't make up, in full, for an offence which is infinite.
Who is there that can offer infinite reparation? Only he whose dignity is infinite; only God. God knew that; and he said, " Very well, I will send my only Son. He shall make reparation." God's only Son is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who himself is God." God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
So God became man. He became man in order to suffer; you can't make atonement for sin without suffering. And God's nature is impassible, incapable of suffering; if the Son of God was to atone for us, he had to become man. What do we mean when we say, "God became man"? Do we mean that he took upon himself the appearance of a man? Do we mean that when the shepherds worshipped at Bethlehem there wasn't really any baby in the manger, it was only a sort of phantom, and God made our Lady and the shepherds and everybody think there was a real baby there? No, that won't do, because where does the suffering come in? When that baby cried, it was because he really felt hungry; just as, thirty-three years later, he was really thirsty when he cried out on the Cross, "I thirst". No, if Jesus Christ is to atone for us, Jesus Christ must be really man, suffering as we men suffer.
What do we mean, then? Do we mean that our Lady gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, just a man and nothing more? And that afterwards God came and took up his abode in this man's soul, as he does in yours and mine when we receive him in Holy Cornmunion? Only in this man he took up his abode so fully, so specially, that it was possible to call this man the Son of God? No, that won't do either. The man, however much God might dwell in him, wouldn't be God. And if he was only man, not God, then, however much he might suffer, the merits of his sufferings would be finite, not infinite. And we wanted infinite satisfaction, you remember, to atone for the infinite offence of man's sin. Jesus Christ, the Baby born at Bethlehem, has got to be man, or he couldn't suffer. And he has got to be God, or the value of his sufferings for us wouldn't be infinite. That is why we have to say, "Jesus Christ was both God and man".
Well, if you remember all I've been saying to you these last few Sundays, you'll have an objection to make there. You'll interrupt me by reminding me that I told you God couldn't do things which are inconceivable; he couldn't make a thing, for example, which was at the same time round and square. How, then, could a Being exist who was both God and Man? The answer to that is, that we have to make a distinction. Jesus Christ was both human and Divine, but in different ways. His nature was human, his person was Divine. That is what we mean by the Hypostatic Union. When we say the Litany of the Sacred Heart, we say, "Heart of Jesus, hypostatically united to the word of God," not knowing very much what it means. Hypo is something you use for developing photographs, and statics are a kind of higher mathematics; but all that doesn't help us much. Hypostatically united means personally united. It means that Jesus Christ has a human nature, but in person he is Divine.
A Divine Person with a human nature—and therefore a Divine Person with two natures, one human and one Divine. Our Lord couldn't stop being God when he became man. He was still reigning, as God, in heaven, when our Lady was wrapping him up in his swaddling-clothes at Bethlehem. You say, "That's very confusing." I should just think it was. Nothing I can suggest in the way of illustration can really be of any use, simply because the Hypostatic Union is something unlike anything else in existence; it is a closer, more intimate union than anything we can imagine. Our Lady is united to God by love; how close that bond is! But in the Incarnation you have a union closer than love itself. The same person on earth may hold two different positions, two different titles; as the King was both King of England and Emperor of India; but in the Incarnation it is not a question of two different titles, two different positions; it is a question of two natures, two modes of being. You read stories sometimes of people possessed by devils, and having to be exorcised; and in those stories it seems as if the devil managed to take complete control of the possessed person, spoke with his voice, looked out of his eyes, thought with his mind. But always, even in such a case as that, the human personality is there, must be there, even though it's driven (so to speak) into a corner. But in the Incarnate Christ, though there is a human mind, a human soul, there is no human personality. The Person you see at Bethlehem or on Calvary is God. Nothing in our human experience can be used to illustrate that mystery. But it is a mystery, not a contradiction.
You'll find as you grow up, and get talking to Protestants more and find out what they think about religion, that they are nearly all wrong about what we've been saying this afternoon. They will start by telling you that they believe our Lord was God, but when you question them a little more closely you'll find that most of them think he was a very good man, so good that he was allowed (I'm going to be irreverent again) to enjoy a kind of honorary rank as God. Some of them think it happened when he was baptized, if you remember, in the Jordan, and the Holy Ghost came down on him there in the form of a dove. That, they will tell you, is when our Lord started to be God. But, you see, it's all nonsense really.
If the Baby who lay in the crib at Bethlehem was a human person, then it was a human person who hung on the Cross, and your sins and mine have never been properly atoned for, if that's so, because human sin is an infinite offence to the majesty of God, and you can't atone for an infinite offence by a finite act of reparation. No, God's only Son, wishing to make reparation in full for our fault, took a human nature upon him, because that was the only way in which it was possible for him to suffer. It was like the action of some rich man who makes himself responsible for the debts of a bankrupt, because he thinks those debts ought to be paid. Like that only different from that, because the condescension was much greater, because the price he paid cost him much more, it cost him his life. " Greater love hath no man than this,"he tells us," that a man should lay down his life for his friends." No man, but, being God, he revealed to us a love even greater than the love he spoke of. Being God, he took a human life in order to be able to lay it down; and to lay it down for us, who were not his friends, but his enemies.