On William Lane Craig’s web site, he frequently solutions a query which has been submitted to him. I usually discover his solutions very useful, notably as a result of he brings to theological questions better philosophical experience than many systematic theologians have.
On January 11, 2021, in Q & A quantity 714, “Zygotic Jesus,” Craig responded to 2 questions from “Rodrigo,” in Brazil.
First, Rodrigo requested:
In what sense was Jesus omniscient whereas within the type of a zygote or fetus? It is sensible to make use of ideas of the subliminal and unconscious or preconscious for when He was an grownup, already having a mind, however how can a zygote have a subconsciousness?
In response, Craig appealed to the Nicene Creed (AD 381), by which the worldwide church laid out very exactly that, “as a divine particular person, Jesus had all of the important properties of God, together with omniscience. Clearly, as a zygote, and even later, he was not consciously conscious of all that he knew. We needn’t say that the zygote had a unconscious however that it was merely unconscious, and that needn’t have an effect on the divine nature or particular person.”
I’m properly happy with Craig’s reply to this query, and it comports very properly with my very own understanding of the incarnation of Jesus, which made him actually divine and actually human. Three mornings per week, I recite the church’s “Definition of Chalcedon” in 451, as a result of I feel it is rather properly acknowledged and biblically sound, and it addresses a particularly necessary theological doctrine.
The second query which Rodrigo put to Craig was this:
If presently, after His ascension to Heaven, Christ just isn’t in his bodily resurrected physique, and if Christ’s human nature is fashioned solely by the union of His divine soul and human physique, does that imply he doesn’t presently have a human nature? Additionally, if he’ll reassume his glorified physique solely at his second coming, would that be a second incarnation?
Craig replied:
We need to affirm that Jesus has a human nature even in his ascended state. The incarnation just isn’t a short lived state of Jesus’ thirty-odd years on earth. Quite his resurrection exhibits that he has completely assumed a human nature, the strongest attainable affirmation of the price of human corporeality. One may say that in his ascended state Jesus is spatially positioned someplace, maybe in one other space-time completely different than our personal. However such as you, I’m inclined to say that between his ascension and bodily return, Jesus, whereas having a human nature, doesn’t have a physique. The reason being as a result of he has exited our space-time manifold. By the use of analogy, think about a tuning fork positioned inside a vacuum jar. In the event you had been to pluck the fork, it will vibrate, however there could be no sound as a result of there isn’t a medium to conduct sound waves. Had been you to introduce air into the jar, then the vibrations could be manifested as sound. The vibrating fork stays intrinsically the identical in each eventualities, however its manifestations are completely different relying on the medium. Equally, Jesus’ human nature just isn’t now manifested as a bodily physique as a result of, since he’s not in space-time, there isn’t a medium for the expression of his human nature in a three-dimensional type. When Christ re-enters our space-time manifold, then—voilà! —his bodily physique will once more develop into manifest. This will probably be in a literal sense a re-incarnation, however not a second assumption of a human nature, since that continues to be fixed all through.
My ideas about this usually are not as properly settled as they’re regarding the first merchandise. Initially, I had a tentatively unfavorable response to Craig’s proposal, as a result of I questioned if it diminished the character of Jesus’ resurrection. On additional consideration, nonetheless, I’m tentatively inclined to affirm Craig’s suggestion.
Paul identifies the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the primary fruits of his wonderful conquer sin and demise, by which we who consider will take part when Jesus returns and all believers are raised bodily “with Jesus” (1 Cor 15:20-23). In our case, the elevating of our our bodies to new life, certainly to everlasting life and immortality, entails sturdy embodiment. There will probably be some type of continuity between the our bodies we have now now and the our bodies we obtain then. These resurrected our bodies will probably be ours, however they won’t be precisely just like the our bodies we have now on this life, although Paul was not given an understanding of simply how these new our bodies could be alike and but completely different from our unique our bodies (1 Cor 15:35-41).
Ceaselessly, after we assume and discuss Christ’s rule over all issues, which he decisively achieved in his demise and resurrection, we converse of the “now and never but” facets of Christ’s victory. The battle in opposition to Devil, sin and demise was gained on the cross, however it won’t be absolutely consummated and revealed till Christ’s return, when the ultimate enemy, demise is totally vanquished (1 Cor 15:24-26). Given this “now and never but” scenario, the peculiarity of Jesus’ personal embodiment on this interim interval appears fairly applicable.
The character of Jesus’ embodiment, between his resurrection and the consummation of his reign, just isn’t one thing I had thought of earlier than, so my response is tentative, and I welcome the ideas of others who learn this publish and ponder Craig’s reply to Rodrigo’s query.
Altering my thoughts
Dialog with commenters (see thread beneath) has been useful. I’m not inclined to affirm Craig’s proposal, and Marc Vandersluys has expressed properly the essential problem which Craig’s view should confront: “If Christ is certainly the first-fruits of the resurrection that we should always count on for ourselves, wouldn’t that imply Jesus did go into that embodiment instantly? In any other case, it appears to me, Paul’s phrases viz. ‘first-fruits’ could be empty of that means.”
