The Word Made Flesh: A Theology of the Incarnation. By Ian A. McFarland. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2019. 249 pp. Paper, $18.49.
McFarland is a professor at the University of Cambridge. This book is a scholarly treatment of the Person of Christ. It deals with how the human and Divine natures come together in the Lord. In McFarland’s view, there have been two trends in church history that are in error. In the early church there was generally an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ. In more recent times, there has been an unhealthy focus on the humanity of Christ.
To avoid these errors, we must adopt a “Chalcedonianism without reserve” (p. 6). This is a reference to the early church council that met at Chalcedon in AD 451. It produced the almost- universally accepted orthodox statement of the hypostatic union of Christ. The fundamental principle from Chalcedon is that the divine nature is invisible. Therefore, when we look at the Man Jesus in the pages of the NT, what we see is His humanity only. This means that when we see Christ’s miracles and righteousness, we do not see anything of His divinity. Everything He does is “fully and exclusively” human.
In other words, McFarland believes that the Deity of Christ was invisible. In the incarnation, the Word became flesh and thus assumed a created and visible human nature. Even though Jesus was God, His divine nature—by definition—remained invisible (p. 88). God is still completely transcendent. McFarland is saying, then, that we cannot see the divine nature in the Man Jesus. In simple terms, we cannot say things such as, “Jesus showed He was God by raising the dead or walking on water.”
One of the problems with this view is McFarland’s assertion that everything the Man Jesus did was part of what makes up human nature. In theory, at least, one could say that any human could do what He did (p. 89). The miracles Jesus performed were done through the power—or more accurately, the “energy”—of the Holy Spirit. McFarland claims that this is the mode of operation of the divine nature. The energy and the nature of God are two separate things. In Christ’s case, His human nature participated in this divine energy while remaining completely human. Even though we cannot see the divine nature in the Man Jesus, the characteristics of that nature were visible in the Person of Christ through the Holy Spirit (pp. 91-93).
This is what McFarland means when he says that although we cannot see the divine nature, Jesus is still the “Word made flesh.” God is “fully present and truly known” in the humanity of Christ. This is what was said at Chalcedon (p. 213).
This book will leave a student of the Bible with a troubling question: If we see God in Christ solely through the “energy” of the Holy Spirit working through Him, how was He different in that regard to a mature believer today who walks by the power of the same Spirit (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:16)? McFarland, no doubt, would say that Jesus did it perfectly. He does say that Jesus’ actions were done in the power and authority of God (p. 142), which probably means that He did so in ways believers today do not and cannot.
I assume McFarland would also say that Jesus could not sin. But doesn’t that force us to say, as well, that He was different from us because He was God? Further, the Lord explicitly said that we can see the Father in Him (John 14:9). While almost all readers of the JOTGES would probably understand those words to mean that we see the divine nature in the Man Jesus, McFarland would say they only mean that in Christ we are seeing how God operates—His energy.
An interesting aspect of the book is McFarland’s view of the doctrine of inspiration. The best description would seem to be that the Scriptures contain the word of God. He says that they give faithful witness to the life and character of Jesus (p. 142). At the same time, he maintains that the Scriptures are not historically accurate in every detail, but contain “inventions” and factual errors in some places. McFarland says this is “indisputable” (p. 141).
For Free Grace people, a favorite story from the life of Christ is the account of the Samaritan woman. McFarland addresses it, but does not touch on the gospel of eternal life. Instead, he shows that the Lord’s encounter with the woman demonstrates “his knowledge of the situations of those he encounters” (p. 144). McFarland seems to be saying that Jesus did not necessarily have divine knowledge about this woman’s past history (perhaps this is one of the Bible’s “factual errors”) but, based on what He saw, was able to size up what was going on in her life. That is something a human could do.
This is a difficult book to read. It is not for the casual reader. There are concepts that are hard to grasp. This reviewer found himself having to read certain parts more than once to try to understand what was being said. Part of the problem is that most Christians do not understand the historical background of the Council of Chalcedon. We do not know why the council formulated the doctrine as it did. Further, most readers will not appreciate McFarland’s low view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. For these reasons, I do not recommend the book for the majority of JOTGES readers.
The book does have value for those interested in the complex history of how the church formulated the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Lord. For that small group of people, I recommend the book. Much of what McFarland holds is based on how the Eastern Orthodox Church has applied what was said at Chalcedon. Most evangelicals will conclude that Jesus did indeed reveal the Father, as John states (John 1:18). We see the Father in Christ. He did more than simply give off the energy of God. The reader will also find that throughout church history there have been many within Christendom who would classify McFarland as a heretic because of what he believes and says about the Person of Christ. Jesus is fully God and Man. There will always be difficulties in how we understand and try to explain that marvelous truth.
Kenneth W. Yates
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society