"A childish orthodoxy...has also managed to draw decisive attention to the fact that Christ at his birth was wrapped in rags and laid in a manger--in short, on the humiliation of his coming in the humble form of a servant, and believes that this is the paradox in contrast to coming in glory. Confusion. The paradox is primarily that God, the eternal, has entered into time as an individual human being. Whether this individual human being is a servant or an emperor makes no difference. It is not more adequate for God to be a king than to be a beggar; it is not more humiliating for God to become a beggar than to become an emperor." - CUP
It's a provocative and, in some ways, counter-intuitive thought. We're so used to emphasizing the humble entrance of the Logos into human history by highlighting the circumstances of the story: single mother, from Nazareth, born in a manger, "no-place-to-lay-his-head," etc., that we forget about the "infinite qualitiative distinction" between time and eternity which implies that, no matter how God became incarnate into history and creation, it would be an absolute paradox.
Agree or disagree?
Who Wrote Ecclesiastes and What Does It Mean?
15 hours ago