iv] Some Implications of the Incarnation 1 29 



complete identification of the Godhead in Christ with 

 the process of development, as Head of the human race ; 

 but it was also the identification of God with the failure 

 of that process, in time, and under the then conditions." 

 Christ actually experienced upon the Cross the isolation 

 of essential manhood from His Godhead, in time, we 

 believe, through the identification of Himself with the 

 manhood of the whole human Yace. But nevertheless 

 His own manhood must have been perfect, otherwise 

 He would have experienced not merely the isolation of 

 others in Himself, but the isolation of His own nature 

 from His own nature. It was not really His manhood 

 that was isolated, but the manhood of all others with 

 which He had identified Himself. If His own manhood 

 had been imperfect there must have been an intrinsic 

 schism between that and His Godhead an unthinkable 

 thing. Had this been the case, His Manhood could never 

 have been taken up into His Godhead, and so man 

 could never, in union with Him, have passed through 

 death into life. Moreover, such an idea introduces 

 hopeless contradictions as soon as we begin to think 

 of the Holy Trinity 'after' the second kenosis the 

 Incarnation. 



But on the other hand, if we reject the conception of 

 Jesus suffering under the inherited disability of the 

 human race, are we not faced with the dilemma, that 

 in this case His Nature differed from that of common 

 men, and that therefore men cannot be completely 

 identified with Him? Is He one with men as they 

 are? 



In considering this we must distinguish carefully 

 between the race and the individual. The salvation 

 which Christ wrought is the salvation of individual 

 men, not of the race as a whole. That was made clear 

 in our discussion of the Atonement. Men are left free 

 to accept or not to accept the gift of God in Jesus. 



MCD. 9 



