The difference between theophany and incarnation
Cameron G. Porter*
The difference between theophany and the incarnation is not simply a durational one, the former being transient and the latter permanent. Neither is the difference simply a chronological one, the former taking place in times past and the latter taking place in these last days. Nor is the difference between them only a qualitative one, as if to suggest that the incarnation is of the greatest magnitude among a class of divine condescensions. Nor is the difference between them only telic in nature, the former being anticipatory appearances that tended towards the consummative goal of the latter. Nor is the difference only with respect to the manner of revelation marking them, the former being delivered in sundry times and in divers manners and the latter coming immediately in and by the person of the incarnate Son of God. But the difference between theophanies and the incarnation is also a modal one—the former being a mode of revelation, and the latter marked solely and uniquely by a mode of union whereby the only-Begotten Son of God condescends to assume man’s nature for our recovery. Contrary to Oliphint’s assertions, theophanic manifestations are not instances of God condescending by the assumption of new characteristics unto a temporary mode of existence in order to relate to his people, and the incarnation is not a permanent instance of such assumption.[1] Simply put, the nature of the special divine presence in theophany is not the same as, but rather markedly different from, the nature of the incarnation of the Son.
*This is a taken from Cameron G. Porter, “The Majesty of Mystery: Celebrating the Glory of an Incomprehensible God, A Review Article,” JIRBS (2017): 97–98.
__________
[1] Another important observation is that theophany is not the divine instrumentality required to bring the transcendent God near unto those blessed with the appearing. The transcendence of immensity is not set against the immanence of divine presence but entails and guarantees it, requiring no intermediary agency to actualize the nearness. While theophany is a special mode of the divine presence, this is simply according to the manner of a revelatory, not an ontological, condescension. Being repletively unbounded in his immensity, filling the heavens and the earth, God need not make himself to be circumscribed or definitively located in order to relate his creatures to himself.
