At the council of Nicea, the orthodox position defined Jesus Christ as “true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father . . . who for us humans and for our salvation descended and became incarnate, becoming human.” While squashing the controversy of Arianism, a new conundrum was clearly stated: “How can Jesus be both God and man?” For centuries, various theologians and philosophers have attempted to demonstrate that there is no logical contradiction in Jesus being both God and man. Contrary to such methods, Danish theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard stresses in Concluding Unscientific Postscript that the incarnation is “the paradox sensu strictissimo, the absolute paradox.” Since it is a paradox, we must accept it in faith rather than objective formulations. What, then, is the role of theological formulations if Christ is a paradox to the understanding? In this paper, I argue that Kierkegaard’s emphasis on Christ as paradox is a needed perspective in evangelical theology. I argue that Kierkegaard does not endorse fideism or an irrational Christianity, but rather he is demonstrating the necessity of God’s revelation to us rather than humans rationalizing their way to God. For Kierkegaard, paradoxes are mirrors for the thinker: they reveal what one truly believes. The paradox of the God-man is offensive to the intellect, but it beckons us to choose to submit to God in faith.
I begin the paper by examining Kierkegaard’s understanding of “paradox” and the primary antagonist of his time: Hegelianism. While Kierkegaard does not endorse an irrational understanding of the incarnation, he does critique an overly rational explanation. Second, I explain that Kierkegaard’s formulation of Christ as paradox is not fideism. Kierkegaard never endorses a faith without epistemic content. Lastly, I demonstrate that the paradox of Christ acts as a mirror to how we think about God in general and do theology in particular.