The Heavenly Flesh concept developed during the Protestant Reformation era. Some preliminary observations will help us understand the conditions which paved the way.

The main branches of the Protestant Reformation were the Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican. These were “regional churches”, as opposed to independent local churches, and as such were supported and protected by secular government. In addition to these main branches there existed numerous independent groups. These differed one from another, each uniting under their respective leaders and religious priorities. A common denominator of these independent groups was their rejection of the authority of the councils and creeds of earlier Christendom. By contrast, the Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans held to Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Harold O. J. Brown offers a brief overview of the historical and theological significance of Chalcedon:

“The creed of the Council of Chalcedon inaugurated the age of orthodox Christology in 451. Not everyone agreed with Chalcedon’s characteristic formulation of the mystery of Christ, expressed in terms of full deity, full humanity, and a single person. But for fifteen centuries the formula of Chalcedon defined the limits of Christological concern.” [HERESIES; pg. 430]

Sylvester Hassell expresses the Christology of Chalcedon more explicitly:

“The Fourth General Council at Chalcedon, A.D. 451(the most numerous, and, next to the first, the most important General Council), condemned both the Nestorianism and Eutychianism, and declared that there is in Christ an unmixed but inseparable union of two natures in one person; that neither is Christ’s person to be divided nor His two natures confounded.” [CHURCH HISTORY pg. 407]

Although the Protestant Reformers broke with Catholicism they continued to hold to the orthodoxy of Chalcedon. By contrast, a notable feature of many independent groups was that they rejected the councils and creeds, including Chalcedon. The emphasis of the independent groups tended toward discipleship and spirituality. Sometimes their emphasis went to the extreme, as with the radicals Thomas Munzer (ca. 1489- 1525) and Michael Servetus (1511- 1553), and invoked the wrath of politically empowered Reformed and Lutheran Church leaders.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE HEAVENLY FLESH CONCEPT

The novel Heavenly Flesh concept, known also as Celestial Flesh, emerged among independent groups. In retrospect it could be argued that their apparent lack of interest in the creeds left them vulnerable to old errors. Harold O. J. Brown observes:

“Abandoning the distinctive two-natures formula of Chalcedon, the radicals were free to deal with the implications either of humanity or of deity without having to worry about the other. A smaller number reverted to an Arian or adoptionistic view of Christ, and the first stirrings of the modern heresy of Unitarianism began. A larger group emphasized the deity of Christ’s being to such an extent that the humanity seemed to disappear; in this they had much in common with the early Monophysites, although they usually lacked their theological sophistication.” [HERESIES; pg. 327]

The Heavenly Flesh concept emerged as a Reformation-era explanation to the theological problem of the sinlessness of Christ. Centuries earlier the Catholics had responded to the same problem with the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of Mary. The radicals argued, like the Roman Catholics, that if Jesus was born of a mother tainted with sin, he could not himself have been sinless. Their argument went on to explain that while Jesus was begotten and carried “in” Mary’s womb, he was not born “of” her; he did not derive his flesh from her. Hence, the heavenly origin of Jesus’ flesh.

There were several variations of the Heavenly Flesh doctrine. Clement Ziegler wrote that the Son had a body born of the Father within the Trinity before the foundation of the world was laid. Melchior Hoffmann denied that Jesus had a human body at all but brought his body with him from heaven. Kaspar Schwenkfeld, taught that Christ’s human nature is noncreaturely and the believer who enters into communion with him also begins to take on a different, noncreaturely nature. Menno Simons (1496 - 1561), the founder of the Mennonite communities, held the view of Melchior Hoffmann. Harold O. J. Brown says of Menno Simons:

“The most influential of those who taught the doctrine of the Heavenly Flesh, and the one whose name is most likely to be recognized today, was Menno Simons. Menno has earned an honorable place in Christian history by his leadership in gathering the shattered and dispersed Anabaptist following the disastrous end of the Anabaptist “Kingdom of God” at Munster in 1534. Menno succeeded in rallying a large number of the Anabaptist, in winning them away from the extreme, eschatologically colored fantasies of the Munsterites, and in instituting a system of congregational discipline that rapidly won the respect of the more traditional Christians. Menno retained the distinctive view of the Heavenly Flesh he had learned from Melchior Hoffmann. Menno and his followers represent a Reformation-era revival of monophysitism.” [HERESIES; pg. 329, 330]

Another eccentric advocate of the Heavenly Flesh doctrine was Michael Servetus (1511- 1553). Harold O. J. Brown writes:

“Servetus has gone down in church and secular history as a martyr to Calvinistic intolerance; his execution in Geneva represents a stain that Reformed Protestantism has never quite been able to efface. As a young man, Servetus propounded the distinctive views that ultimately led him the stake. He held God to be one Person only; this God was the literal, natural father of Jesus Christ, who was therefore God’s natural Son. The body of Christ is the body of the godhead... divine and of the substance of deity. According to Servetus, when the Word became flesh, he brought his flesh down with him from heaven. ” [HERESIES; pg. 330]

“Proponents of the Heavenly Flesh doctrine were trying to explain the incredible impact of a single historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, and could do so only by seeing him as a divine Visitor from heaven, thus minimizing his humanity and his consubstantiality with us. Rather like the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, it insists that the divine substance is, or at least was, present among us in bodily, physical form.” [HERESIES; pg. 331]