The Incarnation as triggered by world-historical clarity as to its necessity on the one hand, and its impossibility on the other

"From the beginning until now God spoke through His prophets.  The Word aroused the uncomprehending depths of their flesh to a witnessing fury, and their witness was this:  that the Word should be made Flesh.  Yet their witness could only be received as long as it was vaguely misunderstood, as long as it seemed either to be [1] neither impossible nor necessary, or [2] necessary but not impossible, or [3] impossible but not necessary; and the prophecy could not therefore be fulfilled.  For it could only be fulfilled when it was no longer possible to receive, because it was clearly understood as absurd.  The Word could not be made Flesh until men had reached a state of absolute contradiction between clarity and despair in which they would have no choice but either to accept absolutely or to reject absolutely, yet in their choice there should be no element of luck, for they would be fully conscious of what they were accepting or rejecting."

     W. H. Auden, For the time being:  a Christmas oratorio, sv "The meditation of Simeon," from Religious drama 1, ed. Halverson (1947), p. 53, i.e. not yet the critical Princeton University Press edition of 2013, as edited by Alan Jacobs.  My interpretation so far:  [1] flippancy, [2] indifference, and [3] resignation (but not yet "despair").  Note also the parallels between "could only be received" and "could only be fulfilled" on the one hand, and "vaguely misunderstood" and "clearly understood" on the other.  "absurd":  [4] clear necessity but despair-inducing impossibility/absurdity.  (But what does Jacobs say?)