The Incarnation - apart from the fall

[~Anastasia~]

I was reminded of something I've heard discussed a few times, but never looked into deeply. I admit that as an inquirer I was fascinated, but for all the wrong reasons. Now I thought to maybe make sure of my understanding.

I'm talking about the idea that Adam was meant to progress in any case. The fall dictated the need for redemption, but if the fall had not happened ... I have been told that some teach that Christ would have become incarnate anyway.

So I want to ask a few questions?

For what purpose? There would have been no curse of death, so no need for victory over death? No sin then? Though a certain lack of fullness. But I cannot see how that makes the Incarnation necessary? Especially if Adam was already "walking with God in the garden in the evenings"?

And is this a widespread teaching? Accepted by all? Or just a sort of pious opinion?

Just wondering. It's so speculative that it hasn't really caught my interest these past couple of years, with more important things to focus on in the faith. But now perhaps I'm looking for a bit of diversion, so I thought I might as well ask?

Thanks!

 

[jckstraw72]

well, we could say there are three things that separate man from God:

1. sin
2. death
3. nature (Uncreated vs. created)

the separation of nature of course exists with or without the Fall, and so some would say that Christ would have been incarnate anyways to bridge this gap. I'm not sure how widespread this is. It's often attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor, but not everyone believes he was teaching this -- Fr. Damascene, abbot at St. Herman's Monastery, for instance, told me he doesn't think he taught this (or that he wasn't teaching it as a certainty - I can't remember now exactly what he said).

 

[~Anastasia~]

well, we could say there are three things that separate man from God:

1. sin
2. death
3. nature (Uncreated vs. created)

the separation of nature of course exists with or without the Fall, and so some would say that Christ would have been incarnate anyways to bridge this gap. I'm not sure how widespread this is. It's often attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor, but not everyone believes he was teaching this -- Fr. Damascene, abbot at St. Herman's Monastery, for instance, told me he doesn't think he taught this (or that he wasn't teaching it as a certainty - I can't remember now exactly what he said).

Interesting - thank you very much, jckstraw!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fr Zacharias of Essex says that Christ would have become man to unite the Uncreated with the created. So when St Paul speaks of the Incarnation being in the fullness of time, that he meant that with or without the Fall, God would have taken human flesh to Himself

 

[~Anastasia~]

Fr Zacharias of Essex says that Christ would have become man to unite the Uncreated with the created. So when St Paul speaks of the Incarnation being in the fullness of time, that he meant that with or without the Fall, God would have taken human flesh to Himself

I'm trying to remember if that's the Fr. Zacharias I think it is - I'll have to check.

Thank you.

Do you have any idea how widespread this teaching is? I've heard it more than once, but always from laypeople iirc, MAYBE once through AFR but I'm not sure. I've never actually heard a priest that I know discuss it.

But then again, I've never asked them either.

Thank you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think it is pretty wide. Fr Hopko's talk on the death of Christ talks about this.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think it is pretty wide. Fr Hopko's talk on the death of Christ talks about this.

Thank you.

While I don't think "what ifs" that obviously cannot happen because they involve a different past are not terribly important as far as our practice of the faith is concerned, they can be useful in understanding overall truths. This particular teaching has given me slightly more dimension in seeing God as loving mankind and having a purpose for our destiny beyond just redemption (if I can be forgiven for using "just" to refer to something as amazing as redemption!). But it has increased the richness of God's plan and interaction with mankind in my mind.

It was something I tended to "hold loosely" in my hand though, if you know what I mean, because I was never firmly established in whether I ought to accept it as validly from the teachings of the Church or not.

But it does provide a deeper dimension if one thinks on it. At least it does for me. And decreases the idea some struggle with about history being enacted with all its attendant suffering just for the sake of the purposes of God. Though I doubt it would be a good thing to mention to very many non-Orthodox who might be struggling with that. Some perhaps though.

Thank you again.