Incarnation as love and redemption

[Waldemar]

Help please.

I'm looking for the Patristic source for an aspect of the salvific nature of the Incarnation, specifically (and I paraphrase badly), because of His love for his creatures, Our Lord would have become incarnate even if mankind did not fall.

[Donald Wescott]

This certainly appears to be from St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation which can be found at:

http://www.ccel.org/a/athanasius/incarnation/0content.html

I hope this helps.
His unworthy servant,
Donald Eusebios

[Fr Averky]

Dear Waldemar,

I am sorry, but I have never heard of what you propose, that Christ would have become incarnate even if Adam had not fallen, for I was taught that the reason for the Incarnation is for the salvation of mankind. Please let me know from where you came to this conclusion, for I find it very troubling. Has anyone else ever heard of this? Is it just being stated in a manner I do not understand, or am I simply displaying great ignorance?

Fr. A.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Father Averky:

Evlogite!

I have been taught that Christ would have become incarnate regardless of Adam's fall. I do not have any patristic source, but was told by a priest who himself is very familiar with the Fathers.

The explanation that he gave, which makes perfect sense, is as follows: Adam and Eve communed with God, but they were unable to become like God (i.e. to become deified). Consequently, Christ would have come despite the fall, in order to raise men to God. However, because of the fall and death, it was necessary for Christ to also die on the Cross.

This theory seems to fit with your understanding of the Incarnation (i.e. for the salvation of mankind). After all, we understand salvation as deification, which is exactly why Christ would have come incarnate regardless of the fall.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that Adam and Eve were essentially in a "child-like" state. In other words, they still needed to "grow." Again, in order for them to grow and become deified, Christ would have needed to become man, so that they could become gods.

Forgive, but I'll try to find a patristic source on this. Hopefully others have some as well.

Aaron

[Waldemar]

Bless, Father.

Dear Father Averky,

So far all that I've found is another paraphrase of this "tradition" but not the Patristic source.

A few weeks ago, I made a mental note of the Father cited as the source of this teaching, but as I seem to be in the process of losing my mind, I can't remember the Father or even where I read of this teaching, hence, my plea for help on this thread!

Hoping all is well with you,

Waldemar



The Incarnation
http://www.heisrisen.org/salvation.htm

The key to man’s participation in the divine nature is the Incarnation of God the Son in Jesus Christ. According to the Orthodox tradition, it was “God’s eternal decision to associate man to his own blessedness.” But man, as we have seen, although created good, was a finite, incomplete, and therefore imperfect being, even in the Garden of Eden. And for this reason, many Orthodox thinkers have argued that man’s movement toward union with God would have required God’s movement toward union with man, even if man had remained faithful to his Creator and therefore free from sin. Only if God condescended to become one with man, could man realistically hope to become one with God. From this point of view, the Incarnation of the Divine Word — the union of God and man in the Person of Jesus Christ — is an essential feature of God’s eternal plan for the world. And the Incarnation would have taken place even if man had not fallen under the bondage of sin and death (as described symbolically ifs the third chapter of Genesis). What man’s rebellion against God’s divine order did was to separate man from “the tree of life,” thereby making the death of Christ necessary. In the Incarnation, God identifies Himself with the human race. And to identify Himself fully with a fallen and sinful humanity, God had to identify Himself with human mortality; He had to enter into our death in order to raise us to eternal life. Had he not sinned against God, man would have remained free to partake of “the tree of life,” and God’s union with man in the Incarnation would not have required the death of Christ. But the Incarnation would have taken place nonetheless.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Waldemar and Fr. Averky,

I am hesitant about saying anything about this for, as you both know, I make no pretense of being Orthodox (but I do strive for orthodoxy!).

I just want to say that what Aaron has said seems correct logically because it is in what I hope we can call the "nature" of the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, to be begotten, since we are all taught that His being begotten was from all eternity. And of course, even without having fallen, our First Parents would need a "Person" to emulate by participating in, and that one would have to be equally divine and human. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable that The Logos would incarnate of a virgin even (as he did), but perhaps not need to endure sacrifice. To go any further is to go into conjecture which is not good for us, I am sure, and in fact this is probably the reason the "doctrine" doesn't come up much on its own. Again I speak for no "Fathers" but, as I say, it sounds reasonable.
I am very interested in the correct answer, and I eagerly await it with you, Waldemar.

Richard

[Waldemar]

Dear Father Averky and Aaron,

It appears that the answer must be found in St. Irenaeus of Lyons.


For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.

Against Heresies, Book 2 Chapter 22.4
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P7011_1802900

I understand that this passage does not say anything about: "Had man not sinned against God...the Incarnation would have taken place nonetheless," but frustratingly I found another reference citing St. Irenaeus as the source of the "nonetheless" teaching without citing a text.

Any help from our resident Patristics scholars?

[Fr Averky]

Dear Waldemar and Aaron,

You know, this one of those questions which has never come up for me. I have to say I do not remember this having been discussed in seminary, but I finished so many years ago, I don't know any more.

I became Orthodox, attended services for six years in a large cathedral parish which was all Russian and all Slavonic with fix or six converts, and then came here and had to learn to be all that.

I say this because my experience as a layman was brief and coming here I put myself into obedience to the Church after four months. My mind is such that I have never been philosphical, but when I have embraced something, like Orthodoxy, I fully accept its teachings. I am not a blind follower, but have never had a questioning mind. It is all I can do to try to save my soul.

Actually, I thank you for you observations and answers. I confess my ignorance, and if you think I should know better, well, dear friends, you are right. Being a simple monk, there is so much I do not know. What I do, I will share with you., and am always happy to learn. I will remain silent and watch for the answer. God bless, and pray for me.

Fr. Averky the ignorant

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Waldemar and others,

The notion that the divine Word of God, the second Person of the holy Trinity, would become incarnate even if humankind had not sinned, is a belief that goes back to the very earliest days of the Church. We can see it in muted form in the text To Autolycus by Theophilus of Antioch (written in the mid-second century), and in much clearer form in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons (late second). Both authors speak of the fact that the Word of God communed with Adam and Eve in the garden, 'as with children' (a notion we've discussed in a different context elsewhere), preparing them for such a time as they would be ready for a fuller and more intimate communion and union with God -- such a communion as could only be wrought through the incarnation of the Son, since it is only in this manner that man is bodily brought to union with God.

INXC, Matthew

[Daniel Jeandet]

The following information is taken from the book “The feasts of the Lord” by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos. The chapter is entitled: “The divine incarnation as independent of the fall”. I will quote a few things directly, but also in my own words just to try to summarise what he is saying, since there is a lot in this chapter.

It seems to come down to the fact that the incarnation was the final purpose of the creation of man. The purpose of man’s existence is deification, which is only achieved through the incarnation, the passion and cross were things added by Adam’s fall.

“Saint Maximus says that the incarnation was for the salvation of nature, and the passion was towards the deliverance of those who through sin were possessed by death”. (these are the words of the Metropolitan).

“In analysing the patristic teaching on the same point, St Nikodemos the Hagiorite comes to the conclusion that the incarnation of the Son and Word of God was not a consequence of mans fall, but was the original purpose of the creation of man because in this way he should and could attain deification.”

St Nikodemos wrote about this because of some controversy over a line in the book “unseen warfare” that reads: “the whole intelligible and tangible world came into being for this purpose, for the Theotokos, and again the Theotokos came into being for our Lord Jesus Christ”

Saint Nikodemos wrote an essay of apology concerning this line because some theologians of his day expressed doubt about it. In the essay he speaks about the prior will of God,

(the following is quoted from the Metropolitan’s book which quotes St Nikodemos) “referring to the humanity of Christ, which “beginning of all decrees God foresaw before anything else, the first of all that he did”. Thus the mystery of the Economy of the incarnate Son and Word of God is the beginning of all the paths of the Lord, it is the first of all the creatures and “this was predetermined before the predetermination of all the saved””

St Nikodemos also quotes St Maximus: “this is the preconceived divine purpose of the first of the beings, defining which we call it the preconceived goal for which everything is, but is itself not for the sake of anything”.

The Metropolitan adds that this must be understood in the sense that time does not exist in God. He goes on to quote Saint Gregory Palamas who said that Man was formed in the image of God “in order to be able some day to contain the archetype”.

So man was created for the final purpose of the incarnation and so all of the creation was leading up to the Theotokos who was to bear Him.

Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite wrote “Do you hear that God made man in His image in order that he should be able to contain the archetype for the incarnation? And that is why God made man a union of the intelligible and sensory world, and a recapitulation and summary of all the creatures so that in unity with him he might be united with all creatures, as St Paul says, and creator and creature become one in hypostasis, according to the Godbearing Maximus”.

There is more to this chapter and the whole book is worth reading, but this part in particular really is very interesting and helpful because it helps us to understand more deeply our true purpose and the real reason for the incarnation, which is our deification and not the propitiation of divine righteousness, an idea that can be hard to shake from our western, legalistic minds. Without the incarnation the created could not have been united with the uncreated, and this was the original will and purpose of the incarnation. The fall added the Passion, Cross, and Resurrection.

[Fr Averky]

Dear All,

Thank you, as I thought about it last night, it was one of those moments when I hit my forehead and thought, "What was I thinking?" ( Or, rather, what was I NOT thinking!) Of course, it all makes sense. Sorry!

Averky the out of it.

[Waldemar]

Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul "the figure of Him that was to come," (Romans 3:14) because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies
Book III
Chapter 22.3
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7879_2159850

Matthew: Is there a more explicit statement of the teaching than the above?

[Waldemar]

11. But man He formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation, that that which should 'be seen should be of divine form: for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God. Moreover he was free and self-controlled, being made by God for this end, that he might rule all those things that were upon the earth. And this great created world, prepared by God before the formation of man, was given to man as his place, containing all things within itself. And there were in this place also with (their) tasks the servants of that God who formed all things; and the steward, who was set over all his fellow-servants received this place. Now the servants were angels, and the steward was the archangel.

12. Now, having made man lord of the earth and all things in it, He secretly appointed him lord also of those who were servants in it. They however were in their perfection; but the lord, that is, man, was (but) small; for he was a child; and it was necessary that he should grow, and so come to (his) perfection. And, that he might have his nourishment and growth with festive and dainty meats, He prepared him a place better than this world, excelling in air, beauty, light, food, plants, fruit, water, and all other necessaries of life: and its name is Paradise. And so fair and good was this Paradise, that the Word of God continually resorted thither, and walked and talked with the man, figuring beforehand the things that should be in the future, (namely) that He should dwell with him and talk with him, and should be with men, teaching them righteousness.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm

[Photini]

I clipped this from www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_maxim.html (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_maxim.html)


"The one by receiving the human nature enters the creation and the other by achieving a union of his nature with the divine enters the realms of the uncreated. The one descends; the other ascends. Here we find the correct explanation of Ìaximos' aspect about the position of the incarnation in God's design. On the basis of what has been said in the last few lines one can conclude that the cause of the incarnation should be found in man's fall and its purpose in man's restoration. However, this would be contrary to Maximos' statement that the incarnation of the Logos was the ðñïåðéíïïýìåíïí ôÝëïò, being found eternally in the divine design. Indeed, since man's purpose was theosis, which he was not able to achieve by his ïwn means, the descent of God to man would be necessary under any circumstance, in order to facilitate man's ascent. Incarnation is the perfection of man(34). Ìan's sin and fall were a fact which did not cause a new decision by God, but added a detail to the eternal design. This is a further elaboration of Athanasius' teaching ïn the subject as in the De Incarnatione Verbi."

[Waldemar]

Dear Daniel J.,

By happy coincidence, I am slowly making my way through <u>Unseen Warfare</u>, I will look for the apology by St. Nikodemos. Thank you!

In Christ,
Waldemar

[Fr John Wehling]

Waldemar,

I refer you to Panayiotis Nellas&#39; Deification in Christ, specifically pp.34ff for a discussion of your question. The whole volume is an explication of the Christology of St Nicholas Cabasilas and pertains directly and indirectly to your question.

Also, Nellas wrote an essay titled &#34;Redemption or Deification?&#34; which even more explicitly deals with your question, but I can&#39;t recall where it appeared and when. If I come across it I will send you the bibliographic info.

Peace,
Fr John

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends

Again, as I put my brain to use, of course, Christ came to save mankind after all the Prophets had been sent and been rejected. His Incarnation was not for Adam alone, but for His Father&#39;s plan for salvation. I should know better to answer without thinking. Thank you Daniel.

Fr. A.

[Waldemar]

Daniel J. wrote: &#34;St Nikodemos wrote about this because of some controversy over a line in the book &#39;unseen warfare&#39; that reads: &#39;the whole intelligible and tangible world came into being for this purpose, for the Theotokos, and again the Theotokos came into being for our Lord Jesus Christ&#39; ”

Perhaps I should have cut and pasted a little more:


For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.

In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, &#34;Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.&#34; But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin &#40;for in Paradise &#34;they were both naked, and were not ashamed,&#34; inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward&#41;, having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, &#34;instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.&#34; For the Lord, having been born &#34;the First- begotten of the dead,&#34; and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve&#39;s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies
Book 3 Chapter 22.3, 22.4
http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3224/irenaeus31.html

[Mina Mounir]

is there any books or articles covers the patristic testimonies about that topic

[Julia Hayes]

is there any books or articles covers the patristic testimonies about that topic

Mina, here is the article by Florovsky "Cur Deus Homo" (http://jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-6a-curdeushomo.pdf)

[Julia Hayes]

Here is another article for you by Panagiotes Nellas, "Why did God become man? The Archtype of Humanity is the Incarnate Word." (http://jbburnett.com/resources/nellas,%20god%20bec%20man.pdf)

[Mina Mounir]

Here is another article for you by Panagiotes Nellas, "Why did God become man? The Archtype of Humanity is the Incarnate Word." (http://jbburnett.com/resources/nellas,%20god%20bec%20man.pdf)
Thanks Julia!

[Christopher]

"WE" needed this Incarnation in order to "become" human . . . we are only 'potentially human' without Christ, i.e., The Incarnation.

Fr. John Romanides:

[...]

That is, in His uncreatedness God neither is a human being nor resembles a human being. So when God became man, He did not become something that He already resembled. Incarnation does not mean that God assumed a nature that was somehow similar to His own. There is absolutely no similarity whatsoever between human nature and divine nature . . .

This is the reason why the Fathers stress that man is not the image of God. Only the Word or Son is the exact image of God.
The Word is the image of the Father. And since the Word is the image of the Father, Christ as the Word is also the image of the Father. But since there is an interchange of properties108 between the two natures in Christ the incarnate Word Who is also human, the very humanity of Christ is also the image of the Father. So the human nature of Christ is the image of the Father on account of the Incarnation...

Now there are certain Orthodox theologians of Russian descent who claim that God is a personal God. They claim that God is not the God of philosophy, a construction of human philosophical thought, but that He is a personal God. Western tradition makes similar statements. But in the Patristic tradition, God is not a personal God. In fact, God is not even God. God does not correspond to anything that we can conceive or would be able to conceive. The relationship between God and man is not a personal relationship and it is also not a subject-object relationship.

So when we speak about a personal relationship between God and man, we are making a mistake. That kind of relationship between God and human beings does not exist. What we are talking about now has bearing on another error that some people make when they speak about a communion of persons and try to develop a theology based on a communion of persons using the relations between the Persons in the Trinity as a model. The relations between God and man are not like the relations between fellow human beings. Why? Because we are not on the same level or in the same business with God.

What we have just said holds true until the Incarnation. However, after the Incarnation of God the Word, we can have a personal relationship with God by means of and on account of the Incarnation. But this relationship is with God as the God-man (as the Son of God and the Son of man).


Since God became man, the Incarnation brought about a special relationship between God and man or Christ and man, a relationship that is nevertheless non-existent when we consider the Holy Trinity as a whole. We do not have a relationship with the Holy Trinity or with the uncreated Divinity that is like our relationship with Christ. In other words, our relationship with the Father or with the Holy Spirit is not like our relationship with Christ. Only with Christ do we have a personal relationship. The Holy Trinity came into personal contact with man only through the Incarnation, only through Christ. This relationship did not exist before the Incarnation, because we did not have a relationship with God as we do with other people before the Incarnation.

Being uncreated, God is accordingly not a human being.

Man is not the image of God. Although some people certainly refer to man as the image of God, it is improper to do so. Literally, man is fashioned in the image of God, but he is not the image of God. Although the Bible relates that "in the image of God created He him," precisely what is meant by this verse was fully revealed only in the Incarnation, because from the very beginning human destiny was to become like Christ, to become god by grace, and to attain the state of being "in the likeness." A person actively becomes "in the image" when he becomes like Christ in compassion. So when someone manages to imitate Christ, he also begins to become an image of the Father by grace as he partakes of the glory of Christ. In this way, someone who attains to a state of theosis, in other words, a state of being "in the likeness" of Christ, becomes Christ by grace and god by grace. That is when he becomes like Christ and differs from Christ only in terms of nature. Notwithstanding, Christ is God by nature, not by grace. [pg. 139-142]

[...] ... Adam was fashioned in the image of Christ. Strictly speaking, man is not all image of God the Father, but he is an image of Christ. - Patristic Theology

[...] ... In other words, in the Incarnation, it was finally revealed that man had been created in the image of Christ, his chronologically subsequent prototype. - Patristic Theology [pg.142]

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:

[...] ... We know that man is not an autonomous being, but made in an image, which means that Christ is his archetype and it is through Christ that he can fulfill the purpose of his creation.

[...]" ... Christ is the one bridge between the created and the uncreated as well as the one point that unites them both. In His person, divine nature is united with human nature without change, separation, or division. More precisely, divine nature assumed human nature in the hypostasis of the Word. This enables man in the image of God and potentially in His likeness to actively become a person through his life in the Church and union with Christ. Of course, man is potentially a person from birth, but he must activate this hypostatic principle by the power of Christ. He becomes a person by his communion with God ... The ascetic and sacramental life activates the hypostatic principle in man." Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, The Person in Orthodox Tradition, p. 228 (in Greek).

----
I am looking for a quote from St. Maximos the Confessor
regarding the Incarnation 'regardless' of the Fall.

Forgive me.
Fr. Christopher

[Mina Mounir]

Thanks , fr. Christopher.
I think that book of fr. Romanides is interesting.