Medieval Christology: The Relationship Between the Incarnation and the Fall
Medieval Christology: The Relationship Between the Incarnation and the Fall
The medieval period was noted for its systematic exploration of the logical and philosophical aspects of most areas of theology, and Christology was no exception. Anselm of Canterbury's (c.1033–1109) treatise “Why God became Man” explored the rationality of the incarnation, focusing especially on the importance of the death of Christ. Yet other discussions took place during this important period in theological history. To illustrate the kinds of debate that took place at this time, we shall consider a theological question concerning the incarnation that intrigued this era. Was the incarnation dependent on Adam's fall – or would it have happened anyway?
The classical understanding of the grounds of the incarnation could be summarized like this: humanity fell from grace and required restoration.This restoration required the incarnation of the Son of God, and his saving work on the cross. Therefore, if humanity had not sinned, there would have been no need for the incarnation. In fact, most Christian writers thought it pointless to speculate about what might have happened if Adam had never sinned. But not all.
Honorius of Autun (1080–1154), who was active as a theologian over the period 1106–35, argued that the incarnation was not ordained as a remedy for human sin but in order to secure the divinization of humanity. And humanity needed to be made divine, whether it remained innocent or whether it fell. As humanity required to be totally transformed in this way, the incarnation was necessary. “It was necessary, therefore, for [the Son of God] to become incarnate, so that humanity could be deified, and thus it does not follow that sin was the cause of the incarnation.” A similar view is found in the writings of the Benedictine theologian Rupert of Deutz (c.1075–1130), who argued that the incarnation was the result of God's wish to dwell among his people. The incarnation can therefore be seen as the climax of the work of creation, rather than a reaction to human sin.
It fell to Thomas Aquinas (c.1225–74) to adjudicate on this debate. Clearly uneasy about the highly speculative nature of the question, he argued that the coming of Christ was the result of the fall, and declared that there was little to be gained by considering alternatives:
Some say that the Son of God would have become incarnate, even if humanity had not sinned. Others assert the opposite, and it would seem that our assent ought to be given to this opinion. For those things that originate from God's will, lying beyond what is due to the creature, can only be made known to us through being revealed in Holy Scripture, in which the divine will is made known to us. Therefore, since the sin of the first human being is described as the cause of the incarnation throughout Holy Scripture, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of the incarnation was ordained as a remedy for sin, so that, if sin had not existed, the incarnation would never have taken place. Yet the power of God is not limited in this way. Even if sin had not existed, God could still have become incarnate.
We now turn to consider some of the major themes in contemporary discussion of the identity and significance of Jesus Christ. In two later sections, we shall consider the debates about “faith and history,” focusing on the famous “Quest for the Historical Jesus.”