210. The necessity of the Incarnation
210. THE NECESSITY OF THE INCARNATION
Most Christian theologians agree that the Incarnation was “fitting”. But what does this mean? There seems to be three answers to this question. In “Why God Became Man” St. Anselm tried to show that the Incarnation was “necessary” and therefore could be rationally proved, demonstrated deductively. Other theologians interpret its “fittingness” to mean that it could be understood as good and right and proper afterwards, but that since it was a totally unpredictable free choice of God’s will, it was not “rational” or “necessary” in any sense. St. Thomas seems to take a middle position: he says that the Incarnation, like the Trinity, is one of the truths of Faith that cannot be demonstrated by natural reason alone, yet he speaks of its rational and moral “fittingness”. Does this mean that he agrees with St. Anselm that it was “necessary”? If so, in what sense?
A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it, as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God of His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says: We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject, but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery.
Now this may be viewed with respect to our furtherance in good.
First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says: In order that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith.
Secondly, with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says: Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?
Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly enkindled by this; hence Augustine says: What greater cause is there of the Lord’s coming than to show God’s love for us?. . .
Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says: Man who might be seen was not to be followed, but God was to be followed Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man that He . . . Whom man might follow might be shown to man.
Fifthly, with regard to the full participation in the divinity, which is the true bliss of man and the end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ’s humanity; for Augustine says: God was made man that man might be made God.
(6) Also was this useful for our withdrawal from evil. . . . because we are thereby taught how great is man’s dignity, lest we should sully it with sin. . . . Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity: Learn, O Christian, thy worth, being made a partner of the divine nature. . . .
(7) (And also) because man’s pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great, as Augustine says (III,1,2).
These seven reasons for the “fittingness” of the Incarnation show what St. Thomas means by this category better than the correct but abstract definition in the first paragraph. They are also a good example of that pre-modern notion of “reason” that consists in wisdom rather than proof. It is half-way between rationalism and irrationalism.