The Relationship between Incarnation and Atonement
posted in Community by
lianawon
Introduction
The problem of the relationship between incarnation and atonement is one of the most fascinating in the Christian theology. In fact, the problem of incarnation itself is already the question that needs very deep reflection and understanding. Even for those people who heard the speeches of Christ and His disciples the question why God became a human and why the Unlimited being limited Himself was incomprehensible and brought many possible solutions and interpretations. One of them is to interpret incarnation as the only one way to save the people through the atonement that was the result of Christ’s death on the cross. The reason for such a position was the Christian theologians’ need to resolve some problems of theodicy (the justification of God) and, at the same time, to understand His deeds deeper. One of the most prominent thinkers who proposed his own vision of the situation concerning the relation between atonement and incarnation was Anselm of Canterbury, who claimed that God sacrificed His Son in order to restore His honor doubted because of His creation’s sins. The main weakness of Anselm’s argument is that he describes God as a feudal who wants to get a compensation for his honor. According to the Gospels, God is a loving Father, who sends His only one beloved Son to save the mankind, and in this way, the reason for the relation between incarnation and atonement is God’s love that does not allow Him to sacrifice anyone except Himself.
The Problem of Incarnation in the Gospel
The most illustrative passages concerning the issue, one can find in the Gospel of John. Thus, St. John claims: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14, New International Version). There is also another passage from the same Gospel: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, New International Version). Here St. John explains that the reason for both incarnation and atonement was God’s love to people who needed an atonement that could be brought only by God’s Son, Jesus Christ. It seems that these quotes are quite enough to claim that incarnation was the action presupposed by God’s free will combined with His love to the sinful world. Through the latter passage, God looks like a loving father whose only aim is to save His lost sons (mankind) through the sacrifice of His only Son. In this way, the Gospel explains incarnation but does not explain its connection with atonement.
At the same time, it becomes clear that the same problem was very difficult even for the first listeners of St. Paul’s speeches. For example, he claims: “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:22, New International Version). This passage demonstrates the principal difference between the worldviews of the Christians and all other people, especially concerning the issue of Christ’s crucifixion (and, in this way, atonement that was the reason of Christ’s death, and incarnation that was its condition). It is clear through the argumentation provided by St. Paul that both Gentiles and Jews cannot understand why God who is almighty has to become a man and die instead of destroying human sinfulness voluntarily and save all people despite their personal positions, preferences, and mistakes (Walker 100). It seems that such a misunderstanding did not allow many people to accept Christ and to become Christians. Besides, the same lack of the specific understanding was close even to some Christian thinkers who wanted to provide some explanation of this obscure issue. One of the best examples of such an explanation was the ransom theory of atonement that interpreted Christ as a sacrifice provided by God in order to save sinful mankind from Satan, who wanted something in exchange for their souls.
The Ransom Theory of Atonement
The main position concerning the relation between atonement and incarnation was the theory of ransom according to which, God paid to Satan for the sinful world’s saving by His Son’s sacrificial death. To some degree, such position can be persuading and interesting because it justifies God whose role in Christ’s death looks like a needed sacrifice. Besides, the theory of ransom contradicts to the Christian understanding of the Devil as a rebel who is not equal to God and acts against the humanity only because God allows him until the Doomsday. In fact, the ransom theory is very close to the heretical teaching of the Manicheans, against which Aurelius Augustine provided most of his classical texts. The equality of God and Satan may be very useful for the justification of God when disputing concerning the essence of evil and the source of sin. As the result, it diminishes God’s glory as the Creator of everything. The illusion of the real struggle between God and Satan allows the latter to look like an alternative god when, in fact, the Devil is one of the fallen angels created by God from nothing and dependent on the Creator as well as everything in the world (Collins).
The inequality of God and Satan is the reason why the ransom theory is inadequate to the general Christian teaching. Certainly, such interpretation could exist until the invention of a better one because the Christian theology did not appear at the same time with the Gospel, but moved through different stages of thinking, adequate reinterpretations, and conceptual transformations. The idea of Anselm of Canterbury, who possibly constructed his understanding of the issue on the ground of the social conditions of his epoch, appeared as one of such reinterpretations of the researched problem.
Anselm’s Position Concerning Atonement and Incarnation
Anselm of Canterbury proposed the interpretation of the researched problem that became more adequate in the context of the general Christian spirit. The thinker devoted to this issue a separate treatise titled “Cur Deus Homo”. In this way, he tried to answer the main question why the unlimited and Almighty God limited Himself through incarnation and crucifixion. The treatise by Anselm has a form of dialogue and in such a way, the author demonstrates his opponents’ ideas and allows the reader to understand the logic of these false positions’ criticism.
Anselm understands that the ransom theory grounds on the dualist worldview that contradicts to the Christian monist position according to which God is the only one possible source of all power. Thus, Anselm had to criticize the theory of ransom in some way that would provide an adequate explanation of the contradictory and difficult issue of the relationship between incarnation and atonement. The thinker resolves this problem through the analysis of God and provides the interpretation of the situation through the medieval concept of feudal honor that was quite understandable for his contemporaries. According to Anselm, one of the most important characteristics of God is His honor that means God’s potency and power to govern the Universe and organize all things in accordance with His will (St. Anselm 64). Besides, the fact of the existence of sin witnesses about God’s particular impotency to rule the world, and in this way He has to punish those who commit sins and diminish His honor by such activity. Thus, God needed some sacrifice from mankind for their sins. There was no person between mortal people who could voluntarily sacrifice himself or herself in order to save others. God possessed such will as well as understanding, but He was not one of the sinners and in this way, He could not sacrifice Himself to restore His honor. That is why the appearance of the Son of God was highly needed because Christ belonged both to mortal men and, at the same time, He was God’s son. Christ’s sacrifice was the only possible way to realize God’s plan to restore His honor (St. Anselm 64).
It is clear that through the position proposed by Anselm, God represents the highest power when the Devil, as well as mankind, just belong to God’s sphere of influence. In this aspect, Anselm’s position is much more adequate in the general Christian theological context. Anselm’s God looks like a sovereign whose power and right to judge are indisputable. Besides, this theory also includes some weak sides because it replaces God as Father by God as King.
The Evaluation of Anselm’s Argumentation
As already stated, the main reason of incarnation was God’s love for sinful men, and in this way, He wanted to realize atonement through the sacrifice of His only Son. Besides, such state of things contradicts to Anselm’s theory because it does not take into account people and their salvation. Anselm’s God looks like a medieval feudal who wants to protect his honor from some challenges and for this purpose provides both punishments for separate individuals and Christ’s sacrifice for the whole mankind. Anselm’s argumentation looks logically strong, but it loses the importance of God’s love that is the most vital to understand the Christian worldview. It is clear through St. Paul’s proclamation concerning love: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal… And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:1, 13, New International Version). Certainly, for Anselm’s contemporaries, who lived in the medieval feudal society, it was much easier to understand God as the highest Lord who punishes mankind in the same way mortal lords punish their peasants. Through Anselm’s position, the incarnation is the result of God’s need to provide atonement in order to restore His feudal honor. In my opinion, Jesus Christ became human to show people the way of Salvation and the need for this way. It had to be clear for every sinner that to find God everyone has to work hard if even the Son of God had to pass such a difficult way to return to His Father. I suppose that instead of honor the main characteristic of God that presupposed incarnation was His compassion for mankind. Such explanation corresponds to the Gospel much better than the Anselm’s one.
Conclusion
God’s love became the reason for incarnation, and in this way, Christ realized atonement of human sins. The main characteristic of God that allowed Christ sacrifice Himself for the sake of all men was His great compassion: it concerns both incarnation and atonement that relate one to another as a mean and an aim. God could not save all people voluntarily because He created them free. At the same time, He could not sacrifice one of them because He loved them so much. That is why the only one way for God was to become human and sacrifice Himself for the sins of his beloved creation.
This text was written by Liana Wongа who is a writing editor at https://superbessay.com/
2 years, 7 months ago
