|
|
|
IAN'S
TAKE
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Why did God choose to become human?  The Church has long struggled with the question, what purpose did Jesus' life, death and resurrection serve? Or put otherwise, why did God choose to become human? These questions relate to several threads in our discussion forum over the last two weeks, and indirectly underpin much of the material that Ian Elmer has been exploring vis-à-vis the historical Jesus. Traditionally, there have been two answers to these questions. The first, the older of the two, focuses on the Incarnation as God's backup plan to redeem us from the debt of sin. The second, more recent view holds that Jesus was the fulfillment of God's self-revelation to humankind. Jesus Came to Die for Our Sins
The answer that is most frequently given in response to the question of why God became human emphasizes redemption, forgiveness and justification (Overberg, 2006). "Jesus came to die for our sins!" This statement and its underlying theology derive from an uncritical reading of the second creation story in Genesis (2:4b-3:24). This ancient story purportedly, according to this view, presents the sin of the man and woman in the garden as a fundamental breach of God's law, resulting in human alienation from God. Accordingly, this first violation of God's commands is seen as the "original sin", the stain of which remains on the souls of all the descendants of that first man and woman. So profound is the resulting divide between God and humankind that only God can intervene to overcome it. Thus, through the Incarnation, the Word becomes flesh, in a divine act of atonement to expunge the debt of our first parents and wipe away the vestigial stain of their original sin. From this perspective, redemption, a word borrowed from the world of commerce, is basically understood as a "buying back" (redeeming) something that has been "placed in hoc" (Gula, 2006). God is both the pawnbroker to whom the debt is owed and the saviour who redeems our debt. Satan, too, usually gets a look in here as the one who holds "chits" on our souls. In the traditional language of this story, we have been sold into slavery under Satan and we are powerless to free ourselves from all the evil inclinations of fallen humankind. Jesus' death on the cross redeems us from the clutches of Satan, our personal sins are forgiven and we are deemed justified again before God.
There is no doubt that metanoia (repentance) and social responsibility were key aspects of Jesus' message, as we have seen over the last few weeks. But, this atonement theology has, at times, pictured an angry and vengeful God demanding Jesus' suffering and death as a means of appeasement and atonement. In line with this image, theology, popular piety and faith practice, has suggested that the purpose of Jesus' life be directly linked to both the original sin of our first parents and our own personal sinfulness. According this view, the incarnation was God's "Plan B" — "without sin, there would have been no need for the Incarnation" (Overberg, 2006). Jesus Came as the Fulfilment of God's Self-communication
There is an alternative understanding of the purpose of the Incarnation that does not highlight sin and the need for atonement. This new story also draws on Scripture and tradition, but seeks to understand both in mythic and complex rather than literal and simplistic terms (Edwards, 1991). The story of Creation plays an important role here too. But in this case the emphasis is on the first story in Genesis (1:1-2:4a) where God's Word that brings forth a "good" creation, and humanity is created in the imago dei (image of God). Creation is seen as part and parcel of God's self-communication. God, of course, communicates his divine being in many ways, through creation, through encounter and relationship with others, through history, and finally, definitively through Jesus, who is seen as the "word of God made flesh" (Jn 1:14). This new story holds that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation. God's sharing of the divine life and love through time reaches its definitive expression in the life, message, death and resurrection of Jesus. This view was first expressed explicitly in the Prologue of John's Gospel (1:1-18), which gives us this marvelous image of all creation coming to be in the Word, God's self-expression who later became flesh in the historical Jesus of Nazareth (Edwards, 1995). Written about the same time, the letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians expressed a similar view. These two letters, composed by disciples of Paul, offer a similar expansive theology, which pictures Christ as the "image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation", whose coming was the climax of God's original plan (Col 1:15-20; Eph 1:3-14). Although forgotten until relatively recently, this new story has been rediscovered by the contemporary Church. Amidst the wars and other horrors of our age, theologians have struggled to understand God's purpose in creation and humanity's role in the evil and destruction that have shaped the modern era. Of particular note in this respect was the contribution of the Jesuit theologian, Karl Rahner (1904-1984), who developed a profound response to these questions and challenges. Following earlier work done in the Medieval Church by John Duns Scotus (1225-1274), Rahner stressed that despite the fact that God is a totally-other and incomprehensible mystery, we have come to know something of Divine Being in and through God's actions in the world and in history (Edwards, 1991). This story is partly contained in the scriptures, but also continues in our own lives. The very heart of this revelation, Rahner proclaimed, is God's self-communication: God's overflowing love leading to Jesus and so first to creation and grace and ultimately to complete union with the divine (Overberg, 2006). On this view, sin does not come about as a result of a primordial fall from grace, but from the human freedom — the freedom to act morally or immorally. Christ did not come to redeem a fallen world, but to demonstrate God's love for the world and its inhabitants. So What? Who cares? What Difference Does this New Story Make? We have seen two approaches to the question of why God wanted to become human in Jesus of Nazareth. The first stressed the need for redemption from sin, the other turned that perspective upside down by granting primacy to the Incarnation as the endgame in God's history of self-communication. But one might ask: what difference does this new perspective make to us? For one, I think the new story emphasises the central role and the full import of Jesus' historical message and mission. Jesus' mission is now seen as more than simply a commission to die for our sins. Jesus is the Word of God to us; hence, we must take stock not only of his salvific death, but of the whole thrust of his Gospel message. What Jesus said throughout his life is as important as how he ended his life. We can't just skip through to the end of the story. For another, the emphasis on "the Word made flesh" assists us to fully appreciate the depth of our humanness and the importance of our actions. Kenneth Overberg notes the singular vision of Rahner on this point: God's self-communication also occurs in the depths of our being. Rahner understood the human person as spirit in the world, a finite being with an infinite capacity. If we are to satisfy our deepest human yearnings, we need grace. For Rahner, grace is Godself-gift, God's personal fulfillment of our natural openness, offered freely to all persons, transforming the core of human life. (Overberg, 2006) Finally, I think that this new story shifts the responsibility for evil away from God or Satan and places it squarely where it belongs — on our shoulders. No longer can we simply dismiss wars, terrorism, global warming, persecution and neglect as the inherent evil inclinations of a fallen humanity. We can't simply say "Satan made me do it!" God's self-communication empowers us to live according to the principles of Jesus' radical gospel message. Just as humankind is solely responsible for the evil in the world, so too we who hear the Word in creation, in others, in history, and in Christ know that we must be the voice of the voiceless and the champion of the marginalized. Bibliography
and further food for the journey: Photo Credits:
What are your thoughts on this essay? Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the beginning of the email address before sending the email" ©2006 Ian Elmer |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Email
this article to a friend
Post
your feedback in our forum
Down
the centuries, Christian theology and piety have developed these themes
as goads to personal repentance and social action. A classic example of
this popular atonement theology is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of
the Christ" which, in the best traditions of the old medieval
morality plays, sought to force people to confront the pain Jesus suffered
for humanity's sins, or more specifically "my" sins 
Ian
Elmer is a lecturer in New Testament at ACU National (formally Australian
Catholic University). He is also a member of the Centre for Early Christian
Studies, and was recently admitted into ACBA (Australian Catholic Biblical
Association). His research specialities are Paul and First-Century Christianity.
He is the author of published articles in the Australian Ejournal of Theology
and in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (a publication of the
Centre for Early Christian Studies). He is currently completing a doctoral
thesis, entitled Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis
in its Broader Historical Context.