I was wondering about the Incarnation being necessitated by the fall. I seem to remember reading that some of the Church Fathers said that because of God's love for man, the Incarnation would have happened even without the fall. I could just be remembering wrong...
virgil | Homepage | 12.13.05 - 9:07 am | #

"The Incarnation was necessitated by the Fall. Having been "clothed with skin" only after the Fall, Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise. From then on, anyone clothed in skin is sure to die. Thus, it was necessary for God to take on human flesh to free us from eternal death, thereby rescuing us, God save us, back toward Paradise.

Divorcing the Incarnation from the reality of the Fall and Redemption is, one must admit, lacking in the Bishop's poem. It could be that current Episcopalian theology may also lack the concept."

I agree that the Incarnation cannot be divorced from the reality of the Fall. However, I believe I remember reading in one of the Fathers (perhaps St. Gregory of Nyssa???) that the Incarnation would have occurred regardless of the Fall. Does anyone else recall ever reading this?

Or am I imagining things?
Jordan Henderson | 12.13.05 - 9:38 am | #

Oh, probably that there's nothing left for them to be indignant about. Or perhaps that the Episcopal Church STILL has MEN practising as priests and bishops. Where is the social justice in that???
Guru | 12.13.05 - 9:45 am | #

Good question, Jordan & Virgil. I look forward to a follow-up if you find resources. (I seem to remember something about the same.)

In the meantime, here's a wonderful read:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ inqu...hristcross.aspx
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 12.13.05 - 10:04 am | #

The question about the Incarnation happening without the Fall gets quite a bit of attention in Panayiotis Nellas' Deification in Christ. My copy isn't accessible to me right now... when I get my hands on it, I'll look it up.

In the West, this was an enduring conflict between Dominicans and Franciscans. The proposition, as they debated it, was "Christ would have come if Adam had not sinned." As I recall, the Dominicans were for it and the Franciscans were against it.

More recently, I seem to remember this being a point of contention between Lutheran scholar Robert Jenson and Orthodox scholar David Hart in the latter's review of the former's systematic theology. Or vice-versa. First Things, maybe?
Mark | 12.13.05 - 11:24 am | #

1) Irenaeus of Lyons, I believe, mentioned the infancy and immaturity of Adam in "On the Apostolic Preaching;" I think he may have mentioned the necessity of the Incarnation regardless of the fall as a necessary means towards man's further deification.

Didn't Athanasius mention something in "The Incarnation of the Word?"

2) whoever posted a comment about being clothed in skin - that was not being clothed in flesh as a result of the fall, those were animal skins given to them by Christ God (the LORD) - the skins are mentioned b/c animals were not to be killed as food - life is in the blood, and life belongs to God. Things with blood are not originally given as food, only plants are. Furthermore, do you not remember the passage about Adam being gathered from the dust of the earth in Gen.2, and only becoming man when God "breathed into his nostrils?" Man was, is, and shall be a material/spiritual unity. The Incarnation was necessary regardless of the fall, but we can't know what shape it would have taken without the fall.
Abba Poemon the Ubermensch | 12.13.05 - 12:43 pm | #

Dear Abba,

Very interesting. Where do you get your patristic references for ANIMAL SKINS?

Further pontifications, preferably with patristic references, appreciated.
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 12.13.05 - 1:00 pm | #

Why are we not preaching from the rooftops:
"clothed with skin" only after the Fall, Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise. From then on, anyone clothed in skin is sure to die.
So few, even among the Orthodox, seem to understand this.
Preach on.
Keith Rucker Haygood | 12.13.05 - 1:18 pm | #

Whoa...

I'm in the middle of finals right now, but I have to say that this post was a little disturbing. I originally read it as though Fr. Joseph was asserting that humanity before the fall was not incarnate. After looking at the link he provided, I see that he must have meant that human flesh before was incorruptible, not that we had no flesh. Much less disturbing. But it really was a bit confusing...
David Lewis | 12.13.05 - 1:23 pm | #

David,
I'm attempting a little Socratic method here, perhaps poorly.

FWIW, some Fathers maintained that Adam and Eve were NOT clothed with [corruptible] flesh as we know it, until -- as Scripture says -- after the Fall.

Also, that the bodies they had BEFORE the Fall were similar to our Lord's after the Resurrection.

What else? God clubbed some bears and clothed them as Cavemen?
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 12.13.05 - 2:35 pm | #

Father,

I wouldn't dream of speculating about bear clubbing...

However, there are a couple of references in Fr Andrew Louth's volume on Genesis I-XI from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Ephrem the Syrian ponders the question of why God would kill animals in the presence of Adam and Eve, proposing that the flesh of the animals may be their first post-edenic sustenance and that the in the animals' death, Adam and Eve would see a prefiguring of their own coming death. (Commentary on Genesis 2.33.1)

Augustine comments that the true honor of man is to be in the image and likeness of God, and that with the Fall, being clothed in "the likeness of the beasts" is man's disgrace. (On the Trinity 12.11.16)

Origen is the most explicit, stating that "those were tunics of skin taken from animals" and are a symbol of mortality that comes from the corruption of the flesh. (Homilies on Leviticus 6.2.7)

BTW, in this part of Louisiana, we believe it was coonskin (kinda like Davey Crockett's cap).
Mark | 12.13.05 - 3:57 pm | #

For those still paying attention to this thread, I'd recommend poking around in the writings of Ss Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor. I'm at home at the moment; my books are at the office.
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 12.13.05 - 10:26 pm | #

The whole stream of thought wherein being "clothed with skin" is a metaphor for physicality seems to me to partake too much of Origen's error whereby pure spirits "fell into" human bodies at the Fall. The council fathers are clear that this is an error in Origen. The (slightly) more orthodox tradition that the subject is the corruptibility of flesh is also disputed in the fathers, if my conversations on the subject with priests have any basis in truth. I'm still wading into the waters on this matter, but I find the entire matter a bit disturbing and confusing --- clearly advanced material for discussion as theologoumena not Orthodox doctrine.
Basil | Homepage | 12.13.05 - 10:32 pm | #

Okay ... finally had time to poke around on the Net and in, gasp, books and find Fathers who viewed "clothed with skins" in a more, shall we say, human way. Update coming soon in new post on this Blog.
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 12.14.05 - 10:46 pm | #

re: The Lord coming in the flesh, regardless of the Fall:

Met. Hierotheos Vlachos in his book "The Feasts of the Lord" devotes a "meaty" appendix to Christological topics. The inevitable Incarnation being one of them. As you alluded to earlier, he makes mention of St. Maximus the Confessor. Likewise Gregory of Thessalonika, "the great Andrew," and Nicodemus the Hagiorite.

He makes a distinction between this issue as speculation, and the reality of the Fall, and thus his deference to St. Athanasius' work. Even so, he sees no problem with the issue relating to the purpose of Creation and even the role of the Theotokos in a world without a Fall. For the sake of theosis, of course. This, to him, and to the God-bearing Fathers before him, is all about union in Christ.

Another good book on this issue, especially how it relates to God's will regarding the Theotokos is "Mary, The Untrodden Portal of God."

Gregory
Gregory Erickson | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 12:13 pm | #

1) Mary the Untrodden Portal ... an excellent book.

2) I spoke with Vlachos about my views (wrt my DMin project). In broken English he said: "The marriage is good, but the wedding was bad." He was smiling, so I took that to mean that we, politely, disagreed.
Fr Joseph Huneycutt | Homepage | 01.04.06 - 2:02 pm | #