Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Copyright, May 2007, by Robin Collins. Revised August 5, 2009. Anyone is welco e to use this paper as long as it is not !or pro!it and the author is credited along with its web location" !urther, it ay not be edited in anyway e#cept !or highlighting $use o! underlining, etc.% !or classroo or related uses. &'( )*+C&M(,- MA./ &,*(R )01(2/ M(,& 1, M1CR+'+3- 2+R* -+ '(( A44 '(C-1+, 5(A*1,6' 1, 4(3- 5A,* C+4&M,.
1n this paper, 1 will develop a new, participatory theory o! the Atone ent, which 1 call the 1ncarnational theory. 1 do not clai that this theory o!!ers a co plete e#planation !or how 7esus8 li!e, death, and resurrection lead to our salvation, only that it e#plicates a a9or core ele ent by which the Atone ent acco plished its wor:. -hus, it is not necessarily in co petition with other theories. 1 will !irst present the theory in two slightly di!!erent versions. A!ter doing this, 1 will then present so e :ey etaphors and sy bols the theory uses, discuss how it relates to various relevant scriptures, and the li:e. -he !irst version gives the general idea behind the theory, whereas the second atte pts to a:e this idea ore precise. ;e!ore discussing these versions, however, it is help!ul to distinguish between the doctrine and a theory o! Atone ent. -he doctrine o! Atone ent si ply states that Christ8s li!e, death and resurrection saved us !ro sin, reconciled us to 6od, and in so e way overca e the powers o! dar:ness. -heories o! Atone ent, on the other hand, atte pt to e#plain how 7esus8 li!e, death, and resurrection acco plished this and to at least partly e#plain why 6od chose this ethod. -heories have the power o! greatly enhancing <or distorting=> our understanding o! the eaning and signi!icance o! Christ8s li!e, death, and resurrection and our salvation. 3urther, they can have a power!ul hold on people8s inds, as has been the case with Ansel 8s 'atis!action theory and the .enal theory <which will be e#plained later>.
-he presentation o! the theory here co bines uch o! y earlier wor:, particular two earlier previous versions o! this theory <Collins, 2000 and Collins, ?995, both posted at www.robincollins.org>. Although any people have aided e in developing the 1ncarnational theory, 1 would particularly li:e to than: y wi!e and colleague, Rebecca Ada s, who had uch to do with the !ull develop ent o! this theory.
Claim 1A 'alvation consists in an ongoing participation in the li!e o! 6od as it e#ists in Christ, as indicated by 7esus8 etaphor o! the vine and branches <7n. ?5A5> and .aul8s analogy o! the body o! Christ <? Cor. ?2>, along with any other ,ew -esta ent passages, such as 7ohn BA5CD5B, Colossians CAE, 2 .eter ?AE, and 5ebrews CA?E. -his is basically the sa e as the (astern +rthodo# understanding o! salvation, in which salvation consists o! participating in the divine nature <2 .eter ?AE> via the energies 6od. Claim 2: Apart !ro the 1ncarnation and .assion, 6odFs li!e would be too alien !ro ours !or this sharing to occur. -his is analogous to the !act that a tree branch cannot be gra!ted into a horse, only another tree" the horse is too alien !or it. Claim 3: -hrough the 1ncarnation and .assion, 6od entered as deeply as possible into our hu an li!eDsituation o! death, su!!ering, and vulnerability and thereby overca e the alienation between 6odFs sel! and us. *uring that ti e, he nonetheless acted in co plete love and !aith towards 6od and others. -his created a !ully hu anG!ully divine li!e in 7esus. Claim 4: ;y parta:ing o! this li!e through being gra!ted into the true 0ine, we are saved !ro sin and reconciled to 6od. -his allows us to share in the li!e o! 6od, thus saving us !ro sin and bringing us into unity with 6od.
Version 2:
0ersion <2> adds theological and philosophical precision to version <?>. 1t starts with the sa e view o! salvation as version <?>, na ely that salvation consists in sharing in the li!e o! 6od through Christ. 1t goes beyond <?> in precisely e#plicating the relevant aspects o! the new !ully hu anG!ully divine li!e that were created in Christ and the role that the .assion and Cross played in creating this new li!e. Claim 1*: -hrough the 1ncarnation and .assion, Christ actively e#ercised and thus ade an active part o! the 6odhead virtues <such as courage, !aith, and love> o! a :ind that we need, can actively parta:e o!, and e#ercise in our present hu an li!eD 2
situation o! vulnerability, alienation, uncertainty, and the li:e. -hese virtues are to be thought of in terms of inner potency or powers, in accordance with the old (nglish use o! the word )virtue/ in which one ight spea: o! the healing virtues o! a drug. <1n ter s o! (astern +rthodo# theologies, these virtues would be the energies o! 6od, thus a:ing e#plicit their active nature.> Claim 2*: Apart !ro the 1ncarnation and .assion, 6od could not actively e#ercise the virtues o! the :ind re!erred to in clai <?H> above because they are too closely tied with our li!eDsituation. 2? -o see why, consider so e e#a ples o! these virtues as they occur in hu an beingsA Courage <o! the :ind we need> I a co o! danger, !ear, and personal in9ury. it ent to oneFs values or goals in the !ace
3aith <o! the :ind we need> I a co it ent to trust in the !ace o! uncertainty and doubt, and in the !ace o! serious te ptations not to trust. 4ove <o! the type we need> I a co it ent to value and relate to others <or ourselves> in the !ace o! such things as vulnerability to personal in9ury, alienation, wea:ness, !ear, un9ust victi iJation, and serious te ptations not to love. 'ince these virtues are basically co it ents o! various sorts in the face o! !ear, vulnerability, serious te ptations, and the li:e, it is clear that apart !ro so ething li:e
'everal co ents need to be ade about this and the previous clai . 3irst, one ight wonder how this !its with the classical understanding o! the 1ncarnation <as o!ten clai ed to be i plied by the Council o! Chalcedon>" in this understanding, during the 1ncarnation 6od the 'on aintained all the divine attributes such as o niscience, o nipotence, and the li:e. -his view see s to i ply that 6od the 'on could not have e#perienced doubt, !ear, and the li:e K and hence could neither have enacted these virtues nor even been !ully hu an. -he classical solution was to clai that 6od the 'on was te pted, su!!ered, e#perience !ear and doubt, and the li:e with respect to his hu an nature, but not with respect to his divine nature. Although one ight re9ect this solution, it is co patible with the clai s o! the 1ncarnational theory o! Atone entA this view i plies that 6od the 'on enacted these virtues in his hu an nature and there!ore they e#ist in active <or enacted> !or in 6od the 'on in his hu an nature. 3urther, it i plies that without the 1ncarnation and .assion, these virtues would not e#ist in active !or in 6od, not even in 6od with respect to the hu an nature ta:en up in Christ. ConseLuently, nothing in the 1ncarnational theory reLuires denying the classical understanding o! the 1ncarnation. 'econd, it should be noted that 6od could have these !ully hu an virtues dispositionally apart !ro so ething li:e the 1ncarnation and .assion since to have a virtue dispositionally is to be have a character such that i! the right circu stances arose one would act in the way the virtue reLuires . 3or e#a ple, one would dispositionally have the virtue o! courage in the !ace o! li!e threatening danger i! one would act courageously i! one believed one8s li!e was threatened, even i! one never actually had that belie!. -o actively have a virtue, on the other hand, is to actually have e#ercised the virtue <or be in the process o! e#ercising it>. 3or e#a ple, i! out o! love one ris:s one8s own wellDbeing to help another, one is actively e#ercising the virtue o! sel!Dsacri!icial love.
2
the 1ncarnation and .assion, 6od cannot actively e#ercise the , !or to e#ercise the reLuires that one e#perience !ear, believe onesel! to be vulnerable, believe onesel! to be li ited in power and :nowledge, and seriously believe that one could sin. 2ithout so ething li:e the incarnation, however, 6od could have none o! these e#periences. +! course, 6od would :now what it was like to e#perience !ear, doubt, uncertainty, alienation !ro 6od, and the li:e" otherwise 6od would have created hu an beings blindly without :nowing what it was li:e to be hu an. -his :nowledge, however, is not the sa e as actually e#periencing these states and actually believing that one is vulnerable, li ited in power, and the li:e" this actual e#perience, however, is necessary to e#ercise the corresponding virtues.3 Claim 3: A ong other things, parta:ing o! the li!e o! Christ involves e#ercising and parta:ing o! these virtues <particularly love> as they actively e#ist in Christ. Moreover, it is the parta:ing o! these virtues that saves hu an beings !ro sin and brings
'everal !urther things should be noted about the above account. 3irst, although 6od ight be able actively to e#ercise divine versions o! courage, !aith, and love, apart !ro so ething li:e the 1ncarnation and .assion, 6od could not actively e#ercise the type o! courage we need, the type o! !aith we need, and the type o! love we need, since these reLuire that one actually e#perience !or one8s sel! hu an vulnerability, alienation, and the li:e. ,ow, this is true in spite o! the !act that any have argued that 6od is vulnerable 9ust in the ere !act o! creating !ree beings, and thus a sort o! e#perience o! vulnerability could e#ist in 6od even apart !ro so ething li:e the 1ncarnation and Cross. 3or, i! 6od really cares !or us, there is a sense in which our su!!ering and oral wrongdoings could cause 6od pain. -he sort o! vulnerability we e#perience, however, is uch ore e#tensive than this. 3or e#a ple, we can be vulnerable in the sense having our physical bodies or psyche severely in9ured, in the sense o! losing our li!e, and the li:e. 1n contrast, apart !ro so ething li:e the 1ncarnation and .assion, 6od does not directly e#perience ris: o! one8s psyche being destroyed" rather, when 6od e#periences pain at our oral wrongdoing, his psyche re ains intact and the pain does not do inate 6od8s psyche, but continues to coe#ist with pure 7oy and ;liss. Moreover, apart !ro the 1ncarnation, no e ber o! the -rinity trusts another e ber o! the -rinity in spite o! e#periencing alienation !ro the other e bers, and in spite o! nagging doubts that the other e ber o! the -rinity either doesn8t e#ist or is unwilling co e to one8s rescue. 3urther, apart !ro the 1ncarnation and .assion, no e ber o! the -rinity is seriously te pted to sin. 3inally, even though 6od could be uncertain about the details o! the !uture, as those who deny 6odFs co plete !ore:nowledge contend, 6odFs uncertainty does not run nearly as deep, nor is it as e#tensive as ours. Apart !ro the 1ncarnation and Cross, there is a sense in which 6od is uch ore in control, uch less vulnerable, and not seriously te pted to sin in the way we are. -hus, since e#periencing hu an vulnerability, alienation, su!!ering, and the li:e is necessary to actively e#ercise the :ind o! !aith, courage, love and the li:e that hu ans, the 1ncarnation and .assion were necessary !or these sorts o! virtues to actively e#ist in 6od. 3inally, so e people thin: that it is li:ely that 6od has created any other types o! beings, so e o! who he redee ed in a way si ilar to our case. 1! this is true, then the 1ncarnational theory would have to be odi!ied slightly since the types o! virtues entioned in clai <2H> above would already e#ist in 6od. 3or, 6od would have already ta:en up into hi sel! the e#perience o! physical danger, vulnerability, and alienation o! these other beings. -hus, the type o! virtues !or ed in the hu an case would have to be those ore speci!ically geared towards hu an beingsA !or e#a ple, virtues such things as acting in !aith and love in the !ace o! particularly hu an types o! vulnerability, te ptations, and the li:e.
C
us into unity with Christ. <3or e#a ple, since love involves reaching out to others, and even ourselves, it overco es our sin!ul state o! alienation !ro 6od and others.>
Summary:
-he 1ncarnational theory e#plains how the Atone ent wor:s as !ollows. 3irst, the theory clai s that salvation is to be conceived o! as an ongoing sharing in the li!e o! 6od, in a deeper and deeper way, where to share in the li!e o! 6od involves, a ong other things, sharing in and e#ercising the virtues o! !aith, love, and righteousness that are in 6od. -hen, this theory clai s, through the 1ncarnation and .assion, the type o! virtues that we needDDthat is, commitments to trust, love, and do what is right in the face of serious doubt, vulnerability, alienation, and te ptationMwere ta:en up into the li!e o! 6od as active realities. ;y parta:ing o! these active virtuesDDthat is, in .aul8s ter inology, putting on )Christ,/ putting on the )new sel!,/ or letting Christ live through usDDwe are saved in an ongoing way !ro sin. E 3inally, notice both the plausibility and the logical coherence o! each o! the three pre ises. 3irst, the clai that during the incarnation 6od actively e#ercised the virtues o! courage, sel!Dsacri!icial love, and !aith si ply !ollow !ro the classic Christian doctrines that that 7esus was 6od in the !lesh and the clai that on the Cross 7esus e#perienced our hu an condition o! vulnerability, alienation, and uncertainty and yet acted in co plete !aith, hope, and love. 'econd, the clai that 6od could not actively e#ercise the sorts o! virtues we need without so ething li:e the 1ncarnation and .assion <clai <2H>> is obviously true since the very nature o! these virtues reLuires that one have the right sort o! e#periences in order to e#ercise the . <5owever, see last two !ootnotes.> 3inally, clai <CH> o! the theory, that sharing in ChristFs li!e involves sharing in these sorts o! virtues, is strongly i plied by the !act that the ore we share in the li!e o! Christ, the ore we e#press these virtuesDD!or e#a ple, love, courage, !aith. -hus, since the :ey steps o! this theory are highly plausible in and o! the selves, there is nothing ad hoc or arbitrary about the .
channels, such as consciously i itating Christ or contagiously pic:ing up his intentional states !ro other e#e plary Christians" through reading and hearing the ,ew -esta ent and related te#ts, by which we can absorb and digest their sub9ectivityDDthat is, the web o! belie!s, attitudes, orientations, perspectives, and syste o! representation e bodied in the te#ts" another way is through the )supernatural/ operation o! the 5oly 'pirit and 6od8s grace, which directly connects us to Christ. Moreover, this theory assu es that the 5oly 'pirit supernaturally e powers the trans ission o! Christ8s sub9ectivity through the nor al psychological and linguistic channels entioned above. Accordingly, because both the supernatural and natural eans o! trans ission are inter i#ed and continuous with each other, any dualistic opposition between the spiritual and the natural, or nature and grace, is eli inated. Rather, they all wor: togetherA i! we erely rely on our own natural ability to parta:e o! Christ8s sub9ectivity, we will be unli:ely deeply to participate in it" and si ilarly i! we si ply rely on a supernatural iracle, such as a religious conversion. As .hilippians 2A?2D?C states, )wor: out your own salvation with !ear and tre bling" !or it is 6od who is at wor: in you, enabling you both to will and to wor: !or his good pleasure/ <,R'0>, suggesting that salvation is a 9oint operation o! natural and supernatural eans.
Memory Analogy:
A good analogy to how this participation ta:es place is that o! e ory. Me ory see s to connect us in so e ysterious way to the past event being re e bered, thus resulting in a partial reliving o! that event. Arguably, this is one crucial di!!erence between i agined e ory and a real e oryA i agined e ory delivers the sa e sub9ective i pressions as real e ory, but is not actually connected to the past event. ,ow suppose that in the past you engaged in so e e#traordinary act o! courage, and that you had a per!ect e ory o! that courageous act. 3urther, suppose you are now !acing so e new danger and are able to re e ber the courage you e#ercised in the past. 'ince this e ory would involve the reDe#periencing o! the actual sub9ective states o! willing to act in the !ace o! danger and the li:e, you could enter into that sub9ective state and use it to courageously !ace your current situation. -his is si ilar to our participation in Christ8s new desires, e#cept that it was Christ, not we, who enacted the oral courage that we need. Another analogy is that o! a !uture society in which one person acts with tre endous courage, with any person who needs courage being able to )tap into,/ and appropriately adapt, the desires and )willings/ e#ercised by the single highly courageous individual. +ne could i agine e bers o! the !uture society saying )as one is courageous !or all, all our now courageous/ K in parallel to .aul8s state ents in Ro ans 5A?N and 2 Corinthians 5A?ED?5 A )-here!ore 9ust as one anFs trespass led to conde nation !or all, so one anFs act o! righteousness leads to 9usti!ication and li!e !or all/ <,R'0> and O3or the love o! Christ co pels us, because we 9udge thusA that i! +ne died !or all, then all died/ <,P70>. B
Although 7esus says in Mathew 2BAC9 )My 3ather, i! it is possible, let this cup pass !ro e" yet not what 1 want but what you want/ <,R'0>, this should not be ta:en as i plying that in an absolute sense there was no other way !or 6od to save us" rather, it should only be ta:en as i plying within 6od8s overall rede ptive plan, this was the only possible way. 'o, all an adeLuate theory o! Atone ent needs to do is clai that 6od had good reasons !or choosing the rede ptive plan that 6od did K that is, !or bringing about our salvation through Christ8s li!e, death and Resurrection.
the cup represents and perhaps enacts the parta:ing o! this li!e. -his understanding !its beauti!ully with the +ld -esta ent principle that Othe li!e is in the bloodO <4ev. ?7A??>.
we ight beco e the righteousness o! 6od in 5i O <2 Cor. 5A2?>. -hus, 7esus !aced headDon the truth o! the hu an condition. -he signi!icance o! being united with hi in his death now beco es apparentA it is there that we !ace our own vulnerability, alienation, and the li:e. -his is what it eans to be cruci!ied with Christ, and cruci!ied to the world syste o! spiritual and psychic bondage. -he truth is, ost o! us try to avoid con!ronting our own vulnerability, dependence, alienation, and bro:enness. 1ndeed, thin:ers as diverse as theologian Reinhold ,iebuhr, <?9E?>, .ulitJer .riJe winning author (rnest ;ec:er <?97C>, and psychologist M. 'cott .ec: <?9NC>, have clai ed that this unwillingness to con!ront our own vulnerability and other )threatening/ aspects o! our hu an condition is one o! the pri e roots o! hu an sin, wic:edness, sic:ness, and neurosis, along with the worldD syste o! status, do ination, and oppression. 1nstead o! recogniJing that we are vulnerable, dependent and insecure hu an beings, !or e#a ple, we atte pt to possess, do inate, and control people and things, to give ourselves the illusion o! invulnerability, security, and status" and instead o! ac:nowledging our own shadow, we pro9ect it on to others and then de oniJe the . 1n !act, it has beco e a co on thesis a ong thin:ers in this century that the worldDsyste o! psychic and social do ination, oppression, bondage, and its associated values, rests on e#pulsion, scapegoating, and arginaliJation o! both aspects o! our own psychic lives and the sub9ectivity o! various individuals in society. 6iven that these thin:ers are at least partly correct, it !ollows that to !ace our true hu an condition in Christ will tend, as yeast leavens a lu p o! bread, to undercut the entire worldDsyste o! psychic, spiritual, and social bondage both in our personal and social lives. 1ndeed, 5ebrews 2A?ED?5 indicate that it is the )!ear o! death/ K which 1 suggest should be understood in the broad sense o! any threat to our sel! or sel!Di age K that holds us in bondage to the powers o! dar:ness. According to this passage, )he hi sel! li:ewise shared the sa e things $our !lesh and blood%, so that through death he ight destroy the one who has the power o! death, that is, the devil, and !ree those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death/ <,R'0>. 2ith these ideas in place, ;aptis could be thought o! as at least in part as sy bolically representing being united with Christ in his death and then )rising again/ with hi in his resurrection li!e. +n the other hand, the bro:en bread K which 7esus says represents his body bro:en !or the worldDD could be thought o! as representing 7esusF entering into hu an bro:enness and vulnerability. .arta:ing o! the bread, there!ore, could be thought o! as representing our !ully parta:ing o! the hu an li!e situation o! vulnerability, alienation, and the li:e as e#perienced by Christ during his .assion and *eath. -his in turn results in our )dying/ to our !alse illusion o! invulnerability that we construct to protect ourselves. .utting this idea o! being cruci!ied with Christ together with sharing in the new !ully hu anG!ully divine virtues allows us to co plete the 1ncarnational theory. -o do ?0
this, it will be help!ul to introduce a new piece o! ter inology, the notion o! a person8s )sub9ectivity./ A persons subjectivity refers to all of a persons inner states -- such as attitudes, orientations, perspectives, commitments, beliefs, and the like -- taken together as forming an inseparable whole with the agents internalized system of mental, symbolic, and linguistic representation. 1n !ully !acing the hu an li!e situation, 7esus created a new !ully hu anG!ully divine )sub9ectivity/, a sub9ectivity that !ully e#periences and recogniJes our li!e situation, while at the sa e ti e acting in co plete !aith, hope, and love. Accordingly, to partake of this new subjectivity, we ust !irst parta:e o! Christ8s death K that is, in Christ !ace our own vulnerability, alienation, bro:enness, and the li:e K be!ore we can parta:e o! the new Resurrected li!e. -his is not only suggested by .aul in Ro ans B, but also by 7esus when he says that )-hose who try to a:e their li!e secure will lose it, but those who lose their li!e will :eep it/ <4:. ?7ACC" also see 7n. ?2A 2E K 25>" indeed, it is sy boliJed by the !act that in all the gospels the bro:en bread is ta:en be!ore the wine at the 4ast 'upper. .ractically, this i plies that the Christian li!e involves a continual double ove ent in Christ o! !irst recogniJing our true hu an li!e situation and then secondly parta:ing o! the new positive virtues in Christ. 2e ust continually )die/ be!ore we can liveA as 7esus says in 7ohn ?2A24, 0ery truly, 1 tell you, unless a grain o! wheat !alls into the earth and dies, it re ains 9ust a single grain" but i! it dies, it bears uch !ruit/ <,R'0>. 9
-hose !a iliar with Alcoholics Anony ous <AA>, and the any therapy progra s its success has spawned, will note the si ilarity between the understanding o! the process o! trans!or ation o! sub9ectivity involved in sharing in ChristFs death and Resurrection and the wellD:nown -welve 'tep progra o! AA. 'peci!ically, the core o! the -welve 'tep progra is to !irst ad it oneFs own powerlessness, vulnerability, and dependence, and then to give onesel! over to the trans!or ing grace o! Oa higher powerOA that is, in the language o! the 1ncarnational theory, to the trans!or ing grace o! the love and !aith in Christ. -hus, AA and related therapy progra s provide good evidence that so ething si ilar to the process o! trans!or ation described by the 1ncarnational theory actually wor:s in practice. 1 also suspect that historically any religious trans!or ations have !ollowed the sa e pattern. 1t should also be entioned here that Osharing in ChristFs deathO is di!!erent !or those who are arginaliJed and oppressed since they already largely recogniJe their vulnerability and dependence, so unli:e the OrichO it is probably not as di!!icult !or the to parta:e o! the sub9ectivity o! Christ in his death. <As 7esus says, it is particularly di!!icult !or the richDDwhether in oney, talent, or positionDDto enter the Pingdo o! 6od.> ,onetheless, it is true that, unli:e 7esus, the oppressed are o!ten not in solidarity with the true Osub9ectivity o! the oppressed,O but rather end up adopting the sub9ectivity o! the oppressorsDDsuch as i plicitly viewing the selves as in!erior or as chattelDDand hence still parta:e o! the world syste o! status, oppression, and do ination, but !ro the other end. 1n addition, they o!ten still try to solve their proble s through their own strength or through violent eans, and oppress those lower in status, such as oppressed en treating their wives as chattel.
??
?2
?C
are cruci!ied to Christ, Christ lives through us <6al. 2A20" .hil. 2A?C>. ?? 3urther, the boo: o! 5ebrews spea:s o! us having a )new heart./ 1nitially, these passages see puJJlingA where is this new sel! and new heartQ And, i! we are new creations, why do we continue to sinQ &nder the 1ncarnational theory, however, these passages a:e sense. -o see how, !irst note that since the Oold sel!O see s to be .aulFs way o! re!erring to the Osin!ul desiresO <such as hate>, it a:es sense that the ter Onew sel!O would re!er to a set o! virtuous desires. 'econd, the above passages not only i ply that .aul conceived o! this new sel! as having been created by 6od <(phesians EA2E above>, but any other passages i ply that he thought o! it as only e#isting in Christ, !or in .auline theology it is only in Christ that we are a new creation, and it is only in Christ that we truly have the Christian virtues o! love, patience, and the li:e. <3or e#a ple, see 2 Cor. 5A?7, (ph. 2A?0, Col. 2A?0, etc.>?2 -hus, !ro these passages suggest that the new sel! is si ply a set o! virtuous desires that beca e active in Christ, as postulated by the 1ncarnational theory. Accordingly, what .aul says about a new sel! being created in Christ 7esus !its beauti!ully with the 1ncarnational theory. 3urther, we can a:e sense o! why we continue to sin even though we are new creations in Christ, !or we ust parta:e o! the new creation in order !or it to beco e active in our lives.
-ead to Sin:
-he 1ncarnational theory interprets .aulFs repeated clai that we are dead to sin <e.g., Ro . BA2> as clai ing that we are no longer slaves to sin, an interpretation suggested by Ro ans chapters B through N. According to the 1ncarnational theory, we have been !reed !ro sin because the sin!ul desires are not the only desires available to us any ore" instead, we have available a new source o! virtuous desires in Christ. 'ince these desires are available !or everyone, in so e sense everyone has died to sin potentially, though this potential is o!ten largely unrealiJed in this li!e. As .aul states in 2 Corinthians 5A?ED?5A O-he love o! Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died !or all" therefore all have died. And he died !or all, so that those who live ight live no longer !or the selves, but !or hi who died and was raised !or the / <,R'0>. -he 1ncarnational theory also suggests that we are dead to sin because by parta:ing o! Christ8s cruci!i#ion we parta:e o! his !ull !acing o! hu an vulnerability, wea:ness, and alienation" as e#plained previously, this in turn !rees us !ro the world8s syste o! psychic and spiritual bondage, since once we truly !ace these things, they lose their grip on us, and hence we beco e dead to their in!luence.
? 1 a assu ing here the .auline authorship o! Colossians and (phesians, even though 1 a aware that this is disputed. 2hether or not they are .auline, however, does not a!!ect y argu ent here. ? 2 Also note that besides telling us to put on the new sel!, .aul says in other places to Oput on ChristO <Ro . ?CA?2, 6al. CA27> indicating that putting on Christ and putting on the new sel! are the sa e thing.
?
?E
?5
and co e to his !ather, and thereby it restores the relationship between the !ather and son.?C
?B
6odFs wrath. +r, one could understand the Owrath o! 6odO as the inevitable destructive conseLuence o! this distorted sub9ectivity, as .aul see s to in Ro ans ?A?NDC2 when he spea:s o! the wrath o! 6od as involving a Ogiving overO o! hu ans to their own distorted desires.?5
?5 'ee 'trong8s (#haustive Concordance, @NC" also see the corresponding entry in 6. Pittle8s theological *ictionary o! the ,ew -esta ent.
?7
in this li!e is based on doing what is right in spite o! doubt, !ear, and its cousin te ptation K this !aith includes all the other virtues. ConseLuently, the 1ncarnational theory a:es sense o! the above passages, which otherwise are puJJling. 1ndeed, the 1ncarnational theory would have led us to e#pect such alternative translations.
#astern Orthodo$y:
'econd, the 1ncarnational theory can be thought o! as a new way o! developing a basic idea o! salvation that has ancient roots in the 6ree: 3athers such as +rigin, Athanasius, and 1renaeus" was !urther developed by (astern +rthodo# theologians through the centuries" and has been advocated by various individuals in 2estern Christianity, !or e#a ple in the theology o! the edieval ystic 7ulian o! ,orwich, and in any conte porary theologians. -he basic idea is that hu an nature was restored in
?N
Christ, and salvation consists in parta:ing o! this new hu an nature in Christ. ! -he 1ncarnational theory !urther develops this basic idea by spellingDout what this new nature is in a uniLue way and by giving us so e idea o! how we can parta:e o! it. ,a ely, under the 1ncarnational theory, this )un!allen/ hu an nature in Christ is the !ully divine yet !ully hu an sub9ectivity developed in Christ during his li!e and death, as discussed above. -hus, according to the 1ncarnational theory we are saved by parta:ing o! the incarnated sub9ectivity o! 6od the 'on, hence the na e the Incarnational theory. Moreover, the 1ncarnational theory invo:es the sa e idea o! salvation as (astern +rthodo#yA salvation as being the ongoing participation in the li!e <or in +rthodo# ter inology, the )energies/> o! 6od.
hristus Victor:
-hird, this view o! Atone ent helps e#plicate how the Atone ent de!eats the !orces o! evil in the uch discussed Christus *ictor understanding o! Atone ent <see Aul"n, ?95?>. 1denti!ying these !orces o! evil with what theologian 2alter 2in: <?992> has called the )do ination syste /, Christ8s Atone ent can be seen as de!eating the !orces o! evil by providing a new sub9ectivity that both deconstructs this syste and provides the new, positive set o! desires o! !aith, hope, and love o! the :ind we need !or !ull engage ent with the world. <'ee the section above on ;aptis .>
B 3or a discussion o! the history o! the (astern +rthodo# view, see *e itru 'taniloae, ?9N0, pp.
?N?D2?2.
?9
?> +ur sins against 6od accu ulated a debt o! obligation <'atis!action theory> or punish ent <.enal theory> so large that we could not pay it. 2> -he oral order de ands that the debt be paid <'atis!action theory> or that the sin be punished <.enal theory>. C> Christ paid the debt !or us <'atis!action theory> or too: the punish ent !or us <.enal theory>. Although 1 believe the proble s with the 'atis!action and .enal theories are !atal, the strength o! these theories is that they tap into so e deep intuitions and purported ;iblical the es regarding the nature o! sin. +ne o! these is that sin is so serious that !orgiveness ust co e at a cost" thus 6od cannot erely !orgive sin without so e :ind o! Atone ent. -he 1ncarnational theory agrees that sin is serious and that salvation co es at the )cost/ o! Christ8s death" it even agrees that the conseLuences o! sin can be understood in ter s o! being in debt or as punish ent. 5owever, it conceives o! this debt or punish ent as an in+built conseLuence o! sin K so ething that results !ro the very nature o! sin K not so ething e#ternally i posed by 6od. 'o, !or instance, intentionally acting in unloving ways towards others causes one to beco e alienated !ro others, and thus less capable o! being in positive, authentic interpersonal relationships with the or 6od" this in turn cuts one8s sel! o!! !ro the highest good !or a hu an being. -his state o! alienation, and ore generally the bondage to sin and its corresponding unpleasant conseLuences, can be understood as being in debt, or as su!!ering a !or o! punish ent, or sin. -he 1ncarnational theory, however, re9ects the restrictions on 6od inherent in the traditional versions o! these theoriesA that the oral order or 6od8s per!ect 9ustice does not allow 6od to si ply !orgive. Rather, it insists that 6od co pletely loves us and wants to release us !ro bondage" but since the bondage and alienation is internal to us K woven into the !abric o! our desires K the best eans o! releasing us !ro this bondage is internally. 6od does this by providing a new source o! desires K the new li!e in Christ K that we can internaliJe. As .hilippians 2A?2D?C states, )wor: out your own salvation with !ear and tre bling" !or it is 6od who is at wor: in you, enabling you both to will and to wor: !or his good pleasure./ Although presu ably 6od could si ply Jap us and give us these new desires, the 1ncarnational theory postulates that, at least !or early li!e, it is better to reLuire that we internaliJe the through an intentional process. ConseLuently, grace is not cheapA we not only ust wor: to internaliJe these desires throughout our lives, but the very e#istence o! these desires is a result o! Christ8s su!!ering and death. 3inally, the 1ncarnational theory avoids what 1 could be called the )degree o! !aith proble ./ 'uppose one holds that !aith in Christ is necessary !or salvation, as held 20
by any .rotestants who are not Calvinists.N 3aith, however, co es 1 degreesA !ew Christians !ully have !aith that Christ has !orgiven all o! their sins, otherwise they would not !eel guilty be!ore 6od. -he .enal and 'atis!action theories, however, conceive o! salvation o! an individual as either having occurred or not occurredA either the acLuittal in Christ has been i puted to us or it has not. -his creates a proble atic is atch between the conditions o! the i putation o! acLuittal, which co es in degrees, and the actual acLuittal, which does not. 1t invites the Luestion, 2hat degree o! !aith is reLuired !or this i putationQ 2hatever answer is given K say, B degrees o! !aith on a ?0 point scale K will be arbitrary. -his can present a real practical proble !or so e Christians, who wonder i! they have enough !aith or i! they are truly ?00S co itted to Christ. (ven i! one is a Calvinist who believes that regeneration proceeds !aith, the practical proble still re ainsA 5ow do 1 :now that 1 really have the signs o! regeneration, given that y !aith and co it ent are o!ten less than ?00SQ .erhaps 1 a only deceiving ysel! that 1 a truly regeneratedQ 1n contrast, the 1ncarnational theory does not encounter this proble A although the new desires were created in Christ once and !or all, participation in these new desires K !or e#a ple, the parta:ing o! the )!aith o! Christ/ K co es in degrees" there is no is atch at all since the ore we parta:e o! the )!aith o! Christ/ the ore we parta:e o! the new desires, since the !aith o! Christ is the centerpiece o! these new desires, as e#plicated previously.
2?
cultures D e.g., Chinese, ;uddhist, and 5indu K have recogniJed that hu ans need a new source o! desire. 3or e#a ple, traditional philosophical -aois K i.e., the #aoism traditionally attributed to $ao #zu and his successors%claimed that the great #ao offered us this new source of desire. &ver a thousand years later, the #aoist tradition and the 'onfucian tradition were conjoined to form what is called the Neo-Confucian synthesis, which became the predominant philosophical system of thought in 'hina until the communist revolution in the #wentieth 'entury. (n both the so-called )ationalist and (dealist schools of this synthesis, the needed desire is jen, often translated as love or deep empathy towards others. #he goal is to *clarify* our nature so that we can more fully participate in this jen, which is considered to be at the heart of the *+reat ,ltimate* and hence of the 'osmos and human nature -.ung, /01, pp. 23 -3 34. Another e5ample is 6ahayana 7uddhists, which today represents the vast majority of 7uddhists. #hese 7uddhists claim that self-less $ove or 'ompassion is what we need. #he source of this $ove is ultimately the 7uddha-6ind or 7uddha-8ature, and it e5presses itself through 7odhisattvas, fully enlightened beings full of 'ompassion who realize their oneness with the 7uddha-nature. 7uddhists then try to get in touch with this 7uddha-6ind both through emulation of the 7odhisattvas and through e5istentially realizing their own identity with it through meditation. ?7 According to the 1ncarnational theory, the Christian gospel is in agree ent with these other traditions in their a!!ir ation o! the need !or a positive source o! desire and sub9ectivity. 3ro the perspective o! the 1ncarnational theory, however, one :ey di!!erence is that in Christianity these positive desires and sub9ectivity occur in a particular historical individual <7esus>" !urther these desires e body both a !ull ac:nowledg ent and engage ent with the world and the depths o! our li!eDsituation o! vulnerability and alienation and a !ull solidarity with the arginaliJed and scapegoats o! society.
22
world and our li!eDsituation, and !ully ac:nowledge all those things which we have repressed and scapegoated, both in our own psychic lives and in society. +nly by doing this can we also !ully parta:e o! the !aith, hope, and love that are in Christ. 3urther, the 1ncarnational understanding o! Atone ent tells us that salvation is available in all di ensions o! hu an li!e, whatever our situationA 6od is there in it with us, ready to redee it with us, not by i posing a divine love and power which is alien to our hu an condition but by uniting hi sel! with us in our li!eDsituation. -his in turn trans!or s us !ro the inside through the power o! a divine love which operates !ro a !ully hu an standpoint. *ivine rede ption, there!ore, does not occur by denying the reality o! our practical condition or current li!e situation" by trying to reach so e new spiritual plane" or by erely waiting !or rescue in the ne#t world. Rather it occurs by recogniJing and acting on the truth that ChristFs love and redee ing presence is available in whatever situation we are in. -his will be especially good news !or those who are the ost alienated and downcast o! all. 3inally, this view calls !ollowers o! Christ to share in his rede ptive activity by actively sharing in the li!eDsituation o! others, particularly the poor and anyone who su!!ers" !ollowers o! Christ are called to enter into, rather than ignore or avoid, the li!eD situation o! others, even i! this eans sharing their pain and vulnerability. -o ta:e up oneFs cross on this view involves sharing in the su!!ering and vulnerability o! others, !or this is what Christ did on the Cross. 7ust as Christ sharing in our su!!ering and li!eD situation ade it possible !or us to participate in his Resurrection, we as ChristFs body share in the su!!erings and li!eDsituation o! others so that they in turn ay be enabled to participate in Christ through us. -his view, however, does not stress su!!ering !or its own sa:e or !or penance, but !or the sa:e o! the 9oy o! e powering each other to participate ore !ully in the li!e o! 6od and one another. -he i age o! a body used by .aul in 'cripture well e#presses this idea o! participating in a co on li!e and rede ptionA when one part su!!ers, the others su!!er along with it" and when one part is honored, the others re9oice too <1 Cor. ?2A2B>.
onclusion:
-he 1ncarnational theory states that during his li!e Christ8s li!e, death, and resurrection Christ enacted the virtues o! !aith, hope, and love while e#periencing a !ully hu an li!e situation" indeed, on the Cross, he entered the very depths o! our su!!ering, vulnerability, te ptation, and alienation !ro 6od and others. (nacting these virtues in turn resulted in a set o! !ully hu an and !ully divine desires e#isting in Christ. -he 1ncarnational theory then postulates that we are progressively saved !ro sin and united with 6od by actively parta:ing o! these new desires, since one cannot parta:e o! the and engage in sin or re ain alienated !ro 6od. A!ter providing an inDdepth philosophical e#planation o! the these clai s, we showed how the theory a:es sense o! 2C
:ey passages and etaphors in 'cripture regarding Atone ent" how it accounts !or any o! the :ey strengths o! alternative theories" and !inally, how it has positive practical conseLuences !or both evangelis and the living the Christian li!e. 1n su , the 1ncarnational theory a:es the doctrine o! the Atone ent a logical strength o! Christianity instead o! a logical proble K which is a huge advantage when spea:ing to those who sincerely Luestion the plausibility Christianity" and it does this while at the sa e ti e synthesiJing into a coherent whole diverse and puJJling 'criptural etaphors and passages regarding Atone ent. 2hat ore could one as: o! a theory o! Atone entQ
"eferences:
AulTn, 6usta!. Christus 0ictorA An 5istorical 'tudy o! the -hree Main -ypes o! the 1dea o! Atone ent. ,ew Uor:A Mac illan, ?95?. ;ec:er, (rnest. The ,enial of ,eath, ,ew Uor:A -he 3ree .ress, ?97C. Collins, Robin. )&nderstanding Atone entA A ,ew and +rthodo# -heory,/ &npublished Manuscript, ?995. Collins, Robin. )6irard and Atone entA An 1ncarnational -heory o! Mi etic .articipation./ 1n *iolence -enounced. -ene Girard, /iblical tudies, and 0eacemaking <'tudies in .eace and 'cripture, E>, 2illard 'wartley ed., 5eraldG.andora .ress, 2000. *unn, 7. *. and 'uggate, Alan. -he 7ustice o! 6od A a 3resh 4oo: at the +ld *octrine o! 7usti!ication by 3aith. 6rand Rapids, M1A (erd ans, ?99C. *unn, 7. *. 6. O.aulFs &nderstanding o! the *eath o! 7esus as 'acri!ice.O 1n '. 2. 'y:es. ed., 'acri!ice and Rede ptionA *urha (ssays in -heology. Ca bridgeA Ca bridge & ., ?99?. C5D5B. 3ung, UuD4an. 1 hort 2istory of Chinese 0hilosophy. ,ew Uor:A -he 3ree .ress <MacMillan>, ?9EN, ?9BB. George 3ac,onald. Creation in Christ, 2heaton 14A 5arold 'haw .ublishers, ?97B. 5ays, Richard. -he 3aith o! ChristA -he ,arrative 'ubstructure o! 6alatians CA? K EA??, 6rand Rapids, M1A (erd ans, 2002. $+riginally .ublished in ?9NC as -he 3aith o! ChristA An 1nvestigation o! the ,arrative 'ubstructure o! 6alatians CA? K EA??, as part o! the 'ociety o! ;iblical 4iterature *issertation 'eries%. 7ust, A. A., 7r. )V-he 3aith o! ChristA8 (ngaging the 2ritings o! Richard ;. 5ays, .resented at ?9th Annual 'y posiu on (#egetical -heology, presented at Concordia -heological 'e inary, 20 7anuary 200E. +n the 2eb at httpAGGwww.cts!w.eduGeventsGsy posiaGpapersGsy 200E9ust.pd!, accessed May ?5, 2007. Mac*onald, 6eorge. O-he Consu ing 3ire,O 1n Rolland 5ein, ed., Main -ypes o! the 1dea o! Atone ent. ,ew Uor:A Mac illan, ?95?.
2E
,iebuhr, Reinhold. The 4ature and ,estiny of 3an, 0ol. 1, ,ew Uor:A Charles 'cribner8s 'on, ?9E?, ?9BE. .ec:, M. 'cott. -he .eople o! the 4ieA -he 5ope !or 5ealing 5u an (vil. ,ew Uor:A 'i on and 'huster, ?9NC. 'taniloae, *u itru. Theology and the Church. -rans. and ed. by Robert ;arringer. Crestwood ,UA 't. 0ladi irFs 'e inary .ress, ?9N0. 'taniloae, *u itru. -heology and the Church. -rans. and ed. Robert ;arringer. Crestwood, ,UA 't. 0ladi irFs 'e inary, ?9N0. -aylor, 0incent. 7esus and 5is 'acri!ice. 4ondonA MacMillan, ?9C7. 3orgiveness and Reconciliation. ,ew Uor:A 't. MartinFs, ?9EB. 2in:, 2alter. (ngaging the .owersA *iscern ent and Resistence in a 2orld o! *o ination. Minneapolis, 3ortress .ress, ?992.
25