Atonement: Incarnation

This is commentary on Sabbath School Lesson 8, Born of a Woman—Atonement and the Incarnation.

David Runcorn, professor at Trinity College in Bristol, provides a unique interpretation of the Incarnation. In the first chapter of his book, Choice, Desire, and the Will of God: What More Do You Want?, Runcorn writes [emphases mine]:

… So what do you think the incarnation is all about then?

That’s easy. God made the world good. It has gone badly wrong. God loves it so much he sent his Son, Jesus, to save us from our sins and to bring us back to him.

OK. I believe that too. But are you saying we would have never met Jesus if things had not gone wrong? I mean, for the Creator to become a creature is such an amazing thing to do. Did he only come as a human being to put things right here and then leave again? Is the incarnation like God calling himself out as an earthly repairman?

A body like ours

What the incarnation tells us before anything else is that God is caught up in an unlikely, undying love affair with our humanity. To take flesh has been his hidden desire since before time began. The secret is now out. Rubem Alves puts it even more daringly: “What the doctrine of the incarnation whispers to us is that God, from all eternity, wants a body like ours.”

… We know that Jesus came into the world because of God’s love, but we still actually put the emphasis in the story firmly elsewhere. It is usually told in terms of a divine rescue mission… Through the cross he restores us to fellowship with God our Father.

All of which is wonderfully true. The cross is absolutely central to Christian faith and to salvation. But the story does not begin there. If that is our whole understanding of the incarnation, we are putting the needs of our sinful humanity in the centre instead of God. The coming of Jesus belongs to a much bigger, more mysterious and more glorious vision…

All creation is the work of Christ. The incarnation is the fulfilling of God’s original plan of and for creation. It is not a solution to a problem dreamed up in God’s merciful imagination (“I know, I’ll try this”). It is much more than God taking our humanity. In the end it is about the taking of our humanity in God.¹

Runcorn then goes on to discuss the opening verses of Ephesians chapter 1, vv. 3-10 and cites these as evidence for his opening thesis, which I excerpted above. This is the passage that includes,

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ… making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (4, 5, 9, 10 ESV)

Runcorn’s thesis may be shocking at first, but I think that upon closer reflection, there is merit to it. You may not agree with all of it, and I may not. However, does the idea that God would have been incarnated regardless of sin’s existence, alter or devalue in any way the value of Christ’s death and resurrection? On the other hand, would it, as Runcorn suggests, increase the value placed upon Christ’s incarnated life, as well as his death and resurrection?

If the only thing needed for Atonement was that Christ die, then why did Jesus choose to become a human being; to be born as one, to grow up as one, to work as one, and to die as one? Why couldn’t God simply have come, died, and then gone back to heaven without becoming involved in life as a human? If the only thing needed for Atonement was that Christ die, then life as a human would have no value.

Indirectly then, I believe Runcorn’s assertion and thesis has merit worth consideration. The incarnation wasn’t necessary, but it was God’s desire and God’s choice – it was God’s will for himself. If the Atonement was simply an act in a point in time, then all that was needed was the crucifixion or some other death. But if the Atonement was, is, and will be an ongoing process of bringing humans closer into fellowship with divinity, then the incarnation was something that God had purposed and chosen to accomplish since “before the foundation of the world.” Through the incarnation God identified himself with humankind, and humankind was able to see God in a way that no other way could have revealed him. Even in the perfection of the Garden of Eden, I believe there could have been certain aspects of God that they simply could not see as long as God remained just God. It’s always dangerous to project our preconceived ideas onto what is not absolutely clear. I think it’s important to keep what is ambiguous, ambiguous and allow for multiple interpretations.

A number of evangelistic and witnessing tools portray Jesus as the bridge that crosses the gap between God and humankind. In the past I thought it was a pretty decent illustration, but no longer. This illustration pictures Jesus and God as two distinct entities.

On the other hand, the incarnation tells us that Jesus is God. Jesus did not close the gap. He crossed over the gap to be with us. He chose to identify with us, to become one of us. He brought God over to us, because there was no way we could even begin to cross the gap, even if a bridge was provided. Jesus did not come to bridge the gap, but to close the gap. Through the incarnation, Jesus came “to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” The Atonement brings unity between God and his creation.

---

¹Runcorn, David. Choice, Desire, and the Will of God: What More Do You Want? Hendrickson Publishers, 2003; pp. 1-2.