The Grave Matter of the Manger

One of the most interesting aspects of reading the early church fathers this past semester has been to see just how curiously they perceived the incarnation of Christ.  Some of the biggest names – Ignatius, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Origen – regularly presented a picture where the very birth of Christ was viewed through the lens of the cross.  That is, it was only by encountering the crucified and risen Lord that one could begin to make sense of the birth of Christ: chronology here was secondary as far as theology was concerned.  This didn’t mean that “Our Lord was born to die” or any such reduction of the event; rather, they emphasized that Christ was fully born in the process of the Passion.  The full man was completed on the cross. “It is finished”, from a certain standpoint, completed the Genesis creation of man, the true Adam, not just the physical life of Christ in Judea.  The moment Christ breathed His last He entered the Sabbath rest as the True Adam. 

For this reason, so many of the early Christian martyrs were celebrated and commemorated on the day of their martyrdom, i.e. the day of their death was the day they were born, “finished”, and made truly human.  What this meant was a wrapping together of the womb and the tomb, so much so that even early Christian art began to reflect this paradoxical theology.  Many of the earliest depictions of the Nativity, the earliest icons, have Christ shown in a virgin cave (remember Joseph of Arimathea, remember Mary), wrapped tightly in white bands (remember the grave clothes), placed in a manger, i.e. an animal’s feeding trough (remember what you eat in communion), born in Bethelehem (which in Hebrew means “house of bread”: again remember the eucharist).  Even the frankincense, gold, and myrrh were traditional burial ointments, not just gifts. 

The fascinating way in which the fathers wrapped together the Passion with the Incarnation was of course not merely foreshadowing with symbols; what they implied was that Christ was born, fully born, on the day we slew Him.  For all the glibness about the phrase being “born again”, it is salutary to remember how the early fathers saw this in Christ’s death – and hence our own, too.  As Ignatius of Antioch said about his own martyrdom in Rome: if I die for Christ, “I shall become a real human”. 

St. Nicodemus

Comments

[Thomas More]

St. Nicodemus--or do you go by St. Nick, this time of year?

This is a wonderful post. Who wrote it?

It is fascinating that we are not real here, we are only real there. Our perspective--through a dim glass--is all here, all the time. But, really, here is just momentary and light, there is eternal and weighty.

This makes it all the more fascinating that the Lord would go the WRONG WAY--in that he was there, and came here. I wouldn't do that.

Question: Before Adam sinned, was he fully man? Or did it take the Fall to make us complete?

I think that the Fall is necessary for the creation to all have a higher purpose--the display of sacrifice, love of others (enemies), and redemption. These aren't on display in a non-fallen world. Thus, key components of God's nature would never be displayed without the Fall. Similarly, key components of man's nature would never be seen again without the Incarnation and Passion.

[Didymus]

To your point Thomas...I have heard it put this way - the only thing God couldn't do before the Fall was show mercy.
Does this make creation a necessary work? I get why we strain to never see it that way, as if before creation God had some lack/need. But I also wonder if to save God from looking needy we shortchange something elemental about God. He is a servant. He LOVES to show mercy. So I'm given to think you are correct Thomas - creation/Fall serve God's eternal purpose to show forth all of His glory and mercy is an essential part of that.

I too would love to hear Nicodemus talk about this???

How about it Nic?
Didymus

[Tim]

In Perelandra, C. S. Lewis makes the argument that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, God could have completed them (and humanity) at that time. As it was, we started out almost complete, lost something integral to ourselves, and needed that (and the original incompleteness) corrected by Calvary. But if we had avoided the fall, we would have been much closer to completion, so that Calvary may not have been necessary.

Perhaps God could have figured out some other way for Him to show (and us to learn) sacrifice, love of enemies, redemption, and mercy in a non-fallen world? (Not that any way is really occurring to me.)

To further complicate this thought, how is anyone going to be able to do all these things once redemption has been completed and we're all in heaven? Does this mean that God will only be able to show mercy during the brief time from Adam to the second coming?

Tim

[Albertus]

Tim (and Didymus), it may (or may not) be helpful to remind ourselves that the concept of mercy is much broader than its redemptive, forgiving aspect. Mercy is the disposition to show kindness or compassion. It is the inclination or desire to do helpful things for those in need. So, everything that God will be doing for us in heaven to create for us an eternity of joy will be the product of his MERCY - his inclination to do us good; and we will constantly remind each other that these very great kindnesses (mercies) were made possible by the redemptive aspect of God's mercy, so that its glory will not fade over time, but be enhanced and highlighted at every point.

And so, Didymus, as to what you have heard, God certainly did show mercy before the fall. All of his carefully planned provisions and his daily walks in the garden were pure mercy.