Hi Will,

I'm not a team member with any theology or philosophy degree but let me throw in my two cents.

Based on the Revelation that the Lord has revealed to us, I would agree with your in-laws.

That said, we all know God's job description. He is not limited by anything and can do anything He wishes.

I see no reason why He could not hypostatically unite Himself with mankind, here on Earth, in addition to another human species in a different place and location in the universe.

We would not be aware of this because His Will would be not to reveal this to us, based on what is best for our salvation so the answer to your last question:

• Do we know for sure the Son did, and can only, unite Himself permanently to one created thing?

Would be no.

Just my two cents.

Mike

Hi, Will —

A different hypostatic union (the combination of divine and human natures in the single person of Christ) presents other problems. The purpose of the union was to enter into a covenant, which by their nature are irrevocable.

So once united to Man, or with an alien sapient being, the union is permanent. Hence any subsequent union would, by definition, mean that His Humanity and His Divinity would be fused to His Alienness.

It also presents another problem. The Covenant between Jesus and the Church, is Matrimonial so a similar union with Martians would make the Lord a polygamist. That might work for some Mormons but doesn't work theologically for Christians.

There are some that would argue God in His Omnipotence can do anything, as He is sovereign but we must be careful not to fall into Minimalism. God isn't capricious. He doesn't decide what is good and evil. What is good, is good by its nature, as God is good in His nature. Evil is the absence of good and a rebellion to God. Likewise when it comes to this matter.

Christ united Himself to Man completely in a Covenant. That is an exclusive marriage bond.

His Sacrifice was once and for all so even if alien species fell from Grace, Christ's Sacrifice, in and through the One Incarnation, would be the source of their salvation.

John

Will,

My point about the fusing of the alien and human natures is because the fusion of both is inextricable. Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. You can't separate the two. If you do, you fall into Nestorianism So once He's fused to man, all of Himself would have to fused to say the Klingon, Romulan, or whatever culture.

• After the Incarnation, the Eternal Word is now and forever Jesus Christ . . . and who is Jesus Christ?

For that, we go back to the relevant councils:

• First Nicaea
• Constantinople
• Ephesus, and
• Chalcedon, from which we derive our Christology.

So were Jesus to fuse to another species, He would be fusing who He is now, post Incarnation.

To fuse oneself in that kind of union is by its very definition to assume their nature. Other unions might be possible, or better put communions, but nothing akin to the Hypostatic Union. Indeed by assuming Human Nature, the Eternal Word actually became part of all His creation and united Himself to it through His Humanity. That's the whole point of Genesis 1 and the establishment of the Sabbath. The Hebrew word of seven is the same word for Oath, the essential first element of a covenant so the use of seven days in the creation narrative must be understood that God would enter into a covenant with all Creation through His crowing jewel, Man. Once you understand the Old Testament notion of covenant you know it is an exchange of Persons, not just promises. A covenant can only happen between two beings that are same so He (Jesus) condescended in assuming human nature, in order to elevate human nature to His Divine Nature.

Later we read in Genesis 2 the marriage covenant. The two will become one flesh . . . Adam saying you are flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone (Genesis 2:23) so the union between God and man is like no other one.

That said, this does present some interesting issues as we may someday discover intelligent life from another planet. Of course, it would be nice to discover intelligent life on this planet again!! but there are myriad of issues and questions that arise.

• Did life on other planets fall from grace?
• If they are sapient, do they have eternal souls?
• Did they fall as well?

If they did, my reading of Scripture is the Christ died once for all. There is no other Sacrifice so their salvation must still come in and through the Incarnation and His Atonement.

Jimmy Akin has some related thoughts on this as well.

John

Hi, Will —

I changed my mind and agree with John's answers to your questions.

Mike

Dear Will —

Let me waddle into this mystery.

First of all; as it relates to us drinking or eating the blood of animals, that is the natural effect or power that we moderns don't appreciate. I assure you that when I eat a nice juicy steak, I appreciate it.

The pagans believed that by drinking the blood of the animal, they were receiving the life of the said animal . . . as in the life force . . . the soul, as it were. It was part of pagan rituals practiced in Egypt that the Hebrews had adopted so it was forbidden. Other pagans also did this. For that reason, the Council of Jerusalem issued a pastoral provision against it, mostly so that it did not cause scandal amongst the Jewish members of the Church, but also to prevent the non-Jewish believers from relapsing.

Now to what saves us. Our Protestant brothers really love to try to put this all into nice equations. Some might say His death saves, but His Bloods cleanses us, etc, etc.

I choose not to go there. Rather I would say we are saved in and through the Incarnation. Every single breath, thought, and experience, that Jesus Christ had as a man was in obedience to the Father, including His obedience of Death on the Cross and His Resurrection which saves us. Ultimately, that means we are saved by His Love, which manifested itself in obedience. It was the complete and selfless giving of Himself to the Father, for our sake, which was an act of His Will.

So in answering your first question, we can say it was His Will. Scripture gives us various paradigms to explain mysteries.

The juridical or legal paradigm is but one. In that paradigm, the wages of sin is death and without the shedding blood there is no remission of sin. In that paradigm both are necessary.

Take away either one, and you don't have atonement but the paradigm also requires a perfect victim that had no blemish.

In my book, trying to put this all in a neat mathematical formula like the Pythagorean theorem is not a great idea. It leads to heresy. That's what happens when we try to over-define the Mysteries of Faith.

Indeed, the legal paradigm itself eventually becomes problematic. The natural end to this paradigm, if followed too far is that God, the Father, has anger management problems. That His anger at sin could not be satiated unless He took it out on His Son in order to forgive us.

The fact is there have been several Atonement theories espoused and proposed in the last 2,000 years. Among them, that Christ paid a ransom for our sin. Well, think about that:

• Who did He pay that ransom to?
  <The answer is satan.>

And yes there is some truth in that paradigm as well, just as there is in Anselm's Satisfaction theory but every theory carried too far, leads to a heresy.

For me it is sufficient to say that Christ gave Himself for us, to give Himself to us.

John

Will,

The early notions of ransom was that it was paid to satan. In fact, Augustine later proposed the Mouse Trap theory that God trapped or tricked satan into executing Christ who was completely sinless.

We were being held captive by satan, not by the Father, hence the ransom was owed to him.

When we talk in terms of paying a debt to the Father, that's the Satisfaction model later espoused by Anselm.

Like I noted, there is truth in both these models. The Greek Fathers, on the other hand, didn't go anywhere near this approach. Rather they talked in terms of healing and giving new life and there is truth there.

But to your specific question:

• Was it His Blood or His Death?

Well, it's clearly both, when we take a literal approach to Scripture. Christ had to die and shed blood. If either component is missing then there is no atonement. He also had to be obedient so there isn't a breath that Jesus took and experienced that He, as a man, had that isn't integral and necessary, right down to having His diapers changed as a baby.

As for over-defining, it's not just our Protestant brothers. It's pretty much Western Christianity. Yes, we should indeed ponder the Mystery but the question posed in this discussion is trying to reduce a mystery to an equation. It's not "either or" it's "both and" — and more over it's actually: all of the above!

Now as to the nature of the blood of animals, again I would say, it's not some scientific thing that the ancients knew. Yes, there is life in the blood, of course: biological life. The blood delivers oxygen to the cells and expels carbon dioxide. It also delivers nutrition but the life essence of the soul, or be it the power of the animal, as the pagans believed, does not scientifically reside in the blood.

The dietary laws were based on the fact that certain animals had been used to sacrifice to other pagan gods, who were also animal figures. Pigs were sacrificed to gods represented by:

• bulls
• calves
• cows, or
• sheep.

Hence, God told the Hebrews, don't kill and eat pigs. Rather slaughter sheep and cows and eat them. That served as a daily reminder.

The Hebrews were told by Pharaoh and Joseph to settle in Goshen because they were shepherds. They slaughtered sheep. The Egyptians worshiped a sheep god so shepherds were an offense.

I would also recommend the Epistle of Barnabas.

The author gives some interesting interpretations on this subject as well.

John

Will,

We owed the debt to satan; both models apply.

Again, if you go too far with any model, you wind up in trouble. The satisfaction model leads down the road to a monstrous Father, that must take out His wrath on His Son.

Nothing could further from the truth.

The Church has not defined atonement. The fact is our Soteriology or doctrines of justification, are not fully defined. For the most part, the Church has given us parameters.

Most them, if you read the documents of the Council of Trent, stated what Justification is not. Vatican I and II really began addressing what justification was.

When looking at atonement, we need to look at all the paradigms. All have truths but none of them are perfect, especially when carried out to their extreme.

The whole Juridical approach virtually ignores the adoption, sonship aspect, and the notion of the Covenant, which is a total giving of self.

There is a lot here to be unpacked.

More later,

John

Will,

Without going and looking up the Scripture texts, Paul talks about being debtors to sin. (Romans 8:12-14) That implies a debt we owed satan. I'm not saying this is a stand alone theory. None of them are but there is an aspect of this which holds truths.

The substitutionary model is also part of the picture. That's the one Evangelicals prefer.

My point is that all models must be considered when discussing atonement and the only reason I brought up the various models of Atonement is because, just as is the case with Atonement, the question about what saves us, His Blood or His Death, is not a binary question.

Look in the same chapter that Paul tells the Romans we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, (Romans 3:27-28)

Paul says we're justified freely and by His Love.

• Which is it? <Both, of course.>
• How many different ways can we say all this?
  

We are saved by His death, but washed and redeemed by His Blood. It's all one package and, by the way, if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14) so His Resurrection saves us.

It's great that we contemplate these things and even discuss them. It helps us to delve into the Mystery . . . so I'm not knocking the question at all. I'm just saying we can't definitively answer this question . . . picking one model or equation over the other.

This isn't a recipe.

Warmly,

John

Hi, guys —

I sent the following link to Will and other friends earlier this year. Perhaps it will be helpful here.

Regarding ransom the following piece on atonement says:

“But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it.”

Peace,

Bob