On Multiple Worlds and Multiple Incarnations: Some Speculation Following St Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis
To the surprise of many, even in the beginning of the scholastic movement, the schoolmen would often discuss the possibility of that there could be other intelligent forms of life in the universe than our own. They thought it was an important question, one worthy of investigation. “Since once of the most wondrous and noble questions in Nature is whether there is one world or many, a question that the human mind desires to understand per se, it seems desirable for us to inquire about it.”[1]
While a few accepted the possibility that there could be such life, they all believed it was unlikely that such beings existed, mostly because of their cosmological understanding. Their reasoning was based upon a misunderstanding of the universe, its size, and formation. For most, the world we lived on was the center of the universe, and matter was seen to naturally incline itself to the earth so that the only possible material world was ours, and so the only place where life could exist was what was seen on earth and what was seen in the heavens. Since no such intelligent life, beyond our own, was found on the earth, it seemed evident it did not exist.[2] Of course, they accepted the possibility that celestial entities, such as stars, were living creatures, and so they could possess intelligence. As Marie George points out,[3] the following quote of St Thomas Aquinas shows that he thought they did not, but he said one could believe they did without contradicting the faith:
In Aristotle’s view, then, the heaven is compared of an intellectual soul and a body. He indicates this when he says in De anima II that “in certain things there is intellect and power of understanding, for example, in men, and in other things like man or superior to him,” namely, the heaven.
[…]
As for the heaven being animate, we have spoken of this not as though asserting its according with the teaching of the faith, to which the whole question is entirely irrelevant. Hence, Augustine says in the Enchiridion: “Now is it certain, to my mind, whether the sun, moon, and all the stars belong to the same community, namely, that of the angels; although to some they appear to be luminous bodies devoid of sense or intelligence.”[4]
Marie George also explains why there is no concern here: “One reason why Aquinas does not think the ET existence is of concern for the faith is that the faith and Sacred Scripture are ordered to our salvation, and not to instructing us in cosmology or science in general. It is for this reason that Scripture sometimes omits mention of certain things, as happens, for example, in the Book of Genesis in regard to the creation of angels.”[5]
This point perhaps is more important for us today than in the time of Aquinas, because of the changes in science which we have seen, leading us to be quite different in cosmological understanding than the authors of Scripture or the Church Fathers. We must understand the orientation of the dogmas and doctrines of the faith as well as their limitations; this will prevent us from getting over-burdened with literalistic readings of Scripture and the Fathers which would, in the end, lead us to abandon the faith when science demonstrates conclusively something which contradicts the cosmology of Scripture. It also opens us up to greater theological investigation, to raising old questions anew, such as the question of intelligent life in the universe, because of the change of cosmology without disputing the value of tradition.
Indeed, the schoolmen would soon see this happened; when Etienne Tempier included the denial that God could have made a plurality of worlds as one of the errors of scholasticism, scholastics responded and agreed with him, creating the foundation for later theological discourse on other worlds. As Stephen Dick relates, “At Paris Godfrey of Fontaine, Henry of Ghent, and Richard of Middleton held that a plurality of worlds was not theologically impossible; at Oxford William of Ware, Jean of Bassols, and Thomas Strassbourg made the same claim. […] They were also the first to hold that God could create other worlds, and that every possible world could determine the natural motions of its own bodies, whether those bodies were different in form from those of our world or the same. Moreover, they held that God could create matter for another world ex nihilo.”[6]
The Copernican revolution would revise our cosmology, and allow us to raise the question of intelligent life anew. We were no longer limited to the earth for our investigation. Of course, we can trace this notion back before Copernicus, to Nicholas of Cusa, whose own scientific, mathematical, philosophical and theological reasoning led him to believe not only in an enormous (non-finite) universe, but one which was full of life. “Therefore, just as the earth is not the center of the world, so the sphere of fixed stars is not its circumference – although when we compare the earth with the sky, the former seems to be nearer to the center, and the latter nearer to the circumference. Therefore, the earth is not the center either of the eighth sphere or of any other sphere.”[7] After pointing out that the earth could be said to be a “star,” showing the term was used for planets as well as what we call stars, Nicholas discusses, without any question, life on other worlds:
Therefore, the inhabitants of other stars – of whatever sort these inhabitants might be – bear no comparative relationship to the inhabitants of the earth (istius mundi). |This is true| even if, with respect to the goal of the universe, that entire region bears to this entire region a certain comparative relationship which is hidden to us – so that in this way the inhabitants of this earth or region bear, through the medium of the whole region, a certain mutual relationship to those other inhabitants. […]
Hence, since the entire region is unknown to us, those inhabitants remain unknown.[8]
It would be only later when, because the remote nature of these forms of life, they could not be known, the question of their salvation was raised. Philip Melanchthon, for example, rejected the notion entirely based upon his understanding of the incarnation:
We know God is a citizen of the world with us, custodian and serving this world, ruling the motion of the heavens, guiding the constellations, making this earth fruitful, and indeed, watching over us; we do not contrive to have him in another world, and to watch over other men also . . . the Son of God is One; our master Jesus Christ was born, died and resurrected in this world. Nor does he manifest Himself elsewhere, nor elsewhere has He died or resurrection. Therefore it must not be imagined that Christ died and was resurrected more often, nor must it be thought that in any other world without the knowledge of the Son of God, that men would be restored to eternal life.[9]
The crux of the matter, so to speak, was the incarnation; if there were other worlds, did it mean God would have to incarnate and die for them as well? Would it not be absurd to suggest this? But if he did not do so, he would they be saved? Would God create such intelligent beings who could not be saved? For this reason, many people, following Melanchthon, have suggested no such creatures could exist.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it fails to understand the cosmic value of the incarnation. The work of Christ is for the whole of creation, and not just humanity. Paul in Romans implies this: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience” (Rom 8:19 -25). Church Fathers, such as St Gregory the Theologian, continued with this cosmic theme and wrote on the universal effects of Christ’s passion.[10] One could even follow St Athanasius’ famous dictum “God became man so that man can become God,” and change “man” with “creature” and one would see the universal effects of the incarnation. For it is obvious if God became man, he also became a creature. There is no soteriological difficulty if one follows the cosmic understanding of Christ found within some Scriptural passages and many patristic authors.
This does not mean there is no practical difficulty. The question, which cannot be answered by us with what we presently know, is how these creatures would learn of Christ to be saved by him. Yet, just as we know that those who do not explicitly know Christ can be saved by him (as long as they do not implicitly reject him, nor explicitly reject him when they properly understand the Christian message), so we can say that their salvation rests in God’s hands. It would still be through Christ, even if they do not explicitly know of the incarnation. Or God could have given them a means to know of the incarnation: the Holy Spirit is active and blows as it wills; perhaps the Holy Spirit is revealing the truth of Christ to the cosmos.
Nonetheless, even if there is no essential reason for there to be multiple incarnations, does that mean there cannot be such? Marie George brought out in her examination of St Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas had no problem with multiple-incarnations for God[11]:
What has power for one thing, and no more, has a power limited to one. Now the power of a Divine Person is infinite, nor can it be limited by any created thing. Hence it may not be said that a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to assume another. For it would seem to follow from this that the Personality of the Divine Nature was so comprehended by one human nature as to be unable to assume another to its Personality; and this is impossible, for the Uncreated cannot be comprehended by any creature. Hence it is plain that, whether we consider the Divine Person in regard to His power, which is the principle of the union, or in regard to His Personality, which is the term of the union, it has to be said that the Divine Person, over and beyond the human nature which He has assumed, can assume another distinct human nature.[12]
There are a few things which must be said about this passage. It is, to be sure, rather strange; how can there be many “human natures” if there is only one which is shared by all humanity? We must think of this in relation to what was understand by the term “human” in this era: a rational animal. If we think of it in this way, the assumption of multiple “human natures” is makes sense; it is then the question of whether or not God can assume the nature of a multitude of rational creatures. Aquinas here says yes.
Now, in saying this, we must make sure we do not state that one incarnation is lost, that one body is discarded, if God assumed another nature. The incarnation is eternal, and what is assumed by God remains assumed (otherwise the point of the assumption would be lost, and we would not receive the benefits from it). If God were to assume the nature of other rational creatures, would this mean that God has taken on a multitude of bodies? When we get to heaven, will we see God billions of forms, all speaking to us at once? This seems rather unlikely, and would suggest a practical limitation to this idea. Or does it?
C.S. Lewis in his Narnia series has provided to us a different way to understand the question. Here we see the Son of God has incarnated himself in the form of a lion. In Narnia, it is his form, that of the king of beasts. The children who came to help Narnia saw him as Aslan, but also learned that it was not his only form – in our world, of course, it is that of the God-man Jesus Christ. Because the form Aslan was known in Narnia was that of a lion, the children saw him, with the rest of the Narnians, as a lion. Yet, at the end of The Last Battle Lewis tells us that, after the end of Narnia, in the afterlife, the children were to see him in a new form: “And as he spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; but things that begin to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them down.”[13] This occurred only after they found Narnia and our world were joined together in the eschaton, so that the two, and other worlds, merged in eternity.[14] What we have here is multiple incarnations, where one experiences the form of the Son of God according to their disposition and expectations: for Narnians, they see him as a lion, for humans, they see him as Christ.
Here we have a way to understand multiple incarnations without the need for a multitude of bodies. The incarnation can be experienced and seen differently, even though it is one and the same body which is being encountered. The normal way to see him would be according to one’s nature, though other factors could change that experience, so that one could see him and encounter him in other forms.[15] Understanding this will also help us appreciate the eucharist, which gives us Christ in the form of bread (though no longer of the nature of bread, so there is a distinction here which must not be left unacknowledged).
What is being said here is that our own experiences, past, and means by which we interpret the world, the construction of the world we create for ourselves, becomes the means by which we interpret and understand the incarnate God. We can be freed from such constructions, and see him in other, greater forms, once we are open to them through his grace – the transfiguration, for example, was one such manifestation for Peter, James and John.
We find here an affirmation of a principle in Yogācāra Buddhism, with its understanding that one’s experience of the Buddha comes from one’s level of spiritual awareness.[16] While there are other ways this is expressed, in general, it is understood that a Buddha can be experienced in one of three ways, in one of three “bodies”: the nirmanakaya or the historical, normative form; the sambhogakaya, or the form of glory; and finally, the dharmakaya, or the truth body, the real, and ultimate, form of the Buddha. According to Asanga, “The unlimited metamorphosis of Buddhas, is known as the nairmānikāya (metamorphic).”[17] In the commentary, generally attributed to Vasubandhu, it is said that “The nairmānika kāya of the Buddha, is the metamorphosis of the Buddha, who has unlimited aspects.”[18] That is, the Buddha could possess, and does possess, an unlimited number of forms in which he can be seen and experienced in the concrete world, while the form of his blessedness transcends those constructed, historical forms, and his essential form surpasses even that of his glory, and is free from all construction and taints. Now from a Christian standpoint, we can even understand there is truth in this even for ourselves: who we are in history will be different from who we are in glory, and who we are in glory rests upon the essential nature of ourselves as comes to us from God (our logos rests in the Logos). But if this is true for us, it can also give us a glimpse in the truth of this with the incarnate-person, God the Son. As truly being without peer and unlimited in power, the historical form could be seen and experienced in a multitude of ways, according to a multitude of incarnations, all leading to the one and same person behind it all.[19] Yogācāra Buddhism would tell us that how we experience the person of the Buddha is dependent upon our own level of spiritual preparedness; Christianity would add that, while this probably is true, God’s grace would be able to supplement to us what is needed if and when God desires to show us himself in different forms and we have not purified ourselves and our minds enough to experience that form yet (be it his historical human form, his form in glory, or the beatitific vision; or, if we accept the possibility of multiple incarnations, in his non-human incarnate form, or the form of that non-human incarnate form in glory).[20]
But if we are talking about the possibility of multiple incarnations, this also opens us up to more dialogue with Hinduism and its understanding that the ultimate One (depending upon the tradition, this could be Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, or someone else), has eternal existence, creates the world and world history, and incarnates himself or herself into it as many times as necessary to keep it in proper order. For example, those who worship Vishnu see him as incarnating as a fish, as a tortoise, as a boar, as a man-lion, as a dwarf, as “the angry man,” as Rama, as Balarama, as Krishna, and in the end, as Kalki. What would differentiate Christianity from Hinduism is in the reality of the incarnation itself; for Hinduism, it is more docetical, while for Christianity, any incarnation would be real, definitive, and eternal. But, as with Buddhism, there is a sense that an aspect of the Gospel, perhaps an aspect we have not yet picked up on, is being prepared for us through the Hindu tradition, and its proclamation of multiple incarnations. Buddhism explains well how we would experience the form of one who might have multiple incarnations, providing the means by which Lewis’ Narnia is explicable; Hinduism, in its affirmation of theism, provides us the other key in a way which negates the weakness of Buddhism’s non-theism. Combine the two together, with Lewis’ inclinations, and we have a means by which we can understand and appreciate how multiple incarnations could be experienced, thereby giving strength to St Thomas Aquinas’ position, where he describes the multiple incarnations in this manner:
Consequently, in order to judge of a word’s signification or co-signification, we must consider the things which are around us, in which a word derived from someform is never used in the plural unless there are several supposita. For a man who has on two garments is not said to be “two persons clothed,” but “one clothed with two garments”; and whoever has two qualities is designated in the singular as “such by reason of the two qualities.” Now the assumed nature is, as it were, a garment, although this similitude does not fit at all points, as has been said above (2, 6, ad 1). And hence, if the Divine Person were to assume two human natures, He would be called, on account of the unity of suppositum, one man having two human natures.[21]
If there are multiple incarnations, it would be as “one person clothed with multiple garments,” but the garment which we see and experience would be based upon the spiritual and mental condition we bring to us in that meeting. For most of us, that would mean, Christ as human, or Christ glorified in his humanity; but, if we encounter and find other forms of intelligent life, we might find ourselves open to, and experiencing, Christ in those forms as well.
Footnotes
[1] St Albertus Magnus, Alberti Magni opera omnia (Aschendorff, 1971), vol. V. pt. 1., p. 55 quoted in and translated by Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial Debate from Democritus to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 23.
[2] See ibid., 23-28.
[3] See Marie I. George, “Aquinas on Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life,” in The Thomist 65 (2001): 250.
[4] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II: Creation. Trans. James F. Anderson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), c.70 ¶ 3, 7.
[5] George, “Aquinas on Intelligent Extra-Terrestrial Life,” 250
[6] Dick, Plurality of Worlds, 28-9.
[7] Nicholas of Cusa, On Learned Ignorance. Trans. Jasper Hopkins (Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1990), b. II, c.11, ¶ 157. Nicholas writes further on this all to show the enormous size of the universe and that God is the center and circumference of all things.
[8] Ibid., b. II, c. 12, ¶ 170 -1.
[9] Philip Melanchthon, Initia doctrinae physicae (Wittenberg, 1550), fol. 43 quoted and translated in Dick, Plurality of Worlds, 89.
[10] In Sermon 39.13 he wrote, “And natures are instituted afresh, and God becomes man,” leading to an investigation on this very topic by St Maximus the Confessor in Amb. 41. See Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor (London: Routledge, 1996), 156 – 162.
[11] See George, “Aquinas on Extra-terrestrial life,” 252.
[12] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros. edition, 1947), III, q.3, a.7.
[13] C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1978), 183-4.
[14] See ibid., 181-2.
[15] This could also explain the encounter with Christ on the road to Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:13 -34).
[16] From a Christian perspective, all we need to say is that Yogācāra was onto an important principle, but can only come to its own and show its full value with Christ.
[17] Asanga, Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra. Trans. Surekha Vija Limaye (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 2000), 136.
[18] Ibid., 136.
[19] Of course, this is not an issue of necessity. God does not need to do this, but it would seem, if there are a multitude of worlds, this would be more fitting, to give all worlds access to the Son, the incarnate one, than to require them only to have an implicit relationship with him. Until if and when we encounter such life, however, this must remain on the level of theological speculation, and is liable to be modified and corrected as need be.
[20] And all such purification would itself be a result of grace, though of course, a result of one’s cooperation with grace.
[21] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. III, q.3, a.7.
Comments are closed.
Henry,
Thank you for this interesting reflection. It’s a topic I have occasionally wondered about, although without much substantive thought.
I’m surprised you didn’t take up Lewis’s Space Trilogy here.
I must confess that my cursory thinking on the issue has been like that of Melancthon (my former Lutheranism at work?). Would extraterrestrials have sinned originally in Adam, that they would need the salvation that God has brought about as a result of this felix culpa or would they have culpae of their own? Christ’s becoming man (homo, not vir, of course) is essential to our salvation – in what way might it be cosmologically significant for another species? I’m going to read through the latter half of what you’ve written a couple more times to see if I just didn’t see how you’ve addressed this, although maybe the transfiguration and the appearance on the road to Emmaus do offer the key.
And doesn’t thinking on an incarnation with multiple bodies imply a body-soul dualism?
Zak
It’s one of the many issues which I constantly reflect upon, and plan to write a serious work on it sometime. Until then I will write contemplative reflections/speculations. Let me reflect on what you said, quickly (and so, if something doesn’t make sense, it is because I am skipping some thought processes here, and not always quoting my sources).
One of the reasons I didn’t use the Space Trilogy is that I somewhat disagree with Lewis in it; I see the whole cosmos/universe is fallen. However, even if it is not fallen, I believe that the incarnation was always expected, so that nature would not be closed in on itself, but open for transformation in theosis, and this is true for all creation (as I believe Dionysius hinted at). Either way, I believe there would always be an incarnation, but my inclination to the universe at large is that I see signs of the fall (entropy) throughout, so it is all fallen. I could be wrong, of course.
The Eastern view of soteriology has always seen Christ as affected and helping all nature; this is also seen in the fact of sacraments and sacramentals, where grace raises them up to a holiness because of Christ. Bulgakov sees the very blood of Christ falling to the ground, to the earth, from the cross is also a sign of Christ’s redemptive work for the world and not just for man. Now there is a question: why did he become man? The classical answer is that humanity is the mid-point of all creation: angels are pure spirit, the animal world is something underneath us in the hierarchy of being, but we connect the two in ourselves, and so in and through us, the world at large can be affected by Christ. There are other aspects to that answer. And as I pointed out, for the sake of necessity, I think it is true, there need only be one incarnation.
Now the question of multiple bodies. I’ve always found that to be the problem in relation to multiple incarnations, which is why I have, until recently, believed in 1) other worlds with life but 2) only one incarnation. Now I am not sure, and I think the practical reasons show it is fitting to consider multiple incarnations, and we take the possibility of Aquinas serious. But here is where I add something from my Buddhist studies: in one sense, we can say Christ would have multiple bodies — because each species would see the incarnate one according to the form Christ appears to them as, to what they are capable of seeing and perceiving; but in an absolute sense, it would all be the very same body which is manifested and perceived in many forms. This is where Lewis in his Narnia I think brings this out well: Aslan is Christ, and the form the kids saw Aslan was as a lion until the end; it is not that there was a change of bodies gone, but a change of how that one body is perceived.
I would add that another aspect going on in my mind is more complex, which deals with classical logos theology. St Maximus pointed out that all essences (logoi) find themselves, their very being, coming from the one Logos. This has led me to consider that the one Logos thus can take on those forms, and so that would be what happens in the assumption of those essences — though it would be one body which is manifested in a multitude of forms, depending upon what exterior form the incarnate one decides to manifest himself in/as (Aslan or Christ in Lewis). But there is also another aspect to this: it is not just how he wants to manifest himself, but I also think one’s experience also depends upon one’s mental conditioning (hence the road to Emmaus). Thus I’ve avoided the idea of multiple bodies; rather it is one body which can be manifested in many forms, taking on those natures the Logos has assumed (if, of course, such assumption happens). Aquinas I think is going similarly with this by saying it would be like wearing many layers of clothing.
What is going on here is appreciating the subjective experience of the objective body, where in that subjective experience, some form will be experienced; it is the same person, but that which his hidden inside that form can include those other essences assumed (if they exist).
Either way, I’m glad someone enjoyed this. It’s something I am still contemplating on and will do so for sometime.
Thanks for this Henry. Good food for thought!
Josh,
Thanks!
It hit me as a eureka a couple weeks ago — I was surprised I had not seen it before. I hope to develop this line of thought further, because I think it could lead to development in other theological areas.
I meant to add: the Aslan example as an other manifestation of the same body seems to me to be a potentially attractive solution.
Henry, Excellent food for thought this morning. You brought to my mind Ephesians 4:1-5 in which Paul talks about God being through all and in all. It is a pleasure to read your meditations but more importantly I believe that what you are forming in your study is extremely important for the continuing evolution of our understanding of God’s Love as it is experienced by everyone and everything at each level of existence. It seems that awakening to self-awareness at this level of existence is through the shock of suffering physically and mentally. I perceive ‘the fall’ as the birth of humanity into self-awareness through the realization of passion and vulnerability in the sense of physical and psychological isolation and the drive for union with the seen and unseen source of love and safety. How is God experienced in our love and our fear? How is creation affected by the disposition of our search?
Multiple incarnations seems to be the only way for creation to exist and maintain existence. Yet, it seems that everything would be driven by it’s relationship to God as the source of it’s creation to naturally be drawn back to the source for unification once again but at a level of awareness that only could be achieved through the experience of birth, death and rebirth.
Ronald,
I’m glad you enjoyed this reflection as well. I keep contemplating issues and slowly get eureka moments; but of course, they are highly speculative and will probably need to be reformed through more examination and contemplation.
Multiple incarnations really would open to many possibilities; I still ponder what exactly it means, but at least I see now, if there are such, it does not cause the same problems as I originally thought.
More importantly, it is clear that in our experience of the eucharist, there is also truth in the idea of “one’s nature(s)” is not always apparent in one’s “form.” So that we normally only see the forms of bread and wine, while the reality transcends the appearance — which would be the case with my understanding of one body/multiple incarnations.
As for the question of the fall; it is one of the things I don’t think I will ever grasp — I will contemplate possibilities to explain it, but it just strikes as something beyond reason and so no reason can be offered.
Henry, One explanation of the fall just came to mind. Unity with God would require a perfection of existence that could only come through purity of spirit. In a physical creation the expression of spirit would be manifested according to the properties of that particular creation. For original human beings it would be impossible to be united to God as a distinct identity without having the knowledge the world which we inhabit and experience through the senses. We had to awaken to being human and to the desire to know who we are and where we are in this process. We had to gain the wisdom that can only be gain through the experience of interaction with all of creation beginning with our bodies.
Christ then comes to show us how to interact with self and others in the confusion of being human.
Blood sugar is low now and my thoughts are scattered. Excuse me.
Ronald
I think there is much in what you say here; and it would be true, whether or not there is a fall (which is why I say there would always be an incarnation); but I do think there is also something to a notion of the fall, that we not only became beings associated with the senses, but we became attached to them, so to speak, closing off our spiritual senses.
As for the question of the fall; it is one of the things I don’t think I will ever grasp — I will contemplate possibilities to explain it, but it just strikes as something beyond reason and so no reason can be offered.
It seems clear to me it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that there were two individuals — a man and a woman — who were the parents of the human race and who did something, which is figuratively described in Genesis, that resulted in the “Fall.” I don’t see how one can escape the conclusion that Catholic teaching requires a belief that it is a scientific fact that however “Adam” and “Eve” came to exist — whether by evolution of special creation — there existed two persons whose descendants are the human race.
As I understand it, the study of genetics does not confirm that all humans alive descended from two individuals who lived at the same time.
It seems to me that if we accept the teaching that we all descended from two individuals who did something to cause the Fall, they had to have lived recently enough to be reasonably enough like us to be capable of committing an act that would affect all of their offspring. That is, they would have had to be recent enough to have reached the evolutionary equivalent of the “age of reason.” If there is other intelligent life in the universe, it may very well have developed prior to our “Adam and Eve.” It would seem very unjust for other intelligent races to suffer the consequences of the acts of the first humans. It would also seem unjust for all of creation to suffer consequences for the “local” acts of human beings.
David,
The fact that Satan fell before Adam, that leads to further questions when discussing “the fall.” The fall means more than the fall of Adam, but the origin of evil. Traditional theology even suggested that the angels, as forces, affected nature, so that in their fall, they become negative powers in the world causing destruction. So this would go with what I said, looking to the forces of entropy in the universe, and the fact that there was death before Adam, suggests that there was something of a fall before Adam (and again, necessary if for no one else than Satan). But there are more reasons why I look at the universe, and those within it, as fallen.
This is not to discount my belief in the first two humans, and that there was something special about them. That goes into other speculative issues beyond the intention of this post.
Thank you Henry for elaborating further. That helps. I too was thinking some of David’s questions. Admitting that Satan and his cohorts fell before Adam, I don’t see how that helps resolve the issue of extraterrestrial intelligent life. The incarnation does not (at least as Aquinas discusses it) offer salvation to the fallen angels. Perhaps it does make necessary (perhaps a problematic word)additional manifestations of the incarnated logos.
Zak,
There are certainly many issues involved. I have to say, for the sake of our discussion, my own gut reaction to the universe as a universe is that it is fallen — that it shows, through the laws of entropy, the effects of the fall lies throughout it. That we have things like parasites living in entities and killing them as food, long before the first humans, shows something wrong (to me) in the very nature of the world, which only shows that the universe as a whole is fallen. Sophiology, mind you, suggests it is an issue of temporal vs eternal, and that humanity precedes the rest of creation in the eternal hierarchy if not in time, and so that is one way to explain it, and relate it all to humanity. I think there is _some_ value to this in relation to the earth. But when one looks at the traditional understanding of angels, of having control over nature, then the fall of the angels has an important part in explaining why the universe, as a whole, is fallen. Of course, one can have a CS Lewis idea that these fallen powers tempt now creations, so that in the universe, some will fall and some will not; my own inclination is that if the universe is fallen, all within its domain is as well. This gets into many theological issues, so I won’t defend this but state it as my inclination (there are reasons for it, but it would be probably 50 pages to explain them all). Nonetheless, something which I keep wanting to point out, even if there were no fall, the incarnation seems predetermined in the nature of creation, to let us experience the divine life. Balthasar points out that the very creation of the universe was made, not that we would fall, but if we would fall, there would be a solution, and it would always be something which follows the rest of the divine plan. So that also is being reflected in my thought.
My discussion of the fallen angels only shows that the fall occurs before humanity, at least in the temporal scheme. So if we can have fallen angels, other things can be fallen, without it being tied to humanity. But things get more complicated here. You are right: in general, it is believed that fallen angels cannot be saved. The question is, why. Theologically speaking, the East says that Christ’s work could also work for their salvation; for the most part, the idea is that they refuse it like all others who end up lost. St Gregory of Nyssa in ancient times, and Bulgakov in modern times, thinks otherwise, and suggest it is an open possibility — which, to be sure, is very controversial. Balthasar, in his way, denies it, because he thinks demons are not persons but forces, so to speak, and so that is where his dividing line develops: persons can be saved, non-persons cannot.
Now I still say, essentially, all that was needed was one incarnation; in the way those in the Americas could be saved before encountering Christian missionaries, that would be how such alien life could be saved. However, I think practically (and issue of fittingness) the concept of multiple incarnations makes sense. Now it doesn’t mean they would all have to be the same, so that there are multiple crucifixions (even Lewis points this out in Prince Caspian, that things are not always the same way twice) and so the work on earth could be dealing with justification as we know it, but other incarnations could be doing — who knows what? Narnia again shows possibilities here. But the practical nature is if there are other incarnations, then it would help ease questions of how these other entities would know of Christ; and my understanding of the body would explain how it doesn’t require multiple bodies.
It’s a complicated issue. I hope one day to explore this even further for a book.
Is a “fallen” universe a universe that at one time was not fallen, and then at some point fell? Or is a “fallen” universe one that had flaws from its very beginning? Doesn’t God see everything as good immediately after he creates it in Genesis?
As you point out, we know that the natural world was “red in tooth and claw” long before any beings remotely human existed. It is impossible to blame predators, parasites, the pain of childbirth, and death on Adam and Eve based on what we know now. Evolution and the “survival of the fittest” predates human beings by hundreds of millions of years.
Would this then mean that Adam and Eve, as unfallen creatures, existed in an already fallen world before they themselves became fallen creatures?
David,
There are many issues which you bring out. There are many ways one can go with this. Bulgakov with his Sophiology says that metaphysically, the human fall is prior, but temporally, the world existed, as a result of that fall, before the coming of humanity. In the same way that Christ’s work on the cross is “from the foundation of the world” and transcends time because of its eternal significance, so for Bulgakov, in Adam all fell, even if it is not a temporal fall.
That is certainly one way to go with this, and I think there is truth to it, even if it sounds like my own views are different. It’s because I think there is more going on with Sophiology and the “Adam” in Bulgakov as a principle than possibly even “human life.”
So, back to where we are. I think there was more to the world, including falls (such as Satan, and probably others) temporally before humanity. In this way what you said that they came, as non-fallen (but not redeemed) creatures in the world which had already experienced some sort of all is true. They were given a special grace; what it means is speculative though I think it connects to something similar to what we see in Mary and Christ (who preserved what Adam and Eve did not).
Interestingly enough, I think Tolkien did a good job in describing the pre-human condition, even if he found it difficult to explain the fall of humanity and kept it a “dark secret.”
Henry and David, The catechism and the church’s statement about ‘the fall’ appears to be very flawed in its interpretation. I believe that the church’s interpretation is the result of the effects of generations of human suffering based on human violence that predisposes those theologians to view the human beings in Genesis as “…choosing themselves over God to be like gods…”. By starting the faith based on this it seems to contaminate the foundation of the faith in its relationship to human beings and, therefore, it diminishes the truth of God’s Love. After reading your statements above I agree that the first humans were born into an already dangerous world in which fear became the driving force for survival and competition was the method for gaining advantage on many different levels.
We do know that gene expression is affected by the environmental influences and can cause mutations that exist over several generations even when the original influence is removed.
Another thought I had on Multiple Incarnations is related to quantum physics and the idea of quantum entanglement. In Christ’s incarnation He comes into the chaos of creation that He knew would happen as a result of creation. At this physical level of creation human beings are far removed from the frequency of light that is God’s Love and yet we have that spark of light in us that drives us to search for the Divine. The further we are removed in creation from God’s Love the more likely we are to act from the primitive response of survival and affect those around us in seen and unseen ways. The light we emit is determined by our disposition and this is how we are connected to each other spiritually. Now Christ comes to suffer because God knows that He has created this level of existence and shows us how to live and love while suffering. His actions and words bring God’s Light of Love to a world that has been removed from awareness of His Love. It is so strong that it causes nonbelievers to believe and it causes an earthquake and dead people to come up out of their graves and walk around after He dies on the Cross. That could be an example of quantum physics in which His Love affects everything without multiple incarnations.
The world and the universe which exist in a natural order of possibilities and being physically subjected to the natural law of existence at this stage of creation are now being returned to our source of creation. In other words, we must exist first as an immature creation with all of the chaos that this immaturity brings with it and then through a process of maturation evolve into a self-awareness that awakens us to the spark of the Divine that is in us from our Creator. Once we see then everything we interact with is affected in a different way. Our light begins to develop a different frequency.
Just some thoughts.
For most, the world we lived on was the center of the universe…
It still is, last time I checked.