A.A. van Ruler clearly understands the incarnation of Christ to be God's reaction to mankind's sin,1.1 but in order to see the significance of this idea and the traditional1.2 understanding of this, we will discuss the question: does the incarnation originate in and is it motivated by the lost condition of mankind, or would it also have occurred if there had not been a fall of mankind?
This idea of `an incarnation even without the fall' is speculative1.3 but it deserves a closer examination because it has often been answered in the affirmative and ``by answering this question we approach a far reaching conclusion regarding the work of Christ.''1.4
Those who answer the question `incarnation even without the fall?' in the affirmative say that the miracle of the incarnation simply cannot be a mere response to a human act (the fall) and even though the incarnation is historically connected with deliverance this is not it's primary motive.1.5 Thus it is impossible to avoid a dualistic motivation: the secondary motive being the historical reality of the fall and the primary for a hypothetical situation which would also have called for the incarnation.
Of course even without sin man would have had to be lifted up to higher perfection and the church has recognized this with its theologoumenon of the covenant of works. The covenant of works is ``God's pact with Adam in his integrity, as the head of the whole human race, by which God requiring of man the perfect obedience of the law of works promised him, if obedient, eternal life in heaven, but threatened him, if he transgressed, with eternal death; and on his part man promised perfect obedience to God's requirement.''1.6 But nowhere does the covenant of works indicate the necessity of the incarnation of Christ, indeed this would be impossible because within this covenant Adam is seen as the head of the human race, not Christ. Thus the primary motive for Christ's incarnation is not usually sought in the idea that man must become more perfect as a creaturely being but rather that man must be deified. This was especially the case in the nineteenth century, during which the speculative philosophy of Hegel strongly dominated theology. This philosophy strongly emphasized the idea of God's becoming man, and the incarnation was explained as the gradual unification of God and man by a process of evolution.1.7
The idea of `incarnation even without the fall' is opposed to the exclusive soteriological motive of the incarnation. The question now is: what does the Bible say about the incarnation of Christ? In Scripture we learn Christ came to give his life, a ransom for many (Matt 20:28; cf. John 12:27); to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8; cf. Gal 4:4, Rom 8:3). He came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15, cf. Matt 1:21), to seek that which was lost (Luke 19:10),to call sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17). No doubt these quotations could be multiplied, but the point is that the coming of Christ is always connected with our salvation. Nowhere is mentioned a `meaning' of his coming as such, nor an `idea' of the incarnation apart from this salvation; there is no mention of an Immanuel apart from Isaiah's prophecy of salvation, nor of an event by itself which would justify the speculative argument: `incarnation even without the fall.'1.8 The Bible is obviously not afraid to depict God's act as a holy acting in reaction, viz., against mankind's guilt and his/her lost condition.1.9
The creeds of the church also make it clear that the church has always accepted this exclusive soteriological connection between the fall of man and the incarnation of Christ. The Nicene creed states that Christ descended for our sake and for our salvation. The Athanasian creed talks of the incarnation of The Son being necessary for our everlasting salvation. The Belgic Confession mentions that Christ took on a human soul and a human body in order to save both (article xviii). In The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's day xi, xii and xiii link Christ's incarnation with our salvation. Article 2 of the Canons of Dordt also connect the incarnation of the Son with our salvation. A. Kuyper has pointed out that this idea of `incarnation even without a fall' has always been considered heretical in the history of the Church and the Church has refused to accept the idea that this view would result in a deeper insight into the mystery of the incarnation.1.10 ``But since all Scripture proclaims that to become our Redeemer he was clothed with flesh, it is too presumptuous to imagine another reason or another end. We well know why Christ was promised from the beginning: to restore the fallen world and to succour lost men.''1.11 From the above it can be seen that the question of `incarnation even without the fall' is empty speculation which obscures rather than clarifies the dogmatic perspectives in Christology.
Dogmatically we are thus standing on firm ground when we say that the incarnation of Christ is a reaction to sin and is exclusively soteriological. With his characteristic sharpness and eye for distinctions, Van Ruler points out that the incarnation is not concerned only with sin, with its guilt or with its power and thus with reconciliation, forgiveness and purification. The incarnation is also a reaction to death. Our salvation in Christ includes eternal life. But this is still not enough, the incarnation is also a reaction to the devil and the demons that rule the human race. Expressed in more modern terms: the incarnation is a reaction to paganism.1.12 Of course all of these: sin, death and paganism are realities brought into being by the fall of man, and thus they are realities upheld by man himself. It is from these realities that we need to be saved. Christ is the reaction to these realities. `` Het eigenlijke kwaad steekt alleen maar in de mens, in zijn wil, is zijn schuld, bestaat in zijn zondaar zijn. En daarop is de incarnatie de reactie.''1.13