In the Plan All Along: John Duns Scotus and the Primacy of Christ
By Denise Clare, OFS
Once upon a time, there lived a man from Duns, Scotland who, as the story goes, was a fan of pointy hats, which he believed funneled knowledge into the brain. These hats became popular among his followers, known as “Dunsmen,” as they signified high intelligence. By the mid-1500s, 250 years after the Scotsman’s death, his ideas were considered overly complex – and his followers were thought to be terribly behind the times. Their once-fashionable hats came to be known as “dunce caps” and viewed as symbols of foolishness rather than intelligence.
Bl. John Duns Scotus was a Catholic priest, Franciscan friar, university professor, philosopher, and theologian. (One might say that he wore many hats!) He is known as the “Subtle Doctor” for the depth and complexity of his reasoning, which many of his contemporaries were unable to grasp. Even today, Scotus is well-known in “the Academy” and in certain Franciscan circles, but not so much outside. His teachings are not an easy read; however, his thoughts on the purpose of the Incarnation deserve a wider audience.
Consider these lines from the Nicene Creed: “For us [humans] and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” Why did Jesus come to earth? Many Catholics would say, “To die for our sins!” The Franciscan explanation of the Incarnation, as offered by Scotus, contrasts with the “traditional” one.
Although St. Anselm of Canterbury and St. Thomas Aquinas may not be household names, many Catholics have heard their teachings preached from the pulpit. These saints argue that the Incarnation was merely God’s response to man’s sin, which makes the Incarnation a conditional event. Anselm claims that the purpose of the Incarnation was for Jesus Christ to make satisfaction (that is, amends) for our sins through a violent and gruesome death. Author Richard Cross notes that according to Anselm, “the offense of human sin against God creates an infinite debt, since any wrong done to the all-good God is infinitely bad; but an infinite debt can be paid only by God.” Jesus came solely to fight the devil, plead with his Father, and atone for the human race. Meanwhile, Aquinas claims that if man had not sinned, Jesus would not have come: “no sin, no Incarnation.” According to Aquinas, there is no point in speculating whether there would have been an Incarnation had Adam not sinned.
By contrast, Bl. John Duns Scotus offers an understanding of the Incarnation that is based in the infinite love of God for his creation. He tells us that the Incarnation was in the plan from all ages – God’s very first idea! – and that Christ would have become incarnate even if Adam hadn’t sinned. Scotus does not deny that Adam sinned and that Jesus is our Redeemer and Savior. But for Scotus, the Incarnation was the entire purpose of creation, not a “Plan B” to – in the words of Phillippe Yates – “rescue humanity after the Fall.” God decided to come to the world as a human being out of love, mercy, and goodness, not because of the sin of humanity. Had Adam not sinned, Jesus would not have had to come as our Redeemer, but he still would have come as our Savior. (Note the difference between “redemption” and “salvation.” Everyone has been redeemed through the death of Jesus, but not everyone is saved. While redemption is an intentional act of God, salvation is an intentional choice of ours to accept the plan of God.)
Further, Scotus has some issues with Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement. He disagrees with Anselm’s claim that a person’s sin against God – a finite act – is an infinite offense against God’s infinite honor. Therefore, since the debt was not infinite, it did not require someone who was totally God (who could repay an infinite debt) and totally man (who owed the debt) to repay it. Therefore, saving us from our sins could not have been God’s primary reason for the Incarnation.
Mom would end her prayers over Christmas Eve dinner by intoning, “Christmas is the promise, but Easter is the fulfillment.” But for Franciscans, Christmas is more significant than Easter. Our redemption was guaranteed not with the passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, but with his Incarnation! In his view of the Incarnation, Scotus sees that our need for love is greater than our need for redemption. Redemption is a consequence of Incarnation, not the other way around!
The reason for the Incarnation, the occurrence of the Incarnation even if Adam had not sinned, and the significance of Christmas fall under a theory proposed by Scotus known as the Absolute Primacy of Christ. This concept may be summarized in five words: in the plan all along. Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean explains that the Primacy of Christ is relative “if the Word became flesh only, or even primarily, to redeem man from sin.” This is the position held by St. Thomas Aquinas. By contrast, what makes the Primacy of Christ absolute for Franciscans is the conviction that God willed Jesus Christ first and foremost for his own sake, not as a response to the sin of humanity.
So when you hear the song “O Holy Night” at church, on the radio, or at the mall, remember that the primary purpose of the Incarnation, according to Bl. John Duns Scotus, was to fulfill God’s desire to share God-self with us, not to redeem the world that lay in sin and error pining.
