Nielsen's Nook

The New Nook

2006-08-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

We've moved...

Please come visit us at nielsensnook.com, the new and hopefully improved, Nielsen's Nook.

Contemplation with Luther on Psalm 70:4-5

2006-08-18T09:23:00.000-07:00

Psalm 70:4-5 (ESV)

⁴ May all who seek you

rejoice and be glad in you!

May those who love your salvation

say evermore, “God is great!”

⁵ But I am poor and needy;

hasten to me, O God!

You are my help and my deliverer;

O Lord, do not delay!

My burden in preaching the Gospel of Jesus to His Church is one which, I hope and think, recognizes that there are different facets of this marvelous gospel which need to be applied differently at different times in the history of redemption. At least in the circles in which I find myself ministering, I find that people are often consumed with a false guilt; often the result of well intended and yet ever destructive fundamentalism. On the other hand, I have found that in wanting to communicate the biblical doctrine of “total depravity”, the idea that there is no aspect of human existence that has not been polluted by sin,[1] I have found that parishioners often will get stuck there. In other words, it is true that Christ comes to us when we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2); however, may it never be that the deadness of the “old man”, as Paul terms our pre-salvation state, eclipses the fact that Christ has made everything new (2 Cor 5:17)!

We have forgotten that God has bound himself to us in Christ by way of covenant. We have overlooked the dignity that this communicates to us as Christians who are in covenant with God. It speaks to our destiny, for He has saved us – not just to say that we are saved – but to deliver us into His likeness, which is found in Christ alone. Nevertheless, Christians who are attuned to the realities of this world also know the bitterness of stumbling in the midst of our procession with Christ to the end of days. Commenting on John 6:56, Luther writes:

Outwardly Christians stumble and fall from time to time. Only weakness and shame appear on the surface, revealing that the Christians are sinners who do that which displeases the world. Then they are regarded as fools, as Cinderellas, as footmats for the world, as damned, impotent, and worthless people. But this does not matter. In their weakness, sin, folly, and frailty there abides inwardly and secretly a force and power unrecognizable by the world and hidden from its view, but one which, for all that, carries off the victory; for Christ resides in them and manifests Himself to them. I have seen many of these who, externally, tottered along very feebly; but when it came to the test and they faced the court, Christ bestirred Himself in them, and they became so staunch that the devil had to flee.^{^[2]}

It is precisely in this poverty that we find the wealth of Christ, our deliverer, who does in fact bestir himself in His people. It is this God to whom we make the petition, the plea, “I am poor and needy; hasten to me!... Do not delay!” The marvel is that he does hasten to us in perfect time. Luther expresses his own reflections on the figures of speech (tropology is the study of such figures) used in Psalm 70:4 when he writes that such figures speak:

First, against the vices and sins of the past, lest they lead you to despair. Second, against the reviling of the lust of the flesh and its works. Third, against the attractions of the world and the promptings of the devil, lest they prevail over you, but that you may persevere in hope and faith, in grace and union with Christ.

Say: “Lord God, be pleased to deliver me.” For this prayer is the shield, spear, thunderbolt, and defense against every attack of fear, presumption, lukewarmness, security, etc., which are especially dominant today, as was said above.

Then, so that you might be able to prevail over them, and this quickly, to destroy such evil impulses, add: “Lord, make haste to help me.” For haste is necessary to drive them away, especially in our age of defects, security, and lukewarmness.

Then continue: “Let them be confounded and ashamed,” that is, that their every reproach be revealed to me to be false and foolish, namely, of past sins for despair, of the world for sins of the flesh, etc., so that in this way I might see that these confound the spirit if they are followed. Then let the proud ideas about my own holiness, the impulses of being alone, as though I were making much progress, be turned backward, so that I may see that they are nothing and blow me up from nothing and falsely suggest to me that I have made progress, and thereby wish evil for me, so that, the more they make me seem to be better than others, the worse I fall.^{^[3]}

May God have mercy on us, that we would not be lukewarm in our relentless pursuit of Christ. That pursuit is driven by the cylinder of faith and repentance, churning up and down, two sides of the same coin. For when we stumble in faith we repent and when we find victory in faith we cry out for meekness and humility. Lord have mercy. Deliver us. Do not delay.

[1] N.B. This is not to be confused with the misunderstood version of this teaching that would say that people are as bad as they might possibly be. Such “utter depravity” is not the “total depravity” of Calvin.

^{^[2]}Martin Luther, vol. 23, Luther's Works, Vol. 23 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8, ( ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al.;, Luther's Works Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1959), 23:146.

^{^[3]}Martin Luther, vol. 10, Luther's Works, Vol. 10 : First Lectures on the Psalms I: Psalms 1-75, ( ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al.;, Luther's Works Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1974), 10:391.

Jottings on Calvin's Notion of Sacramental Union

2006-08-14T08:07:00.000-07:00

My wife and I are working to get a grasp on the sacraments and what the Bible teaches us about them: i.e., what they are, what they do, and why God gives them to us. One thing we have noticed in even a cursory consideration of the topic is that relative to the Protestant Reformation, viz. the Magisterial flavor, there has been an unbelievable degradation of the sacraments in the practice of Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

One trajectory I am exploring with the help of Keith Mathison's book, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, is that many Reformed and Presbyterian Protestants are quite estranged from their traditional heritage. For example, ninety-nine percent of the discussions I hear on Calvinism all revolve around the so called Five Points (as if Calvin were that simplistic) and hinge on the doctrine of Predestination. It is a strange contrast over against this contemporary caricature of Calvin (by self-professing Calvinists!!) that we find two significant points.

First, Calvin does not address predestination until Book III of the Institutes which is the pastoral section, the place where Calvin seeks to comfort believers directing them to their assurance in Christ. Calvin did not lead with predestination and seems to primarily use the issue as a means of pastoral comfort to his believing readership.

Second, the orbit of Calvin's theology does not circle around the constellation of the so called Five Points. By way of reminder, the Synod of Dordt did not convene until 1618. Calvin died May 27, 1564 in Geneva. The Dutch Reformed controversy with Jacob Arminius was not something to which Calvin was speaking (obviously). What does in fact seem to be the center of Calvin's theology is the idea of Union with Christ (not predestination).

It is this center of Union with Christ which informs Calvin's understanding of the Sacraments. “According to Calvin, each of the two sacraments [i.e., Baptism and the Lord’s Supper] is related to the believer’s union with Christ. Baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into mystical union with Christ. The Lord’s Supper is connected with the believer’s ongoing continuation in this union.”[1]

Recently, a PCA pastor friend of mine shared with me a story of a time he was at a baptism as a congregant in another church. He was sitting in the balcony and noticed that during the baptism, which in PCA churches is performed at the front of the sanctuary, two young men in the pews in front of him were goofing off, sending text messages to each other and basically dismissing the ritual. After the service, he reached forward and touched their shoulders. They spun around to face him and he said to them, “You missed it.”

They replied, “Missed what?”

“You missed the baptism,” he said.

“So? … I guess we did.”

“There was grace in that for you and you missed it,” the pastor continued.

My friend explained to me that baptism is not simply for that little baby in the front of the church, but it communicates the grace of Christ to the community of believers, the cloud of witnesses as it were, who very much are participating in the infant’s baptism. There is much assurance for the believing witnesses.

Calvin seems to resonate with a similar thought in the way he seems to have understood the sacramental union between the signs and the things signified. Mathison elucidates four main points. First, the union between the two is so close that the sign and the signified are practically identical. Second, the sign does not become the thing signified. A distinction is always maintained. Third, there is no analogy for this union in the natural realm, the only exception being the Incarnation. Fourth, Calvin consequently sees the Incarnation, the everlasting union of God and humanity in Jesus Christ, as the analogy that serves to govern his thought on the mystery involved in sacramental union.[2]

Unfortunately, this is but a jotting for me this morning and as such I think and hope I have laid out some notions that Mathison sees (and I have seen) in Calvin that for most readers will sound strange to their ears. The dissonance comes from two sources in the Protestant West. First, we do not understand our own tradition and in many cases we stand on the shoulders of mere caricature, something other than what has historically been Reformed Protestant tradition. Second, for reasons about which I might only speculate now, the Protestant West has largely forgotten the Incarnation and its cosmic ramifications upon all humanity and especially those whose life is now in Christ.

May God have mercy, sending His Spirit that all of the minds of all of His people would be all the more illumined. Amen.

[1] Keith A. Mathison, Given for You : Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2002), 19.

[2] Ibid., 22.

Christian, The Yoke's on You

2006-08-06T18:03:00.000-07:00

Introduction

There are a few questions we are attempting to address in the writing of this article. First, what is conveyed to us in the biblical imagery of the yoke? Second, how is that imagery developed? In other words, are there trajectories from which we may glean? Finally, by way continuation of the image into our present life situation, in what ways may we make contemporary application of our discoveries?

A Conceptual Overview of the Imagery of Yoke

A yoke[1] was a wooden and metal device that harnessed two livestock together (usually oxen) so that their combined labors at a singular task would be unified in such a way that the whole would indeed be greater than the parts and that the benefits of their labors might be directed by a single purpose. The uses of the words for ‘yoke’ to refer to the apparatus that bound two livestock together are relatively rare in the Bible (Num 19:2; Deut 22:10; eight times in Job to refer to yokes or pairs of oxen).[2]

Figuratively, the concept of a yoke is used often in the scripture to usually describe a negative situation in which one party lives in subjection to another. Additionally, there are positive uses of the trope; however, they are significantly fewer in number though not less significant.

Bondage and Freedom

Under the rubric of the figurative use of ‘yoke’ we find the most common use of the trope to be with reference to “political slavery to a foreign king.”[3] This is the language that was used to describe the Exodus from Egypt.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves. And I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect. (Le 26:13 ESV)

Thus, if bondage is one side of the trope, then liberation is inescapably implied as the other side. The Lord liberated his people from the bondage of slavery to the Egyptians; however, that liberation was not so that they would not be yoked to anything or anyone else. The broken yoke of slavery and bondage is replaced by the yoke of liberty to YHWH.

The Interplay Between Political and the Spiritual

The nature of humanity and the new humanity that God is redeeming from the old is that it is by nature political and spiritual at the same time. It is no wonder then that two common images in which yoke is employed demonstrate a certain double entendre effect, at once utilizing the political to speak to the spiritual and conversely.[4] From this it would seem safe to extrapolate that God’s people are wholly involved in all aspects of life. In other words, echoing Kuyper’s sentiment, the assumption from which scripture seems to be operating is that there is no square inch of this universe or of a human being over which God has not declared his dominion.

A Union that Binds

What we have said thus far is that ‘yoke’ is most often encountered in the Scriptures as a trope, an image employed to teach us much more than how to bind two livestock together. The dimensions of the metaphor range from the abstract to the concrete. With regard to the abstract, we have found ‘yoke’ to be addressing the relative bondage or liberty of the people to whom the biblical writer was addressing. Naturally, these abstract ideas reflect the concrete spiritual and political realities that God’s people had encountered.

In the case of Israel’s bondage to the Egyptians, the Lord called Israel out of Egypt to yoke them to himself. It is in this sense that we see conceptually the positive aspect of the concept that the metaphor yoke entails, representing for humanity the most intimate and powerful bond a person can experience, Union with God. This is a theme that is found throughout the Bible, a fragrance leading us forward to the ultimate fulfillment of this Union, which we find expounded for us in passages like Matthew 11:25-30:

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Mt 11:25-30 ESV)

Those whom Christ liberates, “far from being autonomous, are ushered into a new bondage: they become Christ’s willing slaves (douloi), he becomes their Lord.”[5] Christ is the destination that the metaphor of ‘yoke’ throughout the Bible anticipates and His person and work must be the lens by which we seek to focus our understanding of the trope into wise and practical applications.

The Development of Yoke as a Biblical Image

In this section we seek to focus in a little more detail on selected passages in the Bible that have impressed us towards the trajectory and understanding that we have articulated above regarding the tropological and non-figurative uses of ‘yoke’ in the Bible. The framework that the scriptures themselves establish for understanding such movement is seen, by way of example, in Romans 5:12-21 in which Adam is established as the Old Testament type and Christ is exalted as the fulfillment, the anti-type of Adam.

Adam: The Yoke of Death (Gen 1-3)

In the creation of Adam there is the great and triune antiphony that declares his magnificence and dignity as the crown of the created.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Ge 1:26-27 ESV)

Further, we witness a deep connection that the Creator has with Adam. Chapter two reveals an intimate awareness of an interaction with Adam regarding his purpose and his needs. God places him in the Garden according in covenant and sees that it is not good that Adam should be alone and so makes Eve. In other words, in the creation story we find God had established the bond or ‘yoke’ between Himself and Adam by means of Adam’s obedience, demonstrated in not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, while the word ‘yoke’ is not present in the creation story, the concept is most certainly there.

Chapter 3 presents Adam with a choice. The serpent appears and challenges the justice of God’s yoke. In convincing them that God’s yoke was heavy and unjust, the Serpent encourages them to throw off the divine yoke and walk yokeless. It was only to their dismay, that when they threw off the divine yoke, the Serpent’s slipped as a silk noose slyly around their necks. Outside of the divine yoke, they were left to be driven along mercilessly by the Devil.

The promise of God to deliver Adam and his progeny(Gen 3:15), is the promise that God will break the bonds of the oppressed, setting the captives free, returning the satanic yoke empty to the devil as he rots defeated in Hell. This promise echoes throughout the corridors of redemptive history, most often through the prophets. They were speaking to a people in political bondage, which in the Bible always corresponds to the reality of a far more grave sense of spiritual bondage. As the prophets addressed their situation, their words resonated towards a moment in time, in which true liberty is meted out perfectly in the person and work of Christ as a tonic note in the symphony of redemptive history.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
² to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn; (Isa 61:1-2, ESV)

And the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase, and they shall be secure in their land. And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke, and deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them. (Eze 34:27 ESV)

Covenant: Blood that Binds (Ex 12)

The breaking of the bars of the yoke of slavery in Egypt from Israel’s neck is preceded by a lengthy account of the Passover stipulations. This liberation of Israel entailed the shedding of blood in the setting apart of the firstborn to God. “We should understand this ritual [of setting the firstborn apart] in light of the tenth plague itself: Israel as God’s son (see [Ex] 4:22) was redeemed (delivered from Egypt) by the death of Egypt’s firstborn sons.”[6] That redemption of Israel was not to autonomy as they seemed to expect in the wilderness; rather, it was a redemption from the yoke of slavery to the yoke of YHWH, the yoke of true liberty.

What we see in the Exodus account is that the changing of yokes entails the shedding of blood. The tenth plague was not a “divine temper tantrum” against the Egyptians. Instead, it is a necessary implementation of a redemptive pattern, requiring death as a means to fuller life.[7] It is the shedding of blood, and only by the shedding of blood, that the destroyer made distinction between Israel and Egypt.[8]

Even in this cursory consideration of the Exodus, we see that the idea of yoke has to do ultimately with the covenant bond through which the Lord, in delivering his people from bondage, unites them intimately by the sacrificial blood of the first born.

The Yoke to Christ (Matt 11:25-30; Gal 5:1; Phil 4:3)

Early Christians seem to express this idea of being yoked to Christ. For example, the first literary section of the Didache known as the “Two Ways” which conceptually seem to articulate the notion of ‘yoke’ that scripture has given us throughout redemptive history.

Didache Text	Writer’s Translation
1:1 odoi duo eisi, mia thv zwhv kai mia tou qanatou, diafora de pollh metaxu twn duo odwn. ... 6:2 ei men gar dunasai bastasai olon ton zugon tou kuriou, teleiov esh...	1:1 There are two ways, the one is life and the other one is death. The differences between the two ways are many. … 6:2 For if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect…

The idea of taking the yoke of Christ upon oneself would seem to be an allusion to Matthew 11:30:

²⁵At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; ²⁶yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. ²⁷All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ²⁸Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ²⁹Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:25-30 ESV)

The passage revolves around a confusion of whether Jesus is the Messiah. Here, Matthew relays to us an instant in which Jesus is confronted with great unbelief. Even John the Baptist had sent a delegation to Jesus from prison because he had begun to doubt whether Jesus was in fact the Messiah (Matthew 11:3). Jesus responds by directing his interlocutors to the testimony of his deeds, “Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.” (Matthew 11:19). After denouncing those cities who witnessed his works for their unbelief, Jesus then thanks the Father that he has hidden the understanding of who Jesus truly was from the wise and learned and revealed it to little children.

The yoke here is clearly between the oppression and blindness of unbelief on the one hand and the liberty and sight of belief on the other. In calling his own to come to him, Jesus promises a new yoke, one in which the bearer may grow and thrive. His promise to provide such a yoke assumes the role he would play as Messiah, breaking the bars of the yoke of sin and death; trampling down death by death.

Believers and Unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-7:1)

In this paradigm of liberation from the yoke of unbelief and to the yoke of belief, the Apostle Paul makes a basic and practical implication. He warns, Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες (Do not be ‘otherly’ or differently yoked).

A common understanding of this passage is espoused in this passage from a very good background commentary:

In 6:14–7:1 … Paul might be using some sermonic material or ideas he gleaned from an earlier source. He bases 6:14 (“unequal yoking”—cf. KJV) on Deuteronomy 22:10 (cf. Lev 19:19), which may have been meant to reinforce the law’s prohibition of interreligious marriage with pagans (cf. Deut 7:3; Ezra 9:12; Neh 13:25).[9]

There would seem to be an illegitimate totality transfer here, based simply on the words used in Deuteronomy 22:10 without regard for the way the concept of ‘yoke’, particularly its tropological use, has been developed throughout redemptive history. Context would seem to argue that this is not a divagation,[10] in which Paul throws in his two cents worth on dating and marriage.

Μη γενοιντο! Rather, the Apostle is in the middle of a discourse on our position and purpose in this world as those whom God has reconciled to himself in Christ. In other words, Paul is exhorting those who have experienced the cold cumbersome satanic steel of the yoke of sin and death shattering to the ground as dust at the humble words of the Living God-Man who has said,

“²⁸Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ²⁹Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Mt 11:25-30 ESV)

It is these to whom the ministry of reconciliation has been given, for it is these to whom God Almighty has bound himself by way of everlasting covenant. The yoke that Adam had thrown off has been remade and now once again humanity is found truly human, truly liberated, in union again with its maker. It is because we now, in Christ, work together with God, yoked to him, that we demonstrate that the grace of God not taken in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1). Paul addresses the Corinthians as children (6:13), imploring them to widen their hearts. This would seem to echo back to the Matthew 11 passage in which we see those who think they are wise are only those to whom God has not been pleased to reveal himself and those who are regarded as children are those in whom we find the Father’s revelation.

Therefore, when we come to Paul’s statement in 6:14 to not be otherly yoked, we must understand that the yoke he has in mind does not seem to be ultimately between two mere mortals (i.e., do not marry unbelieving people). Rather, the yoke in question revolves around the matter of belief and unbelief relative to a person’s relationship to God (certainly having implications for whom we might choose for our spouse). This would seem to be the paradigm it has followed and developed throughout redemptive history. “What fellowship,” Paul asks, “does light have with darkness? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?”

Paul then quotes the covenant mantra, “I will be their God and they shall be my people.” (6:16). The appeal then is that since believers have been delivered from the yoke of darkness now yoked to Christ who is the resurrection and the light, there is now no going back. The old yoke has been decimated in the fullest Roman sense of the term. It makes no sense for the freeman to run back to his oppressive master. It is inconsistent with the call that is now on the freeman’s life, for he is now bound to Christ. Everything is indeed new! (2 Corinthians 5:17) He cannot be otherly yoked, for Christ’s yoke cannot be broken.

[1] Hebrew מֹוט and מֹוטָה generally convey the equivalent ζυγός and ζυγέω in Greek. However, when recognizing the metaphoric imagery the LXX uses other words to convey the idea of bondage more forcefully (e.g., δεσμός in Nahum 1:13).

[2] Leland Ryken and others, "Yoke," in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 975.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Leland Ryken and others, "Bondage and Freedom," in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 112.

[5] J. Knox Chamblin, "Freedom/Liberty," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 313.

[6] Peter Enns, Exodus, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 252.

[7] Ibid., 253.

[8] Ibid., 255.

[9] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary : New Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 2 Cor 6:14. For this same interpretation, see also Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians; the English Text with Introd., Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1962).

[10] Ralph P. Martin, 1-2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Themes (Dallas: Word Pub., 1988), 191. Martin and others do ask “Does [2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1] belong here or is it an interpolation?”. If we do follow the trajectory of the way the concept of yoke is used, it seems to this writer that the pericope in question flows smoothly without giving way to the charge of interpolation or digression.

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

2006-07-17T13:46:00.000-07:00

I found this article to be a stimulating reflection in lieu of the current schism that seems to be brewing strong in the Episcopal church. I hope we non-Anglicans can grieve with these who are experiencing schism and pray that God would give the faithful wisdom how to persevere in the midst of such faithlessness.

HT: Patrick Lafferty

The Law of God (Romans 8:3-4)

2006-07-16T05:39:00.000-07:00

Romans 8:3-4 (English Standard Version)
For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

If the Law of God is merely the prescription of what we should do in order to be righteous, then we do well to take these verses to mean 1) that the Law was powerless to change our behavior, 2) that Christ came to behave well in our place, and 3) that He came to condemn our misbehavior. There are certainly parallels and trajectories familiar to us all who live in the present time which compel us to receive such interpretation. This is a common strain of thought.

However, let me suggest what I believe is a more biblically consistent understanding. If the Law is taken as the marvelous indicative description of God's character then we as His image are implicated in an imperative that is captured in Matthew 5:48:

48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It is not all of creation that has its purpose or goal (τελειος) of existence as the reflection of the likeness of the Almighty. This is a unique calling bestowed upon humanity, not merely in the abstract but in the warp and woof of everyday life. So what we find is that Christ came as a sin offering (i.e., for sin) not simply that we might behave better but that the dignity of humanity might be restored to the New Humanity that was formed out of Christ, the New Adam.

Christ came as one of us, being exactly like us in everyway excepting sin. He alone was the one man, being the image of God (c.f., Heb 1:1-4) who was perfectly like God. In this way, we see a picture of not only who God is, but also we see a beautiful portrait of the Truly Human. The righteous requirment of the Law is not primarily the keeping of rules but the emmulation of the righteousness of the Archetype. That is the photograph is only truly beautiful when it corresponds most clearly to the thing photographed. If we were to take a picture of a placid mountain landscape and then look at the photo only to see black streaks all through it, we would think something was wrong. We could tell that the image had connection to the landscape, but it was not much like it now that it contained all the black streaks or pixelations.

Christ is the pristine picture of the Father, which is perfectly what a human being was created to be. It is the restoration of a greater dignity to humanity generally and a perfect dignity returned to His progeny. It is this principle of dignity restored of which we see the effects in those who live according to Spirit. Certainly behavior is changed. Certainly our affections have a very different object. But the primary focus is the restoration of Humanity to be the image that is also like the God who created them. This restoration is certainly not finished; however, one day when God punctuates His redemptive sentence we will see a humanity being finally restored of which one may ask, "Is it real or is it memorex?"

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 > Hear O Israel

2006-07-06T07:14:00.000-07:00

Writer's Translation
⁴ Hear O Israel, YHWH your [pl] God, YHWH is one. ⁵ You [sg] will love YHWH, your [sg] God, with all of your [sg] heart, with all of your [sg] life^a, and with exceedingly all of you.

_____
^a nephesh has a broader semantic field that can range from "life" to "soul" and generally refers to the immaterial component of the composite whole of a creature.

Continuing to explore the idea of 1) the Decalogue as descriptive of God in his essence as righteousness in contradistinction from some kind of prescriptive imperative, telling us what to to in order to be righteous (see previous post); I wanted to chase this idea curiously through this chapter to consider its merits.

In this light, chapter 6 the last half of the literary unit that contains the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 would seem to be a redemptive historical address of YHWH to his people. The commands to hear in verses 3 and 4 are clues to this. In otherwords, "Listen to me, let me tell you who you are as I created you, and to whom I am restoring you as a people out of the grasp of sin and death!" YHWH declares himself to be one, that is, undivided perfect unity. Humanity as God's image has been fractured and is no longer one but a living contradiction of principles. We see the divine element in us, and yet at the same time we see the anti-divine element that can so forcibly compel us.

YHWH is bursting onto the scene, speaking light into this dark contradiction. He described himself, humanity's archetype and now describes himself as undivided. As He is undivided so shall his people be. That is one day they will not be rent and ruined by this living contradiction. This is explained in the statement that follows in verse 5: You - the People of God - who know this contradiction all to well, will be those who will love YHWH from the heart, from the inside, with your life, in fact with exceedingly all of you. Notice that the words which describe the faculties of love by which a person is described as loving YHWH are all intrinsic. The kind of love to which God is redeeming his people is not behavior modification, but dissolution of contradiction, a radical resolution of the dissonant into marvelous redemptive historical harmony. It is in this symphony that we live and move and participate.

Lord have mercy, that we might today, this day, adore more fully Christ to whom we are as his people bound, that in us the perfect image of the Father, Christ Himself, would be more deeply evident in us, His people. Amen.

Logical Positivists, Religious Moral Imperatives and CompUSA

2006-07-04T11:31:00.000-07:00

In trying to make light of just realizing that CompUSA (aka CompUseless) has effectively stolen $350 from me, let me share with you out of my deontological burden how not to get suckered yourself. My wife teaches Philosophy at a local community college where she often gets a rise out of students when she tries to illustrate the Logical Positivists disposition towards religious moral imperatives. My usually soft spoken wife, with over dramatized urgency exclaims, "Stealing!! Don't do it." With respect to CompUSA, it might be contextualized to sound something like, "CompUSA!!! Don't shop there!!!"

In light of my experience with CompUSA today, I have existential evidence that the Logical Positivists' disposition towards morality is as impractical as the so-called "Laptop Replacement Policy" a slick salesman sold me last September. I asked the fellow as I always do when they push the fear button to get you to buy their policy, "Are you telling me that the laptops you sell here are that poorly made?" He replied, "No, no! You said this was a business laptop and I know that you do not have a lot of time to wait on Toshiba to fix it if something goes wrong. What this policy does for you is if the machine breaks you bring it in and if we cannot fix it on the spot we'll replace it so that you won't have to lose any more time."

Normally, I don't purchase these things because the manufacturer's warranty is usually more than enough. Given the pace of my web development and graphic design business, I thought the $350 to bail me out of a temporal bind when the computer failed would be worth it. So it fails this morning. I have a major deadline on July 6. I was expecting to work all day (yes I know it's a holiday, but salaried aristocrats, not business owners make holidays).

After trying to revive my computer all morning (many of you call me when your computers act up), I decided perhaps I should go ahead and use this "Replacement Plan". When I get there I get a flat denial of any notion of replacement plan. They don't have parts in so it should be back to me in a little over a week. #*&@#! I'm dead. I explained to the manager what I was told. He referred me to the documentation. I reminded him that the documentation is all sealed up in a package that I cannot open until I purchase it and that if I had known I was just paying them to broker my own warranty work, I would never have purchased the product (exceedingly over priced at this point). Further, when I purchased one of these replacement plans from Fry's Electronics for my HP iPaq, I had the unit replaced in 30 minutes no questions asked. That's is what was promised to me when I purchased this "replacement policy" from CompUSA.

So if you are wise, you won't shop at CompUSA. I recommend Best Buy or Fry's. They have always stood behind the many products I have bought from them for business or pleasure. If your still wiser, you won't purchase these so called warranties or replacement plans. The manufacturer will stand behind their products if they are reputable.

Well there. My first blog rant ever. I feel much better now. Thanks.

Deuteronomy 6:1-3 > Bearing the Decalogue

2006-07-02T18:42:00.000-07:00

Author's Translation

(1) Now this is the commandmentְ the statues and the specification which YHWH, your [pl] God, commanded me to teach you [pl] with the purpose that you would do them in the land which you [pl] are crossing over there to possess; (2) that you [sg] would fear YHWH, your [sg] God, that you would keep all of his statutes and commandments which I command you [sg], your [sg] children and your [sg] children's children all the days of your [sg] life so that your [sg] days may be lengthened. (3) Hear, therefore, Israel and you [sg] keep them in order to do them which are good for you [sg] and which will multiply you [sg] exceedingly as YHWH, the God of your [sg] fathers, promised to you [sg]: a land flowing with milk and honey.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

1 וְזֹאת הַמִּצְוָה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃ 2 לְמַעַן תִּירָא אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־כָּל־חֻקֹּתָיו וּמִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ וּלְמַעַן יַאֲרִכֻן יָמֶיךָ׃ 3 וְשָׁמַעְתָּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לְךָ וַאֲשֶׁר תִּרְבּוּן מְאֹד כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ׃ פ

This passage follows the Decalogue (so called Ten Commandments), being a description of God’s holy and righteous nature. That description implicates all of humanity because every individual person is created in the image of the one the Decalogue describes. Therefore, it is no wonder that Deuteronomy 5 and 6 are one literary unit. In other words, chapter 5 describes to us who God is. Chapter 6 then describes for us how those created in his image will live in light of the fact that human beings are the image of God.

So the imperative of the Decalogue is that it describes for us the archetype whom we are to reflect as image, to be like. God does not steal and therefore we seek to be like him in integrity. God does not tolerate spiritual rebellion (idolatry) nor should we with a view to ourselves.

Thus we see that the heinousness of sin is not primarily seen in the fact that the Law of God is broken, but that we who were created as image, to be like God, do what is precisely and explicitly unlike Him. In fearing God we dare not view ourselves as autonomous. We seek after Him, longing that He would receive His due. He promises abundant rest that he has been faithful to provide to His people. The dirt of Palestine has always prefigured the Lord Jesus who would come and demonstrate himself to be the water and bread of life, the land flowing with milk and honey.

6. The Spiritual Writers: Salvation, Asceticism, and Deification (2 of 2)

2006-07-01T16:32:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.

Humanity's Relationship to God
The Image of God that every human being is represents the basic building block in understanding our relationship to God even after the Fall. The redemption of fallen humans required that Christ take on the same 'stuff' as they were and are. St. Athanasius writes, "The death of all was being accomplished in the body of the Lord, and on the other hand, death and corruption were destroyed by the Word which dwelt in that body." (p 118)

This dynamic of dying and purification lead us to the spiritual relationship of humanity to God in Christ. Major aspects of this Spirituality can be summarized as such:

Original participation
Analogous Freedom of the Image of God
Sin as a consequence of servitude to the demonic
Redemption as a recapitulation of the human nature in the risen Christ

Meyendorff, again, warns his Western readers that Anselm or the Augustinian vs. Pelagian controversy are alien paradigms to these Eastern concepts. Reading these alien paradigms into the Eastern will inevitably result in skewing our understanding of what the East is actually saying on their own terms.¹

During the time of the great controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries, the monks focused on the incarnation of the church in its heavenly aspect as opposed to the institutional structures rooted in this world [Dualism?]. They were preoccupied with realizing the participation in the divine life, from which Adam was deprived and which became accessible again in Christ.

As mentioned in previous chapters, Evagrius employed Platonic thought (viz. Metaphysics) explaining the Fall of the νους from its original dignity being now consigned to a bodily state. His system and terminology are based first of all on a distinction between praxis (πρακτική μέθοδος) and theoria (or γνωσις). The praxis was double edged. First there was the fight against the passions and second the practice of the evangelical commands. "The passions" (τά πάθη) were not simply a state of the soul but a means of the devil to enslave humanity. (p 119)

In speaking of this fight against the passions, Evagrius intimates that humans are most vulnerable when they are idle. Temptation is external to the human being who is the victim of the passions. All can be vanquished by faith which leads to continence and ultimately to apatheia (απάθεια), the supreme aim of the praxis. It is this arrival at impassibility in which a human being would find herself free to develop in herself the divine agape, consecrating herself entirely to theoria, "of which 'intellectual' and perpetual prayer is the most adequate expression." (p 120)

While for Evagrius the state of prayer is an impassible state, as a state of liberation it also implies dematerialization [neo-Platonic metaphysic]. Thus prayer for Evagrius is the 'prelude to the immaterial gnosis' (προοίμιον της αϋλου γνώσεως). "...[A]s for Origen," writes Vladimir Lossky, "the ψυχή (soul) would be for Evagrius a distortion of the νους (intellect), which moves away from God by becoming material." (p 121) Once liberated, the intellect can engage in theoria without being distorted by the passions which once held the intellect captive. Now the intellect contemplates in light of the Logos.

Ultimately the liberated can contemplate and know God himself, being predicated on the Origenist metaphysic that drew a "natural kinship" between the divine and intellectual. (p 121). In great (and this writer would say problematic) divergence from the Cappadocians and Pseudo-Dionysius, Evagrius blurs the distinction between Creator and creature when he writes, "God does not transcend the intellect; once purified, detached from matter and 'simple' in its contemplation, the intellect sees God as he is, in his essence." (p 122) The result being an extreme form of Pelagianism, being seen most extremely in the Isochrist monks, "who claimed that they became 'equal to Christ' by the restoration of their minds in contemplation of God..." (p 122)

Alternately, a tendency that excluded Platonic dualism enjoyed great influence, seeing humanity's way towards deification in a Christ-centered sacramental spirituality. The so called St. Macarius of Egypt (some think him to be Symeon of Mesopotamia).

The asceticism of Evagrius and Macarius must be understood in a more full orbed context, incorporating the assumptions about the nature of sin, the original destiny of humanity and salvation in terms of deification. For example, Evagrius taught that the passions were manifestations of the corruption of human nature. In other words, sin as an external action only manifests our "passionate" state. (p 123) This way of viewing sin gave way to the role of the "spiritual father", being a guide for the journey through this world.

Many aspects of the ascetical tradition of the Christian East can present to the Western observer a Pelagian aspect.... [If] one remembers the conception of the image of God as it prevails in the Greek Fathers, the problem of the relationship between grace and human freedom is on a different level from that which opposed Augustine to Pelagius in the West. Nature, and therefore true freedom, presuppose communion with God in grace.... It is not the blasphemous juxtaposition of divine grace and human effort but the concrete realization in Jesus Christ of man's primitive image. (p 124)

Or as Gregory of Nyssa writes, "What has been made in all aspects in the image of the divinity must undoubtedly possess in its nature a free and independent will, in order that participation in the divine advantages should be the prize of virtue." This doctrine of synergism (συνεργεία) is developed further in Marcarius:

The more one loves, the more one gives oneself to the fight, in one's body and in one's soul, in order to accomplish the commandments, the greater the communion one achieves with the Spirit into the spiritual growth of the renewing of the mind; acquiring salvation by grace and divine gift, but receiving by faith, by love, and by the effort of free choice, progress and increase in the measure of this spiritual age....Thus, eternal life will be inherited by grace, but also in all righteousness, since it is not only through the divine grace and power without human collaboration (συνεργεία) and effort that progress is made... (p 125)

A passage like the one from Macarius above will sound Pelagian or semi-Pelagian unless Eastern notions of participation and communion accepted. Human freedom and effort are to be understood as entailing participation in the divine life. This in turn assumes real communion with the Archetype of whom humanity is image. This is what the Christian East calls deification. This is for Athanasius and Cyril the very basis of the Gospel.

Deification implies then that the soul becomes one with God. Humanity is called to participate in God, without there ever being any confusion between God's nature and that of the person, without any diminution of human freedom. In this a person fulfills the destiny for which humanity was created.

Byzantine monastics sought to fill their minds with God pressing forward towards the goal of deification. One significant manifestation of this thought is seen in the Jesus Prayer an essential element of Byzantine hesychasm ('ησυχία rest or contemplation). Thus constant prayer is the mark of a mind truly freed from the passions. Isaac of Nineveh writes:

When the Spirit establishes his dwelling in man, the latter can no longer stop praying, for the Spirit never ceases praying in him. Whether he sleeps or stays awake, prayer is not separated from his soul. (p 127)

It is in Christ that humanity recovers his original destiny, rediscovers true freedom which perished in its slavery to Satan. In Christ humanity makes use of this regained freedom, working with the Holy Spirit, that a person may love and know God. It is deification (θέωσις) that gives the mystical character to Byzantine spirituality. 'Mystical' here is referring not to the subjective experience but the objective reality of union with Christ. As a person is the image of God, deification is the free and conscious participation in the divine life, which is proper only to humanity. As St. Athanasius gives in his great patristic principle: "If God did not become man, man cannot become God." (p 129)

__________
¹ I might add here how much I have enjoyed the interaction with Acolyte4236. While Meyendorff's point is well taken here, I - as a Westerner - do not know how to gain this understanding with out extended dialogue with those who do have these categories already in place.

6. The Spiritual Writers: Salvation, Asceticism, and Deification (1 of 2)

2006-07-01T15:10:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.

The first five chapters considered the successive problems of Eastern Christianity from the fifth century C.E.:

Christological Crisis
Origenism
Integration of neo-Platonic thought

In the context of these crises at least three basic truths of the Christian religion were at stake:

Salvation of humanity
Humanity's relationship with God
Humanity's final destiny

The full force of St. Athanasius' polemic against Arianism would evaporate if the Word were nothing more than a glorified creature. Thus he could say, God "became man in order that man might become God in him." (p 113)

Salvation of Humanity
Three elements are key to understanding the Eastern conception of salvation:

Image of God in humanity and the destiny of that image
Original Sin
Redemption

The Image of God and Its Destiny
There is no consensus patrum for the exegesis of Genesis 1:26-27. Both the depth of what the image consists and the breadth of its distinctions must be considered. On the one hand, St. Irenaeus argued that image included the whole person (material and immaterial, body and soul). On the other hand, a later tradition, influenced by Platonic anthropology, said that image only pertained to the νοῦς (mind). Regarding the breadth of distinctions, we are considering two terms: εἰκών (image) and ὁμοίωσις (resemblance). Irenaeus and Origin saw a fundamental distinction between the two words, while Cyril of Alexandria and Athanasius regarded them as synonyms.

There is an "absolute consistency" in the Greek patristics that asserts that the image of God is not something external to humanity, that is received by humanity, and preserved by human nature as some kind of property independent of its relationships with God. "Image implies a participation in the divine nature." (p 114)

So even Adam in the garden had to go beyond himself and receiving "illuminating grace". For the Eastern Church the notion of "grace is identified with that of participation; grace is never a created gift but is a communion with divine life." Or as R. Leys writes about St. Gregory of Nyssa, "grace makes man in the image of God....the world was created by grace." Nature and grace presuppose one another in the Fathers. "Nature stops being really 'natural' if it abandons its own destiny, which is to communicate with God and to rise ever higher in the knowledge of the Unknowable." (p 115)

Freedom then, being entailed in image, presumes participation in the divine life. St. Basil tells us that Adam received from the Creator a free life (αὐθαίρετον ζωήν). Thus, neither nature or freedom are opposed to grace; rather, they suppose it. St. Cyril explains that since we understand the Diety to be free, and humanity is His image, then originally humanity was free.

But original freedom also supposes the possibility of the fall, which the Fathers interpreted as a revolt against God and therefore as a sort of suicide, for a crime directed against God [archetype] necessarily deals a blow at man [ectype] himself. (p 116)

Original existence presupposed free participation in God through the intermediary of the intellect; the fall enslaved humanity to Satan through the intermediary of the passions on account of separation from God.

Sin is thought of as a deadly illness (φθορά) contracted by Adam and passed on to his posterity. The consequences of sin may be transmitted to others; however, the guilt of sin remains with the culpable individual. The human race possess the corrupted human nature passed down from Adam; however, the race does not partake of Adam's guilt, but merely imitates it. Sin simply darkened the image and limited human freedom.

The redemption of human nature accomplished by Christ the new Adam consisted essentially in the fact that a sinless hypostasis, even that of the Logos, freely took over human nature in the very state of corruption in which it was (and this implied death) and by the resurrection re-established its original relationship with God. In Christ, man participated again in the eternal life destined for him by God. ... In the same way in which corruption appeared to the Greek Fathers as a disease contracted by man rather than a punishment inflicted by divine justice, so are the death and resurrection of the incarnate Word (the sacrifice for which Christ was both priest and the victim) understood by them as, first, the accomplishment in Christ of our common destiny, and then as a new creation that could not be achieved unless the human nature of Christ had really become ours, in death itself. (p 117)

Forgive me friends

2006-06-21T06:41:00.000-07:00

I wanted to let those of you who read this blog that I have not forgotten you. With graduation, moving, a new job, preaching commitments and contracts up to my eye-balls with Nielsen Digital, - not to mention a commitment to make thoughtful posts here - I have not had the time to reflect and contemplate that I need. This crazy schedule should let up by July and so I hope to be back with the final part of chapter 6 from Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought at that time. Thank you much for your patience.

Tech Support Nietzsche Style

2006-06-09T14:40:00.000-07:00

Some of you know that in addition to my pastoral studies and aspirations, I have run a small Web Development and Graphic Design corporation. So you will understand why the spoof on tech support that my wife sent me was so funny. I have no idea who the fellow is that posted it but it made a few of us laugh at the office today.

Here a sample to whet your appetite:

When a user is calling in need of help, don't forget that he is a weakling. Only a loser would need to come groveling to you, begging for crumbs of help that may fall from your godlike lips. And he knows that he is a loser in the race of the weak and the strong, that his kind is doomed to extinction. Therefore, show him no mercy. Treat him with the utter contempt that he deserves. It is the law of nature that you should do so.

Graduated

2006-05-26T07:23:00.000-07:00

Pictured: I and Professor Elliott Greene
Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages

There are moments when God demonstrates his grace in ways that are more perceivable than other times for me, which tells you more about my perception than it does about the ever-present nature of his grace. My graduation is one of these moments for me for many reasons I won't post here. Yesterday at 2:00 I graduated with a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary and will begin an internship at Park Cities Presbyterian Church in the Presbyterian Church in America on July 3, 2006.

Pictured: Dr. Peter Enns and I
Professor of Old Testament

Pictured: I and Dr. William Edgar
Professor of Apologetics

Pictured: I and Susan Logan
Encourager Extraordinaire

A Most Dynamic Paradigm (1 Corinthians 15:35, 44-49)

2006-05-15T13:49:00.000-07:00

³⁵Ἀλλὰ ἐρεῖ τις· πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται; ⁴⁴σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν. ⁴⁵οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται· ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν. ⁴⁶ἀλλ̓ οὐ πρῶτον τὸ πνευματικὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ψυχικόν, ἔπειτα τὸ πνευματικόν. ⁴⁷ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. ⁴⁸οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπουράνιοι· ⁴⁹καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσομεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου.

³⁵ But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? In what type of body do they come?"... ⁴⁴ It is sown a natural (ψυχικόν, psychikon) body, it is raised a spiritual (πνευματικόν, pneumaticon) body. If there is a natural body then there is also a spiritual. ⁴⁵ Just as it is written, "The first human, Adam, became a living nature (ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, psychan zoosan), the eschatological Adam became a life giving spirit (πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, pneuma zooopoioun). ⁴⁶ But the spiritual (πνευματικόν) is not first; rather, the natural (ψυχικόν) comes first, then the spiritual (πνευματικόν). ⁴⁷ The first man was from the dust of the earth; the second man is from heaven. ⁴⁸ As the man from the dust, so also those of the dust, and as the man from heaven, so also those of heaven. ⁴⁹ Just as we bore the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I should alert you to the fact that much of this analysis is from lecture notes I took while in Dr. Richard B. Gaffin’s Christology class at Westminster Theological Seminary and this post is being used as exam preparation for the final I take tomorrow.

Context and Structure

While the NIV includes a paragraph break in the middle of verse 44, other versions do not. It will be the contention of this exegesis that there is a shift in Paul’s argument that would warrant a paragraph break in the middle of v 44.

It is at this point that we must also realize that the Apostle is answering a question in v 44 that he initially asked in v 35, viz., How are the dead raised? He makes a contrast between two bodies, which are connected by the resurrection. On the one hand, there is the body of corruptibility and death; on the other hand, there is the body of incorruptibility and life.

In v 45 Paul cites Genesis 2:7 and in so doing he expands the analogy that he had been making between Adam and Christ. The contrast he makes between them is not simply between individuals but between Adam and Christ as covenant heads, exemplifying the two bodies that are clearly in view in vv 47-49. In these verses Adam’s progeny is identified as οἱ χοϊκοί and Christ’s as οἱ ἐπουράνιοι.

The Scope and Contrast in View

In Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:7 (LXX) he underscores the point that Adam is a living person (ψυχὴν ζῶσαν). This marks a significant shift in Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15. Here Paul expands the scope of reference regarding Adam to include his pre-Fall state (i.e., Adam as he was created, prior to sin).

Genesis 2:7

^BHS^(Hebrew)

⁷וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃

^{Septuagint (LXX)}

⁷καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.

Paul’s Argument

1 Corinthians 15:45c is an ellipsis which assumes the ἐγένετο of Genesis 2:7 (LXX). He identifies for us two bodies that are connected by way of the resurrection of the incarnate Christ. On the one hand is the pre-resurrection body (σῶμα ψυχικόν) and on the other the resurrection body (σῶμα πνευματικόν), referring to the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἁγίου). It is the reference to ψυχικόν regarding Adam that indicates the hinge on which Paul’s argument swings.

So in v 44b we see the antithetical parallelism that has been flowing throughout the passage moves to an “if…then” argumentative form, moving from the ψυχικόν body to that of the πνευματικόν. It is important to note that this shift in argumentation does not fit within the antithesis that has characterized the larger passage up to this point in 1 Corinthians 15. We see relation between his argument here and in places like Romans 5:12-21 where we find the “if Adam…how much more Christ” pattern (c.f., Hebrews).

Paul argues from the pre-resurrection body to that of the resurrection without the disjunction that he had employed in the verses prior to 44b. This means that the body of 44b is not the same as that of 44a. The body of 44a is characterized by perishability, dishonor and weakness, predicates resulting from the Fall. Paul could not argue directly from this body to the eschatological body of the resurrection; one cannot be inferred from the other, just as life cannot be inferred from death in the biblical worldview. It is for this reason that the NIV makes the paragraph break at 44b, demonstrating that the σῶμα ψυχικόν (something like “natural body”) of 44a is not the same as that of 44b.

So what is the σῶμα ψυχικόν of 44b? The body of 44b has been broadened conceptually to include not only the pre-eschatological but also the pre-Lapsarian (i.e., pre-Fall). In this we see that the post-Fall ψυχικόν is the result of the unnatural entrance of sin into the human race. Generally, it is quite difficult to convey the relationship of the Greek ψυχικόν and πνευματικόν in the English language. Thus, suffice to know that the relationship is looking at Creation on the one hand and the New Creation on the other, and Paul is arguing from the one to the other.

The Importance of Paul’s Philosophy of History

When Paul is asked about his resurrection hope, he responds by giving his philosophy of history. The apostle argues for a higher sort of existence than even Adam possessed prior to the Fall. We see this in the way Paul concludes this paragraph drawing our attention to the image of the man of heaven and that of the man of the dust. The image that Adam has is eschatologically oriented, having a view towards its fulfillment in Christ, the man of heaven.

In this way we see how Paul’s philosophy of History is dramatically different than that of his Hellenistic contemporaries who viewed history as cyclical. Consider Plato’s telling statement:

And if a person lived a good life throughout the due course of his time, he would at the end return to his dwelling place in his companion star, to live a life of happiness that agreed with his character. But if he failed in this, he would be born a second time, now as a woman.[1]

Aside from the very annoying chauvinism, Plato’s comment reveals to us that in his view human history was doomed to repeat itself over and over again. Paul’s notion of history is as a bright companion star over against the blackness of Platonic history. The Apostle in harmony with the scriptures is arguing for a history that is not simply linear, but that starts with its goal in mind. In other words, the goal of history is providentially and logically considered before its means in God’s decree.

In this history, Adam is first and in his federal position is head of an order characterized by corruption, dishonor, and weakness. By contrast, the order of Christ is second and last, being the order of fidelity, honor, and strength – the eschatological order. It is the paradigm of Creation and New Creation, each beginning with an Adam of its own. Thus, redemption is not a matter of Paradise Regained. It is an altogether better order, an “over-plus” as Dr. Gaffin put it.

__________
[1]Plato, "Timaeus," in Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), §42b-c.

O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus!

2006-05-14T11:48:00.000-07:00

Ebenezer
text: Samuel T. Francis (1834-1925)

O the deep, deep love of Jesus!
Vast, unmeasured, boundless, free;
Rolling as a mighty ocean in its fullness over me.
Underneath me, all around me, is the current of thy love;
leading onward, leading homeward, to thy glorious rest above.

O the deep, deep love of Jesus!
Spread his praise from shore to shore;
How he loveth, ever loveth, changeth never, nevermore;
How he watches o're his loved ones, died to call them all his own;
How for them he intercedeth, watcheth o'er them from the throne.

O the deep, deep love of Jesus!
Love of ev'ry love the best: 'tis an ocean vast
Of blessing, 'tis a haven sweet of rest.
O the deep, deep love of Jesus! 'Tis a heav'n of heav'ns to me;
And it lifts me up to glory, for it lifts me up to thee.

My pastor, Skip Ryan, preached today on Luke 7:36-50. We closed with the above hymn. Dr. Ryan reminded me of the relationship that my view of sin has to my view of the Savior. If I would see Jesus in a fuller capacity, I must also be willing to take a sober look at my sinfulness in a fuller capacity. Christ has not come to save, nor does he work diligently to sanctify, the healthy but the sick, those in whom the very fabric of their souls lies tattered.

This deep love of Jesus is certainly seen in the marvelous tapestry that he does and is in fact weaving from the tattered fabric that we call the Church. But what is more is that his love is not first seen in the finished product, but in his willingness to submerge himself deeply into my context, my life, even into my hidden cesspools. Not only has Christ come and met me at these very points, but he has bound himself to me at this very point of death, that in his death and resurrected life I might also participate. In this way the Christian's old man is shed, like a snake sheds its old scales to put on newer better ones.

Yes, it is true, my faithful pastor, that the Savior is undervalued when our sin is understated. I wonder if this is not because we have been all too willing to leave Christianity in the systematic and abstract, being fearful to remember that Christ has made himself known in the mess of the Historical, in the raucous of the concrete. O the deep, deep love of Jesus!

More than Conquerors

2006-05-13T08:48:00.000-07:00

Romans 8:37-39 (NA26)
³⁷ ἀλλ̓ ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν ὑπερνικῶμεν διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος ἡμᾶς. ³⁸ πέπεισμαι γὰρ ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαὶ οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα οὔτε δυνάμεις ³⁹ οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.

Writer's Translation
³⁷But in all these things we are winning a most glorious victory through Him who loved us. ³⁸ For I have been convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor rulers, neither things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹neither height nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God - the love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This passage comes to my mind today as one who is feeling quite worn out by life and who faces the weight of my present situation with basically two options. On the one hand I can try and cope with my situation. I can do things that will help me get through the day - one day at a time. I can seek to ease the frustration level by splurging a little here or there. That's coping. There is no glory in its endless monotonous cycle.

On the other hand, passages like Romans 8:37-39 are fundamental and foundational. Here we find that Paul (after alerting us to his own frustrations in the process of sanctification in chapter 7) directs us back to the lens or paradigmatic icon of the Bible and our lives, the Lord Jesus. He concludes the chapter with thoughts that describe for us something of our identity.

He tells us that we who are in Christ are winning a most glorious victory (ὑπερνικάω). Then, he explains what he sees the basis for such a statement is. It is primarily the person and work of the incarnate, crucified and risen Christ. He is the one who loved us such that he became a human being, was humiliated on the cross and vindicated in his resurrection. Not even death could conqueror this man. It is that same love that compelled the Father to send the Son, and the Son to fulfill the will of the Father, that has bound the Incarnate God to his people. Consequently, Paul tells us that we too share in the same victory as we proceed with the King in his royal procession.

Thus, coping could not be further from the Christian's calling. Just getting through suffering is not that to which we have been called. Squeaking by does not resonate with the magnitude of this royal procession. Christ, our Divine Warrior, has fought and continues to fight for us, along with us and in us. So it is that we must know that the pain is there to be conquered, to make us stronger. Even if suffering were to waste away our bodies, the most glorious victory to which we are proceeding is sure to produce a greater nearness to Christ, the Suffering Servant, if we will not short circuit the process by methods of coping.

And so we land back in the Beatitudes where we find Christ reminding us that we are poor indeed, but that in Him we have been made rich. O God, may we hunger and thirst for righteousness, always knowing that the righteousness we need, true righteousness, is alone found in Christ. May he be the object of our appetites. Amen.

Calvin and the Fathers

2006-05-11T18:09:00.000-07:00

I have always found it fascinating how much Calvin interacted with St. Augustine; however, did you know that he interacted tremendously with the Early Church Fathers? What is even more fascinating to me is how many Reformed people these days have forgotten that they come from a long meandering church tradition that stems from the Roman Catholic tradition and is influenced significantly from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Luther simply wasn't the first Christian. :-)

So let me share some statistics from Calvin's work that I hope shows the girth of his interaction with the Fathers and other Saints of the Church:

Name: (Commentaries # of references), (Institutes # of references)
Irenaeus: (12), (12)
Justin Martyr: (6), (1)
Tertullian (35), (25)
Origen (63), (2)
Athanasius (3), (6)
Gregory Nazianzen (1), (1)
Bernard (5), (70)
Augustine (275), (393)
Ambrose (55), (51)
Basil the Great (0), (1)
Clement of Alexandria (2), (0)
Clement of Rome (1), (0)
Cyprian of Carthage (16), (50)
Cyril of Jerusalem (2), (0)
Pseudo-Dionysius¹ (1), (0)
Eusebius (61), (4)
Hilary (8), (11)
Jerome (522), (37)
Hipolytus (19), (0)
Ignatius (1), (3)
John Chrysostom (227), (56)

These are only a handful for which I had time to electronically search tonight. The numbers may be off a little because I did not have the time to read through every citation that my software showed as a hit. Nevertheless, I think this demonstrates that Calvin was very self-consciously standing on the shoulders of those who came before him, those with whom he agreed and those with whom he did not.

__________
¹ Pseudo-Dionysius was known to Calvin as Dionysius the Areopagite, referenced in his commentary on 2 Cor 12:1-5.

5. Pseudo-Dionysius (2 of 2)

2006-05-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.
5. Pseudo-Dionysius (1 of 2)

Two dangers became evident in Dionysian thought that stemmed from the notions of unions and distinctions in God:

Pantheism
Platonic Emanationism

These dangers are indigenous to any form of Platonism. Pseudo-Dionysius (PD) avoided the problem of emanationism, in which each emanation of the divine implied a fragmentation of God having lost its fullness of the divine being as it emanated. He did avoids this writing:

It is common, synthetic, and unique for the whole Diety to be participated in fully and entirely by all the participants, and never by any of them in a partial way, as the central point of a circle is participated in by all the radii ... without being in any way fragmented. As for the unpartakableness of the Diety, universal cause, it also transcends [these participations], for there is with it no sort of contact, no sort of community, nor any synthesis between it and its participants. (p 97)

In other places PD distinctly divorces himself from neo-Platonism and articulates a Christian knowledge of God that accommodates neo-Platonist categories. Nevertheless, PD "cleverly avoids" explicit reference to the personalist concept of hypostasis. In a well-known passage from On the Divine Names, PD speaks of God being at once Trinity and Monad.

Two Great Dionysian Victories
In trying to use "against the Greeks the Greeks' own goods", PD accomplishes two great victories in essential areas. First, he successfully demonstrates that the knowledge of God is not discursive or identifiable with any natural process. Rather, it transcends our natural faculties and represents a mode of knowledge sui generis. Second, PD goes beyond Origen emanationism and pantheism in showing that the divine manifestations (i.e., "names") in the world do not interfere with his essential transcendence. (p 99)

It would seem almost certain that PD's intent was to protect (advance?) the Christian tradition in the context of the neo-Platonic intellectual culture in which he participated. Specifically, he was seeking a method which would allow for a deductive rediscovery of the proper order of things in the world, incorporating Christian religious forms into the intelligible structures of late neo-Platonism.

Philosophically Christian
PD remains fundamentally Christian. He maintains that God is still "above" the "Platonic One", not belonging to the lower hierarchical orders. Further, he demonstrates that the hierarchical procession is not a diminution of the divine being but God's presence was fully in each being. Dionysius is the source of the classical classification of the angels into nine orders, subdivided into three triads, which has no foundation in Scripture. (p 102) He remains trapped in the sense-mind dichotomy and lacked the philosophical means to express the realities linked with the incarnation.

His ecclesiastical hierarchy sought to follow as much as possible that of the angels or celestial hierarchy. The ecclesiastical hierarchy, being essentially arbitrary, seems to have twisted the perspective followed by the ecclesiology of the Church of the first few centuries. The Dionysian hierarch, designating not only bishops but great figures like Melchizedek, is essentially a Gnostic who transmits esoteric knowledge to those below him in the hierarchy. This notion reduces the idea of a sacrament down to a transmission of personal illumination. For example, the Eucharist is for PD only an ethical lesson for the "imperfect" and not a participation in the body and blood of Christ.

Theologically Christian
In terms of theologia PD was in the tradition of the Cappadocians, overcoming the antinomy between God's immanence and his transcendence. The different interpretation that the West has given On the Divine Names, has caused many misunderstandings between East and West on the "real sense" of Dionysian thought. (p 107)

Contributions to Christian Spirituality
Some lesser known areas of Dionysian influence are seen in ecclesiology and liturgical piety, essential elements of Christian spirituality. PD's cosmic hierarchy sought to relate that all beings were created in view of their union with God and the universal tendency to draw closer to God (imitation). This was a view that had been central to patristic anthropology since St. Irenaeus and later developed by St. Maximus. Strangely, PD asserts this in "complete separation" from the mystery of the Incarnation. (p 108)

For PD there are two distinct modes of union with God. On the one hand, there is theologia referring to the mystical, individual and direct; on the other hand, theurgy, describing the intermediary activity of the hierarchy. Dionysian theologia belongs to the realm of piety; however, theurgia is not so simply classified. Theurgia rests on the same neo-Platonic ontology as theologia; however, its aim was to transmit gnosis (knowledge), and the sacraments themselves are reduced to initiating symbols.

Christian liturgy, in trying to satisfy the needs of the masses, underwent a transformation. Preaching insisted on the sanctity of the sacramental action. The idea of esoteric initiation borrowed from Corpus Hermeticum, was used to communicate to the faithful the sense of the sacred and to remind them of how difficult it is to approach it. In the absence of such initiation, one possesses only indirect knowledge through hierarchical intermediaries and symbols. To penetrate these mysteries requires that one initiated.

5. Pseudo-Dionysius (1 of 2)

2006-05-09T18:01:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.

"Byzantine thought never escaped from the great problem of the relationship between Greek philosophy and Christian revelation." It was the condemnation of Origen by Justinian that brought a great blow to neo-Platonism, which had gained respect in Christian circles after it had been adopted by the Gnostics. It is a view that presented the cosmos as a hierarchy in which the higher beings were intermediaries for the lower, while all emanated from God. Insofar as all idea of creation ex nihilo was excluded, this method made it impossible to avoid a monistic and essentially pantheistic worldview.

Nevertheless Origen did bring the doctrine of free-will as a corrective to neo-Platonism. However, out of the ashes of Origen's condemnation the "Alexandrian vision" rose, a phoenix flying on the authority of a source claiming to be from Dionysius the Areopagite, a disciple of St. Paul in Athens. While we are certain that the historical Dionysius did not write Corpus Areopagiticum, many today believe Pseudo-Dionysius (PD) belonged to Severian circles of Syria, which represented the moderate Monophysites. These circles sought to integrate within a Christian system the hierarchical world of neo-Platonism. PD's contribution was in introducing the corrective of God's absolute transcendence, influencing Byzantine thinking along the lines of theology and hierarchies.

Enomius and the Cappadocian Fathers
Arian extremists of the fourth century C.E., such as Eunomius, had argued that humanity could know God in his essence; i.e., as God knows himself. The Fathers made recourse through apophatic theology (negative theology). In other words, we may know what God is not, but it is impossible to say what God is. While Eunomius maintained that God in his essence (i.e., the Father) is knowable, the Cappadocian Fathers responded with the absolute transcendence of the divine essence (i.e., God is not knowable in his essence).

It is important to understand that the negations of apophatic theology are not on account of humanity's fallen position and resultant incapacity to know God; rather, it reflects the unknowability of God of God in his essence. Gregory of Nyssa explains to us that God "who by nature is invisible becomes visible through his energies, appearing in what is around him." (p 94). The Fathers in their controversy with Eunomius defended the biblical conception of the living and acting God over against a "philosophical and intellectualistic conception of Deity-Essence."

In the Platonic and Origenist traditions, the mind, in order to know God, must free itself from the prison-house of the material world and become its own self again. This was insufficient for Pseudo-Dionysius, who taught that the mind must come out of itself because the knowledge of God is beyond the mind (ὑπέρ νοῦν).

Thus, PD detaches himself from two important neo-Platonic postulates:

The natural divinity of the νοῦς (mind)
The knowability of the divine essence

This does not exclude ... the meeting between God and created beings; on the contrary, this meeting constitutes the aim and ultimate meaning of beings. It supposes a descending movement on the part of God, out of himself, to make himself approachable and knowable, and an ascending movement on the part of beings who first of all recover their 'analogy' with God, that is, their capacity to participate in the virtues of God; then, coming out of themselves, to participate in the very being of God (but not in his essence), and 'go back' (ἐπιστροφή) to God.(p 95)

It is precisely because PD does not identify the divine essence with the Platonic "One" that it is possible for him to speak of distinctions in God.

Comic Relief and the Force of Satire

2006-05-09T17:56:00.000-07:00

This is one of those "I feel like I should laugh and cry at the same time" kinda links. It is a satire that animated series did on choosing a church and of course only Mark Traphagen would have found it. Thanks Mark, this was hilarious.

Go to Mark's blog and click on the link.

4. "God Suffered in the Flesh" (2 of 2)

2006-05-09T08:16:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.
Snapshot of Origen.
4. "God Suffered in the Flesh" (1 of 2)

Leontius of Jerusalem (LJ) moved to deal with the theopaschism by arguing that the Word suffered hypostatically, in his own flesh, because the hypostasis was ontologically distinct from the divine nature Christ possesses and the human nature that he assumed. “In this hypostasis resides the union of the natures or essences which otherwise cannot be confused.” (p 78) Later Byzantine theology would draw this idea from LJ (who was pulling from Cyril) into its fundamental element:

[On the one hand,] the natures, even after the union, are two, because the uncreated divine essence can never as such be partaken of in any form by the created nature…. But, on the other hand, the humanity assumed by the Logos, hypostatized in him, deified by his energies, becomes itself the source of divine life, because it is deified not simply by grace but because it is the Word’s own flesh. Here is the difference between Christ and the Christians, between hypostatic possession of divine life and deification by grace and participation. (p 78)

It is this humanity of the Word, hypostatized in him, that is the foundation of the doctrine of the deification of man as the true content of salvation. It was St. Maximus the Confessor who showed that participation in the divine did not imply the passivity of the human nature; rather, it implied the restoration fo its authentic activity.

The Latin Monk, John Maxentius, intervened both at Rome and Constantinople to have the theopaschite formula approved and is mentioned as witness to the unity that could then still unite East and West in christological questions. Justinian sought to impose this unity on the whole of the empire, in which he specifically sought to concilliate the Monophysites by making them accept Chalcedon.

In 544, Justinian pronounced an edict against Theodore of Mopsuestia, the writings in which Theodoret of Cyrus attacked the anathematisms of Cyril of Alexandria, and the letter of Ibas to Mari the Persian (i.e., the so called Three Chapters, κεφάλαια). Justinian exercised caution in the way he nuanced his edict with respect to Theodoret and Ibas which prevented the entire Antiochene school from being condemned and thus depriving the church of the balance to the post humous triumph of Cyril. (p 81)

Justinian's Confession of Faith (ὁμολογία πίστεως) is addressed to the whole fullness of the Catholic Church strongly asserts the orthodoxy of the theopaschite formulas, which had become the litmus test of orthodoxy for him. In this work Justinian follows LJ in recognizing a distinction between nature and hypostasis; nature can only exist within hypostasis. Justinian makes a significant terminological concession to the great Monophysite Severus, when he admits that the natures of Christ "can only be distinguished by speech and thought, and not as two distinct things." (p 82) Thus, under the existing tensions, the only means of unity was to cause both sides to recognize that the difference between Cyril and Chalcedon was merely verbal and not conceptual.

In his desire to condemn Nestorianism (an important component in winning back the Monophysites), Justinian reiterated the "unity of subject in the incarnate Word." (p 83) The only restriction to Cyril's triumph was that was that the expression μία φύσις (one nature) was forbidden to be understood in any way other than as a synonym of μία ὑπόστασις (one hypostasis). Cyril is, therefore, orthodox; however, he must be considered in light of Chalcedon.

The fifth council then by rehabilitating the Cyrillian concept of the unity of subject in Christ, directed its energy to the hypostatic unity of the incarnate Word. Christ's humanity then is considered fully consubstantial with us. His hypostasis then was the pre-existing and divine Logos. All this is possible when hypostasis retains its "open" character as foundational and not contentful and is not identified with a "simple aspect of the natural existence, human or divine." (p 85)

Byzantine Christology by Justinian's time has been criticized for leaving too much of Christ's psychological life in the dark. Thus, the decisions of the fifith council must be seen as one step along the way in the development of a more robust christology. Significant later developments would be seen especially in St. Maximus's doctrine of the two wills and his conception of deification. The critics of the fifth council's christology seem to assert their criticism on the basis of Thomas' notion of "pure nature" which does not comport with either "the patristic conception of sin or with that of deification." (p 86)

Human nature, at the contact of God, does not disappear; on the contrary it becomes fully human, for God cannot destroy what he has made. (p 86)

De Sectis, attributed to Leontius of Byzantium between 581 and 607 CE, articulates a consciousness of Christ's consubstantiality with humanity. Thus, when the scriptures teach that Christ was progessing in age and wisdom (Lk 2:52); this was taken as meaning that he was learning what he did not know, i.e., that he suffered ignorance. Most Byzantine writers have shunned the idea of ignorance in Christ on account of the Greek notion of ignorance that is predicated on sin. Further, a certain philosophy of gnosis made knowledge the demonstration of unfallen nature. "Christ could not be ignorant because he was the new Adam." For St. Cyril this ignorance was something Christ assumed willingly in the "framework of economy"; however, it was nevertheless a genuine ignorance. Hence, the author of De Sectis was able to draw from the great Alexandrian doctor. (p 87)

Such thinking raised anthropological questions. Was humanity by nature corruptible? If so does this mean that when Christ assumes human nature that he is consequently assuming corruptibility? It was Severus of Antioch, in agreement with Chalcedon and arguing against Julian, who asserted that Adam was incorruptible prior to the Fall only insofar as he participated in the divine incorruptibility. It is in the resurrection then that Christ gives incorruptibility back to human nature (via participation).

It is worth noting that in condemning Julian of Halicarnassus "the Christian East ignored ... as a whole the doctrine of original sin 'of nature'" (p 88), wanting to shield Christ from such a nature. Humanity's mortality is thought not to be "a state of sin, but a condition of human nature that the Word, by his incarnation, came to assume and, by his resurrection, re-established into the grace of immortality." (p 88-9)

In conclusion, this shows that fifth century christology, viz. its theopaschite formulae, did not interfere with the reality of Christ's human nature, wich is also consubstantial with our human nature, being limited, ignorant and corruptible. By confessing "God suffered in the flesh," one underscores the corruptible state of human nature that Christ came to save by assuming it in the precise condition which Adam's sin had rendered it.

Christ in Eastern Christian Thought Progress

2006-05-08T11:03:00.000-07:00

By way of reminder, I have made some progress on Fr. John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. I invite you to visit the foundational post in this series of chapter summaries of the work and view the Table of Contents, from which you will be able to access the individual chapter summaries and appendages.

4. "God Suffered in the Flesh" (1 of 2)

2006-05-08T09:34:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.
Snapshot of Origen.

With the dangerous lack of coherence in the Chalcedonian apologetics, the debate gravitated towards questions of theopaschism, manifested especially in radical opposition of Chacedonians against the altered Trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us. This interpolated form was not "formally heretical" because it was addressed to Christ and not the Trinity; however, it had become the rallying cry for the Monophysites. So the polarity of the spectrum of this debate can be articulated like this:

Monophysites: God was crucified for us.
Chalcedonians: Only the manhood of the Logos was crucified for us.

This was the same problem that had been debated in the years prior to Ephesus concerning the term θεοτόκος (theotokos - mother of God), referring to Mary. Could the Logos really "be born" of the Virgin? Could God really be the "son of Mary"? Cyril in asserting the full theological validity of θεοτόκος against Nestorius declared in his twelfth anathematism that "the Word had suffered in the flesh". "At stake were Christ's identity itself and the nature of the union 'according to the hypostasis' defined at Chalcedon." Since everyone admitted that God was impassible a real distinction had to be achieved between nature and hypostasis (p 70).

St. Gregory Nazianzen had made this pre-Nicene idea integral to his soteriology: "We need a God made in the flesh and put to death (ἐδεήθημεν Θεοῦ σαρκουμένου καί νεκρουμένου) in order that we could live again." Even the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed confesses a "Son of God", born "of the Virgin Mary", and "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate". It is the confession of Nicaea, with which Cyril was preoccupied, that hinged upon whether or not Mary was the Mother of God or the Word suffered in the flesh.

Meanwhile at Antioch, there were philosophical reservations. While Antioch admitted to Christ's unity of being, confessed at Chalcedon by the term hypostasis, their difficulty remained in the fact that God who is impassible seemed to have passibility imputed to him. So the question emerged: Did God have to make death his own to vanquish it? While the Antiochene confessed the union of Christ as a doctrine, their inability to admit a distinction between nature and hypostasis resulted in only something, a nature or the flesh, dying on the cross rather than someone, the whole Christ Jesus.

John the Grammarian
John the Grammarian, in his Apology, articulated a defense for the Chalcedonian position. His defense rested on the necessity, acknowledged by the Monophysites, to assert Christ's double consubstantiality: to the Father and to us. As the argument went, if this double consubstantiality is true in Christ, the result is two natures or substances since "the same nature could not be consubstantial to God and creatures" (p 72). The Grammarian helps us to see that the Chalcedonian definition must be understood in connection with the Cappadocians' Trinitarian terminology. It is the thought of John the Grammarian that prepared the framework into which Leontius of Byzantium's christological terminology fit after it had been sifted from its Origenic context.

Leontius of Jerusalem
No progress with the Monophysites was accomplished until the hypostasis of the union of Christ's natures was identified with pre-existent hypostasis of the Logos. This connection made possible the doctrinal continuity between Cyril and Chalcedon. The chief contributor of this connection was Leontius of Jerusalem (LJ), not to be confused with Leontius of Byzantium, prominent in the previous chapter. While Leontius of Byzantium (LB) confessed multiple pre-existent hypostases of Christ (upto 3) since he refused to identify Christ with the Logos, Leontius of Jerusalem "violently attacked the ontological presuppositions of such a christology" (p 74).

Christ's humanity, according to LJ, did not possess the hypostasis of normal human beings (body/soul). He insists that Christ's hypostasis, belonging to the divine Logos, is not "particular" but is instead "common". Thus Christ unites all humanity and not only a single individual to the divinity. (p 74)

- Christ's Concrete Humanity
This idea rests on the conception of the imago Dei. St. Gregory of Nyssa saw the imago as belonging not to individuals but to humanity corporately. St. Iranaeus built his doctrine of salvation on the idea of "recapitulation" which was taken up again by Cyril, who asserts, "the incarnate Word 'possesses us himself, since he took over our nature and made of our body the body of the Word'" (p 75).

The synonymity of "nature" and "hypostasis" in Cyril, coupled with the absence of a stable metaphysical system and the presupposition that individuation was a result of the Fall (Plato) made Cyril's approach unjustifiable for LJ. It is LJ who argues that Christ has a rational soul contra Cyril's unwitting Apollonarian assertion of the relationship between the two substances of Christ's humanity.

LJ runs amuck on the shores of incoherence because he is unable to conceive a metaphysical definition of the hypostasis. Since Chalcedon distinguishes between nature and hypostasis in christology, it has become natural to apply to the theology of the incarnation the concepts that the Cappadocian Fathers used to express the mystery of the Trinity. If one takes hypostasis as "existence" as LJ did, then the Trinity is reduced to three gods. On the other hand, if one follows Thomas Aquinas in saying that the hypostases are but "relations"within the divine essence, then the theopaschite position of Cyril must be interpreted as applying to the divine nature itself.

Neither the Trinity or the Incarnation can be defined in the economies of Plato or Aristotle, in which the abstract and concrete stand in opposition to one another. According to the Cappadocians hypostasis cannot be reduced to the "particular" or "relation". Rather, while not being predicated on nature, it is the principle of the nature's existence.

This conception assumes that God, as personal being, is not totally bound to his own nature; the hypostatic existence is flexible, "open"; it admits the possibility of divine acts outside of the nature (energies) and implies that God can personally and freely assume a fully human existence while remaining God, whose nature remains completely transcendent. (p 77)

In this way, the Word remains impassible in his divine nature, but suffers in his human nature.

3. The Origenist Crisis of the Sixth Century (2 of 2)

2006-05-06T07:26:00.000-07:00

Relevant links:
John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.
Snapshot of Origen.
The Origenist Crisis of the Sixth Century (1 of 2).

The Letter to Menas and the anathematisms of the fifth council do not always resonate with what we know to be true of Origen. Their objections focus on the περί ἀρχῶν mainly. Origen was inclined to remain quiet on some of his more dubious positions in his other works (viz., Commentaries). Further, some of the doctrines condemned have no parallel in the known writings of Origen.

Origen or Evagrius?
Anathematisms 6-9, 12 and 13 of the fifth council were concerned with a dualistic conception of Christ which distinguished Christ from the Logos. This distinction was not to be supported by the basic doctrine of the περί ἀρχῶν. The assembly's target then was not a straw-man of Origen; rather, it focused on the genuine doctrines of "one of the spiritual masters of Eastern monasticism, Evagrius.

For Evagrius, Christ was an immaterial intellect (νους - nous) who did not Fall (in the Platonic sense) and consequently did not materialize. Therefore, writes Meyendorff:

There was ... no incarnation of the Word. There was an abasement of the νους-Christ for the salvation of all creatures, in the various degrees of their fallen existence, in order to restore them to their primitive unity (p 55).

Christ then can be called Logos only because of his - Christ's - union to the Logos (a separate entity in Evagrius' thought) from before all world. This thinking obfuscated the doctrine of the Trinity that the Cappadocian fathers had given to the Church as well as presented a Christ that was something other than the Christ of Scripture.

Whoever says that it is not the God-Logos..., one of the holy Trinity, who is properly Christ, but that he is so by catachresis, because, they say, of the mind which stooped (διά τόν κενώσαντα εαθτόν νουν), being attached to the God-Logos himself (συνημμένον αὐτῷ τῷ θεῷ Λόγῳ), and which is properly called Christ, but whoever says that the Logos is called Christ because of the mind and that the mind is called God because of the Logos, be he anathema (Anathema 8).

Compare the above anathematism with this excerpt from Evagrius:

Christ is not the Word at the beginning, so that he who has been anointed is not God at the beginning, but that one, because of this one, is Christ, and this one, because of that one, is God....(p 55-6).

"After reading the fifteen anathematisms, one cannot help wondering how the notion, spread by Harnack, that Byzantine Christianity was Hellenized Christianity can have been so popular" (p 57). O. Cullmann has articulated that biblical time is an [eschatologically oriented] ascending line, while for Hellenism, it is the circle. Consequently, Greeks could not conceive of a deliverance that resulted from divine action within temporal history.

Justinian argued that on account of Origen's education in the mythology of the Greeks, he merely posed as exegete of the Scriptures, while he expounded the doctrines of Plato (p 57). Consequently, the circular notion of time and its succession of falls necessary to return to the primitive natural state implied a determinism that made redemption unnecessary.

Evagrius' condemnation was also monumental because he was one of the most widely read authors in Eastern monasteries. Even the most fierce of anti-Origenists like St. Barsanuphius, while officially condemning Evagrian doctrines as "Hellenistic myths" admitted that the soul could find useful teaching in the 'purely spiritual' and 'non-dogmatic' aspects of his work. Evagrius' work On Prayer continued under the borrowed name of St. Nilus.

The Evagrian conception of perfection as gnosis and of prayer as an activity "proper to the mind" was linked to his platonic anthropology. Thus, the Incarnation has no place in Evagrius whose spiritual goal was to hold oneself as immaterial before the Immaterial. Evagrius was the originator of the monologic prayer and consequently it became the center of Byzantine monastic life. St. John Climacus and St. Maximus the Confessor would take over his teachings at this point. The "intellectual prayer" in the different context of union with God [i.e., per Incarnation] became in the Byzantine tradition the "Jesus Prayer" (p 60).

Interestingly, it is Evagrius' master, St. Macarius who provides the corrective for Evagrian anthropology. St. Macarius presents the human being as a psychosomatic composite (psyche = soul, soma = body, hence human being = soul + body where the Greek formula might look like this: human being = soul - body). The result of this corrective is 1) the Incarnation is no longer excluded 2) spiritual life is not reduced to dematerialization of the intellect and 3) the center of spiritual life is union with Christ.

Leontius of Byzantium
A transitional figure between Evagrius and St. Maximus was the Origenist Leontius of Byzantium (not to be confused with Leontius of Jerusalem). Leontius sought to offer his solution to the contemporary Christological problem that divided Monophysites and Chalcedonians. His two major contributions to Christology are reflected in the essential christological definition:

A comparison between the two natures in Christ and the union of the body and soul in a human being.
The definition of the union of the divinity and humanity in Christ as an 'essential union' (ἕνωσις κατ' οὐσίαν).

As with many writers of substance, what is not written is as important as what is written. Leontius never designates the Logos as the subject of the union, which is always Christ. This distinction, carried over from Origen and Evagrius, is apparent in the way that Leontius deals with Christ's death, in which Christ suffered in the flesh by the will of the Logos (p 64).

Such an ontology (Evagrian) required that Leontius create a new system of metaphysical thought. Such an endeavor ended up conflating and/or confusing nature (φύσις) and substance (οὐσία). His articulation seemed to lead to the conclusion that there were different species of Christs and that the Christ only possessed one nature.

In light of these problems, Leontius gives us the term enhypostaton as a major contribution to christology. It is this new notion of the existence "within something" that allows Leontius to deal with the notion of "no nature without hypostasis" that the Nestorians and Eutychians both admitted. However, Leontius makes clear that enhypostaton is not identical with hypostasis and in this way Leontius' vocabulary strays from the Trinitarian vocabulary given by the Cappadocians.

It was when Leontius' notion was taken into a context that viewed Christ as identical with the Logos, being pre-existent and having assumed a human nature (enhypostaton), and when it was seen that the duality of natures does not obfuscate the unity of the subject in Christ, then Leontius "true contribution" took its place in the history of Christology (p 68).