Jun 10 2009

Patristic Interaction with Logos and Sophia

Category: Baruch, Church Fathers, John, Wisdom — Polycarp @ 8:39 am

Continuing our discussion on John’s Prologue (which originally started on the topic of gender in translation, but I have taken the oppurtunity to move into the discussion of Logos and Sophia), we make a brief side step into the Patristic Interaction in which it was a common thought to united Word and Wisdom (Logos and Sophia) into the Incarnation.

Wisdom

Origen, himself a root of heresies, states ‘and they call this Word and Wisdom and the very Power of God’ when speaking about the ’second substance (ousia)’ (PE VII 12.1.2) (See John 1.1; Wisdom 7.26)

In Alexander’s letter to all the bishops regarding Arius, he calls Christ the Word and Wisdom of God (asking of Arius that if Christ is such, how could there be a time when He did not exist). In the letter, he quotes John 1.1, 3; Ps 45.2 (lxx), 110. 3 (lxx); Wisdom 7.26, Colossians 1.15; ebrews 1.3, and Malachi 3.6 (lxx).

In the creed promulgated at the Council of Serdica, the Western Bishops used Wisdom 7.22 (feminine), connecting it to John 1.3 (neuter, masculine?).

Baruch

In Athanasius’ defense of the Nicene Definition, he quotes Baruch 3.12, allowing him to call Christ Wisdom and Life, connecting it to the Father as source of the Son.

Ambrose (18.222) quoted Baruch 3.37 to promote the idea that Christ did indeed take on human flesh.

I intended for this to be brief because there are more important things to do, and many do not take the Deuterocanon as worth studying – yet, we know from the Christological controversies in the 3rd and 4the century, both Wisdom and Baruch played a part along side of John in defending the deity of Christ. While the defenses were, for the most part solid, it shows us these many years later that the early Church Fathers had no qualms in combining the feminine Sophia (Wisdom) to the masculine Logos (Word.) It further shows us that the wisdom tradition found in the Old Testament was co-opted into the New with the use of Logos.

Why is this important to a conversation started about grammer?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it shows that the Church Fathers regarded the Logos in John’s prologue as an ‘it’, or at the very least, found the feminine compatible with the masculine. For another excellent post, please see here.

Tags: , ,

Aug 20 2008

From the Bible that is rarely read: Baruch 3:35-37

Category: Baruch, Godhead, Theology — Polycarp @ 11:02 am

This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with men. (Bar 3:35-37 KJV)

We know that the personification of Wisdom, an emanation from God, was completed in Jesus Christ, the very Incarnation of God the Father, for Paul calls Christ the Wisdom of God. (1st Corinthians 1.24). Until that time, we have but prophecies pointing to the glorious appearing of our Lord God and Saviour. We read of Wisdom lightly in Job and Proverbs in the Common Canon, but Wisdom is expounded upon thoroughly in the Deuterocanonical books of Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. It is these books that provide a firm Christological foundation not only for the Apostles, but for the Apologists and, yes, even for us. In these books we see a foreshadowing – and for some such as myself, a prophecy – of the economy of God (οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ).

In this passage, we see Wisdom as being they way to the knowledge of God (John 14.6) and this knowledge is given among men. This passage in the Deuterocanonical book was used by both the modalist Noetus and the Trinitarian Thomas of Aquinas to describe the Incarnation.

John Chrysostom says,

It is not then of that we are now to speak, but of this beneath, this which took place on earth, which was amongst ten thousand witnesses. And concerning this again we will relate in such wise as it may be possible for us, having received the grace of the Spirit. For not even this may any one set forth altogether plainly, forasmuch as this too is most awful. Think not, therefore, it is of small things thou art hearing, when thou hearest of this birth, but rouse up thy mind, and straightway tremble, being told that God hath come upon earth. For so marvellous was this, and beyond expectation, that because of these things the very angels formed a choir, and in behalf of the world offered up their praise for them, and the prophets from the first were amazed at this, that “He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.” (Homily on Mt 2)

In Cyprian’s book ‘Three Testimonies against the Jews’ he quotes this passage, giving it to Jeremiah, when he discusses that Christ is God, applying the pronoun to God, although some modern commentators (Philip Schaff) on the works of the Fathers declare that the Incarnation that is so easily understood by the Apologists to refer to ‘knowledge’. I would tend to agree with the historical and Traditional understanding of this passage would rather disagree with a man many centuries removed correcting the Apostles and Apologists.

Baruch, Jeremiah’s Scribe, spoke about a moment to come when the Word of God, which is the Wisdom of God, would tabernacle with Man, and converse with them. It is the point of Incarnation that Chrysostom spoke so beautifully about, when God came to Man, to make an atonement for the Sin that had plagued Creation since Adam’s Fall.

Further, this passage so rightly illustrates that the Jews were looking for an Incarnation of some type in order for God to converse properly with Humanity once more. The idea that Christianity took centuries to mold the idea of an Incarnation is abated with the mere fact that so many passages, especially those of the so-called Inter-testamental period point to, declare, and insist upon an Incarnation of God with Man.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,