Feb 18 2010

Listening to the Voice – Christology

Category: Book Review, The VoicePolycarp @ 1:21 pm

Click to Order

One of the first things I look for in a bible translation is their presentation of the deity of Christ. What first attracted me to the New Living Translation was the 1996 translation of Philippians 2 -

Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal’s death on a cross. Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php 2:5-11)

Continue reading “Listening to the Voice – Christology”

Tags: , , ,


Jan 20 2010

The Development of Christology

Category: GodheadPolycarp @ 2:32 pm

The esteemable blogger, Mike Koke, lists three views on the development of Christology. Can you guess which one I would fall into? The winner receives 1,000,000 Joeldom dollars, roughly equal to just the other side of nothing. Anyway, check out his post.

Tags:


Dec 02 2009

Bauckham and Christology

Category: GodheadPolycarp @ 4:59 pm

I am currently reading a book of Bauckham’s essays, which I hope to review sometime this week, and have found him to be up my ally, so to speak not only on 2nd Temple Judaism (yes, I can hear someone saying now about his ‘flawed’ methodology) and his High Christology. For preperation, please take a gander at this post and discussion:

Continue reading “Bauckham and Christology”

Tags: , , ,


Nov 02 2009

Historical Critical Interpretation Reveals Christian Distortion of the Old Testament?

Category: CriticismPolycarp @ 10:08 am

Oh, this is just too rich -

Gerd Lüdemann has an op-ed at The Bible and Interpretation website pointing out one of the obvious benefits of the historical critical method. That is, the historical critical method exposed a quite prevalent claim of New Testament and other early Christian writers – that the Old Testament predicted or prophesied or otherwise pointed to Jesus of Nazareth – to be a false claim.

via Historical Critical Interpretation Reveals Christian Distortion of the Old Testament « The Dunedin School.

Have you ever seen such offal? Whew…good thing we have this historical critical method to tell us that everyone for 2000 years got it wrong when they viewed Christ as the Incarnation of many of the ‘prophecies‘ of the Old Testament. Frankly, Gerd might need to do a bit more studying in the ‘mad house’ before he attempts anything else.

Tags: , , , ,


Oct 05 2009

Boldness: The Center of the Old Testament

Category: Criticism, Old TestamentPolycarp @ 2:57 pm

Kevin Edgecomb at Biblicalia writes,

….I’ll get right to it: the center of the Old Testament is the Anointed, the Son of David. Everything revolves around him: from his appearance to his absence, thoughout the books of Israel collected into our Old Testaments, the sun around which everything revolves is the Son of David.

Read the whole thing, but he concludes,

…In short, regarding Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, I say: Bring it on! The more, the better. This is only the proper exegesis that can be expected of these writings because of their origins.

I completely agree…

Tags: ,


Sep 16 2009

Quote on Karl Rahner on the Incarnation

Category: QuotesPolycarp @ 10:23 am

“What does it mean that the Word of God became human? Isn’t God unchanging? What we have to say is that God, who is unchangeable in Godself, can become changeable in something else. The divine freedom means that God can become not-God, finite, Other-than-God. In emptying Godself and giving Godself away, God can make the other his own reality. Everything that God makes has, as a result of God’s self-giving love, the potential to become an expression of God and God’s love. All theology, says Rahner, is therefore anthropology, and all anthropology is Christology. To know what it is to be human is to know Christ, and to know Christ is to know God.” (From  Marika, the host of Theologies blog. In attempting to explain Rahner)

HT.

Tags: , , , ,


Jul 31 2009

Ecco Homo Echoes Paul

Category: Debate/Discussion, GodheadPolycarp @ 11:59 pm

Michael has made several posts lately that has caused some stir in the blogosphere. In his latest, he is likely to cause a tad bit more.

What I mean is this: It is often easier to judge one’s actions than his or her thoughts. The former is easier to see. In the same way, it is easier to see the contours of Paul’s Christology by looking at the contours of Pauline Christianity. When I look at the marks of Christianity in the ancient world, I am compelled to believe that the earliest Christians (Paul included) treated Jesus in much the same way they treated God Most High. For example, they prayed to Jesus (”called” on his name), celebrated a modified passover regularly that was centered about Christ, they attempted to do great works in his “name,” etc. Of course, it may objected that this is not “worship” in the sense of sacrificial worship. Perhaps, but it is certainly devotion to Jesus as an expression of their loyalty to God Most High. In this way, to show devotion to Jesus was to express loyalty to “the one who sent him.”

For me, it was the failure to include the eucharist as worship, or even devotion, to Christ as God which left  a hole in the arugment of McGrath’s chapter on Paul. It is my opinion that Paul saw the eucharistic sacrament as replacing the sacrifices in/to the Name of God found in such places As Deuteronomy 12.

Michael has an excellent blog, so please check it out.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Apr 07 2009

Melito of Sardis – Introduction

Category: Church Fathers, Debate/Discussion, Godhead, Melito of Sardis, TheologyPolycarp @ 7:35 am

In celebration of this Easter, I am reposting several of my posts on Melito of Sardis. In my opinion, he doesn’t get enough attention in the early Christological debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries. The facts are collected, but the comments on Melito are mine.

Melito of Sardis (-c180)

Melito[1] of Sardis (died c.180) was the bishop of Sardis, near Smyrna in Asia Minor – the only bishop of Sardis that is known from the first three centuries. Jerome, speaking of the Old Testament canon established by Melito, quotes Tertullian to the effect that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful. Aside from a homily “Concerning the Passover” in the Bodmer Papyri, only fragments of his works survive. Melito was a prolific early Christian writer, judging from lists of them preserved by Eusebius and Jerome. He wrote a celebrated Apology for Christianity which he sent to Marcus Aurelius.

Melito’s Peri Pascha (“Concerning the Passover”) is a text that was assembled from surviving fragments in the 1930s, and translated into English in the 1940s. Prior to the recovery of the full text less the opening folio among the Bodmer Papyri the order in which the fragments had been assembled was a possible reconstruction.[2] It is clear from Eusebius that Melito celebrates Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan, rather than the Sunday following (Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica 5.24), hence he was a Quartodeciman.

In this homily, Melito formulated the charge of deicide, namely that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. He proclaimed that “God[3] has been murdered; the king of Israel has been slain by an Israelite hand.” His preaching would later inspire pogroms against the Jews.[4]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Melito believed in a Millennial reign of Christ on Earth. He wrote against idolatry or relying on teachings of fathers to condone it (Melito’s Apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). He presented elaborated parallels between the Old Testament, the form or mold, and the New Testament, as the truth that broke the mold, in a series of Eklogai, six books of extracts from the Law and the Prophets presaging Christ and the Christian faith; a passage cited by Eusebius contains Melito’s famous canon of the Old Testament.

Origen[5], in a brief note, relates that Melito ascribed corporeality to God, and believed that the likeness of God is preserved in the human body. The note is too brief to tell exactly what Melito might have meant by this. A letter of Polycrates of Ephesus to Pope Victor about 194, mentioned by Eusebius, (H.E. 5.24) states that “Melito the eunuch” was interred at Sardis. Melito’s reputation as a writer remained strong into the Middle Ages: numerous works were pseudepigraphically ascribed to him.[6]

Below are various fragments of Melito’s writings.

On Faith.3596 Of Melito the bishop.

IV.

We have collected together extracts from the Law and the Prophets relating to those things which have been declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to your love that this Being is perfect reason, the Word of God; He who was begotten before the light; He who is Creator together with the Father; He who is the Fashioner of man; He who is all in all; He who among the patriarchs is Patriarch; He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.  For this is He who was pilot to Noah; He who was guide to Abraham; He who was bound with Isaac; He who was in exile with Jacob; He who was sold with Joseph; He who was captain of the host with Moses; He who was the divider of the inheritance with Jesus the son of Nun; He who in David and the prophets announced His own sufferings; He who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; He who was born in Bethlehem; He who was wrapped in swaddling-clothes in the manger; He who was seen by the shepherds; He who was glorified by the angels; He who was worshipped by the Magi; He who was pointed out by John; He who gathered together the apostles; He who preached the kingdom; He who cured the lame; He who gave light to the blind; He who raised the dead; He who appeared in the temple; He who was not believed on by the people; He who was betrayed by Judas; He who was apprehended by the priests; He who was condemned by Pilate; He who was pierced in the flesh; He who was hanged on the tree; He who was buried in the earth; He who rose from the place of the dead; He who appeared to the apostles; He who was carried up to heaven; He who is seated at the right hand of the Father; He who is the repose of those that are departed; the recoverer of those that are lost; the light of those that are in darkness; the deliverer of those that are captive; the guide of those that go astray; the asylum of the afflicted; the bridegroom of the Church; the charioteer of the cherubim; the captain of the angels; God who is from God; the Son who is from the Father; Jesus Christ the King for evermore.  Amen.

From the Discourse on the Cross.3592 By the same.

III.

On these accounts He came to us; on these accounts, though He was incorporeal, He formed for Himself a body after our fashion,3593 Or “wove—a body from our material.”—appearing as a sheep, yet still remaining the Shepherd; being esteemed a servant, yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God; putting on the likeness of a servant, yet not impairing3594 Lit. “changing.” the likeness of His Father.  He sustained every character3595 Lit. “He was everything.” belonging to Him in an immutable nature:  He was standing before Pilate, and at the same time was sitting with His Father; He was nailed upon the tree, and yet was the Lord of all things.

On the Nature of Christ

VII[7]3635 In Anastasius of Sinai, The Guide, ch. 13.

For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination[8].  For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh.  For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures:3637 Οσας.  [Comp. note 13, infra.] of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate3638 Τ τλες. as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God[9] existing before all ages.

From the Discourse on Soul and Body

II.

For this reason did the Father send His Son from heaven without a bodily form, that, when He should put on a body by means of the Virgin’s womb, and be born man, He might save man, and gather together those members of His which death had scattered when he divided man.

And further on:—The earth shook, and its foundations trembled; the sun fled away, and the elements turned back, and the day was changed into night: for they could not endure the sight of their Lord hanging on a tree.  The whole creation was amazed, marvelling and saying, “What new mystery, then, is this?  The Judge is judged, and holds his peace; the Invisible One is seen, and is not ashamed; the Incomprehensible is laid hold upon, and is not indignant; the Illimitable is circumscribed, and doth not resist; the Impossible suffereth, and doth not avenge; the Immortal dieth, and answereth not a word; the Celestial is laid in the grave, and endureth!  What new mystery is this?”  The whole creation, I say, was astonished; but, when our Lord arose from the place of the dead, and trampled death under foot, and bound the strong one, and set man free, then did the whole creation see clearly that for man’s sake the Judge was condemned, and the Invisible was seen, and the Illimitable was circumscribed, and the Impassible suffered, and the Immortal died, and the Celestial was laid in the gave.  For our Lord, when He was born man, was condemned in order that He might show mercy, was bound in order that He might loose, was seized in order that He might release, suffered in order that He might feel compassion,3590 *** seems to be the true reading, not the *** of the printed ms. died in order that He might give life, was laid in the grave that He might raise from the dead.

On the Passover[10]

Introduction (1-10)

1. First of all, the Scripture about the Hebrew Exodus has been read and the words of the mystery have been explained as to how the sheep was sacrificed and the people were saved.

2. Therefore, understand this, O beloved: The mystery of the passover is new and old, eternal and temporal, corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal in this fashion:

3. It is old insofar as it concerns the law, but new insofar as it concerns the gospel; temporal insofar as it concerns the type, eternal because of grace; corruptible because of the sacrifice of the sheep, incorruptible because of the life of the Lord; mortal because of his burial in the earth, immortal because of his resurrection from the dead.

4. The law is old, but the gospel is new; the type was for a time, but grace is forever. The sheep was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible, who was crushed as a lamb, but who was resurrected as God. For although he was led to sacrifice as a sheep, yet he was not a sheep; and although he was as a lamb without voice, yet indeed he was not a lamb. The one was the model; the other was found to be the finished product.

5. For God replaced the lamb, and a man the sheep; but in the man was Christ, who contains all things.

6. Hence, the sacrifice of the sheep, and the sending of the lamb to slaughter, and the writing of the law–each led to and issued in Christ, for whose sake everything happened in the ancient law, and even more so in the new gospel.

7. For indeed the law issued in the gospel–the old in the new, both coming forth together from Zion and Jerusalem; and the commandment issued in grace, and the type in the finished product, and the lamb in the Son, and the sheep in a man, and the man in God.

8. For the one who was born as Son, and led to slaughter as a lamb, and sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man.

9. He is everything: in that he judges he is law, in that he teaches he is gospel, in that he saves he is grace, in that he begets he is Father[11], in that he is begotten he is Son, in that he suffers he is sheep, in that he is buried he is man, in that he comes to life again he is God.

10. Such is Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen[12].


[1] It is worthy noting that Melito was a Quartodeciman

[2] Floyd V. Filson, “More Bodmer Papyri” The Biblical Archaeologist 25.2 (May 1962, pp. 50-57) p 5

[3] Kelly (pg145) says that Melito came close to Modalism, although the Word is distinguished from the Father. Author’s note – As we have stated before, the Word was distinguished from the Father while Christ was clothed in the flesh.

[4] Perry, Marvin and Schweitzer, Frederick (2002), Anti-Semitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present, p. 18. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-16561-7

[5] Origen said in Book II, Chapter 6 of On First Principles: “These are the ideas that were able to make their way into our minds as we took up these very difficult questions about the incarnation and the deity of Christ.  If someone comes up with better ideas and can confirm what he says with plainer assertions from the Holy Scriptures, let them be accepted instead of what we have written.”In other words, Origen was open to doctrinal change

[6] Melito of Sardis. (2007, December 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 01:05, May 27, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melito_of_Sardis&oldid=176337322

[7] Of this work, only this chapter has survived

[8] This doctrine was held by various Gnostics and even by some Muslims many centuries later

[9] Mirroring John’s language in 1st John 5.20

[10] It should be noted that this is one of the earliest surviving sermons outside the New Testament.

[11] Campbell Bonner characterized Melito’s theology as naïve Modalism, since “Christ is equated with God with no serious considerations of the implications.” Campbell Bonner, The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis and Some Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel (London: Christophers, 1940), 2728. See Hall, Melito of Sardis, xliii. The theologian Krüger in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1888, p. 434, sqq commented that Alexander, the mentor of Athanasius and Bishop of Alexandra during the Nicene Council, studied the writings of Melito of Sardis, and even worked up his tract περ ψυχς κα σματος ες τ πθος into a homiletical discourse of his own, omitting such passages as seemed to savour of ‘modalism.’ (Schaff)

[12] Melito has a “Christocentric monotheism,” as seen also in all of his doxologies, which are all addressed to Christ, and never to the Father (On the Passover 10, 45, 65, 105; frag. 15; new frag. 2.23)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Dec 18 2008

Jesus Christ Outside the New Testament

Category: Debate/DiscussionPolycarp @ 9:05 am

Continuing from here, I found a site with the following information:

Tombs, Ordinances and Graffiti
Tomb Inscriptions – late 30’s C.E.?

“Several of the tombs in the Dominus Flevit ['the Lord wept'] catacombs outside Jerusalem bear inscriptions like, ‘Jesus, have mercy’, and ‘Jesus, remember me in the resurrection’, inscriptions thought to date from the 40’s or late 30’s, and indicating the presence in Jerusalem from a fairly early date of a community that believed in resurrection and in the power of someone named Jesus to see the believer safely through death and beyond.”
- Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus

The tombs were discovered during the rebuilding of a Franciscan chapel and excavated from 1953 to 1955.

“A tomb of the Late Bronze period gave finds which are important for the civilization of Jerusalem just at the time of its conquest by the Hebrews. A necropolis used from 136 BC to 300 AD produced a great amount of material. The necropolis had two periods each with different styles and cultures. The first, the earlier is characterized by Kokhim (oven-shaped) tombs running from 185 BC, while the second is characterized by tombs with an arcosolium belonging to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. With the Kokhim tombs are closely connected the sarcophagus and the ossuary; the first cut in hard stone (mizzi) follow the motifs of classical art, both in structure and subject, in close artistic relation with the Tombs of the kings and ‘Herod’s’ of the 1 cent. AD; the ossuaries, on the other hand in soft stone (kacooley) follow a local trade technique with architectonic and floral motifs.

“On the ossuaries were found many more or less symbol signs (crosses, tau, Constantinian monograms) and 43 inscriptions (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) incised or traced with charcoal. Of interest is the recurrence of names common in the New Testament, as Mary, Martha, Philo the Cyrene, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus.”
- Dominus Flevit the site where “The Lord Wept”

Caesar’s Decree – c. 50 C.E.

“A stone slab found in Nazareth, of height 0.61m is inscribed (in Greek) with a decree demanding the death penalty for anyone who broke the seals on a tomb or stole a dead body.” (Attributed date c. 50 C.E.)
- Summarized extract – IVP Three Volume Bible Dictionary (under section for Nazareth)

“It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors, or children, or members of their house. If, however, any man lay information that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing or other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honour the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In the case of contravention I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepulture.”
- Ordinance of Caesar

“The Emperor threatens the death penalty for interference with, or the removal of bodies from, tombs, may belong to any date from Augustus to Claudius.”
- Summarized extract – Peakes Commentary of the Bible
(Various sections found from index under Claudius’ expulsion of Jews from Rome and Tombs, sanctity of.)

The original owner of the stone left only a short note about its origins when he donated it to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris – “Marble slab sent from Nazareth in 1878.”

“Nazareth may be the place, but the finder could have carried it there from somewhere else, a few days’ donkey journey away, wanting to sell it to Christian pilgrims. Since the nature of the connection with Nazareth is uncertain, no argument linking the stone with the early Christians can rely on its. Unless the stone was set up on Judaea and moved northwards later, Pontius Pilate cannot have had it made, because Galilee was in the kingdom of Herod Antipas, where Pilate had no power. Indeed, even a decree of Caesar would hardly be displayed in Galilee until after Antipas’ reign ended in AD 44. That means it is possible that Claudius made the decree.”
- Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus

“Why would a Caesar have any cause to take such a specific interest in this part of the Empire and in a matter which, apparently, not an issue of Roman state? Surely this would seem to be better resolved by local Government and not one to demand the intervention of the Emperor. However, if the implications of any such alleged activity had affected Rome that would make it more understandable.”
- Mark Carlin

It would be serve us well to remind ourselves that this is not a first person account – although I would still say that those first person accounts became Christian accounts – of the life of Christ. The decree from the Emperor may be conjecture, but it shows that the issue of grave robbing had become raised to such a level of importance that the Emperor of Rome had to actually issue a decree. This could very well be in response to the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. Afterall, what better way to stop such a reckus than to declare it a crime to remove the body of the deceased and to ban the admission of the crime?

Let’s step out a little further. If those tombs are indeed from the 1st century, then it shows that those in Jerusalem understood Christ as divine, urging the theory that the earliest Christology was the highest.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Dec 12 2008

Studies in the Economy – The Two Hands of God

Category: Church Fathers, Godhead, Irenaeus, Theology, Theophilus of AntiochPolycarp @ 8:36 am

I have been working on this for some time, so please, let it rip.

God is one, of this, there cannot be any doubt in Christianity. Many would assume that this dismisses the idea of emanations of divinity (Arianists; Jehovah’s Witnesses) or would assume that there many lesser deities which are named Son and Spirit (Gnostics; Mormons) yet the Scriptures are clear that God is a monad.

If we hold to a doctrine, proclaiming that doctrine as one held by the Apostles then it would be well reasoned that in the generation following the Apostles, that same doctrine can be easily seen. A ‘traditional’ ‘oneness’ belief would have us utter the phrase ‘Father in Creation, Son in Redemption and Holy Ghost in Regeneration’, yet according to the Scriptures, it was not the Father who was active in Creation, but the Logos who was incarnated as the Son. I have stated before that I am uncomfortable with the ‘oneness’ label as I am with the ‘modalist’ label, and have opted for a third, economic. In the following article, I attempt to examine a little of Irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch in their attempts at understanding the Apostle’s doctrine of the ‘oneness’ of God.

We first acknowledge what our beloved Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, wrote to the Ephesians,

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the economy of God…

The idea is simple and in line with the Apostles, in that Jesus Christ was God, and yet according to the economy of God, became man. The logos that preceded the Incarnation eternally existed with God and was God, even as the word of a man is the man. Throughout the Old Testament and the Deuterocanon, the power of God’s spoken word is emphasized (Ps. 33:6, 107:20; Is. 55:11; Jer. 23:29; 2 Esd. 6:38; Wisdom 9:1-2). “Judaism understood God’s Word to have almost autonomous powers and substance once spoken; to be, in fact, ‘a concrete reality, a veritable cause.’” (Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity , 145.) But a word did not need to be uttered or written to be alive. A word was defined as “an articulate unit of thought, capable of intelligible utterance.” (C. H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 263.

Not only do we have the understanding of the Word of God, but we also see that Judaism developed a foundational idea for the Wisdom of God as well:

“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old. I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth; While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep, When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep, When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth, Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight
Rejoicing always before Him,

(Proverbs 8:22-30 NKJV)

These personifications “must be understood within the context of the ancient Jewish concern for the uniqueness of God, the most controlling religious idea of ancient Judaism.” ( Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism) The idea is not to create a separate deity, or a tripartite monad – instead, the Jewish writers, sages, and theologians understood the personification of the Word and Wisdom of God as emanations from Him, rightly being what God is – ‘and was God.’ “What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus.” James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making , 167.

It is not uncommon for biblical writers to group the Wisdom and Word of God into one,

“O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom hast formed man, to have dominion over the creatures thou hast made, (Wisdom 9:1-2 RSVA)

This conception of Wisdom parallels a  general Jewish explanation of how a transcendent God could participate in a temporal creation. The Aramaic Targums resolved this problem by equating God with His Word: thus in the Targums, Exodus 19:17, rather than saying the people went out to meet God, says that the people went out to meet the word of God, or Memra. N.T. Wright observes in Who Was Jesus? [48-9] that Jewish monotheism “was never, in the Jewish literature of the crucial period, an analysis of the inner being of God, a kind of numerical statement about, so to speak, what God was like on the inside.” Rather, it was “always a polemical statement directed outwards against the pagan nations.” Rabbis of Jesus’ time had no difficulty in personifying separate aspects of God’s personality – His Wisdom, His Law (Torah), His Presence (Shekinah), and His Word (Memra), for example. This division had the philosophical purpose of “get(ting) around the problem of how to speak appropriately of the one true God who is both beyond the created world and active within it.”

Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament , 21, states, “2 Enoch 33:4, in an echo of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:13), says that God had no advisor in his work of creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had no one to advise him. His Wisdom, who is not someone else but intrinsic to his own identity, advised him.” Mr. Bauckham, and those mentioned above, cite references indicating  ‘intrinsic’ attributes of God – His Word and Wisdom. Irenaeus and Theophilus, who like Ignatius two generations before him, a Bishop of Antioch would agree.

Irenaeus writes (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, 20.1),

For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands.

And

For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;

Further, the bishop of Lyons said,

And this is He of whom the Scripture says, “And God formed man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life.” It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things.

Irenaeus did not see a stand alone unit of God, nor anything else but an emanation of God – His Word – that accomplished the Creation of Man. For Irenaeus, the Word of God was equal with God in that the word was God.Again, Irenaeus cites a predecessor,

“Through the extension of the hands of a divine person (διὰ τῆς θείας ἐκτάσεως τῶν χειρῶν— literally, “through the divine extension of hands.” The old Latin merely reads, “per extensionem manuum.”), gathering together the two peoples to one God.” For these were two hands, because there were two peoples scattered to the ends of the earth; but there was one head in the middle, as there is but one God, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

Irenaeus writes,

(God)  has come within reach of human knowledge (knowledge, however, not with regard to His greatness, or with regard to His essence—for that has no man measured or handled—but after this sort: that we should know that He who made, and formed, and breathed in them the breath of life, and nourishes us by means of the creation, establishing all things by His Word, and binding them together by His Wisdom — this is He who is the only true God),  – 3.24.2

Here is a clear picture of Irenaeus’ concept of God – that there is one Person with two hands which accomplishes the heavenly things, and that person is God alone. He was not alone in this description of God. Theophilus the sixth Bishop of Antioch, preceded Irenaeus by a half a generation, but promoted the same idea  – that the Wisdom and Word of God was His hands, as opposed to the developed notion that they were Persons themselves.

Theophilus was a convert to Christianity (as opposed to being born into a Christian family). Like Justin Martyr, he had converted from Greek philosophy by reading and studying the Jewish scriptures. He never forgot this as at times he referred to the synagogue as the place of the church’s development. He deplored the pagan culture that surrounded them, urging his readers to forsake it and turn to Christianity. He, like Irenaeus after him, sought to explain the ability of a transcendent God to operate in a temporal world. He focused on the two hands of God, and is often thought of the predecessor that Irenaeus mentioned. Theophilus used the Greek word for wisdom 27 times in his writing, To Autolycus, while quoting Proverbs 8.22.27 five times.

Theophilus, in chapter seven on his only extent work, writes,

This is my God, the Lord of all, who alone stretched out the heaven, and established the breadth of the earth under it;

As he begins his rhetoric, continues by describing the our sin sickness,

But, if you will, you may be healed. Entrust yourself to the Physician, and He will couch the eyes of your soul and of your heart. Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for “by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” Most excellent is His wisdom. By His wisdom God founded the earth;

This is not the place for this discussion, but Wisdom is often used in the Fathers, as theology developed, to symbolize the pneuma (Spirit).

In chapter 18, Theophilus, in regards to the creation of man,

But as to what relates to the creation of man, his own creation cannot be explained by man, though it is a succinct account of it which holy Scripture gives. For when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,” He first intimates the dignity of man. For God having made all things by His Word, and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of His own hands. Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” But to no one else than to His own Word and wisdom did He say, “Let Us make.” And when He had made and blessed him, that he might increase and replenish the earth, He put all things under his dominion, and at his service; and He appointed from the first that he should find nutriment from the fruits of the earth, and from seeds, and herbs, and acorns, having at the same time appointed that the animals be of habits similar to man’s, that they also might eat of an the seeds of the earth.

I would disagree with Theophilius in assigning the audience of God to His Word and Wisdom, however, the creation story brings us to an interesting point,

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NKJV)

The Greek word for wisdom is ’sophia’, and in the original, it is feminine (as is the counterpart in the Hebrew). While this matter is one left for a deeper discussion, we may perceive in the creation account in Genesis the idea that God created a male and female which is united into one flesh, as we have two hands of God with one God. Although this is not to say that the Spirit is uniquely feminine, but Wisdom is referred to in the feminine while the Word is always masculine. (Except for the instance when Christ declares Himself Wisdom (Luke 7.35))

The idea that a transcendent God operates in this world through His hand(s) is not uncommon to the Scriptures. The phrase occurs six times in the Hebrew Old Testament (1st Samuel 5:11; 2nd Chronicles 30:12; Job 19:21; Job 27:11; Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 9:1;). Each time it refers to the power of God in dealing with humanity, which is exactly what the Incarnation was. In the New Testament, the phrase occurs nine times, with adjective ‘right’ attached. ( Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; Acts 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 10:12; 1st Peter 3:22; 1st Peter 5:6). In the New Testament, it refers to the power of Christ on the Throne of God.

But now, O LORD, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand. (Isaiah 64:8 NKJV)

But now, O Lord, you are our father, and we are the clay; we are all the work of your hands (NETS  – English Translation of the LXX)

In Isaiah 64.8, the Hebrew is limiting to God to one hand, whereas the Greek Septuagint understands the Hebrew to mean the two hands.  Further in Psalms 98.1, we read of further anthropomorphizing of the transcendent Lord,

Oh, sing to the LORD a new song! For He has done marvelous things; His right hand and His holy arm have gained Him the victory.

Beyond the simple attribution of human features to God, we find two distinct emanations from the Diety, but not separate nor distinct, yet operating out from God. Both Irenaeus and Theophilus used the Jewish personification of Wisdom and the Word and anthromorphised them into the hands of God, giving to them the works of creation – old and New – while allowing for the sole praise to belong to God as Originator.

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


Next Page »