Athanasius's On the Incarnation, IV

Welcome to the fourth post in the series on Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The first post discussed some of the historical context surrounding Athanasius's work. The second post discussed the context of On the Incarnation in Athanasius's three-fold portrait (or trilogy) of human salvation. The third post looked at Chapter 1, the first five sections of On the Incarnation.

The fourth post will begin covering the text of Chapter 2 of On the Incarnation. The Christian Classics Ethereal Library version of the text is easily accessible, so I'll be using that text for this series of posts. I welcome those interested in an alternative translation and arrangement to seek out John Behr's translation, published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

I'll summarize each section followed by commentary in italics.

II.6 Athanasius lays out the first half of the first divine dilemma, that God should leave man subject to death and corruption. He says that ignoring man's plight is unworthy of the goodness of God, since it would result in man being brought to nothing, bringing God's purposes to naught. It would be better that man had not been made than to be made in the image of God only to be lost to corruption.

II.7 Then comes the second half of the first divine dilemma, that God should go back on His word concerning the just penalty for man's transgression. He could not relent of His sentence, but neither could repentance suffice, since, though repentance removes the action of sin from the soul, it does not remove the corruption that inheres. Repentance does not restore the incorruption. Only by having the Word, who made all from nothing, suffer in the place of man, could man be remade in the incorruptible image which he had forsaken.

The first two sections present the first dilemma, regarding the plight of man in death and corruption. God, being good, cannot allow what He has made for Himself to be brought to nothing, but God, being just, cannot allow His word to be broken. Thus, in order to fulfill His word as well as His purposes for creation, the Word through which all was made must enter into creation's corruption, satisfying the just penalty in such a way as to bring the corruption through death and into incorruption. The precise way remains to be discussed, but here Athanasius has presented the problem and its only solution.

II.8 The Word of God fills all things that He has made, yet in the Incarnation He enters into creation in a new and unprecedented way, revealing Himself personally through the thing He has made. For what reason? His pity and compassion for man's plight led him to take up a human body, a human nature--not the appearance of a body and nature, but a body such as our own--using a "spotless, stainless virgin, without agency of human father," that is, not made though intercourse and transmission of sin. Yet he took on a body subject to corruption and carried it into death as a substitute for all; offering it to the Father. His death for all abolished death's power over all, and through resurrection He procured the incorruptible life for all. The great exchange of the Word's flesh for human flesh results from God's compassion for man. He is willing to enter into the lowly flesh, and take it through the penalty for sin, death and corruption, that death might be swallowed up in God's own incorruptible life, resulting in life incorruptible for all men.

II.9 The exchange of the Incarnate Word's life for man's life is sufficient because of the value of the divine life united in the body. The exchange of the Incarnate Word's life for man's life is complete because the incorruption of the divine life ensures that the body cannot remain in death, but must enter into new life in resurrection. Man possesses solidarity in their common nature, which the Word entered into when He took up flesh, and through the flesh He took up influenced all men by that same commonality of nature. Athanasius compares this to a King who takes up his dwelling in a city, simultaneously ennobling it and preventing it from molestation from evildoers. The analogy of the King's taking up residence in the city must have resonated with Athanasius's audience, not only for its truth, but perhaps even more in contrast to failed kingships that promised the same, yet could not deliver. The affirmation of man's common nature here is striking, since, as yet, Athanasius makes no distinctions between men who appropriate the life of Christ and those who remain in their corruption in Adam. Rather, the exchange apparently affirms the universality of the Incarnate Word's work throughout Creation. Whereas before death reigned in power, now the power of death is swallowed up in life. Whereas before there was only darkness, now the whole earth is swathed in the light of the Son. 

II.10 Again Athanasius highlights the goodness of God as the source of salvation, and he uses the analogy of kingship. The king who founds a city protects rather than neglects it; much more then shall God protect the race of men who are His own. He cites Scripture to show his fidelity to God's Word on the matter and to reinforce the Incarnation as the only proper solution to the problem of death and corruption: the sacrifice of the Word's own body put an end to death and made a new way into life through the resurrection. The divine dilemma regarding death and corruption is solved! Here Athanasius closes his argument with appropriate proofs from Scripture indicating what he has heretofore claimed; that the Word must become man in order to bring man out of death and into life. 

Having resolved the first divine dilemma, the next chapter will see Athanasius solving the second, which regards the loss of knowledge due to man's transgression.

Athanasius's On the Incarnation III

Welcome to the third post in the series on Athanasius's On the Incarnation. The first post discussed some of the historical context surrounding Athanasius's work. The second post discussed the context of On the Incarnation in Athanasius's three-fold portrait (or trilogy) of human salvation.

The third post will begin covering the text of On the Incarnation. The Christian Classics Ethereal Library version of the text is easily accessible, so I'll be using that text for this series of posts. I welcome those interested in an alternative translation and arrangement to seek out John Behr's translation, published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

I'll summarize each section followed by commentary in italics.

1.1 Athanasius refers to his first treatise, Contra Gentes, and summarizes his main points against idolatry and for the divinity of the "Word of the Father." He then articulates his plan for the present work, which is to treat the Incarnation of the Word. He states that the sole cause of the Son of God's taking on human flesh is twofold: the love of humankind and the goodness of the Father. Moreover, it is only fitting that the Word of the Father by which the world was made should be the same agent for the salvation of the world. Already in the introduction Athanasius places an antithesis between the wisdom of God and the religion of the Jews and of the Gentiles. That which the Jews reject and the Greeks mock God shows to be fitting and good. The paradoxical nature of God's revelation of Himself to man (what man considers impossible, God shows possible, etc.) arises from man's flight from knowledge and being rather than from the nature of things as God has made them.

1.2 Athanasius refutes three false views of Creation: Epicurean, Platonic, and Gnostic. The Epicureans deny any Mind to order the universe, but assert that all things are self-originated by chance. If no Mind exists to distinguish one thing from another, then the universe would bear no distinctions, but would be a mass of uniformity. The universe has distinction, therefore a Mind lies behind it, and that mind is God. The Platonists believe matter is pre-existent and that God makes the world from this uncreated material. If matter is uncreated, then God is limited in what He can do by the nature of the matter, thus making God subject to something other than Himself, and only a craftsman rather than Creator. God is not subject to any other than Himself, thus He created from nothing (rather than formed from what was already there) the matter from which things are made. Gnostics believe an Artificer other than God the Father created all things. Yet Scripture clearly declares (in places like Matt. 19:4-6 and John 1:3) that the Father creates and nothing is, but that which God created. Athanasisus's refutations are directed against two heathen views and one heretical view. The heathen views (Epicureans and Platonists) he refutes through reason: discerning the necessity of a rational first cause for rationally organized things (Epicurean view), and the aseity of God, that is, God independence of anything not Himself (Platonic view). The Gnostics represent heresy, since Athanasius reasons from Scripture rather than reason to refute their error.

1.3. Athanasius provides a true account of Creation. God, the infinite, created finite things out of nothing (non-existence) through the agency of the Word, as Genesis, The Shepherd of Hermas, and Hebrews declare. God created out of His own goodness; a goodness which did not begrudge the good of existence to non-existent things. Man, God made in His own image, reasonable as God is reasonable, yet in limited degree. Reason gave to man choice of will (to follow or forsake God), which God tested by placing man in paradise (place) with a prohibition (law). Forsaking obedience and immortality man chose disobedience and death--a remaining state of death and corruption. Here Athanasius succinctly serves the orthodox Christian doctrine of Creation and the Fall. Of special note is Athanasius's emphasis on God reason for creating--not His love (though that is true as well), but His goodness. Aristotle considered magnanimity (greatness of soul) to be the crowning virtue of man, and whether or not Athanasius is playing upon this Greek idea, the connection seems suitable. The greatness of God's goodness leads Him to create, that His goodness might be made manifest in and to the things which He makes. Also notable is man's likeness to God--man possesses a share in the being of God through his rational/volitional mind, though his creatureliness limits man's expression of this divine quality. Finally, Athanasius sets up the problem which will result in two divine dilemmas--man's sin has plunged him into death, not just the act of dying, but the state of death and corruption that characterizes even his life in the body.

1.4 Athanasius explains that Creation must be discussed since man's loss of his original state is the cause of the Incarnation of the Word--the love of God caused Him to take up human form for the salvation of man into His initial purpose--uninterrupted, incorruptible communion with God. Man did not remain in the state of Adam's corruption simply, but progressed into greater corruption, which is a return to his original state of non-existence. Not only did man give up the life of God, descending back toward nothingness, but also the knowledge of God by which he participates in communion with, in life with, God. This is what evil is--(the return to) non-being. Only through contemplation of God does man preserve his likeness to God--the turning away from God is both metaphysical (being to non-being) and epistemological (knowledge to ignorance). Athanasius infers this from The Wisdom of Solomon 6:18, "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption." Athanasius moves from establishing the context of the divine dilemma to providing some definition to the reality of death and its effects upon man. Note especially the intimate relation between being and knowledge. Athanasius appears to place emphasis on knowing as the means to being, indeed, as the foundation of being--to remain in God one must contemplate Him, and so the turning away from the knowledge of God is a divestiture of the life man possesses in God alone. Surely the notion of idolatry undergirds this expression, since in man's giving himself to material things, to idols, he loses his contact with divinity. Note as well the intimacy between knowledge and obedience--contemplation of God includes the meditation upon and keeping of His law.

1.5 Athanasius elaborates on man in his state of innocence--subject to corruption, but shielded by his union with the Word--from which he fell due to the work of Satan and his own choice. From this point of departure Athanasius narrates the decline of man into greater corruption. He finishes by quoting Paul's same litany of corruption in Romans 1. The most significant addition in this section comes from Athanasius's acknowledgment that man depended upon "the grace of their union with the Word" of God in order to remain incorrupt--even in paradise--since man's nature was subject to corruption. Also significant is man's insatiable lust for corruption after the Fall. Athanasius makes apparent man's incapacity to curtail his appetite for evil left to himself.

That wraps up Chapter 1: Creation and the Fall. The next post will examine Chapter 2: The Divine Dilemma and its Solution in the Incarnation.

Athanasius's On the Incarnation I

After a few months of inactivity, I'm ready to jump back in with a writing project. I'd like to attempt blogging through Athanasius's, On the Incarnation, while I am teaching it to my eighth grade class. I'll begin with a post discussing the historical situation in which the book was written, and then a second post will place On the Incarnation within the corpus of Athanasius's writings. Subsequent posts will deal with each chapter of the work.

Just for classroom context, I've spent the first half of the year walking my students through the New Testament and the Early Church, using the Bible; Eusebius's, Church History; and several other primary texts. The main topics included how the Gospels and Acts write history and presents the person of Jesus; how Eusebius writes history and presents the narrative of the Church from a relatively peaceful obscurity through persecution and into an ascendant peace with Constantine. That brings us to Athanasius, whose book, On the Incarnation, both presents the orthodox understanding of salvation as well as the orthodox view of the Son of God in contradistinction to Arius. In order to prepare the students for the doctrinal context of the book, we discussed the Arian controversy as it played out between the first two ecumenical councils. We did this relying upon David Bentley Hart's chapter from, The Story of Christianity, entitled, "One God in Three Persons: The Earliest Church Councils." What follows is a summary of Hart's discussion.

Although the Edict of Milan brought an end to official persecution of Christians, it opened the opportunity for Christians to discuss their own understanding of Jesus Christ, in particular, His relationship to God the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There are three groups of Christians, other than the orthodox, Hart mentions as vying for their understanding of the Son's identity:

1. "Modalists" held that there is only One God who manifests at different times as "Father," "Son," or "Holy Spirit;" these being "modes" of the One God's singularity.

2. "Adoptionists" held that Christ had been a man who had been "adopted" into divine Sonship by the Father.

3. "Subordinationists" held that the Father alone is God in the fullest sense, the Son being a lesser expression of God, and the Spirit being a lesser expression of the Son.

Subordinationists were particularly concentrated in Alexandria, in part, perhaps, due to the fact that Jews and Pagans also held subordinationist views of God. Philo argued that the Logos, "Son of God," through whom the world was created, served as an intermediary between God and the world. Platonists held that the ultimate divine principle (the One) was so utterly transcendent of the world that all other things exist only through an order of lesser, derivative divine principles. Origen of Alexandria was the most influential early Christian thinker of his day, and his thought, though distinct from these Jewish and Platonist views, nevertheless shared some assumptions about the idea of transcendence and mediation; and he was a subordinationist.

It was in this Alexandrian context that Arius's own views developed and exceeded subordinationists. While Origen denied that the Father and Son we coequal, he nevertheless considered them coeternal. Arius went further, denying both coequality and coeternality to the Son, arguing that "If the Father begat the Son, the one that was begotten has a beginning of existence and from this it is evident that there was a time when the Son was not" (Hart quotes this from Socrates Scholasticus's The Eccelsiastical History). Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria during the time of Arius's arguments, expelled him Alexandria and from his position as presbyter there in 321. Arius published his views and even put them into popular song in 323.

By 324 Constantine had conquered Licinius, the last of his rivals, and brought stability to the empire. Having taken up Christianity as a stabilizing religion for the empire, he could not allow the dissension within the Church to continue. When Arius and Alexander could not be reconciled, Constantine called for a universal council of bishops to convene and determine the position of the Church on the relation of the Son of God to the Father. The First Council of Nicaea convened in 325 and included Arius, Alexander, and the young Athanasius (deacon to Alexander) attended in addition to three hundred or so bishops, most of whom came from the Eastern churches. Arius's doctrines were condemned, and only six bishops (included Arius) refused to accept the orthodox formula set forth in the Nicene Creed. The formula included a term foreign to Scripture, homoousios (consubstantial), which means "of the same substance," to describe the relation of the Son and Father. Though the idea reflects Scriptural descriptions of the Father, Son, and Spirit, it would be the source of ongoing strife.

Despite the unifying purpose of the First Council of Nicaea, the Church continued in controversy over the identity of the Son of God; and even Constantine was persuaded to become Arian by several prominent women in his household. Until the First Council of Constantinople in 381, where the final version of the Nicene Creed was formulated, bishops like Athanasius contended for Nicene orthodoxy over and against the majority who were Arians; often being exiled when Arian emperors came to power, or restored when Nicene emperors came to power. During the aftermath two groups articulated alternatives to Nicene orthodoxy:

1. "Homoeans" held that the Son is "of similar substance" (homoiousios) with the Father.

2. "Anomoeans" held that the Son is altogether unlike the Father.

It turned out to be the anomeans, in the figure of Eunomius, who came to represent the most prominent opposition to Nicene orthodoxy in the generation after 325. Athanasius did not live to see the final stroke fall upon the Arian heresy and its correlates--a threefold stroke struck by the Cappadocian fathers: St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Hart notes that their complex defense of Nicene orthodoxy could be faithfully reduced to a simple series of propositions that were central to salvation in the life of the Early Church (represented also in Athanasius's On the Incarnation): "if it is the Son who joins us to the Father, and only God can join us to God, then the Son is God; and if, in the sacraments of the Church and the life of faith, it is the Spirit who joins us to the Father, and only God can join us to God, then the Spirit too must be God."

The debates all turned on the nature of human salvation--what it took for man to be reconciled with God--and, in the end, only God-Man--fully God, fully Man--could reconcile all men to the Father and restore all Creation to incorruption.

In the next post we'll look at how On the Incarnation provides the cornerstone for Athanasius's three-fold portrait of human salvation.

Updated Hymnology #1: Be Not Far Off for Grief is Near

The words of Scripture have long provided comfort for the Church militant. Sometimes it is hard for the Church to see how God's Word speaks to all ages of her life, and so I'm inclined to offer some explicit applications of metrical psalms which have contemporary significance. I don't claim that my applications are exhaustive, or even the most acute or penetrating. I claim only relevance, and I beg for a measure of sympathy in such lamentations. (n.b. - my words are italicized, while the original hymn is not).

Be not far off, for grief is near, and none to help is found;

For bulls of Bashan in their strength now circle me around.

Their lion jaws they open wide, and roar to tear their prey.

My heart is wax, my bones unknit, my life is poured away.

Stay not Thy might, to offer help, while a few brave souls still stand,

For Sodom’s dogs our blood have smelled and gather as a band.

From foaming jaws they spit forth lies, and bark to back us down.

Our hearts like wax melt in our pride, our zeal nowhere is found.

My strength is only broken clay; my mouth and tongue are dry,

For in the very dust of death You there make me to lie.

For see how dogs encircle me! On every side there stands

A brotherhood of cruelty; they pierce my feet and hands.

Our words are mealy-mouthéd spoke, their edge is blunted steel,

To idols we have bowed our heads, as slaves we’ve dropped to kneel.

O see the beds in which we lie, filthy adulteries!

Cleanse out Thy temple, O my God! Give ear unto my pleas!

My bones are plain for me to count; men see me and they stare.

My clothers among them they divide, and gamble for their share.

Now hurry, O my Strength, to help! Do not be far, O Lord!

But snatch my soul from raging dogs, and spare me from the sword.

Our numbers dwindle in their midst; they plunder all our shares.

Vain comforts in the goods of earth; we’re taken unawares.

Now hurry, O my Strength, to help! Do not be far, O Lord!

But snatch our souls from Sodom’s sons, and spare us from their sword.

Religious Liberty, not Toleration

In the recent Supreme Court hearing of homosexual marriage, many have noted the threat gay marriage offers to religious liberty. R.J. Rushdoony recognized over thirty years ago the threat that homosexuals offered to religious liberty.

As an historian, Rushdoony was well versed in the history of religious liberty and religious toleration. Ironically, threats to religious liberty are not limited to pagans and secularists, as he notes. In his brief essay, Rushdoony references Isaac Backus, an 18th century baptist minister who lamented the loss of religious liberty under the State-supported religious denominations of his own day. Two anecdotes from Backus show that Christians were at least as severe as contemporary secular analogues:

These evils cleaved so close to the first fathers of Massachusetts, as to move them to imprison, whip and banish men, only for denying infant baptism, and refusing to join in worship that was supported by violent methods: yet the were so much blinded as to declare, That there was this vast difference between these proceedings and the coercive measures which were taken against themselves in England, viz. We compel men to "God's instructions"; they in England compelled to "mens inventions." 

In 1644 the court at Boston passed an act to punish men with banishment, if they opposed infant baptism; or departed from any of their congregations when it was going to be administered. 

The point is not that Christians are as bad as pagans and secularists (sometimes they are), but that if Christians, who are like minded in most areas, were willing to resort to such methods of enforcement over their differences, then one might expect pagans and secularists to have few qualms at using equal or more severe measures to ensure conformity to the legal requirements of today, should they shift in the direction of homosexual claims. No doubt earlier congregationalists and Presbyterians would have liked to stamp out Baptist "errors" and see all baptists embrace paedobaptism and presbyterian ecclesiology. But they would have seen Christian orthodoxy, defined in Nicene terms, perpetuated. No doubt present day pagans and secularists would like to stamp out Christian "errors" and see all Christians embrace homosexuality and homosexual marriage. But they also have no interest in seeing Christian orthodoxy, defined in Nicene terms, perpetuated. The only Christianity pagan and secularists are committed to see perpetuated is one thoroughly stripped of all but the most general moral ideals.

Another of Backus' observations seems perfectly suited to today's climate. Following upon his reference to the 1644 act in Boston, he notes:

And after they had acted upon this law, one of their chief magistrates observed, that such methods tended to make hypocrites. To which a noted minister replied, that if it did so, yet such were better than profane persons, because said he, "Hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man, but the profane person giveth God neither outward nor inward man."

The same logic that would happily deny the necessity of wedding of inward and outward fidelity to God applies to the pagan and secular position on Christians who will be forced to comply to legislation that forces them to act against their conscience: what difference does it make whether Christians really accept homosexuality and its marriages as sanctioned by God? So long as they give their outward obedience, the due owed to homosexuals will have been paid in part, which is better than having it not paid at all.

Christians have been known to dig their own graves. We've been doing it since the times of Abraham, when we were but families, and not yet a nation among nations, nor yet a nation of all nations. But thanks be to God who is able to resurrect from the dead.

Smelting in the Refiners Pot

Great things take time to complete. This is true not only of good things, but of bad things as well. Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August details the dedication, precision, and long-term calculations of the German military. But for a few poor decisions and the surprising resolve of their opponents, the outcome of the Great War could have easily been different. The culmination of Germany's actions in World War I resulted from motivations that stretched far into her history, even before the Franco-Prussian war. Indeed, one could argue that it stretched back to Germany's beginnings as bands of tribes overshadowed and overpowered by Roman might, learning, and opulence. Was their a envy of the conquerors that grew into a desire to demonstrate through conquest the greatness of the German people? Perhaps this is too great a claim, but Tuchman characterizes German leaders as haunted by a specter of unwarranted disrespect and ostracism. Nevertheless, in the crucible of Germany's history, it is hard not to conclude that a significant amount of dross rose to prominence in its culture during the 19th and 20th centuries, and perhaps continues to be skimmed, or in need of skimming.

I imagine that applying the refiner's pot to a nation, even one as easy to pick on as Germany, rings hollow to many ears. As modern citizens of the United States steeped in the waters of individualism, there is a temptation to imagine the refiner's pot in terms of individual purification--the Lord takes each of His servants and purifies their soul of the dross of sin and corruption. There is nothing false about individual application here, but it is not the only interpretation that suits, nor is it, perhaps, the most important or relevant. Indeed, many passages of Scripture that use the crucible or the refiner's fire involve the entire nation of Israel. Moreover, the New Testament people are referred to as a body, a vine, and a bride--individual images applied to a corporate entity. There is good reason to avoid immediately individualizing; to try and consider the corporate nature of Christ's smelting (or perhaps, discipling) the nations. Consider the following an attempt to think it through.

Unrefined metals are purified through intense heat. The weightier, desired metal remains on the bottom of the pot while the lighter, undesired metals rise to the surface. The refiner scoops the dross from the surface and pours the pure metal into the desire molds for cooling. When the process is complete the purified metal has been formed into the pure image crafted by the refiner. If a culture is suited to this analogy, what would constitute the refiner, the intense heat, the pure metal, and the dross? If God is the refiner, the pure metal could be His own servants, the dross could be the servants of Satan, and the intense heat could be trials and circumstances--things like "acts of God" (earthquakes, famines, floods, etc.), wars with foreign powers, societal conflicts (persecutions, injustices, corruptions at various levels of authority), and all other circumstances that draw out the true nature of a people--will they respond as pure servants of God, or will they reveal themselves to be servants of Satan? Once the heat has become intense enough to cause full separation, the Refiner is free to remove from the midst of His people those servants of Satan that have been corrupting their collective purity.

Depending upon the relative purity of the ore, there may be less or more precious metal present. The less pure metal, the longer the process of refining, since the dross will be great and may require a number of scoops to removes all that is present. Even when the presence of precious metal of an ore is relatively high, the purest form of that precious metal requires the most intense heating treatment, to ensure the full separation of the dross.

Regardless of what quantity of precious metal a culture retains, or of what quality of purity the Refiner desires to make, there is one factor that is inevitable, and that is the presence of intense heat. The people of God will not always face trials of equal intensity, trials of equal kind. But any culture without trials is a culture that is, a) fully refined, or b) cooling into a mold, or c) not in the Refiner's care. The first scenario would be impossible this side of glory; the second would be a transitional place--a respite between one round of refining and the next; and the third scenario would make the culture dross, a culture to be cast aside.

As a citizen of the United States and a Christian who takes Christ's command to disciple the nations as a statement of His plan for universal conquest, it doesn't take long to identify the process of separation occurring within the culture. The State continues to embrace political agendas that marginalize Christian doctrine and practice in the public sphere, and a good number of Christians have embraced this marginalization as a healthy, right, and desirable place for the Church. Public education has consistently undermined the authority of the Scriptures and the validity of theological claims in any arena of debate that isn't explicitly religious--even ethical debates exile theological argument, usually distinguishing ethics as a public arena, and pushing theology into the private arena of "morality," unwilling to question the suitability of such distinctions. Christians who wish to live faithfully to Christ are more and more frequently being pushed out of not only the public sphere of policy-making, but the economic and educational spheres of life as well. Christian businesses being prosecuted for refusing to supply employees with benefits, which can be used for abortions; or Christian business being prosecuted for refusing to offer services that compromise their religious convictions about faithful practice are becoming commonplace.

The separation of Christ's precious metal from the surrounding dross appears more evident now than ever, and it can be a cause for thanksgiving, for it will be less and less difficult to see the choice between obedience and disobedience, faithfulness and faithlessness. The difficulty comes in being tried by fire to choose obedience over disobedience, faithfulness over faithlessness. For those who claim that seeing the right choice remains difficult, there is real danger that there is nothing precious to be recovered, that the heat won't be felt, because they are not in the pot, or are already floating on the surface, away from the heat and ready to be swept away. As the heat intensifies, the precious metals may be plunged beneath the surface, but they will be together, and a greater purity--a greater unity--will emerge, though it may not be noticeable for all the dross that may be present to the eye. Those with ears to hear and eyes to see will be where the precious metals are, weighted down with the glory of Christ their Head, for that is how the smelting process of the Refiner's pot works.

The Bloods of Righteous Men

And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

In the process of time Cain and Abel brought an offering to Yahweh. The offering was probably not an offering for sin, but rather a thank offering, since it involved the first fruits of each man's labors under the sun. Yahweh accepts the offering of Abel, thereby acknowledging Abel's righteousness in giving the gift. On the other hand, Cain's offering is rejected because of an undisclosed unrighteousness. Like Abel and Cain, Jesus Christ and the Self-Righteous Jews bring their offering to God, the fruits of their labor. Jesus Christ offers his humble obedience to the Father's commands, and the Pharisees offer their man-made piety.

When Cain has his offering rejected he becomes envious of Abel and resentful toward Yahweh. If he cannot find acceptance in Yahweh's eyes, then he will destroy the object of God's pleasure so that He would have no other choice but Cain to show His favor toward. Rather than acknowledging God's choice and following his brother's example, Cain strikes Abel down. Like Cain, the Self-Righteous Jews envy Jesus Christ and cannot abide the glory he receives from the people, nor the power he wields over sin, the effects of the curse, and the enemies of God. Rather than submit themselves to God's choice and follow Christ's example, the Self-Righteous Jews strike Jesus down.

After Cain kills Abel, the blood of this righteous man cover the earth and cries out to God for redress.  The blood of Abel brings Cain's sin into the light, and in that light God pronounces His judgment upon Cain. Cain receives a harsh sentence, he must live with his sin, and he must do so as a wanderer without a land, without the family of God. Like Nineveh Cain receives a reprieve, but the line of Cain will eventually be destroyed in the Flood of judgment and cleansing the covers the whole earth. Like Abel, Jesus Christ's blood spills forth and covers the earth. Like Abel, the blood of Christ cries out to God for redress. Like the blood of Abel, Christ's blood brings the sins of the Self-Righteous Jews and the complicit Gentiles into the light, and in that light God pronounces His judgment upon these sons of Cain.

But unlike the blood of Abel, whose righteousness could only grant a reprieve, the blood of Christ speaks a better word--a word of full release. Though the whole of men stand like Cain guilty of the murder of the Better Brother, it is not a Flood of judgment that God unleashes upon the earth, rains from heaven and geysers from under the earth. Rather, God unleashes the Flood of righteous Blood and Water that came down from Heaven, descended into the earth, sprang up from the grave with the souls of the dead and ascended into Highest Heaven to Reign, sprinkling from His throne the blood that removes the stain of sin and turns the exiled wanderers and orphans into landed sons of God.

The blood of the righteous martyrs speaks, but it cannot speak in its own power on behalf of the world. It is only the blood of God Incarnate that has the power to destroy the power of death and bring the dead into resurrected life. So much better is the blood that Jesus speaks that should all the blood of all the righteous men of all the ages were to speak on behalf of mercy, it could only offer the reprieve of time. Only the blood of eternal God-become-Man could offer an eternal reprieve to those created to be Man-become-Image of God, but who fell into their own corruption and unmaking.

May we all learn the lesson of Abel, that there can be no righteous bloods, no power of fallen man that can make anew the unmade nature of Man. Only by the blood of the Second Adam, whose incorruption corruption swallowed into its bosom and was itself consumed, unmade, and remade in incorruptible righteousness.

Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ!

Biblical Theology Writing Assignment

The following is a writing assignment I gave to my eighth grade theology class. We are studying Biblical Theology, and have been looking at the Fall of Man. The Fall of Man impact all of the fundamental relationships of man: toward God, toward Creation, toward Man. Instead of showing gratitude toward God, sin causes man to be thankless and independent toward God. Instead of working the Creation to bring it to fullness, sin causes man to be lazy and self-serving in his labor. Instead of showing honor toward men, serving the good of the other before oneself, sin causes man to envy the good of his neighbor and seek to magnify his own good at the expense of others. Given the reality of sin, how does the Christian prepare for victory against the enemies of the Flesh, the Accuser, and the World? The following assignment aims at finding answers to that question.

Identifying the Enemy and Strategizing for Victory

1. Write as many ways as you can imagine that a child is tempted to turn away from God in the three fundamental relationships of man:
1. Gratitude toward God
2. Work to Creation
3.  Honor to Man 
2. Begin writing the ways one could go about defeating each temptation (what thoughts, what prayer, what actions, etc.)
3. Complete three temptations and three tactics of response at a time.

Example:

Temptations:

1. As a teacher I am tempted toward ingratitude toward God by complaining about how little time I have to complete my job.
2. As a teacher I am tempted toward laziness toward Creation, by choosing to read for pleasure rather than grade student papers.
3. As a teacher I am tempted toward impatience with my students by not reviewing material they have not learned well.

Tactics of Response:

1. To defeat ingratitude about how little time I have, I can remember that all circumstances are from God, who promises the power to obey in all my responsibilities without having to control all the outcomes myself. I can offer a prayer thanking God for the promise of help and asking Him to help my to be wise with the time I am given. I can then consider what are the priorities of the work I have, and make a plan to complete each priority in order of importance.
2.  To defeat laziness in grading I can remind myself that the pleasures of leisure are made sweeter by the labors of work, and I can “go to the ant” and "consider the field of the fool" so that I see the destruction that laziness brings. I can offer a prayer thanking God for the chance to help my students grow in knowledge and wisdom and their skill in writing. I can then plan to work for thirty minutes of uninterrupted grading before taking any sort of rest, then take a five-minute rest of stretching & drinking water, and then work for an additional thirty minutes, and so on until I am finished grading.
3.  To defeat impatience toward my students’ ignorance I can remind myself of God’s long-suffering toward my own ignorance in the many things He has said to me in His Word, but which I have not yet learned. I can also remind myself that learning truth is an everlasting activity that is worth every moment of effort. I can offer a prayer thanking God for revealing truth to man that brings life, joy, and communion with God and man. I can then assess what barriers may be causing my students ignorance, and strategize ways of helping them discover the truth that they are missing.

Prayer and Thanksgiving

Over the past few months I have been recording prayers in a journal, which I hope to eventually pass on the one or more of my children. The last two prayers I have recorded come from Scripture; Daniel 9:1-19 and 1 Chronicles 17:16-27. The first prayer is Daniel's, after he has read the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the return from Exile. Daniel's prayer is one of corporate confession of sin. In it he repeatedly emphasizes the guilt of the people who have forsaken obedience to YHWH, bring shame and reproach upon themselves, but especially upon the name of YHWH. He pleads upon the mercy of God to restore the people, to once more look with favor upon them, and to relent of His covenant curse upon their waywardness. Daniel's plea is grounded in God's own character and reputation--for God's mercy and for God's name among the nations, does Daniel ask for forgiveness.

The second prayer is one of David after having been told by God that the house David wishes to build for God would be completed by his son, but that God was desirous to make a house of David's own house, that is, to establish in David an everlasting name by which the greatness of God's name would be published among the nations forever. David expresses profound gratitude for the undeserving gift of being God's own possession. He recalls the mighty and unparalleled acts of God in choosing to deliver Israel out of bondage in Egypt--one people from among all peoples of the earth--to establish the glory of His name. Now, it is David's own house which God will deliver out of the midst of enemies from without and within.

Both men in these prayers exhibit a posture of humility and utter unworthiness to be considered for the honors which God has promised to bestow upon them and the people. They acknowledge that God hs an exclusive privilege to be glorified above all created things, but for some unfathomable reason God has chosen to include a people, a house, as the vessel by which His Name should be extolled and honored among the heavens and earth and depths of the earth.

The Church today, it seems to me, has lost its gratitude toward God. With one hand she pretends that she is worthless, not the main point of creation, and therefore need not worry herself about purity, need not defend the honor of her name before all peoples. She needs only to hunker down, wait for chaos to reach its fullness, and hopefully pick a few stray pagans who wander into her battered and besmirched doors to bunker with her until kingdom come. With the other hand she exalts herself as though the only thing worth being was to be adorned like her, whether or not that adornment look anything at all like the adornment her husband has commanded her to put on herself. She is haughty, and self-righteous, and vain. One pride disbelieves in the glory God has laid upon the Church, while the other pride takes up the glory as though it was her own and not the gift of Almighty God. The one pretends to be a slave of a hard taskmaster who rarely offers much for encouragement and sustenance while the other pretends she has no master and needs no provisions for which she cannot provide for herself. Is it any wonder that the name of Christ and His bride has become a reproach and cause for shame? Homosexuals, thieves, and violent men would not be able to speak openly and freely against the God of Heaven and Earth and the precious vessel of His High Honor unless the bride were so filthy as to be unrecognizable, or so wanton as to have slept with all of these evil suitors instead of the Bridegroom. 

Yet if the people of God would but repent, truly repent, turning away from our sins and transgressions and returning once more to Christ and to His commandments, the Great God of Creation might grant us repentance and bring our enemies to shame, just as He did to the Egyptians who considered the people of God as nothing but slaves to be manipulated and used for their own ends. The Church does not need cultural transformation, nor does it require a rapture. These things are secondary and come by the Spirit more so than we like to acknowledge in the nitty gritty details. Our part is to see ourselves as we really are--undeniably unworthy to be as uncomparably honored as we are--and in so doing we may just be impressed enough by God that we wish to imitate Him in the world.

An Augustinian Interpretation

Augustine is rather ingenious in his interpretations of the Old Testament narratives. I have been reading very slowly through the City of God and have recently covered Augustine's interpretation of the Noahic Flood. Typology is growing into favor again in Protestantism, which may bode well or ill depending upon how it is done.

A friend of mine recently posted some brilliant typological thoughts that I briefly interacted with in the comments. I thought I'd air them here, and perhaps add some elaboration.

My friend identified the sons of Israel/Jacob with the seed of the Serpent and Joseph with the seed of the Woman in the epic struggle between the City of God and the City of Man so prominent in Genesis and throughout Biblical history. However, the relationship is more complicated, or at least complex, than some of the others, for instance, Cain and Seth.

Why complex? Well, Judah, who is a son of Israel who sells Joseph into slavery (indeed, is the catalyst for that decision, delivering Joseph out of the hands of his other brothers, who had murderous intent), who marries a foreign wife, but who also ends up siring the seed of the Promise and becoming a substitutionary intercessor for Benjamin on behalf of Jacob/Israel, who will die if Benjamin is not returned safely.

Interestingly, the story of Judah and Tamar has some tantalizing typological possibilities. Judah marries a foreign wife, thereby committing adultery against the Covenant family, a kind of apostasy or exile. Tamar's origins are not given, but there is Rabbinic commentary that assumes she is an Israelite, or a member of the Covenant family. She is also, in the narrative, a rejected bride. Perhaps Judah represents wayward Israel, of whom Paul speaks in Romans 9-11. Perhaps Tamar is the bride of Christ, the Church, whose righteous intervention in the world arrests the waywardness of Judah/Israel and brings him back into the Covenant family. Tamar is not necessarily a Gentile, but neither is the Bride of Christ--for all who are of Christ are True Israel. The Bride is of mixed origin in national identity (Jew and Gentile), but is without national origin in her priestly identity (Christ is of the order of Melchizedek). Tamar is intercessory for Judah through her sexuality--she takes him up on his obligation, which he refuses to give (not unlike Ruth with Boaz, through Boaz is willing; or even Zipporah when she takes the foreskin of Moses' son when he neglects to do so).

All of this is quite tentative, and I wouldn't stake any firm claim on what I've got here, since I've only begun to consider the possibilities. I hope some readers of mine might interact with what I've put forward in the hopes of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Musing on the Biblical Theology of the Flood

Immediately prior to God's cleansing the world of sin in the Great Flood, Genesis 6:5 says, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Surely Satan and his legion of evil ministers perceived that they had nearly stolen victory over God and the Promised Seed, as none could be found who sought faithfulness to God Almighty. None but Noah, that is. But God did not destroy the world utterly, nor did He hand it over entirely to the Prince of the Evil Age, but rather baptized the earth in water, destroying its corruptions and renewing the land for a second opportunity for Noah to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth in accord with God's commandments.

Immediately prior to God's cleansing the world of sin in the Second Great Flood--that is, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit--we do not receive an explicit comment on the evil of the age, but we find it visible in every Gospel. The surge of demonic activity--nowhere in the Old Testament or after the Apostolic Age so virulent and pervasive--was dominating the earth and corrupting even the people of God (it is no exaggeration when Jesus refers to the leaders of Israel as sons of their father, Satan). When the Son of God appears on the scene, the demons are surprised, asking if Jesus had come to torment them before the time. The Seed has come, but the armies of heaven had not yet been assembled for the final engagement. Why then had the Commander of the Host of Heaven come? Whereas the Great Flood covered the Creation in water, there is a double baptism that inaugurates the  Age of the Heavenly King. He dies on the cross and bathes the world in His own blood, making it possible for all who would turn to Him in their allegiance to receive cleansing from their corruption. Then as the King ascends to take up His session upon the Throne of Heaven, He gives gifts to His thanes and companions, the Church, His own Spirit, which is poured out like a Flood of water and fire upon the people. The strong man was cast off the throne of the earth, to be bound for a time, and his ministers of evil were being cast out by the power of the name of the King and by His Spirit, working in and through the Body of Christ, the Church, and in particular its appointed leaders.

The way was thus cleansed for yet another opportunity to be fruitful and multiple and fill the earth in accord with God's commandments. However, like the sons of Noah, the children of the Age of the Heavenly King are not yet given complete victory. There is a time of long-suffering while all those whom the King desires to bring into His Kingdom shall be found and brought within its gates. Then comes the final Flood, the Host of Heaven and the Saints of the Most High God shall ride in the train of the King as He tramples the remaining corruption, and removes His enemies forever; casting them into the lake of Fire along with all those who refused to cast their allegiance with the High King of Heaven. Then shall all cleansing be consummated the Great Renewal shall be begun, and the fruitfulness and multiplication and filling of the earth shall be complete, and resplendent and redounding glories shall be on the lips of the people of God forever more.

History & Historiography

Gordon Clark's, Historiography Secular and Religious, is not a typical historiography, insofar as it does not provide a comprehensive analysis of approaches to history. Rather, it treats of several kinds of secular historiography, showing their deficiencies--not historical in nature, but rather philosophical. For instance, any sort of ethical judgment requires the establishment of an epistemology that forms the basis of ethical norms. Clark shows the inability of secular historians to provide such an epistemological basis.

On the positive side, Clark provides a brief exposition of Augustine's view of history as the representative Christian historiography. Borrowing from Collingwood, Clark addresses four aspects of the Christian concept of history: 1) it is universal, 2) it is providential, 3) it is apocalyptic, and 4) it is periodized.

The first aspect of universal history is easily granted, Clark says, as a necessary consequence of basic theism: "If God is the creator of the universe and exercises omniscient providential control, the theory must embrace all nations in some way or other, no matter how little we may know of them" (221). Augustine, according to Clark, asserts that, "Since the time of Christ the geographical or national center of gravity [for universal history] has been replaced by a spiritual center, the church. The City of God and the worldly city no doubt produce history by conflict, but the whole process is for the good of the City of God" (222). Whereas Collingwood argues that any center of gravity is destroyed by the universal aspect of Christian history, Clark shows that the opposite is the case: it is not that the center of gravity is destroyed, but it is transformed from the geographically localized, to the geographically dispersed; and from the spiritually diverse and changing to the spiritually unified and constant.

The second aspect of divine providence also follows from Christian theism, and the entirety of Jewish history up to the time of Christ is an exposition of God's providential ordering of history for the arrival of His Messiah from among the Jews. Clark quotes Daniel 4:35 as a representative OT acknowledgement of Providence: "All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing, and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand or say, What doest Thou?" (222). It is not the agency of men, or of sociological forces, or dialectical materialism, or any other combination that history is assuredly accomplished, but rather by preordained Providence working through any and all immediate and intermediate powers. Whether by the wisdom or by the folly of men God works all according to His purpose. Collingwood's attribution of providence eschewing the wisdom of men is therefore misleading, and deficient, though not entirely incorrect. Providence uses all means, and no means are free from God's power and purpose.

As for the apocalyptic aspect, Clark agrees that Collingwood rightly identifies the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the central events of divinely ordained history, but Collingwood leaves out significant future details. That all history looks back to the death and resurrection should not obscure the also forward-looking hope of the culmination of history in the return of the Lord at the end of the age (a hint toward periodization). Thus, while Collingwood is deficient on the future orientation of the apocalypic aspect, he still scores well on the point itself, as well as the consequence of periodization, which in the most general of levels would include those times before the event of Christ's death and resurrection, and those following.

To Collingwood's four aspects Clark adds a fifth, borrowing from Herbert Butterfield; it is the methodological significance of revelation (224). The Scriptures are continually on the mouth of Augustine as he unfolds the history of the two cities, and Augustine is not implicit in his use of them, saying, "We must lay down holy scriptures first as the foundation of our following structure (XX, 1)" (224). Butterfield makes the important distinction, according to Clark, "that historical research might prove that Jesus Christ actually lived at a certain date; and such a conclusion of research, like any other properly obtained, would have to be accepted by Christian, Marxist, or Mohammedan. But the divinity of Christ or the rightness of the Reformation is not susceptible of historical proof" (224). Such claim are theological in nature, but indispensable for understanding the course of history within the Christian concept. Clark concludes on this matter, "To cast the results of historical research into the framework of a providential view, one must come to history with Christian ideas already in mind, and this requires revelation as a methodological principle" (225). If Clark is right, and I think he is, the most important knowledge the Christian historian must possess is a knowledge of Scripture, and its own self-revelatory philosophy of history. Without it, the Christian cannot provide a Christian account of history, no matter how comprehensive and erudite his historical research.

Clark concludes the chapter on Augustine by examining some of Karl Popper's claims about Christianity, first by quoting Popper's acknowledgment that one must come to history with a point of view already in mind, and second by an extended refutation of Popper's criticisms of Christian historicism.

The upshot of Clark's exposition and defense of the Augustinian view of history, which is, perhaps, as close as we've yet come to the Biblical view of history, is of enormous importance to the task of educating Christians in matters historical. If the Christian teacher of history does not provide his students with the Scriptural methodology; if he does not continually use the ideas of universality, providence, and the two-fold culminations of death and resurrection and consummation at the end of the age along with its basic periodization, then the Christian teacher does not provide a Christian view of history. At worst he will adopt a secular structure and methodology for viewing history, and at best he will provide a skeptical view of all structures and methodologies, which leaves the Christian without foundation for positive historical claims. Certainly the necessary skepticism toward secular history is without fruit unless the roots of Scriptural history have travelled deeply into the soil of students' minds. Let us hope that more rather than less Christian teachers and scholars of history are making good use of the Scriptures so that this indispensable aspect of Christian doctrine and its applications isn't lost upon future generations.

Book Review: From Eden to the New Jerusalem

T. Desmond Alexander’s book, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, is a concise introduction to Biblical Theology. It reads more like a series of topical articles, which have been pieced together than a self-contained book, but that doesn’t hinder the flow of the book in my opinion. In ways similar to what David Chilton does in his book, Paradise Regained, Alexander provides typological elements from the Old Testament that are continually revisited, grown, and brought into brightest clarity in the New Testament. Another similarity that Alexander’s book bears is to the book of Michael Williams, Far as the Curse is Found. Both books begin with something later in order to talk about beginnings. Williams begins with the resurrection in order to discuss redemptive history, and Alexander begins with Revelation 20-22, the vision of New Jerusalem in the New Heavens and New Earth, in order to discuss the various typologies that comprise his introduction to Biblical Theology. His aim is to paint in, “broad brush strokes designed to show the general shape of the meta-story” (11). How well does he do?

The opening chapter talks about the Garden of Eden and the Holy City of Revelation as places God established for the purpose of communing with Man—they are dwelling places shared by God and Man. After the Fall, there is no longer a garden, but God does commune through the tabernacle and the temple. Eventually God “tabernacles” in Man himself by way of the Incarnation, and by His Spirit in every one of His people, but manifestly in the people as a whole; the Church. Alexander points to many details that correspond to one another in each of these places of communion, showing how they are related and developed across the redemptive history portrayed in the Scriptures. Much of the material is of great supplementary value for a class that is covering redemptive history.

Chapter two examines the authority of God and Man as revealed in the ideas of Kingship, Kingdom, and (the typological element of) the throne. The prominent focus of Alexander is the vicegerency of Man in God’s economy; how it was given, lost, managed in the loss, and regained in Christ. Chapter three handles the enemy, Satan (the serpent, the devil) across the redemptive history of Scripture. Chapter four examines the slaughter of the lamb as accomplishing redemption. Chapter five discusses the tree of life and the redemption of people from every nation. Chapter seven summarizes the whole under the discussion of the two opposing cities; that of God, and that of Babylon.

Alexander’s book is riveting for all of its interesting connections and possibilities, but it is of best value in the classroom as a supplemental text to use in portions of a course on Redemptive History or Biblical Theology where the teacher wants to highlight some of the same things that Alexander discusses. It is a bit more technical and scholarly than the typical high school student would be prepared for, but not out of bounds for the limited use indicated above.