Paul, an apostle... to the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:1 ~~ Paul immediately establishes his pastoral authority, as sent from God and not from men. He adopts a very different rhetorical strategy than in Philemon, where he seeks to establish personal rapport and disclaims any demands on his own authority.
Galatians 1:3-5 ~~ Paul launches into a doxology that immediately establishes a positive doctrine of atonement, and also introduces a major theme of the letter.
Galatians 1:6-9 ~~ Paul makes a strong and broad-based assertion of his doctrinal authority, and the importance of true doctrine in matters essential for faith.
Galatians 1:6-7 ~~ "Different gospel... distort the gospel." This equivalence supports a broad thesis that error is not independent of truth, but is its corruption or distortion.
Galatians 1:10 ~~ This verse reveals Paul's rhetorical strategy for the beginning of the letter. He appeals to his very abruptness and bombastic tone to show that his apostolic authority is not from men, nor is meant to please men, and that he eschews smooth or apparently persuasive speech because his authority is from God (see vv. 11-12, in which he makes this claim explicate).
Galatians 1:11-12 ~~ Divine revelation was the source of Paul's authority.
Galatians 1:13-2:21 ~~ Paul gives a history of his controversy with the Judaizing sect of Christianity, from Paul as a Pharisee, to his early years as an apostle in the Syrian churches, to the Jerusalem Council and finally concluding with his public dispute with the apostle Peter before the Antioch church.
Galatians 1:13-15 ~~ Paul avoided the Jerusalem church and apostles to avoid conflict and avoid compromising his divinely-appointed authority.
Galatians 1:14 ~~ Paul puts his advanced knowledge and zealousness for Judaic law to good use later in this letter (see Gal. 3:6-18).
Galatians 1:15 ~~ "Set me apart even from my mother's womb...." Is this a reference to Paul's family, such as any brothers or cousins who were also trained Pharisees? Or does Paul simply mean his his Jewish kinsmen?
Galatians 1:17-20 ~~ Paul didn't interact with anyone in the Jerusalem church except for James and Peter until the church report in Jerusalem 14 years after his conversion.
Galatians 2:2-4 ~~ Paul went up to Jerusalem for a report and for resolution of the circumcision controversy (Acts 15). Here it states that "it was because of a revelation that I went up," though he also notes other reasons given in 2:4 ("false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty"). The sequence of events is particularly interesting. It appears that Paul first appeared privately before the Jerusalem Council and "submitted to them the gospel which I preached among the Gentiles," presenting his case to the elders before the church report and the public controversy stirred up by the Pharisaical sects, thus influencing the final resolution given by James and the other elders of the Council.
Galatians 2:4-5 ~~ The Judaizers sought to put Gentiles (who had just gained their freedom in Christ, see 5:1) back into bondage. Paul made no compromise to the converts' Christian freedom.
Galatians 2:6-10 ~~ Paul offers a bittersweet evaluation of his reception in Jerusalem, that those with authority and reputation "contributed nothing to me," those they "gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship."
Galatians 2:8 ~~ Peter ministered to the circumcised, Paul ministered to the Gentiles. How is this verse (and others related to the leadership structure of the early church, see Acts 15) consistent with the unilateral authority claimed by the Papal See in the Roman Catholic Church?
Galatians 2:10 ~~ Paul states that the Antioch Christians were only "asked... to remember the poor," whereas Luke records a list of four mandates in Acts 15:20.
Galatians 2:11-13 ~~ Paul is quite critical in his evaluation of Cephas (Peter). Peter had participated with the Gentile Christians when he first arrived in Antioch, but had withdrawn into the more strict Judaic community when representatives from James in the Jerusalem church had visited. He was "fearing the party of the circumcision" -- presumably, Peter was trying to preserve his credibility from attack by the more radical Jewish sects. This might have been a prudential move (avoiding unnecessary conflict) if it were not for the broader repercussions, for "the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy," even Paul's associate Barnabas. Peter's acts may have helped his outreach to the Jews, but had also given offense to the Gentile Christians. By his actions, Peter had caused a rift in the church between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Galatians 2:14 ~~ Paul confronts Peter directly and begins with a public rebuke. This strikes me possibly as imprudent as Peter's actions, for it may have escalated the crisis and made this letter necessary long after the Antioch controversy.
Galatians 2:16 ~~ This verse is central to the theology of Martin Luther, as it offers a thrice-repeated doctrine of justification by faith and not by the works of the Law.
Galatians 2:17-19 ~~ "if... we ourselves are found to be sinners" -- that is, judged to be sinners, knowledge of which comes from the Law -- we prove ourselves to be transgressors by judging ourselves according to the Law and not according to our liberty in Christ Jesus! Paul seems to state that over-reliance and concern for the actions of Christian living can in fact be sinful when it conflicts with our understanding of our freedom to live by faith in the Spirit.
Galatians 2:21 ~~ if righteousness is from the Law, then Christ's sacrifice was needless and without effect.
Galatians 3:2-5 ~~ Paul harshly criticizes the Galatians' turn from the Spirit (grace) to flesh (works of Law).
Galatians 3:6-14 ~~ Paul embarks on a defense of the doctrines of liberty and faith, drawing from the Law itself. He uses a similar strategy in the section after 4:21.
Galatians 3:6-7 ~~ This verse (Gen. 15:6) is often quoted in the New Testament, and developed in more depth in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11. The sons of Abraham are defined by their faith accredited as righteousness
Galatians 3:8-9 ~~ This verse emphasizes the universal outreach of the Gospel, since the nations would be blessed through Abraham. Also, note the distinction drawn between the "sons of Abraham" and those "blessed with Abraham."
Galatians 3:10 ~~ Those who rely on the works of the Law are cursed under the Law (see 3:13), since they can never abide by all of the requirements.
Galatians 3:11-12 ~~ Paul contrasts living by faith (righteousness) with living by the Law (accursedness).
Galatians 3:16 ~~ Paul's Pharisaical training comes through here, in his familiarity with the Scriptures. He argues from the grammatical structure of the Abrahamic covenant (in particular, the fact that the "seed" of Abraham is in the singular) to show that it is fulfilled not in the Jewish people but in the person of Christ.
Galatians 3:17-18 ~~ This is perhaps the crucial point in Paul's argument: the Abrahamic covenant (the promise given to the patriarch) precedes the Mosaic covenant (the works of the Law given on Mount Sinai). Therefore the Law does not and cannot supersede the promise and the liberty that is fulfilled in Christ.
Galatians 3:19 ~~ The purpose of the Law was to mediate between God and sinful man before the Abrahamic promise had been fulfilled in Christ (see 3:23). While the covenant is given directly, the Law was given indirectly, "ordained by angels" (as per Deuteronomy 33:2, but also referenced in Acts 7:38,53 and Hebrews 2:2) "by the agency of a mediator" (presumably Moses), and passed ultimately to the Jewish people. The concept that the Law was transmitted or even ordained by angels would put a new spin on the entire reading of the Torah, and would certainly diminish its authority compared to the Abrahamic promise received directly from God.
Galatians 3:21-22 ~~ The Law is not contrary to the Abrahamic promise; it serves to point out sin, even while it is powerless to redeem us from sin. However, "the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin" seems to imply (as in Romans 7) that the Law also functions to be corrupted by sin, proving the existence of our sin insofar as it can even corrupt the commandments of God, and showing us the necessity of confession and repentance.
Galatians 3:23-24 ~~ Before Christ, we were in "custody under the Law" like children under the watchful eye of a "tutor" (a slave attendant). As children, we were kept from our adult inheritance and blessings ("being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed"). Like Jacob and the Prodigal Son, we sometimes demand a blessing which is not yet time for us to receive.
Galatians 3:28 ~~ The unity of the body of Christ is an oft-repeated sentiment in the Pauline epistles; this verse is repeated verbatim in several other locations.
Galatians 4:1 ~~ In light of 3:23-26, which considers our custody as children under slaves, Galatians 4 begins by comparing our status as children to that of slaves. This was common to Hellenistic culture (cf. Aristotle's Politics, Book 1).
Galatians 4:3 ~~ As children (future heirs) we were held in bondage to the "elemental things" or "principles of the world (the Law, implied by 4:10).
Galatians 4:8-10 ~~ before knowing God, we sought for God in those things which were not Him. But now, after faith has taken hold, it would be sin to return to the "weak and worthless principles" of the Law. Desire to be enslaved by the Law is fundamentally anti-Christian (Gal. 5:1 - "It was for freedom that Christ set us free").
Galatians 4:10 ~~ "days and months and seasons and years" probably refers to the liturgical calendar of the Hebrew traditions and the Law.
Galatians 4:11 ~~ "I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain." Through the letter, Paul drops his more bombastic tone, and towards the end begins to reveal his insecurities about his apostolic leadership for the Galatians. Similar sentiments are echoed in 4:20 and 5:7.
Galatians 4:12 ~~ Here's a paradoxical statement: "become as I am, for I also have become as you are."
Galatians 4:12-15 ~~ Paul states that the Galatians who received this letter initially heard the Gospel because of an unspecified weakness or illness. This may imply a detour in the first missionary journey recorded in Acts 13, or possibly an unrecorded detour in the second journey (Acts 16; but see Acts 16:6-8 where the Holy Spirit prevents them from spreading the Gospel in Bythinia and northern Galatia) or even the third journey (Acts 18:23) though the date of the journey and this letter would be an issue. Whatever the history, the Galatians evidently did not despise Paul for only teaching them the Gospel as a result of illness, but viewed it as an act of Providence. Yet now, having overcome such adverse conditions to receive the Gospel, the Galatians begin to reject Paul's teachings for relative trivialities.
Galatians 4:17-18 ~~ The Judaizers seek the Gentile Christians not commendably (as apostolic authority) but to reinforce their own religious authority ("shut you out" from the Christian community by the works of the Law, "so that you will seek them" for permission to be brought back within the community of grace.
Galatians 4:20 ~~ This is a counterpart to 4:11 and 5:7. Paul is so overcome by fear and worry that he desires to be present, to act or do something, to even "change my tone" if it would help the Galatians find their way back. Paul is perplexed, especially in light of the question in 4:21.
Galatians 4:21-28 ~~ Paul gently mocks the inconsistency of the Galatian's reliance on the Law, for the Law itself, beginning with the Abrahamic covenant and the division between Sarah and Hagar points towards freedom from the Law (that is, the "promise"). The current Jerusalem (i.e., the Judaic Law) is in slavery, where the new Jerusalem offers freedom (see Isaiah 54:1 and Revelations 21:2).
Galatians 4:29-31 ~~ The allegory of Hagar and Sarah is followed by the allegory of Ishmael and Isaac, that those in slavery (Judaizers) seek to persecute and bind those who enjoy freedom (believers of the promise).
Galatians 5:1 ~~ "It was for freedom that Christ set us free"; I love this verse.
Galatians 5:2-4 ~~ In the context, accepting circumcision from the Judaizers would be a mortal sin for the Galatians, for it would be testimony of the insufficiency of Christ's atonement (v. 4).
Galatians 5:4-5 ~~ Paul contrasts those who seek justification by law (active pursuit of actual restoration by definite means) to those who wait for the hope of righteousness by faith through the Spirit (passive acceptance of potential restoration by imprecise or uncertain means).
Galatians 5:6 ~~ Circumcision is meaningless compared to "faith working through love."
Galatians 5:8 ~~ Paul flatly states that the Judaizers (or whoever preaches justification by works of the Law) are not from Christ.
Galatians 5:9 ~~ This seems to be something of a non sequitur, regarding the pervasive influence of Judaizers.
Galatians 5:11 ~~ As in 1:10, Paul ironically points out the ease by which he could concede to the Judaizers, to avoid the persecution of these heterodox sects. But he is unwilling to abolish the "stumbling block of the cross" (a similar phrase is used in Rom. 9:33 and 1 Cor. 1:23).
Galatians 5:12 ~~ There are two possible readings of this verse. It might be an uncharacteristically bitter and vengeful outburst at the Judaizers (as in, "they should go mutilate themselves!") or it might be a particularly pointed attack (as in, "circumcision for the Gentiles would be akin to castration for the Jews; you first!") Either way, this is an extraordinary verse.
Galatians 5:13 ~~ Here is the summary statement of Galatians: "You were called to freedom, brethren."
Galatians 5:13-14 ~~ With these verses, Paul turns from defending the doctrine of Christian liberty to exhorting and encouraging its proper use -- for Christian fellowship, service, and love.
Galatians 5:15 ~~ Paul warns against the critical attitude embodied by the Law, saying how it might be turned against you by your enemy.
Galatians 5:16-17 ~~ To walk by the Spirit is to "crucify the passions and desires of the flesh" (5:24).
Galatians 5:19-21 ~~ "Deeds of the flesh" (list of vices), emphasizing works and actions. "Deeds" (plural) also implies variety.
Galatians 5:22-23 ~~ "Fruit of the Spirit" (list of virtues), emphasizing habits and traits. "Fruit" (singular) also implies unity.
Galatians 5:23 ~~ For such quality of virtue "there is no law" (see also 5:18, "If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Law"). These virtues are sufficient without any requirement for action, for they will be imbued in every deed done by the person possessing such virtue.
Galatians 5:25-26 ~~ Here is a summary statement of the habits of vice, rooted in a rejection of hierarchy. We ought to avoid a spirit of boasting(when above), a spirit of cutthroat competitiveness (when beside), and a spirit of envy (when below).
Galatians 6:1-8 ~~ Paul outlines a doctrine of Christian unity and fellowship, considered in relief with individual moral responsibility. Paul seems to relish the sheer quantity of paradoxes in this section.
Galatians 6:1 ~~ We are to forgive and restore those who sin gently (to preserve their soul) and carefully (to preserve our own).
Galatians 6:2 ~~ Paul begins by outlining the duty for bear the loads of others (the law of Christian charity), before declaring that we can only bear our own loads when we come before judgment (v. 4-5).
Galatians 6:3-4 ~~ Another paradox: we are to take pride in our own work, insofar as we approach Christ, even while we are deceived if we think ourselves to be more than nothing.
Galatians 6:6 ~~ Another paradox, or else a non sequitur: we must bear others' loads (for charity), but can only bear our own loads (for judgment), but must "share all good things" with those who teach the word or instruct us in goodness (implying a duty to provide for teachers and evangelists).
Galatians 6:7-9 ~~ "Whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." Redemption and restoration are tied to Spirit and grace, but inheritance of the blessing is directly linked to works of faith.
Galatians 6:11 ~~ Paul takes the pen in hand, and laughs at the contrast between his handwriting and the fine meticulous penmanship of a scribe.
Galatians 6:12-13 ~~ The Judaizers advocate circumcision not as a doctrine truth, but to stave off persecution and boost conversion rates among Jewish audiences. These are largely political considerations, which Paul considers hypocritical and lacking consideration for the Gentile believers. On the other hand, by practicing circumcision, early Christianity could be associated with Jewish rites that were protected by and from Roman interference.
Galatians 6:15-16 ~~ The works of the Law and differences under the Law are meaningless in light of the restoration of the whole Creation by the cross (see also 5:6).
Galatians 6:17 ~~ Paul concludes with a personal appeal for doctrinal peace and for recognition of his authority in light of his suffering condition (perhaps alluding to his "illness" from 4:13, or "thorn in the flesh" from 2 Cor. 12:7).
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you spirit, brethren. Amen.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Welcome to the Blog
Teleology, or the study of ends and purposes, plays a vital role in classical and medieval philosophy. It simply asks: what is the point? I'm being slightly ironic, since that was an awfully roundabout way to introduce this blog's mission statement.
I am a Christian, and I seek to be a thoughtful Christian. My faith arises first from reason, and only then from personal experience, so this blog will explore theological questions with an analytical eye. My role models in this endeavor are St. Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis.
I am an intellectual omnivore. I truly love wisdom and knowledge, however it manifests itself. I enjoy abstract questions, though I generally try to understand and present such ideas in applicable ways. Thus, this blog will also explore a range of topics -- not just philosophical theology -- with an eye towards broad themes.
Lastly, I am dedicated to an ideal of the public forum, to the notion that humans are political creatures who find their fulfillment in thought and in community. Is this not the lesson of Matthew 22:36-40? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" necessitates a life of the mind, just as "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" entails a life within a broader community.
This pretty well encapsulates the purpose of this blog, and might also serve as a mission statement for my life. I wish to spur myself and others to the more noble path, to a life of contemplation and community.
God bless you all.
I am a Christian, and I seek to be a thoughtful Christian. My faith arises first from reason, and only then from personal experience, so this blog will explore theological questions with an analytical eye. My role models in this endeavor are St. Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis.
I am an intellectual omnivore. I truly love wisdom and knowledge, however it manifests itself. I enjoy abstract questions, though I generally try to understand and present such ideas in applicable ways. Thus, this blog will also explore a range of topics -- not just philosophical theology -- with an eye towards broad themes.
Lastly, I am dedicated to an ideal of the public forum, to the notion that humans are political creatures who find their fulfillment in thought and in community. Is this not the lesson of Matthew 22:36-40? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" necessitates a life of the mind, just as "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" entails a life within a broader community.
This pretty well encapsulates the purpose of this blog, and might also serve as a mission statement for my life. I wish to spur myself and others to the more noble path, to a life of contemplation and community.
God bless you all.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Contemplations in Theology: #13
Salvation is possible for those who do not know the name of Jesus Christ.
I am no Univeralist. There are certain definite truths, and there is only one path that leads to God: namely, the person of Jesus Christ. But it is worthwhile to ask: who is on that path? What do we mean when we speak of ourselves as 'followers' of Jesus Christ?
Most orthodox Christians rely on the relatively simple answer of Romans 10:9: "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Those who submit themselves to Him are "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:24). Faith in Christ is the defining trait of the Christian doctrine of salvation.
But the simple answer does not fully satisfy, for it leaves several questions unresolved.
Before or after the Incarnation, there have been perhaps billions of people who live their lives in ignorance of the Gospel. What is the fate of the multitude who never heard the name of Christ?
In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis wrote of the concept of the "Tao" as a universal ideal, common to Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Eastern mystics, and the Christians. "It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes really are true and others really are false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are." This is at the heart of my point.
There is a universal conception of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful which every person possesses simply by virtue of being a human being created in the image of God.
Plato argued that we derive our standards for value-judgments from Forms; we can speak of things as "good" because we have experienced the Form of the Good. Christianity associates these Forms, and especially the Form of the Good, with God. Therefore, this takes our argument a step further.
Our knowledge and desire of the True, Good, and Beautiful is in fact the very essence of our humanity, and at the very heart of our identity as human beings created in the image of God. I would argue that the imago dei is precisely this desire for the true, good, and beautiful -- in other words, our rational, moral, and aesthetic capacities.
John 1:1 states: "In the beginning was the Word." This is a vital truth about Jesus Christ. It states: Jesus Christ may be "the Word made flesh," but when we confess the name of Jesus Christ, we are fundamentally confessing "the Word [as] God." But what is this "Word" (Gk Logos)? Is it not the Tao described by Lewis, or the "Forms" seen by Plato? Could we not say, in fact, that the Word is the ultimate manifestation of the True, Good, and Beautiful?
We are created in the image of God. We are born with a desire for these noble ideals; that is, with a desire for the Word. Human religiosity is thus driven by our common human need to sate the desire for these perfections. As Christians, we believe the satisfaction of that desire lies in knowledge of our personal and provident God. What's more, there is an even deeper satisfaction in knowledge of the Word made flesh, the person of Jesus Christ.
But for those who do not even know the name of Christ, how can they sate this desire? For those who know neither the transcendence of God the Father nor the immanence of God the Son, where are they to turn?
If special revelation fails, or if it is simply not available, could general revelation suffice?
Romans 2:11-16 suggests it would.
A similar point was made by Thomas a Kempis in The Imitation of Christ: "The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy."
These passages assert that we are judged and our salvation determined according to our degree of knowledge. As Jews were judged by their adherence to the Law, we as Christians are judged by our faith in Christ as the Word made flesh. But just as the Gentiles without knowledge of the Law were judged by the standards of conscience and reason, so too are those without knowledge of Christ judged by their desire for the Word.
I do not believe in salvation outside of Christ. I merely wish to argue that those who are ignorant of the Word made flesh can still be saved by their adherence to the Word.
Indeed, on the day of judgment when each of us is brought before the great white throne, those who have lived their lives in pursuit of the Word will see its incarnation before their eyes. If they have truly sought Christ when they could only perceive Him through a glass darkly, then their souls will leap at the chance to see face to face.
Some may argue that this doctrine diminishes the importance of "the Word made flesh" and of special revelation. I say, with Paul in Romans 3:1-3, not at all. "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." As Christians, we can enjoy intimately a relationship with God--we can in fact experience the good, the true, and the beautiful--when those without Christ seek such blessing from afar. We can see with clarity what others can only see shrouded in shadow.
We are held to a higher standard than others, for we have witnessed the power of the Presence of God. After all, the more fully we enter the Beatific Vision, the more we can see of the face of God, the more we ought to love and desire Him.
This should be profoundly disconcerting: the holier we are, the holier we are expected to become. Yet here lies the fear of the Lord, and the beginning of wisdom.
Before I close this note, I want to take a complicated and probably controversial detour. This argument I have outlined need not be limited to those who do not know of Christianity at all. What of those who know only a little, or whose knowledge is mixed with error?
We are imperfect vessels bearing the name of a perfect God. It should not surprise us, then, if our lives and sins prove to be distracting from the Gospel that we preach. But what can we say if those who have ears to hear are unable to hear, because of the deafening sins of the Christian?
What are we to say to the altar-boy who rejects Christianity because he associates the Church with the pedophile priest, with grotesque sins and abuses of authority? Are we prepared to say that he is damned for taking that stand? If he thought that this sinful priest was representative of the Christian faith, he would distance himself from that faith, even if he possessed a pure desire for the Word.
What are we to say to those natives of Africa and America who only knew Christianity in the context of imperialism, racism, and death? Indeed, here is a terrifying possibility: what if their rejection of Christianity was indeed an act of virtue? For it could not be praiseworthy to love a God of violence and hatred, and if that is all they knew the Christian God to be, then it might have been a deed performed by a gentle and loving heart to reject such a message. In this scenario, could we not say that they were closer to the kingdom of God, precisely because of their rejection of the Gospel?
Even if the error is entirely the fault of misperception, and is not the fault of any Christian's sin or moral failing, the point remain. If you are entirely motivated by desire for the Word, and you are confronted with a faith that seems to conflict with the ideals you seek, would you not reject it?
At the end of The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis places a Calormene soldier in the midst of the "real Narnia" with the company of true followers of Aslan. When this soldier first encounters the "great Lion,"
I do not believe that all people will be saved. I do not believe that all ways lead to heaven. I do not believe that we should be content to let error remain. But I cannot believe that errors of mind disqualify the yearnings of our hearts and souls, not when God sees every one of us in our inmost being.
And that is why I assert, with some trepidation, that salvation is possible even for those who do not believe in the Christian faith.
I am no Univeralist. There are certain definite truths, and there is only one path that leads to God: namely, the person of Jesus Christ. But it is worthwhile to ask: who is on that path? What do we mean when we speak of ourselves as 'followers' of Jesus Christ?
Most orthodox Christians rely on the relatively simple answer of Romans 10:9: "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Those who submit themselves to Him are "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:24). Faith in Christ is the defining trait of the Christian doctrine of salvation.
But the simple answer does not fully satisfy, for it leaves several questions unresolved.
Before or after the Incarnation, there have been perhaps billions of people who live their lives in ignorance of the Gospel. What is the fate of the multitude who never heard the name of Christ?
In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis wrote of the concept of the "Tao" as a universal ideal, common to Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Eastern mystics, and the Christians. "It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes really are true and others really are false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are." This is at the heart of my point.
There is a universal conception of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful which every person possesses simply by virtue of being a human being created in the image of God.
Plato argued that we derive our standards for value-judgments from Forms; we can speak of things as "good" because we have experienced the Form of the Good. Christianity associates these Forms, and especially the Form of the Good, with God. Therefore, this takes our argument a step further.
Our knowledge and desire of the True, Good, and Beautiful is in fact the very essence of our humanity, and at the very heart of our identity as human beings created in the image of God. I would argue that the imago dei is precisely this desire for the true, good, and beautiful -- in other words, our rational, moral, and aesthetic capacities.
John 1:1 states: "In the beginning was the Word." This is a vital truth about Jesus Christ. It states: Jesus Christ may be "the Word made flesh," but when we confess the name of Jesus Christ, we are fundamentally confessing "the Word [as] God." But what is this "Word" (Gk Logos)? Is it not the Tao described by Lewis, or the "Forms" seen by Plato? Could we not say, in fact, that the Word is the ultimate manifestation of the True, Good, and Beautiful?
We are created in the image of God. We are born with a desire for these noble ideals; that is, with a desire for the Word. Human religiosity is thus driven by our common human need to sate the desire for these perfections. As Christians, we believe the satisfaction of that desire lies in knowledge of our personal and provident God. What's more, there is an even deeper satisfaction in knowledge of the Word made flesh, the person of Jesus Christ.
But for those who do not even know the name of Christ, how can they sate this desire? For those who know neither the transcendence of God the Father nor the immanence of God the Son, where are they to turn?
If special revelation fails, or if it is simply not available, could general revelation suffice?
Romans 2:11-16 suggests it would.
"For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who sinned under the law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
A similar point was made by Thomas a Kempis in The Imitation of Christ: "The more you know and the better you understand, the more severely will you be judged, unless your life is also the more holy."
These passages assert that we are judged and our salvation determined according to our degree of knowledge. As Jews were judged by their adherence to the Law, we as Christians are judged by our faith in Christ as the Word made flesh. But just as the Gentiles without knowledge of the Law were judged by the standards of conscience and reason, so too are those without knowledge of Christ judged by their desire for the Word.
I do not believe in salvation outside of Christ. I merely wish to argue that those who are ignorant of the Word made flesh can still be saved by their adherence to the Word.
Indeed, on the day of judgment when each of us is brought before the great white throne, those who have lived their lives in pursuit of the Word will see its incarnation before their eyes. If they have truly sought Christ when they could only perceive Him through a glass darkly, then their souls will leap at the chance to see face to face.
Some may argue that this doctrine diminishes the importance of "the Word made flesh" and of special revelation. I say, with Paul in Romans 3:1-3, not at all. "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." As Christians, we can enjoy intimately a relationship with God--we can in fact experience the good, the true, and the beautiful--when those without Christ seek such blessing from afar. We can see with clarity what others can only see shrouded in shadow.
We are held to a higher standard than others, for we have witnessed the power of the Presence of God. After all, the more fully we enter the Beatific Vision, the more we can see of the face of God, the more we ought to love and desire Him.
This should be profoundly disconcerting: the holier we are, the holier we are expected to become. Yet here lies the fear of the Lord, and the beginning of wisdom.
Before I close this note, I want to take a complicated and probably controversial detour. This argument I have outlined need not be limited to those who do not know of Christianity at all. What of those who know only a little, or whose knowledge is mixed with error?
We are imperfect vessels bearing the name of a perfect God. It should not surprise us, then, if our lives and sins prove to be distracting from the Gospel that we preach. But what can we say if those who have ears to hear are unable to hear, because of the deafening sins of the Christian?
What are we to say to the altar-boy who rejects Christianity because he associates the Church with the pedophile priest, with grotesque sins and abuses of authority? Are we prepared to say that he is damned for taking that stand? If he thought that this sinful priest was representative of the Christian faith, he would distance himself from that faith, even if he possessed a pure desire for the Word.
What are we to say to those natives of Africa and America who only knew Christianity in the context of imperialism, racism, and death? Indeed, here is a terrifying possibility: what if their rejection of Christianity was indeed an act of virtue? For it could not be praiseworthy to love a God of violence and hatred, and if that is all they knew the Christian God to be, then it might have been a deed performed by a gentle and loving heart to reject such a message. In this scenario, could we not say that they were closer to the kingdom of God, precisely because of their rejection of the Gospel?
Even if the error is entirely the fault of misperception, and is not the fault of any Christian's sin or moral failing, the point remain. If you are entirely motivated by desire for the Word, and you are confronted with a faith that seems to conflict with the ideals you seek, would you not reject it?
At the end of The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis places a Calormene soldier in the midst of the "real Narnia" with the company of true followers of Aslan. When this soldier first encounters the "great Lion,"
I fell at His feet and thought, "Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash [the pagan god] and not Him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the lion and die, than to be kind of the world and live and not have seen Him. But the Glorious One bent down and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, 'Son, thou are welcome.' But I said, 'Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash.' He answered, 'Child, all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me." Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, "Lord is it true, as the Ape [the false prophet] said, the thou and Tash are one?" The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, "It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services that thous hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man do a cruelty in my name, than though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed accepted. Dost Thou understand child?" I said, "Lord, Thou knowest how much I understand." But I also said (for the truth constrained me), "Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days." "Beloved" said the Glorious One, "unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly, for all find what they truly seek."
I do not believe that all people will be saved. I do not believe that all ways lead to heaven. I do not believe that we should be content to let error remain. But I cannot believe that errors of mind disqualify the yearnings of our hearts and souls, not when God sees every one of us in our inmost being.
And that is why I assert, with some trepidation, that salvation is possible even for those who do not believe in the Christian faith.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Commentary on Scripture: Ephesians
(Please note that I use an NASB translation, so some of the phrase may be different from your Bible).
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph. 1:3-14 ~~ A doxology to God the Father (v. 3-6) and God the Son (v. 7-13a) with some mention of the Holy Spirit (v. 13b-14). This doxology strongly emphasizes divine benevolence in the various doctrines of spiritual gifts, election, redemption, reward, general and special revelation, eschatology, and teleology.
Eph. 1:3 ~~ "Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" seems to indicate that our union with Christ has already empowered us, by granting access to God and his (spiritual) power and might. This dovetails nicely with the discussion of spiritual warfare that ends this letter in Ephesians 6.
Eph. 1:4-5 ~~ A strong statement of predestination, particularly emphasizing the benevolence of God
Eph. 1:7 ~~ The "redemption through His blood" seems to be distinct from "the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace." Theologically they cannot be too distinct, but perhaps they can be considered two different modes of the same act of grace and forgiveness?
Eph. 1:8-9 ~~ God's wisdom expressed by revealing the mystery of His will
Eph. 1:11 ~~ Inheritance as sons of God is distinct from forgiveness or redemption (cf. Eph. 1:7) but is strongly correlated in this doxology with mentions of predestination.
Eph. 1:13-14 ~~ The Holy Spirit is given as a pledge of our inheritance in heaven (which I correlate to the "store up treasures in heaven" passage in Matthew 6:20). This reward is given for the praise of His glory, but (more interestingly) for the purpose of redeeming God's own possession; that is, us. My next contemplation will be on this very topic, actually, but there seems to be a suggestion that we might be more easily redeemed (brought into the Church) with the promise that we will not only be redeemed but also restored, not only forgiven for our sins but also made excellent in virtue.
Eph. 1:17 ~~ "God and Father of glory" gives us the spirit of wisdom and revelation of the knowledge of Him.
Eph. 1:18-19 ~~ Eyes of the heart are opened in the "hope of His calling" -- "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." Here again is the prominent suggestion that we are more easily able to approach God with a carrot (incentive for reward) than a stick (punishment for sin). Paul in facts prayed that they would see this hope of inheritance, along with the "surpassing greatness of His power" and the "working of the strength of His might," and thereby accept the Gospel.
Eph. 1:22-23 ~~ This passage parallels Ephesians 5 and the (very controversial) issues of headship in marriage. God gave headship over Church to Christ; all other things were "put... in subjection under His feet" except for the church, which is Christ's body. This is illustrative in the context of Ephesians 5:21-22, for it shows that submission is not subjection but much more dignifying to all involved.
Eph. 2:1-2 ~~ Former death was when you "walked according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air, according to the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience." We are beset by temptation from around us, below us, and within us; we are caused to sin by influence of the world, of Satan, and of ourselves.
Eph. 2:3 ~~ The sins arising from ourselves are called "lusts of our flesh," but they arise from indulging the desires of both our body and our mind. 1 John 2:16 makes this same point (see especially St. Augustine's commentary on that passage in his Confessions.
Eph. 2:6 ~~ God, rich in mercy, made us alive, raised us up with Him and seated us "in the heavenly places in Christ." This is the same phrase used in the introductory doxology.
Eph. 2:8 ~~ Salvation "through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God." Christians receive the spirit of faith as a gift from the Providence of God.
Eph. 2:10 ~~ Humans are "created... for good works." In a similar vein, Lord Acton defined liberty not as unlimited freedom from restraint, but the freedom to act virtuously.
Eph. 2:14-16 ~~ The Law (of commandments and ordinances) is the cause of division. Christ broke down the dividing wall, by abolishing it in His flesh. He reconciled us to God in the cross, "by it having put to death" the Law.
Eph. 2:19-21 ~~ We are residents of God's house, which is built on the foundations of the apostles and the prophets, with a cornerstone of Christ, which is becoming a holy temple in the Lord. The imagery is quite interesting, for the cornerstone is generally laid last and is necessary for the stability of the whole.
Eph. 3:3 ~~ "By revelation there was made known the mystery" (reason clarified through experience) "...as I wrote before in brief" (previous letter to Ephesus: perhaps unpreserved or non-canonical?)
Eph. 3:5-6 ~~ Mystery related to the redemption of Gentiles "not revealed to past generations." This passage suggests that the reason for the early church dispute between Judaizers who wished to preserve Jewish customs and the Law and the bloc led by Peter who wished to open the doors of the Gospel to the Gentiles was ultimately one of knowledge. The answer to the riddle was given by vision or revelation to individuals (Peter in Acts 12; Paul in this passage and others). The authority and credibility of these church elders and apostles gave their individual experiences a rational weight in argument.
Eph. 3:6 ~~ Note the repeated emphasis on the equality of the Gentiles: "fellow heirs... fellow members of the body... fellow partakers of the promise."
Eph. 3:8-9 ~~ Paul given the grace to preach the riches of Christ, to make all know the administration of the mystery" of the universal extent of salvation. That is, Paul did not just spread word that the Gospels could reach the Gentiles; he brought it to them himself.
Eph. 3:12 ~~ in Christ, we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.
Eph. 3:14-15 ~~ A bit of rhetorical wordplay, since the Greek word for "father" is similar to "family."
Eph. 3:14-19 ~~ Paul humbled that God grants: power of Spirit, riches of glory, indwelling of Christ, grace to comprehend and know God's love, "that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God."
Eph. 3:16 ~~ "Strengthened... in the inner man" (later passages translate similar phrases "inner self")
Eph. 3:18-19 ~~ "Comprehend" (grasp the magnitude of) and "know" (experience personally) the love of Christ. Paul distinguishes rational and experiential modes of learning and knowing.
Eph. 3:20-12 ~~ A mini-doxology, praising God for His power working within us.
Eph. 4:1-3 ~~ Thematic transition: "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" by living out these virtues: humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance in love, diligence, unity in the Spirit, peace of God.
Eph. 4:4-6 ~~ Quality of unity applies to body, Spirit, hope, calling, Lord, faith, baptism, and God.
Eph. 4:6 ~~ God the Father of all, over all, through all, in all. This reveals three characteristics of God: his transcendence and supremacy, his omnipresence, and his immanence.
Eph. 4:7-16 ~~ Discussion of gifts and unity in the body of Christ clearly parallels 1 Corinthians 12.
Eph. 4:9 ~~ This is one instance in which the interpretation of a passage clearly and directly affects one's view of a particular theological doctrine; in this case, whether Christ descended to hell during the three days between His death and resurrection. One's answer largely depends on the meaning one ascribes to the phrase "lower parts of the earth." Sheol was typically considered to be subterranean in Hebrew cosmology, as was Hades in Greco-Roman understanding. On the other hand, considering the heavenly heights from which Christ descended, even a life of the surface would be the "lower parts."
Eph. 4:11-12 ~~ Four classes of spiritual gifts, often conflated, which Paul distinguishes between. They are united in two works -- equipping of the saints for works of service, and building up of the church -- but have different functions. Apostles are those who plant churches and encourage leaders; prophets are those who restore churches and rebuke leaders; evangelists are those who expand existing churches and introduce new members; and pastors are those who develop churches and help members mature.
Eph. 4:13 ~~ Unity of faith and knowledge of Christ bring us to "measure of stature" that belongs to the fullness of Christ ("until we all attain to a mature man")
Eph. 4:17-18 ~~ Warning against the Gentiles' "futility of mind" (cf. Romans 1:21-22). They were "darkened in understanding... because of the hardness of their hearts." Emotional receptivity to truth found in faith directly correlates to receptivity to truth found by reason.
Eph. 4:19 ~~ A rather ironic statement of sin: the Gentiles, "having become callous," abandoned themselves to sensuality as a result. By losing their moral center, their souls were numbed to the aesthetic and erotic pleasures, making them more desperate to recover those pleasures, and driving them further away from what enabled them to enjoy them.
Eph. 4:22-24 ~~ Three stages or parts of conversation: "lay aside the old self," "be renewed in the spirit of your mind," and "put on the new self, in the likeness of God." Most exhortations to convert in the New Testament don't really include the middle step, which is quite a fascinating addition by Paul.
Eph. 4:26 ~~ Asserts concept of righteous wrath, for not all anger is sinful (cf. Psalms 4:4)
Eph. 4:26-27 ~~ Emphasizes forgiveness as immunization against spiritual warfare (cf. Matthew 5:23)
Eph. 4:28 ~~ Defends labor, capital, private property with a view towards enabling philanthropy.
Eph. 4:29 ~~ Exhorts to speak only edifying words (cf. Plato's Phaedrus, "noble rhetoric")
Eph. 4:30 ~~ My Bible comments that "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" necessarily entails that the Holy Spirit is of a personal nature. I find this argument questionable. I agree with the doctrine; I just don't think you can find it here, where the object includes God the Father. God sealed us for the day of redemption by his Holy Spirit; therefore, we are not to grieve either one by our misconduct.
Eph. 4:31-32 ~~ Avoid bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander, and malice. Live with a spirit of kindness, tender-heartedness, and forgiveness.
Eph. 5:1-2 ~~ Imitate Christ who "gave Himself up for you" (direct parallel to Ephesians 5:25)
Eph. 5:3-9 ~~ Saints ought not indulge in filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting, but should speak with thanksgiving. Three sins are so serious they "must not even be named among you" -- immorality, impurity, and greed (covetousness), which are defined as mere variants of idolatry. These three sins are the reason "the wrath of God falls on the sons of disobedience." They are sufficient for any who leads such a life to lose their "inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." On the other hand, there are three virtues that are the "fruit of the Light" -- goodness, righteousness, and truth. It seems these are meant to parallel the list of three sins, as to provide the antidote to such idolatry.
Eph. 5:11-13 ~~ We are to expose the sins of others, not by speaking of them publicly, but by leading such Godly lives in comparison that their moral failures cannot be obscured.
Eph. 5:14 ~~ This verse ("For this reason it says...") is a mystery to me. It may be an early hymn of the church. Alternately, the passage may read "For this reason He says," in which case it may be a prophetic utterance or a saying of Christ passed down by oral tradition in the early church, but which did not enter the Gospel accounts.
Eph. 5:15-18 ~~ A series of contrasts, advocating prudence (the conduct of a wise man), industry (making the most of your time), and discernment.
Eph. 5:19-20 ~~ To be filled with the Spirit is to be "making melody with your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks" and speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
Eph. 5:21 ~~ Submission is a universal command for all in the church.
Eph. 5:22 - 6:9 ~~ This is easily the most controversial passage in Ephesians, and one of the more challenging passages in the New Testament. A few notes that I've found helpful in my own interpretation of these verses. First, these pieces of counsel (whether advice or command) are directed towards specific groups and individuals within the Church. Each section intended for a specific audience and no other (the section to wives is not meant for husbands, and vice versa). Specifically, they are meant as challenges, designed to edify each person's soul in areas of special growth. It is good if we seek to follow Paul's counsel, as it will benefit and educate us greatly; however, these verses cannot be used as bargaining chips or used to demand deference from fellow Christians.
Eph. 5:22-32 ~~ In a much longer controversial passage, this is probably the most challenging subsection. Essentially, Paul argues that the marriage relationship parallels Christ and the Church. The Church (the Bride, feminine role) is called to submit to God, while Christ (the Groom, masculine role) is giving Himself up for the Church. Paul extrapolates this same relationship to a more domestic level in which feminine and masculine roles interacted regularly.
Eph. 5:22 ~~ The counsel to wives to "submit... as to the Lord" is not a command to worship their husbands. Submission is an act of service and love, performed as a gift of worship to the Lord. Also, note that all Christians are called to submit to each other; i.e., all other Christians. Wives are called to be more deliberate and dedicated in applying this virtue to their husbands.
Eph. 5:25 ~~ The counsel to husbands to "love... as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" is a command to be entirely self-sacrificing. Wives may submit with action, but husbands are called to submit and love with their very being. Husbands follow Christ's example with the church, even if it means they go willingly to their death. As my Bible comments, rather obliquely, "To give oneself up to death for the beloved is a more extreme expression of devotion than the wife is called on to make." I find this to be a bit of an understatement.
Eph. 5:26 ~~ Apparently there's some doctrinal issues involved in "the washing of water with the word." For more information, see John 3:5 & 15:3, Titus 3:5, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 & 3:21.
Eph. 5:28-29 ~~ Paul makes an interesting point about how "no one ever hated his own flesh." There are some vices that come naturally to us, grounded in our very nature as human beings, including the vice of pride. Other sins, such as self-loathing, are thoroughly 'unnatural vices' that rebel against our human instincts. I would argue it is better to live with natural vices than unnatural vices, if only because more people struggle with the former, and it is therefore easier to find support and counsel.
Eph. 5:33 ~~ This summary re-emphasizes the point that these counsels apply for specific individuals. It is interesting the contrast between wives called to "submit" (v. 22) as opposed to "respect" (v. 33). "Respect" is literally the same word for "fear," as in "fear of the Lord," which may have been Paul's point. Finally, a small parenthetical remark may shed some light of Paul's rhetorical strategy. He writes that "each individual among you also is to love his own wife..." implying that the audience is male. His listeners therefore have an expectation that he will support their authority over wives. Paul's strategy was to first emphasize the submission of wives using the metaphor of Christ and the Church, which would appeal to men (especially Jewish converts) who viewed women as a lower order of being. However, once Paul established the parallel, he turned the metaphor on the men and told them that, if they expected their wives to submit as to Christ, they had better start acting like Christ by practicing self-sacrificial love. In this light, it's an exceptionally clever strategy, and probably caught Paul's audience completely off guard on first reading.
Eph. 6:1-3 ~~ command to children: respect parents (and the authority and traditions they represent) for your own good. In the immortal words of Ben Franklin, "Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from everyone else's."
Eph. 6:4 ~~ command to fathers: exercise patience in treatment of children, but with firm instruction. Again the emphasis seems to be on moral education and tradition.
Eph. 6:5-9 ~~ In these verses on slavery, Paul seeks to redeem the system by addressing and renewing the virtue of individuals acting within it (see also the book of Philemon). This does not mean that Paul accepts slavery as morally praiseworthy, nor that he rejects it as morally deficient. This passage is neutral in evaluating the institution; its focus is on the individuals.
Eph. 6:5-8 ~~ command to slaves: serve God by serving their earthly master, cultivating virtue, and with an eye for storing up treasures in heaven.
Eph. 6:9 ~~ command to masters: imitate your slaves!!! Perform the same deeds, but with an emphasis on avoiding wrongdoing and averting the wrath of God.
Eph. 6:10-11 ~~ "Be strong in the Lord" (Mars, persona of strength, inspiration for concept of armor, spiritual warfare). Rely on God's might in combating evil.
Eph. 6:12 ~~ Speaking personally, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the concept of spiritual warfare. However, verses such as these are pretty unequivocal that spiritual warfare occurs, and that we as Christians need to take it seriously.
Eph. 6:13-14 ~~ To stand firm "in the evil day," we require the armor of God and every fiber of our being ("having done everything"). This is no picnic.
Eph. 6:14-17 ~~ The Armor of God:
(1) "Gird your loins" -- Truth -- the basics, care for one's own soul
(2) "'Breastplate" -- Righteousness -- heart, will, spirit (C.S. Lewis: "the Chest")
(3) "Shod your feet" -- Gospel of Peace -- faith journey, evangelism
(4) "Shield" -- Faith -- protection of whole being (against arrows of all-consuming fire)
(5) "Helmet" -- Salvation -- protection of mind (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:8)
(6) "Sword" -- Spirit, Word of God -- offensive weapon, vs. sin and sinners
Eph. 6:18-19 ~~ "Pray at all times in the Spirit, with this in view" -- that is, in light of spiritual warfare. "Be vigilant with all perseverance and petition for all the saints." I believe this verse is sometimes construed to justify 'praying' to the saints. I think reasonable arguments can be made for the doctrine, but its foundations are not found in this passage. "Petition" is not a verb in this instance, but a noun; our vigilance is expressed by prayers for the saints, rather than supported by prayers of the saints.
Eph. 6:24 ~~ "love... with incorrigible love." An ironic ending, in light of Revelation 2:4, a letter from John addressed to the angel of the church at Ephesus: "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love".
Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with incorrigible love.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph. 1:3-14 ~~ A doxology to God the Father (v. 3-6) and God the Son (v. 7-13a) with some mention of the Holy Spirit (v. 13b-14). This doxology strongly emphasizes divine benevolence in the various doctrines of spiritual gifts, election, redemption, reward, general and special revelation, eschatology, and teleology.
Eph. 1:3 ~~ "Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" seems to indicate that our union with Christ has already empowered us, by granting access to God and his (spiritual) power and might. This dovetails nicely with the discussion of spiritual warfare that ends this letter in Ephesians 6.
Eph. 1:4-5 ~~ A strong statement of predestination, particularly emphasizing the benevolence of God
Eph. 1:7 ~~ The "redemption through His blood" seems to be distinct from "the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace." Theologically they cannot be too distinct, but perhaps they can be considered two different modes of the same act of grace and forgiveness?
Eph. 1:8-9 ~~ God's wisdom expressed by revealing the mystery of His will
Eph. 1:11 ~~ Inheritance as sons of God is distinct from forgiveness or redemption (cf. Eph. 1:7) but is strongly correlated in this doxology with mentions of predestination.
Eph. 1:13-14 ~~ The Holy Spirit is given as a pledge of our inheritance in heaven (which I correlate to the "store up treasures in heaven" passage in Matthew 6:20). This reward is given for the praise of His glory, but (more interestingly) for the purpose of redeeming God's own possession; that is, us. My next contemplation will be on this very topic, actually, but there seems to be a suggestion that we might be more easily redeemed (brought into the Church) with the promise that we will not only be redeemed but also restored, not only forgiven for our sins but also made excellent in virtue.
Eph. 1:17 ~~ "God and Father of glory" gives us the spirit of wisdom and revelation of the knowledge of Him.
Eph. 1:18-19 ~~ Eyes of the heart are opened in the "hope of His calling" -- "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." Here again is the prominent suggestion that we are more easily able to approach God with a carrot (incentive for reward) than a stick (punishment for sin). Paul in facts prayed that they would see this hope of inheritance, along with the "surpassing greatness of His power" and the "working of the strength of His might," and thereby accept the Gospel.
Eph. 1:22-23 ~~ This passage parallels Ephesians 5 and the (very controversial) issues of headship in marriage. God gave headship over Church to Christ; all other things were "put... in subjection under His feet" except for the church, which is Christ's body. This is illustrative in the context of Ephesians 5:21-22, for it shows that submission is not subjection but much more dignifying to all involved.
Eph. 2:1-2 ~~ Former death was when you "walked according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air, according to the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience." We are beset by temptation from around us, below us, and within us; we are caused to sin by influence of the world, of Satan, and of ourselves.
Eph. 2:3 ~~ The sins arising from ourselves are called "lusts of our flesh," but they arise from indulging the desires of both our body and our mind. 1 John 2:16 makes this same point (see especially St. Augustine's commentary on that passage in his Confessions.
Eph. 2:6 ~~ God, rich in mercy, made us alive, raised us up with Him and seated us "in the heavenly places in Christ." This is the same phrase used in the introductory doxology.
Eph. 2:8 ~~ Salvation "through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God." Christians receive the spirit of faith as a gift from the Providence of God.
Eph. 2:10 ~~ Humans are "created... for good works." In a similar vein, Lord Acton defined liberty not as unlimited freedom from restraint, but the freedom to act virtuously.
Eph. 2:14-16 ~~ The Law (of commandments and ordinances) is the cause of division. Christ broke down the dividing wall, by abolishing it in His flesh. He reconciled us to God in the cross, "by it having put to death" the Law.
Eph. 2:19-21 ~~ We are residents of God's house, which is built on the foundations of the apostles and the prophets, with a cornerstone of Christ, which is becoming a holy temple in the Lord. The imagery is quite interesting, for the cornerstone is generally laid last and is necessary for the stability of the whole.
Eph. 3:3 ~~ "By revelation there was made known the mystery" (reason clarified through experience) "...as I wrote before in brief" (previous letter to Ephesus: perhaps unpreserved or non-canonical?)
Eph. 3:5-6 ~~ Mystery related to the redemption of Gentiles "not revealed to past generations." This passage suggests that the reason for the early church dispute between Judaizers who wished to preserve Jewish customs and the Law and the bloc led by Peter who wished to open the doors of the Gospel to the Gentiles was ultimately one of knowledge. The answer to the riddle was given by vision or revelation to individuals (Peter in Acts 12; Paul in this passage and others). The authority and credibility of these church elders and apostles gave their individual experiences a rational weight in argument.
Eph. 3:6 ~~ Note the repeated emphasis on the equality of the Gentiles: "fellow heirs... fellow members of the body... fellow partakers of the promise."
Eph. 3:8-9 ~~ Paul given the grace to preach the riches of Christ, to make all know the administration of the mystery" of the universal extent of salvation. That is, Paul did not just spread word that the Gospels could reach the Gentiles; he brought it to them himself.
Eph. 3:12 ~~ in Christ, we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.
Eph. 3:14-15 ~~ A bit of rhetorical wordplay, since the Greek word for "father" is similar to "family."
Eph. 3:14-19 ~~ Paul humbled that God grants: power of Spirit, riches of glory, indwelling of Christ, grace to comprehend and know God's love, "that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God."
Eph. 3:16 ~~ "Strengthened... in the inner man" (later passages translate similar phrases "inner self")
Eph. 3:18-19 ~~ "Comprehend" (grasp the magnitude of) and "know" (experience personally) the love of Christ. Paul distinguishes rational and experiential modes of learning and knowing.
Eph. 3:20-12 ~~ A mini-doxology, praising God for His power working within us.
Eph. 4:1-3 ~~ Thematic transition: "walk in a manner worthy of the Lord" by living out these virtues: humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance in love, diligence, unity in the Spirit, peace of God.
Eph. 4:4-6 ~~ Quality of unity applies to body, Spirit, hope, calling, Lord, faith, baptism, and God.
Eph. 4:6 ~~ God the Father of all, over all, through all, in all. This reveals three characteristics of God: his transcendence and supremacy, his omnipresence, and his immanence.
Eph. 4:7-16 ~~ Discussion of gifts and unity in the body of Christ clearly parallels 1 Corinthians 12.
Eph. 4:9 ~~ This is one instance in which the interpretation of a passage clearly and directly affects one's view of a particular theological doctrine; in this case, whether Christ descended to hell during the three days between His death and resurrection. One's answer largely depends on the meaning one ascribes to the phrase "lower parts of the earth." Sheol was typically considered to be subterranean in Hebrew cosmology, as was Hades in Greco-Roman understanding. On the other hand, considering the heavenly heights from which Christ descended, even a life of the surface would be the "lower parts."
Eph. 4:11-12 ~~ Four classes of spiritual gifts, often conflated, which Paul distinguishes between. They are united in two works -- equipping of the saints for works of service, and building up of the church -- but have different functions. Apostles are those who plant churches and encourage leaders; prophets are those who restore churches and rebuke leaders; evangelists are those who expand existing churches and introduce new members; and pastors are those who develop churches and help members mature.
Eph. 4:13 ~~ Unity of faith and knowledge of Christ bring us to "measure of stature" that belongs to the fullness of Christ ("until we all attain to a mature man")
Eph. 4:17-18 ~~ Warning against the Gentiles' "futility of mind" (cf. Romans 1:21-22). They were "darkened in understanding... because of the hardness of their hearts." Emotional receptivity to truth found in faith directly correlates to receptivity to truth found by reason.
Eph. 4:19 ~~ A rather ironic statement of sin: the Gentiles, "having become callous," abandoned themselves to sensuality as a result. By losing their moral center, their souls were numbed to the aesthetic and erotic pleasures, making them more desperate to recover those pleasures, and driving them further away from what enabled them to enjoy them.
Eph. 4:22-24 ~~ Three stages or parts of conversation: "lay aside the old self," "be renewed in the spirit of your mind," and "put on the new self, in the likeness of God." Most exhortations to convert in the New Testament don't really include the middle step, which is quite a fascinating addition by Paul.
Eph. 4:26 ~~ Asserts concept of righteous wrath, for not all anger is sinful (cf. Psalms 4:4)
Eph. 4:26-27 ~~ Emphasizes forgiveness as immunization against spiritual warfare (cf. Matthew 5:23)
Eph. 4:28 ~~ Defends labor, capital, private property with a view towards enabling philanthropy.
Eph. 4:29 ~~ Exhorts to speak only edifying words (cf. Plato's Phaedrus, "noble rhetoric")
Eph. 4:30 ~~ My Bible comments that "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" necessarily entails that the Holy Spirit is of a personal nature. I find this argument questionable. I agree with the doctrine; I just don't think you can find it here, where the object includes God the Father. God sealed us for the day of redemption by his Holy Spirit; therefore, we are not to grieve either one by our misconduct.
Eph. 4:31-32 ~~ Avoid bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander, and malice. Live with a spirit of kindness, tender-heartedness, and forgiveness.
Eph. 5:1-2 ~~ Imitate Christ who "gave Himself up for you" (direct parallel to Ephesians 5:25)
Eph. 5:3-9 ~~ Saints ought not indulge in filthiness, silly talk, or coarse jesting, but should speak with thanksgiving. Three sins are so serious they "must not even be named among you" -- immorality, impurity, and greed (covetousness), which are defined as mere variants of idolatry. These three sins are the reason "the wrath of God falls on the sons of disobedience." They are sufficient for any who leads such a life to lose their "inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." On the other hand, there are three virtues that are the "fruit of the Light" -- goodness, righteousness, and truth. It seems these are meant to parallel the list of three sins, as to provide the antidote to such idolatry.
Eph. 5:11-13 ~~ We are to expose the sins of others, not by speaking of them publicly, but by leading such Godly lives in comparison that their moral failures cannot be obscured.
Eph. 5:14 ~~ This verse ("For this reason it says...") is a mystery to me. It may be an early hymn of the church. Alternately, the passage may read "For this reason He says," in which case it may be a prophetic utterance or a saying of Christ passed down by oral tradition in the early church, but which did not enter the Gospel accounts.
Eph. 5:15-18 ~~ A series of contrasts, advocating prudence (the conduct of a wise man), industry (making the most of your time), and discernment.
Eph. 5:19-20 ~~ To be filled with the Spirit is to be "making melody with your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks" and speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
Eph. 5:21 ~~ Submission is a universal command for all in the church.
Eph. 5:22 - 6:9 ~~ This is easily the most controversial passage in Ephesians, and one of the more challenging passages in the New Testament. A few notes that I've found helpful in my own interpretation of these verses. First, these pieces of counsel (whether advice or command) are directed towards specific groups and individuals within the Church. Each section intended for a specific audience and no other (the section to wives is not meant for husbands, and vice versa). Specifically, they are meant as challenges, designed to edify each person's soul in areas of special growth. It is good if we seek to follow Paul's counsel, as it will benefit and educate us greatly; however, these verses cannot be used as bargaining chips or used to demand deference from fellow Christians.
Eph. 5:22-32 ~~ In a much longer controversial passage, this is probably the most challenging subsection. Essentially, Paul argues that the marriage relationship parallels Christ and the Church. The Church (the Bride, feminine role) is called to submit to God, while Christ (the Groom, masculine role) is giving Himself up for the Church. Paul extrapolates this same relationship to a more domestic level in which feminine and masculine roles interacted regularly.
Eph. 5:22 ~~ The counsel to wives to "submit... as to the Lord" is not a command to worship their husbands. Submission is an act of service and love, performed as a gift of worship to the Lord. Also, note that all Christians are called to submit to each other; i.e., all other Christians. Wives are called to be more deliberate and dedicated in applying this virtue to their husbands.
Eph. 5:25 ~~ The counsel to husbands to "love... as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" is a command to be entirely self-sacrificing. Wives may submit with action, but husbands are called to submit and love with their very being. Husbands follow Christ's example with the church, even if it means they go willingly to their death. As my Bible comments, rather obliquely, "To give oneself up to death for the beloved is a more extreme expression of devotion than the wife is called on to make." I find this to be a bit of an understatement.
Eph. 5:26 ~~ Apparently there's some doctrinal issues involved in "the washing of water with the word." For more information, see John 3:5 & 15:3, Titus 3:5, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 & 3:21.
Eph. 5:28-29 ~~ Paul makes an interesting point about how "no one ever hated his own flesh." There are some vices that come naturally to us, grounded in our very nature as human beings, including the vice of pride. Other sins, such as self-loathing, are thoroughly 'unnatural vices' that rebel against our human instincts. I would argue it is better to live with natural vices than unnatural vices, if only because more people struggle with the former, and it is therefore easier to find support and counsel.
Eph. 5:33 ~~ This summary re-emphasizes the point that these counsels apply for specific individuals. It is interesting the contrast between wives called to "submit" (v. 22) as opposed to "respect" (v. 33). "Respect" is literally the same word for "fear," as in "fear of the Lord," which may have been Paul's point. Finally, a small parenthetical remark may shed some light of Paul's rhetorical strategy. He writes that "each individual among you also is to love his own wife..." implying that the audience is male. His listeners therefore have an expectation that he will support their authority over wives. Paul's strategy was to first emphasize the submission of wives using the metaphor of Christ and the Church, which would appeal to men (especially Jewish converts) who viewed women as a lower order of being. However, once Paul established the parallel, he turned the metaphor on the men and told them that, if they expected their wives to submit as to Christ, they had better start acting like Christ by practicing self-sacrificial love. In this light, it's an exceptionally clever strategy, and probably caught Paul's audience completely off guard on first reading.
Eph. 6:1-3 ~~ command to children: respect parents (and the authority and traditions they represent) for your own good. In the immortal words of Ben Franklin, "Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from everyone else's."
Eph. 6:4 ~~ command to fathers: exercise patience in treatment of children, but with firm instruction. Again the emphasis seems to be on moral education and tradition.
Eph. 6:5-9 ~~ In these verses on slavery, Paul seeks to redeem the system by addressing and renewing the virtue of individuals acting within it (see also the book of Philemon). This does not mean that Paul accepts slavery as morally praiseworthy, nor that he rejects it as morally deficient. This passage is neutral in evaluating the institution; its focus is on the individuals.
Eph. 6:5-8 ~~ command to slaves: serve God by serving their earthly master, cultivating virtue, and with an eye for storing up treasures in heaven.
Eph. 6:9 ~~ command to masters: imitate your slaves!!! Perform the same deeds, but with an emphasis on avoiding wrongdoing and averting the wrath of God.
Eph. 6:10-11 ~~ "Be strong in the Lord" (Mars, persona of strength, inspiration for concept of armor, spiritual warfare). Rely on God's might in combating evil.
Eph. 6:12 ~~ Speaking personally, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the concept of spiritual warfare. However, verses such as these are pretty unequivocal that spiritual warfare occurs, and that we as Christians need to take it seriously.
Eph. 6:13-14 ~~ To stand firm "in the evil day," we require the armor of God and every fiber of our being ("having done everything"). This is no picnic.
Eph. 6:14-17 ~~ The Armor of God:
(1) "Gird your loins" -- Truth -- the basics, care for one's own soul
(2) "'Breastplate" -- Righteousness -- heart, will, spirit (C.S. Lewis: "the Chest")
(3) "Shod your feet" -- Gospel of Peace -- faith journey, evangelism
(4) "Shield" -- Faith -- protection of whole being (against arrows of all-consuming fire)
(5) "Helmet" -- Salvation -- protection of mind (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:8)
(6) "Sword" -- Spirit, Word of God -- offensive weapon, vs. sin and sinners
Eph. 6:18-19 ~~ "Pray at all times in the Spirit, with this in view" -- that is, in light of spiritual warfare. "Be vigilant with all perseverance and petition for all the saints." I believe this verse is sometimes construed to justify 'praying' to the saints. I think reasonable arguments can be made for the doctrine, but its foundations are not found in this passage. "Petition" is not a verb in this instance, but a noun; our vigilance is expressed by prayers for the saints, rather than supported by prayers of the saints.
Eph. 6:24 ~~ "love... with incorrigible love." An ironic ending, in light of Revelation 2:4, a letter from John addressed to the angel of the church at Ephesus: "But I have this against you, that you have left your first love".
Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with incorrigible love.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Contemplations in Theology: #12
Hell is fundamentally an expression of God's love and mercy.
Most Christians would treat eternal damnation as a pretty clear instance of divine justice. God is perfect; we are not. If we are not redeemed by Christ's sacrifice, we are therefore outcasts from the Kingdom and doomed to eternal punishment.
This is all well and good, until we try to understand this doctrine in the context of a loving God. Questions abound: What sort of loving God would even allow for eternal punishment of His children? What sort of forgiving God would base such punishment on the choices we made based on incomplete knowledge in an imperfect world? Where is the justice in eternal consequences for choices made in a single lifetime? Wouldn't annihilation be more loving and more just than eternal damnation: finite suffering for finite sin?
I don't imagine I can satisfactorily answer these questions, but that is not my goal. I want to develop a positive, systematic doctrine of Hell, rather than a negative, piecemeal response to the doctrine's critics.
I can hardly keep myself from smiling when I consider some of the worship songs we sing regularly in the Christian community. Is it not laughably ironic that we sing about the "Refiner's Fire" in a major harmonic chord? I would imagine a rendition by Underoath or a screamo band would be more appropriate: something harsh, raspy, and unpleasant. After all, this is as close to a doctrine of Purgatory as most Protestants come: we are brought into the Presence of God and our sins and impurities are burnt out of us. Can we fathom the pain of this restoration? No, of course not, any more than we can fathom the joy and relief of coming out on the other side as new creatures who will judge angels and fully reflect the image of God.
Let us take this as our starting point: when we enter the Presence of God, we will be purified.
Some will object that this ignores the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, a sacrifice that was sufficient to redeem us from sin, and restore us to a life with the Father through the Holy Spirit. Truly we have been made new creations. Yet it is no heresy to state that we are daily put to the test, that we walk through trial and tribulation, and that our faith is purified by fire and water. Therefore, I believe that the doctrine of Purgatory -- however we view it, whether in life or after death -- is no heresy, but falls squarely within our experience of our journey of faith. We will be purified.
Why do we endure these labor pangs of the afterlife? Because of our love for our Creator, because of the hope of salvation, because of the Joy of His Presence that is promised to us as children of God.
Yet Christ promised us that there will be some who reject Him, who are herded to His left with the goats. We must accept that some individuals are morally degenerate, others who are moral cowards, and some who are simply apathetic. There are heretics and nihilists, epicures and materialists, and a vast number of people who Just Don't Care. These individuals will not accept our reasons for accepting the pain of His Presence. They do not hold to the hope of salvation, and will not assent to the pain of purification. They do not participate in our love for God and each other, and will not pay the price of admission into His Presence. What happens to them?
Will Christ force them to endure the 'refining fire'? Will He drag them against their will, kicking and screaming, across the threshold of Paradise? Heaven forbid! My loving God is no tyrant; this bait-and-switch of salvation by faith supplanted by divine fiat is unworthy of a just God. True divine love dictates that, having given humans the dignity of free will, God allows them the freedom to exercise it and face the consequences of their decisions.
If we continue to defy God and resist submitting to Him with the words "Thy will be done," the day will come when God grants us our wish and says to us, "Thy will be done."
It is an expression of love that God grants us the dignity of creatures bearing His image. It is an expression of justice that God requires us to be purified before fully entering His presence. It is an expression of mercy that God allows us to choose an eternity of self-will outside of His presence.
For that is Hell: an existence outside of His Presence. God withdraws Himself sufficiently to allow these individuals respite from His Presence. It is a worse fate than we can imagine, for all the evil we can ever experience is tainted by the original goodness of Creation, and by the sustaining Presence of God.
It is also a mystery deeper than we can fathom, for God is the Substance and sustainer of reality, and nothing exists outside of Him. Evil is the negation of God, and has no substance; yet those damned (cast away from the Presence) continue to exist and enjoy the privileges of existing only within themselves. Perhaps this is due to the original creation of humanity, on whom God bestowed the image of God. God has given us unilaterally and unconditionally part of Himself. It is this image of God that allows us to see and seek God; it is the image of God that allows us to continue existing even outside of His Presence; it is the image of God that causes the torment and anguish of Hell, of an eternity separated from Him yet desiring the completion of His Presence and aware of the distance and pain between oneself and that completion. The fires of Hell are the fires of evil, of self-will, and of being divorced from oneself and from God finally and completely and without respite.
And this is mercy.
Only damnation honors us with the dignity of moral will and causation. Universalism conflicts with God's justice and annihilation would defy God's original love in bestowing His image on humble humanity. Hell is the most challenging of all expressions of love and mercy, but it is perhaps the fullest expression of that mercy as well.
Most Christians would treat eternal damnation as a pretty clear instance of divine justice. God is perfect; we are not. If we are not redeemed by Christ's sacrifice, we are therefore outcasts from the Kingdom and doomed to eternal punishment.
This is all well and good, until we try to understand this doctrine in the context of a loving God. Questions abound: What sort of loving God would even allow for eternal punishment of His children? What sort of forgiving God would base such punishment on the choices we made based on incomplete knowledge in an imperfect world? Where is the justice in eternal consequences for choices made in a single lifetime? Wouldn't annihilation be more loving and more just than eternal damnation: finite suffering for finite sin?
I don't imagine I can satisfactorily answer these questions, but that is not my goal. I want to develop a positive, systematic doctrine of Hell, rather than a negative, piecemeal response to the doctrine's critics.
I can hardly keep myself from smiling when I consider some of the worship songs we sing regularly in the Christian community. Is it not laughably ironic that we sing about the "Refiner's Fire" in a major harmonic chord? I would imagine a rendition by Underoath or a screamo band would be more appropriate: something harsh, raspy, and unpleasant. After all, this is as close to a doctrine of Purgatory as most Protestants come: we are brought into the Presence of God and our sins and impurities are burnt out of us. Can we fathom the pain of this restoration? No, of course not, any more than we can fathom the joy and relief of coming out on the other side as new creatures who will judge angels and fully reflect the image of God.
Let us take this as our starting point: when we enter the Presence of God, we will be purified.
Some will object that this ignores the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, a sacrifice that was sufficient to redeem us from sin, and restore us to a life with the Father through the Holy Spirit. Truly we have been made new creations. Yet it is no heresy to state that we are daily put to the test, that we walk through trial and tribulation, and that our faith is purified by fire and water. Therefore, I believe that the doctrine of Purgatory -- however we view it, whether in life or after death -- is no heresy, but falls squarely within our experience of our journey of faith. We will be purified.
Why do we endure these labor pangs of the afterlife? Because of our love for our Creator, because of the hope of salvation, because of the Joy of His Presence that is promised to us as children of God.
Yet Christ promised us that there will be some who reject Him, who are herded to His left with the goats. We must accept that some individuals are morally degenerate, others who are moral cowards, and some who are simply apathetic. There are heretics and nihilists, epicures and materialists, and a vast number of people who Just Don't Care. These individuals will not accept our reasons for accepting the pain of His Presence. They do not hold to the hope of salvation, and will not assent to the pain of purification. They do not participate in our love for God and each other, and will not pay the price of admission into His Presence. What happens to them?
Will Christ force them to endure the 'refining fire'? Will He drag them against their will, kicking and screaming, across the threshold of Paradise? Heaven forbid! My loving God is no tyrant; this bait-and-switch of salvation by faith supplanted by divine fiat is unworthy of a just God. True divine love dictates that, having given humans the dignity of free will, God allows them the freedom to exercise it and face the consequences of their decisions.
If we continue to defy God and resist submitting to Him with the words "Thy will be done," the day will come when God grants us our wish and says to us, "Thy will be done."
It is an expression of love that God grants us the dignity of creatures bearing His image. It is an expression of justice that God requires us to be purified before fully entering His presence. It is an expression of mercy that God allows us to choose an eternity of self-will outside of His presence.
For that is Hell: an existence outside of His Presence. God withdraws Himself sufficiently to allow these individuals respite from His Presence. It is a worse fate than we can imagine, for all the evil we can ever experience is tainted by the original goodness of Creation, and by the sustaining Presence of God.
It is also a mystery deeper than we can fathom, for God is the Substance and sustainer of reality, and nothing exists outside of Him. Evil is the negation of God, and has no substance; yet those damned (cast away from the Presence) continue to exist and enjoy the privileges of existing only within themselves. Perhaps this is due to the original creation of humanity, on whom God bestowed the image of God. God has given us unilaterally and unconditionally part of Himself. It is this image of God that allows us to see and seek God; it is the image of God that allows us to continue existing even outside of His Presence; it is the image of God that causes the torment and anguish of Hell, of an eternity separated from Him yet desiring the completion of His Presence and aware of the distance and pain between oneself and that completion. The fires of Hell are the fires of evil, of self-will, and of being divorced from oneself and from God finally and completely and without respite.
And this is mercy.
Only damnation honors us with the dignity of moral will and causation. Universalism conflicts with God's justice and annihilation would defy God's original love in bestowing His image on humble humanity. Hell is the most challenging of all expressions of love and mercy, but it is perhaps the fullest expression of that mercy as well.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Commentary on Scripture: Philemon
To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker... and to the church in your house: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Phil. 1-3 ~~ Paul's letter to Philemon was written at the same time as his letter to church at Colossae, and was delivered to Colossae by the same messengers: Tychicus and Onesimus (Colossians 4:7-9).
Phil. 4-10 ~~ Paul does not immediately mention the purpose of the letter, but tries to build rapport as a pastoral and apostolic authority over Philemon as a believer.
Phil. 4-5 ~~ Paul's spirit of thanksgiving arises out of Philemon's love "toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints."
Phil. 6 ~~ Fellowship of Christian faith becomes "effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in in you for Christ's sake." Fellowship and Christian community is reinforced and made complete not only by recognition of the value of others, but also by the recognition of the value of oneself ("every good thing which is in you")!
Phil. 8-9 ~~ Paul clearly states that he has "enough confidence in Christ" (i.e., enough moral confidence in his beliefs) to demand and order a certain course of action, "yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you." Paul returns to this theme in verses 14 and 21, speaking of his desire that Philemon will obey freely without coercion from a spiritual authority. Paul restates in verse 19 his authority to demand obedience ("you owe to me even your own soul as well").
Phil. 10 ~~ Paul finally comes to the point of this personal letter: "I appeal to you for my child Onesimus." This direct appeal comes only after Paul had build up his own credibility (ethos), and is followed by passages that demonstrate the logic of his request (logos) and that reach out to Philemon's conscience and heart (pathos). Paul was a well-educated Pharisee, who was familiar with the Hellenistic culture. The epistle to Philemon is a clear instance of classical rhetoric as developed by Plato and Aristotle.
Phil. 11 ~~ Paul makes a lighthearted pun on the meaning of Onesimus' name ("useful"). Wordplay was a common feature in classical rhetoric.
Phil. 12-14 ~~ Paul's reasons for sending Onesimus back: "without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will." This sounds noble, but is incredibly problematic. Paul is delivering Onesimus, a runaway slave, to the estate of his master Philemon, to face probable execution under Roman law. In sending a fellow Christian to the very teeth of persecution without security and only hope. Paul doesn't even exercise what leverage he has to ensure the safety of Onesimus. Paul expresses only his love for Philemon as reasons for his actions, but if that were the sole consideration for his actions, Paul would have failed to act lovingly towards Onesimus. Onesimus must have been consulted, and must have agreed to return to Philemon; otherwise, Paul's actions are indefensible.
Phil. 15 ~~ Paul contrasts the temporary deprivation of a servant with the eternal gain of a brother. "Perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forward."
Phil. 16 ~~ Paul requests that Onesimus be accepted back and his offenses forgiven, and that Philemon treat this runaway with all of the consideration and love he would regularly extend to his fellow believers. Paul does not directly request Onesimus' freedom, but only his forgiveness ("no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.") As with similar passages in Ephesians and other NT epistles, Paul's emphasis is to redeem rather than replace social institutions. Paul addressed the individuals within the system and give them guidance to acting with virtue.
Phil. 17-21 ~~ Paul makes an emotional appeal to Philemon, appealing to feelings of gratitude, honor, and even Philemon's sense of pride.
Phil. 19 ~~ Paul restates his ability to command and demand obedience ("you owe to me even your own self") but appeals not to Philemon's humility but to his gratitude and to his trust ("I will repay it").
Phil. 20-21 ~~ Paul appeals to Philemon's sense of pride, not only in being in a position to "refresh [Paul's] heart in Christ," but also in being entrusted with Paul's confidence that he would exceed every expectation on his virtue. Sins and errors are dangerous in proportion to the value and impact of the virtue or truth they distort. Humans struggle with pride so often because the underlying virtue is so foundational: we were created in the image of God, and shall be raised to glory with Christ.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Phil. 1-3 ~~ Paul's letter to Philemon was written at the same time as his letter to church at Colossae, and was delivered to Colossae by the same messengers: Tychicus and Onesimus (Colossians 4:7-9).
Phil. 4-10 ~~ Paul does not immediately mention the purpose of the letter, but tries to build rapport as a pastoral and apostolic authority over Philemon as a believer.
Phil. 4-5 ~~ Paul's spirit of thanksgiving arises out of Philemon's love "toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints."
Phil. 6 ~~ Fellowship of Christian faith becomes "effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in in you for Christ's sake." Fellowship and Christian community is reinforced and made complete not only by recognition of the value of others, but also by the recognition of the value of oneself ("every good thing which is in you")!
Phil. 8-9 ~~ Paul clearly states that he has "enough confidence in Christ" (i.e., enough moral confidence in his beliefs) to demand and order a certain course of action, "yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you." Paul returns to this theme in verses 14 and 21, speaking of his desire that Philemon will obey freely without coercion from a spiritual authority. Paul restates in verse 19 his authority to demand obedience ("you owe to me even your own soul as well").
Phil. 10 ~~ Paul finally comes to the point of this personal letter: "I appeal to you for my child Onesimus." This direct appeal comes only after Paul had build up his own credibility (ethos), and is followed by passages that demonstrate the logic of his request (logos) and that reach out to Philemon's conscience and heart (pathos). Paul was a well-educated Pharisee, who was familiar with the Hellenistic culture. The epistle to Philemon is a clear instance of classical rhetoric as developed by Plato and Aristotle.
Phil. 11 ~~ Paul makes a lighthearted pun on the meaning of Onesimus' name ("useful"). Wordplay was a common feature in classical rhetoric.
Phil. 12-14 ~~ Paul's reasons for sending Onesimus back: "without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will." This sounds noble, but is incredibly problematic. Paul is delivering Onesimus, a runaway slave, to the estate of his master Philemon, to face probable execution under Roman law. In sending a fellow Christian to the very teeth of persecution without security and only hope. Paul doesn't even exercise what leverage he has to ensure the safety of Onesimus. Paul expresses only his love for Philemon as reasons for his actions, but if that were the sole consideration for his actions, Paul would have failed to act lovingly towards Onesimus. Onesimus must have been consulted, and must have agreed to return to Philemon; otherwise, Paul's actions are indefensible.
Phil. 15 ~~ Paul contrasts the temporary deprivation of a servant with the eternal gain of a brother. "Perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forward."
Phil. 16 ~~ Paul requests that Onesimus be accepted back and his offenses forgiven, and that Philemon treat this runaway with all of the consideration and love he would regularly extend to his fellow believers. Paul does not directly request Onesimus' freedom, but only his forgiveness ("no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother.") As with similar passages in Ephesians and other NT epistles, Paul's emphasis is to redeem rather than replace social institutions. Paul addressed the individuals within the system and give them guidance to acting with virtue.
Phil. 17-21 ~~ Paul makes an emotional appeal to Philemon, appealing to feelings of gratitude, honor, and even Philemon's sense of pride.
Phil. 19 ~~ Paul restates his ability to command and demand obedience ("you owe to me even your own self") but appeals not to Philemon's humility but to his gratitude and to his trust ("I will repay it").
Phil. 20-21 ~~ Paul appeals to Philemon's sense of pride, not only in being in a position to "refresh [Paul's] heart in Christ," but also in being entrusted with Paul's confidence that he would exceed every expectation on his virtue. Sins and errors are dangerous in proportion to the value and impact of the virtue or truth they distort. Humans struggle with pride so often because the underlying virtue is so foundational: we were created in the image of God, and shall be raised to glory with Christ.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Contemplations in Theology: #11
Evil does not exist.
This at least was the assertion of St. Augustine, and I'm inclined to agree. In Platonic philosophy, God is identified with the Form of the Good, the realized Ideal. In Christian theology, God is viewed as perfectly good, a loving and benevolent deity. "God is love" is a foundational statement of our Christian faith.
The doctrine of the Trinity arose to rationally explain how the virtue of divine love can be found at the very heart or essence of God. For divine love is not self-love (we cannot say that God loves Himself), but the sacrificial love of oneself unto another (therefore we speak of the Three Persons of the Trinity, each of which participate in the perichoresis or divine dance, with the love of one for three and three for one). The doctrine of the Trinity is the defining characteristic of orthodox Christianity; therefore, we must assert that the doctrine of the benevolent and loving God is essential to Christian thought.
In Aristotelian philosophy, God is identified with the First Cause, the source and creative agency behind the universe. The relationship between Creator and Creation is sometimes treated in a deistic way by orthodox Christian monotheists. God exists above and beyond nature; He created it and then let it run freely, even if that means allowing sin to crop up. This treatment seems to diminish the sovereignty of God, not to mention His omnipresence (another essential doctrine of the Church).
Taking the doctrine of omnipresence seriously brings us to a theology closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox church, sometimes called 'panentheism' (though the term is quite problematic). Relying on such passages as Ephesians 4:6 (God "is over all and through all and in all") this doctrine asserts that God is the ultimate Substance ("sub-stance" = "that was stands below") underlying all reality, and that His Presence is required for anything and everything to exist.
God exists in the world, and the world cannot exist without Him.
Here is a separate tangential point, but an important one. If God is present within Creation, and God is love, then Creation must bear the fingerprints of its Creator. Therefore, Augustine argued against the Manichean heresy and asserted that nature and physical reality is first and foremost good.
This too is a core doctrine: nature is essentially good, and will be included in God's redemption.
But these arguments naturally leads to the problem of evil. How can evil be explained? For if God is both perfectly good and absolutely powerful (another essential Christian doctrine), evil should not exist. The existence of evil in the world demonstrates that either God is not perfectly good (for he is not willing to destroy evil) or God is not absolutely powerful (for he is unable to destroy evil). How shall we answer this syllogism?
Some choose to answer it by resorting to free will. God loves us and desires that we love Him, and therefore allows our free choice to obey or disobey, which leads to the existence of evil and sin and the corruption of nature. But while this answers the original dichotomy (God is perfectly good, but He expresses love in a different way than the philosophers would expect), it cannot answer a much more challenging question.
How can evil exist within the Presence of God? For if we take the doctrine of omnipresence seriously, and believe that God sustains all things in His being, then we cannot solve the problem of evil by resorting to free will. For even if God could passively allow evil to temporarily exist out of his love for us as creatures made in His image, no orthodox Christian could accept the doctrine that God sustains evil within His Presence. God is perfection; God is justice. Evil is fundamentally incompatible with God's being. How then shall we answer the problem of evil?
Augustine's answer is beautiful in its simplicity. He converted to Christianity after a brief fling with Manicheanism, which saw the spiritual Kingdom of Light and the material Kingdom of Darkness as the two cosmic force that would fight for all eternity. Augustine rebelled against this heresy, and argued that evil does not exist independently of the good, but is the negation of it.
Just as darkness exists only in the absence of light, so too evil can be said to 'exist' only where God does not. It is the absence of God. Evil is the vacuum in the fabric of space-time, the vortex in the middle of the sea. And if God is the ultimate Substance, the Presence that undergirds and sustains all that we know as reality, then evil does not exist. This does not mean that we do not feel its effects ; it only means that it has no independent substance and therefore will not endure. This is our source of hope and our hope for salvation; the good shall triumph and evil shall not exist.
This understanding will lead us to a doctrine of Hell, a doctrine that I (and, I imagine, most orthodox Christians) have wrestled with for quite some time. But with all mysteries, satisfaction can be found; with all challenges, growth follows. God is good, indeed.
This at least was the assertion of St. Augustine, and I'm inclined to agree. In Platonic philosophy, God is identified with the Form of the Good, the realized Ideal. In Christian theology, God is viewed as perfectly good, a loving and benevolent deity. "God is love" is a foundational statement of our Christian faith.
The doctrine of the Trinity arose to rationally explain how the virtue of divine love can be found at the very heart or essence of God. For divine love is not self-love (we cannot say that God loves Himself), but the sacrificial love of oneself unto another (therefore we speak of the Three Persons of the Trinity, each of which participate in the perichoresis or divine dance, with the love of one for three and three for one). The doctrine of the Trinity is the defining characteristic of orthodox Christianity; therefore, we must assert that the doctrine of the benevolent and loving God is essential to Christian thought.
In Aristotelian philosophy, God is identified with the First Cause, the source and creative agency behind the universe. The relationship between Creator and Creation is sometimes treated in a deistic way by orthodox Christian monotheists. God exists above and beyond nature; He created it and then let it run freely, even if that means allowing sin to crop up. This treatment seems to diminish the sovereignty of God, not to mention His omnipresence (another essential doctrine of the Church).
Taking the doctrine of omnipresence seriously brings us to a theology closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox church, sometimes called 'panentheism' (though the term is quite problematic). Relying on such passages as Ephesians 4:6 (God "is over all and through all and in all") this doctrine asserts that God is the ultimate Substance ("sub-stance" = "that was stands below") underlying all reality, and that His Presence is required for anything and everything to exist.
God exists in the world, and the world cannot exist without Him.
Here is a separate tangential point, but an important one. If God is present within Creation, and God is love, then Creation must bear the fingerprints of its Creator. Therefore, Augustine argued against the Manichean heresy and asserted that nature and physical reality is first and foremost good.
This too is a core doctrine: nature is essentially good, and will be included in God's redemption.
But these arguments naturally leads to the problem of evil. How can evil be explained? For if God is both perfectly good and absolutely powerful (another essential Christian doctrine), evil should not exist. The existence of evil in the world demonstrates that either God is not perfectly good (for he is not willing to destroy evil) or God is not absolutely powerful (for he is unable to destroy evil). How shall we answer this syllogism?
Some choose to answer it by resorting to free will. God loves us and desires that we love Him, and therefore allows our free choice to obey or disobey, which leads to the existence of evil and sin and the corruption of nature. But while this answers the original dichotomy (God is perfectly good, but He expresses love in a different way than the philosophers would expect), it cannot answer a much more challenging question.
How can evil exist within the Presence of God? For if we take the doctrine of omnipresence seriously, and believe that God sustains all things in His being, then we cannot solve the problem of evil by resorting to free will. For even if God could passively allow evil to temporarily exist out of his love for us as creatures made in His image, no orthodox Christian could accept the doctrine that God sustains evil within His Presence. God is perfection; God is justice. Evil is fundamentally incompatible with God's being. How then shall we answer the problem of evil?
Augustine's answer is beautiful in its simplicity. He converted to Christianity after a brief fling with Manicheanism, which saw the spiritual Kingdom of Light and the material Kingdom of Darkness as the two cosmic force that would fight for all eternity. Augustine rebelled against this heresy, and argued that evil does not exist independently of the good, but is the negation of it.
Just as darkness exists only in the absence of light, so too evil can be said to 'exist' only where God does not. It is the absence of God. Evil is the vacuum in the fabric of space-time, the vortex in the middle of the sea. And if God is the ultimate Substance, the Presence that undergirds and sustains all that we know as reality, then evil does not exist. This does not mean that we do not feel its effects ; it only means that it has no independent substance and therefore will not endure. This is our source of hope and our hope for salvation; the good shall triumph and evil shall not exist.
This understanding will lead us to a doctrine of Hell, a doctrine that I (and, I imagine, most orthodox Christians) have wrestled with for quite some time. But with all mysteries, satisfaction can be found; with all challenges, growth follows. God is good, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)