Prior exchanges are here and in the comments.
AJ writes:
Yes, the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove in Luke. My use of “incarnated” simply denotes “in the flesh”. I’m saying that the Holy Spirit never took the form of man.
St. Ambrose states:
“4. As John says that he saw, so, too, wrote Mark; Luke, however, added that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove; you must not think that this was an incarnation, but an appearance. He, then, brought the appearance before him, that by means of the appearance he might believe who did not see the Spirit, and that by the appearance He might manifest that He had a share of the one honour in authority, the one operation in the mystery, the one gift in the bath, together with the Father and the Son; unless perchance we consider Him in Whom the Lord was baptized too weak for the servant to be baptized in Him.” (On the Holy Spirit Book III, Ch.1)
St. Ambrose states that the Holy Spirit was never incarnated. Yes, the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove, but He was never incarnated. This parallels with Christ who took on different forms in the Old Testament (particularly, the Angel of the Lord) and was then incarnated in the New Testament.
Moreover, I hold that the Holy Spirit could not be the Angel of the Lord because a spirit is without bodily form, nor man-like (Luke 24:39). It is apparent in the OT that the Angel of the Lord did have a bodily form. As I stated earlier, Manoah first believed the Angel of the Lord to be a man in Judges 13.
The incarnation of Christ is imperative to the Christian faith. I hold that OT christophanies were not incarnations, but rather revelations of the pre-incarnate Christ.
8:17 PM
AJ said...
You are correct when you state that no man has seen God in the divine nature (in His glory). But it is a stretch to say that man has not seen God in any form. To say that seeing the form of God but not seeing Him in His glory is the same as not seeing God at all is not warranted by scripture or a major part of historical bible scholarship within Christianity.
Irenaeus puts this well.
“5. These things did the prophets set forth in a prophetical manner; but they did not, as some allege, [proclaim] that He who was seen by the prophets was a different [God], the Father of all being invisible. Yet this is what those [heretics] declare, who are altogether ignorant of the nature of prophecy. For prophecy is a prediction of things future, that is, a setting forth beforehand of those things which shall be afterwards. The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8 But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, no man shall see God and live, Exodus 33:20 for the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also predict. For those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God. Luke 18:27 For man does not see God by his own powers; but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen, too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven, the Spirit truly preparing man in the Son of God, and the Son leading him to the Father, while the Father, too, confers [upon him] incorruption for eternal life, which comes to every one from the fact of his seeing God. For as those who see the light are within the light, and partake of its brilliancy; even so, those who see God are in God, and receive of His splendour. But [His] splendour vivifies them; those, therefore, who see God, do receive life. And for this reason, He, [although] beyond comprehension, and boundless and invisible, rendered Himself visible, and comprehensible, and within the capacity of those who believe, that He might vivify those who receive and behold Him through faith. For as His greatness is past finding out, so also His goodness is beyond expression; by which having been seen, He bestows life upon those who see Him. It is not possible to live apart from life, and the means of life is found in fellowship with God; but fellowship with God is to know God, and to enjoy His goodness.”
Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 20)
Just to clarify, I am not a Mormon. I believe in one God. I hold that the form in which Christ appeared is irrelevant to the fact that the Son was seen in the OT.
Justin Martyr also holds this same conclusion. Even if Justin was a pre-nicene church father or held certain positions that were later further defined, it does not take away from the his positions that were correct and aligned with later developed doctrine. I can agree with Justin on some things and disagree with others, I do the same with Augustine.
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will…” DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO CH.61
I will reply further to your post, as I haven’t addressed all your points yet.
8:17 PM
AJ said...
If you hold that the Son “is not totally present for His followers to see”, how then do you interpret the transfiguration or even Mark 16:14?
Yes, “Proskynesis” is the Greek word for worship used in many of the verses involving the Angel of the Lord and worship in the LXX. However it is important to focus attention on the original Hebrew “Shachah” and its original meaning in the Masoretic text.
It isn’t a question of persons worshipping the apparent ‘angel(s)”, but rather a question of why the Angel of the Lord accepted worship.
The situation in Genesis 19:1 is interesting. It is an example of “shachah” used in reference to making obeisance to persons other than God. It is important to remember that Lot mistook these angels for men (similar to Manoah in Judges 13). So in relation to Lot bowing himself to two perceived men, nothing is out of the ordinary as it was custom to bow in civil respect to men in biblical times. The difference between Genesis 19:1 and Revelation 19:10 & 22:8-9 is that, in Revelation, John knows very well that he is communicating with and angel an intends to worship him and not merely show respect while Lot did not know he was conversing with angels (he believed them to be men). And in Judges 13 we see an example of the Angel of the Lord accepting the burnt offering after which Manoah falls to the ground. There is a defining line between the use of “shachah” as referring to obeisance and worship. As you or I might show respect for a great man or judge, we would never worship him as we would God.
While “wonderful” and “abundant” are not exact literal names of God, they are attributes of Him. (Exodus 34:6 and Isaiah 9:6)
Manoah is not inerrant but we must still answer the question of why he first says “Angel of the Lord”, then “God”.
I merely point out that the presence of fire is significant in denoting the presence of God in the OT. No, fire does not always denote His presence. However, it is a major clue that can’t be overlooked. Coupled with the apparent “angelic messenger(s)” speaking with the voice of the Lord, holy ground, the tabernacle, etc., it is indeed a huge clue.
I respond:
AJ
First, let me be clear that I am not per se ruling out that the putative epiphanies in the Old Testament were epiphanies or Christophanies. Those are within the licit range of opinions, I believe. However, I don’t think that we are compelled to conclude that they were and I think that the better opinion is that they were not.
1. I am pleased that we are in agreement with Ambrose and Augustine that at the Baptism in Jordan the Holy Spirit took the bodily form of a dove in the New Testament.
I am also pleased that we are in agreement with Ambrose and Augustine that the Holy Spirit was never “incarnated.”
I didn’t know the Ambrose references and I appreciate your having supplied them. However, it does not surprise me that Ambrose agreed with Augustine because the uniqueness of the Incarnation was most definitely a key point of Christian doctrine.
It seems to me, though, that you may be missing some important points about the meaning of the true and undisputed epiphany of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the Baptism in the Jordan. Those points are:
A. The meaning of “incarnation” vis a vis “epiphany.” It is not clear to me that you understand what “incarnation” means. It does not mean “taking a human form.” Incarnation means taking the bodily form into the reality of the person so that the person becomes embodied, while remaining spiritual, such that it is the body that is taken up and becomes part of the hypostatic union with divinity. None of the prior epiphanies involved a “hypostatic union,” which is why Ambrose refers to them as “appearances.
B. Thus, based on the example of His appearance at the Baptism at the Jordan, the Holy Spirit could have appeared in any prior epiphany, particularly since the epiphanies often did not involve taking the form of a human being, and
C. You write that the “Holy Spirit could not be the Angel of the Lord because a spirit is without bodily form, nor man-like (Luke 24:39).” This seems to miss the point. Each person of the Trinity is a spirit and not “man-like” in their divine nature. Moreover, the point of Jesus disclaiming what you synopsize God being man-like isn’t to assert that God might manifest as a dog or a dove, but to hyperbolically drive the point home that God is Spirit. Hence, the problem with your analysis is that the Holy Spirit manifested bodily – as you now concede – in the form of a dove. But since being embodied as a dove is being in a bodily form, then clearly nothing clearly prevents earlier manifestations as fire or as angels from having been the Holy Spirit. (N.B. Angels are no more “men” than they are “doves.”)
D. Again, this leads in the direction of Mormonism, which as you may know posits that God and the Son have bodies of “flesh and bone,” while the Spirit has a spiritual body, which is really, really fine-grained matter. Now, again, there is nothing wrong with that, except that orthodox Christianity has always affirmed the immateriality and spirituality of God and the Trinity.
2. You write “The incarnation of Christ is imperative to the Christian faith. I hold that OT christophanies were not incarnations, but rather revelations of the pre-incarnate Christ.”
My prior arguments was to the effect that this conclusion is not compelled by the text. My further argument is the appeal to “fittingness.” To wit, why do you feel that this conclusion is more fitting – more consonant with what we know of the Gospel - than its competitor?
My argument against your position is also based on “fittingness.” I think that the Incarnation is so important and so unique that while angelic visitations prefigure the Incarnation, if we believe that Christ was actually making those appearances, that view threatens to undermine the uniqueness of the Incarnation. It’s as if Christ were making some off-Broadway appearance before hitting the big time.
Likewise, these prior epiphanies are all too easy to confuse with the Incarnation – which I think you’ve done twice, but even if it was just a problem with grammar, my point is made.
3. Irenaeus and the vision of God.
The point that I was making was that we do not and cannot see the divine nature of God with just our physical eyes. When people saw Jesus, they certainly saw God, but they saw God in his human nature.
You do provide an interesting quote from Irenaeus, but it seems to miss the point of this discussion.
Irenaeus is talking about “seeing” God in various non-physical ways, e.g., “For God is powerful in all things, having been seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen, too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven….”
It is clear that in the after-life the saved will see the divine nature of God directly by vision. Apparently, thought, the damned won’t according to, I believe, Augustine. So, if you show up at the Last Judgment and Jesus looks like just a guy, you know you are in some trouble.
Now that’s funny but the serious point is that without God’s assistance – his Grace - to see His Divine nature, we can’t do it with our natural senses. Similarly, Irenaeus talks about how we can see God in various ways that are analogous to seeing with our vision but are not, in fact, seeing by our eyes.
Epiphanies are quite to the contrary. Anyone can see them. That’s the point. That’s why Augustine talks about epiphanies being creatures that are observable by natural senses.
4. You write “Just to clarify, I am not a Mormon. I believe in one God. I hold that the form in which Christ appeared is irrelevant to the fact that the Son was seen in the OT.”
I don’t know what you mean by “I hold that the form in which Christ appeared is irrelevant to the fact that the Son was seen in the OT.” It seems that there are two buried assumptions here –
A. Christ was seen in Old Testament epiphanies. This is the question at issue. Assuming it is simply begging the question.
B. The appearance – Form? Shape? Incarnate? – is irrelevant to the fact that it was Christ who appeared.
Concerning this last, I submit that it does matter. If you are assuming an Incarnation, then you are outside the “rules” of the Christian game. If the form was human, then this may foreshadow the Incarnation, but if the appearance was Christ it seems to detract from the dignity of the Incarnation by, as I noted, making it look like Christ was trying on the costume before the big show.
If the form was not human, then what happened to your reading of Luke 24:39?
5. Justin Martyr.
I agree that Justin appears to be arguing for the epiphanies being Christophanies, just as Augustine argues against that position.
The issue is why should we prefer one over the other.
A reason for preferring Justin is that it might be the case that since Justin is substantially earlier than Augustine, he would have access to an earlier tradition. But in this case, that tradition goes back to Genesis, so it is hard to see how that is sufficiently early to give him an edge in that department.
On the other hand, coming earlier, Justin wasn’t exposed to the Christological and Trinitarian debates that unfolded later from working out the implications of Christianity. I’ve already pointed out that Justin had the unfortunate habit of referring to “two gods” in his writings, which suggests that he wasn’t entirely clear on the issue of the consubstantiality of God’s nature. As such, it would have been logical for him to think that Christ was subordinate to the Father and, so, there was nothing “unfitting” about Christ trying on his role before the big show.
Augustine – writing after Nicea – doesn’t have the luxury of that kind of understanding. His understanding – our understanding – is that the Father and the Son are consubstantial. As such, we have to re-think Justin’s understanding to make sure it accords with – or is the best explanation of – the data in light of our new understanding.
Hence, Augustine is to be preferred.
I would very much be interested in your explaining to me why we should prefer Justin to Augustine on this issue.
6. “If you hold that the Son “is not totally present for His followers to see”, how then do you interpret the transfiguration or even Mark 16:14?”
That’s a good question, and a bit complicated.
Aquinas explains the Transfiguration as a moment when Christ assumed bodily the supernatural gift of clarity, which all resurrected bodies will have, along with subtlety, agility and impassibility.
Certain Orthodox theologians have viewed the Transfiguration in a different way that gets very mystical and may traipse off into heresy.
In any event, the light of the transfiguration was a visible light, not a metaphor or a spiritual experience.
7. “Worshipping” Angels.
Your exegesis of how Lot was just showing respect to some strangers ignores Augustine. Augustine described Lot as “worshipping” and specifically says that obviously Lot knew they were angels because he wouldn’t have “worshipped” them otherwise.
Even if we understand Lot’s actions as proskynesis short of the worship given to God – something I am perfectly comfortable with – Augustine’s point is that such exaggerated respect is something given to angels.
Similarly, when we see the same thing in Judges and Revelations, why should we assume that it isn’t the same kind of exaggerated respect that people gave to angels as a matter of routine? That’s the clear implication of Augustine’s observations.
Two additional points.
A. I think we go with Augustine on this one because he understood the customs of a non-democratic culture than you or I.
B. I’ve seen a bit of self-serving blindness on this one. People who would accuse a Catholic of “worshipping” a statue of Mary by praying before it seem to have no problem with claiming that Lot, Manue and John were not “worshipping” angels by dropping face-first before them. The problem is that we don’t understand the gradations of “worship” – which means showing reverence or respect – and we don’t have categories between “worship of God” and “respect for superiors.”
8. Manoah.
First, “abundant” may be a name of God, but I’m not comfortable with that conclusion.
The “pro” argument is from the following:
"On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii) that "Splendor" is among those things which are said of God metaphorically."
And
"On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 15:3): "The Lord is a man of war, Almighty is His name."
“Abundance” is not so dissimilar to “almighty” and “splendor.”
And, yet, when God speaks of Himself, he says “I am who am.”
Further, “almighty” and “splendor” are names of God that are ascribed by humans as metaphors for God. It’s hard to see God doing that. Did Ted Williams ever introduce himself by saying that he was the “Splendid Splinter.” I don’t see that happening.
Concerning the reference to God, I’ll note that Manue said it, but Manue also said “we will die because we have seen God.” Manue did not die. Why is it not the case that the reason he didn’t die is because he hadn’t seen God? It seems the better argument from the text is that this was not an epiphany.
Concerning fire and speaking as God, that’s where we started this discussion. Augustine offers an explanation for the latter.
So kicking it to you, I’m curious.
1. You have never interacted with Augustine’s explanation – as I have done with Irenaeus and Justin. What do you think is the problem is, if anything, with Augustine's explanation?
2. How is it that you think the proposition that the epiphanies were Christophanies is more consonant with the entirety of Christian doctrine than Augustine’s position?
Posts
