Recently I posted a couple of times on the eucharist (here and there) and promised to post on Brant Pitre's book on Jesus and the Last Supper which remains a sin of omission.
Below I post today's sermon, focused mostly on the gospel passage, John 6 and the bread of life. I don't normally post sermons I have preached. That is mostly because I write them on the back of envelopes. The sermon below is unusual: I actually typed it out on my laptop. I think the sermon below is worth a post, on two grounds.
1. While not directly citing Brant Pitre, my reading of his book is definitely influential on what I say below. I am - of course - responsible for what is written below; Pitre is not responsible for the sermon.
2. I was struck, while preparing the sermon, by the neat way in which 6:41-43 illustrates how the bread of communion can be simultaneously the body of Christ. Your feedback [bad pun] will be gratefully received. I am sure what I write below is entirely unoriginal, but it is a new-to-me insight from this passage.
Ephesians
4:25-5:2 and John 6:35, 41-51:
If we
want to live we need to eat the bread of life.
How often
should we have communion?
That simple
question has had varied answers through Christian history.
From once
or twice a year to quarterly to monthly to weekly to daily.
The New
Testament, which faithfully reports to us that Jesus told his disciples at the
Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of me”, doesn’t actually say how often we
should do this.
Indeed the
NT, perhaps to the surprise of Christians who put a lot of emphasis on regular
communion, devotes very few words to the subject of “holy communion”.
But among
those words are the words we find in John 6 as we read from this chapter over
five Sundays – this is week three – if you have lost track.
John 6 –
bread from heaven
Five
Sundays on the bread, someone once complained.
But what
bread it is to spend five Sundays on – the bread from heaven, the bread of
life, the bread that gives eternal life.
Eat this
bread, Jesus says, and you will never be hungry again.
Now we
know, when someone talks like that, but our stomach tells us we are hungry,
that this is not the bread we buy at the supermarket or cook in our bread
makers.
What is
this bread from heaven? Is it metaphorical – bread as a metaphor for spiritual
union with Christ?
To be sure,
there is an element of metaphor.
What counts
is the life of Christ in us and our lives lived in union with Christ. We live
this life 24/7, whether we share in communion that day or not.
Yet what
Jesus says is very specific about eating him – eating his flesh and drinking
his blood.
His flesh
is the living bread, his blood is true drink. Jesus says, “unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (53).
It has been
impossible for the church not to join this teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum
with the later Last Supper –
the supper in which Jesus took bread, gave
thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples; shared a cup of wine in the same
way.
So,
alongside the element of metaphor is an element of material reality.
To eat
bread given thanks for, broken and shared among followers of Christ, is to eat
the body of Christ.
To drink
wine given thanks for, shared around followers of Christ, is to drink the blood
of Christ.
The
bread from heaven is that bread which we eat together in communion.
And whoever
eats of this bread will live forever.
“Those who
eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (56)
At times in
our Anglican history we have had long seasons in which communion was (and in
some parishes still is) an optional extra (10 am Mattins and 11.15 am Holy
Communion for those who stayed).
I don’t
think that approach is faithful to John 6 and its connection to what Jesus did
at the Last Supper and commanded us to continue doing in remembrance of his
death.
If we want
to live, really live, to live the life of Christ in the world, we need to meet,
to break bread and to eat it and to share the cup and to drink it.
Thus the
spiritual life of Christ comes to us through the material reality of bread and
wine:
in this way we eat Christ’s body – his
crucified, risen and ascended body – and we drink Christ’s blood – in which the
life of Christ comes to us,
the life which was given up for the sake of the
world.
As the last
words of our Ephesian reading puts it, urging us to love with the same love
Christ has for the world,
“live in
love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice
to God.” (5:2)
John 6 –
bread from heaven = Jesus, son of Joseph (6:41-43)
We may
wonder – as many Christians have wondered – how bread and wine from the earth
can convey the heavenly body and blood of Christ.
Fascinatingly
there is a strong clue in our gospel reading today.
Jesus says
he is the bread come down from heaven.
The Jews
who hear this complain: this man is no bread from heaven, this is Jesus the son
of Joseph. We know his Mum and Dad.
As readers
we know that Jesus is both.
He is the
bread come down from heaven:
he is Son of Man and Son of God, come to us
from the Father, descended to us from eternal, heavenly intimacy with God his
Father.
He is
Jesus, son of Joseph.
An ordinary and very material/physical human
being.
Same as you and me.
Simultaneously,
Jesus is heavenly and earthly, divine and human.
No
scientist could have done a blood test and found Jesus to be from heaven.
No
theologian, hearing the witness of the Jews who were Jesus’ audience that day,
could have denied Jesus to be from earth.
The bread
we eat today and the wine we drink cannot be taken to a lab at the university
and be found to be the heavenly body and blood of Christ.
And no
matter what we believe about the body and blood of Christ which we partake at
communion, it is simultaneously bread and wine.
John 6 –
the wrap up
If we want
to live we need to eat the bread of life.
We should
not be vague about this and think of Jesus being all metaphorical.
We can be
concrete, specific:
we should come – as we have done today – to
communion – to eat the bread of life
– to be nourished and strengthened by Christ
through the bread and the wine of communion.
And how
often?
I am going to answer that question with another question ...
Can we ever
have too much of Christ?
Dear, Dear Peter, I may be accused of plagiarism here - but I'm not worried, these are the words of Jesus (more or less); "Peter, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven". Now this is a paradox. The best theologians have come to understand that that, for us Christians, God is a Trinity of Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Jesus was speaking here, he was - in his human state - deferring to the Father as source of all being who had revealed (by the Third Person of the Trinity) the true identity of Jesus as the Son of God.
ReplyDeleteThe 'Body and Blood of Jesus' in the Eucharst is both spiritual and material - in the same way that Jesus, Himself, was both God and man. Only in this wy could we possible understand the 'Mystery' of the 'Real Presence' of Jesus in this Holy Common-union.
When I was a full-time parish prest, I knew that I had, daily, to receive Jesus in the sacrament he has left for us - in order to take his presence into the world I had been ordained to minister. The Bread of Life in the Eucharist was the food that was designed for our nourishment - to eternal life. Now, in semi-retirement, I receive Jesus in this wonderful sacrament as often as I can, in order to keep up the relationship with Jesus that he gave me many years ago. "Christ in us the hope of glory".
THanks Ron
ReplyDeleteIt is another part of the reflection that we ponder the regularity of feeding.
Daily is attractive but hard to sustain.
I would not think Jesus is less with/in me for only partaking weekly.
In other words, I continue to value a daily quiet time with Jesus through Bible reading and prayer!
Dear Peter, I know there can be a problem in the area of - 'familiarity' breeding contempt. And I know that, for most people, even Anglo-Catholic clergy - daily reception of the life-giving power of the Eucharist is not always possible. I do not, for instance, receive Christ every single day. I just go often enough to feel that I maintain the same sort of loving family relationship with Christ and fellow Christians - as I have with my nuclear family. At the age of 89 I am increasingly aware that my mental, physical and spiritual health and wellbeing are intimately connected to my frequent reception of Christ in the Eucharist.
ReplyDeleteWonderful to see you’re getting into Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Last Supper, Peter. One of the better books I’ve read these past couple of years. Informative, and not a little provocative - in a good way naturally! All of that said, a few things need to be also followed up.
ReplyDeleteSure; not a few folk down the years have got hung up on the frequency with which we might enjoy Table Fellowship, and so receive the bread and wine in Holy Communion in order to enjoy Jesus’ body and blood and gain his benefits. (At this stage I merely use traditional language.) But that, I sense, is not really the point - actually!
Far more to the point is to gain a better appreciation of history, not least of the Latin West, and notably of the debate surrounding “the communication of grace” which began in earnest 9th C and climaxed at Lateran IV, 1215, with the promulgation of transubstantiation. Nor is that all - by a long way! For the more important background goes deeper still. JA Jungmann termed it the anti-Arian backlash. This effectively pushed Jesus’ mediatorial role to the side, leaving a mediatorial vacuum. Just so the terms of that very debate begun in the 9th C and its conclusion.
TF Torrance and entire Torrance clan have been writing about all this for years, BTW! It forms the basis of my chapter 8, “Deconstruction”, in The Lion, the Dove, & the Lamb. For what is at stake is this. We have put our sacramental and sacerdotal cart before the triune God’s own mediatorial horse. For in effect, to use Pannenberg’s language now, the Trinity is in himself a “field of relations”. And what the Incarnation, the Cross and Resurrection and Ascension, followed by Pentecost, have all achieved is to set up God’s own Trinitarian mediatorial field. Just so, one key feature of an operational Trinitarianism. It’s obviously in this complex context that the Magisterial Reformers conducted themselves - and we mostly still conduct ourselves.
What Brant has now also done for us is to enable a full return to the NT context, and debate the Last Supper and so the Lord’s Supper in explicitly Jewish terms. Just so now my own summary on p.73 and the table there of God’s Address—Living with the Triune God: A Scripture workbook ...: ‘Sacramental expression/response - continuation: “Do this to remember Me” - New Passover rite celebrating koinonia in the Mediator of the New Exodus and the New Covenant, in the midst of the New Temple.’
When Cranmer takes up the language of John 6 at the conclusion of the Prayer of Humble Access re “mutual indwelling”, we need to join that with Paul’s language of 1 Cor 10:16-17. And NB, who effects this koinonia and how? The HOLY SPIRIT! Who is the last feature of any due operational Trinitarian theology and praxis. So; the Eastern Church has it clearly over the West at this point; we need to beef up (even after our recent liturgical ‘revisions’) the epiclesis wholesale! For the Spirit is the singular Paraclete of the Upper Room discourses, the setting for which is the Last Supper NB, Jesus' Passover Meal. And lastly, just as the Son Incarnate is the ‘vehicle’ of the Father in John, so too is the Spirit the ‘vehicle’ of the Glorified Son of the Father (with NB “glory” in FG = both crucifixion and resurrection).
ReplyDeleteJust so, to conclude: when Jesus initiates us into his person-and-work by baptizing us with the Holy Spirit into himself (Rom 6, 1 Cor 12, Col 2), he similarly effects “ongoing communion and mutual abiding” via the rite of the Lord’s Supper, when we “take, bless, break and distribute/receive” [yes; hat-tip G Dix] bread and wine, those features of the New Passover Rite now re-labelled by Jesus. No longer “the bread of affliction our fathers ate”, it is “my flesh for the life of the world”; no longer the (probably fourth) cup but “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”. And finally the act of “remembering” is, as Brevard Childs said years ago in Memory and Tradition, not some existential anamnesis (a weak 20th C term) but classically a Jewish zikkaron ala Ex 12 and 13, now fulfilled exactly as Brant suggests.
Bottom line: what we need to accentuate is not exactly the elements and especially their ‘nature’ and/or their adoration, let alone “frequency” debates. It is rather the entire box and dice of what the triune God has himself set up via Jesus and the Holy Spirit. To enable, firstly, initiation into Jesus (via repentance and faith, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:28-39, which threefold cord church history has rent asunder; we need to re-thread them all together again), and thereafter due maintenance of that communion (just so, the likes of 1 Cor 11:17ff rightly sits with 11:23ff: once more that threefold cord needs to be bound together, so that Evangelical, Sacramental, and Pentecostal emphases find each other again).
Oops! Typo: Acts 2:38-39
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
Bryden sums it up perfectly for me in the last paragraph of his 12.55 PM. blog; thanks Bryden.
I am with you on your intrerpretation of this one notwithstanding we are encouraged to take communion ‘often’ and I believe the taking of it aids our human inclination for forgetfulness..
ReplyDeleteYou’re welcome Glen. Now enjoy!
ReplyDeleteJean; you’ve hit the nail on the head with your word “forgetfulness”. You might like in particular to trawl through the book of Deuteronomy, noting the words “remember” and “forget”. They each perform key roles. Have fun and enjoy the insights!
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
Jesus said:"Sabbath was made for man,not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27.
Likewise, the Eucharist was made for man,not man for the Eucharist.I do not see anywhere in the Scriptures that God has revoked the two great commissions He gave man :"Be fruitful and multiply" and "Replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over ..."Gen 1:28. Did God make man to sit around in Churches all day telling other people, that they are so BLESSED, that they can partake of the Eucharist seven days a week? or are we here to obey the original COMMISSIONS? I see that "institutionalized religion" including the ASCANZP has become everything the second Temple of Jerusalem was.
Two sad indictments on institutionalized became public today: [1] The death of John Smyth, where the Anglican Communion should hang it's head in shame;
[2] the release of the report of the Grand Jury in Pennsylvania on the cover up of sexual abuse in that Dioceses, by the Bishop right through to the Vatican. Please explain to me why the Eucharist dispensed by such people is so necessary to my "SPIRITUAL LIFE". I think a glass of wine and a sandwich, had in the garden, recognizing that it is only by the "GRACE OF CHRIST" that I am doing so ,is more relevant. Was it not in a GARDEN that Christ choose to spend His last night, and not in the Temple.
Hi Glen
ReplyDeleteWe are free in Christ to read the Scriptures and to draw from them guidance and instructions for us as we seek to follow Christ. In that freedom the church has followed the instruction to "do this in remembrance" and it has been guided by John 6 and other passages in working out the meaning of the bread and wine of communion. That working out has led to confidence that communion nurtures us; indeed, that we ought to have communion rather than not have communion. In turn that has raised a question of frequency of reception. I think that a reasonable question to ask (and, Bryden, if you are reading this, much as I appreciate your Trinitarian insights re communion, so long as you think we ought to receive communion, it is right to ask, how often? (The parallel question re baptism has yielded the answer, Once only in a lifetime. No one I am aware of has ever argued that answer also applies to communion).)
That some ministers, ordained and lay, have been abusers of others, does not change the freedom we have to explore the meaning of communion. Indeed it heightens the importance of a true understanding because communion properly understood should always equal us at the foot of the cross and de-power those who preside at communion and mistake that role for status.
Hi Bryden
ReplyDeleteI shall put that on my list of ‘homework’ ... : ) .. also reading your book ‘The Lion, The Dove and The Lamb’ since it comes up so much in your comments. It was a great revelation for me when I learnt and experienced more of the Holy Spirit, and yet that went side by side with discovering more of and about scripture; such is I have come to value Christianity in practice where worship is both in Spirit and in Truth. Incorporating as it does the whole of the Trinity you so obviously are passionate about.
All the best
Re frequency, Peter, seeing you ask directly the question.
ReplyDelete1. I am aware of that tradition, exemplified by Ron’s branch of the church, who see daily mass as a reflection of the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer. And I get it - though I also see it as a bit of a stretch ... for ... [see now Brant Pitre as well!]
2.1 The Lord’s Day: it is pretty clear the NT Church switched from Sabbath keeping (Friday 6:00 pm to Sat 6:00 pm) to celebrating their gatherings together on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, in commemoration of the resurrection.
2.2 The pesach was a domestic affair (annually), even if it required the Temple etc to have a lamb to eat. YET now as per 1 Cor 5:7-8 the Lamb is not only slain, once for all, but now reigns amidst the entire heavenly host, as per Rev 5 etc. And it was on the Lord’s Day that John saw many of his vision(s), 1:10; and the Apocalypse is through and through about the Eucharist and NT worship.
2.3 The cup of blessing which we bless (1 Cor 10:16) is most likely to be the Fourth Cup of the Seder. And the domestic element of the Last/Lord’s Supper most easily sets it up as the NT domestic churches shifting their Jewish Sabbath-keeping to their Sundays.
2.4 If the Fourth Gospel is also anything to go by, with its central section of the Book of Signs, chs 5-10, being about what worship in Spirit and truth looks like (Jn 4) now that all those feasts are fulfilled and transcended in Jesus the Lamb + Temple, then chs 20 and 21 suggest pretty strongly again that the Lord’s Day sees the Church gathering to feed and be fed, in preparation for their mission.
3. Answer: once a week. [There is also a host of literature I am aware of that nails this answer; but not for a blog ...!]
"Did God make man to... partake of the eucharist seven days a week, or to obey the original commissions (to be fruitful and multiply; to replenish the earth, subdue it, have dominion over it)?"
ReplyDeleteGlen, are you suggesting a seven day sex week, a seven day work week, or both? Seems "the Sabbath was made for man," as the Pharisees understood, because a (wo)man-- even an Anglican one-- surely needs a day off now and again...
BW
Dear Jean, may you survive your purchase! Thank you. Amusingly, since our God has a great sense of humour - and mostly at our expense - I think you might find the second book easier. God’s Address - Living with the Triune God: A scripture workbook in the style of manuduction to accompany LDL. Don’t panic: that delightful word “manuduction” is chosen for good reason and explained in the Intro! For the entire workbook is Manuduction - enjoy!
ReplyDeleteA 'not-too-serious comment from me for Glen:
ReplyDeleteContemplating your last question on the subject of frequency at the Eucharist: How many times did Jesus actually tell his followers to go out and make babies? (He never gave any evidence of his own sexual activity, so this seemingly was not a 'salvation issue').
On the other hand, did he not instruct his followers to "Take, eat, this IS my body"; and "Take, drink, this IS my blood". Jesus even implied that unless they did this they would have no life in them!
So, the example of Christ in his teaching about the necessity to receive his life in the Eucharist was pretty impressive, don't you think?
For those of us who take this seriously: "As often as you do this, you remember me until I come again", we need that constant reminder in our own experience. Some maybe do not. I do not try to offer any judgement on other people's practice. I know that I need the more frequent practice of 'The Presence of Christ' in the Eucharist. After all, that's why Jesus took the trouble to give it to us on the night before he died. He knew we would need it to cope with daily living.
ReplyDeleteHi Ron,
To me, institutionalized religion has fallen prey to same temptation as the Temple did.Can you give me the Scriptures validating the formality and pomp of the Eucharist? I see it as an occasion where Jesus was reminding His Disciplesnot to forget the very "cause of their existence"; that when He was no longer with them, they would take their eyes of Him. I am not denying the that every time we eat or drink, both the physical,emotional and spiritual nourishment is of the God. Deut. Chs 4 and 8 ["When thou hast eaten and art full,then thou shalt bless the Lord thy God for the good land which He has given you"]8/10.
How much more should we forever be aware of the "precious gift" He gave us with His ultimate sacrifice. But institutionalized religion has turned, [as did the Temple],a beautiful GOSPEL into a money machine; where only "ordained priests can dispense the Eucharist.I would rather have as glass of wine and some food with people whose values I respect, in a garden, recounting our need for Christ.
A delightfully radical interpretation of JAJ’s thesis Glen! With all the insight of deconstructing human “power”. If the latest USA grand jury indictments are anything to go by - frighteningly necessary.
ReplyDeleteMy only kick-back would be Paul’s own request for “order” (1 Cor14). As well as that powerful Greek word in Eph 4:11-12 re καταρτισμὸν, “the knitting together/repairing ....” For it was the paterfamilias who led the Seder at Passover - AND the Mother at the Sabbath Meal.
Thanks Bryden re the second book would be better! I sense my academia levels are somewhat below yours, Bowman’s and Peter’s so any reprieve from looking up unfamiliar words is welcome!
ReplyDeleteGlen, I am quite surprised at your comment re the institutionalisation of communion and it’s connection with power and or money. This has not been my personal experience. At a previous Church our council had decided to have communion only once a month for a while until our Minister felt led by the Spirit towards the need to return to receiving it weekly. We also had communion after prayer meetings and other less formal occasions. I do value it’s practice as an act of worship and therefore appreciate it being performed in a context of reverence regardless of how formal or informal the fellowship gathering or how long the accompanying liturgy or words of thanks. If no Minister was available to bless the bread and wine I would accept it being done by any sincere and respected Christian (although please don’t tell Peter this).
Your anti-clerical statement here, Glen, will never serve to escape the FACT that God uses frail human beings (dedicated clergy) to bring about the power of salvation that Jesus promised in the Life-giving (Christ-ordained) gift of the Eucharist. The prayer book tells us that the efficacy of the 'Gift' is not affected by the unworthiness of the minister. Deo Gratias!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi Bryden,
Thanks for your thoughts. I do not believe that Jesus ever wanted us
to separate the "old Israel" and the "new Israel" from each another; because the experience of the old,will be the same as the new;"There is nothing new under the face of the sun". It is only in Christ,through the power of the Holy Spirit, that there is anything new. And when the same old temptations" of power,sex and money come into play; old and new have little differentiation.
And yes,Paul's desire for order can only come through repentance and change;"the old man dies and through the power of the Holy Spirit, the new man arises.It matters little as to whether this is individual or collective. And as the Seder at the Passover calls upon all of us,to this day, to leave in Egypt what was in Egypt. To me,it is a pity that modern Christians do not understand the relevance of the "bitter Herbs". Perhaps,then,the "Working Party" would have been left in the Reed Sea with Pharaoh's army.
ReplyDeleteHi Bryden,
It is only in Christ and through Christ that the two parts of your second paragraph can be reconciled. His was the "blood of the lamb that was painted
on the door of the Jewish houses and He is the "ORDER" that displaces the chaos which came into the Garden of Eden. It is only when we recognize that the Eucharist is the MANA by which God fed the Israelite people in the desert and the Holy Spirit is the CLOUD which led them; that we truly understand IT'S importance for us today. I would argue that Jesus':"Give us this day our daily bread"; is refferencing us back to the MANA of the desert. Christ knew that in the world to come, His followers would be in the desert waiting for the PROMISED LAND TO COME.
The important thing Glen and Ron is to appreciate history, both that history that led to such notions as a Christian priest’s supposed “ sacred power” to consecrate, and then that history which Reformed such notions delivering that “dangerous idea” (Alister McGrath) leading to the devolution of such powers.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, if the Church truly seeks its due reformation in the light of the Gospel, it will push beyond its current captivity to Religion itself, seeking the true Liberty of all God’s Children to know the intimacy of immediate Communion with their heavenly Farher.
Glen, in reading your Bible, I wonder if you've ever noticed the incontrovertible fact that it is a collection of books - divided into two separate and distinctive historical periods - the OLD and the NEW Testaments. One pre-Incarnation, and the other post Incarnation when the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us. When God became man in Jesus, God introduced the power for all people to become 'children of God' - not just the children of Israel. The promise of the OT was fulfilled in the NT. by 'The New Covenant in my blood' - Jesus. Old replaced by NEW.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi Ron,
I am not questioning the value of the Eucharist, [please be certain of that]; but it is my contention that institutionalized religion has taken on legs of it's own. Even within that hierarchy, there seems to be little agreement over what is the legitimate Doctrine, [Peter's BROAD CHURCH]. Both the Prayer Book and Articles tell us that the value of Eucharist is not affected by the unworthiness of the clergy.
Therefore why insist that it can only be dispensed by ordained clergy. Both the Church of Rome and of England have become very rich by their positions, in joining with rulers to control the people. At least those in the monasteries were self sufficient. Paul was a tent maker to pay his way.
Hi Glen
ReplyDeleteI know your comment was for Ron but reading it what confuses me about what you say is not the questioning of formality, as I am a bit of a priesthood of all believers person; while acknowledging that some form of election or call of people for certain functions within the Church is necessary for the body to operate. The confusion for me lies in your equating the Church with wealth and joining with rulers; while certainly in say the case of the Church of England there has been evidence of this in the past it does not resound with our Anglican Church in the present. Let’s say I have not ever attended a rich Anglican Church that has any political sway in Aotearoa, so are you speaking historically or of the present? Paul did pay his own way but makes it clear in the Bible that he did so by choice while supporting the notion that those who carry out such work are entitled to be supported by the people. There are many non-stipendary or unpaid Priests in our Church today as well as paid ones who from my observation more than earn their wages!
Cheers
Clericalism and its alternatives are well worth a discussion all their own.
ReplyDeleteBW
Well Glen, the fact of the matter is the comments on this thread provide the wherewithal for understanding what’s at stake. Let’s start with Ron @ August 17, 2018 at 11:39 AM. That comment simply hasn’t processed the history of the 9th - 13th centuries (as per my comments @ August 14, 2018 at 12:51 & 55 PM). For if we reinstate properly the Trinitarian horse and thereafter attach the sacramental cart as we should, there is simply no need for seeing priests the way Ron does. But that of course will cause a crisis of identity! Deprived of so-called “sacred power” (sacra potestas), what now becomes of their role?!
ReplyDeleteThat’s where we need to drill down into Ephesians 4 far more carefully. For those fivefold gifts of verse 11, leading to the primary goal of “knitting together or equipping” (πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν) all the saints for their twofold work (the Greek grammatical construction is vital; the old KJV is utterly confusing), are perhaps the key. Again we need the Greek. These five gifts are not equivalent to the charismata of Rom 12 or 1 Cor 12; a different word is used. Here they seem to indicate some key oversight role(s); there they embrace the entire body. Also we should note the first two have already occurred at 2:20 as a decisive pair. Some commentators would go so far as to suggest therefore that these two are irreplaceable and are not found beyond the 1st C. I’d have to say church history denies that view—despite the venerable claim of some theories of episcopacy to embody/inherit apostolic succession (part and parcel I suspect of precisely that debate of 9th - 13th Cs re the Communication of Grace). In other words, we need to squeeze far more than we often do the entire sense of Eph 4, not least as the whole second half of the letter presupposes the NT Catechism material, Chs 4-6.
Now for “order”. 1 Cor 14:40 should be tied in with v.33, as we’ve parallel uses of the two in Rom 13, 1 Thess 4 and Jas 3, respectively. Yet the question needs to be asked, What sort of order (taxis) is envisaged? For back in 12:27-31 we’ve the formal laying out of what is echoed again in 14:36ff. And let’s not forget the Lord’s Supper appears in 1 Cor 10-11, immediately before 12-14. How often are our Eucharists the occasion for demonstrations of the charismata in our midst?!?! So, despite the temptation to tie 14:40’s order to the much later idea of orders (threefold: deacons priests bishops), I cannot see this as Paul’s meaning. Rather, the Jewish synagogue setting for prayers and Torah exposition coupled with Sabbath/Passover combined (as drivers for how the NT assemblies operated) versus the sorts of ‘feasts’ among pagan cults which were often pretty debauched is the context, I suggest. This is due Christian order for communal love amidst demonstrations of eschatological power and prophetic truth. Nor is this too removed from the sorts of thing we have in the Pastorals, where oversight and sound teaching producing fruitful works of ministry among all believers is the goal.
ReplyDeleteOccasionally Ron has delightfully punned with his description of the Eucharist as a “re-membering”. In fact, that is indeed one rendering of πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν, “for knitting together, repairing, equipping”—all good translations. That those charged with Christian oversight might be the most appropriate folk to preside at those gatherings/assemblies/churches where such a thing is the goal is indeed ‘in order’! Yet their ‘power’ to bring this about is not of the order we see extolled by the early second millennium; rather, it is of the kind we see in 1 Tim 4:14 (among countless other Pastoral references) which echoes again the sort of thing we see in 2 Cor 2:14-6:10. Any ordained minister’s “competence” re word + sacrament (to cite the Anglican tradition) reflects these sorts of traits.
I’d go even so far as to suggest that our endless ‘debates’ down the years among “virtualism” (h/t PC Monday July 9), “transubstantiation”, “consubstantiation”, “receptionism”, “zwinglianism”, “calvinism”, etc etc. are pretty close to that “godless chattering and contradictions and myths” of the Pastorals. For until we reinstate fully the Triune God’s own mediatorial field, to realize again an operational Trinitarianism, everything else will be but inadequate confusion ... Jn 6:67-69 stet!
PS Agreed Bowman: clericalism demands its own ?#$%$T^&*
Hi, Bryden, I see your most recent commentary on the Eucharist and priesty ministry as totally befitting what I would be disposed to call the particular conservative Evangelical viewpoint, where the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Christ-ordained) gets less of a sense of true valuation than the human task of individual theological speculation (mostly based on other people's output), and preachment.
ReplyDeleteWhat is often forgotten in the process, by professional theologians, is how to apply their speculation to the nitty gritty of everday life for real people of the present day and age, which differs significantly from that of the middle ages, where much of the argumentation seems to most moderns to revolve around the number of angels able to be accommodated on the head of a pin. Abstract theology is more suitable for think-tanks than the ethos of life lived out in the real world, and the average person in the pew simply is no longer impressed by it.
This is where people like Pope Francis, learned as he is, can speak in ways that ordinary people can understand and model their lives upon. Jesus seemed not to have spent much time with the academics of his day, who simply dismissed him as too much concerned with the poor and the outcaast. Francis understands that a simple Mass celebration can attract more people than a series of lectures at the Institute.
Some try, so far as they can, to make faith a matter of the heart alone, for they soberly fear what their minds might think. Others try, even at great cost and effort, to keep head and heart together. Each is doing what s/he does because of who s/he is. To try to talk any of either out of that *attrait* is the folly of trying to talk persons into exchanging the souls God created for strange ones.
ReplyDeleteSo there are folksy preachers who hold forth to listeners who like things and people more than ideas. And there are cerebral ones who answer the eager Quaestiones Quodlibitales of those who think and maybe create for a living. Both kinds have their grateful congregations.
Some are drawn to the ministry by their interest in, and often facility with, people. Others are drawn to it by the intellectual adventure of knowing God. Both, like St Richard of Chichester, would see him more clearly, love him more dearly, and folliw him more nearly, day by day. The Body is fed by both deacons and presbyters.
What is gained by quarreling about this?
BW
I see, Ron, that you totally avoid the subject in your latest comment. Fine ...
ReplyDeleteAs for “real people of the present day and age”: every farm worker I know understands - tractors and trailers, ATVs and dog crates. Even a number of townies get a boat & trailer and a suitably sized SUV to tow them. Folk also understand what it means to get bogged - and to be pulled out by a tractor. We’ve even had to do this to townies on a 4WD fund raiser!
If you persist in addressing the towed bit and/or trailer, at the expense of what alone may actually have the grunt (capacity) to be able to do the heavy lifting, then you continue to avoid the problem the history of the church and its own speculative theology has itself actually thrown up. Pity ...! Coz you deny yourself and your people the richness of the Life the True Bread from Heaven continues to offer His People.
Not much Bowman ...
ReplyDeleteI see, Ron, that you totally avoid the subject in your latest comment. Fine ...
ReplyDeleteAs for “real people of the present day and age”: every farm worker I know understands - tractors and trailers, ATVs and dog crates. Even a number of townies get a boat & trailer and a suitably sized SUV to tow them. Folk also understand what it means to get bogged - and to be pulled out by a tractor. We’ve even had to do this to townies on a 4WD fund raiser!
If you persist in addressing the towed bit and/or trailer, at the expense of what alone may actually have the grunt (capacity) to be able to do the heavy lifting, then you continue to avoid the problem the history of the church and its own speculative theology has itself actually thrown up. Pity ...! Coz you deny yourself and your people the richness of the Life the True Bread from Heaven continues to offer His People.
Dear Ron and Bryden
ReplyDeleteThis thread needs light not heat and the heat here is because I have, most unfortunately, allowed through comments which focus on the commenter not the comment. Comment on the comments, please. Comment on communion not the communicator (in both senses).
Hi Glen
ReplyDeleteThe critical matter re the "who" of presidency is that that person has the respect and confidence of the church: of the congregation gathering around the communion table, of the regional church (diocese) of which the congregation is a part. Thus that person is a focus of unity of the church through an agreed process of setting that person apart for presidency (ordination) and appointment to the task (licensing).
Other churches do things differently which is generally fine (i.e. it is ordered and not chaotic) but the distinctive differences tend to also make for distinctive denominations. If you wish the Anglican church to be more (say) Presbyterian or Baptist, then the appropriate mechanism is through agreement of the church via synodical decision. Likely I will vote to oppose such a motion!
In deference to our host:
ReplyDeleteWell Glen, the fact of the matter is the diverse variety of comments on this thread provide the wherewithal for understanding what’s at stake. Let’s start with the ‘traditional’ BCP stance, well expressed by Ron @ August 17, 2018 at 11:39 AM. That comment only makes sense when placed within the context of the history of the 9th - 13th centuries (as per my comments @ August 14, 2018 at 12:51 & 55 PM), which too was the backcloth for the Reformation. However, if we were to reinstate properly the Trinitarian horse and thereafter attach the sacramental cart as we should (and not just ‘might’), there is simply no need for seeing priests in this ‘traditional’ way. But that of course will cause a crisis of identity! Deprived of so-called “sacred power” (sacra potestas), as per those depictions after Lateran IV in 1215, what now becomes of their role?!
An answer is provided by drilling down into Ephesians 4 far more carefully. For those fivefold gifts of verse 11, leading to the primary goal of “knitting together or equipping” (πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν) all the saints for their twofold work (the Greek grammatical construction is vital; the old KJV is utterly confusing), are perhaps the key. Again we need the Greek. These five gifts are not equivalent to the charismata of Rom 12 or 1 Cor 12; a different word is used. Here they seem to indicate some key oversight role(s); there they embrace the entire body. Also we should note the first two have already occurred at 2:20 as a decisive pair. Some commentators would go so far as to suggest therefore that these two are irreplaceable and are not found beyond the 1st C. I’d have to say church history denies that view—despite the venerable claim of some theories of episcopacy to embody/inherit apostolic succession (part and parcel I suspect of precisely that debate of 9th - 13th Cs re the Communication of Grace). In other words, we need to squeeze far more than we often do the entire sense of Eph 4, not least as the whole second half of the letter presupposes the NT Catechism material, Chs 4-6.
Now for “order”. 1 Cor 14:40 should be tied in with v.33, as we’ve parallel uses of the two in Rom 13, 1 Thess 4 and Jas 3, respectively. Yet the question needs to be asked, What sort of order (taxis) is envisaged? For back in 12:27-31 we’ve the formal laying out of what is echoed again in 14:36ff. And let’s not forget the Lord’s Supper appears in 1 Cor 10-11, immediately before 12-14. How often are our Eucharists the occasion for demonstrations of the charismata in our midst?!?! So, despite the temptation to tie 14:40’s order to the much later idea of orders (threefold: deacons priests bishops), I cannot see this as Paul’s meaning. Rather, the Jewish synagogue setting for prayers and Torah exposition coupled with Sabbath/Passover combined (as drivers for how the NT assemblies operated) versus the sorts of ‘feasts’ among pagan cults, which were often pretty debauched, is the context, I suggest. This is due Christian order for communal love amidst demonstrations of eschatological power and prophetic truth (to summarize now 1 Cor 10-14). Nor is this too removed from the sorts of thing we have in the Pastorals, where oversight and sound teaching producing fruitful works of ministry among all believers is the goal.
ReplyDeleteWe’ve heard here on ADU a delightful pun describing the Eucharist as a “re-membering”. In fact, that is indeed one rendering of πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν, “for knitting together, repairing, equipping”—all good translations. That those charged with Christian oversight might be the most appropriate folk to preside at those gatherings/assemblies/churches where such a thing is the goal is indeed ‘in order’! Yet their ‘power’ to bring this about is not of the order we see extolled by the early second millennium; rather, it is of the kind we see in 1 Tim 4:14 (among countless other Pastoral references) which echoes again the sort of thing we see in 2 Cor 2:14-6:10. Any ordained minister’s “competence” re word + sacrament (to cite the Anglican tradition, into which after all I am duly ordained happily enough myself) reflects these sorts of traits described at length by Paul.
I’d go even so far as to suggest that our endless ‘debates’ down the years among “virtualism” (h/t PC Monday July 9), “transubstantiation”, “consubstantiation”, “receptionism”, “zwinglianism”, “calvinism”, etc etc. are pretty close to that “godless chattering and contradictions and myths” of the Pastorals. For, until we reinstate fully the Triune God’s own mediatorial field, to realize again an operational Trinitarianism (see again my earlier double comment), ahead of any and all debates around the ‘nature’ of the ‘elements’, there will be but confusion abounding re their supposed ‘nature’, let alone the role of the one presiding.
And I trust this redaction highlights the objective state of play among the various positions (positions that happen to be held of course by particular people). For a considerable amount is actually at stake here. The richness of sacramental worship is made potentially even more glorious when better appraised via its vicissitudes down the centuries. That’s the point!
Glen, there is a third way of looking at the ordained ministry.
ReplyDeleteJesus himself founded it. He bestowed the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power of binding and loosing. These are pastoral acts, not boxes on an org chart.
But as a Jew in C1 Palestine, he imagined the Body that his ministers serve as the regenerate and loosely affiliated but disorganised family of Abraham. He did not found a shadow of the early modern state, still less as a legal corporation that demands loyalty or needs protection. A thought experiment-- if Christians were organised only as much as Jews are, what would be lost and gained?
One could argue that the ministry in our late day is much too closely identified with class-based institutions (cf court prophets in ancient Israel) that are too divided and divisive to simply BE the Body. Surely it is odd that the advent of civil SSM has been debated primarily as a problem for institutional power balances, both up yonder and down under, rather than as a truth-seeking reflection on what clergy hither and yon are duly binding and loosing in Christ's name for the souls who come to them.
In garments that fit, threads are able to hold together sleeves, pockets, buttons, etc, only because they are distinct from what they connect. Threads are long, flexible in every direction, and able to move around fabric to pierce it. The ordained must likewise transcend institutions to serve them.
All kinds of institutions will form in this aeon to serve the Body, but they will also dissolve as the basic forms of society change. Only the Word and the ministry of that Word will endure.
BW
Following up your delightful parable Bowman:
ReplyDeletehttps://vimeo.com/284460075/8782c3ff13
Some bishops are onto it ...
Dear Peter and Readers; I just discovered, this morning an excellent commentary by renowned Protestant Biblical Scholar, Dr.Scott Hahn, to Catholics in this video. Using Typological examples, Dr. Hahn shows the convergences of the Old and New Testamental evidence of the 'Passover Meal and the Eucharist. His lecture is well worth looking in on in this link:- A Protestant talking about the Real Presence!
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/67WmIGLPvEM
Ron, please check Herr Google: Scott Hahn converted to RCC decades ago
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the link properly, Bryden, you will see that his scholarly career began in the Presbyterian Church. This was a significant point in his testimony in the video. It was only later in life that he became a Roman Catholic after attending Mass, that he was able to connect his biblical scholarship with the Catholic Mass. This was at the heart of his message. You really need to see the video right through.
ReplyDeleteFather Ron, you may enjoy two books by Geoffrey Wainwright-- Doxology, his systematic theology; Eucharist and Eschatology, his treatment of the eucharist as a foretaste of the messianic banquet. An English Methodist who taught systematics at Duke, Wainwright's research used the Church's liturgy to illumine her doctrine, following the adage *lex orandi, lex credendi*.
ReplyDeleteBW
Will do Ron - though I should say that I’ve read a bit of Hahn’s work over the years as friends of ours know him personally from Steubenville. My own info is not from Google!! I did however find his suggestion that the Holy Trinity needed a mother (figure) a bit much!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bowman and Bryden. The main reason I posted the link to Kahn was that, on listening to and seeing the video, I was struck by the sheer charisma of Kahn's presentation. When he begins the video, he goes back to his Presbyterian beginnings - with all of the scholarly evidence of the synchronicity between Old and News Testament, without - at that time - actually connecting the importance of their congruity on the subject of recognising the importance of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as necessary to complete the paradigm of the the Sacrificial Lamb at the Passover - which had to be consumed to receive its benefit.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found intriguing was his own flash of recognition of the true consonance between two types of 'offering' and 'reception' occurring within the ritual of the R.C. Mass. It must have been a real 'AHA' moment for him - as it can be for anyone with any knowledge of the inter-testamental biblical background.
I believe, on this basis, that one can never have too much of a good thing!
I have now “properly” viewed the whole of the video, Ron. My response is mixed, and now follows.
ReplyDeleteA. Hahn is surely a good, gifted communicator.
B. His journey epitomizes a number now of American ‘evangelicals’ and/or Protestants. For we shld be most mindful that that former term in the American religious context does NOT mean quite what it does in either UK or Australasia. Though, to be sure, there is some cross-fertilization nowadays which was not there say 25 years ago.
C. First and foremost though, a whole lot more is going on in his address than the doctrine of supposed transubstantiation and the Real Presence thereby. And at its core, I actually agree wholeheartedly with Hahn. For what he is extolling is a method of bringing together the entire body of the Bible, enabling us to read it as a single coherent whole. And this is absolutely vital!! And if I may ...
D. I seek to do this very thing in my second book, God’s Address—Living with the Triune God: A Scripture Workbook in the Style of Manuduction to Accompany The Lion, the Dove, & the Lamb. Part One consists of Sessions 1 & 2, covering the OT, with first a rapid romp through history, The Story unfolds: Abraham to Exile, and then an overall theological introduction to the OT via the notion of the Day of the Lord/Yahweh and its associated motifs, with a summary of the temple cult and its rationale. Then Part Two’s single Session 3 focuses on Jesus’ Coming. The last question after that session is “A basic analogy”, which I now repeat in full in its revised, fuller format and which will be in the second edition soon to go to press. It parallels Hahn delightfully!
E. “The OT presents us with a whole lot of pieces of a jig–saw puzzle from a box. These pieces consist of people (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David), events (like the exodus, exile, and restoration), institutions (like priesthood, temple, its cult and sacrifices, prophecy, kingship), and essential cultural traits (like Torah, covenant, creation theology, Wisdom), plus those “motifs” from the first studies above not already mentioned. The trick is then to see Jesus and his mission in the NT as providing the picture on the lid that fits them all together, fulfilling them—even if in rather unexpected, even radical ways!
ReplyDeleteCapturing this idea of the completed “picture on the lid”, Origen fondly describes Jesus in an extraordinarily compressed formulation of his identity as αὐτοβασιλεία (autobasileia). We may translate this as “the kingdom itself in person.”7
Original footnotes: 7. Two examples of this fond expression. Origen says this of the parable of the unforgiving servant, Matt 18:23–35: “But if it be likened to such a king, and one who has done such things, who must we say that it is but the Son of God? For He is the King of the heavens, and as He is absolute Wisdom and absolute Righteousness and absolute Truth, is He not so also absolute Kingdom? [αὐτοβασιλεία] ... But if you enquire into the meaning of the words, ‘Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,’ you may say that Christ is theirs in so far as He is absolute Kingdom [αὐτοβασιλεία].” Origen, “Matthew,” in ANF IX, 498. Or see Spirit and Fire, 362: “The Son of God is king of heaven. And just as he is wisdom itself and righteousness itself and truth itself, so too is he also the kingdom itself [autobasileia]. But it is not a kingdom over the things below or over a part of the things above, but over all things above which have been called heaven. And if you are searching for the meaning of “theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3), you can say theirs is Christ since he is the kingdom itself . . .” [Bib: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, XIV, 7, in ANF IX, 498. Balthasar, Hans Urs von, ed. Spirit and Fire: A Thematic Anthology of the Writings of Origen. Cornerstones. Translated by Robert J. Daly, SJ. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2nd ed. 2018.]
[Question cont.] We simply cannot understand the NT without the Old, yet the OT itself only comes into its own in the light of the New. St Augustine’s famous saying is apt: “The New Testament is hidden [Latin: latet] in the Old; the Old is made accessible [patet] by the New.” We may compare this classical play on words with a contemporary example. Richard Hays has this to say: “In the first lecture, I proposed the twofold thesis that the OT teaches us how to read the Gospels and that—at the same time—the Gospels teach us how to read the OT. The hermeneutical key to this intertextual dialectic is the practice of figural reading.”8 Teachers of the early church termed this kind of Biblical reading “typology” after Rom 5:14, showing how those latent features (latet) of the OT become patent (patet) in Jesus. For Jesus pulls the whole Story together—so Luke 24:25–27; indeed, he is shown to be not only the climax of the Story but even the premise of the Story! E.g. John 1:1, 8:58, 1 Cor 8:4–6, Col 1:15–20, Heb 1:1–4. Re this last reference from Hebrews: “the new corresponds to the old, but surpasses it, and does so absolutely, by providing the perfection of the true, spiritual order” (Harold Attridge commenting on Hebrews).9 And so we may come full circle, with a comment from Henri de Lubac, which itself concludes by referencing Origen’s αὐτοβασιλεία in a note, as above:
ReplyDeleteThe intimate links between the two Testaments are of quite another kind. Within the very consciousness of Jesus—if we may cast a human glance into that sanctuary—the Old Testament was seen as the matrix of the New or as the instrument of its creation. This meant something much more than extrinsic preparation. Even the categories used by Jesus to tell us about himself are ancient biblical categories. Jesus causes them to burst forth or, if you prefer, sublimates them and unifies them by making them converge upon himself.10
Footnotes: 8. Hays, Reading Backwards, 93, emphasis original. Both the opening chapter of Reading Backwards and the Introduction of Echoes elaborate further what it means to interpret Israel’s Scriptures via such figural reading.
9. Attridge, cited in Webster, “One Who Is Son,” 74, emphases original.
10. De Lubac, “Spiritual Understanding,” 7, emphasis added. [Bib: De Lubac, Henri, SJ. “Spiritual Understanding.” Translated by Luke O’Neill. In The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Stephen E. Fowl, 3–25. Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997]” [Extract ends]
F. As for now the Real Presence bit re the Eucharist. Well; this thread did start out with a brief reference to Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Last Supper. While I love the way Hahn correctly places the Book of Revelation firmly in the context of worship, frankly, Pitre gets my vote on detailing the rich 1st C context for understanding John 6 and all the references to the Last Supper etc. Note especially ch 3, “The New Manna”, and ch 5, “The New Passover”, climaxing with the final ch.6, “The Eucharistic Kingdom of God”. For once we (re)situate the whole discussion of the Lord’s Supper/the Breaking of Bread (see below)/ the Holy Communion/ the Eucharist/the Mass/ the Divine Liturgy/whatever, in the 1st C Jewish setting, much becomes plainer. And we simply do not need the apparatus that was the conclusion of the debates of the Latin West from 9th to 13th Cs (see previous comments by me): there’s no real need for ordained priests to have “sacred power” to ‘change’ bread into body as ‘transubstantiation’ to effect any Real Presence. Rather, once resituated, the New Passover rite instituted by Jesus prophetically signals the reality of his New Covenant Promise to come and be present as the glorified [recalling the Fourth Gospel’s vital double entendre re divine glory in BOTH crucifixion and resurrection] Son of Man, offering True, Living Bread from Heaven, which is his flesh for the life of the world, his body—1 Cor 10:16 rules; OK?! As too do 1 Cor 5:6-8 & 11:27ff; Cranmer was correct to issue his warnings ahead of reception! Fascinatingly, Hahn at c.1.14:40-15.10 comes pretty close to a position I endorse via a revamped Greek Eastern emphasis upon the Holy Spirit. But it’s not quite clear enough what he is implying ...
ReplyDeleteG. To move on sequentially though, that very reference to the Holy Spirit is key, and not only around the Greek use of a fulsome epiclesis in the Liturgy. The entire Fourth Gospel, with its emphasis and literary structure around Jesus the Temple and the fulfilment of the OT cult for realizing the divine presence among us, and for us to now dwell within that sphere or chōra as Basil used to say of the Spirit, offering true worship in Spirit and in Truth, presents the key to Eucharistic practice and understanding. To repeat: just as the Incarnate Word is the ‘vehicle’ for the Father, so too is the Paraclete the ‘vehicle’ for the Glorified Jesus (Jn 3:6-15, 6:29-30, 63, 7:37-39 [alternate translation], and the whole Upper Room discourse, 20:21-23). Without an operational understanding and practice of the Trinity, we will always fall short, frankly. Even if our Emmaus companion is patient with us, Lk 24:25ff. For three times in that last chapter Luke references Jesus’ words: vv.6-8, 26-7, 44-6, leading up to the Promise of the Holy Spirit. It’s in that context that folk have their eyes opened to recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread, 24:31,35. Indeed, Acts 2:42-47 merely parallels this need for “word + sacrament” to always be tied together. We may never properly have the one without the other. Pity we just don’t seem to have those other features of Acts 2:42ff ...
ReplyDeleteH. So to conclude. When we indeed ‘read’ our Scriptures along the lines Hahn portrays, we may indeed grasp - or be grasped by (Gal 4:9, Phil 3:12)! - a truer knowing of our Lord and Master (including chewing or gnawing!). Yet the time-frame he cites at least twice is also significant: 1st - 7th Cs. This is the period of the Undivided Church; it is also the era addressed by William Abraham and Co re “Canonical Theism”, often now mentioned on ADU. So; I see no need to swim the Tiber just yet - even if those of the Antiochene have been calling for years, bless them!
Thanks Ron; this has been fun!
Thanks,Bryden. Two of my mentors at SJC whose interest in typology betwwen the Old and the New Testaments were J.J. Lewis (O.T.) and Watson Roseveare (N.T.) to whom I am indebted for insighbts I might not otherwise have gained into ths fascinating area of studies. J.J. (Methodist) especially influenced us all with his ecumenical outreach - especially his understandingof the Eucharistic Tradition.
ReplyDeleteI find particularly interesting the interface of Old and New Testament theology that was present in the meeting of Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the Mount of the Tranfiguration - this being the accelerated 'AHA' moment for Peter, James and John, revealing to them the Messianic authenticity of Jesus. Perhaps not enough is made of this important moment in Biblical Studies.
And then, of course, the enlightenment of the disciples on the Road to Emmaus so tremendous (in hindsight) that they has to rush back to Jerusalen to break the news.
I must confess, Bryden (and B.W.) that the older I get, the more I learn about Jesus!
Also, Bryden, ever since my immersion in the charismatic movement in the late 1960s I have become more fully aware of the consonance of the activities of the Triune God. This is where the description of God as 'Creator, Redeemer, and Giver of Life' as used in our NZPB is not too outrageous a model (Although I do prefer the more traditional ascription: "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".)
ReplyDeleteAgape.
Thanks Bryden and Ron for powerful, deeply explored reminders of the fuller context - the Trinity itself - for the eucharistic ministry of God towards us and the nature of our reception of that ministry, the indwelling of God within us!
ReplyDeleteThanks Peter - and Ron for your two latest. Though might I please refine importantly your second, where you say: “... the description of God as 'Creator, Redeemer, and Giver of Life' as used in our NZPB is not too outrageous a model (Although I do prefer the more traditional ascription "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit".” I am truly grateful for that “preference”, and I shall say why. While it might be a ‘nice distinction’ to some, akin to that apocryphal ‘angels on pin-heads’ stuff, there is actually a vital point at stake. Which is this ...
ReplyDeleteWhen the Church blesses in the Name of God—that is, the Christian triune God, who has revealed God’s very self to humanity through Jesus, Word made flesh, and in the Holy Spirit, the climax of the economy of salvation (so far ...!), and so graciously given of his very Self to us, unto death and now (a proleptic taste of ) New Life—we are invoking the Name of the God Who Is. Now; the truth of the matter is that, as this God had has gone about things, we have also been shown/discerned that we might never have been—the entire Creation is itself the very first Gift of God! In addition, those acts we traditionally appropriate or apportion to the work of God in Redemption and Renewal of Life, to the Son and the Holy Spirit respectively (just as we appropriate/apportion creation to the Father), naturally might never have been as well (although, having created at all at all, God’s nature IS such that God, the triune God, that is, will see it all through, which is NO insignificant feature!).
In other words, the Name of God, the Trinitarian Name of the God Who Is, may actually NEVER BE 'Creator, Redeemer, and Giver of Life'. Sure; I realize full well why such functionalist language has been invoked: “inclusivity”, the demise of adequate understanding of things trinitarian, etc.... And surely; it’s not actually “too outrageous” ...??!
Sorry folks! The Early Church condemned this sort of theo-logic for vital reasons. And we give it the names of Sabellianism or modalism. Sabellius’ views are represented only in the writings of his opponents, as his own writings have not survived. But why oppose his trinitarian ideas; what were they? God is said to act in the economy in such a way that we see now the Father, and now the Son, and now the Holy Spirit. Each appears as a manifestation of the One God; each is a mode of the One God’s Being. This last expression gives rise to another name for this entire set of ideas, modalism. The key point is that each person of the Trinity is only an appearance in this world, in the economy of salvation; God in God’s very own Being does not have these distinctions at all. Importantly, by ascribing certain functions to each person, and then by creating what tries to be an alternative Name out of these (such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier or Life–Giver)—this cannot be an adequate Name for the Trinity. For God’s Being must be seen to be eternally triune; and if eternally so, then in a way that does not assume the need to even create or redeem or give life to others. Here endeth the Lesson!
Oops! Too much haste: “... this God had has...” is nonsense! Please delete “had”
ReplyDeleteAnd then,Dear Bryden, there is the biblical and credal exposition of Christ being 'seated at the right hand of the Father'. How far doesw one have to go to separate or individualise thre Triune nature of God? To the average person in the pew - even the thought of Three in One is dfficult, so we theologians have to make sure we don't ovrercomplcate the mystical reality with too much literal detail. The greatest mystery - for most of us - is the fact that The Creator, at a point in time deigned to humble himself to become part of the creation at the Incarnation of Jesus in the womb if a human being.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Ron this link (already posted a year ago on ADU re a truly great contemporary song) might do better service for both of us, and other readers of ADU:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQWFzMvCfLE
Recalling that is, that Jesus is the singular bearer of the Divine Name as per the likes of Phil 2:6-11 and John 17:11-12 (and so the entire FG). Moreover, it was this kind of insight that generated the NT Church’s worship of Jesus, given he was/is on a par with the God of Israel’s Covenant, as we see at key points throughout the NT material. It’s this basic fact that was the trigger for any trinitarian development per se. But perhaps that’s what your opening lines are suggesting; it’s not quite clear to me.
Enjoy!