> What do you understand by Jesus being "first born of all creation"? Carey
> does not believe it means he is the first created being because he was
> Creator. However I had always thought of the "one like a son of man" in the
> Daniel story being Jesus. I had also fancied that God "walking in the garden
> in the cool of the day" was Jesus (but realise that is taking the story very
> literally). On the other hand, if he was the first created being, what
> happened to his body when he became an embryo...
What Carey is doing is avoiding the heresy of Arianism which was recognised as a heresy in the early 300's AD. It sought to maintain an emphasis on the priority of the Father by concieving of the generation of the Son [sometimes called 'filiation', for short, in technical discussions] as an act of creation prior to the creation of the rest of the world. The phrase "first born of all creation" was one of the proof texts and Arius had a lot of support at one point in the Christian world. In today's world, the JW's propose something pretty similar and it is no surprise that some of them champion Arius's cause and claim the rest got it wrong at the council of Nicea. Athanasius was Arius' main opponent and the chief objection was that if Christ was not God in a proper, uncreated, sense, then we are not truly saved by the work of Christ because there is no true reconciliation with God. I guess that Arians and JW's would say that the pre-incarnational Christ /Word is a spiritual being like the Angels and so has no body that would conflict with being a human embryo.
A few people have seen the appearances of God you mention in the OT as somehow Christ-before-his-time appearances, and there may be something in that. I personally tend to interpret "first born of all creation" as a reference to the incarnation and a statment of pre-eminence using the metaphor of primogenture and as a reference to Christ being the fulfilment of Israel [described in Exodus as God's firstborn son]. A being outside of time would hardly be adequately described by temporal categories. I go with Athanasius: it is probably a nonsense to say that "there was a time when He was not". The Nicene creed is alluding to this debate when it says of Christ that he is "eternally begotten of the father". That is, his filiation is eternal, not having to do with time or a moment of being begotten: time is not part of the metaphoric prototype that we should imagine into the Godhead [I hope that makes sense, I can try again if not].
> Page 8.7, "Word", last sentence of paragraph 1: "The fact that the Greek
> logos etc." I don't really understand what this sentence is on about. Could
> you explain?
I can try, though I'm not really sure what the diffuculty is, so this is a bit of a shot in the dark. 'Logos' in the word that the Greek of the first chapter of John is translated "word". However, to use that word in the context of talking about the creation of the world was to invite hearing it also as a term that was being used in Greek philosophy of the time. So the fuller meaning includes what we would refer to as 'reason' or 'rationality'. So what is being implied by John's use of "Word/Logos" is that in Christ the hidden rationality/ordering/purpose of the universe has taken flesh. This 'Word/reason' is referred to in Ps.33:6, for example, and so the term also brought to mind Hebrew concepts to do with the ordering word of God in creation.
Does that help?
> Page 8.7, "Spirit", second sentence of paragraph 2: "Jesus is intelligible
> therefore etc." I don't get what this sentence is on about either. Could you
> explain?
Again, not sure where the non-understanding lies ... I think that what this paragraph is saying is that the human dimension of Jesus is acted on by the Holy Spirit [forgive the strange language] in the way that it happens with all human beings albeit in the case of Jesus perfectly -meeting each new situation in a fully spirit-inspired way.
??
> Page 8.8, "Cosmic salvation": I don't see how all religions can be united
> under one Lord, if the non-Christian religions don't believe that Jesus is
> Lord and Saviour. Do you?
This is an area of much theological discussion at the moment [I'm reading a book for review about it at the moment!]. I think that it depends on (a) how we define 'religion' and (b) how we think of salvation. I don't think religions, as such, save. Not even Christian religion. Christian religion is only useful in as far as it helps people become rightly related to God in Christ. Some expressions of Christian religion have clearly at times and in places become a barrier to positive relating to God and others. I think what this paragraph is saying is that it is conceivable that Christ could fulfil the truly God-given aspects that religions, philosophies and cultures have in them. [Cf 'Logos' earlier] This is not the same as saying that currently they do this, just that it is a possibility that their fulfilment lies in Christ analogously to Jewish religious and spiritual aspirations .... The implication for how we think of salvation is about whether we think explicit verbal knowledge is required or whether simply faith in whatever true revelation of God each of us has had mediated to us ... but that is less germane to this paragraph I think.
>Do you think Jesus ever became ill?
the answer to that comes down to a theology of illness, providence etc. By 'ill' I take it that we are not including the being ill that comes with exhaustion, scourging, blood loss etc that we see by implication in the last day or so ef Jesus pre-resurection life. However, the fact that he suffered infirmity and disability as part of the passion is possibly an important factor to weigh in responding. It was clearly possible for him to suffer physically in similar ways to us. Clearly, there was a purpose to him entering into this suffering which may not be shared by us except in some way as martyrdom.
I guess one of my responses is to ask "why should he not have been ill?". And that opens up an interesting set of considerations about the original question. Is the point of asking to do with a health'n'wealth teaching which is threatened if Jesus were ill because it would implicitly question the claim that God has no purpose in or for sickness except to demonstrate healing.
Or is it more about the difficulty of seeing Christ's healing power at work for others, yet can he 'save' himself [the word in Greek for 'save' is also the same word as 'heal']?
And yet it would be quite appropriate for the one who was 'tempted as we are, yet without sin' to suffer the temptations that come with being ill. Including the one to remove it when God's will might have been to allow the immune system to deal with it, after all the immune system is also part of God's will. God also calls medical people to serve as medics using 'natural' means to heal. In principle, Jesus being ill and using natural means of cure is in principle no different from using natural means of nourishment [ctr making bread out of stones, for example], walking rather than using a horse and chariot [or even flying!], or sleeping when tired rather than 'zapping away' the tiredness.
There was some come back on this latter:
>It was more the fact that he was perfect image of God and perfect example of humanity. I >wondered if that meant he ever got ill. I just can't imagine Jesus in bed with flu..
Okay. I think that it is the 'imagination' that needs to be questioned: is it building on a theologically viable 'image' or is it in need of education. I kind of understand what you mean, but in answering your question [such as I did] I think I 'talked myself into' thinking that Jesus could have had flu and that God could have intended it to be suffered so that Jesus would have an authentic insight into human suffering and the temptations it might bring. I'd never thought of the issue before, thought. I suspect that the imagination that sees it as somehow not appropriate is exemplifying our tendencies towards docetism or gnosticism.
It made me realise how dense some theological jargon can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment