Friday, November 27, 2020

William of Alton's Commentary on Isaiah 6 and seeing with "the eyes of the heart" Paralleling the 19th century understanding of "Spiritual Eyes"

Commenting on the 13th century theologian William of Alton’s understanding of how Old Testament figures could see God in bodily form, Timothy Bellamah noted:

 

While reflections on prophecy show up throughout the corpus of his biblical commentary, the most prolonged one appears in his commentary on Isaiah, specifically, in his exposition of the account of the prophet’s vision in the sixth chapter. His exegetical interests in this passage are several. Primary among them is to make sense of Isaiah’s claim to have seen the Lord (Vidi Dominum) without prejudice to the understanding, generally held by Jews and Christians alike, that no flesh may see God, at least not this side of the grave. More broadly, he tries to provide a general framework for prophecy capable of account for the various theophanies experienced by the patriarchs, prophets, and, notably, St. Paul 9cf. 1 Cor 12:2-4). Then, he situates his account between two opposing erroneous propositions, first, that Isaiah (and by implication the other prophets) saw the divine nature, and second, that the angels and the blessed in heaven do not. Put another way, while asserting that the prophets normally had no beatific vision while living in this world, William is concerned to avoid implying that the same holds true for the blessed in patria:

 

Therefore he says IN THE YEAR THAT KING UZZIAH DIED, I SAW THE LORD SITTING etc. Note that according to the Glossa on 2 Corinthians 12 (4), concerning the rapture of Paul, there are three kinds of visions. One of them, evidently, is corporeal, by which God is seen in a created subject by corporeal eyes. So it was that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses saw him, as Jerome explains in the original of his exposition of this passage. Another is imaginary, by which God is seen by the eyes of the heart under an imaginary figure, just as Isaiah saw him in this passage, Daniel in chapter 7, and Ezekiel in chapter 1. The third is intellectual, by which God and spiritual creatures are seen in a wondrous revelation by the gaze of the pure mind. So it was that Paul saw him in 2 Corinthians 12 (4). In heaven (in patria) this vision will be perfect, on the way (in via) imperfect and only in a few. Therefore, the Glossa’s statement here that Isaiah saw God is to be explained as by the eyes of the heart, i.e., it happened by an imaginary vision, which was by the eyes of the heart, not those of the flesh. Concerning what the Glossa saws below in chapter 38 (1), it should be said that this is magisterial. Or that reading in the Book of Foreknowledge is seeing God not in his substance, but in an illumination or in a locution from spirit to spirit. Concerning Chrysostom’s statement: “Not even an angel can see God in his nature,” one is to understand—as fully as the Son.

 

In evidence here is a more explicit formulation of the same three fold typology wherein God manifests himself variously by way of corporeal creatures, imaginary representations, and direct intellectual contact. William evidently regards the second mode as the most common. Here, it is Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel whom he credits with such perception of imaginary representations by the “eye of the heart.” Elsewhere, he describes the visions of Jeremiah and Abraham in similar terms. (Timothy Bellamah, The Biblical Interpretation of William of Alton [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 108-9, emphasis in bold added)

 

 Reading the above, one was reminded of the "spiritual eyes" comment from Martin Harris that has been misinterpreted/misrepresented by the likes of Grant Palmer. On this, see:


"Spiritual Eyes" in pre-1830 Literature


George Lamsa on People Seeing God with "Spiritual Eyes"