Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 6: An Introduction to the Reformed Baptist Tradition with Jeremiah Nortier

 

Episode 6: An Introduction to the Reformed Baptist Tradition with Jeremiah Nortier

Dragoş Andrei Giulea on μυστηριον ("mystery")

  

Although the term μυστηριον already appears in the Pauline corpus, a development of exegesis as mystery performance does not materialize in Christian context before Melito. In Justin’s works, the term can be encountered when the writer claims that prophecies describe future events through parables, mysteries, and symbols regarding those events (εν παραβολαις η μυστηριοις η εν συμβολοις εργων). This is because, generally, the Holy Spirit manifests itself through parable and in a hidden way (εν παραβολη δε και παρακεκαλυμμενως).

 

Furthermore, the incarnation, according to Justin and Irenaeus, was envisioned as an event which entailed major exegetical consequences, since Christ came and revealed the obscure words of the ancient holy writings. To this point, Irenaeus claims that the message of the good news about Christ was hidden (κεκρυμμενος) in prophecies and symbolized through types and parables (δια τυπων και παραβολων εσημαινετο), yet their full meaning could be grasped solely at the time of their fulfilment. (Dragoş Andrei Giulea, Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 123; Leiden: Brill, 2014], 198-99)

 

Dragoş Andrei Giulea: Ezekiel 28 is about (Pre-Lapsarian) Adam, not Satan

  

. . . Ezek 28:12-17, a text which alludes, by way of analogy and metaphor, to an Adam peculiarly portrayed along glorious lines. . . . Most likely, the text represents one of the most ancient sources—if not the most ancient one—for the tradition which exalts the prelapsarian Adam. In spite of the fact that the account starts with a description of the king of Tyre, the narrative structure changes to a context—namely, Paradise—in which it is almost impossible to place this royal character. Hence, it would be more logical here to associate the Garden of Eden with Adam. The result would be the first text portraying Adam as a highly exalted figure which God places on his holy mountain and arrays with beauty, splendor, and precious stones. (Dragoş Andrei Giulea, Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 123; Leiden: Brill, 2014], 51)

 

Timothy Berg, "Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible"

I encountered the following blog post on facebook today:

Timothy Berg, "Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible"

For a book on this issue from an LDS perspective, see

John A. Tvedtnes, Defining the Word: Understanding the History and Language of the Bible (Covenant Communications, 2006)

Dragoş Andrei Giulea on the Distinction between the "Ancient of Days" and "the Most High" in Daniel 7

  

Nevertheless, in Dan 7:26—the verse which describes the destruction of the last king who suppressed the saints of the Most High (possibly the one like the son of man, as Dan 7:22 seems to distinguish the Ancient of Days from the Most High)—is not clear enough which of the two divine characters is the author of this destruction: “But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever.” According to the internal logic of the combat myth, however, it is expected that the Divine Warrior figure (therefore the one like the son of man) would fight, destroy the evil enemy, and save his divine people or human subjects. (Dragoş Andrei Giulea, Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 123; Leiden: Brill, 2014], 46 n. 17)

 

“Eikonic Soteriology” in Methodius of Olympus’ “On the Resurrection”

  

METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS

 

While eikonic soteriology is not part of Origen’s paschal speculations. I would like to include here another pre-Nicene thinker, who, like Tertullian, developed a vision analogous to the Pauline “eikonic soteriology of recreation.”

 

In his treatise on resurrection, Methodius describes the essence of the human being as an accurate imitation of God’s Only-begotten Image. Thus, God offered to the human being,

 

with the highest accuracy, everything belonging to the theomorphic and god-like Prototype (το θεοειδες και θεοεικελον . . . πρωτοτυπον) and the only-begotten Image (μονογενη εικονα) of the Father. In fact, it is said: God created man, in God’s image (κατ’ εικονα θεου) created him. (Methodius, Res. 1.35.2)

 

Methodius’s viewpoint on Adam’s prelapsarian status is clearly stated in Res. 3.14.4 where he affirms that, “before transgression, our body was a body of glory (σωμα δοξης), being glorious (ενδοξον) at that time, while now, after transgression, is called a body of humiliation (σωμα ταπεινωσεως)” (Res. 3.14.4). The text continues by explaining that the body of resurrection will be again a glorious corporeality; it will be “not a different body, but this one will resurrect and become incorruptible and glorious (σωμα αφθαρτον και ενδοξον)” (Res. 3.14.5).

 

Throughout his text, Methodius articulates the way God will reshape the human resurrected body. This explanation includes a visionary comparison in which God is depicted as an artist who created a beautiful statue and subsequently found it corrupted. Methodius ponders that such an artist would strongly desire to repair his artwork, to melt it down, and reshape it according to its primary condition. The Olympian continues:

 

It seems to me that God did in the same way with us. Because finding his most beautiful work—the human being—spoiled by malicious plots of envy and loving humankind, he could not tolerate to abandon him in this condition, lest not remain forever with an immortal guilt in himself. To the contrary [God] dissolved him into its primary matter, so that, by refashioning (δια της αναπλασεως) him, all his blames could be consumed and disappear. In fact, the melting down of the status symbolizes the death and dissolution of the body, while the re-formation (αναμορφοποιηθηναι την υλην) and the new configuration (ανακοσμηθηναι) of matter signifies the resurrection. (Res. 1.43.3-4)

 

Likewise, another remarkable Methodian theory distinguishes between the eschatological status of angels and human beings, apparently in spite of Matt 22:30 (“In the resurrection men and women do not marry: they are like angels in heaven”). Methodius argues extensively in Rest. 1.49-51 that God created the various creatures that populate the universe according to their specific category and nature. God is not a mediocre artisan who regretted his creation of humans as humans (.e., with their unique and imperfect nature), and then changed his mind desiring a better work and humans changed into angels. God, Methodius insists, designed humans to be humans from the beginning to the end on the authenticity of their species. In this regard, Methodius comments on Matt 22:30 and asserts that the small particle “like” actually shows difference rather than identity: humans will not replace angels or possess the same ‘nature,’ ut preserve their own nature and improve their status to the point of acquiring a glorious body. Thus, the phrase “like angels” actually refers to incorruptibility and the crown of glory and honour which humans will enjoy in the eschaton (Res. 1.51.2) (Dragoş Andrei Giulea, Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 123; Leiden: Brill, 2014], 136-37)

 

The Pneumatic Nature of Christ’s Luminous Body in Pseudo-Hippolytus

  

The initiatory process of revealing mysteries, according to Pseudo-Hippolytus, reaches its completion with the highest revelation, which is the vision of the light that fills the whole creation, the huge luminous body of Christ. A significant aspect of the nature of this light regards its manifestation as a body not of material, but of pneumatic or spiritual nature. The allusion to a human-like form or body of God echoes a central Jewish theme, both scriptural and apocryphal; namely, that the divine luminous human form contemplated by the prophets and apocalyptic visionaries alike. Just for the sake of reminding them, some of the most famous passages are Exod 24:9011, Ezek 1:26 (where on the throne sits a “figure” [דמות] with the appearance [מראה] of a man [אדם];” cf. LXX: ομοιωμα ως ειδος ανθρωπου), Daniel 7, and Phil 2:6 (“in the form of God” [εν μορφη θεος]). It is plausible that Pseudo-Hippolytus inherited this theme from a Jewish context, given the considerable Jewish presence in Asia Minor at the time, the author’s Quartodeciman position and his mention of a “secret” Hebrew tradition about creation (IP 17.4). At the same time, it is also plausible that he acquired the apocalyptic tradition of God’s form through the mediation of his Christian community, where the theme was popular in the second century. The idea of the image or form of glory, or the huge body of Christ, also appears in other early Christian materials, for example, in Phil 3:21, 1 Cor 11:7, Acta Pauli, 2 Clement, Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 17:7, and probably in Herakleon of Alexandria who, in his community to John 1:27, reads, “The whole world is the shoe of Jesus” (see Origen, Comm. Jo. 6:39).

 

Pseudo-Hippolytus describes a cosmic body touching the heavens and making the earth fast by its feet while the huge hands embrace the winds between heaven and earth (IP 51. Cf. IP 63, for the hands of God). At the same time, this body is identical with the celestial tree, the tree of paradise, the pillar of the universe, the Spirit which permeates all things, and the “ladder of Jacob, the way of angels, at the summit of which the Lord is truly established” (IP 51). It is wroth noticing that none of these realities is described as visible and sensible but as mystical and pneumatic. For Pseudo-Hippolytus, such titles as “divine” (θειος), “pneumatic/spiritual” (πνευματικος), perfect (τελειος), or “separated/inaccessible” (απροσιτος) refer to something radically different from the visible universe, something belonging to the noetic realm. Being separated, the effusions or emanations (εμβολαι) of the Spirit/Christ remain unmixed (ακρατος, αμιγες) with sensible things (IP 45.7-9. Cf. 1 Tim 6:16, where God is called φος απροσιτος. The same title also appears in Athenagoras’s Legatio 16.3, along with πνευμα, δυναμις, and λογος).

 

Among the expressions related to the huge body of Christ—scattered among different parts of the text—there are a few concerning the fiery constitution of his body (For the idea of Christ’s gigantic body, see IP 1.11: μεγας Χριστος: μεγαλη μεγαλου βασιλεως επιδημια; 9.28: μεγαλου βασιλεως; 32.3: τω μαγαλω σωματι; 45.10: το μεγεθος παν της θεοτητος [cf. Col. 2:9: παν το πληρωμα τηε θεοτητος]; 15.14: των εκταθεισων χειρων ‘Ιησου; 38.3-4: χειρας εξετεινας πατρικας, εκαλυψας ημας εντος των πτερυγων σου των πατρικων; 63.2-3: τας χειρας τας μεγαλας. For the huge dimensions of the cosmic tree and body, see also IP 51

). Passages IP 1.1-12 indicates that the mighty (μεγας) Christ, immortal and immense (πολυς), sheds light brighter than that of the sun. In IP 55.11, the Johannine christological title “the light of the world” receives as qualification the attribute “mighty” (το μεγα του κοσμου φος). Furthermore, commenting on Exod 12:8 (They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire”) the author makes the following cryptic affirmation: “This is the might on which the flesh is eaten, for the light of the world has set on the great body of Christ: Take and eat; this is my body” (IP 26.1: ‘Εν νυκτι δε τα κρεα εσθιεται). The interpretation of this passage has to be completed through a liturgical key, since the liturgical or eucharistic context is an obvious element. My reading would be that Pseudo-Hippolytus refers to the Christian Eucharist, which is taken or received without the vision of Christ’s glory; in other words, it is taken “in the night.” This “night” does not refer to the incapacity of seeing the visible light, but rather to the incapacity of perceiving the noetic, mystical, and pneumatic glory.

 

The Eucharist is subsequently identified with the “great body of Christ” on which the “light of the world” is set (εδυ). A series of analogies may provide a better understanding of these expressions:

 

1) The visible sun parallels the light of the world (a comparison frequently used in Christian literature; see IP 1.12) which is the noetic and real nature of Christ.

 

2) The night denotes the mystery encapsulated within the visible elements of the Eucharist, within a matter in fact concealing the divine light of Jesus’ glorious body.

 

3) The earth refers to the bread of the Eucharist, to the visible realm again described as veiling the divine light.

 

In the next chapter, Pseudo-Hippolytus straightforwardly affirms that the “flesh is roasted with fire, for the spiritual or rational body of Christ is on fire” (IP 27.1-2: τα δε κρεα οπτα πυρι εμπυρον γαρ λογικον σωμα του Χριστου Πυρ ηλθον βαλειν εις την γην). The christological conception implies a particular understanding of the incarnation. Pseudo-Hippolytus does not employ such verbs as σαρκοω, ενσωματοω, or ενανθτρωπεω, but he renders various aspects of the mystery of the incarnation by employing a different terminology. He uses, for instance, αποστολη (sending; IP 3.21) to underline the fact that the Father sends the Son into the world. A correlative term for “sending” is επιδημια (2.3; 7.6; 21.3; 43.2-3; 44.1; 47.10; 56.9)—“arriving,” “coming” (on, επι)—either on earth (43.2) or into the body (σωμα; 47.10). Another reason—ανατολη (Dawn, Orient; 3.4; 17.14; 45.23)—renders the light of Christ which fills the universe (cf. Matt 3:16 and Luke 1:78) (. . . ανατολη is already a divine name in Zech 6:12 [LXX]: Ταδε λεγει κυριος παντοκρατωρ ‘Ιδου ανηρ, ‘Ανατολη ονομα αυτω). This Dawn or Orient is also spiritual (πνευματικη; 45.23) and, therefore, mystical, not visible. The gigantic light, according to the author, set (εδυ), contracted (συστειλας), collected (συναθροισας), and compressed (συναγαγων) (For εδυ, see IP 26.1; for the other three attributes, see IP 45.10-11. The idea is not new in Christian context; cf. Phil 2:6; Odes Sol. 7.3-6; Acts Thom. 15 and 80) itself in Christ’s body, while the immensity of his whole divinity (το μεγεθος παν της θεοτητος) remain unchanged:

 

He willingly confined himself to himself and collecting and, compressing in himself all the greatness of the divinity, came in the dimensions of his own choice in no way diminished or lessened in himself, not inferior to glory (του μειουμενος εν εαυτω ουδε ελαττουμενος ουδε τη δοξη δαπανουμενος). (IP 45.10-13. Cf. Melito of Sardis, Frg. 14. For a more detailed analysis in the context of the second century, see Cantalamessa, L’Omelia, 187-273. Also, cf. Philo, Gig. 6:27: “the good spirit, the spirit which is everywhere diffused, so as to fill the universe, which, while it benefits others, it not injured by having a participation in it given to another, and if added to something else, either as to its understanding, or its knowledge, or its wisdom)

 

In order to access the divine corporeality of light, veiled by Christ’s visible body, Christians need to be initiated and trespass the borders between the aesthetic and noetic spheres. In doing so, they will be able to perceive noetically the heavenly anthropomorphic figure which marks their being and shapes them according to its own noetic form. (Dragoş Andrei Giulea, Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 123; Leiden: Brill, 2014], 248-51)