Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2012

Lately, I’ve been trying to figure out the Trinity.  One of the things that I’ve been wrestling with is the idea of Jesus being of the same substance (homoousios, ὁμοουσιος) as the Father while also being a distinct person (Hypostasis, ὑποστασις) . Likewise for the Holy Spirit.  How can they be of the same substance or essence, but be three distinct persons?  Here is a thought that is completely inadequate in some regards, but may be helpful for understanding how something can be three things but of the same substance.

In horticulture there are several ways of growing plants, most commonly people plant seeds and watch the plant grow, but there is also the technique of cutting.  In cutting, you simply snip off part of the plant and plant the cut piece, allowing it to develop roots.  It could be simple enough to say that the trinity is just like a cutting, producing multiple objects, but from the very same plant or substance (homoousios); however, I would like to take the example a little further and talk about the apple tree.

If you didn’t know this, every Fuji or Gala apple that you have eaten essentially came from the same tree.  I do not mean a single tree that is overworked, or produces an insane amount of apples.  I mean that every Fuji flavored apple tree is a cutting originating back to a single Fuji apple tree.  You cannot take the seeds out of a Fuji apple, plant them, and then get a Fuji apple.  You will most likely get a very bitter, sour-tasting apple.  Apple seeds in their genetic makeup randomize the flavor of the apple; therefore, in order to get the exact same taste you must take a clipping from the original tree.  Only the original tree can produce the Fuji apple.

Now let us bring it back full circle to the trinity.  Imagine that you have three apple trees standing in front of you.  Each has one of those nice little tree placs.  One says Father. The second Son. The third Holy Spirit.   How would you know that they are of the same plant? You would have to taste their fruit.  If all three produced the same apple taste, then you would know that they are indeed of the same original plant or substance (homoousios). Yet, as you stand before them, you notice that what you have just tasted is not a piece from three distinct branches of the same tree, but three distinct trees. They are like the three distinct persons (hypostasis).  They are most certainly three distinct objects, but they are really part of the same tree. Oddly enough, the three plants are actually one plant. In relation to the trinity, there are not three gods (tritheism), but three forms of the same substance!   You are assured that they are one and the same but three by the very fruit that they produce. Each plant is distinctly and exactly the same thing.

I fully recognize that this analogy is lacking in some areas. Indeed, the trinity is a divine mystery. In order for it to be a more adequate representation of the trinity as affirmed in orthodox Christianity, the first tree would be uncreated (eternal) never having a beginning as a seed. Likewise, the second and third trees would could not to have been said as created at a later time, but eternally coexisting with the original tree, having been begotten eternally (a very difficult concept to grasp). So the analogy breaks down, but I do think it helps to capture the idea of three persons in one substance.

Anyway, I hope that this post may help some of you begin or further contemplate the triune god.   Blessings

Read Full Post »

 

drug lines

drug lines (Photo credit: xxrobot)

Jesus = Opiates?  That is the case if the Christian gospel is a mere transcendent reality.  Jesus becomes an opiate used to medicate us (to make life more bearable) whenever we view the Gospel simply as “going to heaven when we die, to shout salvation as we fly.”

This is what Jesus becomes when we focus only on his Incarnation and his Resurrection as the focal points of our faith.  Jesus is much more than miracles of birth and resurrection.

The Gospel is an immanent reality. It is here and now. The kingdom of heaven is here and now. It is not then and there. In reality it is both here and now and then and there.  The Good News is a powerful liberating force that is present among the poor, weary,and weak to lift them up. It is also among the powerful and rich to humble them low.  Most of the Gospel accounts are not written about the incarnation or the resurrection. Those two events are the beginning and the future promise, but everything between those two events is the present reality of Christ dwelling among us, claiming forgiveness now, bringing restoration now, performing miracles now, challenging the authorities placed over the people now. The Gospel is about working now so as to create hope in the then.

Adapting a quote from James H. Cone: Without concrete signs of divine presence in our lives now, the gospel becomes a simple opiate; rather than a powerful liberating, transformative presence that brings up the lowly and lowers the exalted. Whenever, the Gospel lacks concrete signs in the present it merely becomes a drug that helps people adjust to this world by looking for a “pie in the sky.”  It doesn’t change the environment that causes our pain and depression, rather it medicates us enough to make it bearable.  And so the transcendent and immanent, heaven and earth, must be held together in critical, dialectical tension, each one correcting the limits of the other. The gospel is in the world, but it is not of the world.  Are we living as though Jesus is in the world now?  Where is the good news happening at right now?   Jesus is not your personal therapist making you feel better. He’s telling you to fix the problems that make you feel this way. He tell us to make heaven visible on earth.

 

Read Full Post »

Image

Where I was you could hear the birds singing the heavenly songs each morning as you woke.  The squirrels would jump from tree to tree, then run down and across the ground. There weren’t people honking. There weren’t cars trying to run you over as you cross the street.  There was nature; there was quietness, serenity.

But now there are cars honking, people trying to run me over.  There are sleepless nights of studying for tests, writing papers, and trying to make perfect grades, but all for what?  Sometimes I feel like I’m not really in a field that is going anywhere. Most people don’t really care about the particularities of theology or biblical studies.  Does it matter to most people how you define sin?  Do most people care if God is like this or that?  Why does it matter that I know who Tertullian was or Origin or the ecumenical councils. If I knew nothing about them, life would continue on without really any much change.

My pursuit of studying faith and religion has left me with great amounts of student debt.  It has caused me to leave my family behind.  I think the fact that I left my family bothers me most.  They are near and dear to me and I wonder how much all of this matters, what does it play in the grand scheme of things?  Is this time well spent, or would it be better to be home to live with them and enjoy their lives?  Is knowledge worth the cost of relationship?

My fear is that after all of this time, money, and effort that what I want most in life is just an illusion, something that I cannot achieve.  I want to earn a Ph.D. and write and teach, but I’m not sure that it will happen. I don’t want to be a pastor or preacher. The church is dying. I’ve never seen it to be super effective. People don’t really care all that much to be there anymore. Preaching from the pulpit doesn’t feel all that great and effective. I think more than anything that I want to be a writer, but I don’t believe that I have the skills to be good at it.

Only time will tell all of these things, and tomorrow I may feel differently about the entire thing.  I’m sure Monday will be different. Only a month ago I met James Cone and in two days I’m meeting N.T Wright. I suppose life can’t be so bad at the moment, but I still miss the birds, the squirrels, the woods, and my family. I’ll keep you posted.

Read Full Post »

Amphitheatre at Carthage (Tunis, Tunisia)

Several years ago I stood in this amphitheater, placed my hands in the holes where the chains were fastened, stood where Perpetua, Felicity, presbyters, elders, and catechumen all stood. I worshiped in the lower cell singing songs and praying. I long to go back. I wish I could go back now understanding the magnitude of their sacrifices. In their memory I find comfort and peace. I am forever thankful. Tertullian was right. Without them, the church would not exist. I would not be who I am.

Read Full Post »

The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

Tertullian of Carthage

Read Full Post »

Harvard Claims Heaven is Real

Dr. Eben Alexander, Harvard Professor of Neuroscience, had an out-of-body experience and now believes that heaven and afterlife are real.  His experience happened whenever his cortex was non-functioning while in a coma. Modern science claims that the cortex is responsible for consciousness, so how then could he have had this experience?  There have been many NDE reports that are usually dismissed as false, but something about a Harvard Professor of Neuroscience having a NDE makes you think twice.

Read Full Post »

Under the reign of Roman Emperor Decius (249-251) the early church faced the first systematized empire wide persecution.  This persecution led to the death of many believers and even almost entire faith communities.  The only way to escape persecution was to offer sacrifices to the pagan gods on behalf of the emperor.  Decius made this mandatory for all citizens, and it was locally enforced. Once you sacrificed, you were give a Certificate of Sacrifice, which was the ticket of life.  Christians, however, refused to offer sacrifices because they worshiped only one God and had only one Lord–Jesus Christ.  To offer sacrifices would have been idolatry and was considered a major no-no.  Below is a translation of an actual Certificate of Sacrifice that was found in an excavation in Egypt in 1893:

To the commissioners of Sacrifice of the Village of Alexander’s Island: from Aurelius Diogenes, the son of Satabus, of the Village of Alexander’s Island, aged 72 years–scar on his right eyebrow.

I have always sacrificed regularly to the gods, and now, in your presence, in accordance with the edict, I have done sacrifice, and poured the drink offering, and tasted of the sacrifices, and I request you to certify the same, Farewell.
Handed in by me, Aurelius Diogenes.

I certify that I saw him sacrificing…

Done in the first year of the emperor, Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius, Pius, Felix, Augustus: the second of the month Epith. “

Read Full Post »

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum

Read Full Post »

How do I study church history?  With Red Bull!  If only Augustine knew about Red Bull, there’s no telling what else he could have done. haha

Read Full Post »

Image

Within the world of the biblical text there are often many different traditions and conflicting views about the same event within the history of Israel. In the passages of 1 Kings 9:15-20 and Deuteronomy 17:14-20 we are presented with such a dilemma.  On the one hand, we have the tradition of the Deuteronomistic Historians, and on the other hand, we have the tradition of Deuteronomy.  Both traditions provide us with two different interpretations on the reign of Solomon as King of Israel.  Was he a good king or a bad one?  Although 1 Kings presents him in a positive light, it is the argument of this paper that Deuteronomy makes the distinctive claim that Solomon was an uncovenantal king who made Jerusalem a second Egypt.

1 Kgs. 9:15-10:29 speaks of Solomon and his entire kingdom favorably, presenting Solomon as a pious, wise, and wealthy king. Solomon’s piousness is displayed in his ability to build an extravagant house for the Lord in Jerusalem, which was a seven year project. (1 Kgs. 9:15; 6:38).  His act of building the temple was not complete of course without his visits and sacrifices within the temple. The text states that Solomon would making burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being on the altar that he had constructed for the Lord three times a year (1 Kgs. 6:38; 9:25). Not only is Solomon presented as devoted to the covenant by his piety, but every action of his is seen as a divine blessing of the wisdom that the Lord has granted him.[1] Solomon’s wisdom has helped him to create a kingdom which appears to be perfect in the eyes of a queen named Sheba. She proclaims that Solomon’s wisdom and his empire are greater than the reports she had heard, for Solomon’s wives and servants are happy! (1 Kgs. 10:7) The text presents this as true because God has delighted in Solomon and made him king to execute justice and righteousness (1 Kgs 10:9). And last but not least, Solomon’s immense wealth and copious amounts of Gold as presented in 10:14-22 are just astounding.  Surely, the Deuteronomistic Historians are trying to present him as a king which God has blessed within his covenant.

Despite the highly favorable language of 1 Kings concerning Solomon and his kingdom, in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 we find a very unsolomonic picture of Israel’s king. There are two main kinds of stipulations which define what the king of Israel is supposed to look like according to the author of Deuteronomy. First, there is a set of prohibitive stipulations. Second, there is a set of imperatives stipulations. Depending on how you count them, there are around ten, all of which the king of Israel is expected to measure up to. The question becomes: How does Solomon measure up with the Deuteronomical expectations of a king?  Well, he fails, explicitly breaking at least six of the stipulations and possibly implicitly breaking more.[2] The details of 1 Kings do not provide us with definitive evidence of Solomon having a copy of the law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests, nor are we ever told that he keeps the copy with him studying it all the days of his life (Deut. 17:18-19). 

In fact, it seems as though the writer of Deuteronomy is making a distinct and sharply focused claim about the kingship of Solomon.  In 1 Kings 11 the editors of the Deuteronomistic History claim that God rejects Solomon because of his many wives and his turning to worship their other Gods, but the Deuteronomy text of 17:14-20 is making the claim that God rejects Solomon on the basis of many things.  The author or Deuteronomy 17 is indicating that Solomon did many other things wrong, in fact, he came to look a lot like Pharaoh. Deuteronomy 17 says, reminds Israel that they are to never turn back toward Egypt again (Dtr. 17:16), but that’s exactly what Solomon does in 1 Kings.

 In light of Deuteronomy 17, parallels between Solomon’s reign and Pharaoh become very explicit.   It may not be too much of a stretch that Solomon is rejected theologically because he is so much like Pharaoh who is the enemy of God. Two very obvious parallels are as follows: The Pharaoh and Solomon were rulers over massive empires with massive building projects.  Pharaoh forced his resident aliens (Hebrews) to make bricks and do forced labor (Ex. 1:14).  Solomon, likewise, forced the resident Canaanites to build his vast empire (1 Kgs. 9:21).  Secondly, Pharaoh ruled and fought with a vast army of charioted soldiers (Ex. 14:23). Solomon is also attributed with have a vast army of chariots and horses to the extent that he has cities built for his chariots (1 Kgs 10:26-29)!  And not only are there direct parallels, but there are two direct connections with Egypt and the Pharaoh in 1 Kings. First, 1 Kings 9:16 in parenthetical notation adds that Solomon is married to the daughter of Pharaoh. Secondly, Solomon does direct business with the king of Egypt to get his horses and chariots (1 Kgs. 10:29).

In conclusion then, it is very easily inferred from the writings of Deuteronomy 17:14-20 that the author did not approve of king Solomon’s reign.  1 Kings presents Solomon as a grand king who is revered throughout the entire known world. Solomon is the wisest and richest and most honorable of them all, but the writer of Deuteronomy sharply disagrees.  It appears as though he actually uses Solomon’s rule as an example of what a covenantal kings should not look like.  The irony of the Deuteronomy text is that although Solomon is a king from the nation of Israel he does not rule like a king of Israel; rather, he is more akin to the ruler of Egypt, who was the very enemy of Israel.  In an odd way, the author of Deuteronomy is claiming that Solomon has brought Egypt to rest upon the holy place of Israel in Jerusalem.


[1] Solomon’s Wisdom is a large theme throughout chapters three through ten.  In 3:12-14 God promises wisdom, riches, and honor beyond all other kings to Solomon as long as he keeps the “statutes and commandments” of the covenant. In 3:28 the wisdom of God is said to be within Solomon. 4:29-34 tells of Solomon’s wisdom as greater than the sand of the seashores and that people from all nations will come to him because of what the wisdom that the Lord has given him. 5:12 God gives him wisdom which creates peace. 10:3 states that Solomon’s wisdom is endless. Lastly, 10:24 says, once again, that God has given him wisdom.

[2] The six that he breaks are: 1) He acquires many horses (1 Kgs. 10:25-29). 2) He returns to Egypt for horses (1 Kgs 10:29). 3) He acquires many wives (1 Kgs. 11:1-2). 4) He collects copious amounts of gold and silver (1 Kgs 10:14-22). 5) The very structure of his kingship exalts him above all of Israel and even above all other kingdoms. 6) He does not observe all the words of the law and its statues as is clear by the first five stipulations that he breaks.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

JT Holderman

Encouraging You to Love the Lord

Alexandrian Theologian

Exploring Theology and Religion

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.