Like a lot of things posted here, this blog entry is the first word rather than the last about the subject:
I want to deal with the language of "assumption" that is used by those who advocate the Incarnation of Christ. But first I want to clarify why I raised the problem of the Logos becoming flesh. Here is a quote from Barnes' Notes on the Bible about John 1:14 that I find somewhat troubling:
"The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was 'changed' into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the λόγος Logos, or 'Word,' became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or 'Word' 'became' or 'was' a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man."
1. So the Word "became" a man by virtue of the fact that God provided a body for him (according to Barnes). In other words, the bodiless (incorporeal) Logos became or was embodied by divine power, but he became flesh (came to have a body) without any change occurring respecting his deity. It's still difficult for me to understand how this event/action transpired without any change occurring to a divine person, which by definition would represent an alteration to his deity. If C (a change) happens to a human person (P), then C happens to his humanity (H). I have read assertions that no change occurred in the case of the Logos. However, I've yet to see a developed and plausible account that justifies the assertions.
2. Barnes writes that the language in John 1:14 could not mean that the divine nature of the Logos was changed into human nature because that simply could not be the case. In this part of the text, I do not detect a reason for his denial that the divine nature of the Logos was changed into human nature other than John 1:14 simply could not mean that. I'm not arguing for that strong conclusion anyway. Mine is weaker; it's that the divine nature of the Logos as understood by Trinitarians had to experience some type of change if the Logos truly became human or assumed humanity with his divinity.
3. Barnes seems to give the passage a figurative interpretation. He insists that "it could be said" the Word became human although it appears to really denote that the Word became so "intimately united" to Jesus of Nazareth that one could declare that the Logos became human. I believe Barnes is trying to avoid positing real change (ontologically) in the Word. But he is forced to rework the language of the Gospel writer to make it fit the concept of assumption; yet Barnes still uses "became" although he might be using the verb in a qualified sense (with scare quotes).
4. Finally, to say that "S became P" in the relevant sense I'm discussing (e.g., "John became a doctor" or "Paul became a Christian") normally involves some type of actual change. I see no good reason to make an exception in this case unless one wants to argue that the change is metaphorical.
11 comments:
Didn't the word come to the prophets?
http://fdier.free.fr/ReedSemiticJohn.pdf
More data to investigate referenced here.
My post dealt with the issue of whether the Logos underwent any change when he "became" or "was made" flesh. Barnes argues that no genuine change occurred although the Logos became a man. So while the Logos/dabar did come to the prophets as it were, I'm not sure how it would shed light on the issue. Maybe you could explain.
I'll check out fdier later.
fdier covers the point of relationship between word, wisdom & Torah. With a possible translation that the Torah became flesh. The Egyptian data (pre gnostic & not gnostic) needs further investigation. This goes back to something I was driving at some time ago regarding Jesus baptism and subsequently being called rabbi by the disciples.
Maybe this is why Hebrews 1:1 says what it does.
One example of Jehovah's dabar coming to the prophets is Jonah 1:1, 2. It was likely though the spirit that God spoke to his representatives. See Micah 1:1-2; 3:8. Chapter 1 of Micah also mentions a vision that Micah had.
But John 1:14 is supposed to be unique because it likely speaks of a person becoming human although fdier might have Sirach 24:8 in mind.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/wordstudies/torah.htm
WGT Shedd, ironically a strong advocate of the dual nature doctrine pointedly discussed several ways that The LOGOS changed. Within chapter 5 of his Systematic Theology, Shedd stated this:
A human nature was united with the divine in order that the resulting person might have a human form of consciousness as well as a divine. Previous to the assumption of a human nature, the Logos could not experience a human feeling because he had no human heart, but after this assumption he could; previous to the incarnation, he could not have a finite perception because he had no finite intellect, but after this event he could; previous to the incarnation, the self-consciousness of the Logos was eternal only, that is, without succession, but subsequent to the incarnation it was both eternal and temporal, with and without succession. This twofold consciousness may be illustrated by the union between the human soul and body. Prior to or apart from its union with a material body, a man’s immaterial soul cannot feel a physical sensation or a sensuous appetite; but when united with it in a personal union, it can so feel. In like manner, prior to the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity could not have human sensations and experiences; but after it he could. The unincarnate Logos could think and feel only like God; he had only one form of consciousness. The incarnate Logos can think and feel either like God or like man; he has two modes or forms of consciousness."
Oops, there goes the immutability of the Son! never mind the anathema stated at the end of the Creed of Nicaea
Edgar, did you also catch the point that a soul w/o a body cannot feel pain?
so what about all the sinners soul's thrown into hades awaiting the White thrown judgement? according to shedd they aren't in pain!
Thanks for that great quote, reality checker. So many Trinitarians want to deny that change occurred in the Logos although some European theologians will admit it. But you're correct that if they admit change within the Logos, then what happens to the Son's immutability?
It would be interesting to see what others think about Shedd's view of the soul and its inability to feel pain without a body. He might be considered "unorthodox" in some circles. :)
Of course, Catholics define resurrection as the uniting of soul and body.
LOL, I just saw how I spelled Throne in my e-mail (thrown) it's time for me to go back to skool for a spelling refresher, don'tsha think?
I just downloaded an e-book from a socinian-turned- trinitarian. you may want to check it out also. He attempts to reconcile the divine attribute of immutability with the incarnation. it was clearly an implausible fail, offering major comic relief. (entitled "the Triune God and the Doctrine of the Covenant" by R Andrew Deford)
Since you keep abreast with trends in evangelical scholarship you are probably aware how the on-line evangelical fire-storm ended that was started over the concept of EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination) about 3 years ago. it ended with a (pre-determined) con-census that the concept should be rejected for 2 reasons those that hold to the position usually deny (2) trinitarian concepts, 1) the ETERNAL GENERATION doctrine and 2)the orthodox claim that each of the Divine Persons DOES NOT have a separate will (Jesus human nature excepted, LOL) so that all three only have a collective Will, not individual wills. the two evangelical Scholars that championed EFS have publicly recanted their belief that the Eternal Generation doctrine is unsupportable biblically, and have attempted to tweak the one will concept as applying ontologically, but not in the economy (the BEING has one will while the Persons in their economic modes have individual wills) needless to say, this Idea was shot down by the hoard. So as it stands Evangelically main-stream theologia has doubled down on the actuality of the Eternal generation Doctrine and that the 3 Divine person have only one will between themselves. this In my mind appears to show evangelical trinitarianism has painted themselves into two corners, both FATAL to trinitarianism, 1) the EG doctrine has now proven the dependence of the Son and Spirit on the ungenerated Father as the Fount of their eternal existence, meaning they are not A-SE due to their eternal dependence upon another, bye-bye Aseity. 2)there is not a single example of a non-comatose person that has no individual will within and beyond the universe to verify that a conscious person can exist without an individual will. hence the doctrine of 3 Divine persons without individual wills denies their person-hood. Since you are informed, How do the evangelical intelligencia attempt to skirt these issues??(I know of Calvin's attempt to change the time-honoured tradition that God the father was the fountain-head of Deity to his being only the fountain-head of the 2 other persons, not their Deity, yet this falls headlong into cutting the Godhead into 4 parts; that the persons Are separate from their Deity , denying Simplicity)
I have 2 articles to share tonight of the list, see you there.
No worries about the spelling, Reality Checker. You presented many fine thoughts and questions. Thanks for providing that reference too. I do remember that whole EFS debate; you might recall the works by Kevin Giles, which outlined both sides of the controversy. He was also criticized for his construal of Trinitarian history. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/07/athanasius-quicunque-vult-and-kevin.html
I don't know if you ever read John Feinberg's work, No One Like Him, but I believe he supplies a sound critique of the eternal generation concept in that book. Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=lo42zEOKobwC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=john+feinberg+eternal+generation&source=bl&ots=XflA1Gdbvo&sig=ACfU3U0gW8Sx9BTs7ByWYI5Oa6cY2KkeXw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih8ZSo_87iAhVuUt8KHVjyDvU4ChDoATAIegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=john%20feinberg%20eternal%20generation&f=false
Here's a thread about one consciousness within the Trinity.
Post a Comment