εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.
πᾶς is not used absolutely or in an unqualified sense here: it is utilized relatively. The apostle has the Christian congregation in mind, for it is this ecclesia that the one God and Father of all (εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων) especially rules "over" (ἐπὶ πάντων), works "through" (διὰ πάντων), and is "in" (ἐν πᾶσιν) by means of his holy spirit (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 2:19-22). Nevertheless, Paul is not espousing pantheism or panentheism in this account--his inspired counsel for the Ephesians strictly applies to the first-century Christian assembly composed of anointed ones, not to the cosmos as a whole.
William Larkin (Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, page 71):
εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ. Nominative subject of an implied equative verb. The combination of titles occurs consistently in Ephesians in formal or liturgical contexts: salutation, 1:2; doxology, 1:3; prayer, 1:17; thanksgiving, 5:20; benediction, 6:23 (cf. 3:9, 14).πάντων. Genitive of subordination. The fourfold πᾶς in this climactic statement probably all have the same gender, whether neuter or masculine (Best, 371). There is not enough in the context to distinguish the use of different genders with different items. Paul’s frequent cosmic focus in Ephesians, particularly with the use of πᾶς (1:10, 22, 23; 3:9, 15; 4:10), would be congruent with neuter gender. The term πατὴρ, however, denotes personal relationship, and the theme of church unity here (4:4) followed by a focus on individual church members (4:7) suggests that the gender is masculine and thus personal (contra Lincoln, 240; Best, 371).
Charles Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, paidea commentary series 109; thinks both readings are possible.
ReplyDeleteF.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Phelemon, and to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary series, 337-338; agrees with you as well.
Although i think some kind of PanEntheism (depending on how that term is used) must be correct (somethink like Ireneaus's an Origen's view), I don't think one can derive that from this passage.
"All" is always relative to the context.
Thanks, Roman.
ReplyDelete1) Here is part of what SEP states: “Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, derived from the Greek ‘theos’ meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. While panentheism offers an increasingly popular alternative to classical theism, both panentheism and classical theistic systems affirm divine transcendence and immanence. But, classical theistic systems by prioritizing the difference between God and the world reject any influence by the world upon God while panentheism affirms the world’s influence upon God. On the other hand, while pantheism emphasizes God’s identity with the world, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; J. Cooper, 2006). “Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, derived from the Greek ‘theos’ meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. While panentheism offers an increasingly popular alternative to classical theism, both panentheism and classical theistic systems affirm divine transcendence and immanence. But, classical theistic systems by prioritizing the difference between God and the world reject any influence by the world upon God while panentheism affirms the world’s influence upon God. On the other hand, while pantheism emphasizes God’s identity with the world, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; J. Cooper, 2006). “Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, derived from the Greek ‘theos’ meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. While panentheism offers an increasingly popular alternative to classical theism, both panentheism and classical theistic systems affirm divine transcendence and immanence. But, classical theistic systems by prioritizing the difference between God and the world reject any influence by the world upon God while panentheism affirms the world’s influence upon God. On the other hand, while pantheism emphasizes God’s identity with the world, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; J. Cooper, 2006).
2) I agree that the definition of panentheism matters, but I would not accept a form of panentheism that tries to destroy the divide between Creator and creature. However, I think there is a sense in which God is transcendent and immanent with respect to the cosmos. God's spirit also works within the world, according to Scripture. Of course, this issue is a side point here, as you noted.
3) Agreed that "all" is contextually-dependent or to be understood in context.
So it’s whatever is is in focus at the time? Not everything all at once all of the time
ReplyDeleteMeaning something very obvious is “unimportant” at that specific moment and would not be included
One thing that made me believe that some kind of panentheism is necessary, is that God's spirit is not distinct from God, it's not a "substance" besides God it's just God in action, God's spirit just IS God, just as "my life" is not some distinct substance in addition to me but just a way of speaking about me qua living being. So if God sees all things and sustains all things my means of his spirit, I don't see the difference between saying that and just saying God immediately sees all things and sustains all things my means of himself, (i.e. God's spirit is not a 'tool' with independent existence, but just God qua action). If that's the case then it makes sense to say that all things are (as Irenaeus and the sheapard of Hermas says) contained within God, not in a kind of spacial sense, but in some sense.
ReplyDeleteI've often wondered about how to understand the relationship between God and his spirit: Robert Jenson and many others struggled with the genitive construction used when referring to the spirit (spirit OF God) and parallels have been drawn between the spirit of God and the human spirit. But is the spirit just God in action? I'm not sure because while the spirit is poured out, can we say the same abouut God? The apostles receive power "through" the spirit and pray to receive it, in the NT. Does this amount to nothing more than praying to receive God or his action? What about when the spirit is said to be a seal or "earnest money"? See Ephesians 1:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:5. What about Jesus being full of holy spirit?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the spirit is grieved (Ephesians 4:30) or hurt, so is this merely saying that God is grieved or hurt?
Even the expression, "my life" can be analyzed different ways. I've been reading about the spirit here lately in scholarly literature and I how ancient Jews worked hard to understand "spirit."
Alan J. Hauser:
ReplyDelete"Let us briefly examine the use of 'spirit of God' in the Old
Testament. The first part of the phrase, 'spirit of,' is commonly used
in the construct state in Hebrew to denote the motivating force or
dynamic power of a person or of God. In 2 Chronicles 36:22 we are told
that 'the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia' to issue
a proclamation allowing worshipers of Israel's God to rebuild His
temple (cf. Ezra 1:1). In 1 Chronicles 5:26 God stirs up 'the spirit of Pul king of Assyria - that is, the spirit of Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria' to carry away some of the tribes of Israel" (118, 119).
Additionally:
"In these instances 'spirit of' does not denote an
entity in any way separate from the person but rather
the active, forceful power of that person (cf. also
Gen. 45:27; 2 Kings 2:15; 1 Sam. 30:12; Hag. 1:14).
Why should we presume that it is different when the
object of the phrase 'spirit of' is God? When we are
told in Judges 14:6 that the 'spirit of the LORD
came mightily upon' Samson, and that Samson tore
apart the lion, does this mean that the Holy Spirit
seized Samson? What is meant instead is that
God's power came upon Samson and gave him
strength (see also, for example, Judg. 6:34, 11:29).
There is no hint of a separate person within the
Godhead from the Father acting upon the individual .
. . see, for example, 2 Kings 2:16; 1 Sam. 10:6;
11:6) (119).
Thomas Aquinas:
ReplyDeleteI answer that, God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power; hence it is proved in Phys. vii that the thing moved and the mover must be joined together. Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm#article1
Personally the concept and metaphysics of spirit is something I would really like to learn more about.
ReplyDeleteSo far my knowledge is limited to the stoic concept, the Idealist (Hegel, Schelling) concept, and the phenomenal concept of Life (Michel Henry) which I take to be analogous to spirit.
So i think the "spirit being poured out" or "receiving the power through the spirit" don't entail the spirit is a substance, any more than "power" is a substance, but I don't think that means that it's just a metaphor either. Couldn't the "spirit being poured out" just be a description of God empowering his people? i.e. a relation between God and his people? So the relation of God and his people, in this case, includes empowering them, such that their "power" depends on God's empowerment, which just is his spirit (i.e. his action).
I think this goes back to why I think substance metaphysics is inadequate.
But I think one can perfectly say "the spirit of God came upon me" in the same way one can say "I felt his love," or "that fall really scared me," or "I was blown away by the wind," without saying that love, falling, or wind, are "objects," or that these statements are mere metaphors, and not literally true.
If one does not have a substance metaphysics of a materialist metaphysics, one can actually say that relations or processes, or forces, have a reality with causal consequence.
Although I'm cautions with Thomas Aquinas, I think there is something true there, God is not independent from his action as we are (once we act the consequences become independent from us, and depend on things other than us for their efficacy), So God's action, his spirit, is not distinct from him, nor is he distinct from his spirit, so like Ireneaus says, God is all hearing, all seeing, etc etc.
Btw, needless to say I think we can all agree that the Trinitarian notion of the Holy Spirit as a hypostesis besides the Father and Son is entirely incorrect.
I feel like I need to back to Michel Henry.
Do you have any suggestions for reading on the concept of spirit?
Thanks Roman. To be clear, not sure I'd call the holy spirit a substance either: I believe the holy spirit is not a person, is eternal and connected with God in some way (God's "finger"), but don't think the spirit is a substance or bearer of properties (a res) per se.
ReplyDeleteA metaphor could be true on one level, but false on another. If God is not literally pouring himself out, it would seem metaphorical to me, like the Son of God emptying out himself or pouring out his soul. The same would apply to me pouring myself into my work.
I've been reading this book about spirit: https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-First-Century-Judaism-Levison/dp/0391041312
In terms of other thinkers, what about Henri Bergson or Mikhail Bakhtin? See also Søren Kierkegaard.
We've talked about the human spirit before and I came across this info I looked into before:
ReplyDelete"Don’t put your trust in princes or in mortals, who cannot help. When they breathe their last, they return to dust; on that very day all their plans are gone" (Psalm 146:3-4 Complete Jewish Bible).
The Medieval commentator Rashi renders Ps 146:4: "His spirit leaves, he returns to his soil; on that day, his thoughts are lost."
The note from this rabbi's commentary states: "Heb. עשתונותיו his thoughts."
Thanks so much, I would like to read that Levison book, please let me know if there are any good insights there that may be of interest to me.
ReplyDeleteI have heard of Henri Bergson, but never read him and don't know much about him, other than he was into time and debated against a sceientistic and positivist view of time.
I'm almost entirely ignorant Mikhail Bakhtin.
But I will poke around there, any works you suggest?
I know Kierkegaard, and have read a few of his books (fear and trembling, either/or, the lilly of the field and the bird of the air), and have found his theology lacking, but maybe I need to look again.
From your point of view, is "spirit" a metaphysical reality? or mostly metaphorical?
Roman,
ReplyDeleteHere is an intro article about Bergson: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1914/01/a-prophet-of-the-soul/645107/
Two works of Bakhtin that I've taught before are Toward A Philosophy of the Act and The Dialogic Imagination. See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/24459626
Kierkkegaard is complex due to his penchant for irony and his many pseudonyms and assuming different rhetorical poses. I love his Concluding Unscientific Postscript: he's rightly called the melancholy Dane, but the man was obsessed with the Absolute and taking as leap of faith. I like his three stages of life too.
I think spirit is metappphysical even if we use metaphorical speech to articulate it.
Thanks, I found Bergson's introduction to metaphysics online, it's short enough to digest rather quickly, so that will be good.
ReplyDeleteI too think spirit is metaphysical, although it's not a stretch at all for me since I'm something of an idealist :).