Crickets, Fireworks, and Christian Perfection - An Ascension Day Sermon

    Tiff and I weren’t here last week – some of you noticed. Joyce sent us a copy of the bulletin to make sure that we knew we were missed. Thank you, Joyce. I was doing what I’m doing today, filling in for an absent pastor, across town. But here I am today and here you are. So as we celebrate Mother’s Day

    Well, you didn’t hear it last week. I thought I could get away with reusing the same sermon.

    Actually, today is Ascension Sunday. One of my favorites in the church calendar – though it doesn’t get the pomp and splendor of Easter, or the emotional saturation of Christmas. It doesn’t get page after page of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs like the other High Holy Days. In fact, if you check the index in the back of The United Methodist Hymnal, under the Christian Year heading, there are only six listings – and two of those are All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name, under two different melodies.

    In some denominations the clergy may switch to white or gold vestments. Whoa… way to really party it up… I recently learned that in Florence, Italy they celebrate the Festa del Grillo - the Cricket Festival - on Ascension Day. Crickets are sold in tiny little cages and then the children release them into the streets. Loki – who wants to be an entomologist – will appreciate that one. And in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, people often hike up into the mountains on Ascension Day – like the disciples following Jesus up the Mount of Olives to witness his ascension.

    But I think we need something like fireworks for Ascension Day. Shooting up into the sky in a blaze of brilliant glory, cascading colors, the sky ablaze with sparkles and spangles. It’s a joyful, brilliant day to be celebrated with song and explosion. Loud songs and small explosions…

    For forty days he continued to show himself alive to his disciples after his Passion – that is to say, after his pain. For passion is pain. And pain is death. He showed himself to them after his death. For forty days he showed signs, and wonders, he showed them many demonstrations, evidences, and proofs. He spoke to them of many things: of shoes, and ships, and sealing-wax, of cabbages, and of carpenter kings. He spoke to them of the coming the Kingdom and of God¹.

    “And don’t leave Jerusalem,” he told them while he was sitting down to eat with them, “until you receive what was promised.” They were sitting around eating and drinking, sharing a communion of fellowship with the risen Lord. I like to think that his favorite post resurrection meal was broiled fish and honeycomb.²Those privileged to share that meal with him would remember it always. “John baptized with water,” he reminded them. But not too many days from now you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit – and this is a baptism by fire - and this is where the sprinkling versus full immersion debate gets interesting…

    And the disciples asked him, “Lord, has the time come for you to restore the Kingdom to Israel?” They were thinking perhaps of the Maccabean glories, and Solomonic marvels, and Davidic victories of the past. “Are you going to, in this hour, make Israel great again?”

    But Jesus said “No,” or rather, “It’s not really for you to know.” He commissioned them instead to be his witnesses in ever-expanding circles – in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria – and to the remotest parts of the earth. And the commission is given with another promise of the Holy Spirit.

    Meanwhile the disciples were still trying to figure out when the Kingdom would be restored even as Jesus was lifted up from the ground. A glorious sight - he rises up and up and up through endless ranks of invisible angels, until he is disappeared in a cloud. Up through obscuring clouds. Gone. Vanished. Disappeared from their eyes. Two men in white step into view and announce that this same Jesus will come back in the same way he went.

    And here we are - celebrating the ascension of the risen Lord. Let’s sing another hymn and where are the fireworks and the crickets? Today is a day to celebrate.

    The risen and ascended Christ is the promise of something extraordinary and it rarely gets discussed – at least on this side of the Eastern Orthodox / Roman Catholic / Protestant divide. It is the promise of theosis or divinization or even deification– to use some of those heavyweight theological words.

    And this might sound a bit alarming – as if the substitute pastor were saying that we all get to be God, or little g gods. But he’s not. You don’t have to send Pastor Mark a concerned email.

    The word Theosis is a two-part Greek word: theo being God and the suffix -osis which means a process. Think of a white cloth being saturated with red dye by the process of osmosis. In the same way we are filled and saturated with the presence of God by theosis.³ Theosis is the end goal of our salvation. It is what we were created for. It is what we are redeemed for.

    We were created in the image and likeness of God – and this isn’t just our physical, fleshy bodies. We were created to be good, as all of creation was called good. Very good.

    Since we’re good Methodists here, lets quote John Wesley:

“In the image of God was man made, holy as he that created him is holy, merciful as the author of all is merciful, perfect as his Father in heaven is perfect. As God is love, so man dwelling in love dwelt in God, and God in him. God made him to be ‘an image of his own eternity’ an incorruptible picture of the God of glory. He was accordingly pure, as God is pure. … He ‘loved the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his mind, and soul, and strength.’ … Such then was the state of man in paradise. By the free, unmerited love of God he was holy and happy, he knew, loved, enjoyed God, which is (in substance) life everlasting. And in this life of love he was to continue forever if he continued to obey God in all things.”⁴

    But sin broke that goodness and death destroyed that life. We were enslaved by fear and lust and shame and wrath and hate. Christ came to restore what had been destroyed, to return what we’d traded away, to revive what was dead.

    The second century Bishop, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote, “The only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, through his transcendent love, became what we are, that he might bring us to be what he is himself”⁵

    Saint Augustine of Hippo said: “We carry mortality about with us, we endure infirmity, we look forward to divinity. For God wishes not only to vivify, but also to deify us.”⁶

    In the second letter of Peter we read: By his divine power he has lavished on us all the things we need for life and true devotion, through the knowledge of him who has called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these, the greatest and priceless promises have been lavished on us, that through them we should share the divine nature and escape the corruption rife in the world through disordered passion.”⁷

    Paul said it over and over again in his letters: If anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation… For me to live is Christ… It is no longer I that lives, but Christ that lives in me… Christ in you, the hope of glory… And we all, with unveiled faces like mirrors reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the image that we reflect in brighter and brighter glory.⁸

    Ascension Sunday is not some weird appendix to Easter. Ascension Day is not an afterthought. The Ascension is not just Jesus going away with a promise to return. It is Jesus enthroning a redeemed and restored humanity in the presence of God the Father through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.

    This is the entire sanctification, the Christian perfection that John Wesley described. That we are so filled with the love of God and a love for God that “no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions are governed by pure love.”⁹

    The disciples, having watched the risen Lord, rising into the sky, went back to Jerusalem worshiping and full of joy, continually praising God.¹⁰ When we leave from this chapel, we should go out into the world like bottle rockets, shooting up into the sky in a blaze of brilliant glory, cascading colors, the sky ablaze with sparkles and spangles of holy joy. We go out, transformed in brighter and brighter glory. We should explode in love for each other, for our neighbors, for our enemies, for the world. We should be brilliant bursting bodies of love for God.

1Lewis Carrol - The Walrus and the Carpenter

2Luke 24: 42 (not all of the early manuscripts include the honeycomb. It’s probably rightfully omitted from our translations, but I still like it.)

3Frederica Mathews-Green, Welcome to the Orthodox Church, Paraclete Press, pg. 68

4John Wesley - Sermon 5, “Justification by Faith,” I.1.4, Works, 1:184-85.

5Against Heresies, Book 5,

6Sermo 23B

72 Peter 1:4

82 Corinthians 5:17, Philippians 1:21, Galatians 2:20, Colossians 1:27, 2 Corinthians 3:18

9Thoughts on Christian Perfection (1760), Q. 1, Works, 13:57.

10Luke 24: 52-53

Origen Adamantius, Bub

Memorial Day with the Early Church Fathers

Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 2 – Athenagoras: Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead

So I have this 10 volume collection of writings by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325) that I’ve been carrying around with me for several years.  I bought them from a library that was about to discard them and over the years I have used them occasionally as I’ve studied and prepared for sermons.  A couple of years ago I finally challenged myself to actually read through them all.  I got through the first volume before we moved again, and so they went into boxes, were moved, were unpacked, and then placed on new shelves – and my challenge was, not quite forgotten, but put on hold. I’d lost my inertia.  But now I’m back to it, and I’ve made a good start into volume 2.

I’ve just finished reading the second work by Athenagoras in this volume – his Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead.[1]  Sometimes the challenge I’ve given myself, namely- to read through all the volumes of this series, is and enjoyable and profitable exercise.  Sometimes, however, it is just a challenge.  Athenagoras’ second work was a challenge. 

He sets out to defend the truth of the resurrection of the dead – that all those human beings that have died will, at some point in the future, be resurrected - and that is a bodily resurrection - in order to face judgment for their life.  And he does this completely without reference to scripture or to the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

This might strike us as somewhat odd – that a Christian would attempt to defend the idea of a general resurrection without recourse to the specific resurrection of Jesus.  But 1) Athenagoras was debating with folks who didn’t necessarily believe in the resurrection of Jesus.  Using his story as a proof of his argument wouldn’t have held much weight.  Athenagoras was starting with them where they were, working with their shared common assumptions and ideas about the nature of the world.  And 2) At the beginning of the work he informs readers that his arguments often take two parts – the first being a defense of the idea and the second being an exposition of the idea (149).[2]  We seem to have only this first part.  Whether or not he ever wrote the second part, or if it’s been lost, we don’t know, but we might presume that he would have described the resurrection of Jesus in it. 

The Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead is difficult to read.  He doesn’t use a lot of technical terms or difficult words – but he takes so long in coming to the point that his sentences are difficult to follow. They go on and on and on… Take this as an example:

“A thing is in strictness of language considered impossible to a person, when it is of such a kind that he either does not know what is to be done, or has not sufficient power for the proper doing of the thing known.  For he who is ignorant of anything that requires to be done, is utter unable either to attempt or to do what he is ignorant of; and he, too, who knows ever so well what has to be done, and by what means, and how, but either has no power at all to do the thing known, or not power sufficient, will not even make the attempt, if he be wise and consider his powers; and if he did attempt it without due consideration, he would not accomplish his purpose (150).”[3]

He gets to the point – eventually – but only after much convolution. 

It’s difficult for me to judge how successful Athenagoras would have been in persuading his contemporaries about the truthfulness of the proposition of a future bodily resurrection because his arguments are so entrenched in the assumptions of that day, and so limited by their scientific understanding.  I doubt that anyone would be convinced by them today.  It may not be fair to read him out of historical context against the knowledge of our times, but …

A large portion of his argument for defense of the idea of a future bodily resurrection is directed against those who would argue that a bodily resurrection is implausible because of the difficulty in separating out what parts belong to whom.

It’s a common argument – and not quite as frivolous as it sounds. It goes something like this:  Suppose person A is attacked by a wild animal – say a bear.  The bear eats person A.  The flesh – the material body of person A becomes nutrition for the bear and is incorporated into the body of the bear. Then at some point later person B kills and eats the bear – including the material that had formerly composed the body of person A – and that material now becomes part of the body of person B.

Or, even more directly:  Person A is eaten by the cannibalistic person B.  Person A’s body now becomes part of person B. 

In a future bodily resurrection such as that defended by Athenagoras (and many still today) how are both persons resurrected from the same material?  Athenagoras sidesteps the entire issue by claiming that such scenarios are irrelevant.  In the case of animals – human flesh wouldn’t be appropriate nutrition for them, and so is not absorbed into their bodies. 

“If, therefore, according to the different nature of animals, different kinds of food have been provided suitable to their nature, and none of that which the animal may have taken, not even an accidental part of it, admits of being blended with the body that is nourished, but only that part which has been purified by an entire  digestion, and undergone a complete change for union with a particular body, and adapted to the parts which are to receive nourishment, - it is very plain that none of the things contrary to nature can be united with those bodies for which it is not suitable and correspondent nourishment, but either passes off by the bowels before it produces some other humour, crude and corrupted; or, if it continue for a longer time, produces suffering or disease hard to cure, destroying at the same time the natural nourishment, or even the flesh itself which needs nourishment.  But even though it be expelled at length, overcome by certain medicines, or by better food, or by the natural forces, it is not got rid of without doing much harm, since it bears no peaceful aspect toward what is natural, because it cannot coalesce with nature (152).” [4]

(See what I mean about convoluted?  All of that is just two sentences!)

And in the case of cannibalism – it is obvious that cannibalism is against nature, “…and what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish – then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance… (153)”[5]

That sentence actually goes on quite a bit longer, but I think you get the point…  People today are probably not going to be convinced by that argument.  We don't share his idea of what is obvious and "against nature," and our understanding of physical science discredits his reasoning. 

Athenagoras makes another argument towards the end of the work that I thought was interesting, if not fully convincing.  He argues that if there is no future judgment (and thus a resurrection) then human beings “…would have no advantage over the irrational creatures, but rather would fare worse than these do, inasmuch as they keep in subjection their passions, and concern themselves about purity and righteousness, and the other virtues… (159)”[6]

It’s an interesting argument despite the assumptions it makes – namely that animals have no sense of morality.  It’s a question that is debated today – but some research seems to indicate that animals do have some sort of sense of right and wrong.  

My previous comments on the Ante-Nicene Fathers are here.

---

[1] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume II, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1962.

[2] Chapter i

[3] Chapter ii

[4] Chapter vi

[5] Chapter vii

[6] Chapter xix

Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 2 – Athenagoras: An Embassy for the Christians

So I have this 10 volume collection of writings by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325) that I’ve been carrying around with me for several years.  I bought them from a library that was about to discard them and over the years I have used them occasionally as I’ve studied and prepared for sermons.  A couple of years ago I finally challenged myself to actually read through them all.  I got through the first volume before we moved again, and so they went into boxes, were moved, were unpacked, and then placed on new shelves – and my challenge was, not quite forgotten, but put on hold. I’d lost my inertia.  But now I’m back to it, and I’ve made a good start into volume 2. 

I'm about 150 pages in, having just finished reading Athenagoras’ Plea for the Christians[1] - or as it alternately titled An Embassy for the Christians. 

Athenagoras was, like many of the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, an apologist for Christianity, writing a defense of the faith to different parts of a hostile empire.  Some wrote to friends, some wrote to local rulers, some, like Athenagoras wrote to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son, (co-emperor with his father) Commodus. 

Now it may have been a bit of common flattery – but Athenagoras praises the Co-Emperors, not for their power, or their military might, but because they are “more than all, philosophers.”[2]  It never hurts to flatter the emperor a little, right? Especially when one wants a favorable decision in one’s case – but these men really were considered philosophers, especially Marcus Aurelius.  Athenagors relies on their “love of wisdom” to guide them as he attempts to plead for the Christians living in the empire. 

In this treatise, Athenagoras attempts to deflect the three main charges that are being brought against the Christians, and demonstrate that Christians are as loyal and well behaved citizens of the empire as the members of any other religious group, and that there is no just cause for their persecution.

The charges that he refutes are 1) The Christians are atheists 2) the Christians practice “Thyestean feasts” and 3) the Christians are guilty of “Œdipodean intercourse.” [3]

The first charge – atheism – would seem like an easy charge to refute – but Athenagoras spends most of his time with this argument.  It is obviously not true that the Christians are atheists for, Athenagoras says, they worship one creator God who is before and separate from his creation.  Athenagoras goes to some great lengths to describe this God – even to some explanation of the concept of the Trinity. 

The charge of atheism is blatantly false – but stems from the fact that the Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the gods.  ‘Why should we?’ Athenagoras asks, when our God does not need blood or sacrifices…

The second charge – “Thyestean feasts” – is a reference to cannibalism. In Greek mythology Thyestes had an affair with his brother’s wife.  When the brother discovered it, he killed Thyestes’s sons, cooked them (except for their hands and heads), and served them to Thyestes.   The charge against the Christians is in relation to their Eucharist. “Eat this, it is my body” and “drink this, it is my blood” sound rather cannibalistic when taken out of context (indeed, even in context …)

And the third charge – “Œdipodean intercourse” is a charge of incest – referring to Œdipus who, according to the stories, slept with his mother, killed his father and gouged out his eyes.  The charge stems from the Christian practice of referring to each other as “brother” or “sister” – and their greeting each other during their gatherings with “a holy kiss.” 

But this is all perfectly chaste, Athenagoras explains.   We call each other “brother” and “sister” because we are instructed to love one another as a family.  And besides, Athenagoras insists, Christians aren’t interested in recreational sex.  “Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he as married according to the laws laid down for us, and that only for the purpose of having children.  For as the husbandman throwing seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.” [4]

Yeah.  Well… No one should claim that the early Church Fathers were geniuses…

The main thrust of Athenagoras’ plea (or embassy) for the Christians is that they deserve the same protections afforded to other religious groups within the pluralistic empire.  If they break the laws, then arrest them, try them, punish them, of course.  But they shouldn’t be arrested and persecuted merely for the fact that they are Christians. 

Today, we hear a lot of Christians (at least in an American context) complaining about religious persecution.  But there seems to me to be a very big difference between Athenagoras’ plea and today’s complaints.  In the second century, Christians were a minority and disenfranchised group.  They had no power, no position, no place.  Those American Christians who today claim to be persecuted do so in a context where Christianity has been protected and even empowered for a very long time. 

A gross example in the news recently is of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) (founded by Pat Robertson in 1990) - and its European branch – the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) condemns laws against blasphemy in predominately Muslim countries, but supports them in traditionally Christian nations.  They’re not interested in equal protection in a pluralistic society, but in a society in which they’re in control.  

This is not what Athenagoras was arguing for.

---

[1] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume II, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1962.

[2] Page 129

[3] Page 130

[4] Page 146

The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 2 – Theophilus to Autolycus

So I have this 10 volume collection of writings by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325) that I’ve been carrying around with me for several years.  I bought them from a library that was about to discard them and over the years I have used them occasionally as I’ve studied and prepared for sermons.  A couple of years ago I finally challenged myself to actually read through them all.  I got through the first volume before we moved again, and so they went into boxes, were moved, were unpacked, and then placed on new shelves – and my challenge was, not quite forgotten, but put on hold. I’d lost my inertia.  But now I’m back to it, and I’ve made a good start into volume 2.  I’ve just finished reading Theophilus’ apologetic letter to Autolycus [1]. 

Theophilus of Antioch apparently wrote a number of works – but all of them, save this letter, have been lost.  This is unfortunate.  Unfortunate, in my opinion, because this one that has survived to us isn’t very interesting.  It's a bit tedious. But that’s my opinion.  Eusebius (often described as the Church Historian) seemed really taken with Theophilus’ work – perhaps that is because, like Eusebius, Theophius seems very interested in setting down a chronological history. 

A large portion of this letter is devoted to demonstrating that the Hebrew Scriptures (on which the Christian faith was founded) are more ancient - and therefore more reliable – than the Greek philosophies and histories with which Autolycus was familiar.  “And that we may give a more accurate exhibition of eras and dates, we will, God helping us, now give an account not only of the dates after the deluge, but also those before it, so as to reckon the whole number of all the years, as far as possible; tracing up to the very beginning of the creation of the world, which Moses the servant of God recorded through the Holy Spirit [2].” (118)

It doesn’t surprise me that Young Earth Creationists like Answers in Genesis have embraced Theophilus since he determines in his work that the creation of the world occurred in the year 5529 B.C. (120)[3].  

Most of Theophilus’ defense of Christianity is drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) – mostly from Genesis and from the prophets, with only a few scattered references to the gospels and epistles of the New Testament.

He is severe in his criticisms of Greek philosophies and Greek gods and goddesses, deriding them as immoral and meritless.  He even castigates Socrates and Plato, “who seems to have been the most respectable philosopher among them…”[4]  (112) Later Christian writers were much less hostile towards Plato – were, in fact, quite open to embracing his philosophies.  St. Augustine wrote of him ““The utterance of Plato, the most pure and bright in all philosophy, scattering the clouds of error . . .” 

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Theophilus’ letter to Autolycus (at least to me) is that it appears to be the earliest use of the word “Trinity” in relation to the Godhead of the Christian faith – at least the earliest use of the word that has survived down to us.  Because he does not introduce it as a new idea that would need explanation or elucidation, it seems probable that the word (and the idea) were already circulating and relatively well understood (or at least, as well understood as the concept can be understood…).

In his commentary on the days of creation – specifically on the fourth day – Theophilus writes, “In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Trinity of God and his Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia).” [5] (100)

Theophilus became the sixth bishop of Antioch, Syria in A.D. 168 – so the idea of the trinity-ness of God was in circulation pretty early on, though the doctrine wasn’t formalized until the fourth century.

---

[1] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume II, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1962.

[2] book iii chapter xxiii

[3] Book iii chapter xxviii

[4] book iii chapter vi

[5] Book ii chapter xv

The Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 2 – Address of Tatian to the Greeks

So I have this 10 volume collection of writings by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325) that I’ve been carrying around with me for several years.  I bought them from a library that was about to discard them and over the years I have used them occasionally as I’ve studied and prepared for sermons.  A couple of years ago I finally challenged myself to actually read through them all.  I got through the first volume before we moved again, and so they went into boxes, were moved, were unpacked, and then placed on new shelves – and my challenge was, not quite forgotten, but put on hold. I’d lost my inertia.  But now I’m back to it, getting into volume 2 with Tatian’s Address to the Greeks.

The introductory note by A. Cleveland Coxe describes Tatian as “”half Father and half heretic (61).[1]”  Tatian was a student of Justin Martyr in Rome – but apparently, at some point drifted away from orthodoxy.  That, at least is the report of others about him.  Irenæus says that he seceded from the Church, “as if he were superior to the rest, he formed his own peculiar type of doctrine (82).”[2]  What this doctrine was isn’t exactly clear – something akin to Gnosticism (but that’s a pretty broad charge.)  He apparently also opposed marriage, wine, and meat…  The Church historian, Eusebius credits Tatian as the founder of the ascetic Christian sect of Encrtites.  

But we have very little from Tatian’s own pen to defend himself; most of his writings have been lost.  His Address to the Greeks and his Diatessaron are all that have survived.   The Diatessaron was the most widely read and extensively used harmony of the four gospels in the early church – and was used as the standard gospel text in some Syrian churches for a long time. 

The Address to the Greeks is an apology – a defense of Christianity.  Tatian, who was familiar with Greek philosophies and religion, brings up example after example of inconsistencies and absurdities in the accepted philosophies of the Greeks, and asks, “If you can accept these, with all their faults and flaws, why then do you make accusations against us Christians?  If there are multiplied philosophers with conflicting theories – and they are acceptable to you – then how can you object to our having a different opinion?” 

During his argument he contrasts the unity Christianity with the multiplicity of Greek philosophies. Tatian says, “nor do we indulge in a variety of opinions… we reject everything which rests upon human opinion (78),”  [3] which is quite curious as he was later condemned by other Christians of introducing his own opinion.  Quoting again from Irenæus’ attack on Tatian, “Imagining certain peculiar Æons like those of Valentinus, and denouncing marriage ad defilement and fornication as the same way as Marcion and Saturninus, and denying the salvation of Adam as his own opinion (82).”

---

[1] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume II,  WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1962.

[2] Quoted from Irenæus’s Against Heresies i. 28

[3] Chapter XXXII 

Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 2 – The Shepherd of Hermas

So I have this 10 volume collection of writings by the Ante-Nicene Fathers  (the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325) that I’ve been carrying around with me for several years.  I bought them from a library that was about to discard them and over the years I have used them occasionally as I’ve studied and prepared for sermons.  A couple of years ago I finally challenged myself to actually read through them all.  I got through the first volume before we moved again, and so they went into boxes, were moved, were unpacked, and then placed on new shelves – and my challenge was, not quite forgotten, but put on hold. I’d lost my inertia. 

But now I’m back to it, starting into volume 2 with The Shepherd of Hermas (or, as this particular translation titles it The Pastor of Hermas – for the word “pastor” means “shepherd”…) It is a weird and interesting book, divided into three sections – 1) a series of 5 apocalyptic visions 2) a series of 12 commandments and 3) a collection of 10 Similitudes or ‘parables.’  The eponymous “Shepherd” (“Pastor”) is sent to Hermas by “a most venerable angel” to stay with him and instruct him.

Hermas frequently frustrates his shepherd with an overwhelming number of questions.  Repeatedly the Shepherd chides him and warns him about asking so many questions, but each time he relents and answers them for Hermas.

And what I find fascinating to think about is how close The Shepherd of Hermas came to being included in our collection of scripture.  The Muratorian fragment (~ 3^rd century) – a copy of the oldest known list of the books of what is now called the New Testament – included The Shepherd.   It was one of the most popular Christian writings between the 2^nd and 4^th centuries - but, though popular and well received, not everyone accepted it as divinely inspired.  Origen described it as “a work which seems to me very useful, and, as I believe, divinely inspired.” (Comm. in Rom. 10.31, written about 244-6)  Tertullian rejected it with scorn as ‘apocryphal’. 

But by the time that the Canon (as we have it today) was being formulated, The Shepherd of Hermas had fallen out of favor somewhat.  The Church historian, Eusebius, listed three categories for Christian writings then in existence:  1) Those writings universally accepted without dispute 2) those that are disputed and 3) those writings that are ‘spurious.’   Eusebius put The Shepherd in the third group. Though it was widely read by Christians it failed to make the cut as scripture – probably because it has no clear connection to any of the apostles.

But how different might Christianity have been had it been included in the canon? Would children memorize its verses in Sunday School class?  Imagine the kids squirming at the front of the chapel as they recite together, “First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing.”   Would it be included in the lectionary readings? Would preachers use it as the text for their sermons?  Imagine the pastor expounding upon these lines, “Fear the Lord, and keep His commandments.  For if you keep the commandments of God you will be powerful in every action, and every one of your actions will be incomparable.  For, fearing the Lord, you will do all things well.” Would the eschatological scaremongers like Jack Van Impe and John Hagee have used its description of the tribulations to come?  “But the sun now shone out a little, and lo! I see a mighty beast like a whale, and out of its mouth fiery locusts proceeded.  But the size of that beast was about a hundred feet, and it had a head like an urn.”

And how might our Christology have been affected?  The Shepherd of Hermas seems to have an “adoptionist” understanding of the divine nature of Jesus – that is, that he was given the preexistent Holy Spirit of God, and made co-heir with the Spirit, by God the Father because of his virtue and obedience. 

I Haven’t the Nerve

God help me, I haven’t the nerve
for self-mutilation.
Though my eye and
my right hand offend
I keep them close
and do not cast them aside.

Origen emasculated himself
for the sake of the kingdom
but I haven’t the balls.

(2008)

Human and More Than Human

In the year 6 B.C. (or roughly thereabouts) a man was born who was more than a man. Into that humble village of Bethlehem came the one who was the “only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all time, Light from Light, true God from true God the same essence [reality], as the Father, through Whom all things came into being, Who for us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became human. [i]

This is the crux of Christianity: that the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God would leave His timeless, changeless power and join himself to the human condition.

In the  Salvation Army Doctrines we state that: “We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the divine and human natures are united so that he is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.”

Jesus Christ is fully and completely God.

Jesus Christ is fully and completely man.

Jesus Christ is not two persons but one.

Early Christian art (the first century through the middle or “dark ages”) had a tendency to stress the Divine nature of Jesus; pictures of Jesus demonstrated his God-hood. In these pictures he is the pantokrator – the All Governing God of the world, the ruler who reigns over heaven and earth. In these paintings he is dressed in the royal robes of a king and wears a crown. He was portrayed enthroned on the walls of the churches as the ascended and exalted Lord who brings order to heaven and earth [ii]

This emphasis in artistic expression of the divinity of Jesus corresponded to an emphasis in apologetics of the time. Attacks on the God-nature of Christ came from all sides; from the pagan Roman Empire and from their Jewish brothers. It was unfathomable to them that a divine being would subject himself to such a life as that lived by Jesus of Nazareth, and to such a death as the one suffered by this Jesus. Crucifixion was reserved for the basest of criminals.

Celsus was a 2nd century opponent of Christianity who, like others of his time, refused to accept the idea of a God who would become a man. For Celsus, Jesus was only a man, a poor, wretched, miserable man, who was born in poverty (even claiming that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary with a Roman soldier) and who died condemned as a criminal. If, Celsus asks, Jesus was God, why did he allow himself to be crucified? Why did he not destroy his enemies? And even if Christians could answer these questions he went further, “What could be the purpose of such a visit to earth by God? To find out what is taking place among humans? Does he not know everything? Or is it perhaps that He knows but is incapable of doing anything about evil unless he does it in person? [iii]

To the Christian’s Jewish brothers, it was obvious that Christians were guilty of blasphemy. This Jesus that they declared to be God had been crucified – and according to Jewish law, anyone hung on a tree was under God’s curse (Deut 21: 22 – 23). How could Jesus be God? He was, as Peter wrote in his letter, “the living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen by God and precious to Him… a precious cornerstone and no one who relies on this will be brought to disgrace. To you believers it brings honor. But for unbeliever, it is rather a stone which the builders rejected that became a cornerstone, a stumbling stone, a rock to trip people up. They stumble over it because they do not believe in the Word… (1 Peter 2: 4 – 8)

For St. Athanasius (295 – 373) the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the God-Man was evident in every part of his life, death, and resurrection. “…even at his death …the whole creation was confessing that he who was known and suffered in the body was not simply a man, but the Son of God and Savior of all. For the sun turned black, and the earth shook, and the mountains rent… and these things showed that Christ who was on the cross was God…” [iv]

By the time of the Renaissance however, the emphasis had changed; artists became focused on the humanity of this God-Man, Jesus – the “humanation” of God. “In the imagery of earlier Christianity, the claims for Christ’s absolute godhood, and for his parity with the Almighty Father, had to be constantly reaffirmed against unbelief – first against Jewish recalcitrance and pagan skepticism, then against the Arian heresy, finally against Islam[v]. Now in the renaissance painters were showing the humanation of God just as preachers were emphasizing the mystery of the incarnation.

In their understanding of theology “humanity was saved redeemed, at least inchoately, at the moment the Godhead assumed human flesh and became one with us.[vi]” And they lovingly portrayed Christ in his human-ness showing him often as the naked infant – demonstrating that Jesus was fully human in all his members.

In one age the deity of Christ is emphasized over his humanity; in another his humanity over his divinity. And yet the mystery is that he is fully both – “perfect both in deity and also in human-ness; this selfsame one is actually God and actually man with a rational soul and a body. His is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned an of the same reality as we are ourselves as far as his human-ness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these “last days,” for us and on behalf of our salvation, this self-same one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his human-ness. [vii]

This is a mystery. That Jesus

Who being in the form of God (the same essence and reality)

Did not count equality with God something to be grasped or exploited.

But he emptied himself, despoiled himself

Taking the form of a slave

Becoming as human beings are

And being in every way like a human being,

He was humbler yet,

Even to accepting death, death on a cross

And for this God raised him high -highly exalted him in his resurrection, ascension, and glorification -

And gave him the name

Which is above all other name [Yahweh]

So that all beings

In the heavens, on the earth, and in the underworld,

Should bend the knee at the name of Jesus

And that every tongue should acknowledge

Jesus Christ as Lord

To the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2: 6 – 11)

In the year 6 B.C. (or roughly thereabouts) a man was born who was more than a man. Without divesting himself of his God-ness, Jesus put on our flesh. And while it would have been right and fitting for him to come to us in glory and in power, as the pantokrator the Supreme Ruler of All that Exists, for our sake Christ preferred to set aside these “insignia of majesty” and lived for thirty-three years in a life of service and obscurity; veiling his majesty in his suffering and death, until he was raised on high and highly exalted by God.

His death was not an accident any more than his birth was an accident. It was not “plan B.” It was not the last resort. Christ’s death upon the Cross is not a failure which was somehow put right afterwards by his Resurrection.[viii] His death and subsequent resurrection were the purpose for which God made such a mysterious intervention into human affairs; the reason that Jesus set aside the insignia of his majesty to become human like us.

Jesus, for a short time was made lower than the angels so that he could share in our humanity, so that he could be like us in every way, so that he could suffer temptation and death and by doing so he could forever break the power of the one who holds the power of death. He was and is 100% God and 100% man. Truly and properly God and truly and properly man. Very God and Very Man. Light from Light, true God from true God. And that is difficult, if not impossible to understand.

Errors in thinking about Jesus have tended to swing too far toward one of three extremes. 1) that Jesus was just a man and not God or 2) that Jesus was God and was not a man or that 3) Jesus was part God and part man (a sort of human/deity hybrid.)

Each of these errors is the result of attempting to completely define and articulate the incarnation without leaving any questions or ambiguity; to answer without any mystery.

But it is a mystery. That God became man. That he was born as a blood covered screaming baby. That God would suffer skinned knees. It is a mystery that God could be tempted in the desert. It is a mystery that God could die, executed like a common junkyard thief.

Can you imagine the infinite, all powerful God of the universe suffering? Can you imagine the perfectly, righteous holy one of heaven being tempted? Can you imagine the eternally self-existent Lord of space and time dying?

But in the person of Jesus Christ who is truly God and truly man we have an Icon of a suffering, tempted, and crucified God. A God who hurts, and hurts for us. A God who suffers with us, a God who understands our temptations, and who has died so that we may live.

God came to dwell among us so that he might participate willingly in all the things that we try so desperately to avoid. Jesus, the Son of God came to suffer. Jesus came to be tempted. Jesus came to die. So that he could prove his solidarity with us.

Jesus came to show us that God is not far removed from our concerns, and troubles. We worship a God who has been through them with us. We worship a God who has suffered but not been broken. We worship a God who has been tempted but has not sinned. We worship a God who has died, but did not stay dead – who instead rose up from the grave and has guaranteed eternal life to those who call him Lord.

It is this voluntary humiliation of Christ that is the mystery. The world looks at the person of Jesus Christ and rejects him as God because of his humanity, because of his commonness. Common sense would even reject Jesus as God because of his suffering and death.

But, the crucified Christ is the image of the invisible God – and God is not greater than He is in this humiliation. God is not more glorious than He is in this self-surrender. God is not more powerful than He is in this helplessness. God is not more divine than He is in this humanity. [ix]

In his nature God cannot die. God is eternal. God is the I Am That I Am. God IS. But now that God and man are completely and fully united in the person of Jesus Christ – when that man dies it is rightly called the death of God, for he is one person. (Martin Luther). It is by the suffering and death of God that we can be redeemed, and we could not possibly understand this suffering and death of God, if it were not for the incarnation of the Son of God

The crucified Christ is the image of the invisible God, the way by which we can know God. It was through his sufferings that he knows us and is one with us. It was through his death that we may be reunited with God. Jesus, the incarnate God, is our icon of temptation, suffering and death.

Jesus came to willingly participate in all those things that we try to avoid. We don’t want to be tempted because we know that we are likely to fail. But Jesus didn’t . He could have given into Satan’s temptations, the human nature of Jesus could have given in, but he didn’t, and we don’t have to either. We don’t like to suffer because it hurts and we’re afraid that it will break us. Jesus suffered with us and for us, without regard for himself. In fact he was perfected in his role as pioneer of salvation through his sufferings. Suffering isn’t to be feared. It makes us more like Christ. And we know that death, in the end, comes for us all. But we don’t have to be slaves to the fear of death. We rest confident that the power of death has been broken.

Jesus – Very God and Very Man. Two natures human and divine. Truly and properly God and Truly and properly man. He came so that we could know God and so that God could know us.

He is our suffering and death.

He is our resurrection and our life.

Whom have we, Lord, like you –

The Great One who became small, the Wakeful who slept,

The Pure One who was baptized, the Living One who died,

The King who abased himself to ensure honor for all.

Blessed is your honor!

It is right that man should acknowledge your divinity,

It is right for heavenly beings to worship your humanity.

The heavenly beings were amazed to see how small you became,

And the earthly ones to see how exalted. [x]

---

[i] The Constantinopolitan Creed

[ii] (Robert Webber ed., The Complete Library of Christian Worship Vol. 4, Music and the Arts in Christian Worship, Book 2, pg. 489, Star Song Publishing Group, Nashville TN, 1994. )

[iii] Origen, Against Celsus, 4.3

[iv] Athanasius – The Incarnation

[v] Leo Steinberg, The Sexuality Of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion, pg. 9, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983.

[vi] pg. 200

[vii] The Definition of Chalcedon

[viii] Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (Revised Edition), pg. 81, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood NY, 1998.

[ix] Jürgen Moltmann – The Crucified God 

[x] St. Ephrem the Syrian, The Harp of the Spirit: 18 poems of Saint Ephrem