Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Lent 4 with Moltmann

Here Moltmann considers mankind's aspirations to be god, how those aspirations dehumanize us, and how the cross restores our humanity.
Thus dehumanized man, who must exalt himself because he cannot endure himself as he is, in practice uses these religious insights only in the interest of his own self-deification. As a result, they do not help him to achieve humanity, but only give greater force to his inhumanity. The knowledge of the cross is the knowledge of the contrary of everything which dehumanized man seeks and tries to attain as the deity in him. Consequently, this knowledge (of God through his sufferings and cross) does not confirm him as what he is, but destroys him. It destroys the god, miserable in his pride, which we would like to be, and restores to us our abandoned and despised humanity. (Jurgen Moltmann in The Crucified God. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993, p. 71)

Monday, February 25, 2008

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #11: Call for submissions

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #11 will be hosted by Dr. Pursiful. His call for submissions has been posted: due 03/31/2008, with the Carnival to be posted soon afterwards in early April.

The topic of the month is based on the fact we're about to embark on our annual celebration of Easter / Pascha, and this year finds the western churches and eastern churches a month out of step:
All of this prompts me to propose “Reconciliation and Liturgical Time” as the special topic for this Carnival. How are divergent or competing understandings of the liturgical year an obstacle to reconciliation? Conversely, how does the idea of liturgical time open up possibilities for greater unity? In any event, how do we live out our Christian discipleship among fellow believers who approach liturgical time differently?

Posts are welcome on this or any other topic related to Christian unity.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Son of God and the sons of God

Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hand?
Who has wrapped the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the extremities of the earth?
What is his name or his son’s name, if you know it? (Proverbs 30:4, NJPS)

The phrase “Son of God” is used in many ways in Scripture along with the idea of God as Father. Consider some of the “sons of God” mentioned:
  • God is the Father of Israel; the tribe of Ephraim is his firstborn son (Jeremiah 31:9);
  • the king is the Son of God (2 Samuel 7:14 and others);
  • King Messiah, the Son of David, is Son of God (Psalm 2, Psalm 89);
  • all those who receive the Messiah with faith are God’s sons (John 1:12)

Given the different ways it is used, does the phrase “Son of God” have any particular meaning? Does it express a relationship of approval but little else? How do these various people come to be called “Son of God” and is there any relationship among them? Does “Son of God” say anything about the nature of the person or people called “Son of God”? Or does it simply denote a relationship with God, not necessarily an essential part of the person’s identity?

I would like to begin considering this with one more reference that the Scriptures make to God’s Son:
In the distant past I was fashioned,
At the beginning, at the origin of the earth.
There was still no deep when I was brought forth,
No springs rich in water;
Before the foundation of the mountains were sunk,
Before the hills I was born. (Proverbs 8:23-25, NJPS)

(The surrounding verses are interesting as well, but to go into them would be to involve contested translations and interpretations, which would distract us without adding anything to the overall point.)

Here it is Wisdom who is speaking. Time-honored Jewish interpretations have seen Wisdom as also equivalent to the Torah, God’s instruction, God’s word. Based on this passage, much of Judaism has seen the Torah as God’s firstborn, being used to create the world. From a viewpoint of this history of the world, the first thing called God’s Son is Wisdom or Torah, the word of God.

The next thing called the Son of God, in order of appearance on the world stage, is Israel. But why is Israel called God’s son? Jesus calls our attention to a rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 82:6:
I had taken you for divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you (Psalm 82:6, NJPS).

There is an ancient Jewish tradition that this refers to the people of God at Sinai (see Avodah Zarah 5a). Jesus comments, “He called them ‘gods’ to whom the Word of God came.” (John 10:35 NIV). Israel stood unique among the ancient nations of the world as the only one to whom the Word of God was revealed. It is for this reason that Israel can be called Son of God and in some sense divine – not divine in an original sense as rival gods, but in a sense of being transformed beyond the confines of an animal existence by the knowledge of God.

In due time in the history of Israel there were kings, also called “sons of God”. I will leave it to the voice of Wisdom to explain the king’s relation to Wisdom:
Through me kings reign
And rulers decree just laws;
Through me princes rule,
Great men and all the righteous judges. (Proverbs 8:15-16, NJPS)

1 Samuel also records that as King Saul and King David were anointed they received the Holy Spirit. Afterwards, both prophesied and spoke the Word of God. Again it is not a random collection of unrelated people referred to as “Son of God”, as if the phrase had no particular meaning outside of a vague and unspecified relationship. In the case of the king, the “Son of God” is one who fills an office rightly reserved for God, one who has the Spirit of God and knows justice through knowing the Word of God.

For last I have saved mention of King Messiah. The first “Son of God” in order of appearance is the Word of God, and this same Word of God is the one said to be dwelling (“tabernacling”) among us as Christ (John 1:14), as John makes a not-too-subtle reference to the Shechinah and the Tabernacle at Sinai, a reference to the event that made Israel God’s Son. With that background, here we may have a fuller appreciation of Christ’s comments on his own relationship to God:

“I and the Father are one.”

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “But for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods’ to whom the Word of God came – and the Scritpure cannot be broken – what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said ‘I am God’s Son’?”(John 10:30-36)

Here Jesus is plain: he is "Son of God" in more than the sense in which they were "sons of God" as the people of God. They were called Sons of God because they received the Word of God sent into the world. But he is that Word of God who was sent, the Word of God that makes us into Sons of God, who when we receive him creates that relationship with God within us and transforms who we are by our knowledge of God.

The phrase “Son of God” has layers of meaning with rich overlap between them. Far from being a meaningless phrase, the meanings are interrelated and plot a trajectory of God reaching out to the world through his wisdom and understanding and love -- and ultimately through Christ -- to transform his people into Sons of God.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Lent 3 with Moltmann

Moltmann on Christ's rejection by God and what it means for the godless:
[The preaching of the cross] proclaims Christ abandoned by God and crucified by him who is godless. It is the revelation of God in abandonment by God, the acceptance of the godless by Christ himself taking on his (the godless man's) abandonment, which brings him into fellowship with the crucified Christ and makes it possible for him to follow Christ. Not until Christ has taken on our cross as his own is it meaningful to take up our cross in order to follow him. (Jurgen Moltmann in The Crucified God. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993, p. 62).

Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Shechinah, the Presence of God, and the Messiah

The Shechinah is a Jewish term for God's presence on earth, where God dwells with us. It is seen at Sinai as God's glory, seen in the Tabernacle and the Temple. During Israel's exodus from Egypt, the people saw God's glorious presence when the Torah was given at Sinai. There has been a long association between God's presence -- the Shechinah -- and God's word. Not only does God's presence reveal God's word, but also when people study and know God's word it realizes a blessing promised by God that he will be with them, causing God's presence to rest among the people.

A few examples from Rabbinic literature will give the general feel of how the rabbis of ancient Judaism understood the Shechinah and the promises of God's presence:
Rabin b. R. Adda says in the name of R. Isaac: How do you know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is to be found in the Synagogue? For it is said: God standeth in the congregation of God. (Psalm 82:1) And how do you know that if ten people pray together the Divine presence is with them? For it is said: ‘God standeth in the congregation of God’. And how do you know that if three are sitting as a court of judges the Divine Presence is with them? For it is said: In the midst of the judges He judgeth. (Psalm 82:1) And how do you know that if two are sitting and studying the Torah together the Divine Presence is with them? For it is said: Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name. (Malachi 3:16) (What does it mean: ‘And that thought upon His name’? — R. Ashi says: If a man thought to fulfill a commandment and he did not do it, because he was prevented by force or accident, then the Scripture credits it to him as if he had performed it.) And how do you know that even if one man sits and studies the Torah the Divine Presence is with him? For it is said: In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee. (Exodus 22:21) Now, since the Divine presence is even with one man, why is it necessary to mention two? — The words of two are written down in the book of remembrance, the words of one are not written down in the book of remembrance. Since this is the case with two, why mention three? — I might think the dispensing of justice is only for making peace, and the Divine Presence does not come to participate. Therefore he teaches us that justice also is Torah. Since it is the case with three, why mention ten? — To a gathering of ten the Divine Presence comes first, to three, it comes only after they sit down. (Berachoth 6a)

When two scholars are amiable to each other in their discussions in halachah, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives heed to them, for it is said, Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard. (Malachi 3:16) Shabbath 63a

When two scholars pay heed to each other in halachah, the Holy One, blessed be He, listens to their voice, as it is said, Thou that dwellest in the gardens, The companions hearken to thy voice: Cause me to hear it. (Song of Solomon 8:13) But if they do not do thus, they cause the Shechinah to depart from Israel, as it is said, Flee, my beloved, and be thou like, etc. (Song of Solomon 8:14). Shabbath 63a.

When two disciples form an assembly in halachah, the Holy One, blessed be He, loves them, as it is said, and his banner over me was love. (Song of Solomon 2:4). Shabbath 63a.


[T]wo that sit together and are occupied in words of Torah have the Shechinah among them ... [T]hree that have eaten at one table, and have said over it words of Torah, are as if they had eaten of the table of the place, blessed is He, for it is said, And he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord. (Pirke Aboth 3)


All this is background to establish the Jewish tradition that whenever and wherever people are gathered around the Word of God, the presence of God is with them. This Jewish tradition was derived from a careful and loving study of the intricate details of God's word, with a focus on when and where God had promised his presence of blessing to his people.

The reason I mention this here and now is to provide better knowledge of the context in which Jesus' words were meant to be understood. Some scholars have contended that the Synoptic Gospels never portray Jesus in terms suggesting his divinity, and that Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels never portrays himself in terms suggesting his divinity. However, this does not take adequate account of how the terms would have been heard by Jewish hearers. The book of Matthew in particular assumes some familiarity with Jewish customs and thought. It is here in the book of Matthew that we find Jesus' saying recorded:
For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matthew 18:20).
Jesus' remark that he could be present whenever and wherever people come together in his name is remarkable in itself. However, given the Jewish background of Jesus and his earliest hearers, and the likely Jewish audience of the Gospel of Matthew, it becomes a more pointed reference. In saying that he is the presence who is with believers when they come together, Jesus is identifying himself as the Presence of God, the Shechinah so often mentioned in the Torah and discussed by the Rabbis. This is the implication when he says, "Whenever two or three come together ... there am I with them."

The part omitted in the quote just previous is at least as remarkable: "whenever two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." The Scripture contains many promises of the Presence of God which the Rabbis discussed. These promises spoke of the blessing of God's presence on those gathered together either in God's name or to study the Torah, things that tend to occur together. In saying that the blessing fell when people were gathered in his name, Jesus draws the parallel that he is either the Torah -- the Word of God -- or God; he is the one in whose name people are gathered when studying the Torah and learning of God.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Harry Potter: Deleted Scene

This post is for Valentine's Day. Anyone who has no interest in the Harry Potter books will likewise have no interest in this post (just so you're forewarned). Did anyone else think that Severus Snape got an exceptionally raw deal in life? Here is a (fan-fiction) deleted scene to help out.

“If you don’t mind dying,” Snape said roughly, “why not let Draco do it?”

“That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,” said Dumbledore. “I would not have it ripped apart on my account.”

“And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?” (Deathly Hallows, p. 683).


The conversation replayed bitterly in Snape’s mind as he ran from Hogwarts. Harry Potter’s parting insult rang in his ears: Coward, he had called him, who had faced dangers Harry could only imagine as a spy in the Dark Lord’s ranks. But he had done it. He had spared Draco from becoming a murderer. And had become a murderer himself. He had killed the only man he had ever trusted. More than that, the only one he had ever respected. But Snape had one surprise yet to play, something of which Voldemort knew nothing – and neither did Dumbledore.

As he left the Hogwarts grounds, he quickly disapparated. He was due any moment at Malfoy Manor. But in this much commotion, a few moments’ delay would not be missed. He apparated on the doorstep of Number Twelve Grimmauld Place. Soon, no doubt, the place would be barred to him. But for the moment, the way was safe. He made his way inside, then strode quickly through musty halls which had been little used since the death of Sirius Black. He had despised Black and his arrogant friend James Potter. But now it was exactly that friendship between his old tormentors, Black and Potter, which brought him back to Grimmauld Place.

Upstairs, he went rapidly through Sirius’ effects. He searched quickly, at first methodically, but then with growing impatience as the minutes ticked on. Finally, he found what he sought: a picture of James and Lily Potter. They were watching their year-old son Harry on a toy broom. Disgusting, he thought to himself as the arrogant James Potter was framed forever in happiness with Lily, who was as lovely as ever. Severus studied the picture in his hand, timing his move carefully. When the image of young Harry was on his father’s side of the picture, he tore the picture quickly down the middle. He let James and Harry fall to the floor and looked into Lily’s eyes. She smiled, though Severus knew the smile was for James and Harry.

“That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,” said Dumbledore. “I would not have it ripped apart on my account.”

“And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?”


Severus silently performed the powerful spell that would bind the torn piece of his soul, touching his wand to Lily’s picture. It was on Dumbledore’s account that his soul was ripped apart; Snape intended to put that to good use. He wondered: Is it possible for a horcrux not to be dark magic? He looked again at the picture of Lily. She smiled, and now the smile was again for him.

He pocketed the picture of Lily. He would find a safe place for it shortly. For now, he was due at Malfoy Manor. He left Grimmauld Place quickly and disapparated into the night.



A note on the timeline:

If the events recorded in “The Prince’s Tale” (Deathly Hallows) are chronological, then this timeline won’t work since that chapter records the memory of Snape’s return to Grimmauld Place (pp. 688-689) after the memory of the attack on the Seven Potters, long after the night of Dumbledore’s death. However, I think it more likely that the memory of the return to Grimmauld Place isn’t in sequence there, since anti-Snape jinxes were put on Grimmauld Place at some point after Dumbledore’s death (see p. 168 of Deathly Hallows), probably promptly after Dumbledore’s death. Also, one of the anti-Snape jinxes seems to have been put in place by Mad-Eye Moody (see p. 170), who died the night of the attack on the Seven Potters, so again it seems those jinxes were in place even before Potter’s escape from Privet Drive. This makes it more likely that Snape’s return to Grimmauld place had already occurred at that point, that the memories recorded in “The Prince’s Tale” are simply the order in which Harry saw them and not the order in which they originally occurred. In that case the timeline suggested here becomes possible.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Lent 2 with Moltmann

Moltmann pondering the cross:
To suffer and to be rejected are not identical. Suffering can be celebrated and admired. It can arouse compassion. But to be rejected takes away the dignity from suffering and makes it dishonorable suffering. To suffer and be rejected signify the cross. To die on the cross means to suffer and die as one who is an outcast and rejected. (Jurgen Moltmann in The Crucified God. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993, p.55)