Atlantis

Preface: This is not the normal stuff I post here but I liked this topic and so I though I would share this with anyone who wants to read this. So here you go hope you enjoy this. 

Atlantis: Myth or Reality

Plato in Critias describes the death of one of the most advanced civilizations—Atlantis. “An island larger than Libya and Asia once upon a time, but now lies sunk by earthquakes and has created a barrier of impassable mud” (Plato, 265). The idea of Atlantis has been a matter of much debate. Some scholars maintain that Atlantis is a myth, claiming that Plato developed Atlantis as a literary device, while others see the story of Atlantis as a historic reality.

Those that take the historic viewpoint tend to look in two places for the mystical island Atlantis. In Timaeus Plato gives a description of where Atlantis was, “due west of the strait which your countrymen tell me you call the Pillars of Heracles lay and island larger than Libya and Asia together” (Plato, 9).  This leads most Atlantis searchers to look for Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean. While others maintain that while Atlantis is real we can’t take everything from the Platonic account as gospel because of the poor recoding practices and retellings that occurred during that time period. Thus Atlantis could be real but located in a different place much closer to Greece than originally thought.

The traditional view held by many scholars is that Plato’s account of Atlantis is a myth. Plato routinely would use myths in his writings as devices to make his argument stronger. “It [myth] provided what he termed ‘another road’ to truth (Politicus 268), appealing to the spirit rather than to the intellect” (Forsyth, 76).  According to Forsyth, Plato was more likely to use nontraditional myths, invented stories, as opposed to traditional Greek myths. For the story of Atlantis this is bad news. It seems like Plato is twice as likely to have created it to serve his philosophical purposes as opposed to being an actual event that took place. Forsyth says it this way; “had Plato’s other myths consistently revealed traditional elements that could have some (even slight) historical basis, we could be relatively confident that such was also the case with Atlantis” (Forsyth 77). He then concludes that because this is not the case we should be much more skeptical of the reality of the existence of Atlantis. 

            Myth while not being historically true has a spiritual or moral  “truth” that can be pointed to. Jesus did much of his teaching through parables or stories about people and actions that were not actually historically true. Plato could have been portraying this kind of truth through his story of Atlantis. “It means that the insistence on the ‘truth’ of Atlantis legend by Socrates and Critias should not blind us to the possibility that this ‘truth’ is of spiritual rather than historical kind” (Forsyth 77). Plato often used myths to portray his philosophical ideas and Atlantis could be just one such myth.

In the recent years people have taken to the idea that Plato was talking about a historical incident were an advanced civilization was wiped out in a natural disaster just as Plato described. First while Plato is the most well know source for the Atlantis story there are several references to a similar incident in many cultures. “Berber tribes of North Africa retain their own legend of Attala, a warlike kingdom off the African coast with rich mines of gold, silver, and tin…Attala is now under the ocean” (Berlitz 19). Avalon is an island that the British Celts and Welsh peoples claimed they came from that is now sunk in the Atlantic Ocean. In Spain people claim to trace their heritage back to Atlantis or Atlaintika. In Portugal they claim that Atlantis or Atlantida, once existed close to them and that the Azores Islands, are mountain peaks of the lost continent.  With many Atlantis type stories, a large landmass and advanced civilization that sank into the ocean, should make use think a little bit harder about whether or not there is some truth to Plato’s account. The similarity in the names, Atlantis, Attala, Atlaintika, and Atlantida, also gives us more of inkling that there might be some truth to the account in the Timaeus and the Critias.

            In the Bahamas there have been discoveries of stone roads and walls creating what looks like a city under the water. “Scores of other examples extend through the waters of the Bahama Banks; sometimes forming great stone circles, like Stonehenge” (Berlitz 94). These structures are definitely man made and could not have been a random occurrence. “Many of the stones are of flint-hard micrite, unlike the soft beach rock. The lines of closely fitted stones are straight, mutually parallel, and terminate in cornerstones.” These roads sound like there are manmade and could be part of the lost city of Atlantis.

The second popular theory as to where Atlantis is located is on the island of Thera, which is located north of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea. There are a few apparent difficulties with this theory. First the location is not pas the “Pillars’ of Hercules” (Plato 9). The pillars refer to the straight of Gibraltar, which leads out of the Mediterranean Sea and into the Atlantic Ocean. Those that hold to this theory state that Plato heard the story second had therefore some of the particulars are probably mixed up. “The story as told by the priest himself to Solon was probably confused enough, and when it reached Plato it was still more confused” (Balch 389).   This would allow for the island to be located somewhere other than outside the Mediterranean Sea.

The second problem is the size of the island. Plato describes a large land mass “larger than Libya and Asia put together” (Plato 265). Those that hold to a Minoan theory on Atlantis state that there was a miss translation of the symbol for one hundred into the symbol for one thousand when the story was originally told by Solon to the Egyptian priest. This would make the island much smaller. It could have existed in the Mediterranean and would not have to be moved out to the Atlantic Ocean.  “It is also possible that the size of Atlantis increased with each telling of the tale, a phenomenon of oral story-telling still observable to day” (Forsyth 161). This coupled with the miss transcription numeric symbols could have over stated the size of Atlantis.

The miss interpretation of the numeric symbols also answers a third problem dealing with the date of Atlantis. According to Plato Atlantis existed at 9600 B.C. while Minoan Crete civilization peaked from 2000 to 1459 B.C. therefore Minoan Crete could not be the Atlantis civilization. When adjusted for the translation error Atlantis is placed around 1500 B.C. when Minoan civilization is at its height. Atlantis’ destruction is then easily tied to the eruption of Thera, c. 1450 B.C. 

Atlantis is a mystery that will continue down the ages. Both ideas, reality and literary device, have strong points and weaker ones. What we can be sure of is that the story of Atlantis will continue to inspire more exploration of the ocean floor and interest in archeology. This is the true gift of Atlantis, the push to discover and learn about the ancient world. 

Works Cited

Balch, Swift Edwin. “Atlantis or Minoan Crete.” Geographical Review 3.5 (1917): 388   392. Web. Nov. 21 2009.

Berlitz, Charles. Atlantis the Eighth Continent . Toronto: General Publishing Co Limited,      1984. Print.

Forsyth, Phillis Young. Atlantis the Making of Myth. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University    Press, 1980. Print.

Plato. Critias. Trans. R.G. Bury. Cambridge: Harvered University Press, 1929. Print.

Plato. Timaeus. Trans. John Warrington. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1965. Print. 

A thought in progress: The Canonical Order in Biblical Interpretation

The Role of Canonical Order in Biblical Interpretation

            The canonical method holds that the order of the books are important and there is information that helps inform our understanding of a particular text based on where it is found in the canon. A great deal of emphasis is placed on going back to the TaNaKa order when reading the Old Testament. While the canonical method has some merits when it come to understanding the roots of Christianity and the emphasis that it places on using the texts to interpret the texts it lacks the support to make it a viable theory.      

The Method

The canonical method places an emphasis on the idea that the bible is a unified whole with a specific arrangement of books and to drive home a major point. They see the bible as a cohesive whole that God specifically ordered so that an explicit message would be communicated to his people. It is through understanding the order and how the order influences the meaning of texts that new revelations and insight is gathered on God’s scripture.   

The canonical method advocates for a return to the TaNaKa order because this is the order that was created by the Jewish people and therefore the order that God intended the Old Testament to be read. These advocates see connections in the way the TaNaKa is ordered and laid out.

The usage of the TaNaKa in place of the western order is preferred as it is the order that has been given to the Israelites and it represents their own understanding of the scriptures. It is also considered that it is this canon that is quoted in the New Testament. It is this order of books that the New Testament considers the divine scriptures[1] so therefore we must follow the general order of the TaNaKa.[2]

            The Hebrew bible is seen as being dived into three main theological sections. With the Torah being the foundation for life in the community. The Torah then sets the stage for the second section of books by ending with this “And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”[3] The third section of books refers back to the Torah and if we think of the first two sections as God acting and God speaking the final section would be the people speaking to God.[4]

            By using this method the ideas and influence of the Torah is seen throughout the whole Hebrew canon. The books build on each other and help us understand the books before it in the canon and after it in the canon. “…Because it is an unfolding canon, intertextual connections between the books must be duly noted.”[5] The canonical method argues that we must first read the Torah so that we can understand the prophets and that we must first read the prophets so that we can understand the writings.

The canonical method argues that it is a better idea then that of a thematic hermeneutic due to the fact that there are many different themes that can be pulled from the bible and many different ways to view these themes.

“The themes are often viewed from quite different perspectives and with different sorts of presuppositions, and their various aspects illuminate and complement one another. Thus the variety of voices with in the Hebrew Bible gains its quite specific structure through the arrangement of the canon.”[6]

The issue here is that we as humans bring our own understanding to themes and we see what we want while the structure of the TaNaKa keeps us honest and shows us how these themes and presuppositions all work in concert to expand our understanding of God.

This method also helps to keep the historical events and timeline before the reader. By using this method the reader is kept up to date on the historical context during which the events are taking place.[7] Other methods for study do not allow the reader to easily understand and grasp the history of the Jewish people. This is mainly due to the fact that other systems jump around thematically and require continual reminders of the historical setting that the passage was written in. While the canonical method goes book by book so the historical details are present as the reader moves from passage to passage.

This leads us to the understanding that most canonical advocates are staunch “analogy of faith” defenders. They see scripture defining scripture as key in their understanding and study of the scriptures. Those in the canonical method will look to other places in the bible to uphold and explain the problem passages that they encounter. [8]

Strengths of The Canonical Method

            The canonical method places a great deal of emphasis on the unity of scripture. They see the scriptures as a unified whole with a specific message to get across to the people of God. It assumes that there is a connection between the books specifically in the Old Testament. “There is scarcely a theme that dose not appear in some way in several or all parts of the canon [the Hebrew canon].”[9]

            Not only does the canonical method provide a strong argument for the unity of scripture is also places an importance on the role of scripture to interpret scripture. So instead of looking outside of the scriptures for the answers the canonical scholar will look to other places in scripture to gain insight into problem passages. This shows that the canonical scholars have a very high opinion of scripture and relies on it to solve the problems that it presents.

            This high opinion of scripture naturally leads one to conclude that the canonical method is God centered. Because it depends on the idea that the scriptures contain all we need to understand them then it follows that the focuses has to be on God to find the meaning of his scriptures. 

            The canonical method also allows for those without extensive knowledge of the bible and the theological implication of each book to follow the reasoning of theologians and those that prescribe to other methods.

“One of the drawbacks of a noncanonical or non-book-by-book, approach is that many current students do not have extensive biblical knowledge. Therefore it is quite difficult for these students to use a systematic or dialectic approach that assumes the have already mastered the theological details in individual Bible books.” [10]

This method allows access to the scriptures that might otherwise be overwhelming to those with out the necessary background for study. It helps to foster the idea that Luther and others of the reformation fought for that every man and woman can read and understand the scriptures for themselves.

Critic of the Canonical Method

            For all the good that this method has going for it there are some serious issues that make the method seem less useful.

            First in order to hold onto the canonical interpretations at time the authorial intent has to be thrown over board in favor of the canonical interpretations. “In doing so, however, he [Childs] has had to jettison interest in the historical ‘intended meaning’ of the biblical author in favor of a canonical interpretation.”[11] This seems ludicrous, in order to keep consistent with the method the author is left by the wayside in favor of the canon. It would seem that the author of the book would take precedent over the place and shape of the canon when it comes to looking at passages. For it is the author not the canon that penned the book and it is the author not the canon that has a specific message to get across.

            Second if there is a specific order that we need to read the bible in how do we know that we have picked the proper order. There is little evidence that the Masortic Texts (MT) are the one and only Hebrew reading tradition. There are various formations of books and even chapters with in books. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX) we find that the Minor Prophets are arranged in a different order then those in the MT texts. Then there is the issue of Jeremiah having a different chapter orders from the LXX to the MT as well as Ezekiel having differing chapter lengths. These differences from the LXX to the MT seem to point toward there being different traditions with in the Jewish world on the order of the books. For a method that draws significance from how the books are ordered it is necessary to know which is the correct order. And it would seem that it is impossible to know which is the correct order. With out a proper order the meaning found in the order is just a nice little addendum that might or might not mean anything. If there were different traditions with in the Jewish world it would seem to negate any necessity to read the scriptures in a specific order.     

            Third before there were books there were scrolls. It is hard to argue that there is a necessary order to the bible when it was the invention of the printing press that placed them in an order. Before the printing press all the scrolls were kept in a bin and brought out when they wanted to read them. This leads one to wonder if there is any meaning at all that can be derived from an order that was created so that the books could be published. While they might have been placed in some rough categories to help sort the bins it seems to me to be foolish to place a great weight on the order of the books when this order was created for the printing press and the invention of the book.[12]

            Fourth while the use of scripture determines scripture has the potential to be a dangerous tool. It sounds like a wonderful idea that if there is a problem with a passage another passage in the bible can clarify it. Yet this can lead to what is called “parallelomaia”[13] this is the term for the inclination to take any passage that is analogues and define the meaning or origin of a biblical idea. This also leads to an increase in overreaching for biblical unity.

“This also can lead to an over emphasis upon the unity of biblical texts, resulting in what Cason calls an ‘artificial conformity’ that ignores the diversity of expression and emphasis between divergent statements in the bible.”[14]

This is one of the great dangers of using analogia fidei instead of allowing the text to have ambiguity unity is preferred and forced at the expense of the author’s original meaning. Instead of asking what might the author be doing with the ambiguous passage or controversial one unity is preferred and forced upon the passage by referencing others.  Our understanding of scripture and desire to see it untied or our faith can over run the scripture. “Ebling goes so far as to claim that the analogia fiedei actually undercuts a true biblical theology, since in the end ‘the faith’ or the interpreter’s preunderstanding takes precedence over Scripture itself.” [15] It is scripture that should take the precedent neither our understanding nor our faith should lead the way but scripture. 

            Fifth the canonical method seems to draw deeper meaning from the order of the texts. This feels like some twisted or mild form of sensus plenior. They, the canonical scholars, appear to be drawing deeper meaning from the text biased on the order that it is in the canon. While this is not the full-blown sensus plenior ideal it is close to it and can lead some down that road. That the canon shows a deeper meaning for the texts that you would not have know about otherwise.    

Conclusion

            While the canonical method proposes some unique ideas and appeals a place in us that desires to see deeper meanings in the bible it seems to have many flaws in its system to allow it to stand on its own.

The method does place a great emphasis on the role of God and the scriptures and we should not dismiss this but it is more likely that this method is not one that should be use exclusively in the study of the bible. Rather it should be used in conjunction with authorial intent. In order to gain a broader understanding of how the bible is a unified whole we can carefully and with limited application look at how the book works with in the canon to create a broader story and point that God is getting across to his people.

We should not be so quick to abandon the author in all of our biblical study. For it is the author that sets the meaning of texts not to the order of the texts. It is through the author that we understand and learn while the canonical method looks to the canon to provide the meaning for the passages it is really the author that does this not the order of books.

This method brings to light the issue of duel authorship. For if the canon was set by God why not the order of the books? And why not meaning in the order of the books? This leads to the dangerous course of loosing the human author and emphasizing one author over the other. when in reality we should realize that God inspired the human author to write therefore what he wrote is what God wanted written. This leads to the idea that it does not matter what order the books are in for they were written independently and God has taken them and woven them into a tapestry that has him at the center.

---

[1] Paul House here points to Luke 24.44 as textual evidence for this claim. While the verse lists the books in the TaNaKa order I am unconvinced that this is firm evidence of the one and only way that the scriptures should be ordered, rather Jesus is saying I was talked about before.

[2] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p 55.

[3] Deuteronomy 34.10

[4] Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament. pp. 5-6.

[5] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p. 55.

[6] Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament. p. 8.

[7] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p. 55.

[8] Osborne R., Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. pp. 271-272

[9] Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament. p. 8.

[10] House R., Paul. Old Testament Theology. p. 56

[11] Osborne R, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 272 this quote is in reference to Childs and his specific changes and while this might not be true of all proponents of this method it is interesting to note that at times one must chose to either abandon the canonical method or authorial intent in order to explain some passages. 

[12] Dr. Koivisto in summer hermeneutics class pointed out that the scrolls were kept in bins and not organized in any particular order.

[13] Sandmel’s term found and used by Osborne R, Grant The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 273

[14] Osborne R, Grant The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 273

[15] Osborne R, Grant The Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 273 

A Study: 1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15

Exposition

            1 Corinthians 15 breaks into four major sections beginning first with a foundation of what the gospel is, then building on that foundation Paul makes a case for the bodily resurrection of the saints, discusses what it means for the saints to be raised and culminates in a final exhortation to continue in the way of the Lord.

15.1-11

            “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, the to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder  than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then  it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”[1]

This sections lays the ground work for Paul’s argument. Here he is laying out the fundamentals of the Christian faith and putting forth the idea that this is already agreed upon truth. Paul will draw on this foundation as the crux of his argument for the bodily resurrection of the believers. “Paul follows the standard argument technique of beginning with an agreed-on premise; the Corinthians must agree with the very *gospel by which they were converted.”[2] This seems to be the normal way that Paul chose to make his points.

“It would be in keeping with this that Paul elsewhere seems to assume the Corinthians' acceptance of many features of early Christian eschatology—judgment to come (iii 13 ff.;     iv 5; vi 2 f. ; xi 32; cf. ix 27), the coming end of the present age (vii 29, 31; χ 11; xiii 8, 10, 12; xv 24 ff., 50 ff.), and the return of Christ (xi 26; xv 23; xvi 22; cf. i 7 f.). He speaks to them as if he could assume their assent to the basic elements of the Christian gospel (xi 2; xv if., n ).”[3]

            The premise that this section is setting out is the found in verses 3-4. This is what Paul is going to argue from in the coming verses. He is going to point toward the fact that Jesus was raised bodily therefore we also will be raised bodily. The thrust of Paul’s argument is going to come from the mutual acceptance of these two verses.

15.12-34         

“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”[4]

In this section Paul begins to address the issues in the Corinthian church about those that are denying the resurrection of the dead. This is the first doctrinal issue that Paul has addressed here in his epistle so far.[5] Up until now the issues have been those of bodily function as a church, and immorality in the church. This is the first doctrinal issue and one that does not seem to be held by everyone as he address only a select group.[6]

Paul then goes on to argue that if you believe that Christ is raised you must believe in resurrection for to deny resurrection is to deny the salvation that you have received.  It is inconsistent to believe in a God that has been risen from the dead and then to turn around and deny the resurrection of the dead. “If the resurrection of Christ is a proven fact, which non of them denied, it is illogical to say there is no resurrection of the dead.”[7]

After this first thrust at the false doctrine Paul switches tact a little bit and launches into a lengthy discussion concerning Adam and Christ as the second Adam. This is used to further the idea that there is a bodily resurrection. This is the positive side of the argument here Paul is saying that Adam brought death but Christ has made all alive.[8] This usage of the names, Adam and Christ, adds the emphasis that these are real men that Paul is referencing. And that through these real men came death and then life. “In view of the fact that Paul earlier referred to them that are asleep we are inclined to take die of the natural death. Made alive would then refer to the resurrection of the body.”[9] This helps to clarify how we understand this reference while it is true literally it also points toward the eschatological future where the power of sin has been broken and we are made alive through Christ.

            Paul then ends this section by saying that if the dead are not raised then what are we doing here we should be out partying.[10]  “[…] A reasonable philosophy if there is no resurrection. Man is no better then the beast that perish.”[11]     This is once again pushing forth the idea that he started the section with. If the dead are not raised the Christ is not raised and our preaching and faith are for naught because the hope of Christianity lies on the bedrock of Christ being raised from the dead. Without Christ being raised the whole Christian faith falls apart.

15.35-49

            “But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.”[12]

            This is the fist question you would expect and Paul heads it off here by saying listen it is not what you are in this life that matters but it is following God. What Paul says here is that there are different bodies for the differing places of existence. In verse 40 this becomes explicitly clear as he says there are different bodies for earth and for heaven. While these are not necessarily the exact same bodies what Paul is saying here is that there will be bodies that manifest our own essence. “God is well able at Christ coming to invest each individual believer with a new resurrection body which will be in perfect harmony with his own essential being.”[13] This helps to answer the question of what happens if the body is burned or lost at sea. What Paul essential ends up saying is God is amazing and can figure out how to raise these people from the dead.    

            Paul then goes on in verse 42-49 to say that we will be like Christ. The key verses in this sub-section are verse 48-49: “As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” These verses help to solidify the idea that Christians will be given a new body. “The final resurrection is by no means merely an experience of spiritual power and gifting in the present. Rather it is a qualitatively different bodily existence which can only be gained through the granting of a new, resurrected and spiritual body.”[14] This helps us to understand that what Paul is saying is that we will be getting new bodies that are in the image of Christ and his heavenly nature for we are followers of him not of the sin and death represented by Adam and his early body.

15.50-58

            “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain”[15]

            These verses really put into context the reason that resurrection is such an important doctrine. For our faith and perseverance is bound up in the promise that one day we will be raised from the dead to live with Christ. “Whether we are living or dead at the coming of Christ, this wonderful transformation will take place; the resurrection day will have come and the final victor of Christ will be proclaimed.”[16] What is seen in this quote is the mindset this section of the chapter is attempting to get across to the Corinthians. What they should be doing is persevering in the faith awaiting this wonderful and glorious day.

            Paul is also encouraging the beliers to hold onto the right living that he has been exhorting them to in the rest of his letter. “Just as Judaism often linked failure to believe in the future world with immoral living, and faith in future judgment with perseverance, Paul encourages believers to hold to the truth of the resurrection and so to right living.”[17] Keener is linking the correction and exhortation in the resurrection to the rest of the letter and seeing this whole exhortation to cover the rest of the letter as well as this specific section. This is seen in the fact that while Paul specifically addressed the issue of resurrection he makes implicit allusions to the previous issues of right living.[18]  

            This concludes the chapter and points us to continue in the faith because of the great reward of resurrection that awaits us on resurrection day.

Theological Conclusions

            This passage gives us a good look at the theology of the resurrection. Here we see that the idea of bodily resurrection is tied directly to the person of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection.

            What is seen in this passage is a very vigorously and elementary defense by Paul to the fact that we are going to be raised bodily from the grave and have some new type of heavenly body given to us. This is seen by Paul to be a fundamental tenant of the faith. As he points toward the fact that to believe otherwise would call into question the life the Christ which is the foundation of the faith.

            Therefore as believers we must carry on and persevere in the faith for resurrection is what we have to look forward to. Paul ends his defense of the resurrection of the believer with the exhortation to continue in the things of the spirit and to walk with this promise of resurrection in mind.  This is seen most evidently in verse 58 where we see Paul telling the Corinthians to be “steadfast” and “immovable” knowing that the work of the Lord goes forth.

Application

            We as believers need to keep the idea of our resurrection in our mind. This should be there to help us remember to be active in our ministry for one day we will be resurrected. We must do as Paul exhorts us to do and, “ be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”[19] This should be our key verse for understanding and applying this text to our lives we must keep this at the forefront in our understanding of the bodily resurrection.  The idea of resurrection should inspire these types of thoughts within us.

Practical Response:

1)    Memorize the verses that have to do with being steadfast and immovable

2)    Meditate on what it means to be bodily resurrected

3)    Identify some problem areas in your life and approach those areas through the lens of bodily resurrection.

Works Cited

The English Standard Version. Gen. Ed. Wayne Grudem. Wheaton IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001.    Print.

Goodrick, W. Edward, Kohlenberger III, R. John. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance.     Grand Rapids, Michagan: Zondervan, 1999. Print.

Grosheide, F.W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI:   Wm.    B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 1968. Print.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. and Ralh P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, Eds. Dictionary of Paul and his     Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Print.

Howley, G.C.D., and F.F. Bruce, and H.L. Ellison, Eds. A New Testament Commentary. Grand    Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1969. Print.

Janssen, Claudia. "BODILY RESURRECTION (1 COR. 15)? THE DISCUSSION OF THE        RESURRECTION IN KARL BARTH, RUDOLF BULTMANN, DOROTHEE SOLLE AND CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST THEOLOGY." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 79 (2000): 61. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament. Downers Grove,           IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Print.

Wedderburn, A J M. "The problem of the denial of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15."  Novum            testamentum 23.3 (1981): 229-241. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials.  EBSCO. Web. 6 Dec. 2010.

---

[1] English Standered Version (ESV)

[2] Keener p.484

[3] Janssen, p.238

[4] 1 Cor. 15:12-17 ESV (because this is such a large section I will be inserting only the passages that will help to show the argument.)

[5] Grosheide p. 346

[6] “How can some of you say that there is no resurrection […]” 15.12 emphasis added.

[7] A New Testament Commentary (ANTC) p. 409

[8] 15.22 ESV

[9] Grosheide p.363

[10] “If the dead are not raised,” Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."15.32b (ESV)

[11] ANTC p. 411

[12] 15.35-40 ESV

[13] ANTC p. 412

[14] Dictionary of Paul and his letters (DOPAHL) p. 167

[15] 15.56-58 ESV

[16] ANTC p. 412

[17] Keener p.489

[18] 15.33 ESV

[19] 15.58b ESV

An Investigation of Early Church Christology

An Investigation of Early Church Christology

                                                                             

                                                 “The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began,

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow if I can,

  Pursuing it with eager feet,

Until it joins some larger way

Where many path and errands meet.

       And whither then? I cannot say.”[1]

            Just as a path begins the journey for Frodo onto the road toward Mordor and the destruction of evil so Christology begins as several paths as the early church struggled to understand and communicate Jesus’ relationship with the Father. Culminating with the doctrine of the Trinity in an effort to explain the person and work of Jesus, The Christ. 

            As this is a large and expansive topic this paper will focus on the paths that deal with the person of Jesus and his relationship to the Father. Attempting to show the different ideas in reconciling the monotheistic nature of Christianity with the seemingly plurality of Jesus being God as well.

            Several major thinkers of the early church attempted to answer this question to varying degrees of success. This paper will deal with the following individuals and their contributions to the ideas of Christology in the early church: Justin Martyr, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, Arian, and Athanasius. These individuals contributions will each be discussed as paths on the road toward the Nicene Council which produced the orthodox position of the catholic[2] church on the issues of Christology.

Christology

            First there needs to be a couple of words on the concept of Christology and what it means. This word describes the task of dealing with the person of Christ and his relationship with the Father as well as his humanity. Robert Norris states it this way, “to understand or evaluate Jesus christologically means, on the one hand, to ask about his relation to God, and on the other, to seek a way of expressing his representative characters a human being”[3]

Justin Martyr

            Justin Martyr was one of the great apologists of his era. He attempted to bring together Christianity and the philosophical ideas of the Greeks. This ultimately lead him down the wrong path but it helped to push forward ideas of Christology and attempted to interact with the culture of the day.[4]

            Justin drew on the ideas of the Greek philosophers in order to help understand his Logos approach to Christology. He took the Logos to be the divine reason that ruled the earth. Justin saw the Logos as the reality that made God know to the people of the old covenant and subsequently came down to earth in human form. Justin’s language comes primarily from John 1:1-14[5] where Jesus is seen as the Logos that is begotten of the father for the creation of the world. This leads Justin down the path of having the Logos as subordinate in essence to God the Father.

“Logos was the divine reason uttered as divine Word for the sake of forming and    governing the world. As such, of course, it was perfectly expressive of God’s being and            purposes. It was like a fire lit from the fire that is God. Nevertheless, it was derivative,      and for that reason inferior to the one God.”[6] 

Thus Justin sees Jesus as one that is expressive of God but not on the same playing field. He is a perfect surrogate yet does not hold the same power and authority as God the Father does.

            Through his Logos theology Justin attempted to reconcile the truths he saw in the philosophical traditions of the Greeks and the ideas of Judaism with the person of Jesus. Justin saw the Logos as being the rational principal that is available to everyone thus humankind can at times access the Logos in its understanding of things. But only the person of Jesus Christ had full access to the Logos as he embodied it.[7]

            The major problem with this idea of the Logos being the divine reason that was begotten by the Father is that it sets Jesus up as a kind of bumper state between humanity and God seeing only the Father as the true God and the Logos as his middleman between himself and humanity. Thus Justin sets up the Logos as the reason that was in Jesus rather then God. For Justin it is this divine reason that is incarnate in Jesus.  These issues are what make Justin’s Logos theology such a troubling thought, as he does not flesh this particular idea out any further.[8]

Tertullian of Carthage

            Tertullian wrote on the issues of Christology in an effort to combat the ideas of the Gnostic and dualistic writers of the day. He spent time focusing on the flesh of Christ as to underline and drive home the point that Jesus as a divine being was also flesh.

            Tertullian’s basic argument against the Gnostic ideas and Marcion in particular is the idea that the flesh for all its ugliness and sinfulness it is still an object of God’s love.[9] Tertullian took the ideas of God being one yet having different personas and expanded it in order to defend the idea of a monotheistic God against the Roman polytheistic concepts of God. This lead to his explanation that Jesus was both human and divine partaking in both of the natures—human and divine.

“Thus, early in the West, with Tertullian, we have an awareness of the two complete

natures in Christ, although Tertullian did not use the Greek language of physis but  his own Latin concept of substantia. …so it was valuable in his Christology: In Christ there are two substances, duae substantiae.”[10]  

This concept of Jesus having two natures is critical in understanding how Jesus is both God and human. Without both of these natures the atonement and resurrection would be pointless. Tertullian found the proper way to understand the mystery of Jesus having both human and divine qualities.

            Tertullian was adamant about the fact that both the divinity and humanity of Jesus was found in his incarnate self. For without this there is no point in a human man dying for our sins as he would not be perfect and if he is fully divine then he is not a mediator rather there must be both with in the person of Christ and Tertullian stresses the fact that Jesus was both human and divine. “The two substances continue unaltered in the one person and provide the bases for two kinds of activity, human and divine.”[11]

Origen of Alexandria

            Origen takes the stance that the Father begot the Son eternally. In essence there never has been a time when the Father and Son have not been together. Origen sees the Son as one who is below the Father. He holds to the hierarchical view that Justin Martyr introduced in his Logos theology and Origen continues this thought.

            Origen holds the idea that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father as a fundamental truth.

“So Origen tells us that the common rule of faith as he understood it included the   confession the Jesus Christ was born of the Father before all creatures, ad served God in     the making of the world before he himself came into the world that he made, becoming       man while he yet remained divine.”[12]

This is what Origen was most concerned with. He wanted to stress the point that Jesus has existed eternally. While Origen saw Jesus as eternally existing he did not see him as one that was equal with God. Rather Origen saw Jesus as an image of God. Origen sees Jesus as the complete expression of God’s being and mediator between God and humanity.

            This understanding of Jesus is one that leads down the path of having one God but yet still keeping Jesus from being wholly divine. What Origen does is similar to what Justin does in his Logos theology. Like Justin Origen’s world is very hierarchical and one that stresses the need for mediation between God and humanity. Thus the Christian is unable to come to God but rather all things must be passed through Jesus in order to have community with God.

            Origen had some really good contributions to the road of orthodoxy in Christology but ultimately the totality of his view places Jesus as a second-class citizen of the trinity in relationship with God and this is just unacceptable. Yet he does add the very important contribution to the debate and understanding that Jesus was eternally with God and that The Father never existed without the Son.    

Arian

            Arian took the ideas of a transcend God from the teachings of Origen and Justin and expressed the implicit understanding explicitly. Basically he saw God as wholly transcendent and the mediator between God and humanity, the Logos, as a created being. This created being was created before the ages and therefore is a supreme being (i.e. the Fifth Element[13]). Thus the Logos is a created being and not divine.  

            Arius was attempting to provide an answer on how could there be two God’s, The Father and Jesus, while still maintaining the monotheistic nature of Christianity. This lead Arian down the road of having God being so transcendent that he was unable to mix with humanity so he created a mediator. Arian stresses the createdness of the mediator.

“Since, for Arius, the Son is truly on the side of creaturely divide, not truly God, he cannot fully know God. He is distinct from God’s very essence, not homoousios with God, only God by grace, God is name only. …God’s transcendence remains protected and ultimately unbridgeable.”[14]  

Arius’ Christ was one that was for all intents and purposes a demigod that was able to bridge the gap between the immanent humanity and the transcendent God who lived in heaven and did not mix with his creation on earth.[15]

            There are three key elements to the understanding of Arius’ Christology. The first has been touched on already and it deals with his understanding that the unbigoted Father begets Christ. This is key for Arius as it holds the rest of his theological ideas together. If Christ is not a created being then the rest of his arguments and discussion are meaningless.

Arius then build on to this by saying that created beings are unable to know God therefore Christ is unable to know God and his intentions as he is a created being. “ Arius holds that “’The one who has a beginning is in no position to comprehend or lay hold of the one who has not beginning.’”[16] Here Arius is lowering the understanding of Christ down to that of the human level. He believes and presses home that he Son is unable to do anything apart and unaided from God the Father. Everything the Son does on earth is done with the help and grace of God the Father.

Arius responds to the places that seem to have Jesus claiming divinity by stating that these places the term is being used honorifically. He argues that the language of son and sonship in John is just metaphorical language. This was a way in which the Supreme Being was honored and all of this must come back to the controlling thought that God was wholly different from created beings and therefore different from the Son.       

Thus Arius can be summed up to have the understanding that Jesus was a created being who mediates the relationship between humanity and the transcendent God; yet who is unable to know the mind of God and is wholly different in essence then God.[17]

Athanasius

            Athanasius responded to Arius’ incorrect thinking and helped to resolve the problems tha Arius’ Christology brought up. The major problem that Athanasius has with the idea that the Logos is a created being is that if he is a created being he is created. There is no division between created beings there is no such thing as the being having different powers because they are created. A created human is a created human.

            Athanasius was just as concerned about the monotheistic nature of God and the potential issues revolving around the idea that Jesus was God. This raises pluralistic questions that have to be answered and Athanasius came at the issue in total opposition to Arius. “He granted that for the Creator to become human and submit to the power of creatures must seem humiliating. But that was the only way to save humankind from moral and physical extinction.”[18] From this a God that is relational is seen as opposed to Arius transcendent God who is unable to mix and communicate with his people. This picture of God is one that is concerned about his people and desires to have a relationship with him.  

            Athanasius focused much of his argument on the concept that Jesus was a divine being that was the same in essence as that of the Father. He used a simple syllogism to explain this:

“Only God can save us

Jesus Christ saves us

Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.”[19]

This argumentation is difficult to disprove for there are numerous verses and all of Paul practically gives us the answer that Jesus Christ saves us and therefore he must be God. Athanasius also made a clear connection about Jesus having to be divine in order to save us. With out the divine nature the cross and resurrection have little to no significance. “Unless the Son is son by nature, he cannot possess the attributes of the divine nature (immortality) which are necessary for our salvation.”[20]  

            While Athanasius got to the core of the issue and dealt with the fact that Jesus was divine he did not fully solve the issue of how Jesus was both divine and human. He still stuck to the principal that Jesus was mostly a divine being in habiting a human shell. “This theory is often referred to as the Logos and sarx (flesh) being such that Christ has no human soul.”[21] This presents a problem for if Jesus has no human soul he is not truly a human and thus the death of Christ has little significance for humanity. In the death of Christ it was not seen as a separation of soul and body but rather a separation of body and Logos.[22] This idea sticks with the understanding that Christ was not fully human but rather a kind of shell inhabited by a divine spirit.

Nicene Creed      

            The council of Nicaea met from May till the end of June in 325 CE. The council was the catholic church’s attempt to codify and lay out exactly what they believe concerning the Trinity, in function and personhood. The council was predicated by the clash between Arian and Athanasius. This council was the place at which all the ideas were to be put to the test of the bible and a conclusion was to be obtained. The product of the council was the Nicene Creed, which lays out what is considered as orthodox belief concerning the trinity. As this was a very important issue great care was taken to insure that all the bishops were in attendance and that they came to a statement that matched scripture. 

            The Nicene Creed gives us a clear understanding of the relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is one of the first documents to do so and clears up a lot of the issues surrounding the Christological debates of the early church. The following sections are the part that deals with Christology in the creed:

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God begotten as only begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens is coming to judge the living and the dead:… But those who say, ‘there was a time when he did not exist’, and ‘before being begotten he did not exist’, and that he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is alterable or changeable these the Catholic and Apostolic church condemns.”[23]  

This statement contains the anathema that addresses Arianism specifically and speaks to the reason for the statement in the first place.

            As the statement emphatically states Jesus, the Son, is seen as equal to God the Father. There are several statements made over and over again in an effort to drive home this point. The language used is very close to the language that John uses in his gospel and all of these statements speak to the person and work of Jesus in an effort to clarify and state in no uncertain terms that Jesus is God.

            This statement is the final form of Christology and the beginning place for any discussion on the issue of Christology from this point onward. This statement sets out what orthodox Christology is and sets the stage for the rest of the conversations on Christology from this time forward.

Concluding Thoughts

            As the paths have been followed it has been demonstrated in a very limited and small scope that as the church grew and learned these paths of Christology all lead into one road that goes for ever onward in the Nicene Creed as the orthodoxy to keep Christianity on the straight and narrow road.

            While most of the early church theologians struggled individually to understand and explain this idea of Jesus and how he relates to the rest of the Godhead they all contributed to the ideas and eventually they got it right in the Nicene Creed. As all of the biblical contributions came together into the cohesive whole bringing the clarity that doing theology in community produces.    

Bibliology

Carrington, Philip.  The Early Christian Church Volume 2 The Second Christian Century.  Cambridge: University Press, 1957. Print.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing    Company, 1967. Print.

Christology of the Later Fathers. Ed. Edward R. Hardy. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1954. Print.

George, Samuel. "The Emergence of Christology in the Early Church - a Methodological    Survey with Particular Reference to the Anti-Heretical Polemics of Irenaeus of Lyons." Asia    Journal of Theology 24.2 (2010): 219-253. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28    Apr. 2011.

Goergen, Donald J. The Jesus of Christian History. Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Print.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI:    Zondervan, 1994. Print.

Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1988.         Print.

Harper, Brad Ph.d. Senior Theology Class Notes. Multnomah University 2011

Inbody, Tyron L. The Many Faces of Christology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002. Print.

McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought.      Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print

                                                                                                 

Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Print

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin Company, 2002. Print.

Wand, J.W.C. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Limited, 1955. Print.

---

[1] Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin Company, 2002. Print. p.35

[2] catholic church in this paper will refer to the universal church body. Not jus the Catholic Church. 

[3] Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Print. pp. 1-32

[4] McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print. pp.17-38

[5] ¹In the beginning was he Word, and the Word was with God, and he Word was God. ²He was in the beginning with God. ³All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. ⁴In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.⁶There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. ⁸ He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.⁹ The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. ¹⁰He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. ¹¹He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. ¹²But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, ¹³who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. ¹⁴And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,  and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[6] Norris pp.6-7

[7] Goergen, Donald J. The Jesus of Christian History. Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press,           1992. Print. pp. 44-55

[8] Norris p.7

[9] Norris p. 13

[10] Goergen p. 117

[11] Norris p. 14

[12] Christology of the Later Fathers. Ed. Edward R. Hardy. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1954. Print.

[13] The Fifth Element is the weapon sent by the Mondoshawan to protect humanity from the great evil that comes every 5000 years. 

[14] Goergen p.72

[15] Hardy p. 19

[16] McGrath p. 48

[17] An interesting syllogism attributed to Arius:

            “Christ is the Logos incarnate,

            Christ is capable of change and suffering,

            Therefore the Logos is capable of change and not equal to God,”

Wand, J.W.C. The Four Great Heresies. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. Limited, 1955. Print.      p.41

This syllogism does not take into account the times when God is seen to “change his mind” in the OT and therefore does not deal with the paradox of a unchanging God who changes his mind. It allows no room for a paradox period.

[18] Inbody, Tyron L. The Many Faces of Christology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002. Print.            p.53

[19] Harper, Brad Ph.d. Senior Theology Class Notes. Multnomah University 2011

[20] Inbody, p. 54

[21] Goergen p.72

[22] Goergen p.76

[23] Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1988.      Print. p.163