One thing I never get tired of wondering about is the dual nature of Christ, as true God and true man. It's good to know that it's a mystery, which doesn't mean that it's vague and weird idea that won't stand up to reason -- but that it's so profoundly meaningful that you won't get to the end of understanding it, ever.
The author April Armstrong recorded that she actually asked the child Jesus whether, when he was little, he actually knew he was God. And the answer was, "Yes . . . and no!" Which makes more sense than anything else I've heard; and it might shed some light on one of the more baffling passages of the Gospel: the finding in the Temple.
We can all agree that Mary and Joseph were the best parents ever. They, more than any other parents or married couple, had their priorities entirely in order. And so losing their Son can't have been a matter of carelessness. Maybe they trusted some flaky uncle who said, "Sure, he's with me," or maybe they saw another boy wearing an identical outfit and thought he was right behind them. Losing him is not the weird part.
The weird part happens when they finally find him, and ask, understandably, "What were you thinking?" And he answers, "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know I'd be at my Father's house?" or " . . . busy with my Father's affairs?" Essentially, "No, what were you thinking?"
Of course we know that Jesus wasn't being rude, or mean, or thoughtless, or sarcastic. I suppose the only way we can read this answer is that he was genuinely puzzled. To him, it was perfectly obvious that he was where he needed to be, doing what he needed to be doing. He just let his parents go without him, as if it were the most natural thing in the world. He was thinking, I suppose, with the mind of someone who wasn't limited by the confusions, the false priorities of original sin; and so it -- can we say this? -- it didn't occur to him that he'd be causing trouble by not going home with his folks. Remember, he was a real 12-year-old boy, who really, somehow, had to learn things -- things like, when he was a toddler, how to walk, how to feed himself, how to put on his own shoes; and things, when he was a teenager, like how to put his parents' concerns first, even if there were other, more eternally important matters to deal with. Remember, it says that he was "learning" from the elders at the Temple.
And afterwards, apparently also having learned (like any boy his age) from the experience of his parents' panic and anxiety, he "went home with them and lived under their authority."
But he was God. Omniscient. I don't get it. This question lives in a place where "Yes . . . and no!" is about as clear as it's going to get. But there is something to be gained by puzzling over it, something we can learn by remembering the first reading that goes along with this Gospel reading: the dedication of Samuel.
Samuel's mother begs and begs God for a child -- and promises that she will dedicate him to the Lord if she has a son. She fulfills this promise: as soon as he is weaned, she gives him over to serve at the Temple. Modern parents look at this reading and can't help feeling aghast: she wanted a son so badly, and she just goes ahead and gives him up? I have no idea what a life in the Temple entailed, and whether children were allowed to visit their parents, or what. But clearly this was no casual sacrifice: Samuel, at a very young age, left his parents, and the priests took over authority of him.
And he and his mother accept that he will be "at his father's house," as if it were the most natural thing in the world to wean a kid and hand him over so that he could serve God.
So I think that Jesus' "Yes . . . and no!" -- when he first admonished his parents for not understanding him, but then submitted to their authority -- this is the real lesson of the readings from last Sunday. It reminds parents that our role is to place our children with God -- that where they belong is in their Father's house. It reminds us that God gives us children so that we can give them back to him, like Samuel's mother did; and it reminds us that, if they are where they ought to be, we will find them, at a certain point, pulling away from us and seeking God on their own, like Jesus did.
But it also reminds us as individuals that seeking the Father, doing the right thing, being where we ought to be -- this is no excuse for trampling on the hearts of people who love us and who have reasonable demands on our respect. Pursuing spiritual truths is no excuse for forgetting our obligations to each other.
The boy Jesus was not sinning by spending time in the temple! He couldn't have been. And yet he chose to submit to the authority of his earthly parents. Why? Maybe because he felt sorry for them. Maybe because he wanted to set an example of obedience. Maybe because, even though he was God, He was also a boy, and somehow needed to be with His parents just as much as He somehow needed food and drink and shelter and comfort and guidance, just like any boy. Somehow.
It's a mystery how the Man-God struck that balance, but it's much clearer for us. The demands of the spiritual life are very real -- but so are the mundane demands of human relationships. We have the obligation to give over the things which keep us from God, even if it means making huge sacrifices; but we have the equally serious obligation to attend to the needs of people around us. We can't say, "I don't have time to pray, because I'm too busy taking care of my family!" But neither can we grimace at a baby who suddenly shouts, "Dadadadada!" at the elevation at Mass.
It's a mystery how Jesus, true God and true man, found the balance between the infinite knowledge he held and the human demands he submitted to. For us, as creatures with a mortal body but an immortal soul, our balancing act is no mystery -- but it's no cakewalk, either. Let's start the new year by taking a hard look at this balance in our lives. Do we feel tension? We should!
Comments
Post a Comment
Like like like like! Great food for thought, Simcha.
.
And thank you for this great explanation of a mystery. “It’s good to know that it’s a mystery, which doesn’t mean that it’s vague and weird idea that won’t stand up to reason—but that it’s so profoundly meaningful that you won’t get to the end of understanding it, ever.”
.
Happy New Year!
before making ones own thought about this or that in the life of Jesus…one should read THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD BY MARY OF AGREDA….
This is one of your best posts ever. I learned so much; I only wish this could have been the homily every Catholic heard this past weekend!
@Robert - Don’t worry, Simcha has a valid “One’s own thought about the life of Jesus” pass signed and dated by the necessary authorities, so all is well.
I think it’s dangerous to think that there is some kind of dualist tension going on in the person of Christ due to his dual nature. Yes, Christ has a human nature, but He is a Divine person, not a human person. I repeat: Christ is a Divine Person with a human nature. One person, not two. St. Thomas articulates things well on this subject in the Summa. The human nature of Christ is only an instrument of His Divinity.
right on sam….btw…at sacredheart.com…you can click on THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD, and read the life of Jesus yourself and make up your own minds…
I love that “Yes and .....No”! Also what I get from that episode is that, that is where I will find Jesus if I happen to notice I have left Him behind on my journey - I too must go back to the Father’s House. And I don’t think it is a Joyful Mystery - I think the sorrow experienced by Mary and Joseph was terrible. - Blessings - Rene
That is a neat insight about Samuel’s mom.—maybe she wanted a son so that she would have something tangible to give to God. Could Jesus have ever been sarcastic? If no, then that implies that there is something sinful in sarcasm itself. Is there? Can sarcasm be a tool for good?
@ Robert: “The Mystical City of God” is private revelation, not an authorized biography. As private revelation, it is not binding on Catholics to believe it. And even if Catholics do believe it, that does not mean they must short-circuit their own meditations on the life of Christ.
According to God himself in St.Bridget’s Revelations,Jesus had two spirits within him,so Jesus was definitely all the time within a battle,but he won because he had the spirit of God in him.
Here is the revelation:
St Bridget of Sweden’s Rev:
Chapter 3
“I am your God and Lord, whom you worship and honor. I am the one who upholds
heaven and earth with my power; they are not upheld by any pillars or anything else. I am the one who is handled and offered up each day on the altar under the appearance of bread as true God and true man. I am the same one who has chosen you. Honor my Father! Love me! Obey my Spirit! Honor my Mother as your Lady! Honor all my saints! Keep the true faith which you shall learn by him who experienced within himself the battle of the two spirits - the spirit of falsehood and the spirit of truth - and with my help won. Maintain true humility. What is true humility if not to behave as one really is, and to give praise to God for the good things he has given us?
Somewhere in the Old Testament there is a law(?) that every male child was to be dedicated to God. Yes. A good point about the balance between the soul and the body.
Thanks, Simcha; The Incarnation can be accepted by us humans as fact; but understanding all the details, if we also accept the wording in Philippians, Ch. 2, verses 6-10 is beyond our ability to understand completely.
Very nice meditation.
TeaPot562
Sam, of all the comments, respectfully, yours is the most significant (probably because I totally agree with you).
‘I think it’s dangerous to think that there is some kind of dualist tension going on in the person of Christ due to his dual nature. Yes, Christ has a human nature, but He is a Divine person, not a human person. I repeat: Christ is a Divine Person with a human nature. One person, not two. St. Thomas articulates things well on this subject in the Summa. The human nature of Christ is only an instrument of His Divinity.’
@Sam, no it’s not “dualist tension,” but it is still a mystery how Jesus could be fully human (with all that entails, like infant ignorance) and fully divine (with all that entails, like omniscience). Simcha isn’t denying that His humanity worked totally in harmony with His divinity, but she is reflecting on that “gap” between the human and divine that is somehow bridged in Christ. Also, while it’s true that Jesus’ humanity is not essential to the Son qua God, it’s a bit misleading to think of it as “only an instrument of His Divinity” as that phrasing can lead one to think that humanity was a “costume” of sorts that He wore for awhile and then cast off, rather than actually *becoming man*.
Simcha, Thanks again for an awesome post. I’ve come to terms (and *continue* to come to terms) with the reality that *my* kids are not *mine* so much as they are God’s. Before this realization, I nearly destroyed myself and my family with obsessive-compulsive parenting/living/general insanity. Without the weight of having to be a god in our home, life has gotten so much easier. My kids live a healthier life. My wife and I live healthier lives. And I feel utterly blessed to have been chosen to share in the lives of these little ones - these children of God.
When it comes to the mystery of the divinity of Jesus and how he “emptied” Himself, I find this to be a bit of a brain bender, but not scandalous that I don’t have it all figured out perfectly. Thanks for this meditation.
@Happy New Year! You’ve got to be holding out on a really good Fisher “left behind” story.
Sam, does that mean that the divine Jesus also possesses non-human natures - as “instruments of His Divinity”? Not to be disrespectful, but is Jesus also savior to animals (or aliens), whose nature he also possesses in this way? Is his “human nature” merely a “virtualization” subsisting in a eternal mainframe, but just one of many?
John1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
John 6:39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.
REV.21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.
Matt B
Reading the above scriptures,leave no doubts,that God created all by Jesus’ spirit,and whatever God created would be recoverred on the last day, but united in one substance both as spirit and matter.Both invisible and visible,both spirit and flesh,like HE HIMSELF IS NOW.
Charles, does Christ redeem all fallen nature exclusively through his salvific action as God/man? Does man therefore stand at the height of creation, being the point through which all creation is transformed as you describe? Or does Jesus have an unmediated relationship with every existing thing, which he has created out of nothing by his will, and which he therefore possesses in a wholly singular and exemplary way?
For example, God created dogs as well as men. Is Jesus the exemplar of “doggishness” as well as the “true man”? Why do human beings claim the honor of being the access point of salvation for all creation? Didn’t God create bigger, more important things: suns, galaxies, universes?
Have you read Maria Valtorta’s “The Poem of the Man-God ?
The answer is written there
Newton, We started on the Poem of the ManGod, but it seemed after some research to be frowned upon by magisterial authority. Perhaps you could summarize for me - the poem is 5 volumes of 1000 pages each? Thanks!
Simcha, It is great that you like to meditate on the dual nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Rather than accept theories from what may be dubious sources not approved by the Church, I suggest you may wish to read the blog The New Theological Movement by Fr. Ryan Erlenbush. The last time this subject came up was November 16, 2012. Fr. Erlenbush is careful to present true Church teaching. I know that you homeschool and you teach your children about the Faith. I also homeschooled,for over 25 years, and I remember striving to learn the truth so that I would not teach my children error. I find Fr.Erlenbush’s teaching helpful and I think you will, too.
Ellen, when I taught kids about Jesus is catechism class, they wanted to know how it related to things they were seeing in the popular media like “The Matrix” and “Lord of the Rings.” I was under a disadvantage because I only rarely go to the movies, so I asked them to explain it to me. I would ask you the same thing: with everything that’s posted bootlessly on the internet, I only have time for one or two blogsites (S. Fisher being one). Can you explain to me what Fr. Erlenbush has to say, and why it’s important? I most likely won’t be navigating to the good Father’s webpage based on any indeterminate references.
Richard, sarcasm is an expression of contempt, and so should not be directed toward one’s parents, as it subtracts from the honor due them.
Um, I think Sam’s statement here is actually heresy: “Yes, Christ has a human nature, but He is a Divine person, not a human person.” No, Jesus is a human person AND a divine person. He is one person, but human and diving are two natures he has, and therefore he can be described accurately with either adjective. Both are 100% true; he is as wholly human as he is wholly divine.
.
Do I fully understand this? Heck no. But the above is what the Church teaches us. I think Simcha articulated it well.
An insightful post by Mrs. Fisher, on an important topic, I think. Altho it’s utterly impossible for us to imagine the Lord’s omniscience as God, I find halfway helpful this admittedly remote, extremely remote, analogy: You look out the window of your heated home in winter and SEE that it’s cold: people all bundled up out there against a chilling wind, etc. But you don’t FEEL that cold until you step outside. So, it seems to me, our young Lord in His divine mind knew that Mary and Joseph were worried about Him, yet in His limited human mind was really ignorant of that fact until Mary told Him, roughly as you really didn’t feel the outside cold until you stepped outside.
P.s.: Whether the assertion “Jesus is a human person” is heretical or orthodox depends, I submit, on just what one means by “human person”. Our Lord is wholly human in the sense that He has human nature in its entirety. But in His divine nature He infinitely transcends His human nature, which is part of His infinite divine Self.
I thought you folks weren’t supposed to “wonder” about it. Example: one blog head on newadvent today is “A Catholic dogma is a dogma (and not an opinion) precisely because it cannot be modernized”; many similar posts elsewhere.
Simcha, you speak of “the dual nature of Christ, as true God and true man”. Not wanting to quibble too much about this *excellent* article, but it would be more accurate, and safer, to say “the two natures of Christ, who is true God and true man”.
I just got back from barn chores. I am better at doing that than expressing myself clearly. I misspoke when I said “dual nature”, I should have said “one person, two natures” which is how the Church describes the Hypostatic Union. And Matt B, that is why you should take the time to read Fr. Ryan Erlenbush - because he is accurate in what he teaches. However, if you don’t have time for that you could check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos. 464 to 469. Hope that helps.
And, “it’s a mystery” that commentators fall prey to the temptation that they must comment on passages that could tie Fathers of the Church in knots. This is an extremely difficult passage, and one that does not lend itself to the “let’s make it relevant to the 21st century” school of homiletics. Even Pope Benedict did an end run around it in his talk on the Feast of the Holy Family. In our missalettes, as well as in our parish bulletin, we were subjected to the conflicted-transitional-teenaged-Jesus-in-angst interpretations, with the “patience” poor Mary and Joseph had to find when their child went through this “critical period of his life” as he was “striving for adulthood.” Lord have mercy. There are times we just need to be silent’ knowing one day we shall fully understand: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.(1Cor 13:12)
Ellen, fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to look that up. When all else fails, consider the instructions!
Donna, seems like a poor use of divinely constructed dogma. To my mind dogma is divine because it enlightens, not because it mystifies. I know this because I’ve been in attendance when priests preached a difficult dogma passionately and authentically. It puts the lie to all those homelitic depictions of St. Augustine daydreaming along the seashore about the Trinity. If Max Lucado can write 50 books on the Nativity, including animated mice, wooden puppets and softly lit maternal haystacks, dumbing down real dogma is nothing short of carpet-bagging cop out. It’s like the oyster after the pearl has been extricated: craggy, cold and fishy-smelling.
This mirror’s the temptation Jesus faced in the dessert; separate his humaness from his Godness by giving into his hunger? Separate his Godness from the one Godness he shared with the Father?
Also, here is Mary saying “no, I am not ready to let you start your public life. Unlike later at the wedding of Canna.
I like the way Donna stated it, in quoting Saint Paul…“For now we see, as through a glass, darkly…”
The fact that Jesus didn’t experience His full God-hood on earth (lol, how’s that for a theological term?)makes so much sense.
How could He truly be one of us, and thus feel the authentic pain of a human being, were it not so?
The thought of God, crying outside of his friend Lazarus’ tomb is so moving, and illustrates the shocking tenderness of God, made vulnerable.
It also makes perfect sense that Jesus took refuge in the temple when his parents, who were traveling in separate groups of men and women, left without him. (“I thought he was with YOU!!”) Where else would a twelve-year-old have gone?
@Sheila - That is not true. There are two natures in Christ, but only one person, a divine Person. This is what is called the Hypostatic Union. (see Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars Question)
@Anna - It is dangerous to say that Christ was ever “ignorant.” Ignorance is one of the consequences of the Original Sin, but one of the defects of O.S. that Christ did not assume. He had the Beatific Vision from His Incarnation and also benefited from infused knowledge (see Summa Theologica Tertia Pars Questions 9-11). The things He learned from His parents He already knew, but He learned them through a different means.
I like how you leave this a mystery. Living in the tension and saying things are a mystery point to a deep understanding of the “BIGNESS” of God. I love all the paradoxes in the Bible ... human God. virgin mother. 3 in 1. The Tree of Life is full of divine mystery ... it was the tree of the fruit of knowledge that got us in trouble. Dwelling in the tension of mystery is one of those humbling components to life. Peace!
@mkc, no, it hasn’t ever been a teaching of the Church that infants would have been born with all knowledge if the Fall hadn’t happened. That’s angelic knowledge (all at once, rather than learned over time and through experience), not human knowledge. Jesus himself makes comments about his ignorance (like “no one knows the day nor the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father”) - statements that he couldn’t make if his human knowledge were equal to his divine omniscience. For one thing, divine knowledge, which is infinite, can’t “fit” into a finite human mind. For another, ignorance isn’t sinful, so not a problem, theologically, for Jesus to experience. Both Mary and Jesus were without sin, but still living in a fallen world and, in the case of Jesus, purposely *took on* the entirety of our condition, including the capacity to “increase in wisdom.”
Jesus was “like us in all things but sin”; in the effort to emphasize his divinity, his humanity can sometimes be lost. Hence all those gnostic gospels that turn the child Jesus into a sort of magician instead of an ordinary kid. Catholic theology is remarkably comfortable with mystery, with holding two seemingly opposite ideas in tandem and in entirety (grace/free will! human/divine! united/distinct!), saying quite a lot to illumine, but never leaving it neatly wrapped up and easily comprehended by the human mind.
Anna, I guess the question comes down to “what part does *knowing everything* play in being God.”
Let’s acknowledge that God does in fact know everything. Does this necessarily entail that he’s paying complete and undivided attention to everything all at once? This would seem to be a logical impossibility.
However, if God were allowed to pay selective, or *condign* attention to all things simultaneously, that might be manageable.
It’s like the parent who knows which kids can handle things independenly. He steps back, and allows them to learn and grow. However, he’s always there when the blow-torch is about to reach a blast point. On the other hand, for children who need it, he pays closer, more careful attention: agonizing over them.
Omniscience then would boil down to a supreme sense of timing, rather than overbearing, unshadowed, divine countenance.
MATT B
Scripture is clear :
All was created IN HIM, and BY HIM.
So the entire creation is Jesus’ spirit.
Therefore the entire creation would eventually be the MANIFESTATION OF HIS SPIRIT. Like it is now but it is still in the process of perfection. We are in the last stage of the process of matter, and we advance to the first stage of the spiritual process according to our spiritual life in Christ while on earth.
With regard to other creatures, I consider them as the stages of creation, and the end result was the man. Man is a microcosm, and all the processes of creation are recorded in the spirit element of the man, THE SOUL. So when Jesus the PERFECT MAN /GOD redeemed humanity, he also redeemed all the entire creatures. He himself said WHEN I AM LIFTED UP I WILL DRAW ALL THINGS TO MYSELF.
There’s an important theological point to make here, about which I think some of us may be confused.
The key to grasping the relationship between Christ’s human knowledge and his divine knowledge is to remember that all our positive statements about God are true (at best) in only an analogical sense, and that whatever we think we know or understand regarding God always falls infinitely short of the transcendant reality. God is beyond all human thought or language. We make a great many positive statements about God, it is true, and they are not false; in fact, the Church exerts a great deal of care to assure that her childrens’ positive theological statements are in accord with the positive revelation of himself that God has made in the Incarnation and the Church. (We are not free to express ignorance or uncertainty regarding, say, the number of persons in the Godhead, or whether God is all-powerful.) But we must never fall into the trap of thinking that, having been privileged to make such positive statements, we have somehow circumscribed God, boxed him, understood him. When we deal with God through the medium of human language or human thought, we must remember that God is utterly, existentially, totally different from any other object of our speech or thought; so much so that even to say “God exists” or “God wills” or “God creates” is to speak analogically. A squirrel exists, and God exists; but God’s existence and the squirrel’s are not at all the same thing, God existing necessarily and absolutely, as the source of all being and existence, and the squirrel existing merely contingently, held in being by God’s continual creative will. That is, we use the same word, “exists”, but we mean two very different things by it, in applying a single word both to the existence of the eternal Ground of Being and to the existence of a rodent. Likewise, we say that a man wills, and that God wills; but again, even to use the same word, “will”, of both activities or powers – a linguistic usage which is certainly warranted by Scripture and the liturgy – is to risk obscuring or forgetting the infinite distance between the absolute eternal Counsel of the Holy Trinity and the ephemeral preferences of a creature. Again, we say “God made the universe”, and “Paul made the tent”; but the man’s making was a mere reshaping of already existing material, and the tent’s continued existence in no way depends on Paul’s continuing creativity; whereas if God were to cease upholding the being of the created universe, Paul and tent and squirrel and everything else, all creation would revert into the utter non-being from which God calls it forth. And so on, similarly, with every other word or concept we apply to God. He is always wholly other, perfectly beyond, entirely transcending all thought and language and knowledge.
Christ has two natures. He is God, knowing as God knows, absolutely, perfectly, without limit or possible limit. And he is a man, knowing as a man knows, contingently, imperfectly, always very limited. He can *know* in both senses – and the two knowings are entirely different acts, analagous to each other, but only analagous, just as the squirrel’s existence and God’s existence are analagous and in no way directly identical.
Charles, I don’t have any fundamental objection to your assertion; I’m just trying to understand the corallaries:
If God decided to work universal salvation through the humanity of Jesus, then mankind sits at a nexus between all creation and the Godhead.
Every divagating honey bee could fly past your average human being and mistake him or her for the incarnate God, and worship. Aliens from across the universe would have to visit earth, like magi, to experience true salvation.
More significantly, God might hold *us* responsible for the vicissitudes of all creation! If it were truly his intent to make creation subservient to humanity, would he not expect an account of our stewardship? Or ask us, “Where is your brother (whale, aardvark, beaver, mountain, valley, tree… etc)? A very grave responsibility indeed.
I’m only asking because I’m trying to discern if I should limit the amount of narcosis-inducing pastimes and substances I subject myself to, in order to take this fabulous but problematic commission more seriously.
If we accept Deacon John’s contention that man’s knowledge is merely “analogic,” and limited by sin and imperfection, while God knows “absolutely, perfectly, without limit or possible limit,” the question arises: does God have merely objective knowledge of truth, or does he also possess a completely sympathetic understanding of our own limited knowledge? Does he “see through our eyes?” This seems to be the Christian view of compassion.
If so, what would be the incentive for God in eternity to continue to view the world and himself through these dim, mortal and sin-marred lenses. Would he not rather burnish our knowledge and understanding so that in seeing through our eyes, he would see with his own?
This divine motivation would result in an eternity of eternities, a conflagration of praise, an equality of ecstasy in God.
I reject Mrs. Fisher’s theory that Jesus was “puzzled.” He knew exactly what He was doing at every moment.
@anna
You really should study Aquinas on these issues. He answers all of your questions. Jesus, being a Divine Person, was never ignorant of anything at any time. When He speaks of not knowing the hour, He is referring to the fact that knowledge of this event does not come from His human intellect. But He still knows it. Jesus did not assume many of the things that we mere humans have to contend with. He did not have concupiscence, for example. And neither did Mary, of course.
It’s false that the Second Person of the Trinity was at any time “puzzled” during His earthly sojourn, just as it’s false that a human is blue in color. But if that human has blue eyes, then it’s true that he’s blue in regard to his eyes—and that our Lord was perhaps momentarily puzzled in regard to His human nature. And this, I think, is what Mrs. Fisher meant; because “Jesus” often means “God the Son in regoard to His human nature”.
Maybe more clearly expressed: Although God the Son was never “puzzled” absolutely speaking, He may have been momentarily puzzled in His human mind. Similarly, although He was not created absolutely, He was created in his human nature.
The scripture says that the Light “came unto his own, but his own people did not recognize him.” (Gospel of John)
I wonder if Jesus came today, would we recognize him? This is not just an academic question.
When I ponder all these abstract formulations about Jesus, his humanity and his divinity, I can’t imagine for the life of me what that leaves for the blessed Lord to be. He seems like some sort of spiritual amphibian.
But when I read the gospels, I get a picture of an immensely appealing, deeply charismatic, irresistably attractive, hugely compelling, tangible, sweating, dusty, flesh and blood Man. So much so that he reaches through the pages of scripture and grabs me by my neck and impels me through a breathless adventure of life.
This is not at all a frog-like hermaphrodite.
Are we missing the forest for the tree?
Rhetorically dismissing other peoples’ educated views of Jesus as “abstract formulations” which depict Him as “some sort of spiritual amphibian” and as “a frog-like hermaphrodite”, “Matt B” “can’t imagine ... what that leaves for the blessed Lord to be.” Well, WHAT He is, is concretely (not abstractly) clear to most Christians: He’s truly God and truly a human. Yet while He’s truly human (*verus homo*), He’s not ONLY human (*non purus homo*), but also is perfect God. But as Juliet said to Romeo whom she loved, “thou art THYSELF”, so the educated Christian who loves the Lord Jesus, thus informed as to *what* He is, goes straight to the immense Self WHO He is.
Not to be dismissive of you or your othodox views, but don’t you find dogmatic formulations to be unsatisfying? It’s like sitting though an algebra class: at the end it’s all alphabet soup.
Admittedly: dogmatic formulations, even true ones, are rightly understood to be unsatisfying, in traditional Catholic theology, which admits that even true faith, altho a great gift, is an unsatisfactory spiritual energy (an “unsatisfactory habitus”), and a “substitutive habitus”, meant to be replaced in heaven by gloriously open intuitive vision of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit seen as They are.
St. John seems to suggest in his NT writings that the door to eternal life is open to us even now. Do you find this to be true; and if so, how does this affect our present, sublunar knowledge of God (intuitive vision)? Certainly, even scholastic theology, a dry patch, must be underwritten by this intuitive knowledge?
The way I look at it, UNIVERSAL SALVATION IS ALREADY ACHIEVED, from God’s point of view!
On the cross He said ALL ACCOMPLISHED.
Also in Rev: 22:11 He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still.
I look at the glorified human figure of Jesus as the perfect completion of the entire creation, both spiritual and carnal.
All creatures on earth, with the exception of MAN are not aware of their existence, never mind adoring God mistakenly.
It was the achievement of God/man, THE PERFECT MAN the purpose, and the aim of creation, and the entire universes are HIS ALREADY no matter what, and where.
Hebrew 2:6 But one in a certain place hath testified, saying: What is man, that thou art mindful of him: or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
1Corinthians 6:3 Know you not that we shall judge angels ? how much more things of this world ?
Rev: 21:3And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God.
SO MEN IS THE FOCAL POINT OF ACHIEVEMENT, BUT THIS DOESN’T MEAN THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER DIFFERENT CREATURES. But it is through man, through the perfect MAN that all would be redeemed irrespective of what STATE they are, and WHERE they are.
We are here ,the rest are all over the universes, but this was THE LOST LAMB, and he abandoned all the rest in order not only to find it, but through finding it HE WOULD INVITE ALL THE REST TO CELEABRATE.
We are already within the eternal life process, we are no longer lost, whether if it is achieved now HERE ON EARTH or IN THE NEXT in millions years, we remain in the process, till it is achieved.
In fact that is why the PERFECT MAN GAVE HIS LIFE FOR IT, TO RECONCILE ALL NO MATTER WHAT,and not to be blamed for!
He said FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING!
So through the PERFECT MAN WE ARE INNOCENT.
We lost the LOVING GIFT of perfection in the first MAN
John 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.
But the perfect man reestablished TOTAL PERFECTION FOR ALL BEFOREHAND
Without the achievement of the perfect MAN all whatever was created meant nothing.
IT NEEDED SURPASSING AND UNFATHOMABLE LOVE WHICH WAS MANIFESTED AND ACHIEVED BY THE PERFECT MAN. AND SEALED WITH MERCY AFTER HIS DEATH .God achieved manhood through his power of BENIGNITY, ESPECIALLY HUMILITY, and MEEKNES, There was no need to demonstrate His power of MAJESTY!!!
BEING A WORM TO BECOME GODMAN
Charles, your reasoning is clear and indisputable. I agree with you entirely and wholeheartedly. How can so many people categorically reject what you say, and put people like you and me to death for believing? Where is the Godman when we’re being racked?
I have an itch I gotta scratch, a mistake of mine I gotta correct: I think I was mistaken in writing in an earlier comment on this thread, “It’s false that the Second Person of the Trinity was at any time “puzzled” during His earthly sojourn, ...”. Because actually, the phrase “during His earthly sojourn” already indicates clearly that “being puzzled” is said there of the Second Person of the Trinity in reference to His human mind, not His divine mind.
But if God is a simple substance, how can he be “of two minds?”
The way I look at it, God *as God* is of just one mind—the divine mind. But God the Son as having taken to Himself a human nature in addition (numeric, not intensive, addition) to His divine nature, has now a second, a finite, mind (one never in disagreement with His divine, His infinite, mind).
But how would they fit together? How could a finite, human mind coexist with an infinite, divine mind? Someone above postulated that divinity is “wholly other.” But to have this “wholly other” share your head would be frightening, and probably lead to insanity. Are we to assume that Christ, and all the prophets, and even saints - were mad? The Roman Governor Felix concludes this about Paul. And reading some of those epistles, I have to agree. Paul, after his epiphany, was clearly mad. What are we to say about Jesus, who was fully God and fully man?
Matt B
I’m afraid we ourselves look only and always through our own genuine evil character, and we forget completely that we are so. Also the fact that we became something, it was only through the ineffable love that our creator, God the Father has for us, when through His unique virtue of humility, He lowered himself and became one of us in His Son. The fact that His Son became one of us in every sense EXCEPT SIN, it confirms that in truth, He was entirely a human flesh and blood being through his own self divine substance.
JESUS CONFIRMED:
YOU ARE FROM BENEATH: HELL. I AM FROM ABOVE: HEAVEN.
Now let’s read:
John 1: 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word was made flesh,………..
So John stated that the word was God, and the word became flesh.
Now notice he didn’t say became MAN, but FLESH.
So he was specific and said the word , THE SPIRIT, became FLESH. Therefore the actual body itself of Jesus Christ was his own spirit transformed into flesh through creation in the body of the VIRGIN MARY his mother his IMMACULATE FLESH.
John 1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Then the Holy Spirit conceived in her womb the perfect MAN.
Reflect: THE FATHER( in the Holy Spirit) IN THE SON( Mary’s womb)
So when we look at Jesus as man we are not looking at an ordinary MAN from hell like us, but a perfect MAN THROUGHOUT FROM HEAVEN. The opposite in every sense to us.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;
Therefore Jesus’ FLESH BODY was his own spirit
His soul is the HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF.
His spirit the FATHER HIMSELF.
Now to your assumptions:
But how would they fit together? OBVIOUS THEY FIT, THEY ARE THROUGHOUT FROM HEAVEN!
How could a finite, human mind coexist with an infinite, divine mind? OBVIOUS JESUS’ HUMAN MIND WAS NOT FINITE SINCE IT WAS HIS OWN DIVINE SUBSTANCE.
Someone above postulated that divinity is “wholly other.” But to have this “wholly other” share your head would be frightening, and probably lead to insanity. OBVIOUS, MINE IS BORN DEAD, SINFUL, HELLISH.
BUT THROUGH THE PERFECT MAN:
WE COME FROM DEATH TO LIFE!
THAT’S WHY PAUL DIDN’T EITHER.
John 14:23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make OUR ABODE with him.
Charles, my conclusion that all great saints have gone mad is borne out in you entirely. Paul’s experience of Jesus on the road to Damascus is very little analyzed for content, notwithstanding the fact that he himself returns to it countlessly - like the ancient mariner of Coleridge fame. Paul is obsessed.
When we peel back the scales from his eyen, it’s clear that he’s had a deep, lengthy and profound experience with God, in the person of the risen Jesus. Afterwards: madness.
John is another one of these certifiable saints. Not only did he walk with Christ, he experienced the risen Lord in panoramic prophetic visions. His letters are filled with stylistic amplifications that normally are accompanied by drool. I love these guys, but clearly mad.
You my friend seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Madd B
I lived insane CARNAL WISE MY ENTIRE LIFE!
I am trying to Live INSANE SPIRITUAL WISE,IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE BOTH CARNAL,AND SPIRITUAL LIFE!
Good luck in your second career!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.