The Church Fathers on Christ’s Incarnation and Death

As I read the Church Fathers, I thought I’d capture a few quotes on their views on the reason for Jesus’s incarnation and death…

Through death, deathlessness has been made known to us, and through the Incarnation of the Word the Mind whence all things proceed has been declared, and its Agent and Ordainer, the Word of God Himself. He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured.

-St. Athanasius of Alexandria, On The Incarnation of the Word
Doctor of the Western Church
Great Doctor of the Eastern Church

For while man can use words as a kind of sign for the expression of his thoughts, teaching is the work of the incorruptible Truth itself, who is the one true, the one internal Teacher. He became external also, that He might recall us from the external to the internal; and taking on Himself the form of a servant, that He might bring down His height to the knowledge of those rising up to Him, He condescended to appear in lowliness to the low.

-St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manacheus
Doctor of the Western Church

the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

-St. Ireneus, Against Heresies

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether.

But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things?

So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. But that brazen serpent was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us? O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory? You are overthrown by the Cross; you are slain by Him who is the Giver of life; you are without breath, dead, without motion, even though you keep the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.

-St. Gregory the Theologian of Nazianzus, Second Easter Oration
Doctor of the Western Church
Holy Hierarch of the Eastern Church
Archbishop of Constantinople

Experiencing God

There is one more theme from Mere Christianity that I would like to explore and that’s the difference between theology of God and the experience of God.  Lewis describes it very eloquently:

In a way I quite understand why some people are put off by Theology. I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, ‘I’ve no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I’m a religious man too. I know there’s a God. I’ve felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that’s just why I don’t believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who’s met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!’

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion—all about feeling God in nature, and so on—is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work: like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.

People can spend all of their lives staring at maps, even becoming expert cartographers, but not know what the ocean really looks like.  Map-makers are not sailors, they know the route but not the waves or the stars.  The only way to encounter the ocean is to sail on it. The only way to encounter God is to experience him.

The Bible itself is only a roadsign that points to God.  It is a collection of experiences written down by men.  God inspired those experiences and the words that describe them, but they are not God any more than a painting or photo is the real person.  Paintings don’t hold your hand when you are scared, or comfort you when you are sad, or care at all about your day, or your big meeting, or your kid’s soccer game.

But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

God is much larger than the Bible.  He cannot be adequately described by words.  He must be experienced to be understood and believed in.  The Bible contains the truth, but it is not the whole truth.  The world itself could not contain the whole truth.  God is much larger than the world.

Words are symbols that represent ideas.  Ideas are memories of experience or imagination.  In this way, words are symbols that are twice removed from reality.  Language is like our map: it combines these symbols to represent larger concepts.  Theology is also a type of language.  It combines a set of symbols that represent God just like the map represents the ocean.

The LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. And the LORD said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11:5-9)

All languages are confused in this world.  Theology is no different.  Different symbols mean different things to different people in different cultures.  They represent different experiences of God or are different names for a common experience.  Symbols are not the truth, they are only a crude drawing that points to an experience of the truth.  God is larger than all of them.  A Course in Miracles says:

All terms are potentially controversial, and those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver. Theological considerations as such are necessarily controversial, since they depend on belief and can therefore be accepted or rejected. A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this experience toward which the course is directed. Here alone consistency becomes possible because here alone uncertainty ends. (CoT-Intro)

So, how do we experience God?  God is certain.  He is experienced with certainty.

“Be still, and know that I am God! I am exalted among the nations, I am exalted in the earth.” (Psalm 46:10)

To experience God, you must set aside your thoughts and your words.  God is not a symbol.  You will never see the ocean if you constantly hold the map in front of your face.  Close your eyes and clear your mind.  See how long you can go without a symbol entering your mind.  Feel the life in your body- the constant vibration of the energy that God has created.  Invite God in and he will come, but you won’t hear his voice unless you are still.  You must be still to know that he is God.  That means setting aside your own ideas and listening for his.  Forgetting for a moment the noise of your life and listening for his voice in the silence of holiness.  What does God say in the silence?

So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. (1 John 4:16)

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. (1 Corinthians 13:4-80)

God is love.  Not in some far away abstract sense, but in every sense that is real.  Every time you love someone you are sharing God with them.  Every time you are loved by someone you are experiencing God.  This is God’s nature.  It is also your nature and mine because we were created in God’s image.  We are only happy when we are true to the nature that God gave us.  Our nature is patience and kindness.  It always forgives and it keeps no record of wrongs.  It trusts completely, hopes with abandon, always perseveres and never fails.

We experience God by sharing his love with others.  We experience God’s forgiveness by forgiving others.  We experience God by abandoning our own plans for what we are or will become and embracing the truth of our creation, which is love.  We can only come to understand our true nature by sharing it.  Therein lies peace.  The peace of God which passes all understanding.  Take a swim in the ocean.  Peace can only be understood by being experienced.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Atonement

I have a very dear friend who has been going through some rough personal issues lately.  I have known this person all my life, and I very much share the pain he is feeling right now.  My good friend is a very conservative and devout Christian, and has taken a real interest in my views on the Atonement.  While he has been quite passionate in his criticism, I still value him highly both as a friend and as a person.  I always have, and always will, hold him in the highest possible regard.

I have prayed for some way that I may be a blessing in my friend’s life.  I know that he is an admirer of C.S. Lewis (my friend has had a Lewis quote as the top post on his own blog for nearly a year now, though he will probably delete it after reading this). Since it’s become quite clear that my friend has a real interest in Atonement Theology, I thought I would dedicate a post to examining C.S. Lewis’s views on the subject as presented in his well known work, Mere Christianity.

Who is C.S. Lewis?

Clive Staples Lewis, known to his friends as Jack, is a man who certainly needs no introduction.  Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland in 1898.  At 15 years old he abandoned his childhood faith in Christianity and embraced atheism.  Lewis fought in the trenches in World War I, and then embarked on a brilliant academic career at Oxford.  There, he was a prolific writer and surrounded himself with many literary friends including J.R.R Tolkien, the legendary author of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Tolkien, a devout Catholic, was responsible in part for Lewis’s conversion to Christianity at age 33 when Lewis joined the Church of England.  In addition to his academic writings, Lewis began authoring fiction.  His best known novels are the seven books which make up The Chronicles of Narnia.  This legendary work of fantasy and children’s literature has sold over 120 million copies in 41 languages.

During World War II, Lewis was invited to participate by the BBC in a series of radio broadcasts describing his views on Christianity.  While Lewis notes that he is not a theologian, but rather a lay person and a beginner at Christianity, his descriptions and reasoning are now a classic in Christian apology.  The broadcasts were so popular that they were later transcribed and re-written into a book called Mere Christianity in which Lewis expounds on his views.  Mere Christianity is widely admired across the spectrum of Trinitarian Christianity and is frequently quoted by conservatives and liberals alike.  Lewis is one of the most eloquent writers ever to grace the language of England.  Mere Christianity is certainly clear enough that it needs no interpretation.  I will attempt to do it justice with as little of my own critique as possible.

Atonement

C.S. Lewis came to Christianity relatively late in life.  His own view of doctrine was that those doctrines central to all Christian traditions were true, and those doctrines that were in dispute were optional.  Nowhere is this exemplified more than in his teachings on why Jesus died on the Cross.  He believed that it was central to Christianity to accept that Jesus died to wash away our sins.  The questions of why this needed to happen, or how it was able to take away our sins, were secondary and unimportant.  Something on which good people could disagree, something that may never be fully understood.  His own personal beliefs were a flavor of Substitutionary Atonement, which he admitted seemed a little silly to him.  From Mere Christianity:

We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not going to be able to picture this. Indeed, if we found that we could fully understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to be—the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good it will be to us if we do not understand it. But that is easily answered. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before—the one about our being let off because Christ has volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take ‘paying the penalty’, not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of ‘standing the racket’ or ‘footing the bill’, then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend.

Judgment

Lewis completely accepted Jesus’s teaching of "Judge not, that you be not judged."  He believed not just that we should not judge, but that in a very real way we could not judge because only God knows a person’s heart and his physical and emotional limitations.  From Mere Christianity:

The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God’s eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. [Victoria Cross Medal for Valor]. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God’s eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.

It is as well to put this the other way around. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man’s choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it.

Most of the man’s psychological makeup is probably due to his body: when his body dies all of that will fall off of him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or the worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.

Lewis also had something to say on trying to judge the faith of other Christians:

It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense.

Who is Saved?

Finally, Lewis certainly believed that Christians were saved.  All branches of Christianity, whether Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist, Quaker or Presbyterian would be saved by God if they accepted the common doctrines and put their faith in God.  He also acknowledged that there was truth in all religions.  From Mere Christianity:

If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

Besides acknowledging that there is some truth in all religions, Lewis believed that some devout members of other religions could really belong to Christ and themselves be saved.  In this way his theology was very similar to that of Oprah or Mother Teresa.  This is not to say that there is another way to the Father other than Jesus, just that Jesus’s arms reach farther than most people realize.  From Mere Christianity: 

The world does not consist of 100 percent Christians and 100 percent non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position. And always, of course, there are a great many people who are just confused in mind and have a lot of inconsistent beliefs all jumbled up together. Consequently, it is not much use trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the mass. It is some use comparing cats and dogs, or even men and women, in the mass, because there one knows definitely which is which. Also, an animal does not turn (either slowly or suddenly) from a dog into a cat. But when we are comparing Christians in general with non-Christians in general, we are usually not thinking about real people whom we know at all, but only about two vague ideas which we have got from novels and newspapers. If you want to compare the bad Christian and the good Atheist, you must think about two real specimens whom you have actually met. Unless we come down to brass tacks in that way, we shall only be wasting time.

Finally…

I have enjoyed re-reading Mere Christianity so much that I will probably read The Screwtape Letters again as well.  Lewis’s theology was actually quite liberal and very embracing.  Its impact on 20th century Christianity should not be underestimated.  As I noted in the introduction, he is frequently quoted even by conservative Christians.   I find it a little amusing that many conservatives who would criticize Oprah or even Mother Teresa have no qualms about tossing out a Lewis quote.  I view this with great charity.  It is certainly not hypocrisy…  more like the beginning of wisdom. 

God’s Nature, Love or Fear?

I believe in Universalism.  That is:  I believe that God will save every one of his children.  Time will not end until everyone whom God created has come to accept God.  This is certainly a minority view in Christianity today.  Since the time of Augustine, the Church has followed a doctrine of eternal torture:  That God will endlessly punish those who do not accept him.  I think this is a very limited view of God’s love and power.  It says simply that God wants to save all of his children, but either can’t or won’t.  I believe that God is greater than our sin. 

Many of the earliest church fathers prior to Augustine agree with my view.  Pantaenus, first of the Didascalia (?-216AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-220AD), Origen (185-254AD), Pamphilus of Caesarea (?-309AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Wonder Worker (213-270AD), Lactantius (250-325AD), Eusebius of Caesarea, the Friend (263–339AD), Marcellus of Ancyra (?-374AD), Titus, Bishop of Bostra (?-378AD), Didymus the Blind (309-395AD), Macrina the Younger (327-390AD), Diodore of Tarsus (?-390AD), Gregory of Nyssa (335-390AD), Tyrannius Rufinus (345-410AD), an associate of Jerome who was responsible for preserving so much of Origen’s work, and Jerome (347–420) himself, though he later renounced it.  The Course in Miracles also takes this view.  I think I am in good company.

The question was asked of me tonight, "Why would anyone turn to God, unless they fear his punishments?  How can there be a Gospel (Good News) unless there is first a Bad News?"  The essence of this question is:  Who would turn to God without a threat?

It’s a valid question.  I am a little at a loss as to how to answer it, because it seems so obvious.  Anyone who has experienced God’s love and peace already knows the answer.  The power of God’s Spirit and the endless love he shows his children are all the answer you need.

God’s love is radiant.  It is an overwhelming experience of peace and acceptance that makes the whole world look crisp and new.  God made us in his image and destined us to be conformed to his likeness.  Accepting the Atonement of God brings an understanding that you are his Child, with whom he is well pleased, and for whom he has created the heavens and the earth.  It is a knowledge that God knows you are guiltless and trusts you to bear his image to all of creation.  God created you as an extension of his love, and love is your nature, just like it is his.  To quote The Course (W-P1.189):

There is a light in you the world can not perceive. And with its eyes you will not see this light, for you are blinded by the world. Yet you have eyes to see it. It is there for you to look upon. It was not placed in you to be kept hidden from your sight. This light is a reflection of the thought we practice now. To feel the Love of God within you is to see the world anew, shining in innocence, alive with hope, and blessed with perfect charity and love.

Who could feel fear in such a world as this? It welcomes you, rejoices that you came, and sings your praises as it keeps you safe from every form of danger and of pain. It offers you a warm and gentle home in which to stay a while. It blesses you throughout the day, and watches through the night as silent guardian of your holy sleep. It sees salvation in you, and protects the light in you in which it sees its own. It offers you its flowers and its snow in thankfulness for your benevolence.

This is the world the Love of God reveals. It is so different from the world you see through darkened eyes of malice and of fear that one belies the other. Only one can be perceived at all. The other one is wholly meaningless. A world in which forgiveness shines on everything and peace offers its gentle light to everyone is inconceivable to those who see a world of hatred, rising from attack, poised to avenge, to murder and destroy.

Yet is the world of hatred equally unseen and inconceivable to those who feel God’s Love in them. Their world reflects the quietness and peace that shines in them; the gentleness and innocence they seem surrounding them; the joy with which they look out from the endless wells of joy within. What they have felt in them they look upon, and see Its sure reflection everywhere.

What would you see? The choice is given you. But learn and do not let your mind forget this law of seeing: you will look upon that which you feel within. If hatred finds a place within your heart, you will perceive a fearful world, held cruelly in death’s sharp-pointed, bony fingers. If you feel the Love of God within you, you look out upon a world of mercy and of love.

Noone can approach God through fear.  Those who advocate "Turn or Burn" theology do not understand that GOD IS LOVE and perfect love DRIVES OUT ALL FEAR.  (1 John 4:16-18).  Love and fear are opposites.  While the Bible sometimes seems to say to "Fear God" this is an error.  Both the Greek and Hebrew words for fear also mean awe.   Awe is appropriate for your Father because he created you.  Fear is not appropriate because he loves you.  Perfect love drives out all fear.  It drives out our fear too, if we let it.

Let’s consider for a moment that I am wrong.  What if I have over estimated God’s love and power and three quarters of humanity is destined to be tortured and scream and wail for all eternity?  Without end or mercy?  Will God punish me too because I have overestimated his love and power?  Because I thought he was able to save all of mankind, even though he was not?  Am I also to be punished because my faith in God was greater than his love for humanity or his capability to save the damned?  The answers are self evident.

Why would we accept God without a threat?   Because he is our Father and created us for a purpose.  Because he accepts and loves us, and never rejects us.  Because we are his children and he makes us whole. 

We may feel the consequences of our actions and even some torment in places of darkness, but I assure you, God does not abandon his children here.  No torment will last forever, and God will always answer if you call on him, no matter where you are or what you think you’ve done.  God loves his children, and that love and mercy know no bounds.  We must love as he loved us.  Any other choice is to deny God’s nature and our own.

Women in Ministry- What does the Bible Really Say?

“I’ve always wondered, when did my Church begin to hate women?”

That was the question that was the Genesis of this article. It was asked of me recently by a very dear woman in my life (who I won’t name) while we were discussing the scriptures and traditions of the Catholic church. While I don’t know that there’s a single answer to this question, I do think it’s a valid one. Traditions and abuse of the scriptures have kept women out of leadership roles and silenced their voices for far to long. God loves women as much as he does men. God is completely impartial, giving his gifts to everyone. It’s time that his Church reflected that.

When I was 13 years old I was confirmed in the Lutheran church. I confessed my allegiance to the Gospel, was able to take communion for the first time, and became a full voting member of my home congregation. My mother, who had been a member of our congregation for more than 20 years, was extremely proud and invited all of our relatives over for a party. I remember getting a cross necklace (which I’ve since lost) and a leather bound NIV study Bible (which I still have).

The difference between my Mom and me was that, at 13 years old, I could vote in our church. Even after 20 years of membership, she couldn’t. I couldn’t drive, work, or vote in a presidential election but I could do little things like determining the spiritual direction for our congregation. I didn’t let it go to my head, though… she was still my Mom and all. Anyone who knew her knows that she was a force to be reckoned with.

I realize that not all churches are as conservative as the one I grew up in. However, erroneous beliefs about the place of women in the Kingdom of Heaven have plagued the church for more than a millennium. Many well meaning Christians have read the Bible and come away with the impression that God, and in particular the Apostle Paul, believe that women should be subordinate to men. This doctrine is an unfortunate result of many assumptions and errors made by translators from the fourth century through the middle ages, and even into the modern day. We will examine some of the verses commonly used to exclude women from leadership roles in the Church.  To set the stage for our discussion, please read What is the Bible.

Who was Paul?

Paul of Tarsus was a Jew of the first century who belonged to a sect called the Pharisees. He persecuted Christians until he had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. After that vision, he joined the community of Christian believers and became a traveling evangelist, preaching God’s message throughout the known world.  Many of Paul’s letters are part of the Bible and used to set the theological direction of the Church.

Galatians 3:28

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (NRSV)

This verse sets the stage. Galatians was likely the first letter written by the Apostle Paul. It was written to the churches in Asia Minor shortly after the council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15. This would have been around 49 A.D (though there are minority views that place it earlier or later). It’s important to realize that the timing of this letter reveals that this statement was not something that Paul came to believe later in his ministry. Since Galatians was likely his first letter, all of his other letters should be viewed in the light of this belief.

I Corinthians 14:33-40

[“]Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. [“]

[This is complete garbage!] Did the word of God originate with you? [Utter Garbage!] Are you the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid [anyone from] speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order. (NRSV)

Reading Paul’s writing is difficult, a fact noted even by the Bible itself in Second Peter. It’s a little like hearing one half of a phone conversation. Clearly the Corinthians wrote Paul a letter to which he is responding. He quotes from the letter in 7:1 and refers to it in 7:25, 36, 39; 8:1; and 9:3. We don’t know the contents of that letter, so we don’t know the exact context of his epistle.

While this passage is attributed to Paul and given the weight of an Apostolic command, in verses 33-35 Paul is actually likely quoting from the letter sent by the Corinthians, to which he is responding. There are no quotation marks in Koine Greek, so it’s impossible to tell for sure. However the voice of this passage is markedly different than the style of Paul’s writing and resembles the oral law of the Jews which was later written down in Talmud. I’ve added quotes to the passage above to reflect this point of view.

In 36-40, Paul is disagreeing with the quoted text. The Greek word ἢ which means “or” functions as a disjunctive interjection when used in this context. It indicates vehement disagreement. Paul puts ἢ in the text twice, and they are skipped over by most English Bible translations. The King James translates the first ἢ as “What?” but ignores the second one. I’ve added a translation of the two occurrences of ἢ in brackets to the text above.

In his letters, Paul often argues strongly against the adoption by Gentiles of Jewish customs and practices to obtain or signify membership in God’s covenant. Clearly the Corinthians are trying to do this, even saying “as the law also says” in their letter.  Paul asks questions like “Did the word of God originate with you?”  “Are you the only one it reached?” to drive this point home.  Membership in the Kingdom of Heaven is not about maintaining the outward appearances or keeping the Hebrew law.  It’s about a change of heart.  This is the Gospel that Jesus taught, and this is the Gospel that Paul carried to Corinth.  The Corinthians were trying to set a their own path based on traditions that Paul rejects.

Besides being correct, this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is beneficial because it explains why Paul would first say that women should be silent, then in the next breath instruct the congregation not to “forbid anyone” (κωλυετε) from speaking in tongues.

Ephesians 5:21-33

Be subject to [ὑποτάσσω] one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to [ὑποτάσσω] your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head [κεφαλή] of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. (NRSV)

The Greek word ὑποτάσσω (hupotasso) is relatively rare in Greek literature. It’s translated here in v. 22 as “be subject to.” It’s also often translated as “submit to.” However, the word doesn’t actually appear in v.22 in most Greek texts.  It occurs in participle form in v. 21, which would apply to both wives and husbands. The text commands husbands and wives to “ὑποτάσσω” each other. The phrase “Wives, be subject[submit] to your husbands” does not appear any any of the oldest Greek texts of the Bible, nor does hupotasso ever appear in imperative (command) form in Ephesians 5.  Only Byzantine versions of the Greek text(the vast majority of which are 9th century or later) feature this phrase.  As such, almost all critical editions of the Greek text place hupotasso in v.21, not v.22.  The fact that the phrase has been so often been translated this way speaks more to church traditions and the biases of the translators, rather than to any teaching of Paul.  Again, it’s important to remember that Paul taught “there is no longer male and female in Christ.”

While ὑποτάσσω is rare in Greek literature, it is common among archaeological finds of Greek papyri. Its technical meaning in a military context is “to organize” or “to line-up.” The widest use is in a secular context where it means to attach supporting documentation to a letter or pleading. The meaning in the context of a relationship is “to be attached to” or “to support.” A better translation of v21-22 would be:

“Be filled with the Spirit, while you are supporting one another out of respect for the Anointed One [Christ], wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.” (The Source New Testament – Nyland)

In the phrase “For the husband is the head of the wife…” the Greek word for head (κεφαλή) does not have the additional meaning of “authority” as does the English word “head.” It does have the additional meaning of “source” as in the “head [source] of a river.” This entire section is a play on words in the Greek. It talks about the “wife supporting (holding up) the husband as the body supports the head.” And then says that the husband is the “source [head] of the wife” just as Christ is the source of the Church. It finishes by quoting Genesis “and the two will become one flesh” which completes the theme of husbands and wives not being separate, but parts of the same body.

l Timothy 2:11-12

Let a woman learn in silence [ἡσυχία] with full submission [ὑποτάσσω]. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority [αὐθεντέω] over a man; she is to keep silent [ἡσυχία]. (NRSV)

1 Timothy 2 is a very difficult passage to understand because of the rarity of many of the Greek words that Paul uses and the inconsistencies with which they are used by other Greek authors. You should realize that my interpretation of this passage (especially v.12) is based on a certain amount of guesswork. No one knows exactly what Paul meant here because of the scarcity of sources. People have written entire PhD theses on these two verses.

For the discussion of ὑποτάσσω, see the section on Ephesians 5. This should be translated “with full support” rather than “with full submission,” which makes much more sense. The word translated silence [ἡσυχία] actually means “without disturbance or fuss” rather than silence. A better translation of v.11 would be something like: “Let a woman learn without disturbance and with full support.”

The word translated “authority” [αὐθεντέω] is much rarer. It only occurs here in 1 Timothy in the Bible. In the Greek literature, it commonly means “murderer.” In archaeologically unearthed Greek papyri of this era it commonly means “originator” or “original.” It does not come to mean “authority” until several hundred years later. A better translation of v.12 would probably read “I most certainly do not grant authority to a woman to teach that she is the originator of a man – rather, she is not to cause a fuss [disturbance].” (The Source New Testament – Nyland).

The idea that man was created by woman was common to gnosticism and pagan nature cults, which worshiped earth goddesses. Certainly every man is physically born of a woman, but spiritually both were created by God. Paul speaks against this pagan belief here, and it’s probable that he’s again thinking of the Genesis text “the two are one flesh.”

Romans 16:1-2

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon [διάκονος] of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor [προστάτις] of many and of myself as well. (NRSV)

I’m mentioning Romans 16 not because it’s a verse normally used to keep women our of ministry, but rather because its a good example of how bias has crept into the interpretation of scripture. Poor Phoebe is very much maligned by the hands of the men who have translated the Bible.  Most translations render the Greek word διάκονος (diakonos) here as “servant.” A διάκονος was an attendant or official in a pagan religious temple. It was adopted by Christians to describe someone who is an official of a church. It refers to a minister or elder – a deacon. Phoebe was a leader in the Christian church and had authority. In an article for the Pricillia Papers, Ann Nyland, a PhD lexicographer and author of The Source New Testament translation addresses this passage:

In his 1534 Bible translation, Tyndale called Phoebe a “minister of the congregation at Cenchreae.” Centuries earlier, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “For we know that the honorable Paul in one of his letters to Timothy prescribed regarding women deacons,” 18 and Chrysostom commented on 1Tim. 3: 11 thus, “Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he [Paul] introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of deaconesses.” Far earlier, Pliny records female deacons under Trajan (late first, early second centuries). 19

It is significant that Phoebe is the minister of the church in Cenchreae, a large commercial city. Cenchreae was on the Aegean Sea and was the eastern port of Corinth. It was one of the two important ports for Corinth, the other being Lekheon on the Ionian Sea. Note that Corinth, a huge and wealthy city, was Greece’s commercial center with trade links all over the ancient world. Its prosperity was due to its position straddling the Isthmus of Corinth with its two ports. All trade from the north of Greece to Sparta and the Peloponnesus passed through Corinth, as did most of the east-west traffic. Ships from Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt docked at Cenchreae.

Phoebe was not just a minister of the church a Cenchreae. The greek word προστάτις does not mean “benefactor” or “helper” or “succorer” as it is rendered by various translations. A προστάτις (prostatis) was a woman set over others. A leader, a chief official, and a person who is set out in front of other people and protects them. Paul says that Phoebe was “a προστάτις [leader] of many and of myself as well.”

The word προστάτις has caused discomfort throughout the history of the male dominated church. St. Jerome incorrectly renders this word here to the Latin adstitit which means “assistant” in his fourth century Latin Vulgate translation. It was even changed in some later Greek manuscripts to παραστασις which means “assistant.” Phoebe was not an assistant. She was a minister and a leader.

Second John 1:1

The elder to the elect lady [κυρια] and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth (NRSV)

While not one of Paul’s letters, this is a verse by the writer of second John is often mis-translated due to bias.  In perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this,  almost all Bibles render the Greek word κυρια (kuria) as “lady” or “sister.”  Κυρια is the feminine form of κυριος (kurios) which is always rendered “Lord.”  A κυρια was an female authority figure and ruler.  Both words are extremely common in both papyri and literature.  In this passage εκλεκτος κυρια means elected or chosen leader (female). It would have been translated that way if it were κυριος. We should translate it that way when it’s κυρια.

Historical and Archaeological Finds of Women as Church Leaders

Going back as far as the first and second century, historical records have shown women as deaconesses and ministers in the Christian church.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger was Roman governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111-113 AD. In his letters, he writes to the emperor Trajan to ask for direction as to what to do with Christians. While Christians were clearly guilty of atheism (not worshiping the Roman gods) Pliny was uncertain if their faith actually violated any laws, and he asks Trajan for clarification. In his letter he mentions capturing and torturing two deaconesses. Clearly these women were leaders in the Christian church of these cities.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Women Elders

I’ll again refer to the work done by Dr. Ann Nyland in this section. In her article for the Pricillia Papers, she does an outstanding job of listing the historical sources showing women as elders:

Inscriptional evidence demonstrates that women were church leaders. An inscription from Thera speaks of women elders.²² An epitaph for the woman Kale describes her as an “elder.”²³ A letter twice mentions a Christian woman called a “master teacher” in a church context.²⁴ An epitaph from Malta for Eulogia calls her “elder.”²⁵ An inscri ption dated to the second or third centuries denotes the woman Paniskiane as an elder in the church,²⁶ and another of the same date identifies a woman as an elder in Phrygia. Yet another describes a woman who is an elder in a Jewish community. Inscriptional evidence tells of a female elder from Sicily and another from Thera, and another woman elder from Cappadocia around 230 A.D.²⁷ An inscription dated as pre-Constantine speaks of the woman Ammion, who was an “elder.”²⁸ A family tombstone for a mother and her children mentions two daughters as “elders” (and perhaps three: name uncertain).²⁹

22. H. Gregorie, Recueil des inscriptions grecques chretiennes d ‘Adie Mineure 1 (Paris, 1922), no. 167.

23. AE (1975) 454 (Centuripae, Sicily; IVN)

24. M. Nagel, ZPE 18 (1975) 317-73.

25. Discussed by R.S. Kraemer, HTR 78 (1985 [1986]) 431-38.

26. F. Barratte, B. Boyaval, Catalogue des etiquettes de momies du Musee du Louvre, IV, CRJPEL 5 (1979) 264, no. 115 (provenance in Egypt not stated, 1I1I1I).

27. Cyprian, Ep. 75.10.

28. Inscriptiones Bureschianae, ed. A. Korte (Greifswald, 1902) no. 55, repr. E. Gibson, GRBS 16 (1975) 437-38.

29. Guarducci, EG JV368-70 (Melos, IV)

Finally…

Since I’m a guy, why do I care about this issue? I’ve met some fantastic women who were outstanding teachers and theologians. Women like my wife’s aunt, Sister Annette Moran, or evangelists like Joyce Meyers. God has certainly filled these ladies with his spirit and blessed them with his gifts. The idea that, as a Church, we are telling them not to use the gifts that God has given them strikes me as blasphemy against their creator. The Church must become impartial if it is to survive. I say this not because society demands it (though it does) but because impartiality is God’s will for the Church. I pray that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Sources / Further Reading

I owe a great debt to the word done by Dr. Ann Nyland of Australia.  I highly recommend her translation The Source New Testament.

Nyland, The Source New Testament

Nyland, Papyri, Women, and Word Meaning in the New Testament

Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at I Timothy 2.9-15

Moultrin and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament

So, I Guess I’m a Joiner…

After nearly three years of studying The Course on my own, I finally joined a formal study group tonight.  I found it very enjoyable!  They were all really nice folks, and it was thrilling to be able to discuss The Course in some depth.  Even though it’s a little bit of a drive, I fully intend to return next week!

Underneath The Everlasting Arms

Today’s lesson from A Course in Miracles is 190 – “I choose the joy of God instead of pain.”  One part of this lesson was especially meaningful to me:

Lay down your arms and come without defence into the quiet place where Heaven’s peace holds all things still at last. Lay down all thoughts of danger and of fear. Let no attack enter with you. Lay down the cruel sword of judgement that you hold against your throat, and put aside the withering assaults with which you seek to hide your holiness. Here will you understand there is no pain. Here does the joy of God belong to you.

How many times do we allow our own attempts at self defense separate us from God?  How often do we turn to attack or hatred to try to preserve our sense of self?  Don’t we sometimes take up addiction in an attempt to forget how weak we feel?  How often do we blame others for our failures?  God tells us to lay down all of these efforts and accept the peace he has given us.

The eternal God is thy refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms
-Deuteronomy 33:27

God is our protection.  He is our armament and our army.  We need not fight those who we see as enemies.  We need only give this responsibility up to him.  That frees us up to love our enemies, and bless those who persecute us.  We trust in God for our protection.  He cannot fail.  This is true faith in God.  It takes great faith to forgive those who have hurt us and believe that God will protect us from further hurt.  Forgiveness is peace.  It is God’s peace.  It is the only peace.

I wish I could lay your arms down,
and let you rest at last.
Wish I could slay your demons,
but now that time has past.
-Standing – Buffy the Vampire Slayer

In this song, from the Once More with Feeling musical episode of the TV Show Buffy the Vampire slayer, Giles laments his inability to be a father figure to Buffy.  Giles believes that by making decisions for her, he is standing in the way of Buffy’s development as a person.  Unlike Giles, God is the perfect father figure to us.  We all make mistakes and learn from them.  God will never stand in the way of our own development, because all learning ultimately leads back to him.  When we tire of slaying our own demons, we are always welcome to lay aside our own efforts and rest “Underneath the everlasting arms.”  He always forgives our errors and welcomes us home.

I’ll close this post with an excerpt from a poem written by the Canadian cleric Albert Simpson:

Are you sunk in depths of sorrow
Where no arm can reach so low;
There is One whose arms almighty
Reach beyond thy deepest woe.
God the Eternal is thy refuge,
Let Him still thy wild alarms;
Underneath thy deepest sorrow
Are the everlasting arms.
-A. B. Simpson

God’s Justice

As I try to figure out this blogging software, I thought I would put together a short entry on the concept of God’s Justice.  Most of western Christianity has adopted the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  Simply put, Jesus died for our sins to appease God’s sense of justice.  He lived a perfect life and died in our place because of our evil ways.  God is so perfect and just that our sins offended him, and he required a death for our transgressions.  Jesus willingly provided that death in our place.  Jesus is God, so God both demanded and provided the sacrifice.

I’ve always found this belief troubling.  What exactly is God’s sense of justice if he requires this type of vengeance?

The Bible Describes God’s Nature

First John 4:16 says “God is love” in the plainest language possible (̔ὁ θεος αγαπε εστιν in the greek).  1 Corinthians 13 says that love “…always hopes, always perseveres, and keeps no record of wrongs…”  How can God demand blood sacrifice if he keeps no record of wrongs?  Hosea 6:6 (which Jesus himself quotes) says that “God desires mercy, not sacrifice” and Psalm 51 says:

you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;

If all this is true, then why does God demand a sacrifice for our sins?  A common response is that he doesn’t want a sacrifice, but his justice requires it.  This puts God in a position where he doesn’t get what he wants because of our sins.  How can God, who is all powerful, be thwarted by our sins?  The idea that God demands a death for our actions is clearly at odds with the Bible’s description of him and his goals.  In addition to quoting Hosea 6, Jesus said:

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:36)

and

But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt 5:44-46)

Clearly Jesus does not describe a Father who demands the deaths of his children out of a sense of justice.  None of us would kill our own children and call it justice, no matter what they had done, unless we were clearly insane.  Why do we think God would do this?  Would God the Father violate Jesus’s command by not showing mercy?  The very words are meaningless.  Of course he wouldn’t.

Justice and Atonement in A Course in Miracles

A Course in Miracles teaches a much different view of God’s justice:

To the world, justice and vengeance are the same, for sinners see only justice  as their punishment, perhaps sustained by someone else, but not escaped. The laws of sin demand a victim. Who it may be makes little difference. But death must be the cost and must be paid. This is not justice, but insanity. Yet how could justice be defined without insanity, where love means hate, and death is seen as victory and triumph over eternity and timelessness and life? [...]

Can this be justice? God knows not of this. But justice does He know, and knows it well. For He is wholly fair to everyone. Vengeance is alien to His Mind because He knows of justice. To be just is to be fair, and not be vengeful. Fairness and vengeance are impossible, for each one contradicts the other, and denies that it is real. [...]

For love and justice are not different. Because they are the same does mercy stand at God’s right Hand

(Excerpted from Text.25.9-The Principle of Salvation)

You can see that The Course’s teaching on justice is very consistent with Jesus’s statements in the Gospels, and does not make the error of confusing vengeance with justice like the doctrine of Penal Substitution.

The Course also teaches a different view of atonement and assigns a different meaning to the Crucifixion.  In Text:3.3 Jesus says “I was not punished because you were bad.”  He goes on to say that it was the Resurrection which established the Atonement, not the Crucifixion.  The Crucifixion was the “last foolish journey” which he made so that we could stop making it.  It was not to appease God’s sense of justice or his demand for the deaths of his children.

These statements in The Course really challenged me, and forced me to reexamine my own views on the meaning of the Crucifixion and my concept of God’s justice.  While the inconsistencies with the Psalm 51, 1 John 4:16, 1 Cor 13, and Psalm 51 had always troubled me, I still accepted the western protestant view of the atonement.  The Course forced me to take another look.

The Origin of the Idea that God Demands his Children’s Deaths

Interestingly enough, the Penal Substitution doctrine wasn’t always the doctrine of the church.  It was devised in the 12th century by St. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury in his writing Cur Deus Homo (Why did God Become Man?).  While modern Christians have argued that this was an original teaching of the Apostles recaptured by Anselm, this doctrine really reflects a medieval mode of thought.  Anselm compares God to a medieval king who loves his subjects, but is required by his office to administer justice when they break the law.  I think this was very innovative for Anselm’s time, but it certainly begs the question, why would God choose operate this way?  Has God created a world in which he cannot choose to show mercy?  Also interestingly enough, Anselm wrote after the Great East-West schism, and Eastern Christianity has never adopted his view of penal substitution.  (For an excellent comparison of the East vs West views visit http://sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml)

The View of God’s Justice Taught by Origen in the Early Church

The more I dug into earliest church fathers, the more I realized that they did not hold to Anselm’s view.  Origen was probably the most prolific theologian of the early church prior to Augustine, and a real theological giant of the third century.  His response to Marcion and the Gnostics was a writing called Peri Archon (First Principles).  In it he addresses the teaching that the God of the Old Testament was a different God than the God of Jesus.  He describes God’s justice very succinctly, teaching that God does not punish the wicked because he hates wickedness, but so that they will turn from their sins:

Let them learn, therefore, by searching the holy Scriptures, what are the individual virtues, and not deceive themselves by saying that that God who rewards every one according to his merits, does, through hatred of evil, recompense the wicked with evil, and not because those who have sinned need to be treated with severer remedies, and because He applies to them those measures which, with the prospect of improvement, seem nevertheless, for the present, to produce a feeling of pain.

They do not read what is written respecting the hope of those who were destroyed in the deluge; of which hope Peter himself thus speaks in his first Epistle:  “That Christ, indeed, was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which He went and preached to the spirits who were kept in prison, who once were unbelievers, when they awaited the long-suffering of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was preparing, in which a few, i.e., eight souls, were saved by water.  Whereunto also baptism by a like figure now saves you.”

And with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, let them tell us whether they believe the prophetic words to be those of the Creator God—of Him, viz., who is related to have rained upon them a shower of fire and brimstone.  What does Ezekiel the prophet say of them?  “Sodom,” he says, “shall be restored to her former condition.”But why, in afflicting those who are deserving of punishment, does He not afflict them for their good?—who also says to Chaldea, “Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them; they will be a help to thee.”

And of those also who fell in the desert, let them hear what is related in the seventy-eighth Psalm, which bears the superscription of Asaph; for he says, “When He slew them, then they sought Him.”  He does not say that some sought Him after others had been slain, but he says that the destruction of those who were killed was of such a nature that, when put to death, they sought God.  By all which it is established, that the God of the law and the Gospels is one and the same, a just and good God, and that He confers benefits justly, and punishes with kindness; since neither goodness without justice, nor justice without goodness, can display the (real) dignity of the divine nature.

Origen’s description of the punishment of the wicked also fits well with Jesus’s words in the New Testament.  Jesus uses the greek word kolasis to describe the punishment of the wicked.  Κολασις is the type of punishment which leads to reform and rehabilitation.  It is punishment intended to help the person being punished, as opposed to the greek word τιμορια which is punishment to avenge lost honor.  Τιμορια would be more in line with Anselm’s description of the Crucifixion, κολασις with Origen’s.  The Jewish historian Josephus describes the Pharisees as teaching a doctrine of τιμορια, the Bible quotes Jesus as teaching a doctrine of κολασις.

Finally…

The more I’ve researched this, the more I’ve found The Course’s teachings to be in line with the teachings of the early church.  God is love, and love keeps no record of wrongs.  We shouldn’t either.  God’s love teaches us to forgive and restore everyone who has wronged us.  Faith in God teaches us to trust him for protection from those who would hurt us.  It is this faith that enables us to love boldly, without fear or hesitation.  This is the love of Jesus.  This is the love that is our very nature, for we were created in God’s image.

I intend to write further on the meaning of atonement, but if you want to learn more I would recommend: Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross by S. Mark Heim. It’s simply outstanding.

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog!