Soli Deo Gloria: What does it mean to be human?

6/19/08

What does it mean to be human?

Bill Harvelle said...: Hello again and good morning. I want to wish a belated Father’s Day to any father here, and especially to Freddy and Remy. Love is patient and kind and I’m going to try my best to keep my thoughts succinct and all is at peace with Berny, who I do respect and care for as a brother. He is a gentleman. May God bless the peacemakers here.

I would like to post a synthesis for comments, discussion, critique and debate. It deals with theological anthropology, a topic of which we were discussing doing, at least Berny and myself. It asks the question from reason illuminated by faith “what does it mean to be human”? My hope in this post is to present what I believe the Old Testament expresses as its theological-anthropological picture of man. Then, if anyone wishes, they can comment and/or put forward their Biblical anthropologies. After it is worked over perhaps then I could post my New Testament continuation, if that’s okay. Working through early Christianity to the Modern periods, we could then move to the subjects of nature, grace, and sin. This is how I would like to continue in this, what I believe, has been a fruitful and lively exchange.

Let’s begin with Sacred Scripture; let’s start with the Old Testament. The Bible, from the Priest (e.g., Gen 1:1-2:4a), views “human” as a male/female creature in the Image and Likeness of Elohim (see Gen 1:26-27). “Human” is seen as interpersonal communion: family. “Human” for Hebrew thought is not individualistic, but communal.

The Bible, from the Yahwist (e.g., Gen 2:4bff), views the human person as a creature of Yahweh Elohim and as an animated body (Gen 2:7). The word that designates “man/woman” in the Old Testament, Adam, enforces the concept of the human person as animated body. The word for dust in Hebrew is adamah and the etymological connection is crucial. The Old Testament writers knew nothing of Medieval Scholastic philosophy or Cartesian dualism (a philosophy which it would oppose); they present the human person as an animated body. To them we are not composite beings, made of body and soul as two separate parts. The Old Testament does not contrast soul and flesh. Unlike the Greeks, who look upon a human person as an incarnated spirit, the Hebrews regarded the human person as an animated body. This is CRUCIAL: according to the Old Testament worldview, we do not HAVE a mind and a body; we ARE mind and body.

What does it mean if human existence is that of an animated body? First, it means that human existence is coexistence—our utter bodiliness is the relationship we have with one another (Lev 19:18; Lev 19:9-18, 34; Lev 25:35-38; Amos 5:23-24, 8:4-6; Is 3:13-15) and this is highlighted in a special way in the sexual relationship where human persons are most deeply themselves (Gen 1:27, 2:18, 24, 4:1). Second, it means that human existence—at once dependant on God and interdependent in relationship with others—is therefore responsible existence (yet it need not be one of fear and drudgery; Gen 2:15-17; 1 Kgs 4:20; Ps 43:4). Third, human existence is sinful existence only inasmuch as it is responsible existence (there is no fully developed notion of Original Sin in the Old Testament yet human persons are seen as proud and closed to the Call of God and the cry of neighbor; Gen 8:21; Ps 2, 143). Genesis 3-11 and elsewhere the Old Testament does indeed depict sin as something breaking out into the world harming both the individual sinner and history itself, yet consciousness of sin’s damage to history deepens as history unfolds (Jer 13:23). Fourth, human existence is therefore hope-filled existence; hopes of a savior and salvation, for the fulfillment of the promises of new life in the new covenant (Gen 1:1, 3:15; Jer 31:31-34).

Because of the bodiliness of human existence, the Old Testament expresses ultimate salvation in a bodily manner; i.e., as the resurrection of the body (Is 26:19; Dan 12:2-3; 2 Macc 7:14 [even if you don’t accept this as canonical, it dates from over 150 BC and is representative of Jewish thought at that time]). The idea of immortality of the soul is not developed in the Old Testament. The notion of soul immortality is alien to the anthropology as presented by the Old Testament; it is related to Greek philosophy (which understands human person as incarnated spirit).

So let’s summarize Old Testament thought on human existence: one, it is theological: man/woman is a creature made as familial in the Image and Likeness of God; two, a human person is an animated body with no separation between mind and body; three, it is a reality dependant on God and coexistent with others; four, it is communal, and best expressed in the sexual relationship; five, it is an historical reality fraught with challenge—it is responsible, sinful, and hope-filled; six, ultimate salvation consists of the hope in the resurrection of the body; seven, the immortality of the soul is not speculated on or developed in the Old Testament—in ancient Semitic thought, mind, heart and body are seen as being utterly one and without duality

Before moving onto the New Testament I would like to see your thoughts. Are my sources and I right here? What do you think? What are the ramifications? If my sources and I are incorrect, please, where and how? Did I miss anything? How does this view on human existence affect prayer and faith? How would faith be expressed in this reality?

I look forward to hearing your responses.

14 comments:

Remy said...: I'm going to attempt to respond to your post Bill according to my understanding. I'm sure there will be brighter comments made later by others. I agree with the first six points you make in your summarizing statement, though I have issues with the second one. I would also agree with the seventh one, but I don't think I have enough knowledge on the subject to make an educated opinion.

Most of my concern deals with whether our body and soul are composite or one inseparable creation. Though I must say I'm expressing the following concerns with little knowledge of the ramifications of either perspective because I don't know what you're trying to "get at." Anyways, my issue deals with this verse: II Cor. 5:8 which seems to imply that our soul and body are separated at death.

Furthermore, the resurrection body cannot be made of the same material as my body now because these molecules may form the body of someone else in the future. So whose body would these molecules form at the resurrection? My body is likely formed from molecules of previous humans. Therefore my body and the resurrection body are made from different materials. Therefore my soul must be separated from my body to be transferred to the resurrection body, which I believe is a literal body. Now, I am fully aware that the Jews were not aware of or had in mind the concept of molecules and atoms, but we do now and our current knowledge cannot be compartmentalized so that it is not affected by Scripture. It is God who created molecules from the beginning. That is why I think this last argument is justified and implies that our soul and body are composite.

Also, if Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God, then does not Jesus have to be material? And if so, how could this be if matter was Created for the first time in Genesis 1:1. Unless, Jesus is material from all eternity. Otherwise, he must somehow be separated from His physical body prior to material existence.

As a final note on this topic, what about the spirit? (I Thes. 5:23)Where does it come in? It seems people have varying, confusing, and hodgepodge views on this topic.

Lastly, and less important, (I would not mention it unless I thought it might inspire another edifying discussion) is your reference to JEDP. By "Priest" in referring to Genesis 1 I’m assuming you are referring to the JEDP theory. I tend to disagree with this theory. I like the succinctness this author gives: http://www.gotquestions.org/JEDP-theory.html in explaining this theory and responding to it. Maybe it’s not a perfect rebuttal, but I think that last paragraph is convincing.

In this reality that you're presenting faith cannot be expressed without the body, which is what James stresses. Matter is not evil, but will also be redeemed from whatever corruption it has. (Romans 8:18-23) God loves matter and is linked to it. He used it in Creation. I think that one of the ramifications of what you're saying is that since hope is part of human existence it must extend to all men, therefore man is not totally depraved because total depravity could not harbor hope.; June 20, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Remy said...: I'd like to add that I hope that no one takes offense by my seemingly lighthearted discussion of Jesus and his physical presence. I do feel convicted by it. I pray that it would only express my genuine search for wisdom as God encourages me to do. I respect and love my Savior desperately and I did not have vain intentions when making that comment.
"Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting." - A prayer from Psalm 139; June 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM
dogfreid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 21, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Bill Harvelle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 21, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Remy said...: Thank you Bill. It seems I've jumped the gun a little bit. Sticking to the Old Testament only I guess I would have a hard time disagreeing with the points you made. Berny also asked some interesting questions. I'll just sit back and wait for you to respond to him.

Berny, to clarify the paragraph you referenced I would like to add that I was taking the point that Bill was making and trying to run with it to examine some of its ramifications. Bill made the argument that according to the OT, human existence is hope filled existence. It was not my argument, though I personally agree with him. The comment I made took that point for granted. It also took for granted that hope filled existence specifies a longing for redemption, which is what I understood from Bill's post. This I got from his reference to Genesis 3:15. I hope that I wasn't reading too much into it. So according to this argument all men long for salvation/redemption. Now they may not express it in those terms, but they may experience it as that vague feeling that "there has to be something more to life," or more commonly expressed: the sense that accidents and tragedies and the general chaos of this world should not be so, that things should be different. This longing is what I refer to as hope. The definition of hope that you wrote alluding to Hebrews 11 (I'm assuming) I take to refer to as 'faith,' not 'hope.' Assuming that all men hope for this salvation/redemption then man is not totally depraved, because from what I understand of the doctrine of total depravity (please correct me if I'm wrong), those that are not the elect won't even desire salvation. Without God we are all depraved yes, but because we are all made in His image whether saved or not the image of God that's an inseparable part of man longs/hopes for Him whether man is aware that it is Him they are hoping for or not. They may try to satisfy that longing with social relationships, vices, careers or other such things, but it is only God that can fully compliment that hope.

By the way, on a lighter note, I realize that I'm swimming in the deep end. Please continue to humor my misplaced thoughts and feel free to correct me when it is obvious that I don't understand something. I love you guys in Christ.; June 21, 2008 at 2:11 AM
Bill Harvelle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM
dogfreid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 21, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Bill Harvelle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 26, 2008 at 8:00 AM
Remy said...: Hi Bill!

Sorry that I’ve taken so long to reply to you. I’ve been working on a little fictional story that’s been taking up my time. I’m trying to enter a writing contest. Maybe if you have the time I’ll send it to you and Michelle and you guys can tell me what you think. Anyways, I’ve looked over what you wrote one more time so that I can make appropriate comments. There were a few things that I had some trouble agreeing with.

Well, first, I wanted to ask you to clarify something. At the beginning of your essay you say that Jesus “never formulates an abstract doctrine of fraternal charity, replete with roles and conditions.” What do you mean by this? I had a hard time understanding this. I’m thinking that the key word is “abstract,” but I still don’t understand what you ‘concretely’ mean. :-) Anyways…

I don’t want to take a point-by-point approach because it seems too offensive to me, but I am going sequentially with what I read. Please don’t take this as an assault. I enjoyed reading your OT anthropology and I agreed with most of it. I also enjoyed this one. In particularly what you presented on the mind, body, soul, heart and spirit. It is interesting to see how and when Paul uses these words and how he interchanges them. This does seem to point out that he is not dealing with specific parts of the human being. Nevertheless, by this time Hellenization was rampart. I imagine that he would understand the Greeks’ perspective of soul and spirit and if so, I wonder if he refers to this in his speeches and letters. It would also be interesting to read an extra-biblical Jewish source on this topic from around the same time or prior to the NT. Do you know of any?

For the most part, what I disagreed with dealt with two comments that you made that subtly hint at “salvation through works” rather than “salvation through faith.” This to me is important because first, from my understanding, the former is not supported by the entirety of scripture; second, I believe that the former is humanly impossible; and third, the Roman Catholic church gets a lot of heat from protestants because from their perspective the Catholic church affirms the former (this may not be true, but it is the common man’s perspective of Catholic teaching, please don't take offense to this.)

Here are the two comments that led me to believe that you are inclined to agree that salvation is efficaciously attained by works:

“Ultimately [emphasis added] it is by the quality of our response to those in need that we shall all be judged, friend and enemy alike (Mt 25:31-46).”

And

“Jesus calls us to metanoia and repentance, to a working out of our salvation through changing our relationships with others.”

Again, you’re not stating it outright, but you are pointing in that direction. Here are my issues with that:
Taking Matthew 25:31-46 by itself I would find it very difficult to disagree with you. Jesus says that God will place the sheep that fed him when he was hungry and clothed him when he was naked on his right (place of honor and blessing), and those that did not do these things on his left (place of cursing). He then sends the ones on the right to eternal life (righteous), and the ones on the left to eternal punishment (unrighteous). – But even if I do take this riddle (meshalim) by itself there is one major thing that does not point to salvation through works, or that ultimately we will be judged by our work towards others. That is that the sheep and goats are separated before their works are revealed. A prejudgment, you might say, was made on whether they were sheep or goats first. Secondly, their works were judged.

Now, if I take what I learn through Paul I can then add that the fact that they are sheep (children of God regenerated by the Spirit of God) means that they are being transformed from the inside out to demonstrate their faith by works. Our works (towards each other I believe) will be tried by fire, but the righteous will not be judged on whether or not they will attain eternal life. They are righteous because they are building on a foundation “already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” But rather the righteous will be judged on whether he will receive “his reward.” Nevertheless, “if it (his work) is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” --- I Corinthians 3:10-15

I believe that Paul understood from Jesus’ teachings that righteousness, though can be expressed by works, is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ. Not the other way around: “obtained by works, expressed by faith.”

Acts 13:38-39 38 -- Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Romans 3:21-22a -- But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Titus 3:3-8 -- At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

Particularly regarding the second quote I mentioned earlier, I don’t think that the Bible expresses that our salvation is worked out “through” changing our relationships with others. This again implies that salvation is obtained via our works. But salvation is obtained through faith (Romans 3:25, Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:14, Ephesians 2:8), and then “it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” -- Phil 2:13.

Finally, I agree with most of your statements about Johannine anthropology (from the very little bit that I know), except that I would reword something you wrote. I think that instead of saying that “for John, to live by grace is to be human,” it is more accurate to say that, “for John, to live by grace is to truly live.” This I take from the same verses you quoted on this subject. And I might add, but this is from me, that perhaps to live by grace is to be fully living, and to fully live is to live beyond what we understand of ourselves as human, but becoming ‘new creatures,’ with new names. But maybe not. That may be too radical. This is just my own musing.

Other than these points, which only come up at the beginning and at the end of your essay, the majority of the body is really interesting and edifying. It helped clear up some misunderstandings that I had, simply because the verses you referenced on soul and body seem to make more sense without the Greek influence. But I would like to see if there are any other sources from Biblical times that also support this in more direct terms. Anything much later than this is surely to be greatly influenced by Greek thinking. Perhaps these sources don’t exist for the very fact that to the Jew this was not a question or concern. Please let me know what you know.

Anyways Bill, please keep it up. I’m learning and growing a lot from this. I feel like God is stretching me to know Him for who He is (John 17:3), and to me that is an answer to prayer. I just didn’t realize it would come from such ardent study, but you know what, it’s about time for me. I praise God that He has led me to this blog and is using you, Berny, Freddy, and others to do the stretching.

“Lord, blessed be Your Name!”

Remy.; July 1, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Bill Harvelle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 2, 2008 at 6:26 AM
Remy said...: Bill, thank you for your post. I know we always use kind words towards each other, but I mean it. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I've sat here in front of this computer many times and I know it takes commitment and effort to write out a response or a post, and you do it very thoroughly. Thank you for blessing me.

I read your post and the verses Gal 5:6 and Romans 2. I understand what you're saying and this is what I see: There is faith, and God justifies us because of our faith, but our faith is linked with works, which God works in us and through us.

But when it comes to judgment what scares me is the thought, 'are my works enough to prove my faith?' I desperately believe and it's more than an abstract fact in my mind. I know that though I sin daily you cannot separate my trust in Christ as my Savior from who I am. So, can there be a point where my works might not be enough? Should I live my life worried that I'm not showing my faith in works enough? Or should I not worry because my trust in God allows Him to work through me, and however great or little my works I'm going to be okay on Judgment Day?

You also mentioned that the Council of Trent confirmed that there is positive value when an unbeliever does good works. I believe there is in an earthly sense towards those whom the good works were performed, but would it have positive value for salvation? And would you be able to accumulate enough positive value to attain salvation? (Though I know you said you're antiPelagian).

I have friends that are really good (like goody two shoes) people. They're not amoral. They're more moral than many Christians that I've known. But they have rejected the gospel outright. Of course, their decision has not be finalized because they're still alive. But let's assume it was final. That shouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that good people die daily rejecting Christ. Would their works have any positive value towards their attainment of salvation? Or are they damned? Their good works might point to their own attempting to please "God" though they may not see it that way. But having rejected the gospel outright would they still be able to attain salvation? Is the Bible vague or mute on this topic or does It give us a clear rubric?

Finally, how can our works increase grace? Is not eternal life ultimate grace? Increasing grace is a very abstract concept to me. How does that play out in an experiential sense?

You asked me, what other reward is there other than eternal life?
I've researched a little bit and I can't answer that. Obviously, eternal life is the greatest reward. So what you're telling me is that each of these verses -- Psalms 18:20, Proverbs 13:13, 25:21-22, Matthew 6:3-6, 2 John 8, Revelation 22:12 -- refer to eternal life?

I know I've just given you more questions, but I want to understand this very much.

Also, one more thing that I forgot to mention on your anthropology. What about when people die? Are we instantly transported to our new bodies? If not, then isn't there a separation between body and soul/spirit? How about our Lord Jesus before the incarnation? or even before the creation of matter? Wouldn't there have to be a separation from His physical body? Also how about the belief that some Jews held that the soul separates from the body, as some believe is alluded to in the account of Lazarus? "For three days the soul hovers over the grave, contemplating a return to the body, but once it sees that the facial color has faded, it goes away, never to return" (Gen. Rab. 50:10). Now, maybe these were radical, heretical Jews, but they certainly didn't have a sense that Judaism must be experiential and not abstract.

Anyways, I'm sure this is enough. God bless you Bill. Take your time in replying. I know you're a busy man. :-)

Remy.; July 3, 2008 at 2:30 AM
Bill Harvelle said...: Remy your words are always kind and full of love. Thank you for your time and efforts here. This will be as brief as possible and then I’m off to enjoy the weekend and more. I’ll be some time in responding next.

Let me ask you: Do we agree that Paul, in condemning works-salvation, means ceremonial works of the law and NOT actions of love (= good deeds for God and neighbor)?

True faith is work. Your works OF LOVE come from God as your response in faith. They are empowered by God, sustained by God, and directed by God in you, through you, and WITH you. They are not perfect, just as this age is not perfect (the Kingdom is now… but NOT YET).

You should not worry about tomorrow; the “fear and trembling” by which we work out our salvation in love is AWE or the poverty of spirit (cf. Mt 5:3). It is not a centripetal or selfish terror but being awestruck reverence and humility that you must have. But salvation is not getting out of hell or fire insurance.

For works of love to be good they need only be (good is interchangeable with existence); they need not be explicitly Christian or even consciously Christian. Remember when we discussed this topic back in another blog, about how can those FORMALLY outside the Church be saved? They can be saved because, as their love shows, despite their words and erroneous understanding, they are SUBSTANTIALLY apart of the Church.

Our works of love do not add. Life is qualitative, not a quantitative. There is a synergy with God and me. The fundamental option in all human beings: to fiat to God, or say “no.” Say salvation is analogous to 1 trillion points. Jesus provides 1 trillion points to me each moment; my “fiat” is not PLUS 1 but is “times 1.” One trillion “times 1” = one trillion, or its analogy, salvation. However I can ruin my freedom (potentia obedientialis) by responding at any moment “no.” No is analogous to “times zero.” One trillion “times zero” = zero, or its analogy, centripetal self collapse, that is, hell. Hell and heaven begin here and NOW, my friend, not in some Platonic “ETERNITY-PAST”. So what I’m seeing in the relationship between faith and works of love (a redundancy because all love demands bodily work) is a SYNERGY between God and the human person. In this way we COOPERATE with our salvation.

It’s funny how the canon of Scripture is bookended with fire-water imagery. The lake of fire (Rev 20:10, 14-15) is an image, when intellectually grasped, is not lava or volcanic but a negative take on two elements, namely water (lake) and fire. These opposites are seen mixed in the ancient Jewish Rabbinic folk etymology for the fifth word in Genesis, the heavens, hashamayim—literally, “the esh and mayim”—the fire-waters. So heaven is the fire waters and everlasting damnation is the fire waters. Obviously, these symbols are to be taken in an intellectual manner and not imagined as something literal. We read in Daniel 7 about the Messiah and the Ancient One on the Throne, and how from the Throne (see Dan 7:10) proceeds a stream of fire (“water” and fire). Proceeding from “The One Seated on the Throne” and “The Lamb in the Midst of the Throne” and pouring out to the blessed in the City is the river of life (Rev 22:1-2). Fire and Water are chief symbols of the Holy Spirit, the love of the Father and the Son. I would challenge you to consider God’s immutability (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8) and realize that God never stopped loving Satan or anyone in Hell—he still pours his Infinite Fiery Water of love out, but the eternally centripetal in hell have been drown in God’s mercy becoming forever “No” to Him. They are likened to be even in a worse fate than those who perished in the two worst conceivable deaths for an ancient Mediterranean—simultaneously burned to death (1 Cor 13:3) and drown (Mt 18:6). And no one is in this state by accident; they are Gollums all. For the selfish, God’s love is hellish. But there is no room for mythos in fundamentalism, only unnaturally HARD logos.

There is only one beginning and one end of all created reality: God. The final destiny of Christians is no different from the final destiny of all human beings, nor is it different from the destiny of the world itself or of its history.

Have your “Goody Two-Shoe” friends rejected the Gospel outright? You are privy to their consciences? Then again you know them (to a point). Of course this is a possibility—I do it every time I say “No” to God. If their decision to reject the Gospel were final then they are lost to their selfishness. Whatever good they do is a “Fiat” to God, whether Christian or not (you will recall that we went over this in an earlier blog). All things, in that they are, are good. However if you mean by “good people” ethically good (that is working properly with their fundamental option in giving “fiat” to the Supreme Truth and Good) It would VERY much be a stretch of the imagination and all reality to say that good people finally reject Christ. Now they may have a deficient image called by them “Christ” through NO fault of their own, and reject that—being private, we have no ACCESS to that—if so, have they rejected Christ, the source of their goodness? Go back to your Tash story from Lewis. If I, through no fault of my own, reject a falsehood that I mistakenly call Christ, then, am I damned? There is no room for subtlety in fundamentalism. The Bible is clear—Jesus is the Truth. Therefore, Truth is Jesus; if anyone has any light or truth at all, to that degree, Jesus has him in His Presence—this is Grace, the Presence of God, and should answer how grace may increase.

Christianity, like human life, is an event. That said, like life, Christianity is an experience. It shouldn’t be abstract; are you finished? Perfected? Can we look at any moment in your life, any of the multitude of space and time fragmented pieces of your life from now back to your conception, and say, “AHA! HERE is the DEFINITIVE Remy Dou!”No way, not this moment, not the one before it, two weeks ago, not the time you accepted Jesus, nor before that one, nor all the way back. If you were to isolate any of these fragments and call it the DEFINITIVE Remy, THAT would be abstract. Why? We have yet to see your whole life. Something definitive about someone (was Remy happy?) can only be said AFTER their death (and even then, death hides as much as it reveals).

All living is dying and all dying is living. It is the destiny for all human beings to die, for “as soon as man comes to life, he is at once old enough to die.” It is death that sets the framework of human existence— when one becomes aware of the boundary or limit of human existence, then one also has recognized that this is one’s own existence; indeed, death is the horizon that closes off the future. Inauthentic existence is all about allowing ourselves to be governed by dark and irrational forces to avoid facing actualities— this inevitably happens if there is no thought of death and if the future is regarded as stretching out indefinitely; then there is no great sense of urgency or responsibility, for death is covered up, forgotten, ignored. Authentic existence, however, demands we come to terms with our own death and recognize it for what it is: our own individual death is the boundary and limit to our own personal existence. As we have seen, the Old Testament presents death as essential to human existence. When one dies, their person is lost, even if his or her spirit is lost to the Nether-realm called Sheol (Psalm 36:10). The New Testament presents death in two ways: first, as the consequence of sin and a punishment for it (Romans 5:12-14); second, that which is at once final and unique to human life without possibility of reincarnation. Far from just being the end of things, death is a great unifier to life. It gathers together every space and time fragmented piece of a person’s life as a coherent whole— death, therefore, is not simply the end of life, but the force that introduces a wholeness and unity into life. (See John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, [2nd ed.], New York: Scribbers, 1977, pp. 62-68.). The horizon that closes off the future, death puts everything in perspective. It destroys BS and makes us serious. Death exposes the superficiality and triviality of much of what we count as important and to which we dedicate so much of our resources and energies. The whole human person experiences death, not only the body. We are not “soul and body” but rather our souls are so one with our bodies that they may say, “I am a body.” Death finds its ultimate meaning on the Cross where human being is defined.

All romantic, idealized versions of human life are brought low by the reality of death. More than anything else, death forces us to accept the radical finitude of our existence. But this is not to say that death nullifies everything, rendering all life absurd and meaningless. On the contrary, death projects an ambiguous character. In spite of the certainty of death and Jean-Paul Sartre, we go on living with a deeply rooted conviction that life does make sense, or at least can make sense. Death itself can be an affirmative, even courageous act. An individual’s life—not to say a nation’s or a world’s—can assume an extraordinary significance by the manner in which death is faced. A person dies that another might live, as in the case of Maximilian Kolbe (d. 1941), saint of the twentieth century and Polish priest who went to his death at Auschwitz to spare the life of a family man marked out for execution by the Nazis. The circumstances of a person’s death, too, can be understood as in some way redeeming the blameworthy actions of his or her own life, as in the case of Sydney Carton in Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

All human possibilities are seen in the context of death, because it brings into existence a responsibility and a seriousness that it could scarcely have had otherwise. Death, therefore, not only destroys; it brings some degree of unity and coherence and purpose into one’s life. We shape and direct our lives with the certainty of future death in mind. We do NOT have unlimited time at our disposal. We have but a certain amount of time, and everything has to be arranged in relation to that “deadline.” In the face of death, things get put into perspective.

I don’t treat Scripture as an all-encompassing encyclopedia of every kind of knowledge; accordingly, in reflecting on the powers of the human mind, I accept a MODIFIED Greek insight that a human being is the substantial unity of soul and body; consequently, with the OT and NT, I must likewise accept that our body is part of our self-identity. Plato and Descartes, whom I reject in this area, have terribly befuddled us—when we die it is NOT like the shedding of a “cocoon” which is somehow extraneous to us. Even though our soul is immortal, it is the whole person who goes through the experience of dying. In fact, if we had no immortal soul, we could not experience the horror of death; it is our spiritual soul that dreads death as totally opposed to its own immortal nature.

There is a connection between Heidegger’s “Angst” and sinful humankind. There is a connection between living as if “I were my own god” and experiencing my existence as a sliding towards death, a “Sein zum Tod.” The human soul and human body constitute one being, one person. Thus, when I die, directly only my body dies, but since I am my body, I experience the disintegration of my body as something not external to myself; rather I experience myself dying (even though my soul, the very “core” of my person is immortal). This explains why the anticipation of the separation of our body and soul is so threatening and so painful for us: it is experienced as the disintegration and annihilation of the person who had originally been created for eternal life.

After death (but before the Resurrection)? Who can say what that is like? To think “we” will be placed in our resurrected bodies is Cartesian nonsense—am “I” my soul? Now after death, intellect still exists, and my core and my will… but gone are my imagination and senses. What the heck would that be like? I would have NO access to particulars (the sensorial mind is GONE), only UNIVERSALS and the transcendental. Can you think of any kind of life without reference to the sensorial? Would such a state be the fullness of what it means to be me? Hardly.

I struggle to see death as Karl Rahner does, as a universal and definitive manifestation of our free acceptance or rejection of God’s self-communication (“grace”). In that sense, death is the culmination and fulfillment of a person’s freedom, the final and definitive establishment of personal identity. It is not simply a transition to a new or continued temporal life—ALL such eschatological views I must reject as INAUTHENTIC. If there were no such culmination, no ability to make a permanent and final commitment of self, then freedom (and therefore love) would be an illusion. Genuine self-determination would be denied because every choice could be reversed. If everything is reversible, no act or succession of acts could definitively express an individual’s identity. The Christian conviction that this life is the arena in which human fate is worked out, requires the freedom for such definitive acceptance or rejection of God’s self-communication. But any anthropology that takes seriously the human capacity for free self-determination would also be required to see death as a kind of culmination and definitive expression of personal identity. Hence death is not something that happens only to the physical body. Death involves and affects the person as a whole. It involves consciousness, freedom, and love. It is not endured passively.

Hence, death as a personal and spiritual phenomenon is not identical with the cessation of biological processes. For example, illness or medication can limit personal freedom WELL BEFORE the onset of clinically defined death. Moreover, insofar as all the engagements of one’s life anticipate death, Rahner maintained that every moment of life participates in death—not just the last second! Hence he disputed the notion of death as a final decision if this is understood to be an occurrence only at the last moment.

The Christian doctrine of death as the consequence and punishment of sin underscores its ambiguous duality and obscurity. If the integrity of human life were not wounded by sinfulness, perhaps death would be experienced as a peaceful culmination of each person’s acceptance of God’s self-communication in historical existence. But death can be a manifestation of a definitive “no” to truth and love, and so to God, the fullness of truth and love. Ironically, this results in a loss of self as well because it is unity with God’s self-communication that makes definitive human fulfillment possible (again, think Gollum in Lord of the Rings). In the “no,” death becomes a manifestation of futile self-absorption and emptiness, and as such punishment of sin. Moreover, everyone experiences death as the manifestation of that possibility. As a consequence of sin, people experience death as a threat, loss, and limit, which impacts every moment of life. Because of this duality and ambiguity, even a “yes” to God involves the work of surrender. Just as God’s self-communication to humanity entailed fleshing out the divine in the humanity of Jesus, including surrender in death on the cross, so death-to-self is paradoxically intrinsic to each person’s confrontation with biological death.

If you mean by eternal life the state of resurrected glory then yes it is ultimate grace. But anyone with grace, in this life or the one beyond, has eternal life. That’s what grace is, the presence of God. Absolutely the texts you cite on reward refer to eternal life. Admittedly, the OT citations you used in their LITERAL SENSE speak in terrestrial terms and blessings. The New Testament IS the TYPOLOGICAL interpretation of the OT, but it all boils down to referring to Eternal Life, Grace, the Presence of God, and Salvation.

You raise a fascinating issue on our Blessed Lord Jesus. Let me say briefly: The logic of complete solidarity, the nature of a complete exchange between God and man, requires as a necessary presupposition that there be only one subject in Jesus who is truly and fully God and truly and fully man (this is a simple formula of the hypostatic union). In the man Jesus, God accepted full solidarity with mankind and Jesus is God’s perfect self-communication to us. God can assume full solidarity with mankind only if the crucified Jesus is God himself, for no one but God can communicate God to man in his fullness. Thus, Jesus must be God, but at the same time a true human being.

The mystery of the Trinity in itself and in its achieving of communion with humankind revolutionized our self-understanding. This includes a new understanding of the human person. When person was analogously applied to God, it could not be considered as synonymous with divine nature and when applied to the second divine Person, it could not be thought to be synonymous with human nature. Person is the ontological subject of a spiritual nature, the one who is and the one who acts; it is not necessarily identical with nature. The divine persons are distinguished and thereby constituted as persons by their opposing relationships. The Son has assumed as his own a human nature so that he began to exist as a man in history and time. Jesus has a full human nature; however, this nature does not subsist in itself, but in the eternal Son. Therefore, Jesus’ human nature lacks a corresponding human personhood.

It is the divine Person (or hypostasis) of the Son in whom the human nature of Jesus subsists as the Son’s very own, and this Divine Person truly becomes man. When God the Word takes up as his own the human reality of Jesus, in the act of creating it as his own, he does not diminish, but actualizes the full humanity of Jesus. Thus the lack of human personhood does not entail a diminution of the full human reality since persons does not formally mean any part of human nature, but the mode of existence of a full human nature.

God the Son, the “who” of Jesus Christ, preexists the Hypostatic Union (=Jesus Christ). Whereas all other human beings are substantial unities of bodies in souls, the man Jesus is HYPOSTATICALLY JOINED (infinitely greater than a substantial union) and therefore even when Jesus’ soul and body separated at death, the Son was still ONE with Body and Soul.

Jews could HOPE for resuscitation for four days until the decay sits in, but where does that demand that the they thought that the nephesh equaled personhood? They hoped the animated body of their departed, the living soul, the person, would be SAVED.

Sometime later, after this weekend, I want to address the notoriously difficult 2 Cor 4:16-5-10. 5:8 takes up the interrupted sentence in 5:6 followed by the parenthetical remark of 5:7. Paul LOADS the section with rich imagery yet sparse explanation is given (what does ego anthropos of 4:16 mean to Paul? What does he mean exactly by the heavy terms epemduomai, enduomai, gumnoi, and ekduomai in 5:2-4??). When he categorically describes things by combining redundancies of words in 4:17 gives an impression that Paul is understating (is the affliction really that light??) and overstating things. Meanwhile 5:10 gives the impression that the text has been corrected due to an excess of words (many are invited to take ta dia tou somatos as a gloss). The language of the section is unusual for Paul, too.

Happy Independence Day to everyone of you good people. God love you Remy.; July 4, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Bill Harvelle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 11, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Bill Harvelle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; July 18, 2008 at 11:16 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)