On Christ in Scripture

Dialogue between three persons: Antony, a twenty-five year old, Robert, a retired Catholic, and Sandra, a fifty year old woman. Setting: church social hall.

Antony: As I promised last week, this week the discussion will be about Christ in Scripture. Neither of the people who were here last week are here this week. I previously had asked them to pick a Gospel of their choice, and to find a way to describe how Christ is portrayed in it. This morning, before Liturgy, I was able to tell you, Robert, about today's discussion. Do you think you are able to pick a Gospel and describe what it teaches of Christ?

Robert: I can do my best. My favorite Gospel is that of John. In it, Christ is shown quite a bit differently than in the other Gospels.

Antony: Many people pick John as their favorite. The reason is probably the same for all: the details inside tend to be more philosophical and spiritual rather than plain biography. Why did you pick this Gospel, what is it that you find to be most interesting about it?

Robert: Of all the Gospels, it is the one which is most clear on the Eucharist. John six, of course, is the most complete discourse on the Eucharist in Scripture.

Antony: I see, you like the Gospel because it presents, more than the rest of the Gospels, the sacramental side of the faith. That is indeed one aspect of Christ as found in the Gospels. However, I was hoping that we would look at what the Gospels said of Christ as a person, more than what they said that He did. Sandra, although you have not been able to prepare for this discussion, do you have anything you would like to say? Anything you would like to add to our discussion?

Sandra: I would have to say, as Robert did, that my favorite Gospel is that of John. I like the opening of John: in fact, it is my favorite passage in Scripture. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It sort of brings it all out at once: Jesus Christ is God, and He is God with God. The glory of Jesus Christ is the glory of God.

Antony: Indeed, as I had indicated, the Gospel of John is the most philosophical Gospel, and in being the most philosophical, it also presents the most theological side of Christ. Both of you have pointed out elements which indicate the theological side of this Gospel. Robert pointed out its discussion of the Eucharist, but the Gospel goes beyond the Eucharist, for it is also seen as the most profound Gospel on the sacraments in general. And you have brought out how the Gospel is the one which most expresses the divine side of Christ. However, I do not think we should focus on the Gospel of John alone. All of the Gospels, of course, can be said to have some interesting, significant points they indicate about Christ. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish, and hence, the most messianic Gospel. St. Matthew brings the discussion of Jesus Christ as a means of showing how he fulfilled messianic prophecies. St. Luke, on the other hand, formats the Gospel into a historical narrative. One can almost say that his point, behind all that is said and done, is to bring about a discussion of the Lord of History. The best way to do this is to discuss the Lord of History within the framework of the history of His life. St. Luke makes sure that his readers understand that he tried to produce the Gospel within the framework of a historian. He sought out eye-witnesses (since he was not one), and used them to help produce his Gospel. Tradition even tells us that one of the eye witnesses is none other than Mary the Mother of God, and this is an explanation of her more important significance within this Gospel, especially with the narrative of the annunciation. St. Mark, though not the first to record information about the life of Christ, nonetheless is the first full Gospel which has been preserved . He apparently wrote it for those who were living in Alexandria, where he set up his own Apostolic See. As it was the first major Gospel, the significance of the text is that it was to serve more of a reminder of the life of Christ, than it was to teach new theological matters. Nonetheless, like all of the Gospels, it presents Christ the Healer, the one who has come to heal humanity, not only from his external, physical suffering, but also Jesus came to heal man's internal, spiritual, suffering. The man born blind, found at almost the exact center of the Gospel of Mark, seems to represent not just someone who is physically blind, and healed by Christ, but also all humanity. We are seen to be born spiritually blind, and need to be enlightened by the light of Christ.

Robert: Let us look at other parts of Holy Scripture. As you told me earlier, we would address Christ within all of Scripture, and not just the Gospels.

Antony: You are correct. I wanted to start with the Gospels, because they are the best, most central texts to begin a discussion. Let us now look at the Old Testament. Can either of you find examples of Christ being discussed in the Old Testament?

Robert: Yes. I would have to say, in the Old Testament, the major teachings we find of Christ are within prophecies of the messiah. My favorite prophecies are found in the book of Isaiah, because they seem to be the most clear examples of messianic prophecy.

Antony: Let as look at messianic prophecies in general. What would either of you suggest to be the first messianic prophecy in Scripture?

Sandra: I would have to say the first prophecy is found in Genesis. After the fall,   God promised to mankind his eventual redemption through the messiah. For example, the promise God had given which stated that the head of the serpent would be crushed, indicated that the serpent would not forever be able to inflict the venom of sin to mankind.

Antony: Yes, I would agree with you. This is the first messianic prophecy we find in Scripture. Of course, as Robert pointed out, the prophecies are clearest in some of the later books of Scripture. Even though the prophecies are clearer, there was still a major debate about their meaning within Jewish tradition. This is one of the reasons why, even now, the Jews and the Christians disagree about which Scriptures are indicative of messianic prophecies, and the interpretation of such Scriptures: both of them are looking at the Scriptures with different perspectives. To the Christian, we look to see prophecies which have been fulfilled, and so we shape our understanding of them accordingly. The Jews, on the other hand, do not believe the prophecies of been fulfilled, and thus they await for the fulfillment of messianic prophecies. As the Jews do not believe the prophecies have been fulfilled, they are much more open ended when it comes to possible interpretations of the prophecies. Sometimes they come close to the Christian interpretation, sometimes they do not. However, beyond these messianic prophecies, I think we can find hidden in the Old Testament many other representations of Christ. Of course, these representations, as they are of Christ, can also be said to have been messianic prophecies, but I think they are so in a different respect. For they indicate more about the character and life of Christ, than on His messianic mission.

Robert: What do you mean?

Antony: I mean that the lives of the holy men in the Old Testament, each in their own way, show some aspect of the life of Christ. For if Christ is the fulfillment of all holiness, all righteousness, that is, of the Law, then it would make sense that His life would be the fulfillment, the accumulation, of all the lives of those who were in themselves able to be considered righteous. Each righteous life participates in His life, and in participating in His life, since His life is the fulfillment of all their lives, their life can be used to help understand some aspects of Christ. For example we can look at St. Abel the first martyr and the first one to be murdered in Scripture. It is because of his righteousness that his brother, Cain, bore malice and eventually killed St. Abel. In this way, St. Abel, as the first one murdered, represents to us, the death of Christ: both died, showing no malice of their own.Yet both of them were put to death by of the malice that the ungodly had for them. Cain was jealous of the attention of St. Abel, and because of this, could not bear St. Abel's existence: he had to kill St. Abel. Like St. Abel, Christ had those who were jealous of Him, and who desired only His death.

Robert: I had not thought of Abel, either as a Saint, or within the framework of a representation of Christ before.

Sandra: Neither had I, though I can see the relationship between Abel and Christ. In some respects, Abel's death is like Christ's death. Not only is there a similarity between the cause of death between the two, but the whole text and discussion behind the death is that of sacrifice. In this sense, Abel, who first brought forth animal sacrifice to God, is next seen to bring himself as a human sacrifice, and this event precedes the death of Christ, who was Himself a human sacrifice.

Antony: Indeed, and this can also be seen, as Cardinal Jean Danielou once pointed out, to have been understood within the context of Roman theology. For within the Mass itself, the parallel between Abel and Christ is made out. Abel's sacrifice was found acceptable to the Father, even as the sacrifice at Calvary is the universal sacrifice which is also acceptable to the Father. Cardinal Danielou discussed this in his work Holy Pagans of the Old Testament, "But, above all, the Roman liturgy makes mention of his sacrifice in the Canon of the Mass before those of Abraham and Melchisedech and shows no hesitation in seeing therein the first prefiguration of the Holy Eucharist. Prayer is made to the Father, indeed, to accept the offerings of the Holy Eucharist, 'as He deigned to accept the gifts of his holy child Abel.'" (Trans. Felix Faber, Helicon Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1957, p. 29) Now, having discussed the example of St. Abel, can you bring to light any other examples from the Old Testament, which, like this, we can see as resembling Christ?

Sandra: I would think the next example should be Melchisedeck, who gave Abraham blessed bread and wine?

Antony: Ah, yes, Melchisedeck. Yes, he is a great example of Christ. Not only is he a priest-king like Christ, but he offers, in likeness of Christ, bread and wine. If we look further at the story of Abraham, when he meet with Melchisedeck, we realize that not only did Abraham receive bread and wine, but he did so in joyful celebration of victory. And this, too, shows a demonstration of the Eucharist, for the word literally means, thanksgiving feast. Thus we can see Melchisedeck as the prefiguration of the eventual victorious side of Christ, the victory which is also the sacrifice He made of Himself. He represents Christ the King who gives to us, as High Priest, the Thanksgiving Sacrifice, that is Himself , through the transformation of bread and wine to His own being. Can either of you find any other examples in the Old Testament? If neither of you do, I am myself thinking of one which should be obvious, for Jesus Himself made reference to this prophet-Saint as being an indication of Christ's own self.

Robert: I don't know who you mean.

Sandra: Nor do I.

Antony: Jonah.

Robert: Yes, but he only fits the example of Christ because he was in the whale for three days and nights, but in his own mission, Jonah was not too faithful to God.

Antony: True, Christ willingly set forth to proclaim the Gospel, while Jonah did not desire to deliver his message. However, as a righteous prophet of God, his stay in the "whale" was nonetheless a great example of the death and resurrection of Christ to come. It was one of Christ's own primary examples, so we should not discount it. However, I think there is yet another great example in Scripture, of someone who was very holy, and yet lived a life which seems to be a direct parallel to Christ: Job. For Job was a righteous man, who suffered great indignities, even though he was righteous. His friends told him that he must have done something wrong, that he must have been sinful; his wife even told him to curse God. Nonetheless, in spite of his suffering, he continued on in his righteousness, and when his suffering eventually ended, he was brought back into glory. There is a lot which can be said of this, in how it parallels the life of Christ. Jesus, Who of course was a righteous man, suffered all kinds of indignities, despite His inherent righteousness. He was accused of being a sinful man, even of being possessed by a devil, and this was one way that it could be justified to the populace when they saw Him on the Cross: they thought He was suffering because of great blasphemies which He had spread. Of course, instead of cursing God, Jesus rather accepted His lot, suffered, died, was buried, but then when He arose from the dead, He was given great glory, which can be seen at the end in his Ascension into Heaven. From glory, to suffering, to glory they both went, Job as a righteous man who preceded Christ, Christ as The Righteous Man.

Robert: From your examples, I can also produce yet another example: Isaac. Although he was not really killed, he is an example of Christ, where Christ is said to fulfill the past. For in this case, Abraham, Isaac's father, was willing to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, at the request of God; because of Abraham's willingness to obey God, Isaac was spared. In his place, a lamb was slain to fulfill Abraham's sacrificial obligation, and we see this as a representation of what Christ would do for us, that is, die for us

Antony: Very good and very correct. In this respect, Christ represents the universal sacrificial obligation, where He is sent by His Father to die as the universal sacrifice. He fulfills the universal obligation we all have to God to sacrifice to God for our sins. Now this obligation itself is a matter best left for a different time. Rather, let us continue to see if we can find other examples of righteous men in the Old Testament who, it can be said, can be seen to resemble Christ.

Robert: I can not think of any other examples offhand.

Sandra: nor can I. Do you have any more you can bring out?

Antony: Yes, and I will discuss a two more of them, and then we shall look into the New Testament. First, I would like to mention Enoch. He was considered a holy man, who, after loving God and fulfilling a holy life, he is said to have been taken up into heaven. We can easily see the connection between Enoch and Christ, since both are said to have gone up into heaven. Lastly, I would like to mention Joshua, who even had the same name as Jesus Christ. Joshua, following Moses, has as his name, being the one who succeeded Moses, of the great prophet-messiah who would follow after Moses, indicating this aspect of the messiah (which, at the time, the Jews would not be able to understand, and we can only understand after the fact).  Also,  Moses was unable to lead Israel to the promised land, but Joshua, on the other hand, was able to do so. Jesus Christ, as the messiah, is Himself one Who resembles spiritually what Joshua was historically: the one who succeeded Moses (as a prophet), and as a prophet, was able to do that which Moses was unable to do: bring about salvation, so that, those who follow Jesus will be able to enter into the promised land of heaven.

Sandra: Very good.

Antony: Before we enter into a discussion of Christ in the New Testament, outside of the Gospels, I would like to say that we have just entered into a discussion of typology. It is one of the many ways one can read Scripture, and indeed, is one of the prime methods   Christians can get meaning from the Old Testament. When one engages in typology, one looks at the events found in the Old Testament, and views them as parallel representations of something else-- in our case, we have looked upon the lives of Old Testament Saints, and we have seen how their lives paralleled and indicated the life of Christ. Typology can be used, not only to help us understand the life of Christ (which was the greatest use early Christian exegetics got out of typology), but we can use them to also see if we can find universal types, that is, representations of universal principles and universal ways of life.

Robert: I really have not delved into this kind of discussion with Scripture. Occasionally I have heard discussions of how some figures, like Isaac, represented Christ, but I have not studied typology before. It is not something which I was taught.

Antony: It does not surprise me, for there are many deeper elements of Scriptural exegetics, and with that, theology, which are generally not taught, if one is being taught the basics of the Catholic faith. It generally requires one to willfully study more of the faith and to look both at Patristic Literature (where there was a great use of this method employed). One can also study scholarly works of modern theologians who discuss the varying methods of Scriptural interpretation, for they will not overlook this basic method of Scriptural interpretation. Most people tend to stick at the lowest level of exegetics, that is, literal interpretation. This has its benefits, but it often leads people astray. There is also another method, which I like the most, that is the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. We do not need to discuss that method right now.

Sandra: You have said we will look next at the New Testament.

Antony: Yes, let us go back to our discussion of Christ in Scripture. We have looked at some examples of the presentation of Christ in the Gospels, and we have looked at typological representations of Christ in the Old Testament. Now, in the New Testament, what do you think we learn about Christ (if we exclude the Gospels)?

Robert: The chief discussion of the letters of St. Paul tend to be that of the nature of grace. So I would say that we learn from St. Paul, that Christ is a loving God, who is willing to help us in our needs, both spiritual and physical.

Antony: That is a good start. Yes, St. Paul certainly emphasizes grace, which is why those who look only to St. Paul sometimes get an incomplete understanding of the Christian life. He focuses on the willingness and ability of Christ to give us grace, and the means by which Christ gave us His grace.

Robert: Also in the letters of St. Paul, I do not remember offhand where, he discusses the Eucharist.

Antony: Yes, St. Paul also gives more information about the Eucharist. He is the one who warns us to be prepared before we receive the Eucharist. What would either of you say is the message, say, of the letters of St. John?

Sandra: I think the main message we get out of them is that Christ is forgiving, but we must be willing to admit we need Christ. That is why St. John wrote, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

Antony: That is one aspect, for sure, but I think there is also something deeper. St. John, when he wrote his Epistles, started to encounter a movement which was beginning to deny Jesus Christ from having a real human side. This movement, which is often called (incorrectly), Gnosticism, considered it inappropriate for Christ to have a body and suffer, and so they would say that it was all illusionary, that what was seen in appearances was different from what happened in reality. These Gnostics also contended against the hierarchy of the Church, from its earliest formations, and so certainly St. John saw the need to make some reference to their ideas and reject them.

Robert: I do not understand how anyone could deny the physical side of Christ.

Antony: It certainly takes a different mindset than what most people have today. It requires one which understands that the physical side of reality is less important, less real than the higher side, however, it exaggerates that by making the physical side unreal, and hence, evil. Throughout the centuries, this has often become the outcome of someone's bad logic, using nonetheless some good premises. For example, within recent times, Christian Science has come to this conclusion: that the physical side is illusionary, unreal, and hence, they are against the use of medicine for curing ailments.

Robert: If they really believed it, then they should not ever be afraid of getting into an accident, for they should believe they would never get hurt in an accident.

Antony: Perhaps, but I am sure you can understand that sometimes people have faith on something, but also believe it is much harder to work out that faith than it is to believe it. Hence, they will also point out to you: Christian Scientists do get sick. Therefore, they would say, there is still an imperfection in their faith, in their ability to control their environment, and as such, an accident could very well cause great harm, because of their lack of faith. I think we should show caution when we unnecessarily ridicule another's faith, for it often demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is being said, and the one who is mocking will be shown to be the fool. Now, getting back to the New Testament, I want to discuss, for a little bit, the book of Revelation. It is a much misunderstood book, a book which is quite often abused, but nonetheless, as a work, it offers a lot of discussion on Christ.

Robert: What would you say Revelation tells us of Christ?

Antony: I think the primary message of the book of Revelation is one about Christ: Despite however things appear to be, He is still in charge. It is a book which is trying to tell those who believe in Christ, to hold onto their faith, even in the times of trial, because Christ still is the King, and He will reward His faithful servants in the end. Trials and persecutions will come and go; those who are on the earth will periodically suffer great hardships, but in spite of all those hardships,  Christ is still in charge. The work is trying to encourage Christians, to help them hold to their faith in Christ. That is why the majesty of Christ is magnified: with such a great King, what can be the final outcome, but His overcoming of evil? There is of course another side of Christ, not only is He seen as the King, but He is also seen in His aspect as being that of the lamb who was slain. The book emphasizes that the King, not only is King and great in might, but is also one who loves His subjects, and is willing to suffer for them. Our sufferings, which will be great, nonetheless should not discourage us from having faith in Christ: He, who is the King of All, was willing to suffer and be slain in our behalf. He is willing to do all it takes for us, so that even if in this temporal state we do not see it, on the grand scheme of things, He is already victorious.

Sandra: You do not think the message of Revelation is one of prophecy, that is, telling the world what the future holds?

Antony: No, though there is of course, always the possibility, through typology, for it to hold some mysteries of the future. Those who focus on that side of Revelation do so without any real solid basis, and usually try to come up with their own, unique interpretation-- one which fits their own view of the world today, than anything else. Now, I think we should draw to a close the discussion of Christ in Scripture, and to do so, would either of you think you can find a way to describe Christ, as He is presented as a whole, in Scripture?

Robert: Not without thinking about it for sometime.

Sandra: No.

Antony: I myself have a one word way I could use to describe how Christ is presented in Scripture, which I think applies very well.

Sandra: What is it?

Antony: Mystery. That might at first seem like a strange word to use, but if we explore the history of revelation, as found in Scripture (and then beyond Scripture), I think one will think it is an appropriate word.

Sandra: Can you explain it for us?

Antony: Of course. In the Old Testament, the promises which we see of Christ tend to be vague. They sometimes tells us something about Christ, but they are better understood only after the advent of Christ. Before His advent, those of Israel who knew the prophecies, had only a vague idea of what to expect. And even then, there was a lot of debates over interpretation of Scriptures: which prophecies in Scripture actually apply to Christ, what does one do when one prophecy seems contradictory of another, and the like. In general, the reader of the Old Testament might know that they were to expect someone who would be remarkable, but they really did not know what to expect from him. To them, Christ was a mystery. And as a mystery, He was someone that the theologians would try to uncover, try to detect, try to figure out what He was going to be like.

Sandra: And now, even after the advent of Christ, when we look at the Old Testament, we can see some of the same confusion about Christ. Some people take verses to mean one thing about Him, for example, as something He has already accomplished, and others think the verses indicate something which He will accomplish only after he comes again. And of course, our discussion today has also indicated another side of the mystery in the Old Testament, one which the Jews would not have noticed at the time: the way different righteous men indicated an aspect of the life of Christ.

Antony: You are correct on both accounts. After having read Patristic Literature, and found the ways the Church Fathers applied Old Testament prophecies of Christ to Christ, I have found it amusing (but not surprising), that almost every single prophecy of Christ has, from Protestants, become challenged in one way or another, many indicating that the prophecy could not have been fulfilled yet, and thus, they use it as a means to try to predict the future. Of course, one could say a prophecy has many ways it will be fulfilled, but I do think some people are too much interested in the future, that they neglect what has already been done.

Robert: Now that we have looked at the Old Testament, and how one could correctly state that Christ is revealed as a mystery, how can you justify that about the New Testament? Isn't the whole purpose to reveal Christ in a way which will allow one to know Him?

Antony: You are correct that in the New Testament, the knowledge we are given of Christ increases tremendously. His life enfolds before us. However, in doing so, we are awakened to a more deeper mystery about Christ. Before, Christ was originally seen to be the coming of the messiah, a man who would succeed Moses, but nonetheless, someone who would be just that-- a man. But instead, we have someone doing what was not only unexpected, but unbelievable: He was acting as if He was God, and even was saying things which seemed to indicate He thought He was either God, the Son of God, or one with God. What do we make of this? Are all of His statements consistent? They sound quite confusing, on the face of them. Here, though we now see the messiah as having entered into history, we see that we have learned some things, but they provide more mysteries then are solved, and the mysteries now are of a much higher, more complicated nature. Originally, the mysteries were-- what will the messiah do, when will he come, and the like. Now, we see these mysteries answered, but we find ourselves back to the point of utter confusion: the messiah is God Himself? How can this be? Indeed, ever since Jesus has come, this new revelation about the messiah, this new revelation about Jesus has spawned questions, debates, and partial resolutions. The history of the Church, especially at Her beginnings, was plagued with this question, this new mystery. Here we have a new revelation, which we thought would answer our questions, and indeed, they answered them, but to what avail? To bring more questions with them. Hence, Christ has indeed come, Christ has indeed been revealed, but what is it that is revealed? A mystery: the mystery of the Incarnation. What does the Incarnation mean? We see and hear that this man is said to be also God, but how is that possible? There seems to be some sort of contradiction, how can a man be also God? In what way is He man and God? This kind of question, though we can come to some sort of understanding, some sort of answer, nonetheless, because it is dealing with the nature of God, goes beyond human comprehension. So, we can state, in the Old Testament, Christ was revealed in the mystery of prophecy, but in the New Testament, Christ is revealed in the mystery of the Incarnation.

Robert: I think what you said is very good. While you were speaking, I was trying to find a way to criticize the presentation, but I can not think of any way. I can't poke any holes through it.

Sandra: I also like what you have said, it is a new way for me to think about Christ, and it is a good way to summarize the presentation of Christ in Scripture.

Antony: I think this can bring us into another discussion, and that is of revelation, knowledge, and understanding. It seems to be that the more we know, it is also true, we find out there is a lot more we do not know. When we go looking for knowledge, when we go looking for wisdom, and we gain some insight, usually that insight reveals new areas of research which are needed, and often like a hydra, these new areas are more numerous than that which one was trying to grasp. The more we know, the more we know we do not know. That seems to be, not only with knowledge that we gain from our studies or experience, but it is also true, as we can see, in the history of revelation. Revelation, as with all knowledge, seems to come to us with the price of ignorance. It reveals something new, but that new knowledge then leaves many areas unexplored, and requires one to take what is revealed, and almost digest it in one's mind, that is, take the new information and use it to come out with even more insights through philosophical adaptation of the new knowledge. However, it does seem, even when one does that, one finds out that one remains ignorant at the end of the process: they may have learned something, but their own ignorance also seems to be increased.

Robert: That seems to be a contradiction; when you learn more, you should not be made more ignorant, but rather, less ignorant.

Antony: Well, there are two different elements which come into play here. On the one hand, they have learned more, and the more one knows, the less there is they do not know, and so they are no longer as ignorant as they were before. They have learned something, their knowledge has increased. However, with the increase of knowledge comes the awareness of even more areas of knowledge which one was not aware of before. Through this realization, one will come to know what they did not know before: how ignorant they really are, and what they thought they needed to learn to help them out of the ignorance was only a step to revealing new areas of questions and a greater demonstration of their own ignorance. Thus, they have become less ignorant, they have found out more about their own ignorance, and thus their overall awareness of their own ignorance is increased, and in this fashion, one can say, through learning, one has become more ignorant, but they are less ignorant of their own ignorance.

Sandra: I think I follow what you are saying. It really is not anything too complicated, but really, looking at two different angles what happens when one learns something.

Antony: Correct, but I think there is more we can explore. On the one hand, there is the infinite amount of knowledge one can learn (because, within the infinity of God, one can always progress further and further in knowledge). When one is said to have gained some knowledge,  he is said to be less ignorant. However, he is on the other hand, made more aware of the infinite amount of knowledge which is available, and as such, he is more aware of what he did not previously understand, and as such, he is more aware of what he needs to understand. If one looks at God, and sees that within God, there is an infinite amount of knowledge which one can gain, and on the other hand, one gains a small piece of  that infinite knowledge, that small piece of knowledge is really nothing in comparison to the infinity within God. Any number divided by infinity is zero. Thus, the person in this sense is not said to have gained any real knowledge, but he has nonetheless, been made aware of his own ignorance, and as such, through knowledge, one is again able to be said to only be made ignorant.

Robert: I do not think I like the implications of this. Are you telling me that one can learn nothing?

Antony: No, I am not saying that. For we can divide the infinite knowledge available within God, into smaller areas of knowledge which are not infinite. This kind of division can not be said to be real (since all knowledge within God is inter-related), but nonetheless, since they are no longer infinite, we can use these smaller, compacted areas of knowledge as a means to judge our own progression of knowledge-- we can be said to gain knowledge (for we do learn something more), but on the other hand, only when we look upon the overall scale, do we realize that our knowledge is really nothing.

Sandra: Is there any way we can ever be said to gain knowledge?

Antony: Yes, there are a few ways, but the most important is through deification, which is the ultimate and final method.

Robert: What is deification?

Antony: Deification is the term by which we understand our own union with God. It is the process started by the Incarnation, where it is said God became man so that man can become God. The process of deification brings to us enlightenment, for as we join in a union with God, and become God by participation with God, we participate with the knowledge of God, and it is through God we begin to know all things. When we learn, and gain knowledge through particulars, our knowledge can not really be said to be knowledge, because of the limitations of finitude. However, when we learn through God himself, we actually learn all things at once: and this is the glory of the beatific vision. For we gain the vision of God, and this vision provides us a vision of all things, all in all, and how they relate with each other.

Robert: Are you telling me I become God?

Antony: Yes, but only in participation with God through a union with God, but not according to His nature. This is, in itself, one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith, which again shows us that here, the more we learn something, the more we do not understand. We know that we join in participation with God, in union with God, as sons of God, but we do not lose our own nature: our nature is not eradicated, rather it is raised into union with God. This is of course seen within the hypostatic union, where God the Son took our own nature, and joined it to His own, but not in confusion of the natures.

Sandra: Can you explain to us more about deification?

Antony: Yes, though I have to admit, the topic is of itself quite complicated. The whole nature of deification is on the one hand, simple: through the Incarnation, our nature was raised by the divine person, just as the divine person is said to have been lowered to our nature. Thus, as I said before, God became man so that man can become God. This is a famous quote from St. Athanasius's work, On the Incarnation. God desires all of creation to join in a loving union with Himself. With love, two become one, and in this instance, the two are man and God (however, it can be further stated, though I will not go into the details here, that this love is also of creature and Creator). Through love, through the Holy Spirit, man is raised and joined in with the divinity. He shares in the divinity, because the divinity gives itself to man in the love that the divinity gives to man. The union of love has the lover give all e has, and give it to his beloved; here the lover is God, and the beloved is man, who then is given all that God has: which is God. Thus, through this love, we join in and become God-- but in participation, because by nature, we are not God, but man. However, what is humanity? It is in itself something which is from God, from inside God-- for all that exists, exists within God; so there is something divine within humanity, and this allows for the divine within humanity to be brought out, to shine forth: and thus, as Jesus said, "Ye are gods" there is a way by which we (and all things) can be said to be a "god."

Robert: You seem to be making us equal with God, by calling us gods. I do not know if I can accept that.

Antony: Yes, that is a good question, and it is one which I think will take us back to the issue of ignorance, once again. The word, God, is just that, a word. It has a specific meaning, it limits things. When we speak of God, we are using a word, but the word is itself imperfect for what it is reflecting. God is beyond anything we can say of Him, He is beyond any word. Any word which we use, even the word God, is but an analogy for what we are talking about. If we thought there was a word which was perfect for God, then God would be circumscribed by something, however, we must realize there is nothing which is circumscribes God, but rather, He circumscribes all things. Thus, we only speak of God in a form of learned ignorance, in analogy: the analogies are good, and indicate something about Him, but nonetheless, never His complete nature, or in relation to the divine persons, Their complete selves. Thus, when we talk about God, and use the term God, we are using a word which we has been universally applied as a good analogy to the One we are talking about, but nonetheless, we must realize He is not limited to this notion we have applied to Him. It is this reason we should not be upset when we sometimes use the word God for those other than Him: we are not removing from Him a unique quality, but realizing more how He is not limited by words.

Robert: Ah, you are going back into the route of, what do you call it, negative theology?

Antony: Yes. Negative theology reminds us that God is transcendent. It requires the negation of any positive remarks which can be made of Him. Most people are not familiar with this way of thinking, but I would also say that most are not ready to consider the transcendent aspects of God. We must remember negative theology is itself a tool, and it is a tool which guarantees and safeguards the transcendence of God. When we say, "God is not here" that would be a use of negative theology, implying that God is not limited to space; if we say, "God is here", it would not be incorrect, either, because God is both here and not here, God is both not limited to space, but nonetheless, God is immanent with creation. This allows us to see, that within God, there is this strange aspect of him which the philosopher Nicholas of Cusa pointed out, that is, the coincidence of opposites-- where two opposite things are said to be true within and about God. Here again, we see that as we progress further in studying God, the more mysterious God becomes: the idea of the coincidence of opposites within God, as with negative theology itself, often confuses and upsets people who are trying to look at God within the limited framework they have set around Him. For they are comfortable with the little framework they have established, but once they are led to negative theology or the theology of the coincidence of opposites and can begin to see the truth in them, they also understand how much this reveals of their ignorance of God.

Sandra: Yes, I can understand that. As soon as one begins to see opposite, conflicting views, as being able to be said truthfully of God, one begins to wonder, what is true and what is not about God?

Antony: I would think, as Nicholas of Cusa in his many dialogues also points out, that we must understand that because God is immanent with all things, and He can also be said to be that which defines all things, so that all things are found within Him, and are of Him, all that is true must be from and of Him. Thus we must say of God, what is true about Him is all the truths we can learn and find. That is, the more truth we learn, we are ultimately learning something true about God. However, God is also beyond all the truths which are contained in the cosmos, for though He is their source and definition of them, He is not limited to them. We must understand that the cosmos and all within it, are found within God, but this is not His limit, but rather, He is their limit.

Robert: If you say all things are in God, do you also say God is unchanging?

Antony: Yes, of course- God does not change.

Robert: So, God being eternal, Has all things within Him?

Antony: Yes.

Robert: Then how can there be any form of creation?

Antony: Yes, that is a good question, one many ask when they begin to examine these issues. It once again begin shows that new knowledge produces with it, ignorance and new questions. I will briefly suggest an answer to this question, but we must remember, that with this, new questions will make light of themselves-- and we could go on forever examining this one issue, however, we are quite limited in time for our conversation, and so we can not explore this question too deeply.

Robert: Understood. Go on.

Antony: All things are eternally contained in God, in their nature, but the manifestation of their nature was accomplished through creation. Creation can be said to be the manifestation and revealing of God's internal thoughts, and all of creation are His eternal thoughts. Thus, Jesus Christ is the Logos which all the logoi of creation are eternally united with: that is, He is the natural law, or reason, or universal nature, which all natural laws, or reasons, or natures are united with. And creation is the manifestation of these natures, which are inter-related with each other by being founded within God, Who provides them their own internal life, their own "free will". This free will is given unto them by God out of His own love to His creation. Creation "out of nothing" means that there was nothing else which existed but God, and God then created out of His own internal thoughts, His own internal ideas (which are eternally one with Him), what we now see as creation. As you can tell, this is only the beginning of an answer, and of itself, leads to many difficult questions. However, as I said, we should limit it to here, so that we can see that what we have previously said, does not conflict with the idea of creation, but rather, is one with it.

Robert: Ok, though I am not sure if I understand all the points you have made.

Antony: Perhaps at another time, we can have a more complete discussion on creation. It is a topic of itself which is quite worthy of discussion, and because it deals with first principles, it deserves to be a discussion all of its own. As it is, we have already strayed from the topic of our day, Christ in Scriptures, but I hope everyone is satisfied with the discussion we had, and I hope everyone feels like our diversion at the end was well worth going into.

Sandra: Yes, I think it was.

Antony: Then, perhaps at another time, we can get together and discuss creation. As it stands now, I need to be going. God bless all.

Back to the Christian Platonism Page
Back to the Scriptural Exegetics Page