by

Theology: The Ways In and the Ways Along

Theology is a journey, in a number of senses. First, it takes time to speak of God. As we go on speaking of God through our lives, we learn how to do it better, more faithfully–in the best instances, being taught by God how best to speak of him. (This is unlike God’s own knowledge of himself, in which he knows himself and all things instantaneously–or to use the technical term, ‘non-discursively.’)

Second, theology treats a number of different realities. Most basically, these are (i) God and (ii) all things in relation to God; but more expansively, these include God’s attributes (power, wisdom, love), God’s activities (existing, creating, redeeming), and God’s creatures (the universe, humanity, time). As one moves from speaking of God in himself to God’s activities and creatures, one journeys across a whole expanse of topics: God’s life in three persons; the creation of a reality other than God; the relation of the human creature to his Creator; the downfall and restoration of these human creatures; and so on. Where does one begin this journey? To speak simply, for Aquinas, we begin with whether there is a knowledge of God to speak of in the first place, a theology separate from human knowledges; for Calvin, we begin with the paradox that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves is intertwined: it is not entirely clear which gives rise to the other.  Hans Urs von Balthasar, on the other hand, gives the remarkable suggestion that we ought to begin with beauty, and goes on to structure the first part of his theology around the glory of God. And yet, he writes, “God’s truth is, indeed, great enough to allow an infinity of approaches and entryways” (The Glory of the Lord, vol. 1, Seeing the Form, p.17). Where one begins is not as important, he would argue, as how one proceeds along the journey.

And this brings me to my third sense of theological journeying, the one I now consider the most important. It is the journey of the theologian him- or herself–taking “theologian” here in its broad, patristic and monastic sense as the one who knows God personally,  as in Evagrius of Pontus’ famous statement that the theologian is the one who truly prays, and the one who truly prays is a theologian. We journey as we come to know God more deeply; in this process, we begin in our child-like steps by seeing things from our perspective, focusing on what most directly pertains to us; as we progress, however, we begin to see things from the other side, from God’s perspective and his reality. We might begin to know God from learning how to pray, from a proof for his existence, or hearing of his deliverance of Israel through the exodus. As we mature, we begin to see God and all things in the broader, truer perspective: prayer is part of the whole life of the person saved by Christ; God’s existence is but one of his many entrancing perfections; Israel’s exodus has meaning in relation to all of God’s other activities, looking both backward and forward.

In both his Summa theologiae and his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Aquinas compares the theologian to the architect. The architect sees the art of building from its highest cause, as it envisions the completion of a building. As someone who sees the big picture, the whole purpose, he directs the workers to this end. The theologian is someone who sees not just the art of building, but all things from their highest cause, which is God. All creatures have their end and their purpose in God, and the theologian is the one who sees all things in this light. But of course, we do not usually have this perspective, for any number of reasons; it is a perspective that must be attained through paying attention well, consciously and intentionally and in that pattern of paying attention well that is called the Church.

And so finally, the kind of journeying that makes a theologian is a spiritual journeying. It is a journey of overcoming our natural understanding of God and arriving at a proper, spiritual understanding (1 Cor. 2:12-16). This demands not only the cognitive efforts ingredient to other disciplines as well–though it does require these; theology demands a spiritual effort, or better, a spiritual grace. We must be given to understand God as he is, as Spirit, and this grace works an inversion of our usual way of understanding reality. Augustine’s De trinitate is, among other things, just such a spiritual journey. Augustine is leading his reader away from understanding God the Trinity as a material, creaturely reality, to understanding God as he is, as Spirit. This journey begins in the images of the Trinity in Scripture, and, while not leaving these biblical pictures behind, progresses to increasingly spiritual (i.e., immaterial) images of God in himself, God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God as he truly is. The person who is spiritually immature stumbles at this point; he or she, in Augustine’s words, “can only think of masses and spaces, little or great, with images of bodies flitting around in his mind like ghosts” (De trin. 7.11).

The journey that is theology, though it begins in many places, proceeds toward the same end: God himself. Coming to know God as God truly is is the most beautiful, the most arduous, the most rewarding adventure to be undertaken by us human creatures of this loving God. Its difficulties arise from many facts: our own entanglement in the realities we are studying; the limitation of our knowing by sin and by our creatureliness before the Uncreated; the infinity of God himself, and so the endlessness of our knowledge of him. But its reward is to gain nothing less than God himself, nothing less than what and who we are made for.

by

Aquinas on the Resurrection of the Body

I’ve run across a couple interesting sets of comments from Aquinas’ commentary on 1 Corinthians 15, regarding the resurrection of the body in Paul’s letter. In the first, Aquinas denies that the resurrection is in any way a natural occurrence; in the second, he discusses the kinds of perfections the resurrected body will experience.

This is the first set, on 1 Cor. 15:37-38, “And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body”:

Here it appears the apostle makes a comparison: when the human body is laid to rest in the ground, there is a kind of going to seed; but when it rises again, there is a coming to life. Because of this some are of the opinion that the resurrection of the dead is natural, since the apostle compares the resurrection to the sprouting of a seed, which is a natural occurrence. For they think that there are active seminal powers for the resurrection in the dispersed dust into which the human body is dissolved. But this does not seem to be true. For the dissolving of the human body into its elements takes place just as with other composite bodies, and so the dust into which human bodies are dissolved has no more active power than any other dust, where it is clear that there is no active power to compose a human body other than what is in human seed; rather, the dust into which human bodies are dissolved differs from other dust only according to God’s arrangement, as though these dust particles are arranged by the divine wisdom, in order that human bodies may once again be reconstituted out of them. Thus, the sole active cause of the resurrection will be God, though to this end he employs the work of angels to gather the dust… To conclude, the apostle does not here mean to prove that the resurrection is natural because a seed naturally sprouts, but he means to show, by way of a certain example, that the quality of the bodies of the risen and of the dying are not the same, and he does so because, in the first place, the quality of a seed and of its sprout are different. (Super I ad Corinthios 15.5.969)

And the second, on 1 Cor. 15:44, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body”, on the meaning of a “spiritual body”:

We see four things that proceed from the soul to the body, and they are more perfect to the degree that the soul is more virtuous. First indeed, it gives the body its being (dat esse); thus, when it arrives at the height of its perfection, it will cause the body to be spiritual (dabit esse spirituale). Second, it preserves the body from corruption; thus, we find that the stronger people are, the less they suffer from heat and cold. Therefore, when the soul becomes as complete as it can be (perfectissima), it will preserve the body totally impervious to external influences (omnino impassibile). Third, it provides beauty and brightness; for the sickly and deceased become discoloured on account of a failing in the soul’s working in the body, and when the soul arrives at the height of its perfection, it will make the body bright and glowing. Fourth, it gives the body movement, and this the more easily as the power of the soul gains strength over the body. And so when it arrives at the peak of its perfection, it will provide the body with agility. (Super I ad Corinthios 15.6.988)

This last paragraph is quite interesting: Aquinas believes the resurrected body will be unable to suffer any harmful influence or be affected from outside; it will quite literally glow with health; and it will be quicker than our bodies presently are. He even believes that two bodies could exist in the same space if God allows it, just as the resurrected body of Jesus could pass through closed doors (John 20:26), although this won’t be automatically possible (Super I ad Corinthios 15.6.983). This is of course so much speculation, but one imagines that our resurrected bodies will have breathtaking qualities something like these.

by

Nicholas of Lyra on 1 Cor. 1:21-22

lyra-postilla-glossa-ordinaria-venice-1603Following on my last post about Bullinger’s reading of 1 Cor. 1:21, here’s the set of interesting glosses from Nicholas of Lyra (c.1270-1349) on the same passage, and the following verse. Notice the way he uses the same language as Bullinger (and Aquinas and Calvin, not incidentally) about God choosing “another way.” Again, on 1 Cor. 1:21-22: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the foolishness of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom…” Here is a translation of the glosses, followed by the original and commentary:

“For since, in the wisdom of God,” that is, through the knowledge of creatures which are a kind of mirror of God.

“The world did not know,” that is, the wise of the world.

“Through wisdom,” namely worldly wisdom.

“God,” to knowledge of whom the mirror of creatures leads, as it says in Romans 1:21, “For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened,” etc. And therefore he continues:

“It pleased God through the foolishness of what we preach to save those who believe,” that is, by another means than the wisdom of philosophers, namely, through the preaching of the cross, which philosophers considered foolish due to the failure of their understanding. For it is much more reasonable to believe in a position established by the resurrection of a dead person or anything of this kind, of which it is certain that it cannot occur except by God’s doing, who cannot be the witness or guarantor of something false, than in any conclusion approved by human reason, which is able to fail. For in this, he acts as a benevolent teacher, who seeing that his learners had not grasped the truth established by him in one way, proceeded to another.

“For Jews.” Here then the Apostle displays his proof, namely, that relying on “words of wisdom” is unfitting for the teaching of faith, because it empties out salvation through the cross of Christ, as he says, “For the Jews demand signs.” For the law of the Jews was given in the fear of God’s power (Ex. 20). And therefore, from whomever would bring a certain teaching they demand signs of divine power for its proof.

“And Greeks seek wisdom.” For they were filled with philosophical knowledge which proceeds by reasoning, and therefore did not want to accept anything unless it were proved by reason.

Original:

Nam quia in Dei sapientia. idest ex cognitione creaturarum, quae sunt quoddam Dei speculum.

Non cognouit mundus. idest sapientes mundi.

Per sapientiam. scilicet mundanam.

Deum. In cuius cognitionem ducit speculum creaturarum, secundum quod dicitur Roman. 1. c. Qui cum cognouissent eum, non glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanerunt in cogitationibus suis, & obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum, & c. Ideo subditur.

Placuit Deo per stut. prae. sal. fa. cre. i. per alium modum quam per sapientiam philosophorum, s. per praedicationem crucis, quod philosophi stultum reputabant, propter defectum intellectus eorum. Multo enim est rationabilius credere alicui propositioni proposita per suscitationem mortui vel aliquid huiusmodi, de quo certum est quod non potest fieri nisi a Deo, qui non potest esse testis vel confirmator falsitatis, quam cuiquique conclusioni humana ratione probatae, quae potest deficere. In hoc enim egit sicut doctor benevolus, qui videns discipulos non capere veritatem ab ipso propositam per vnam viam, procedit ad aliam.

Quo. & Iu. Hic consequenter Apostolus manifestat suam probationem, scilicet q. inniti sapientia verbi non conuenit doctrinae fidei, quia euacuat salutem per crucem Christi, dicens: Quo. & Iu. signa pe. Lex enim Iudaeorum data fuit in terrore diuina potestatis, Exo. 20. Et ideo a quocunque afferente doctrinam aliquam petebant signa diuinae virtutis ad eius probationem.

Et Greci sa. que. Erant enim imbuti scientiis philosophicis que per rationes procedunt, & ideo nihil recipiere volebant, nisi ratione probaretur.

Nicholas of Lyra, Bibliorum sacrorum cum glossa ordinaria… Et Postilla Nicolai Lyrani, vol. 6 (Venice, 1603), col. 203.

First of all, we find this talk of the “mirror of creatures.” This metaphor of the “mirror” (speculum) is used with great significance by John Calvin, in addition to speech about the “theatre” of God’s glory. In fact, we find a related visual metaphor in the “most beautiful spectacle” (spectaculum, either ‘a show,’ ‘a spectacle’ in a theatre, or the theatre seat from which one saw the show) spoken of by Heinrich Bullinger and Konrad Pellikan in their 1 Corinthians commentaries. This is perhaps the most interesting connection between both these metaphors: they are strikingly visual. We see God’s wisdom in what he has made, whether this ‘seeing’ is like the reflection in a mirror or the display of a theatre performance.

Secondly, it is very interesting–and not paralleled in the earlier Aquinas or the later Reformers, so far as I have seen–how much attention Lyra pays to the ‘rationality’ or ‘reasonableness’ of Christian belief. One might expect Paul’s language of the “foolishness of what was preached” to give space for the opposite reading here: that one ought to look for something beyond the rational or the reasonable or simply other than what reason dictates. Yet Lyra takes this opportunity to extend or dilate the meaning of ‘rationality,’ claiming that because God is the guarantor or witness of things like Christ’s resurrection, for instance, they are “much more reasonable” (multo… rationabilius) than human philosophy. For this reason, he also attacks the ‘Greeks,’ who will accept nothing their reason does not approve.

Finally, as in every (pre-critical) commentator on this verse, we get a comment about God’s concern as a teacher–here a “benevolent teacher.” Seeing that humanity had not grasped God’s wisdom in his “mirror of creatures,” God took another approach, namely, sending his only Son in human form: wisdom incarnate.

by

Bullinger on 1 Cor. 1:21

Reading Heinrich Bullinger’s commentary on 1 Corinthians (1534), one notices some remarkable similarities to John Calvin’s commentary, to be published some twelve years later (1546). This is especially evident in his comments on 1 Cor. 1:21, “For it pleased God through the foolishness of what we preach to save those who believe”:

Let no one wonder at the counsel of God, who revealed the gospel when he wished it to begin to dawn on mortals. It is like this: God fashioned this whole world with the decoration of his majesty–for which reason the Greeks adapted their name for the world, κόσμου, [related to κοσμειν, ‘to order’ or ‘to adorn’]–in order that all nations or educated peoples might know and call on God through this most beautiful spectacle. For so sings the prophet, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1 ESV). And the Philosophers who were believed wise by the consensus of the whole world, did not undertake their praise of it from anything other than what they laboured to examine and investigate in the natures of things. And yet, things were less fortunate when, not only with the common people, but also with the philosophers themselves, this effort ceased. For, by his works and the nature of things and his wonderful governance, they either did not know God, wondering rather at hidden things, or knowing him rightly, they did not worship him, seeking their own praise rather than the praise of the divine. This is explained more fully by the Apostle in Romans 1. Then, since with this he would not succeed, God, who does not want the human race to perish, instead accommodated himself to the capacity of mortals, and, led by his native goodness, altered himself in all appearances [i.e., took on a human life] in order to watch over them. Here he also approached this matter another way, and indeed, through “the foolishness of preaching”–meaning, “through foolish preaching,” in a Hebrew way of speaking.

Ne quis miraretur de Consilio dei, quo uoluit euangelium citra sapientiae splendorem illucescere mortalibus, retegit illud. Est autem tale. Condidit deus uniuersum hunc mundum in ornamentum maiestatis suae, unde & Graeci nomen mundo κόσμου accommodauerunt, ut omnes Gentes uel per hoc pulcherrimum spectaculum eruditae, deum cognoscerent & inuocarent. Sic enim cecinit propheta, ‘Coeli enarrant gloriam dei, & opus manuum eius annunciat firmamentum.’ Et Philosophi qui totius orbis consensu sapientes crediti, id laudis non aliunde assequuti sunt, quam quod in rerum naturis excutiendis & inuestigandis laborarunt. Atqui sinistrius cum apud uulgus, tum apud ipsos philosophos cessit iste conatus. Nam deum ex opere suo atque rerum natura admirabilique administratione uel non cognouerunt, res conditas admirati, uel cognitum rite non coluerunt, suam potius quam numinis laudem quaerentes, quemadmodum copiosus exponitur ab apostolo in 1. in Rom. cap. Proinde cum hac non successisset, deus qui genus mortalium perire non uult, quin potius se ad captum attempterat mortalium, et in omnes formas se, natiua bonitate ductus, uertit, ut seruet, etiam hic diuersa negotium istud aggressus est, nempe per stultitiam praedicationis, id est, per stultam praedicationem. Est enim modus loquendi Hebraicus.

Heinrich Bullinger, In priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios epistolam, Heinrychi Bullingeri commentarius (Zürich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1534), fol. 15v-16r.

There are some interesting connections with Calvin here, particularly with the idea that humanity ought to have known God through created things. Calvin speaks of a speculum, a mirror of God’s wisdom: “For in creatures God sets before us a very clear mirror of his marvelous wisdom” (Comm. 1 Cor. 1:21), through which humanity could have come to know God if they hadn’t abused it. Interestingly, Bullinger here speaks of creation as a spectaculum, that “most beautiful spectacle,” through which they “might know and call on God.” Speculum and spectaculum: not, I think, a coincidence.

Both also speak of God choosing to adapt himself to humanity’s failings. Calvin speaks of God approaching us alia via, by another way, using the same verb here as Bullinger uses (aggressus est, ‘to approach’) to speak of approaching us by the Incarnation, and by the foolishness of preaching. Calvin, however, does not specify this alia via, but it clear he means the same as Bullinger: since humanity had wandered away, God sent Jesus in the flesh–another way–in order to call us back to him.

One interesting difference, I think, though perhaps it is only a matter of emphasis, is where Calvin and Bullinger locate the moral failure on the part of humanity. Bullinger says that the philosophers and common people “ceased” their effort to know God, for two reasons: they either (i) were more curious about hidden things than about God or (ii) they preferred their own glory to the worship of God. Calvin, on the other hand, does not mention particular ways in which humanity is at fault in this, but only that it is our own fault: “Thus, it is to be imputed to our own vice that we do not acquire a saving knowledge of God before we are emptied of our own understanding.” His emphasis is more on this latter: that because of our moral failing, we first must become foolish, empty of our own ideas about God, before we can then come to God in his revelation.

by

Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia – Links

Here are links to (almost) all 28 volumes of Philip Melanchthon’s works in the Corpus Reformation edition on Archive.org.

Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider (vols. 1-15) and Heinrich Ernst Bindseil (vols. 16-28). 28 vols. Corpus Reformatorum 1–28. Brunswick: C.A. Schwetschke, 1834–60.

See also my links to the Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia in the same series.

Index of vols. 1-28

CR1 (1834)

CR2 (1835)

CR3 (1836)

CR4 (1837)

CR5 (1838)

CR6 (1839)

CR7 (1840)

CR8 (1841)

CR9 (1842)

CR10 (1842)

CR11 (1843)

CR12 (1844)

CR13 (1846)

CR14 (1847)

CR15 (1848)

CR16 (1850)

CR17 (1851)

CR18 (1852)

CR19 (1853)

CR20 (1854)

CR21 (1854)

CR22 (1855)

CR23 (1855)

CR24 (1856)

CR25 (1856)

CR26 (1858)

CR27 (1859)

CR28 (1860)

by

The Canon Within the Canon

Reading about 13th century commentaries on the Bible has led me to a thought: there has always been a kind of “canon within the canon,” sections of the Bible that have attracted more (or less) attention. This has taken different forms and been done for different reasons. For instance, after surveying the number of commentaries produced in Paris in the 13th century on different books of the Bible, Jacques Verger (“L’exégèse de l’Université,” in Le moyen age et la Bible) concludes that the friars were attracted to books that led more clearly to doctrine or lent themselves to preaching morality, books such as the Psalms, wisdom books, the Gospels and Paul’s letters, and led them to leave aside the Pentateuch and historical books, the minor prophets and Revelation. It “illustrates the ancillary use of exegesis for speculative theology and Christian philosophy” in this time period (p.224). Christians of every age, it seems, have had their reasons to be drawn more to certain books than others. What are our reasons?

by

Calvin’s 1 Corinthians Commentary – His French “Translator’s Letter”

When John Calvin translated his own commentary on 1 Corinthians from Latin (published 1546) into French (published 1547), he attached a short letter, “Le translatevr, au Lecteur fidele,” “The translator, to the faithful reader.” It does not appear in the two English translations of the commentary (Pringle, 1848; Fraser, 1960), nor even in the collected Pauline commentaries published in Calvin’s own lifetime. It appears untranslated in the 19th-century collected works (Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 49, p. vi). Besides its historical interest, it is also worth noting for Calvin’s comments on the need for people gifted by God for the interpretation of Scripture. I’ve transcribed it here with my own translation:

calvin-1-corinthians-le-translateur

Comme l’exposition des Escritures, est vn don special en l’Eglise de Dieu: aussi, tous ne se peuuent pas vanter de l’auoir. Mais nostre Seigneur, l’a mise en aucuns, pour s’en seruir à l’edification de tous. Ce qui est bien mal recogneu de ceux qui reiettent toute ayde d’expositeurs: comme estans suffisans d’eux mesmes, d’entrer iusqu’au sens parfait de l’Escriture. Parquoy il est advenu, que, pour tel mespris, beaucoup sont tombez en lourdes, & enormes resueries. Ce n’est pas, à present, mon intention de traitter cest argument: lequel meriteroit deduction plus ample. Mais seulement d’aduertir en brief les fideles (pour lesquelz nous auons traduit ce liure) quel bien c’est, quand Dieu nous enuoye saine interpretation des Escritures: & comme ils le doyuent embrasser, tant pour en estre muniz & armez, que pour sauoir discerner, & iuger de ceux, qui la renuersent, & luy font vn nez de cire, comme sont les blasphemateurs, & apres s’en vantent, pour l’arguer d’incertitude. A fin donc, qu’ilz s’en puissent donner garde: il est bon, qu’ilz lisent ceux, ausquelz nostre Seigneur a faict grace, d’en auoir meilleure intelligence, que les autres. Comme aussi les sauans & lettrez, le recognoissent tresbien: confessans franchement, que leur litterature ne seroit suffisante, de les pouuoir faire atteindre au vray sens, & que c’est vne grace speciale. I’entens des modestes, & non presomptueux: lesquelz se cognoissent eux mesmes. A plus fort raison, les simples & non lettrez, ne doyuent refuser ceste ayde, pour estre conduitz & entretenuz en vraye & saine intelligence. Or c’est pour eux, que ceste translation est faicte: à ce qu’ilz ayent tousiours dequoy se consoler, & se confermer en la saincte doctrine de Dieu: & qu’ilz iouyssent aussi bien de ceste exposition, comme ceux, ausquelz nostre Seigneur a donné cognoissance des Langues. Le Seigneur leur vueille donner grace, d’en faire telement leur profit, que ce leur soit pour accroissement de vertu, & que louänge & gloire luy en soit de tous rendue. Ainsi soit il.

Translation:

Since the exposition of Scripture is a special gift in the church of God, no one may boast of possessing it. But our Lord has given it to people of no importance in order that it may serve for the edification of all. This is very poorly recognized by those who refuse any help from expositors, as if they were sufficient in themselves to come upon the perfect meaning of Scripture. For this reason it happens that, because of such a mistake, many people have fallen under burdens and into extravagant dreams. It is not my intention, at present, to deal with this case, which would deserve very lengthy refutation; instead, it is only to briefly advise the faithful (for whom we have translated this book) as to what a good it is when God provides us with sound interpretation of Scripture. They ought to embrace it, as much to be armed and fortified as to be able to know how to discern and make judgment of those who controvert it and make of it a wax nose, as do blasphemers, who afterward puff themselves up in order to argue its uncertainty. In order, then, that they may be on their guard, it is good that they read those to whom our Lord has given the grace of having better understanding than others. This also the wise and lettered recognize very well, freely confessing that their books would not be sufficient to allow them to attain the true sense, and that it is a special grace. I mean here the modest and not the presumptuous, those who are well acquainted with themselves. With even greater reason, the simple and unlettered ought not to refuse this help, in order to be guided into and sustained in a true and sound understanding. Now it is for them that this translation has been made, that they may always have something by which to be consoled and be confirmed in the holy teaching of God, and that they may also take joy in this exposition, like those to whom our Lord has given the knowledge of languages [i.e., those who can read the original Latin edition]. May the Lord wish to give them grace to so gain from their reading of it that it will lead them to growth in virtue, and that praise and glory will be rendered to him by all. Amen.