The lineage of Christ

[Alex Haig]

Christ is Risen!

A non-believer posed me this question a while ago to which I had no response: I would be glad of some help with answering it. He argued that the Old Testament promises that the Christ will be of the "house and lineage" of David the King. How can this be if He is not of blood relation to His step-father Joseph and therefore not of direct blood lineage of David?

I'd be very appreciative if someone could help me with this as it's been at the back of my mind and annoying me for ages.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Owen Jones]

Dear Alex,

This is the kind of question that a non-believer WOULD pose. I don't think there is an answer that would ever satisfy such a questioner. And if we try to pick apart and dissect the literal meaning of the text, we would lose site of the theological (mystical) meaning of the text, which is that Christ elevates the common believer to the level of royalty. It's like a King bestoing royal status on his certain of his subjects, which is one of his royal perrogatives.

Christ's lineage of course is treated quite differently between Mathew and the introduction to John's Gospel, but in a complimentary fashion.

I use the term "myth" with great hesitancy, because the common understanding of the term today is that it is something made up, false, contrived, literally did not happen. But in the ancient world, people moved freely between the world of myth and fact as being two sides of the same coin. So it is not a question of whether or not the Virgin Birth or the Royal Lineage of Christ is one of myth or fact, but rather this is the manner that God uses to reveal Himself to us. you cannot in principle get behind myth to achieve fact, nor vice versa. But today, we act like Sergeant Friday, "just the facts, ma'am."

[Daniel Jeandet]

I think the Mother of God is of the line of David the King, but I dont know why I think this is true.

[Olga]

This post is in a bit of a rush, but I think that Mary is also descended from the House of David. She is also referred to in hymns sung at her feasts as coming from the "root of Jesse" (there are also icons of her to that effect). Might follow it up, though, as I could be wrong.

[Fr. David B. Sedor]

In the ancient "Protevangelion of James" (a book held in high esteem by Orthodoxy; among other things, we draw the entire story of Mary's Presentation in the Temple -- a major feast of the Theotokos -- from this book), I believe the tenth chapter states that Mary is of the house of David. Since this book has long been accepted as part of the Church's Holy Tradition, it's no surprise that Protestants are unfamiliar with what it teaches.

(Message edited by admin on 15 April, 2004)

[Mark Kern]

I have put together a "Family Tree" for Jesus. Some interesting details are (1) Joseph was the natural son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but the legal son of Heli (Luke 3:23) through a levirate marriage. (2) Five of the Twelve and four of the Seventy were His cousins or uncle. (3) Mary and Joseph were second cousins. Mary's and Joseph's genealogy come from Aaron (Luke 1:5) and from Judah, making Christ both a priest and a king, in His humanity.

[Alex Haig]

Thankyou all!

So it seams that Christ's lineage from David is through his mother. Why then are both genealogies in the Bible (Matthew 1; Luke 3) dependent on Joseph? Is it just that He was raised in Joseph's household or is there some other meaning?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Owen Jones]

Because they are figures and types of higher realities. They do not have to perfectly agree on the literal/historical level.

[Fr. David B. Sedor]

As nearly as I have been able to determine, the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both are traced through Joseph, rather than the Theotokos, because the Greek word used (egenessen, I believe) denotes a legal descent. Genealogies were routinely traced back through paternal lines during Christ's time, as the father was seen as the parent that "counted."

[Mark Kern]

Dear Alex,

Joseph and Mary both had the same biological grandfather, Matthan. Thus Matthew traces Jesus' family tree through the Royal line of the kings of Israel and Judah. But legally, Jesus was also the son of Joseph and Heli; so Luke fills in what was not covered in Matthew's account. Whether one thinks of Jesus' descent, in His humanity through Mary or through Joseph, the result is the same. He is the son of David through both. And since Matthan was a priest, He is also the son of Aaron.

Your brother and servant,
Mark

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones wrote: "Because they are figures and types of higher realities. They do not have to perfectly agree on the literal/historical level.
------
I have no idea what the two proceeding assertions mean?

In Luke 1:23 the Evangelist (who personally knew the Theotokos) tells us that the Angel (Gabriel) said to the Virgin Mary: "The Lord God shall give unto him [Jesus] the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32)." We are informed by the Angel's word's that the Son conceived by the Virgin in her womb is in the Lineage of David. These words, of the Angel Gabriel, allude to the promise made by God to David: "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David, he will not turn from it. Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.".
Thirty-three plus years later, the Apostle Peter preaching on the day of Pentecost again refers to this promise as being fulfilled in Christ.

"Therefore being a prophet--and knowing that God swore with an oath to him (David) that from the fruit of his loins, according to his flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit upon his throne..."

What then do these words mean: "the furit of his loins, according to his flesh", if the Angel to the Theotokos and then later the Apostle Peter with the Theotokos and the other Apostles (excepting St. Paul) were present as he preached to the crowds a literal/historical fulfillment of the oath made to David by God?

To the above, we can also read in this same Evangelist's Gospel: "And Jesus Himself was about thirty years old, when He began, being, as was supposed a son of Joseph, the son of Eli..."

The oath is fulfilled to David; not through Joseph, but through the Virgin Mary. The secret of the Virgin's conception and birth-giving are kept hidden under the veil of Joseph as the head of Mary. The historical/literal fulfillment of the oath to David is fulfilled through Mary not through Joseph as some would suppose.

The lineage to David could have include any of the desendents of the twenty eight sons of Rehoboam, who had married his cousin Mahalath, the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David. Rehoboam also married another cousin: Maachah, the daughter of Absalom [see 1 Chr. 11:18-23] Rehoboam stratigically located all his sons through-out Judah and Benjamin. Among the sons of Rehoboam was Abijah who followed as King after Rehoboam died.

Abijah, preached to Jeroboam from the top of Mount Zemaraim saying: "...the Lord God of Israel gave the kingdom over to Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt." [2 Chr. 13:5] By this we can see that the linage of David and the linage through which the promise could be literally and historically fulfilled extends itself out through many branches. This lineage was closely watched and kept by the priests in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah (Christ). The Theotokos became a ward of the Temple because of her lineage, which was being guarded in anticipation of the coming of the Christ. When she is given over to Joseph, it was to guard and keep this lineage in anticipation that she might become the mother of Christ, but at the time of her entrance into the Temple, she was not the only virgin whose lineage was traceable to David.

When the Priest of the Temple handed the Virgin Mary over to Joseph, it was in hopes that through them the promised Messiah would come.

john dunn

[Owen Jones]

The literal/historical truth of the lineage of Jesus only has any value in the context of the mystical meaning, and vice versa. So simply focusing on the historicity of the lineage has little or no meaning or substance apart from its representative truth. It's the old facticity argument regarding Christ. The royal lineage and priestly lineage of Jesus does not make him the Christ as fact. The royal and priestly lineage is irrelevant apart from the Christ of faith. And that faith in Christ elevates the believer into a presentative of royal, priestly lineage. So that the lowest of believers in the social strata share in the royal and priestly qualities (i.e. as a divine representative and as having acquired royal and priestly, i.e. Godlike virtues) once limited in a mundane sense to those classes.

We are inevitably in the world of myth by now, which, for the ancients, does not contradict but compliments the literal/historical. But if we only look at the literal/historical, we will be beset by what the non-believer sees as obvious contradictions or discrepancies in the literal/historical record. So, in a sense, looking at only the literal/historical record as a "proof" that Jesus is the Christ is tantamount to the perspective of the non-believer, as well as being a part of the fallacy of Phariseeism.

Unfortunately today when one speaks of "myth," one is accused of being an unbeliever, doubter, or relativist, because myth is defined literally as something made up, contrived, not true. But God reveals himself through myth, not just through historical facts. Historical facts in principle do not suffice because history is a myth.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones wrote: "We are inevitably in the world of myth by now, which, for the ancients, does not contradict but compliments the literal/historical.

Jesus Christ was not conceived, did not live, die and resurrect Himself from the tomb on the third day in a myth.

Orthodox Christianity is not a myth, it is Dogma which breaks the hold that mythology has on the mind of pagan man. All myths are speculative and open to evolution [meaning it adapts itself to the changing democractic of its constituency], dogma does not change, but rather affects and effects change. "The Word became flesh" is dogma, not myth. To place or give assent to a creed which relegates Orthodox Christianity into the category of myth, is to make the Incarnation of the God-Man into an evolution of the godness of Christ. Arianism is a myth, Orthodoxy is dogma.

All mythologies develop through compromise. Orthodox Dogma makes no compromises, but rather always demands from each of us a repentance, or a change of mind to return again to that which is Orthodox. St. Athanasius' statement that "God became man, so that man might become God," is a dogmatic reality, not a mythology.

Mythology manufactors belief,, dogma commands belief. The answer each of us gives to Christ's question: [i]"But whom do you say I am?, is either myth or dogma. There are many myths which assent to the godness of Christ, but only dogma can answer, "Thou art the Christ." The Apostle Peter answered dogamtically, instead of mythologically [John the Baptist, Elias, or some other prophet]. There are many mythological christs, but only one Dogma Christ, who answered, "I that speak unto thee Am He."

You are correct to define myth as complimenting the historical/literal; it does this because it compromises and conforms itself through evolution. Orthodoxy makes no compromise, neither does it conform itself to the historical/literal event. Rather it manifests itself through the Historical/literal, however, this manifestation remains hidden as a mystery comprehended only through obedience of faith in conformity to the Dogma. It is hidden only to those who will not see, and that is a moral evaluation which those who prefer myths chaff against saying, "Are we blind also."

Those who prefer myths demand, "If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." But the answer which they claimed to want had already been plainly given: "I told you, and you believed not" Not only had He answered their question plainly, He gave them the historical/literal evidence to heal their unbelief, but they would not receive it. "Many good works have I showed you from My Father, for which of those works do you stone Me?"

Here the Dogma breaks the Myth of Jewish unbelief which denies the INCARNATION of God into Historical/literalness. "The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

The Jews asserted that the Dogma of Christ was a myth and that remains their primary heresy to this day. Indeed, modern dialogue between myth believing christians [an oxymoran] and myth believing Jews has concluded precisely that even to agreeing that "Jesus is Christ for the Gentiles, but not the Jews."

Orthodox Christians must resist all attempts to define Orthodoxy as a myth.

john dunn

[James H.]

Dear Mr. Dunn and Mr. Jones,

I think you two need to be put in a room with foam-covered bats and "duke it out" LOL. I am just joking, so don't think that I am annoyed or trying to annoy or be confrontational. Perhaps, though, in the name of fraternal love, you could also mention what you DID appreciate about the other's post. You both seem well read and offer a lot to this forum (at least for me), so I am not asking you two to just agree for agreeing's sake. But a little charity would lighten things up a bit.

James

PS: Owen, feel free to roll your eyes at my American can't-we-all-just-get-along attitude. lol http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Owen Jones]

Once a Presbyterian, always a Presbyterian.

[John Curtis Dunn]

James Haghenschlapfter wrote:
"I think you two need to be put in a room with foam-covered bats and "duke it out" LOL. I am just joking, so don't think that I am annoyed or trying to annoy or be confrontational. Perhaps, though, in the name of fraternal love, you could also mention what you DID appreciate about the other's post."
------
[My apology]

I am not always directly opposing Owen, and I do not always read him as directly opposing me, however, there are ideas and concepts which our words convey which perhaps each of us oppose, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly.

Sometimes these ideas or concepts which we attribute to each other's words [rightfully, mistakenly or even wrongly, but hopefully never maliciously], I believe, are simply intended as a spring board to clarify and/or direct (or redirect) a notion, idea or concept which we oppose, and are not meant as direct opposition towards the author of the original thought expressed.

Owen is much more learned than I; and by looking at the number of posts he has posted compared to the number of time I have posted a reply to him, it might suggest that I agree with many of his postings, or perhaps better stated, I don't strongly disagree. I am certain I have learned more from his replies to my words, than he has from mine, even if I make no public concession to his argument. Owen has written on a broad number of topics in this forum, replying to many other participants, much more than myself. Over all, I find his argument consistent and well stated, even when I disagree, but my disagreement is not done out of spite, but probably rather due to the limit or range of my meager education.

I am not wholly in disagreement with Owen's statement about myth, but any agreement I make must be placed in context. If, Owen's statement about myth is like C.S. Lewis' idea of Christianity as a myth, this is not wholly abhorrent and is useful as an apologetical/evangelistic tool, however, the idea or statement that Orthodoxy is a "myth" remains fundamentally wrong, even when it is modified, clarified so as to be a useful means to expound or explain Orthodoxy.

C.S. Lewis's apologetic is a way to achieve a synthesis, in a search to open to stubborn mindedness that which it closes out, and because of that closed mindedness, it is incapable of accepting the Gospel at face value, as its own evidence, of its own truthfulness, which includes its own historical literalness. For some, the miracles of Christ are all myths and are thus useful to expound some moral truth, but are not grounded in any historical reality. I am not accusing Owen of making that argument.

Lewis's conversion to Christianity from a general belief in theism was a result of a debate which he had with J.R Tolkien. Tolkien argued that God could and did use myth to preserve and/or present truth. Lewis rebutted that a myth could not contain any truth at all; Lewis would eventually concede to Tolkien's argument and join the Church of England [September 22,1931].

As an apologist for Christianity in an era of growing antagonism and rejection of Christianity; C.S. Lewis's apologetic bridges a way back for men whose education has left them cynical towards all things ecclesiastical. His apologies open a way for moderns to again listen to the voices of the past without having to concede to their ecclesiastical authority at the premise of the dialogue. C. S. Lewis' apologetic bridges a way for moderns to listen to the Church without requirement to become a member thereof, except through personal conviction [meaning having exhausted all personal arguments against it].

Ironically, C.S. Lewis is highly revered among Christians who identify themselves as Fundamentalist, Evangelicals and even within the more hard-nosed Reformed camp. But not only these; his apology has also been taken up by Roman Catholics and he even has some Orthodox defenders.

It is not my purpose here to critique C. S. Lewis, except to say that his hermeneutical approach towards Christianity as a myth is not Orthodox, even though an Orthodox Christian might make use it to explain Orthodoxy. If the only choice is C.S. Lewis' apologetical explanation, or those of Alan Watts [an ex-Anglican], or that of Joseph Campbell; C.S. Lewis wins hands down. I do not believe this to be the only remaining choice for Orthodoxy.

Lewis' apologetic [which he first learned from Tolkien] is an answer against the background of Liberal Protestant theologians milling out their de-mythologizations of Christianity. It offers a synthesis for respectability to those adhering to Christianity in an intellectual environment which was becoming openly hostile towards it.

Ideas have consequences, Einstein's theory of relativity has become a social agenda which has also taken up the apologetic that "We are inevitably in the world of myth..." The foundations of Western society [marriage, family, Church and State] are all under attack by forces which gladly assent to the idea that Christianity is only a "world of myth." A number of people are coming into Orthodoxy seeking refuge from the storm and as they open their baggage to declare their valuables, the true worth of each must be examined and evaluated.

Both Owen and I are converts, both of us have our own baggage in need of declaration and examination. Owen offers many insightful and stimulating observations which is why I often post replies with some quote from him. Owen offers challenging exchanges, challenging, [i]i.e., not confrontational; but challenging in the sense which encourages and elevates me to think outside of the box of my own experience, education and knowledge. Others, besides myself, seem to experience this from Owen's contribution to this forum and I with them appreciate his contribution, even if I disagree.

I am not on an Owen Jones hunt; I mean no disrespect and if I have written in any manner which appears disrespectful or without courteousness and civility and in a way which has offended Owen or others on this forum, please forgive me.

Please also except this apology as a thank-you to Matthew C. Steenberg for creating this most civil of all forums and all other participants who are able to tolerate reading my unworthy postings.

Christ is Risen!
john dunn

[Owen Jones]

Dear Alex,

Let's say that you have a beautiful sister who you haven't seen for a while -- she's been travelling the world. She arrives quite by surprise and starts telling you that she is in love with a man. You ask her to describe him to you. She starts out with the facts -- tall, dark, handsome. But that doesn't tell you enough. Then she describes his virtues -- courageous, forceful, intelligent, wise. But that still doesn't tell you who he is. So she tells you a story that exemplifies something of what he is, but which will never tell you completely what he is, and she will never know totally what he is, because he is more than just facts, more than just the sum total of his parts, and more than just a story. But telling a story about him in a particular situation tells you more than anything else. That's how God reveals himself to us. Only the story is not about God per se. It is about man. Or, more precisely, about God's way with man. And the writer of the story is not the author of the story. But he is more than just taking dictation. God is the narrator of the story, but the human writer is also involved in the story he is writing about, even though he does not appear personally in the story. Some of us, perhaps if we are weak in faith, or worried that there are so many different belief systems in the world, want revelation to be all about facts that God has told us. But that's not how God reveals Himself.

For example, Joseph dreamed dreams. That got him in trouble with his brothers who tried to kill him. Left him for dead. Tried to prove that he was dead by taking his blood-soaked shirt to their father, which just made things worse for them because it was further revealed in the father's grief that Joseph was his favorite. Jesus then "descended" into Egypt where he rose in favor, only to be falsely accused of philandering with his patron's wife. He was thrown into prison, but his dreams that enabled him to see the future caught the eye of the Pharoah, who released him from prison and appointed him as his prime minister. There, he equipped not only Egypt for the famine that he knew was coming, but prepared a place for his people to escape the famine. This is more than just a set of facts about a man named Joseph who lived in a particular time and place and got batted around a lot. If that's all it was, it would make for a fairly mundane low brow history book.

No, in the telling of the story, God's way with man is revealed. and is amplified in meaning with the life of Christ. Joseph was seen as a type for Christ, who was rejected by his own family and put to death, descended into Sheol, and rose to the right hand of his Father (Pharoah) where he prepares a place for his people. Now, this is a story! The factual basis of which is valid, i.e. there is a man Jesus who offended the religious and political authorities of his day and was put to death for it. Ho hum. When it becomes a story as a fulfillment of precursor stories, it takes on power and meaning. It is not a theological, dogmatic system of anything. That comes later. We are called therefore to live the same life, that our lives tell the same story, that we are characters in the same plot, which we did not write, but which nevertheless, without actors, has no power, no truth, no life. That is what is meant by myth in the valid sense, not something contrived, or made up as an exercise in propaganda by dishonest authors. Each Gospel tells a slightly different version of Christ's story. Just as there is more than one version of Genesis. Not that factual accuracy doesn't matter, but because without the story the facts are meaningless and irrelevant.

[Owen Jones]

This will perhaps sound like hair-splitting, but I think what Lewis said was, "with the INcarnation, myth has become fact." Lewis, as a comparative scholar, knew that there were "Christ-myths" prior to Christ, replete with dying and rising, virgin births, etc., and he therefore proposed the formula: in the INcarnation, myth has become fact.

[James H.]

John,

Thanks for your reply to what I said. It was meant only in good humor (while expresing a certain element of truth)... I guess I just wanted to break up the tention a bit (even if it's just myself who is percieving it lol).

Thank you especially for exlaining the myth idea as expressed my Lewis. I was thinking about it myself but was not well read enough to comment. I remember fiding it intriguing and useful for modern Christian apologetics, anyhow. Well, anyway. God bless!

James

[Owen Jones]

The overwhelming body of traditional Christian opinion is that Genesis 1 is literally/historically factual in every respect. HOwever, with some Fathers there are nuances, to the point of saying that Adam and Eve are types for the human, that the seven days of Creation were not necessarily seven days in conventional time measurement, etc. While taking the historical presentation literally, that's fine, as long as one does not lose site of the representational truth. Otherwise, funny things happen. You kill snakes, for example, since all snakes are literally the devil. I have worked with people who are absolutely convinced of that, and when working in the fields, they'll take half an hour out of work to track down any snake they see and kill it. Otherwise, it might put some kind of spell on them.

I would put it this way. Genesis 1 and The Origin of the Species by Darwin are both cosmogonic myths. Neither are scientific or historical texts, although Darwin claimed to be scientific.

The important question is, Which one more accurately and fully represents the truth of reality? The truth of existence? The truth of things as they really are and really can become? Genesis answers the unspoken questions of who we are and where do we come from and why are we here and why are things as they are and not some other way -- in a way that speaks to what we all know is true deep inside but cannot give voice or expression to, and which cannot be rationally systematized.

I think one thing that is safe to say is that the Fathers understood truth to exist on several levels at once, with representative truth being the most significant. Gregory of Nyssa wrote "The Life of Moses," which is a mythical account of Moses's physical ascent up the mountain that is designed to be an allegorical representation of each and every believer's spiritual life. When Martin Luther King searched for a message to captivate people, he spoke of the Exodus, and the "fact" that he had been to the mountain top. It is a representational (mythic) truth. He had never literally climbed any mountain. That's not to say that Moses didn't exist, or never climbed a mountain, but that the representational truth is a higher truth than the historical fact that some leader of the Hebrews climbed a particular mountain that can be located on the map.

Therefore, when we focus on apparant factual discrepancies between two different accounts of Jesus' geneology, or two different Genesis accounts, we miss the point. This factuals discrepancies did not go unnoticed by the Fathers, who reconciled them through representational symbolisms. Oh, darn, now I've used another red flag word.

[John Curtis Dunn]

The purpose of my post on April 17, was not to prove beyond question the answer which some Fathers of the Church have given to explain the lineage of Christ.

I cannot assent to Owen's assertion that this is the question non-believers would ask; as if pious Orthodox Christians would not and should not ask this question: "...the Old Testament promises that the Christ will be of the "house and lineage" of David the King. How can this be if He is not of blood relation to His step-father Joseph and therefore not of direct blood lineage of David?"

It is a fair and legitimate question to which pious Orthodox Christians have given answers. It was a question which was asked and answered by the Blessed Augustine and then later he changed his answer after reading Julius Africanus, whose answer Augustine then adopted as satisfying the question.

Owen commented that: "The literal/historical truth of the lineage of Jesus only has any value in the context of the mystical meaning...", is true, but this being true cannot mean it is forbidden for a pious Orthodox Christian to search out the Scriptures and formulate an answer from those facts. Neither will we deminish the mystery of Christ when we address the facts in a historcial/literal way.

Owen claims "The royal lineage and priestly lineage of Jesus does not make him the Christ as fact. The royal and priestly lineage is irrelevant apart from the Christ of faith."

The first sentence is true; and I produced as evidence of this fact "The lineage to David could have include any of the desendents of the twenty eight sons of Rehoboam... ." Therefore being in the lineage of David, as being in the lineage of Abraham, does not prove a person is the Christ. However, this is not the purpose of the lineage given by either Evangelist: St. Matthew or St. Luke.

The lineage is not given to prove that Jesus is the Christ, but rather to prove that Jesus is in fact of the seed of David, Abraham and Adam. The question asked by Alex, was not "how does the lineage prove Jesus is the Christ?", a question which we can and must honestly answer with: "It does not!" And my post on April 17 was not written to prove that it does."

Alex Haig asked: "How can this be if He is not of blood relation to His step-father Joseph and therefore not of direct blood lineage of David?"

Now if the question is answered it might remove a hinderance perceived by this non-believer which prevents him or her from being able to see that Jesus is in fact the Christ, [a fact which I hope Owen is not denying].

Who denies the law of gravity, but does that law actually exist? The law is the myth which explains our experience, but when we introduce the higher laws of flight we do not destroy the facts of the law of gravity, rather we exceed the limits of that law to explain our experience. But are not the laws of flight also myths?

Both laws: of gravity and flight, are stories which we tell our children about their relationship to their enviroment. Both are myths and as myths each can only address the set of questions which the myth is designed to answer. Those who denied that man could ever fly, did so because they lived and believed in the facts of their myth. When man finally began to fly, it did not disprove the myth of the law of gravity, especially in those early days, many aerial stunt flyers lost their lives to the myth of gravity when they exceeded the limits of the myth of flight. However, when we finally boasted a man into orbit, we seemed to again exceed the limits of the law of gravity. But this also is not true, since the orbit establishes the law of gravity, as does also the placing of an explorer on the planet Mars.

However, or wherever we go, the facts of gravity exist, but the myth of gravity evolves. All three myths: gravity, flight and space exploration all depend upon historical/literal facts. The myth is the story of how we assimilate and subsequently employ those facts to accomplish whatever goal we aim towards. It is the goal which keeps our story on course, but along the way we may veer or wander off the course, all the time thinking we are in line with the goal.

My goal in answering your question was to assist you in removing the cataract of unbelief existing in the non-believer's eye. Perhaps it would be better if we all had Owen's clear vision, which enables him to always see past the historical/literal into the mystery of Christ in such a way that the historical/literal has "little or no meaning or substance."

To be fair, Owen did state that the historical/literalness "has little or no meaning or substance apart from its representative truth. But isn't that what the question was attempting to discover? What is the relatinship between the promise of "the fruit of his loins, according to his flesh", and Christ, if there is no historical/literal fulfillment of the promise?

My answer on April 17 was to show the plausibility of one of the answers which pious Orthodox minds have given; which has been that the Theotokos also was a direct decendant of David. I certainly did not exahust all the probative facts so as to render all related questions resolved, but that was not my intention.

Even if the reader remained dubious about historical/literal fulfillment of the promise in our Lord Jesus to David having through His most Pure Mother; can we doubt that this lineage does not go back to Adam? Only if we deny that Adam was a historical/literal human being and postulate that he was in fact a myth made up out of whole cloth, hence a fable contrived by the Jews as propaganda against the other myths of Creation.

Certainly, there are some Christians, even among those who confess to be Orthodox, who propose that the historical/literalness of Adam is only a myth, i.e., fabricated. For these, the historical facts of the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Christ, His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension are simply myths which need little or even no substance of historical/literal grounding to be accepted as "true."

In reading the various answers given by Christians who wanted to reconcile the apparhent discrepancy concerning the promise of God to David and the Virgin Birth, I believe the best answer is that the Theotokos was the means through which that literal fulfillment took place. A historical/literal fulfillment is not against the mystery, and neither does it interfere or prevent "the lowest of believers in the social strata share" a place "in the royal and priestly qualities" of Christ.

I will not continue to lengthen this post by adding more arguments which favor the historical/literal fulfillment of God's promise to David thru the Theotokos, except to point towards the Old Testament Laws of Inheritance and Redemption. Both of these are fulfilled in Christ who buys back the property which was stolen by Satan.

john dunn

[Owen Jones]

I think the original question was premised on the observation that there is, if taken absolutely literally, a contradiction in the accounts of Jesus's lineage. My only point was this: that if one only reads the Bible for literal truth, then one will be looking to "expose" contradictions. Of course, I do not know the tone in which the question was posed. Perhaps I assumed the tone was such that the questioner was actually looking for contradictions. But perhaps the tone of the questioner was more open than that, and simply because of linguistic inedequacy, the questioner was not capable of asking a question regarding the mystical meaning of Jesus' lineage.

In any case, a believer would not deny a literal truth, and a believer would be aware that on the literal level, one might think that certain Bible passages contradict others, but would look to higher mystical truths as an explication of the unity of Scripture.

Regarding the last paragraph in the last post above. These are not literal/historical truths, but rather mystical or spiritual truths that are grounded in literal/historical events and conditions as types of higher spiritual realities. We believe that Christ mystically embodies these literal/historical events. HE does not do so because we believe, but believing it is part of the reality of it. The terminology "literal fulfilment" appears to unnecessarily conflate the higher and lower realms of meaning, thus making faith and belief irrelevant.

[James H.]

Dear John Dunn,

I enjoyed your email, and it made a lot of sense to me until you said:

"Certainly, there are some Christians, even among those who confess to be Orthodox, who propose that the historical/literalness of Adam is only a myth, i.e., fabricated. For these, the historical facts of the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Christ, His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension are simply myths which need little or even no substance of historical/literal grounding to be accepted as 'true.'"

I have met and read many Orthodox who interpret Genesis as Owen stated in his earlier post, but not once have I ever met an Orthodox who even toyed with the idea that the salvific events of the Gospels are simply myths which need little or even no substance of historical/literal grounding to be accepted as 'true. I honestly did not get the impression that Owen ws trying to say that. If he was, I would like to hear his defense and how that could possibly have anything to do with Orthodox Christianity. Are you sure you aren't confusing Owen with Bishop Spong? ;)

But still, my point in this post is to say that seeing Genesis as an allegorical text and not necessarily as a history/science book does not mean that one will read the Gospels in the same light. As you well know, they are written by two different people, in different times, of very different cultures and styles of writing.

Anyway, I'll stop here. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you meant. I must admit that some of this conversation has gone a bit over my head, but I've learned a lot. God bless,

James

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones wrote: "But perhaps ... the questioner was not capable of asking a
question regarding the mystical meaning of Jesus' lineage.
------------------
I am unclear as to what "the mystical meaning of Jesus' lineage" is supposed to communicate?

Perhaps it is simply the use of this terminology which grates against me, because it reads as if it belongs in the confines of Matthew Fox's The Coming of the Cosmic Christ or Andrew Harvey's Son of Man: The Mystical Path to Christ? Perhaps I do see shadowy references which remind me of Spong's A new Christianity for a New World. or Alan Watts' Myth and Ritual in Christianity? Perhaps I am simply being a Don Quixote and attacking windmills, but this kind of terminology is employed by those who really, actually and literally read the Gospel as pagan myth.

I am not at all agreeable that this genre of language should be employed in the context of Orthodox Christianity. It blurs the lines of demarcation which separate the historical/literalness of the Gospel from myth. It opens the door of Orthodoxy to anyone who is willing to assent to the words of Orthodoxy, while putting their own mystical meaning into those words, which are contrary to Orthdodoxy.

One of the growing complaints against Orthodox Christianity is that it is Triumphalistic, which in the context of this discussion means: it takes its own myth literally. This of course is becoming politically egregious; since all religions, including Orthodox Christianity must be understood as having the same origin, with the same goal.

Those people [perhaps even the majority] adhereing to the myth in some historical/literal fashion are simply apart of the unenlightened and uninformed whose intellect is warped by their need to be included among the elect, while lacking the capacity to actually hold the body of knowlege which numbers you among the elect.

The usage of myth and mystical are often code words which must be understood as unlocking some secret and/or hidden knowlege which is unassailable to those who have not been given the key. I believe the famed Albert Shweitzer said something like: 'It is not the Jesus of the Gospels who can bring to us meaning for our times, for Christ is knowable to all within the arena of their own inner experience.' But even if my recall of his words fails to be precisely literal, I do recall that he taught: "Christ is the all pervading, living spiritual power in all of us." Or a Matthew Fox has called this; "The Cosmic Christ."

Owen wrote: "These are not literal/historical truths, but rather mystical or spiritual truths
that are grounded in literal/historical events and conditions as types of higher spiritual realities."

I also do not find the explanation above satisfactory to express the Orthodox Gospel. I do not know what "grounded in literal/historical events and conditions" is supposed to mean. The myth of Evolution would fit into that classification and so would the Morman myth of Joseph Smith. Both of these examples are used in some contexts as type for higher spiritual realities.

If anyone attended vespers for April 9 they would have heard that when Eupyshius was martyred by being beheaded, milk came forth from his mortal wound.

Now, did this actually literally happen, or is it simply an allegory to raise our understanding into "higher spiritual realities?" An allegory "grounded in literal/historical events and conditions," but which if observed and analyzed by modern scientific methods would be proven as having no actual reality within the realm of physical science? And what if those who beheld the milk were instructed by the scientist saying, "No, you are wrong, there was no milk!" What if these believers ignored the scientist and went forth proclaiming the miracle as being seen by all, but believed by few, calling the scientist and all who accepted their observations, unbelievers. Would you be inclined to believe the report of the Scientist or the believers in those "higher spiritual realities."

Whose reality is "grounded in literal/historical events and conditions?" Would you continue to say that the faith and belief of these believers is ""grounded in literal/historical events and conditions?" I guess that is the great thing about myths, you really don't know where the reality hits the fan?

john dunn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

The recent discussion of 'myth' 'versus' 'history' (all terms here in inverted commas very intentionally) deeply troubling, for it seems to succumb rather dramatically at stages to the very trap already intimated by some: that 'myth' somehow means falsehood, fable, or even worse outright lie; while 'fact' or 'history' should be equated to 'truth', 'reality', or 'what really happened'. Such a distinction is the result of a very late (i.e. modern, or at least medieval) notion of history and historical memory, and very much at odds with the vision of the Fathers of the Church.

Time prevents me from going much further at present, but I would encourage people to ponder over the dislike of the term 'myth' expressed in some of the conversation above. As also the term 'history'. If one reads the Fathers with cut-and-dry notions that these terms and concepts are wholly at odds, the results will be troubling indeed.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Christianity is not a reaction to "modernity" or to anything for that matter. It is what it is. Ironically, there is a tendency to re-define dogma as if it existed almost for the sole purpose of serving as a bulwark against modern relativism. Unfortunately, many protestants I have met who became Orthodox did so because they thought they had found in Orthodoxy an absolute refutation of relativism, because there is no debate in Orthodoxy about essential doctrine, and because it has always been one confession, not divided up like Protestant denominationalism. But if that is the only motive for becoming, and remaining Orthodox, then the mystical doctrines upon which our faith stands will always be a stumbling block. Because they "sound" like relativism. But we do not confess Christ in order to refute anyone about anything, but because we love Him and are obedient to Him. Christianity is not a cause.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Matthew Steenberg wrote: "Such a distinction is the result of a very late (i.e. modern, or at least medieval) notion of history and historical memory, and very much at odds with the vision of the Fathers of the Church.
-------------

In reply to our moderator, I would post the following quote from Bernhard W. Anderson's Myth and the Biblical Tradition, Professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary.


"Raffaele Pettazzoni points out that the "contempt for myth," which is expressed even yet in the popular notion of myth as a "fantastic story," had its origin in classical antiquity , pre-eminently in the sixth century B.C. when Xenophanes directed his scathing criticism against Homer and Hesiod for perpetrating upon mankind the scandalous tales about the gods. Here the objection was not merely that the myths were factually untrue, but above all, that they were unworthy of the gods. This negation of myth, Pettazzoni points out, was inherited by the church Fathers who, for the most part, scorned the myths as "a diabolical counterfeit of the Old Testament," that is, as a pagan "lie." Such hostility, rooted both in classical antiquity and in the patristic period, is said to have "passed to scholasticism, from St. Thomas to Luther, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and continues to modern times." Pettazzoni maintains that Gianbattista Vico (1668-1744) was the first to deal positively with the originality of myth as "the spontaneous production of poetic fancy, awakened in primitive man by the imposing and terrifying spectacles of Nature," 3 a view which was later echoed independently of Vico by the Romantics, like the great Herder, or still later by the Grimms. But by and large these minority voices were unable to shake the view that prevailed from the sixth century B.C. to the twentieth century A.D.

Orthodoxy does not exist in myth, but in dogma. Myth is a kind of universal idealogy which unites and binds all mankind into a generic higher\alter anthropolgy. Myth enables man to rise up and out his historical experience into the realm of the spirit or the heavens. In Mythology, man must ascend upwards in order to return to earth deified.

Orthodoxy is Theanthropic, thus we follow the classic Orthodox explanation: God became man to enaable man to become God. To borrow from the words of Bernhard W. Anderson: the Orthodox tradition "does not pretend to view man in abstraction, in some generic or universal sense. It knows only the man who exists historically." It is in this context that we must understand the question which our Lord asked his disciples, {"Who do men say that I am," and then following their answer with, "Who do you say that I am." The answer from Peter was not to describe our Lord as a myth, but as the Promise fulfilled: "Thou art the Christ," that which St. Peter exclaimed is dogma.

Having said this, I am willing to read something which expounds more fully the idea that myth is presented postively in the vision of the Fathers. I do know that St. Clement wrote of the myth of the Phoenix to explain the Resurrection of Christ, but I seem to recall that he took that myth as having real historical reality versus simply abstract idealogical reality\?

john dunn

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones posted: "Unfortunately, many protestants I have met who became Orthodox did so because they thought they had found in Orthodoxy an absolute refutation of relativism, because there is no debate in Orthodoxy about essential doctrine, and because it has always been one confession, not divided up like Protestant
denominationalism. But if that is the only motive for becoming, and remaining Orthodox, then the mystical doctrines upon which our faith stands will always be a stumbling block. Because they "sound" like relativism. But we do not confess Christ in order to refute anyone about anything, but because we love Him and are obedient to Him.

Christianity is not a cause.
------------
[my emphasis added]

This is well stated, and a thought to which I almost completely concur.

In the quote below Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South expounds what would be the cause of my hedge against a complete assent.

"It is a matter of record that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always concerned herself with doctrine, articulating and defining as clearly as possible the divinely revealed truths about God and man. Modern religious thought, however, has a dislike for dogma, and frequently accuses the Church of dividing men with her strict adherence to her teachings; for her condemnation of what is wrong, heterodox; and for the willingness of her members to die for the truth. She is condemned for living in the past, and there are those who say that she is not prepared to meet modern crises and to offer men the solution to their problems. Individuals tell us to adjust ourselves to our surroundings, accept the least common denominator of dogma, and change our morality and ethics to fit changing social conditions. ... This is why the Church so jealously guards, in all its purity, the deposit of faith left by our Lord during His earthly stay. This is why she condemns and will continue to condemn novelties (such as Arianism) that detract from the Person of Jesus Christ and His mission. The whole structure of the Christian Church is summed up in the precious document left to us by the first two Ecumenical Councils of the Church, which we call the Nicene Creed, and which we reaffirm each time we celebrate, in the Divine Liturgy, that supreme mystery of God's love for man. This is the only "least common denominator" for the Christian Church. We cannot deny or doubt any one of its truths. The forces of the enemy are at work to destroy the foundation of the Church, for in changing even one of the Church's fundamental principles, we run the risk of denying all of them." [From a sermon on the Seventh Sunday of Pascha]

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky in his "Orthodox Domatic Theology" notes, "Because the Dogma of the All-Holy Trinity is the most important of all Christian dogma," followed with, "The dogma of the Holy-Trinity includes in itself two fundamental truths..."

Thus we see, that in the Church there has been a some times debate about "essential dogma," and these debates became the backdrops for the Ecumenical Councils which unite Orthodoxy confessionally.

john dunn

[Owen Jones]

It's interesting that Pettazzoni would be used as a source, since he believes that all belief in a supreme being is the result of existential anxiety. He is a phenomenologist and a pure historicist when it comes to all religious phenomena. In another words, it is the historical situation that dictates the belief and the nature of the belief. Everything is historical, for Pettazzoni.

He also states that Yahweh is a demonic, vindictive god, equivalent to the Hindu Veda. So consider the source. There is another view of myth, that of Joseph Campbell, who is not an historicist. He believes that myth, a la Jung, is a genetic determinant. Our genes speak to us through myth. Campbell, if read closely, reveals himself as a Nazi.

Both views are premised on atheism, in principle.

As for Bernard Anderson, he is one of the premier academics of the 20th Century in historical/critical Biblical exegesis. In reading Anderson, it's hard to determine whether he actually believes in anything other than his own method. His focus, by necessity, is the Old Testament, which he views as more historical than the New Testament, with all of that empty tomb business.

The idea that somehow the Bible and Christianity does not contain an understanding of man qua man, is absurd on the face of it, and part of the historicist trend in Biblical academics. It is anti-theological at its core. The academic school of historical/critical scholars is anti-theological, nihilistic, and, ironically, abstract and detached from the Biblical witness. The New Testament historicists are engaged in a fruitless attempt at reconstructing the historical Jewish communities that produced the books of the New Testament, since the premise is that they have no meaning at all apart from a knowledge of the historical conditions that produced them. IF you've never heard a good historical/critical dissection of a New Testament book, Hebrews to take one example, you have missed a real experience. It has zero theological meaning once a good historicist is through with it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Owen,

I think that is an extremely important point you make in post #816. Is our faith defined by at least an attempt to love Christ (and the results of this at times seem 'relative') or by negative reactions to the world? There is some deeper & crucial point here for which I thank you.

All of this is crucial for dealing with the current struggle within our own church to find the Royal Road.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Here is a short piece on the mystical body of Christ with Aquinas as the source. Any comments?

http://www.qn.net/~fwagner/ev/church_and_humanity1.html

[Daniel Jeandet]

Regarding this notion


...myth as "the spontaneous production of poetic fancy, awakened in primitive man by the imposing and terrifying spectacles of Nature,"

Im way off topic in saying this, but surely extreme psychidelic experiences (when the shamans and other pagan holy men took trips on dmt, peyote, psylocybin etc.) had a lot more to do with the creation of pagan myths than the spectacles of nature.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones wrote: "It's interesting that Pettazzoni would be used as a source, since he believes..."

The above comment reminds me of something I read somewhere else: I never, never agree with Jesse Jackson. Except when he said, "a text, without a context, is a pretext."

Matthew has posted that within the Patristic traditon the definition of myth as "falsehood, fable or even worse, the outright lie." is "at odds with the vision of the Fathers of the Church." My quotation was employed without any recomendation of Pettazzoni as a Philosopher/theologian, but only because of the reference suggesting a conclusion contrary to Matthew's statement. Whether or not his historical assessment that within the Patristic traditon the usage of myth is interpreted and employed to identify something negative "as "a diabolical counterfeit of the Old Testament," that is, as a pagan "lie."is accurate is what I was hoping to read and learn more about.

For example, St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "He awed men by the fire when He made flame to burst from the pillar of cloud-a token at once of grace and fear: if you obey, there is the light; if you disobey, there is the fire; but. since humanity is nobler than the pillar or the bush, after them the prophets uttered their voice,-the Lord Himself speaking in Isaiah, in Elias,-speaking Himself by the mouth of the prophets. But if thou dost not believe the prophets, but supposest both the men and the fire a myth, the Lord Himself shall speak to thee, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled Himself,"14 -He, the merciful God, exerting Himself to save man. And now the Word Himself clearly speaks to thee, Shaming thy unbelief; yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?"}
[Chapter I, Exhortation to the Greeks]

Myth does seem to be employed by St. Clement to describe an assessment made by unbelievers concerning the unconsumed burning bush as "factually untrue, amd unworthy of God.

I am not using this example to prove Matthew's assertion as wrong, I simply would like a little more evidence to substantiate it.

john dunn

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

When I read the following I thought of this Thread. It goes to how Christians have expressed themselves in times previous to ours. Often this tells us as much as the exact message the words convey.

In any case the following is a funerary epitaph of a Pectorius of Autun (present day France); it dates from around the 2nd century.

"O divine offspring of the heavenly Ichthus, receive with a heart full of respect the life immortal among mortals.

Friend, refresh your soul with the divine waters, the everflowing waters of wisdom which give wealth.

Receive from the Saviour of saints the nourishment sweet as honey:
Eat for your hunger, drink for your thirst;
Take the Fish in the palms of your hands.
Master & Saviour nourish us with the Fish.
May my mother rest in peace, I pray you, light of the dead.
Aschandius my father with my dear mother & my brothers
with all the gratitude of my soul I beg you,
in the peace of the Fish remember your Pectorius."

The symbolic manner of expression really speaks here. Ichthus is the Greek for 'fish' an acrostic for 'Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour'. This ancient symbol for Christ has so much meaning (along with the implied symbol of water) that a whole chapter could be written about this.

'Divine waters': Baptism, divine grace, Christ's conversation with the Samaritan woman- very often these symbols have multiple meanings that shift depending on your focus. 'nourishment sweet', 'eat for your hunger' 'take the Fish'- the Eucharist: again multiple symbols & reference to the ancient practice of receiving in one's hand.

"May my mother rest in peace..." very touching evidence of prayer for the departed. Phrases we still use now: 'rest in peace', 'remember...'

Also it is remarkable how the epitaph is a means whereby a member of the Christian Community speaks to the rest of the Community as if to say that no one dies in isolation when in Christ.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Curtis Dunn]

As an addendum to my last post, it should be noted that every use of the Greek word muthos is in the negative sense, i.e, legend, fable, or as something which is fictitious [two examples 2 Peter 1:16;2 Timothy 4:4]

As I have already mentioned, St. Clement employed the myth of the Phoenix to explain the Resurrection of Christ, but he also believed that which we know to be myth [for what else can it be called?] to be historically real and verifiable [at least every 500 years].

To these we can also add St Ireaneus' Adversus Haereses in which he opposed those wanted to synthesis the historical reality of the Gospel with myths, which would have turned the Gospel into nothing more than a myth. For example: In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavour, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma."

How ought we to understand baseless fictions, is St. Ireaneus giving latitude that the Gospel has some reality in fictions which have some historical grounding? Does he not categorically identify those who make use of myths as hereitics? He wrote in Chapter IX.-Refutation of the Impious Interpretations of These Heretics: "we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms an a priori proof that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, [B]and that the theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods." Does he not seem to employ theories to describe being a system of speculative thought, i.e., myths?

john dunn

[Owen Jones]

The following is, I think, a penetrating explanation of the symbolic (myth). It is a generic definition, but applies well, I think, to Christian theology. Obviously, not every single word in the Bible is symbolic. When the Bible says, "Thou Shalt Not Murder," it's hard to see what's symbolic about that. But Moses is more than just a historical figure. He serves a symbolic purpose as well. The Church is more than just a legal institution. It is a symbol for something beyond the institution.

"A symbol is neither a human conventional sign signifying a reality
outside consciousness nor, as in certain theological constructions, a
word of God conveniently transmitted in the language the recipient
can understand. It is engendered by the divine-human encounter and
participates, therefore, as much in divine as in human reality."

[John Curtis Dunn]

Why make it so complex? A symbol is the earnest of the reality from which it originates and communicates so that to strike the symbol is to strike the reality, i.e., Moses striking the rock.

john dunn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen, Whence comes the definition of 'symbol' that you posted above in your no. 819?

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Is a symbol purely an earnest? Or can we not find, especially in the liturgical language of the Church, witness to the idea that a symbol, in addition to being an earnest of the reality which it types, also the true manifestation and presence of that reality?

The Gospel book, in Orthodox worship, serves liturgically as a symbol of Christ (especially when carried in procession during the Little Entrance). Do we not in this symbol actually encounter Christ Himself?

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, p. 74. Voegelin is not someone to go to for an Orthodox Christian witness as such, but he has an understanding of the structure between experience/language/reflective distance.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Matthew Steenber writes:


Is a symbol purely an earnest? Or can we not find, especially in the liturgical language of the Church, witness to the idea that a symbol, in addition to being an earnest of the reality which it types, also the true manifestation and presence of that reality?

For me to understand the distinction being posed by Matthew, I would need to understand how he defines an "earnest."

"Who has also sealed [sphragizo] us and given the earnest [arrhabOn] of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor. 1:22

"...in whom you also after that you believed were sealed [sphragizo] with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest [arrhabOn] of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession unto the praise of His Glory." Eph. 1:14

If I receive an earnest, do I not receive the reality of that which it symbolizes? Is it not a present tense manifestation of the reality of which it symbolizes?

Are not the bread and wine symbols of the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ? Do they not actually convey into our hearts, minds and bodies the reality of that which they symbolize? When we partake of them, is not our partaking a symbol of our being members of Christ?

Other confessions search anxiously for "assurance of salvation" in theological propositions; as Orthodox Christians, we find our assurance through reception of the "earnest of our inhereitance." We Orthodox Christians bear on our bodies the marks of Christ's Crucifixion by wearing the symbol of His Cross. Does that symbol not convey to us the reality as a true manifestation of the Glory of Christ?

I quess the question is: can we describe the Bread and Wine as earnests {symbols of the reality] of the Body and Blood of Christ?

john dunn

[Melissa]

Dear Matthew S. and John Dunn -

Am I way off or do you two actually agree with each other on this issue of symbols and earnests?


Matthew: Or can we not find, especially in the liturgical language of the Church, witness to the idea that a symbol, in addition to being an earnest of the reality which it types, also the true manifestation and presence of that reality?

John Curtis Dunn: Do they not actually convey into our hearts, minds and bodies the reality of that which they symbolize?

I may have read this improperly, but I didn't read Matthew as posing a distinction by saying in addition; I read it as questioning whether there is a distinction, or is there perhaps a greater fullness to the use of the terms than had been posited by others. Matthew, did I misunderstand?

In Christ,
Melissa

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John Dunn,
In the Liturgy of St Basil the Great at "We praise Thee, we bless Thee,..." in the prayer read by the priest, "and presenting unto Thee the holy symbols of the sacred Body & Blood of Thy Christ..."
In Christ- Fr R

[matt]

I was looking through some Louis Bouyer today and came by an intersting discussion of myth, symbol and much more in between in his book, Cosmos: The World and the Glory of God.

I know the conversation has moved away from myth a little, but if you have the book, dust it off. He traces myth in various cultures and meanings and eventually makes a tie with the jewish myths and wisdom literature. A detailed overview of various cosmologies is also discussed culminating in the Trinitarian vision of the Church and the resulting worldview and myth.

I am using myth here is the sense of a meaning ascribed to events, not as something that is untrue or only a fable. So in this sense I am suggesting as others have stated, that all of history "understood" is myth. But in our times it is such a loaded word that I look like "Bishop" Spong or Joseph Campbell, which I am not.

Anyway, an fyi if you happen to have the book. Bouyer is fantastic.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Giorgos Zographides has coined the phrase 'eucharistic materialsim' BYZANTINE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ICON, ATHENS,: Hellenika Grammata< 1997 (in Greek)

To further this discussion along, I recomend the following URL-hyperlink as a reference. The title of the article to read is: The notion of symbol as a logical/aesthetic category according to the theology of St. John of Damascus
by Vassilis Adrahtas

The notion of symbol as a logical/aesthetic category according to the theology of St. John of Damascus (http://www.sagotc.orthodox.nsw.edu.au/Phromena%20XVII%202003.pdf)