The eternity of Christ's incarnation

[Ephrem Gall]

First post. I am a reader at St. John Chrysostom Antiochian Orthodox Church in York, PA- the Reader Ephrem.

I have an interest in St. Ephrem the Syrian and St. John Chrysostom, and have submitted a thesis to the Antiochian House of Studies entitled "St. John Chyrsostom and the Socialization of Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Patristic Inspiration for Contemporary Application" toward an M.A. from Balamand University in Lebanon. My wife and I are houseparents for a group home of adults with developmental disability.

My first Reader, Fr. Ted Pulcini, has encouraged me to go forward with my recommendation that someone should develop an Orthodox website for families with disabled members- resources from an Orthodox perspective. I welcome any suggestions.

I would also be curious how others feel about Metropolitan Philiip's call for the development of an active monasticism, one that would respond to such things as the disaster following Hurricane Katrina. It seems to me an active monasticism like this is a paradigm the laity could imitate more easily than hesychasm. O course it need not be either/or. St. John Chrysostom encouraged his flock to begin to consecrate themselves to God by almsgiving, which would lead them forward to greater things.

Also, I am currently being edified by the Coptic Pope Shenouda's introductory books, "Return to God" and "Living by Faith," having just reread for the third time Matthew the Poor's "The Communion of Love." But for you Coptic believers out there, explain to me how Christ could have a human nature before the Incarnation? I don't get it. I believe our view is that Christ's human nature was 'grafted" (the Greek word is more abstract- hypostatization, from Fr. John Meyendorff's "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought") into His 1 Hypostatis at the time of the Incarnation. (Divine Nature pre-eternal, human nature eternal from that point in time- correct me if I'm wrong)

I also have a work by Hildegard of Bingen on my pile and am curious if any Orthodox Christians have opinions about her.

I look forward to much edifying fellowship, and help on the path to Theosis.

Oh, yes, I was chrismated 6 years ago, having been Lutheran, Church of Bible Understanding (ugh!), CM&A, Baptist, and Mennonite before. (My wife grew up Mennonite.)

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Bill

The Coptic Orthodox do not believe that Christ had a human nature before the incarnation. Before the incarnation of the Eternal Word of God the nature of the Word was simple and Divine. It was only at the moment of the Incarnation that he took perfect and complete human nature from the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary and Theotokos.

I assume you are thinking of the teaching of St Cyril, that the Incarnation is a union 'of two natures'. You should understand that this does not speak temporally. There were not two existing natures which were united. Rather it speaks qualitatively about the distinction and difference in the two natures which the union is made from.

In Christ the natures of humanity and Divinity are ineffably united without confusion but eliminating division and separation. So there is a continuing union 'of two natures', but be clear, we never consider that the humanity had any existence apart from or before the incarnation. Indeed the Coptic Orthodox and other Oriental Orthodox could not possibly be more rejecting of such a view which is that of Theodore and Diodore and the heretics who followed them.

Peter

[Alex Haig]

Firstly, welcome Bill to monachos.net, I hope it will be of use to you as it is for many people here.

My main point is this, and can someone please correct me if I state something which isn't Orthodox, what is once true about God is always true about Him: He is unchanging. So, if the second Person of the Trinity has a human nature at one time, He always has had and will have it.

Christ for all eternity, even at the creation of the world, is the God Man.

Is this correct or have I missed something?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Alex,

I am afraid that your opinion is at variance with the Orthodox understanding.

The Word of God is eternal and unchanging in His Divine nature, and even after the Incarnation he remains in His Divine nature what He has always been and will always be, indeed He is beyond all categories in His Divinity.

But in time, indeed in a particular year and month, God the Word took flesh of the Virgin Mary and in time became man. Before the moment of the Incarnation He was not man, one second afterwards and the Eternal Word had united to Himself our own humanity.

If the Word of God has always had a human nature then that human nature mus be said to have existed from eternity but we know and believe that our humanity is created and comes into existence in time according to the will of God. If the Word of God has always outside of time and creation a human nature then thus makes His humanity eternal and immortal and indeed even Divine.

Therefore it is not correct or Orthodox to say that the Word has a human nature from all eternity Indeed I would counsel you to speak with your priest about these matters.

Is this your own consideration or has this been suggested to you by a Byzantine priest or author? Have you heard or read other Eastern Orthodox teach this as a doctrine?

Best wishes

Peter

[Alex Haig]

It is worthy of note that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made equal to God and God in respect of any change or alteration, or transformation, or confusion of nature: as Gregory the Theologian says, "Whereof the one deified, and the other was deified, and, to speak boldly, made equal to God: and that which anointed became man, and that which was anointed became God." For these words do not mean any change in nature, but rather the oeconomical union (I mean the union in subsistence by virtue of which it was united inseparably with God the Word), and the permeation of the natures through one another, just as we saw that burning permeated the steel. For, just as we confess that God became man without change or alteration, so we consider that the flesh became God without change. For because the Word became flesh, He did not overstep the limits of His own divinity nor abandon.

St John of Damascus
An Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith (http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html), Book III Chapter XVII
(Emphasis added)

If Christ so unites God and Man, surely the unity is something which is beyond time. While I am not trying to say that the incarnation did not happen at a particular time in our history, the joining of the two natures transcended time (in my understanding). In this sense, Christ has always been Man.

On this line, I have seen icons of the creation in which Christ is shown as the Creator (see John 1:1-3). Whilst inside time He had not become incarnate, yet He is still depicted as the incarnate Son of God (else He couldn't be depicted at all).

With love in Christ

Alex

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

If Christ so unites God and Man, surely the unity is something which is beyond time. While I am not trying to say that the incarnation did not happen at a particular time in our history, the joining of the two natures transcended time (in my understanding). In this sense, Christ has always been Man.

On this line, I have seen icons of the creation in which Christ is shown as the Creator (see John 1:1-3). Whilst inside time He had not become incarnate, yet He is still depicted as the incarnate Son of God (else He couldn't be depicted at all).

With love in Christ

Alex

Yes the icon you refer to is to the left of our screen as we make these posts. But still Peter is correct. Only at a certain time & place in human history has the Word become Incarnate.

My sense of the meaning of icons such as this is that there is an eternal economia of the Word which relates to & is fulfilled in His Incarnation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ephrem Gall]

yes, indeed an educated Egyptian layman in my Parish quoted St. Cyril to me, and I was ruminating on it. Thanks for the clarification.

Also, as to the discussion, the timeless One entered time to save all who have been bound to it. The verbs St. Gregory used indicate a temporal action, unless they have been mistranslated. St. Gregory spoke "boldly" of this, with trepidation at the wonder of it.

According to Ephesians 1, the plan is eternal. And there is the question of the Old Testament theophanies also to consider. But Fr. John Meyendorff, a Chalcedonian theologian, also sees the union effected in an instant of time, if I'm not mistaken.

[Peter Farrington]

If Christ so unites God and Man, surely the unity is something which is beyond time. While I am not trying to say that the incarnation did not happen at a particular time in our history, the joining of the two natures transcended time (in my understanding). In this sense, Christ has always been Man.


Hi Alex

I think you are asking too much of human mental ability. We can only say what we know to be true, that the Word of God was simple and Divine in His nature and then choosing to become man he took human nature for Himself of the Virgin Mary in time and space and was incarnate.

If we start to attribute eternal being to the humanity then I think we are on very dodgy ground. Not leas because it seems to be contrary to the scriptures. The phrase 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us' surely shows that He was not flesh. If the natures are 'joined' then a unity takes place which results in the incarnation.

What do you mean by 'joined', perhaps I have misunderstood you. My own tradition would prefer to speak of 'unity' and 'union' rather than 'joining' which has seemed to our Fathers a rather weak verb to use to describe the Word becoming man.

Even John of Damascus is clear that the humanity becomes God not by a change in nature. Indeed John of Damascus says no more than the Oriental Orthodox have alway said on this matter. The humanity becomes deified and filled with the Divine glory and power as the very humanity of the Word but it does not change into Divinity. Eternal being is a property of Divinity not humanity. If we assert that the Word was human even from before the creation then there must be a creation for that humanity to be part of, therefore we end up with an eternal Creation co-existent with the Creator. Indeed this was surely one of the errors of Origen.

Peter

[Alex Haig]

I think that I am not posting what I mean.

God exists outside of everything. Part of the Creation is the time in which we live. Christ has, however, taken His human body outside of time but still within Creation (in Heaven at the right hand of God) - I am not saying that His human body is taken to be outside of the Creation but is outside of time. In this existance outside time, there is no yesterday or tomorrow but a continuous present, and in this sense I am trying to propose that Christ has always been the God Man.

Is this clear?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Alex

Perhaps, but I do not believe it is what the Fathers teach.

I do not believe we should/are able to speak very well about anything to do with the life of the Holy Trinity apart from as is revealed to us.

The Scriptures just seem to be so clear that we should speak of 'the Word becoming flesh' that it seems dangerous and liable to an erroneous interpretation to speak of the Word as always being incarnate. I see what you are meaning to say, I am just not sure that we should say it. :)

I wonder if it makes the incarnation something which is a necessity, since it must be defined as a 'given' of the Word of God. I do not believe that the Fathers allow us to make the incarnation a necessity in such a way.

I am also not so sure that we are taught to see a sort of motionlessness to the Holy Trinity, which was again one of Origen's issues. The perfection of the Divinity is surely found in a relational dynamic rather than in an unmoving and unmoved monad.

Surely we can only speak of God's relationship to men within creation and had best be silent when it comes to the mystery of God's existence in Himself. It seems to me that to speak of an eternally incarnate Word, allowing the point you are making, goes beyond what we should say. We can only speak of God in relation to creation and time, outside of time, in the being of God, there is not even an eternal present, since this is also a concept that only has meaning within creation. And within creation we can only speak of 'the Word became flesh'.

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have to say that I think Peter rings more "true" for me. "God became man so that man could become as gods". While our Lord exists beyond time, He assumed our flesh at a very specific time and place. Nowhere that I am aware of does Holy Scripture say that Jesus WAS always "man" and God. But He always WILL BE...

[Ephrem Gall]

Fr. John Meyendorff was more of an historian than theologian, strictly speaking. Because I am not widely read on these matters this will be my last post on this. But since I pulled him into this I briefly reviewed his "Christ in Eastern Thought," which chiefly chronicles Orthodox efforts to rule out Nestorian interpretations of the Council of Chalcedon.

On page 41 he respectfully quotes the non-Chalcedonian Severus (St. Severus for the Coptic Church), a "great sixth-century theologian" (p. 40) on this issue. "Before the Incarnation, the Word was a 'simple' nature, but by becoming man, he became 'composite in regard to the flesh.'"

Fr. John sees one whom he characterizes as a relatively minor Chalcedonian theologian as providing a clarifying breakthrough- Leontius of Jerusalem, who ". . . radically rejected the possibility of the pre-existence of Christ's manhood." (p. 73) Leontius of Jerusalem wrote, "The Word in the latter times, having himself clothed with flesh his hypostatis and his nature, which existed before his human nature, and which, before the worlds, were without flesh, hypostatized human nature into His own hypostatis." (p. 74)

Fr. John comments, "Christ's humanity therefore possesses no proper hypostasis. It exists only as part of a whole that is Christ, the incarnate Word; although individualized, it is not particularized, as are human hypostases. [According to] Leontius of Jerusalem, "Christ's hypostasis, since it is that of the Logos, is not 'particular' but 'common' . . . for Christ unites 'all of mankind,' and not only one individual of the human race, to the divinity."

Fr. John sees a certain fuzziness in this Leontius' definition of hypostasis, but feels that it is nevertheless an advance on the Christology of St. Cyril, (p. 76) clarifying the manner of the "hypostatization" of His humanity into Christ's eternal and pre-incarnational Person- a step forward, though not at the time accepted by the non-Chalcedonians due to the terminological differences which were not then amenable to discussion and harmonization. (my summary)

Both of these 6th century theologians affirm the temporality of the Hypostatic Union, according to Fr. John.

[John Charmley]

St. Cyril of Alexandria had some wise advice for us on this theme. Commenting on the Incarnation of the Word, he writes:

'... as God he was ineffably begotten by nature from the Father and was co-eternal with him. For those who wish to know clearly how, and in what manner, he appeared in a form like our own and became man, the divine evangelist John explains when he says:
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of truth and grace."(Jn 1:14)'

At the heart of St. Cyril's soteriology was the following insight, which seems to me germane to this theme:


As God he wished to make that flesh which was held in the grip of sin and death evidently superior to sin and death. He made it his very own, and not souless as some have said, but rather animated with a natural soul, and thus he restored flesh to what it was in the beginning. He did not consider it beneath him to have to follow a path congruous to this plan, and so he is said to have undergone a birth like ours, while all the while remaining what he was. He was born of a woman according to the flesh in a wondrous manner, for he is God by nature, as such invisible and incorporeal, and only in this way, a form like our own, could he be made manifest to earthly creatures. He thought it good to be made man and in his own person to reveal our nature honoured in the dignities of the divinity. The same one was at once God and man, and he was "in the likeness of a man (Phil 2:7) since even though he was God he was "in the fashion of a man". (Phil 2:8)'
(On the Unity of Christ pp.53, 55 of the SVS edition).

The Word 'became flesh', which means He was not flesh before that moment. The how and the why are, as St. Cyril reminds us, an ineffable mystery.


In Christ,


John

[Owen Jones]

Who or what walked in the Garden of Eden?

[Owen Jones]

Gen 3:8 btw

[Owen Jones]

boy this is really neat: the Biblical text is automatically high lighted and when I click on it it takes me to the full text on the web!

[M.C. Steenberg]

boy this is really neat: the Biblical text is automatically high lighted and when I click on it it takes me to the full text on the web!

Yes, we finally found a useful application for live hyperlinks. And it only took us six years. ;-)

Glad you like the feature. You can read more about it here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2686).

INXC, Matthew

[Kris]

Yes, we finally found a useful application for live hyperlinks. And it only took us six years. ;-)

I also think its an excellent feature. It's just a shame The Orthodox New Testament is not available on Bible Gateway (or elsewhere online) and it has to link up to a Protestant translation :-(

[Owen Jones]

So back to the question: who or what walked in the Garden of Eden? Was it the Father in a kind of docetic impression of His essence? Was it the Son? In hypostatic form? I think there are indeed some Patristic references.....

[Peter Farrington]

I believe that Fr John Romanides of blessed memory teaches that these are all theophanies of the Son, pre-incarnate appearances, not incarnations.

Peter

[Owen Jones]

What is a pre-Incarnate experience? Does he try to explain what he means by that? Was he non-material, but somehow making himself known as material?

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Owen

I think that he means that our Lord took human form, but not humanity, and 'appeared' as a man.

Peter

[Antonios]

Hello everyone,

I just read this line in St. Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans and thought of this thread so I posted it here...

"For I know that after His resurrection, too, He still had flesh, and I believe that He has flesh now."

[Tanya Hoadley]

So back to the question: who or what walked in the Garden of Eden? Was it the Father in a kind of docetic impression of His essence? Was it the Son? In hypostatic form? I think there are indeed some Patristic references.....

I am no theologian. I am not a learned student. I am simple in many ways, so I don't understand how Adam, a sinner, could be Father or Son in any form?

In Christ,

Tanya

[Kris]

I am no theologian. I am not a learned student. I am simple in many ways, so I don't understand how Adam, a sinner, could be Father or Son in any form?


Hi Tanya,

I don't believe anyone was suggesting that Adam is God in any form. They were refering to the part of the Bible that says, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the afternoon; and both Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden" (Genesis 3:8)

In XC,
Kris

[Tanya Hoadley]

Hi Tanya,

I don't believe anyone was suggesting that Adam is God in any form. They were refering to the part of the Bible that says, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the afternoon; and both Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden" (Genesis 3:8)

In XC,
Kris

Dear Kris,
Thanks for the clarification, I certainly missed a reply or two!
Tanya

[Ephrem Gall]

In John McGuckin's "St. Cyril of Alexandria & The Christoloogical Controversy: Its history, Theology, and Texts" St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nazanzius, and St. Cyril of Alexandria make it clear that Christ's incarnation is not eternal.

The latter, in his 2nd letter to Succensus writes, "[The Word] took it on himself to become man and was made like us in the flesh, from out of a woman, and yet he remained a single Son, though indeed no longer without the flesh as he was of old before the time of his incarnation, but now clothed as it were in our nature." (p. 360)

St. Athanasius, in his letter to Epictetus: "From what source did these people vent the equally wicked doctrine that the body did not originate later than the Godhead of the Word, but has been continuously co-eternal with it, since it was composed from the essence of Wisdom?" (p. 380)
St Gregory Nazanzien, in his letter to Cledonius: "... we teach that He is one and the same who formerly was not man, but God and only Son, eternal, unmingled with body or anything corporeal, who in these last days has even assumed manhood for our salvation; ..." (p. 391)

My original question was about "out of two natures." The book explains what St. Cyril meant by that, and why he was zealous to exclude a continuing duality in Christ. The fifth chapter of St. Cyril's second letter to Succensus reveals why the Council of Chalcedon was not readily received in Egypt. (362-63) But other statements would provide a basis for a Cyrillian interpretation of the Council's conclusions, as McGuckin says.

But that 5th Chapter really throws a wrench into things. St. Cyril did not trust the use of "inseparably" by the Antiochenes, though he himself uses the terms "without confusion, without change, and without alteration." (p. 354)

And from this book I gain a better understanding of my original question.

Frankly, it "galls" me (though I hate that pun) that my name appears under a heading that St. Athanasis calls a wicked doctrine, especially since I did not originally suggest it.

The only other thing I would add, probably foolishly, is that St. Cyril's central analogy for the union from two natures, the human soul and body, which in its natural state is one and not two, is rent asunder, unnaturally, when we die. And the two will remain in that unnatural state until Christ returns. But of course no analogy is perfect.

And now I have two questions for the Coptic Christians:

1. What are we to make of Christ's prayer, "Not my will, but Thy will be done."? Two wills are spoken of there.

2. What of St. Gregory the Theologian's statement "For what He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is is united to His Godhead is also saved." (p. 393) If our Lord did not have a human will, how can our will be healed and saved?

[Ephrem Gall]

I would add that the wicked doctrine of the eternity of Christ's incarnation is especially ignorant in light of the fact that it complete sidelines the Most Holy Theotokos from her central role in the incarnation of her Son Who Is Christ our God.

As to Pre-Incarnate appearances of Christ, why do we have to know the details? If the Fathers, or our Bishops or our spiritual fathers enlighten us on these things for our good, let us receive it gladly. But otherwise let the mystery stand and refocus on repentance.

I think we should be more reticent in our theological assertions, especially since the modus operandi of the Western civilization in which most of us were nurtured is frankly more like Nestorius' hyper-analytical approach than St. Cyril's theology of wonder and paradox. We will be called account for every word on that Day. I tremble at the thought, but take heart that "His mercy endures forever."

[John Charmley]

And now I have two questions for the Coptic Christians:

1. What are we to make of Christ's prayer, "Not my will, but Thy will be done."? Two wills are spoken of there.

2. What of St. Gregory the Theologian's statement "For what He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is is united to His Godhead is also saved." (p. 393) If our Lord did not have a human will, how can our will be healed and saved?


Dear Mr. Gall,

Some very interesting posts here; I do sympathise with having your name attached to such a doctrine, but no one who reads your powerful posts will be in any doubt as to where you stand - if that's any consolation.

Your questions are pertinent to a discussion that went on earlier this year on this site in the EO/OO discussion area, which is where our moderators would, for obvious reasons, prefer such things to be discussed. I think that Peter Farrington's posts there will answer your questions.

The issues you raise would only be difficult for the Copts if they were indeed Monophysites, but since they aren't, there are perfectly Cyrilline answers which I am told they accept.

There is much more on these themes in the EO/OO discussion area, and if it were thought appropriate (hint for Matthew) we might continue this topic there?

In Christ,

John

[Owen Jones]

Regarding the above comment by Miss Hoadly, I was referring to the passage in which God walked in the Garden of Eden....

[Ephrem Gall]

Hardly a quick reply; but thanks for your suggestions, and your empathy. I'm doing further reading before I delve into this again. I'm not sure a reader in the Church needs to be throwing himself into this matter. We're really trying to squeeze clarity for ourselves from the great mysteries. What is more important, a Christological framework that emphasizes unity, or one that puts more emphasis on Christ's full humanity. Both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians try to do both, but with their respective leanings. That Pope Shenouda's practical writings are so blessed makes me less willing to draw hard lines. Thanks again.

[Andrew]

I've read an essay in which Dr. Kalomiros argues that Our Lord's incarnation transcends time; he, the unoriginate Word of God, was pastured in the Holy Theotokos' womb, and ascended into Heaven with his very human body... and his ascension into Heaven transcends time and space to the point where it is possible to say that the very same feet that the sinful woman washed with her tears were the ones that walked with Adam and Eve. It's pretty heady stuff; I know that there are some hymns in the Church that could support this, but I'm not sure if this has ever been explicitly stated by any Father, or whether this is just a pious opinion of a modern theologian.

[Andrew]

I've read an essay in which Dr. Kalomiros argues that Our Lord's incarnation transcends time; he, the unoriginate Word of God, was pastured in the Holy Theotokos' womb, and ascended into Heaven with his very human body... and his ascension into Heaven transcends time and space to the point where it is possible to say that the very same feet that the sinful woman washed with her tears were the ones that walked with Adam and Eve. It's pretty heady stuff; I know that there are some hymns in the Church that could support this, but I'm not sure if this has ever been explicitly stated by any Father, or whether this is just a pious opinion of a modern theologian.

I need to ask my spiritual father about this. And in the post above, I was in no way arguing for a belief in Christ's human body being counoriginate and coeternal before time... I don't know, this is one of those things that goes beyond our own human logic. Everything about Christ tosses human logic on its head!

[John Charmley]

Dear Mr. Gall,

Good to see this one reignited at this very appropriate tome of the year.

I am in the middle of St. Cyril's commentaries on St. John, and a few nuggets from him may help us along.

He is most insistent on the Word 'becoming' flesh. At this moment the person (the Word) who had always existed as God also became man. This did not involve any mixing, changing, or confusing of natures (here the soul/body analogy which, as you say, St. Cyril was fond of using, is not applied, because it it were it would indeed give the impression Nestorius thought he saw in Cyril's work). Instead the Word takes on a new manner of being - as man. This means, on St. Cyril's reading, that


the Word of God the Father became Flesh, not by a change or alteration of his own nature ... but because having made the flesh taken from the body of the Virgin his own, one and the same subject is called Son, before the Incarnation as Word still incorporeal, and after the Incarnation as the same Word now embodied. That is why we say that the same subject is simultaneously both God and Man, not dividing him conceptually into a human being with a separate identity and God the Word also with a separate identity, that we may exclude any idea of two Sons, but acknowledging that one and the same subject is Christ and Son and Lord.
[Russell, St. Cyril of Alexandria (2000) pp. 179-180]

The Incarnation remains, as the God-guided Saint tells us, an ineffable mystery - but that mystery is that the Divine Son truly exists as a true man.

I hope that these insights of St. Cyril's will continue to help us. He is, as others have commented elsewhere, too little read in the west. The Copts have always kept his memory and his words green.

In Christ,


John

[Ephrem Gall]

Just had a Nativity study on Old Testament texts which point to the Incarnation. Our Parish Priest, Fr. Peter Pier, held that Christ was indeed present in those theophanies.
We discussed this. It was said that after Christ ascended with human flesh and sat at the right hand of the Father, His humanity entered eternity, and time does not exist in eternity.
I wondered, out loud, if Christ's body dwelling in eternity, where time does not exist- or perhaps, His eternal dwelling including all times, past, present, and future- pre-incarnate appearances could relate to this.

Pure speculation. No assertion. Time to get comfortable with mystery, and the apophatic way. Who am I to suggest anyone is a heretic without hearing them out? Forgive me.

[Paul Cowan]

Christ was before time. He entered time while still remaining outside time. Every year, we celebrate every church feast. Every year, outside of time, the church triumphant celebrates them "in" time with us.

Think of it like this. My birthday is on a given day. Everyone in my family, regardless where they are in the world, know that on that day, I will celebrate my birthday. When I die, my family will continue to celebrate my birthday even though I am no longer here. I would like to think I will be celebrating it with them in the afterlife. So whether it is past , present or future, my birthday will be celebrated by all those who knew me.

Or it seems to this bear in training

[Antonios]

Dear Reader Bill,

Time is created and to us in creation, seems straight forward when in fact it is relative. To the Lord Who is the creator of time and Whose Essence was from before time, it means absolutely nothing. That is, it has no power over the Will of God nor can constrain Him in any way. If we first accept this, than the rest is much easier to accept.

Our goal is to live our lives in such a way, where we prepare for the Eternal Eighth Day in the Kingdom by living in the now, where time is but a tool for greater glorification and thankfulness to the Lord. A life of prayer and watchfulness is the surest way to do so, as proven by the saints.

[Aidan Kimel]

How interesting that this thread should get resurrected four years later. And of course, it was inevitable that it would, as both sides in the dispute are correct. Must we not say both (1) from the human, temporal point of view there was a time when the eternal Son of God was not Jesus of Nazareth and (2) from God's point of view there was never a moment in his eternal life when God was not incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for us is that it is quite literally impossible for us to understand what eternity means for God, and so we tend to project temporality upon God. I have found Fr Herbert McCabe's (Catholic) reflections on the pre-existent Christ helpful:


There can be no succession in the eternal God, no change. Eternity is not, of course, a very long time; it is not time at all. Eternity is not timeless in the sense that an instant is timeless--for an instant is timeless simply in being the limit of a stretch of time, just as a point has no length not because it is very very short but because it is the limit of a length. No: eternity is timeless because it totally transcends time. To be eternal is just to be God. God's life is neither past nor present, nor even simultaneous with any event, any clock, any history. The picture of the Son of God "becoming" at a certain point in the divine duration the incarnate Son of God, "coming down from heaven," makes a perfectly good metaphor but could not be literally true. There was, from the point of view of God's life, no such thing as a moment at which the eternal Son of God was not Jesus of Nazareth. There could not be any moments in God's life. The eternal life of Jesus as such could not precede, follow or be simultaneous with his human life. There is no story of God "before" the story of Jesus. This point would not, of course, be grasped by those for whom God is an inhabitant of the universe, subject to experience and to history. I am not, need I say, suggesting that it can be grasped intelligibly by anyone, but in the traditional view it is the mystery that we affirm when we speak of God. (God Matters, pp. 49-50)

McCabe then asks us to consider what a person who lived before the conception and birth of Jesus might have been able to say intelligibly, truly, and accurately about the Son of God. Moses, says McCabe, could definitely have truly said "Jesus of Nazareth is not yet" or "Jesus of Nazareth does not exist," because in fact Jesus had not been conceived and born. He was future to Moses, and the future, at least for those of us who live in time, does not exist--that is what makes it future. Moses could also have truly said "The Son of God exists," for God is eternally Trinitarian. Moses could not, however, have truly said "The Son of God exists now." What is the difference between saying "The Son of God exists" and "The Son of God exists now"? The latter proposition, which attributes temporal existence ("now") to the Son of God, only becomes true in the womb of Mary, i.e., at the moment when Jesus begins to exist. "The simple truth," McCabe concludes, "is that apart from incarnation the Son of God exists at no time at all, at no 'now,' but in eternity, in which he acts upon all time but is not himself 'measured by it,' as Aquinas would say. 'Before Abraham was, I am'" (p. 50).

Now this seems to make sense to me, at least in terms of the classical Western understanding of God and his eternity. However, what I do not know if the Eastern understanding of God would require one to dissent from McCabe. I don't think so, given that we all agree that time is created by God. But I am very interested in hearing Eastern opinions about this.

[Aidan Kimel]

I wrote philosopher David Bradshaw, author of Aristotle East and West, and asked him about this question, with specific reference to the quotation from McCabe. He believes that in an Eastern understanding of deity it is literally true to say that the Son of God became the incarnate Son of God at a certain point in the divine duration, though it is also literally true to say that God is eternal and timeless. The reason for this is that time, like eternity, is a divine procession (energy), though it only comes forth with the creation of the world; time is therefore a manifestation of the divine being. Dr Bradshaw referred me to his essay "A Christian Approach to the Philosophy of Time (http://www.uky.edu/~dbradsh/papers/Christian%20Approach%20to%20Phil%20of%20Time.pdf)." I've skimmed the essay but have understood very little--it's way above my paygrade, but perhaps others on this forum will find it helpful.

[Richard A. Downing]

You know, this is one of those areas where we just get flashes of, probably misjudged, understanding. I'm certainly guilty of pontificating about it. I offer this in humility, knowing it is just my odd thoughts, not based on scholarly study of the Fathers.

It comes to me that, in one sense, we are all pre-existent eternal beings, because we all are part of The Father's plan which He conceived outside of time, but then so is that rock, and this pair of spectacles, so it doesn't mean so much, perhaps. Except that it serves to put me in complete awe, and abject fear.

Jesus is someone totally different, because His existence is by the Father's be-getting (another concept that we can't explain), and so is the Holy Spirit, with that inexplicable proceeding tag. The mystery of the Trinity is eternally completely beyond us, all descriptions of Him are utterly inadequate, and will be so no matter how we think about it. The only hope is that He shows us a glimpse - and this I suspect is why seeing God is fatal unless He has first changed us as he did/does to those Saints who have had that experience.

We also have to struggle with the clear truth that Jesus-born-of-Mary was totally completely and irrevocably Human, with all that this entails, even the predilection to sin (but not, of course, the succumbing to it) and the experience of time. In one sense then, just like me, there was from the beginning of time's creation the conception by God that He would be incarnate, but the actualisation of it occurred at the moment in Time of His conception by the Theotokos.

But as I say this is probably just my poor explanation from my inadequate understanding.

Love, In Christ, Richard.

He is Born! Glorify Him!