Second person of the holy Trinity

[Andreas Moran]

I'm sorry if this point has already been covered though I did do a search.
I don't understand the relationship between the Incarnate Christ and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I know that the Second Person is the Word by which all thing were made. He was incarnate, is called Jesus Christ, took on our form, died and rose on the third day as a man, and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Presumably, He was not called Jesus Christ before the incarnation. But the Creed says that the One Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all ages, etc. Why is He called Jesus Christ in relation to His existence before the incarnation? The confusion (in my mind) is not dispelled when I see Creation icons showing the Word portrayed like Jesus Christ.

Also, if the incarnate Jesus Christ ascended to heaven in His resurrected body and sits at the right hand of the Father (whatever that means), are the Second Person-Word and the resurrected human nature somehow coinhering? What is the nature of the two? One reason for this question is that we believe that God - all three Persons, and not just the Holy Spirit - is everywhere present and fills all things. How can the ascended body of Jesus Christ be everywhere present and filling all things? The two can't separated but can any resurrected body be everywhere present and fill all things or is this unique to Christ's resurrected body?

I probably haven't put my questions clearly but I hope you get my drift.

[Andreas Moran]

I now see that a very similar question has just been raised in the Christology area so maybe a moderator would wish to merge the two. But the other thread does not provide answers yet.

[Kornelius]

I don't understand the relationship between the Incarnate Christ and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

All you have to know about the relationship between the Incarnate Christ and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is summarized by the holy fathers in the Chalcedonian Formula.


"...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis - not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the same Son, only begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old and Jesus Christ Himself have taught us about Him and the creed of our fathers has handed down"



Presumably, He was not called Jesus Christ before the incarnation. But the Creed says that the One Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all ages, etc. Why is He called Jesus Christ in relation to His existence before the incarnation? The confusion (in my mind) is not dispelled when I see Creation icons showing the Word portrayed like Jesus Christ.

Christ transcends time and eternity. Therefore in His Infinite Wisdom, Christ knew, even prior to creation, of the fall of men, and of His Incarnation, Death and Resurrection. That is why He is called Jesus Christ in relation to His existence before the Incarnation. It is an eschatological understanding.


Also, if the incarnate Jesus Christ ascended to heaven in His resurrected body and sits at the right hand of the Father (whatever that means), are the Second Person-Word and the resurrected human nature somehow coinhering? What is the nature of the two? One reason for this question is that we believe that God - all three Persons, and not just the Holy Spirit - is everywhere present and fills all things. How can the ascended body of Jesus Christ be everywhere present and filling all things? The two can't separated but can any resurrected body be everywhere present and fill all things or is this unique to Christ's resurrected body?

Again, the answer is found in the Chalcedonian Formula. There are two natures but one prosopon and one Hypostasis of the one and the same Christ, Son, Lord. I will quote it again:


"...one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis - not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the same Son, only begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ"

More specifically, you ask "How can the ascended body of Jesus Christ be everywhere present and filling all things? The two can't separated but can any resurrected body be everywhere present and fill all things or is this unique to Christ's resurrected body?"

The human nature of Christ is omnipresent by virtue of being in union and coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis, i.e., the hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity.

One more thing about Christ's resurrected human body. Every resurrected human body, not just Christ's, is a spiritual body. Remember, when Christ appeared after the resurrection to His apostles He could enter through walls (yet, not a ghost), and he could also eat actual food with them.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas and others,

And interesting (and good!) question. Yes, it does relate to the comments in another thread that's just been started. I imagine we'll soon merge them together to avoid reduplication / repetition.

I'm not certain that Kornelius' references to the Chalcedonian formula adequately address what you're really asking -- nor are the really intended to, given the focus of that definition in its anti-Eutychian context. But the matter of speaking of the Word in terms of the eternal hypostatisation of the Son, which in the incarnation hypostatises also human nature, will be helpful as the discussion progresses.

I must rush now, so can't offer more; but I do look forward to the discussion ahead.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I'm not certain that Kornelius' references to the Chalcedonian formula adequately address what you're really asking

Well, no, that's right. Kornelius's posts are pieces of the jigsaw but don't make up the complete picture. My difficulty is that the incarnation happened in time. Now I know that spiritual 'events' (doesn't seem quite the right word but can't think of a better one just now) can transcend time, certainly forward time. But I have to wonder if the incarnation, while certainly in the mind, as it were, of the holy Trinity (as Rublev's icon indicates) before all ages can really have had such a pre-existent reality that Jesus Christ as man existed before He was born of the Virgin Mary. His name was announced to the Virgin Mary; could that name yet have existed, other than in the mind of God, before it was conferred on the incarnate infant Christ? After all, before all ages, man didn't exist. Would the pre-existence of Jesus Christ not take something away from the action of the holy Trinity in sending down the Second Person-Word at a known moment in time? In one sense, wouldn't this dilute Christmas? Some verses from the Christmas services speak of this event happening when it did: 'Thou who hast adorned the vault of heaven with stars hast been well pleased to be born as a babe'; 'our God and Creator has clothed Himself in created flesh'. But at one point, we have this: 'Beholding him that was in God's image and likeness fallen through the transgression, Jesus bowed the heavens and came down, and without changing He took up His dwelling in a Virgin womb; that thereby He might fashion corrupt Adam anew'. Confused!

[Kornelius]

Well, no, that's right. Kornelius's posts are pieces of the jigsaw but don't make up the complete picture. My difficulty is that the incarnation happened in time. Now I know that spiritual 'events' (doesn't seem quite the right word but can't think of a better one just now) can transcend time, certainly forward time. But I have to wonder if the incarnation, while certainly in the mind, as it were, of the holy Trinity (as Rublev's icon indicates) before all ages can really have had such a pre-existent reality that Jesus Christ as man existed before He was born of the Virgin Mary. His name was announced to the Virgin Mary; could that name yet have existed, other than in the mind of God, before it was conferred on the incarnate infant Christ? After all, before all ages, man didn't exist. Would the pre-existence of Jesus Christ not take something away from the action of the holy Trinity in sending down the Second Person-Word at a known moment in time? In one sense, wouldn't this dilute Christmas? Some verses from the Christmas services speak of this event happening when it did: 'Thou who hast adorned the vault of heaven with stars hast been well pleased to be born as a babe'; 'our God and Creator has clothed Himself in created flesh'. But at one point, we have this: 'Beholding him that was in God's image and likeness fallen through the transgression, Jesus bowed the heavens and came down, and without changing He took up His dwelling in a Virgin womb; that thereby He might fashion corrupt Adam anew'. Confused!

Pehaps you'll find helpful the mystery of the Holy Eucharist in which we have the greatest condensation of time, that is, the present the past and the future are joined together.

More specific you'll find this condensation in both the Liturgy of St. Basil and in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

First I'll quote from the Liturgy of St. Basil.


"Wherefore, we also, O Master, remember his saving Passion and life-giving Cross, His three days' Burial, and His Resurrection from the dead, His Ascension into Heaven, and His sitting on the Right Hand of Thee, the God and Father, and His glorious and terrible Second Coming."

The following is from St. John Chrysostom.


"Remembering therefore this saving command, and all those things that were done for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the Right Hand, the Second and glorious Coming again."

[Antonios]

Dear Andreas,

I find this discussion very interesting and appreciate Kornelius' posts. I also hope Father Deacon Matthew will be able to comment as well if time permits. To me, what your asking, I simply chalk up to the mystery of God, but there may be good Patristic texts which answer your question, and I look forward to hearing them.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Andreas Moran]

I too appreciate Kornelius's posts for the focus they give, and I like my theology when it comes from the texts of the services. But I find my two questions still unanswered. The first is about the relationship - if there is one (which is the question, really) - of Jesus Christ incarnate and the Second-Person-Word before the incarnation in time just over 2,000 years ago. The second is how the resurrected and ascended human body of Christ relates to the immanence of God, and I can't see that the posts so far tackle this. Christ's resurrected body was of course spiritual. But it was a body even so. Can that body inhere in the Word Who is immanent? The link Kornelius makes with the Eucharist is interesting and may be a clue to the answer. But is there a difference between God making bread into the Body of Christ and the Body existing immanently?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here: I usually keep off theology as you all know but these things were niggling me.

Another point occurs - could the answer explain how Christ was able to give His Body and Blood to His disciples at that first eucharist before He had been crucified and had arisen? [This is one reason I've heard given by Protestants for not believing in the real presence.]

[Antonios]

Dear Andreas,

I think the way I understand it, and I'm not sure if this is correct, but when the Word of God became flesh, that is, condescended Himself and took upon human nature, this did not change the Second Person of the Holy Trinity but rather changed all of creation around Him. The soteriological economia of Christ seems to come in profound moments in time during epic and world changing events in the incarnation, theophany, transfiguration, death and resurrection, and finally ascension. These events had an effect on creation and its relationship with its Creator, and did not change the Creator Who is outside of time. Thus, the Logos of God, Who is everywhere present, fills His fleshy corporal body both sitting at the table of the Last Supper as well as in the bread and wine in which He offered. He filled as well those disciples who partook of this Offering. Humankind, which has been selected out of all creation but which is nevertheless a part of it, thus serves as the mode to which all of creation is saved. However, this should not have us limit the Word of God to only His human flesh, but to all human flesh, to all bread and wine, in fact to everything that exists. How we experience this is not limited to His risen Body, but to all in all. His risen Body is risen human nature, in fact, risen creation. Immutable divine nature deifying mutable creation by grace.

So the Logos of God is the same from all time. It is creation which has changed and will continue to do so until His Second Coming.

A great topic of discussion which may relate to this theme is the experience of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Who was the stranger they were walking with? Why did they not recognize Him?

In Christ,
Antonios

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've enjoyed reading through this thread this morning. It looks as if a pleasant and interesting discussion is emerging. I'm sorry I don't have time to write more thoroughly at the moment; poor health and an over-burdened schedule are preventing the time and energy needed for longer, more thoughtful posts at the moment.

I, like Andreas, enjoyed Kornelius' recent post on liturgical language, and the insights it gives into the question. Thank you for that material. Though I also acknowledge Andreas' response; namely, that it doesn't yet fully address his initial questions. But I think it a very helpful dimension to be bringing out here at the beginning, and it gives good 'food to ponder' for me personally. Yet the liturgical reality of truly engaging with the eternity of God, in the present, is one thing; the question of the eternal Son's 'relationship / connection / identity with / etc.' his human nature, is another. Certainly they are interrelated, but I don't think conflatable.

Andreas, some food for thought in advance of (hopefully) being able to post something more considered in the near future: the language the Church uses to speak of Christ is always incarnational language -- that of the encountered human, Jesus of Nazareth, known in his humanity to be also Son of the Father -- because that is always how it knows him. The Church, as such, did not know 'the Son' as some abstract theological entity first, later encountered in human form. It met Jesus in Galilee in the person of his disciples and apostles, and it was in this incarnational, human encounter that it discovered the full revelation of the Father's Son. It is in the experience of his humanity that Peter is finally able to say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'. It is in his humanity, as the son of Nazareth, that the three disciples behold him in his divine glory on Tabor. It is by knowing the human Jesus that the evangelist St John was able to confess his true personhood: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us'. This is not a before / after statement on the evangelist's part: it is a disclosure of the full reality of the one St John has encountered in the human Christ.

We often think of the incarnation backwards: we take the 'before' of the eternal Son, and then speak of the 'after' of his incarnate existence. Before, he was non-incarnate; after, he was. Before, he was Son but not Jesus (his human name); after, he was Jesus the Son-and-man. But the authentic experience of the Church is that it only knows the Son incarnate in Christ. Jesus is the revelation of the Father, and the Father's Son. The right ordering of language is to follow that of the apostles: to speak first of Jesus of Nazareth, and through that encounter realise the full mystery that in this person we encounter not just man, but eternal Son. First we see the man of Galilee, and through that seeing, discover the fullness of the divine Son of God.

It is this that helps make sense of the Church's language. If one follows a backwards reading of incarnational experience, taking a 'before' and 'after' approach to the incarnation, one is then faced with the need constantly to relate the 'after' to the 'before'. Is it Jesus, somehow, who talks to Adam? It is Jesus, met by the apostles, who speaks to the prophets? But if 'Jesus' is the name of the human incarnation (the 'after') of the Son, oughtn't one rather say it is the 'pre-incarnate Son' who does these things? And how does the pre-incarnate Son relate to the post-incarnate Jesus? In addition to such questions, one also faces the absurdity they make of some of the key articulations of the fathers. One of the most obvious is one of my favourites: St Gregory's famous descriptor of Christ as 'the lamb slain before the foundation of the world'. But surely the slain lamb, the sacrificed lamb, is the incarnate Son at the cross; how can the 'after' of the incarnation be slain as the 'before' of the incarnation - i.e. before the creation of the cosmos itself?

The Church's language is, instead, based wholly in the incarnational experience of the divine Son. The Son of all eternity is known wholly in and through and of the incarnation. It is Jesus, experienced and met in his full humanity, who discloses and is the Son of the Father. So the Church speaks through this incarnational experience: it does not abstract the Son to a 'before' when it speaks of ancient or pre-cosmic / eternal things, because this Son is only known as Jesus Christ. So it is Jesus who speaks to Adam, because we know Jesus to be the Son, and cannot separate the Son from the incarnational experience of Jesus Christ. We know Jesus to have been born at a specific moment in history, to have a beginning in his humanity; but the mystery of the experience of the incarnate Christ is that we know that this son with a beginning is at once Son without beginning -- eternally Son of the Father. But this eternal Sonship is still only known to us, only experienced by us, in the human Son, Jesus Christ. To put it in more scientific terms, the 'who' of the subject is always one and the same with the 'who' met in Jesus Christ.

I realise that this does not directly answer your queries about the eternal dimensions of the actual bodily nature of the Son -- e.g. whether the fleshiness of humanity abides eternally, and how -- and I'm sorry I don't have more time to go into that now. But I think the groundwork for further discussion on the topic can be helped by thinking along these important lines.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Kosta]

Well, while we are at it, let me ask a question. The third ecumenical council speaks of the hypostatic union with the flesh. The scripture says the Logos became flesh. When Christ died and was buried, in what condition was the state of his desceased body? Did the union of divinity and humanity actually involve his crucified flesh (which was laid dead in a tomb for 3 days)?

[Andreas Moran]

When Christ died and was buried, in what condition was the state of his desceased body? Did the union of divinity and humanity actually involve his crucified flesh (which was laid dead in a tomb for 3 days)?

It occurs to me that, unlike any other human body, Christ's body between death on the Cross and the resurrection on the third day could not have been subject to decay. His human spirit, perfectly united with His divine nature, was preaching to those in sheol. Just as some saints' bodies are found to be incorrupt quite some time after death because of the grace that continues in them, so Christ's body must have been perfectly full of grace and so there was no possibility of corruption. His body merely waited for re-animation. Don't we say somewhere, 'it was not possible that the Author of life should be beholden of corruption'? Kostas's question makes me wonder what death is. We tend to think of it in terms of finality but it isn't. By Christ overcoming death by death, don't we mean that He showed us by His death that death is not what we thought it was? Sorry - I've just been telling my students to support what they say with authority, and I've none for these ramblings of mine!

Interesting but I'd like, if I may, to keep the focus on finding the answers to my questions, and what Fr Dcn Matthew has said seems to be heading us towards some answers.

[RichardWorthington]

Dear Andreas,

Hypostatically speaking, I have always found that the ousia of using incomprehensible logi produces a kenosis of gnosis rather than its pleroma. Trying to attain to the required gnosis for me uses up many energeia of the nous leaving my kardia missing the soteriological economia of Christ.

Comprehendez-vous?!!


Dear all,

I've enjoyed reading through this thread this morning. It looks as if a pleasant and interesting discussion is emerging. I'm sorry I don't have time to write more thoroughly at the moment; poor health and an over-burdened schedule are preventing the time and energy needed for longer, more thoughtful posts at the moment.


Dear Father Deacon, I hope we shall not have yet another mutual misunderstanding as has happened on other threads - I do not wish to ruin your enjoyment! I have said a little prayer now for your health, but I hope my approach does not cause you stress:



That is why I have always failed where others have succeeded.
For me, the greater the odds, the greater the challenge.
And, as always, I accept the challenge.

Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther Strikes Again (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/p/pink-panther-script-transcript-sellers.html)


Moving quickly on, I do not know ancient Greek!! In my non-understanding of Greek words and my not fully grasping what is meant by ‘natures’ and ‘persons’ I turn to simpler language:



To put it in more scientific terms, the 'who' of the subject is always one and the same with the 'who' met in Jesus Christ.


I’m not quite sure of the scientific bit but I do know the word ‘who’, having used it since childhood. So to answer I will have to regress into my childhood again to comment on Andreas’s point:


But I have to wonder if the incarnation, while certainly in the mind, as it were, of the holy Trinity (as Rublev's icon indicates) before all ages can really have had such a pre-existent reality that Jesus Christ as man existed before He was born of the Virgin Mary. His name was announced to the Virgin Mary; could that name yet have existed, other than in the mind of God, before it was conferred on the incarnate infant Christ? After all, before all ages, man didn't exist. Would the pre-existence of Jesus Christ not take something away from the action of the holy Trinity in sending down the Second Person-Word at a known moment in time? In one sense, wouldn't this dilute Christmas?

Andreas, you have mentioned in other posts that you have a wife, so please permit me to use this analogy:

Suppose you were to show me a picture of your wife when you became engaged to her, when your heart sang from the Song of Songs, "You have ravished my heart with one look of your eyes, with one link of your necklace" (Song 4:9).


But I would have to wonder if your marriage, while certainly in the mind, as it were, of the pair of you (as her engagement ring shows) before the wedding can really have had such a pre-existent reality that Mrs Moran as ‘wife’ existed before she was married to you by a priest in time. Her name became the married name ‘Mrs Moran’; could that name yet have existed, other than in the mind of yourselves, before it was conferred on the newly wedded bride? After all, before the wedding, the marriage didn't exist. Would the pre-existence of Mrs Moran not take something away from the action of the priest in ‘wifing’ the Person-Bride at a known moment in time? In one sense, wouldn't this dilute the marriage?


Umm - Andreas, I am sure you can vouchsafe that your wife existed before your wedding, but that she was not then your wife nor known as ‘Mrs Moran’. However, if I did not know her first name or maiden name, all I could do on being shown the photograph is to point to her and say, "That is Mrs Moran", although I would probably also mention, "before she was Mrs Moran".



Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of your wife! How unsearchable are her judgments and her ways past finding out! "For who has known the mind of his wife? Or who has become her counsellor?"

Letter of St Paul the Apostle to the heirs of the Roman Empire living in Britain, 11:33-34


Richard
:)

[Andreas Moran]

Anybody got a 'smiley' that shows scratching the head? I'll ponder on this , Richard!

[RichardWorthington]

I don't understand the relationship between the Incarnate Christ and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I know that the Second Person is the Word by which all thing were made. He was incarnate, is called Jesus Christ, took on our form, died and rose on the third day as a man, and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Presumably, He was not called Jesus Christ before the incarnation.


What I was trying to get at in my previous post is that the names/titles used do not affect the status of the person being named, but reflects how we can identify them.

The Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, was not called Jesus before His incarnation by those who lived before His incarnation. However, as your wife is the same person before, during, and after her marriage, so it is the same person who spoke to Adam, and who became incarnate.



But the Creed says that the One Lord Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all ages, etc. Why is He called Jesus Christ in relation to His existence before the incarnation?

I can safely say the statement, "You married your wife". But why is she called your wife in relation to her existence before her marriage?

- It is just a way of speaking!! The beautiful person who is now your wife after marriage, was the same person before you married her ('person' as in 'who is that?' as opposed to 'same person before' referring to personal characteristics, as I am sure these have been shaped by newer expereiences with you!). You married the person who we now refer to as your wife, even though at the start of the marriage service she was not yet your wife.

I look out the window now and see the sun shining. I hope my post shines on your understanding, as opposed to causing reflections on the screen as you read and producing further confusion!

Richard
:)

[Nina]

Andreas, can you find the book by Metropolitan Hierotheos, The feats of the Lord, and read it? It will explain a lot to you, in addition to the answers you have found here.

[Matthew Namee]

We often think of the incarnation backwards: we take the 'before' of the eternal Son, and then speak of the 'after' of his incarnate existence. Before, he was non-incarnate; after, he was. Before, he was Son but not Jesus (his human name); after, he was Jesus the Son-and-man. But the authentic experience of the Church is that it only knows the Son incarnate in Christ. Jesus is the revelation of the Father, and the Father's Son. The right ordering of language is to follow that of the apostles: to speak first of Jesus of Nazareth, and through that encounter realise the full mystery that in this person we encounter not just man, but eternal Son. First we see the man of Galilee, and through that seeing, discover the fullness of the divine Son of God.
This reminds me very much of Fr. John Behr's book, The Mystery of Christ. Today we have a tendency to speak about God in a linear fashion: pre-creation Trinity -- Creation -- Fall -- Flood -- Abraham -- Moses -- Incarnation of one of the Trinity -- Crucifixion -- Resurrection -- Second Coming. Fr. John points out that such an approach is not found in the early Fathers of the Church. Their approach was non-linear and centered on the Cross and Resurrection. It is only through Jesus Christ that the Trinity is revealed; through Christ we come to know the Father and the Holy Spirit. Even the divinity of Christ was not fully apparent to the Apostles until after the Cross and Resurrection. So when we speak of the "pre-incarnate Logos," we are trying to project backwards what was revealed in AD 33 (or whatever).

It is my understanding that the icons of, say, the creation of the world which depict Jesus in human form are to be understood theologically: the one who created the world, namely the Son/Logos, is one and the same person as the one who was crucified on Golgotha. The same subject is acting throughout. In this way we can say, "We have seen the face of the living God," because we have seen the face of Jesus who is the Son of God, the very one who is begotten of the Father.

There are inherent problems when we try to temporalize the divine. The interaction of God with time is a great mystery, I think. What is essential is the recognition that Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, is a true human being, born roughly 2000 years ago, and at the same time is the uncreated only-begotten Son of God, the one who made the world and everything in it. So we can say, "Thou art he that offers and is offered, accepts and is distributed," and, "They crucified the Lord of Glory" in the flesh.

I'm sure I am being incoherent at this point... Sorry for my poor explanation.

[Nina]

Yes Matthew. And from what I understand from Kornelius' post he is saying the same.

An interesting term is 'diachronic eschatology' that Metropolitan Hierotheos uses.

[Kosta]

When the fullness of time came, the Logos came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Virgin Mary, taking flesh from her and making it his very own. The second Hypostasis of the Trinity united itself to humanity in the Child of Mary the Theotokos. This happened in time or as our Church teaches: in the fullness of time.

In the OO there is a saying: "no one is to speak of the two natures AFTER the union". Similarly in Orthodoxy we teach that the two natures are inseperable and without confusion belonging to the one and same Christ, who acts. We do not categorize the deeds of Christ into two sections , those of his humanity and those of his divinity, because they are the acts and deeds of one cohesive sane person, that person being Jesus of Nazareth who was born of Mary.

On the other hand, before the union of the eternal divine Logos with His humanity, we can disect the two natures, as is the case in Daniel 7.13,22. Many of the early Church Fathers interpreted this vision as the Son of God ascending to God the Father. But later Fathers interpreted this vision of the Ancient of Days as the eternal Son who is Jesus Christ, and the figure described as the "likeness of the Son of Man" as the Humanity of that same Christ. Daniel saw one person in two forms. Jesus Christ as the Ancient of Days who is eternal and divine and the same Christ in the likeness of the Son of Man who was human and born in time. I believe it was St Maximus the Confessor who said something to the effect that Christ is both young and ancient. Young for he came as a babe whose body is incorrutible, and after His death and ressurection, remaining in the pinnacle of manhood unchangingly, but as God he is older than all things.

Basically there is a starting point (but no end) for the incarnation, that starting point being when He revealed himself to the creation as is, when the fulness of time was reached 2000 years ago.

[Demetrios]

I too appreciate Kornelius's posts for the focus they give, and I like my theology when it comes from the texts of the services. But I find my two questions still unanswered. The first is about the relationship - if there is one (which is the question, really) - of Jesus Christ incarnate and the Second-Person-Word before the incarnation in time just over 2,000 years ago. The second is how the resurrected and ascended human body of Christ relates to the immanence of God, and I can't see that the posts so far tackle this. Christ's resurrected body was of course spiritual. But it was a body even so. Can that body inhere in the Word Who is immanent? The link Kornelius makes with the Eucharist is interesting and may be a clue to the answer. But is there a difference between God making bread into the Body of Christ and the Body existing immanently?

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here: I usually keep off theology as you all know but these things were niggling me.

Another point occurs - could the answer explain how Christ was able to give His Body and Blood to His disciples at that first eucharist before He had been crucified and had arisen? [This is one reason I've heard given by Protestants for not believing in the real presence.]


I'll give it a try. You hit it when you said relationship. The divine nature of the trinity is uncreated. The three share there divine nature through one "persona". We must understand what is a persona? A persona is what someone is in relation to another. An example would be your relationship to others. Your persona is formed from your many relationship throughout your life time. From birth you form a relationship to your mother. You become her because she is all you see and know. Than your father comes into the mix and than siblings, and family, friends and so on. You become you because you choose a little attribute that comes from all of your relationships. You subconsciously choose a dominant attribute from every person you know. This becomes you.
Christs divine nature is that of the fathers persona alone. No one else comes into the mix. His essence is that of the uncreated father. Because the persona of the trinity is "one" They are in complete communion with each other.
Christ is fully man and full deity. His divine nature is everywhere. Present in all places and filling all things.
To understand how man fits in. Man is a combination of many relationships. Man reaches theosis, when by the grace of god he chooses to be like Christ. He becomes like Christ by taking on his persona. A persona Christ had from the beginning, at the incarnation through the holy spirit. Christ is translated as the "anointed one". He received only the fathers persona at birth. Surely words are difficult to describe it all.

[Olga]

Jesus I believe is translated as the "anointed one".

Demetrios, just to clarify: Jesus means he who saves (Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua). Christ (Christos) means the anointed one.

[Demetrios]

I made the correction. thanks

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Namee and others,

I'm sorry it's taken such time to respond to your post above (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=60253&postcount=17) (made in response to mine (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=60119&postcount=10)), which is extremely interesting and helpful. For it, a great many thanks. You wrote:


This reminds me very much of Fr. John Behr's book, The Mystery of Christ. Today we have a tendency to speak about God in a linear fashion: pre-creation Trinity -- Creation -- Fall -- Flood -- Abraham -- Moses -- Incarnation of one of the Trinity -- Crucifixion -- Resurrection -- Second Coming. Fr. John points out that such an approach is not found in the early Fathers of the Church. Their approach was non-linear and centered on the Cross and Resurrection. It is only through Jesus Christ that the Trinity is revealed; through Christ we come to know the Father and the Holy Spirit. Even the divinity of Christ was not fully apparent to the Apostles until after the Cross and Resurrection. So when we speak of the "pre-incarnate Logos," we are trying to project backwards what was revealed in AD 33 (or whatever).

I find Fr John's comments very compelling indeed in this regard. In point of simple fact, it just is the case that the early fathers don't speak in this 'chronological' fashion; though so influenced by various forms of systematisation have we all been, that it sometimes takes a profound effort at reading the fathers actually to recognise that they don't! And it is precisely because we so often do, that a great number of problems arise - including the kinds of questions that have inspired this thread.

The starting point for the Christian awareness of the Son, and for all that the Son has ever done at any point in and beyond history, is the human Jesus Christ. In this human Jesus, the disciples meet the one who fashioned the earth. This is very much the reality being expressed in the icons, as you write:


It is my understanding that the icons of, say, the creation of the world which depict Jesus in human form are to be understood theologically: the one who created the world, namely the Son/Logos, is one and the same person as the one who was crucified on Golgotha. The same subject is acting throughout. In this way we can say, "We have seen the face of the living God," because we have seen the face of Jesus who is the Son of God, the very one who is begotten of the Father.

This Jesus is the Son who fashioned the cosmos, who redeems it, and who will perfect it. This Jesus and none other. The human creature can never, never has, and never will know this Son except as and in this Jesus, for 'the Word is made flesh'. As such, it is not the approach of the fathers to speak of what the Son did 'before the incarnation', because we only know the Son in the incarnation. Jesus shows us what he is doing and has always done, because the 'he', the 'who' of the Son, is one and the same with the 'he', the 'who', of Jesus of Galilee.

I very much appreciated your post.

INXC, Fr Dcn Matthew