# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The God of the New Testament in the Old Testament

## TER

*The God of the New Testament in the Old Testament* 

(part 1)

“The thrones were set and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of His head as pure wool. His throne was a flame of fire…A river of fire rushed before Him…The tribunal sat and the books were opened. And the beast was given over to the burning of the fire” (Daniel 7:9-11)

This famous vision of God in the book of Daniel has perplexed theologians and inspired artists and authors for centuries. Many Christians regard this vision of the Ancient of Days as a vision of God the Father. But contra Orthodox Christianity, this is a vision of God the Son, the eternal Word of God, the pre-incarnate Christ. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). Christianity rests on the belief in “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages…through Him all things were made”. Christ is Co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit. But there has always been among Christians a tendency to regard the Father as the ‘protagonist’ of the Old Testament. Even when the Son of God is understood as co-eternal with the Father, He is all too often thought of as ‘waiting in the wings’, someone of whose coming we are foretold, but remaining Himself entirely unseen. Yet the hymns of the Orthodox Church and the writings of the Eastern Fathers of the Church reveal that the Pre-incarnate Christ is in fact at the forefront of the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Christological understanding of the Ancient of Days may become clearer when we consider the appearance of the risen Christ as seen by the beloved disciple on Patmos:

“I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw… someone like a son of man…The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters…and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now behold, I am alive for evermore! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”. (Rev.1:l2 -18)



The risen Christ appears much like the Ancient of Days, much like Jesus appeared when He was transfigured before His Disciples on Mount Tabor (Matt.17:1-9). Christ is the Ancient of Days because He is eternal. “From everlasting to everlasting, you are God” (Psalm 89:2 [LXX]). He is older than all creation, and He has no end. Some confusion, however, has arisen regarding the identity of the Ancient of Days due to the following passage in the Book of Daniel:

“I beheld one coming with the clouds as the Son of man, and he came unto the Ancient of Days, and was brought near to Him. To him was given the dominion, and the honour, and the kingdom. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away”.

Since it is widely known that the Son of Man is Christ, one may be tempted to think that the Ancient of Days is the Father. But patristic teaching reveals that the Son of Man refers to the Incarnate Word, “For it is His humanity that he names son of man.” (St Athanasius the Great, Epistle to Antiochus), while the Ancient of Days is the Pre-incarnate Word. Therefore the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man are one and the same person:

“Daniel saw a type and image of what was to be in the future, that is, the invisible Son and Word of God was to become truly man so He could be united with our nature.” (St. John of Damascus, On Divine Images, 3.26).

“In the likeness of a son of man, he foresees the incarnation of the Only-begotten One.” (St. Ammonius, P.G. 85, l380A)

“Let us all raise our eyes to God in heaven, as we cry like Jeremiah: The One who appeared on earth, this is our God, who also willingly lived among men, and underwent no change, who showed himself in different shapes to the prophets, whom Ezekiel contemplated like the form of a man on the fiery chariot, and Daniel as a son of man and ancient of days proclaiming the ancient and the young to be one Lord: The One who appeared and enlightened all things”. (St Romanos the Melodist, 2nd Kontakion for the Theophany)

In many hymns and patristic homilies on the Nativity, we are invited to ponder the profound humility of the Ancient of Days coming to us in the most defenceless and vulnerable way imaginable, as a newborn baby:

“But what can I say? For the wonder astounds me. The Ancient of Days Who sits upon a high and exalted throne is laid in a manger.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily on the Saviour’s Birth)

“The Ancient of Days became an infant.” (St. Athanasius, Homily on the Birth of Christ)

“Let the earth bow down, let every tongue sing, chant, and glorify the Child God, forty-day old and pre-eternal, the small Child and Ancient of Days, the suckling Child and Creator of the ages.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Homily on the Presentation of the Lord)

“The Ancient of Days, Who of old gave the Law to Moses on Sinai, today is seen as an Infant…” (Liti of Vespers, Presentation of the Lord)

“The Ancient of Days becomes an Infant for me…”(Matins, Kathisma)

“The Ancient of Days, O all-holy One, descended in your blessed womb as rain upon the fleece, and the Lover of Man appeared as a new Adam.” (Theotokion, 5th Ode, Matins, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, Feb.23)

“You have borne incomprehensibly the Ancient of Days as a new Child Who showed us new paths of virtue upon the earth…” (Theotokion, 1st Ode of Friday Matins in the 5th tone)

“You have borne the Ancient of Days as a new Child unto us…” (Theotokion, 8th Ode of Tues. Matins in the 6th tone)

“You have surpassed the laws of nature, O pure Daughter, in bringing a new Child upon the earth Who is both the Lawgiver and the Ancient of Days…” (Theotokion, 8th Ode, Matins, 5th Sunday of Lent)

“The just Symeon received into his aged arms the Ancient of Days under the form of infancy, and, therefore, blessed God saying, “Now let your servant depart in peace…” (St. Methodius of Olympus, P.G.18, 3658)

This is one of the distinctive characteristics of Orthodox hymnology and patristic theology: the amazement at God’s humility, the juxtaposition of His almighty power and divine majesty and the profound humbleness of His humanity. The same God who sits on a throne of glory served by a myriad of angelic hosts is born in a grotty cave as a defenceless child! The one whom heaven itself cannot contain is contained in a woman’s womb! He who has no beginning is born! The God who created all things permits His creation to crucify Him! And nowhere is this wonder more explicit than in the hymns of Great Friday: “He who hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon a tree”, “He who wraps the heavens in clouds is wrapped in a purple of mockery”.

Thus only when we enter the minds of the Church Fathers and their understanding of the Old Testament can we begin to appreciate and make our own their wonder at God’s humility and love for mankind. Though able to destroy us in our iniquities, He chooses to humble Himself, to suffer and die for us! But only to rise again and to raise our human nature with Him into the heights of Heaven. For death cannot contain the Giver of Life, the Ancient of Days! “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:18). To Him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.

----------


## TER

*The God of the New Testament in the Old Testament

(part 2)*

_Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. Then the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am._ (John 8:56-58)

The Orthodox understanding of the Old Testament is rooted in three vital affirmations:


1)    All Scripture is divinely inspired and useful for teaching (2 Tim. 3:16)

2)    The Old Testament speaks of Christ

3)    All manifestations of God in the Old Testament are of the Son of God



In this article, we will look at one of the earliest manifestations of God in the Old Testament: the appearance of three men to Abraham by the oak of Mamre. These three men have for some time been interpreted not as a manifestation of the Word (the Pre-incarnate Christ) but as a type of the Trinity, an idea that has been popularised by the famous icon of the Trinity by Rublev, which is adapted from an earlier icon of the Hospitality of Abraham. The appearance of the three men (commonly understood as angels) is described in Genesis 18:

_And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?__ And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for tens sake. And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
_
What is interesting here is that Abraham addresses only one of the men as Lord. Clearly, Lord here is not a mere address of respect, like sir, or otherwise he would have said lords, but it is a recognition that one of them is greater than the others. Furthermore, we read that two of the men depart and we are told that Abraham stood yet before _the Lord__._ Moreover, I have employed for this passage a translation in old English grammar in order to convey the use of the second person singular (thou/thee/thy), which means that Abraham is addressing only one of the men.

What we have here is not a mere representation of the Trinity, but a manifestation of the Word of God, accompanied by what are probably two angels. This is certainly in keeping with the Orthodox exegesis that all manifestations of the deity in the Old Testament are of the Son and not of the Trinity in its fullness.

This view is expressed by St Justin Martyr in the second century:

_Moses, therefore, that blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that the one who was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mamre was God, ac*companied by two angels, who were sent, for the condemnation of Sodom, by another, namely by the One who always remains above the heavens, who has never been seen by any human being, and who of himself holds converse with none, whom we term the Creator of all things, and the Father_. (_Dial_. 56)

The same view is held by Severian of Gabbala in the fifth century:

_Christ appeared to you, O excellent one, escorted by two angels, and by your hospitality you became a companion of God and of angels Christ appeared to you in the appearance of a man, revealing to you the mysteries of his divine and saving sojourn on earth Therefore you recognised Gods mediator, the Son who was to be known between two living beings_. (PG 56:546)
Origen also, although it has been suggested that the exegesis of the three men as a type of the Trinity began with him, saw in the narrative a manifestation of the Word accompanied by two angels:

_Notice first that with the two angels the Lord was present to Abraham, but it was only the two Angels who came to Lot._ (PG 12:184)

The Church historian, Eusebius, also describes the scene as a manifestation of our Lord and Saviour accompanied by angels. He specifically says the figure in the middle was the most important and excelled in dignity.



The same is implied by St Romanos the Melodist in his Kontakion on the Holy Theophany:

 _When God appeared to Abraham as he sat by the oak of Mambre, He was seen as a man but he did not know Him as he was, for he could not have borne it: but now for us it is not so, but in His own Person: for the Word has become flesh._ 
_God appeared once to Abraham, but he in no way saw God: but we see Him, because He wills it, and we grasp the One Who appeared and enlightened all things._ (MT 6.4)

Procopios of Gaza in the sixth century tells us that the interpretation of the three men at Mamre had become three-fold in his day:
_Some people say they are three angels, others that one of them is God accompanied by two angels and others that there is a type of the Holy Trinity_ (PG 12:184)

It would appear that the first to see a type of the Trinity in the narrative is St Cyril of Alexandria, who regarded the use of the singular as a reference to the oneness of the Trinity. But the earliest patristic commentaries see in the three men the Word of God accompanied by two angels.

While Rublevs icon is theologically legitimate, seeing in the angels a symbol or type of the Trinity; another icon of the Trinity, which portrays the Father as the Ancient of Days and Christ as the Son of Man  with the Holy Spirit depicted as a dove on the basis of the account of the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan  is quite wrong (see my article on The Ancient of Days). God the Father is never once seen in the Old Testament:

_No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father_ (John 6:46)

_No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known_ (John 1:18).

This principle lies at the heart of the Greek patristic understanding of the Old Testament.

----------


## TER

*The God of the New Testament in the Old Testament

(part 3)*



_Icon of Moses and the burning bush_

“_If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me_” (John 5:46)

The most famous _theophany_ in the Old Testament is the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:1-5):

_“Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” Then he said, “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God”. 

_Before we go any further, something must be said about ‘the angel of the Lord’ that appeared to Moses ‘in flames of fire from within the bush’.

*The Angel of Great Counsel

*Patristic teaching holds that ‘the Angel of the Lord’ is one of the many names of God the Word in the Old Testament. It is, in fact, one of the earliest titles. ‘The Angel of the Lord’ refers not to one of the bodiless powers of heaven, but to the pre-incarnate Christ. Angel means messenger, and in the Old Testament an “angel” was not necessarily one of the heavenly court – it could also be a human being. The Word is God’s messenger _par excellence_. Thus St Justin Martyr repeatedly refers to Christ as an Angel. The primary source for Justin and other Church Fathers was probably the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6:

_“__For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him”.

_And yet Justin, despite his copious use of the term ‘Angel of the Lord’ or ‘Angel of Great Counsel’, never attempts to clarify that the Angel is the Word of God, for that Christ was called Angel was obvious to anyone who was familiar with the Septuagint Isaiah 9:6. Since it was widely acknowledged that Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah, the title “Angel of Great Counsel” refers also to Christ, and thus it also follows that Christ is the Angel of the Lord who appears to the Prophets of the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 15–22; Genesis 28–35; Exodus 3, Joshua 5-6).



Justin argued from the appearances of the Angel in the Old Testament that this Angel is God Himself. This is explained by Günther Juncker in his treatment of the subject:

_‘It does not take Justin long to point out from the Old Testament appearances of the Angel of the Lord that this Angel is fully God.__Invariably when this particular Angel is seen, those who have seen him declare that they have seen God and are amazed that they have lived. In numerous places this Angel speaks in the first person as Lord and God, receives worship and sacrifices, and makes the very ground on which he stands holy; yet in other places he speaks of God in the third person and is functionally subordinate since, as Angel, he is sent by God to deliver a message from God. When these passages were combined with others (e.g. Gen 1:26;_ _24_ _19:24; Ps 45:6–7; and 110:1) which on the surface seem to speak of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, Justin’s argument became irrefutable. Thus in a key passage which mentions the title Angel four times in relation to the Old Testament theophanies, Justin can hardly be held guilty of an overstatement when he says of Christ that “He is called God, He is God, and shall always be God” (Dial. 58)’_ (“Christ As Angel: The Reclamation Of A Primitive Title,” Trinity Journal 15:2 (Fall 1994): 221–250.)

In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin writes:

_‘He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things…_ _ He__… appeared as a man to Abraham, and… wrestled in human form with Jacob’_ (LVIII)

Even Novatian argued that the Angel of Great Counsel was more than just an angel:

_“…the name God has never been granted to angels…He is entitled ‘The Angel of Great Counsel”_ (On the Trinity, XVIII) 

St Paulin his Epistle to the Hebrews writes:

‘_For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have_ _begotten you”__? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?’_ (Heb. 1:5. See also Psalm 2:7)

It is clear from the account of the Burning Bush that the Angel of the Lord who appears to Moses is God Himself: _“I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”._ _“And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to a friend”._ (Exodus 33:11). “_Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face_” (Deut. 34:10). And yet Christ Himself said, “_No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father_”. (John 6:46) “_No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known_” (John 1:18). Do the words of Christ contradict what is written in Exodus and Deuteronomy? By no means, for while Moses did indeed see God, he did not see the Father; he saw the Son. This is alluded to in the New Testament when Christ says: “_Before Abraham was, I AM_” (John 8:58). Some commentators see here an allusion to the words of God in Exodus when Moses asks for God’s name, and the Lord replies (in the Septuagint), “I am the One who is”, or, “I am the Living One”; (in the Hebrew), “I am that I am”. ‘You shall say…”I AM has sent me to you”.’

In his Dialogue with Trypho, St Justin emphasises that the Father has never been seen by human eyes, and it is therefore the Son Who appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush:

“_Neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, ever saw the Father and Ineffable Lord of all things…; but the One who according to his will is both God his Son and his Angel ministering to his will, whom he determined should be born as man of a Virgin, and who once even became fire when he conversed with Moses from the bush_”. (Dial_._ 127)

*Sinai, Horeb and Tabor*

That the Word of God was made manifest to Moses is made clearer when one considers the revelation of divine glory on another mount, this time in the New Testament. In St Matthew’s Gospel (17:1-9), we read of the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ onMountTabor(see also Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36):

_‘After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.’ 

_Why do Moses and Elijah appear before Christ onMountTabor?: to illustrate that Christ is the God Who appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai and to Elijah onMountHoreb. Let us take a closer look at these two Old Testament theophanies:

On Mount Sinai:

_‘…Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen”.’_ (Exodus 33:18-23)

On Mount Horeb:

Elijah _“…came to a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and he said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” And he said, “I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and slain your prophets with the sword; and I, only I, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. And he said, Go, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in mouth of the cave. And he heard a voice saying to him: What are you doing here, Elijah?”.’_ (1 Kings 19: 8-13)

In the Orthodox Church these two texts are read at Vespers on the Feast of the Transfiguration, and thus the Church provides an interpretation of the Transfiguration by its comparison with these two Old Testament theophanies. In Exodus 24, God’s glory descends on the Mount and Moses enters the cloud. In Matthew17, abright cloud envelopes the apostles. In Exodus 24, God passes before Moses’ face and Moses falls to the ground and worships Him. In 1 Kings 19, Elijah reacts to God’s presence in a similar manner: ‘he wrapped his face in his mantle and stood by the cave’, while in Matthew 17 the apostles also respond to God’s glory in a similar fashion.

These three manifestations of divine glory on a mount are all manifestations of the Word of God. In the Transfiguration, the God Who appeared to Moses on Sinai and to Elijah on Horeb is now become flesh, and on Tabor He reveals to the apostles His divine glory.

All of this illustrates that when we read the Old Testament in light of the New, and the New in light of the Old, we can see that Christ is indeed “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

One day Moses could not look upon the face of God and live.  The next day, Moses and the 70 Elders sat down and dined with God face to face.

God who ate with Moses and the 70 Elders of Israel, was Christ.

----------


## TER

*The God of the New Testament in the Old Testament 

(part 4)*

*As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realised that it was the angel of the Lord. We are doomed to die! he said to his wife. We have seen God! (Judges 13:20-22)

*In my previous article, _The Burning Bush_, we examined the manifestation of the Angel of the Lord or the Angel of Great Counsel in the Burning Bush onMount Sinai. As we saw, when this particular angel appears, He declares Himself as God, I am the God of your fathers (Exodus 3:6), and yet also speaks as though subordinate to God. The reason is that the Angel of the Lord is the Son of God, fully God and yet subordinate and obedient to the Father. In this article we will look at other manifestations of the Angel of the Lord, also referred to in some places as the Angel of God (Genesis 31:11; Exodus 14:9), the Angel of His Presence (Isaiah 63:9), and the God of Bethel (Genesis 31:11-13).

The accounts of the appearances of the  really speak for themselves. It is abundantly clear in the cited passages that follow that the Angel of the Lord is God Himself, and yet He is the Angel (messenger) of the Lord because He is not the Father, but the Son. Let us begin with the appearance of the Angel to Hagar.

[IMG]http://pemptousia.com/files

_Hagar and the Angel

_
*Hagar and the Angel

*(Genesis 16):

The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. And he said, Hagar, slave of Sarah, where have you come from, and where are you going? Im running away from my mistress Sarah, she answered. Then the angel of the Lord told her, Go back to your mistress and submit to her. The angel added, I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count. The angel of the Lord also said to her: You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael,for the Lord has heard of your misery *She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: You are the God who sees me, for she said, I have now seenthe One who sees me.

*If the Angel of the Lord is merely one of the heavenly court, why are we told that Hagar gave the name You are the God who sees me to the Lord who spoke to her? And why would she say, I have now seen the One who sees me? Hagar clearly perceived in the Angel the Lord God Himself.

Jacobs reaction to the Angel of the Lord is similar:



_Jacob and the Angel_
*
Jacob and the Angel

*(Genesis 32):

So Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met himAnd he arose that night and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven sons, and crossed over the ford of Jabbok. He took them, sent them over the brook, and sent over what he had. Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day. Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacobs hip was out of joint as he wrestled with Him. And He said, Let Me go, for the day breaks. But he said, I will not let You go unless You bless me! So He said to him, What is your name? He said, Jacob. And He said, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed. Then Jacob asked, saying, Tell me Your name, I pray.  And He said, Why is it that you ask about My name? [compare Exodus 3:14 and Judges 13:18] And He blessed him there. So Jacob called the name of the place Penuel:*For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

*Note the Angels reaction when Jacob asks for His name: Why is it that you ask about My name? This reluctance to disclose His name is reminiscent of Gods response to Moses onMount Sinai: I am the living one. You shall say The Living One has sent me to you (Exodus 3:14 [LXX]). The Angel responds in the same way in Judges 13:18: Why do you ask about my name? It is beyond understanding.

Furthermore, Jacob called the place Penuel, which means the face of God, because he believed that in this Angel He had seen God face to face, and was amazed that he had lived to tell the tale.


*Manoah and his wife and the Angel

*(Judges 13):

The angel of the Lord appeared to her and said, You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son. Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean. You will become pregnant and have a son whose head is never to be touched by a razor because the boy is to be a Nazirite, dedicated to God from the womb. He will take the lead in delivering Israelfrom the hands of the Philistines. Then the woman went to her husband and told him, A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didnt ask him where he came from, and he didnt tell me his name. But he said to me, You will become pregnant and have a son Then Manoah prayed to the Lord: Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born. God heard Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman while she was out in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. The woman hurried to tell her husband, Hes here! The man who appeared to me the other day! Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he said, Are you the man who talked to my wife? I am, he said. So Manoah asked him, When your words are fulfilled, what is to be the rule that governs the boys life and work? The angel of the Lord answered, Your wife must do all that I have told her. She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her. Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you. The angel of the Lord replied, Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the Lord. (Manoah did not realise that it was the angel of the Lord.) Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the Lord, What is your name, so that we may honour you when your word comes true? He replied, Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding. Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the Lord. And the Lord did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realised that it was the angel of the Lord. *We are doomed to die! he said to his wife. We have seen God! 

*Manoah at first believed that the Angel of the Lord was just a man, perhaps an angel or a prophet of God, but after the Angel ascends into the flame, he and his wife fall to the ground in fear and awe, and Manoah exclaims, We have seen God!, and like Jacob, associates seeing God with death. This is reminiscent of Gods words to Moses in Exodus. You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live you will see my back; but my face must not be seen. (33:20, 23). The accounts of the Angels appearance to Moses on Sinai suggest that the difference between Moses encounter with God and that of others who see the Angel of the Lord is that on Sinai Moses sees the Word of God uncloaked as it were, and so does not permit Moses to see His face in order to preserve his life. God appeared in different forms, as a man or as an angel, in order that those who see Him would not die or be blinded by the sight of His glory.

The account of the appearance of the Angel to Gideon is almost identical to that of Manoah and his wife:



_The Angel and Gideon_
*
The Angel and Gideon

*(Judges 6):

The angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, The Lord is with you, mighty warrior. Pardon me, my lord, Gideon replied, but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt? But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian. The Lord turned to him and said, Go in the strength you have and save Israelout of Midians hand. Am I not sending you? Pardon me, my lord, Gideon replied, but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family. The Lord answered, I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive. Gideon replied, If now I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you. And the Lord said, I will wait until you return. Gideon went inside, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak. The angel of God said to him, Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth. And Gideon did so. Then the angel of the Lord touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the Lord disappeared. When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, *Alas, Sovereign Lord! I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face! But the Lord said to him, Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.* So Gideon built an altar to the Lord there and called it The Lord Is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
In Judges 2:1-3 the same Angel of the Lord declares Himself to be the same God who brought the people ofIsraelout ofEgypt:

The angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, I brought you up out ofEgyptand led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars. Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said, I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.

Yet in Exodus 23:20-23, God tells the people of Israel that He is sending His angel ahead of them to guide and protect them, and says that His Name is in Him:

Behold, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites

Since the Angel is Gods Messenger, the Word and Son of God, He is distinct from the person of the Father and is subordinate to Him. Thus it is characteristic that the words, He Who sent me are uttered by Jesus no less than 26 times in the Gospels. Yet at the same time, being the Lord God Himself, one of the Trinity, true God from true God, begotten of the Father before all ages, and not a created being like the angels, the Angel of the Lord frequently declares Himself as God, and receives worship and sacrifices.

That the Angel of the Lord is the Pre-Incarnate Christ is stated not only by individual Church Fathers, but also by an ancient synod of the Church, in a Creedal Statement by the Synod of Antioch in 268/9. This is the earliest surviving synodical statement on Old Testament Christology:
The Son was not just a spectator nor was he merely present, but came down and appeared to Abraham _at the oak of Mamre_, [as] one of the three, with whom the patriarch conversed as Lord and Judge This is who, fulfilling the Fathers will, appears to and converses with the patriarchs sometimes as an Angel, at other times as Lord, and at other times being testified to as God. Truly it is impious to suppose that one can call the God of all an angel; however the Angel of the Father is the Son, he is Lord and God, for it is written: _His name will be called the Angel of Great Council_. For it is written: _God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham! Abraham! And he said, Here I am. Then He said, Take now your beloved Son_ etc. And again: _And the Angel of the Lord called to him and said, Abraham! Abraham!_ etc. _For now I know that you fear God, since for My sake you have not spear your beloved son_ _and he called the name of the place The-Lord-Has-Appeared; as it is said to this day, In the mountain the Lord was seen_.

And concerning Jacob: _the Angel of God_, [Jacob] says, _spoke to me in a dream, saying, Jacob. Thus I said,_ what is it_. So he said, lift up your eyes_ etc. _I am the God who appeared to you at the Place-of-God, where you anointed the pillar and made a vow to Me_ _So Jacob called the name of that place The Form of God; For I saw God face to face, and my soul was saved_

But truly the Law was also in a similar manner, we say, given to Moses through the ministry of the Son of God; as the Apostle, teaching [us], says: _What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promised was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator_. Verily we do not know of another mediator between God and men apart from Him. But we are also taught these things by Moses: 

_Then the Angel appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush_ etc

This is who, speaking the truth, says: _Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from the Father; He has seen the Father_. And in the same _Gospel_: _You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form_, and: _No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him_. The Apostle says of Him: _He is the image of the invisible God_, and in another place he says: _To the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honour and glory to the ages of ages. Amen._ The Son however, being with the Father, is indeed God and Lord of all things made, yet he was sent by the Father from the heavens, and was made flesh, becoming man. (Translation by Rev. Michael S. Spanou)
There can be no doubt from the passages cited above that those who see the Angel believe they have seen God. Even in the Old Testament, there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead: I appealed to the Lord, the Father of my Lord, not to forsake me in the days of affliction, at the time when there is not help against the proud (Wisdom of Sirach 51:10); The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool. (Psalm 109:1 [LXX]) Thus it is characteristic that the Greek Fathers interpret Gods words in Genesis 1:26, Let us make man in our image and after our likeness as the three persons of the Trinity speaking together. Moreover, the Hebrew words for God, Elohim, and Lord, Adonai, are plural, not singular. Thus it should not take us by surprise that the Israelites perceive God Himself in a person known and described as an angel or messenger of the Lord.

Thus when we read the Old Testament in light of Greek patristic thought and in the greater context of scripture, we can only conclude that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the Son and Word of God, true God from true God. He is with God and yet is God (John 1:1). And his name is called the Angel of Great Counsel (Isaiah 9:6 LXX])

----------


## TER

*The God of the New Testament in the Old Testament

(part 5)*

[IMG]http://pemptousia.com/files


_Daniel and Nebouchodonosor_

"Then Nebouchodonosor was filled with anger, and the appearance of his face was distorted against Sedrach, Misah and Abdenago. And he said that the furnace should be stoked up sevenfold until it would be heated completely and told men, strong in strength, after they had bound Sedrach, Misah and Abdenago, to throw them in the fire… And they were walking around in the middle of the flames, singing hymns to God and blessing the Lord… But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace… and shook the flame of the fire out of the furnace and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist breeze were whistling through. And the fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress… And Nebouchodonosor heard them singing hymns and was astonished. And he rose up in haste and said to his nobles, “Was it not three men we threw bound into the middle of the fire?”…”Here I see four men unbound and walking in the middle of the fire… and the appearance of the fourth is like the son of God”. (Daniel 3: 19-20; 49-50; 91-92 [LXX])

Of all Old Testament narratives, Daniel 3 is undoubtedly the most contentious. There is, first of all, a significant difference between the Septuagint Daniel and the Hebrew text. Chapter 3 of the Septuagint is considerably longer, and contains what is known as the “Song of the Three Children”, and also mentions “The Angel of the Lord” descending into the fiery furnace. But let us leave aside the debate about which text one should use. For the Orthodox, the authoritative text is the Septuagint, full stop. The arguments made against the Septuagint by some Protestant Christians that the only texts that are divinely inspired are those which are to be found in the Hebrew canon (though the Hebrew Old Testament was not canonised until the 2nd century A.D.) are nonsensical. The Septuagint was not only used by the Jews of the Dispersion between around the 2nd Century B.C. and the 2nd Century A.D.; it has been the Christian Old Testament since the beginning of the apostolic era. All quotations from the Old Testament in the New are from the Septuagint. If we believe that the New Testament is divinely inspired, then surely the Septuagint which is quoted in the New Testament must also be divinely inspired. Furthermore, because the Septuagint was from the very beginning the Christian Old Testament, all patristic commentaries and hymns are based on the Septuagint.

But the most contentious passage in Daniel is this: “Here I see four men unbound and walking in the middle of the fire…and the appearance of the fourth is like the son of God”. Many translations read: “like a son of the gods” instead of “son of God”.

There are two arguments for this translation:

1.         Nebouchodonosor was a pagan and would not have known anything about the Son of God, and therefore what he must have said is “a son of the gods”.

2.         The original Aramaic text reads “gods”, not “God”.

The problem with the first argument is two-fold. First of all, many Christians read Scripture as a work of history rather than a work of theology. By this I do not mean that Scripture is all myth and legend, and that there is nothing historically accurate about its contents; I mean that we are not to read Scripture with the mind of an historian which bases valid interpretation on timelines, literary sources, archaeology and physical evidence. This is significant for our subject, because if we read Daniel as a work of theology, then we have to ask ourselves: “Is it not possible that the author of Daniel is making a theological point with this statement, “son of God”? We must also ask: “Is it not possible that Nebouchodonosor was divinely inspired to say what he said?” Some Christians argue that since Nebouchodonosor was a pagan and not a prophet of God, this is not possible. They would do well to remember the narrative concerning Balaam and the Angel of the Lord in Numbers 22, when God speaks through Balaam’s donkey. If God can speak through a dumb animal, then can He not speak through a pagan if He so chooses?

[IMG]http://pemptousia.com/files/2012

_The three holy youths cast into the fiery furnace

_
Secondly, is it really impossible that Nebouchodonosor did in fact know about the Son of God? As we saw in my previous article (The Angel of the Lord), the notion of a plurality in the Godhead was not alien to the prophets of the Old Testament. The Angel of the Lord, while subordinate to God, was recognised as God Himself (Genesis 16, Genesis 32, Exodus 3, Exodus 23, Judges 2, Judges 6, Judges 13. The “Spirit” of God is also mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 1:1, Genesis 41:38, Numbers 11:29, 1 Kingdoms 10:6, Psalm 50:13, Joel 2:28). While we do not find the clear New Testament definition of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the notion of one Godhead in a plurality of persons permeates the Old Testament Scriptures. But is it possible that the pagan king, Nebouchodonosor, also knew about the Son?

In Daniel 3 we read that Nebouchodonosor ordered that “some of the children of Israel” should be brought to teach the “learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans”. Among them were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, whose names were quickly changed to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. In Daniel 2 we read that Nebouchodonosor had a dream and there was no one who could to tell him its meaning, but “the secret was revealed to Daniel in a night vision” (Dan. 2:19). Daniel is then brought before the king to interpret his dream. Daniel says that “there is a God in heaven that reveals secrets, and makes known to King Nebouchodonosor what shall be in the latter days.” (Dan. 2:28). Daniel continues, “You, O King, are a king of kings: for the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory” (Dan. 2:37). Clearly the notion of one God was not foreign to Nebouchodonosor, and if it was, he was certainly now being introduced to the idea by Daniel. In response, Nebouchodonosor says: “Truly, your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets” (Dan. 2:47). It is therefore not impossible that Daniel had initiated Nebouchodonosor into the mystery of the God of his Fathers.

The second argument against the Septuagint translation, “son of God”, in Daniel 3 is that in the original Aramaic text, “son of God” reads “bar-Elahin”, bar meaning ‘son’, and Elahin being the plural for ‘God’; and so it literally reads, “Son of Gods”. This argument, however, does not stand up to scrutiny when one considers that the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is also plural; as is the Hebrew word for Lord (Adonai). In fact, this only further supports the argument that the Old Testament prophets did indeed know that there was more to God than the person of the Father.

When we consider all the manifestations of the Angel of the Lord which we examined in my previous articles, what makes Daniel 3 particularly interesting from a theological perspective is that this is the first time we hear the same Angel of the Lord described as “the Son of God”. The Greek patristic analysis of the fourth person in the furnace is clear: the Angel of the Lord who came down into the furnace was indeed the pre-incarnate Christ:

“He who delivered the Young Men from the furnace, becoming man suffers as a mortal, and through suffering he clothes the mortal with the glory of incorruption: the only blessed and most glorious God of our fathers”. (7th Ode of the Canon for Pascha)

"The Offspring of the Mother of God saved the holy children in the furnace. He who was then prefigured has since been born on earth, and he gathers all creation to sing: O all you works of the Lord, praise the Lord and exalt Him above all for ever”. (8th Ode of the Katavasia for the Mother of God)

“The all-powerful Angel of God revealed to the Children a flame that brought refreshment to the holy while it consumed the ungodly. And He made the Theotokos into a life-giving fount, gushing forth to the destruction of death and to the life of those that sing: ‘We who have been delivered praise the one and only Creator and exalt Him above all forever’.” (8th Ode of the Katavasia for the Dormition of the Mother of God)

“O Word of God who in the midst of the fire dropped dew upon the children as they discoursed on things divine, and who took up your dwelling in the pure Virgin: we praise you as with piety we sing: Blessed are you, O God of our fathers”. (7th Ode of the Katavasia for the Meeting of the Lord)

“The Babylonian furnace, as it poured forth dew, foreshadowed a marvellous mystery: how the Jordan should receive in its streams the immaterial fire, and should encompass the Creator, when He was baptised in the flesh. Bless Him O people and exalt Him above all for ever”. (8th Ode of the Katavasia for the Theophany)

----------


## Sola_Fide

TER,

Will you please stop posting images of God?

Thank you,
SF

----------


## fisharmor

> TER,
> 
> Will you please stop posting images of God?
> 
> Thank you,
> SF


Are you reading the content of his posts, or are you coming in only to verify the existence of icons and ask him to stop showing them?

If you are reading what he writes, and trying to come to a better understanding of historical Christianity, I would think that for your sake he should indeed stop posting them until the point where you understand how icons fit in with theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you reading the content of his posts, or are you coming in only to verify the existence of icons and ask him to stop showing them?
> 
> If you are reading what he writes, and trying to come to a better understanding of historical Christianity, I would think that for your sake he should indeed stop posting them until the point where you understand how icons fit in with theology.


Frankly I don't read the posts because the images are so offensive to me (and would be to any Christian).

----------


## fisharmor

But would you read them if he removed the images?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Frankly I don't read the posts because the images are so offensive to me (and would be to any Christian).


Silly. Very few Christians are have such fringe-y understanding of iconography and imagery. First of all, you still haven't read and understood my thread on icons. Please go review it, as your ignorance is still very evident. Second, I'm not aware of any nominally Christian group that has no depictions of Christ and other biblical scenes in its tradition except maybe Quakers. Lots of Protestants enjoy the classical Italian, German, Spanish, and French sacred art. For example, 
Leonardo:  Salvador Dali:  (eta: images removed by request from a respected member) 

When I went to a non-denom church, I watched a guy paint a monochromatic mural of Christ once.

----------


## euphemia

Thank you for posting this, TER.  I want to read it over again tomorrow and absorb every word.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Silly. Very few Christians are have such fringe-y understanding of iconography and imagery. First of all, you still haven't read and understood my thread on icons. Please go review it, as your ignorance is still very evident. Second, I'm not aware of any nominally Christian group that has no depictions of Christ and other biblical scenes in its tradition except maybe Quakers. Lots of Protestants enjoy the classical Italian, German, Spanish, and French sacred art. For example,


 Its a standard Reformed position HB, Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, Puritan Congregationalists, and Reformed Baptists have historically opposed their use.  Today not everyone in Reformed denominations still holds those views but they are still held by a number of us.

----------


## Todd

Welp!....I guess it's time for everyone to start arguing about religion again.   Lol....

----------


## Dr.3D

> Welp!....I guess it's time for everyone to start arguing about religion again.   Lol....


Maybe that's an indicator that things are getting back to normal.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe that's an indicator that things are getting back to normal.


More probably some _new_ normal we are unaccustomed with as yet. 

Actually I think the bigger irony of this thread is one person came in to complain that the thread was full of depictions of God, when there is only one (and a half?) attempt to do so in the entire thread...and then someone comes in to talk him down......by trying to convince someone who sincerely believes that icons are satan, that he just hasn't really thought about it enough with an open mind yet.  I rolled my eyes just at much as the exaggerated original complaint as I did at the misguided attempt to mollify that complaint.  

First of all, every old religious image is not an attempt to portray God, and second of all, asking a reform Christian to keep an open mind about something they believe is idolatrous blasphemy is desperately counter-productive, and will only lead to retrenching.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> More probably some _new_ normal we are unaccustomed with as yet. 
> 
> Actually I think the bigger irony of this thread is one person came in to complain that the thread was full of depictions of God, when there is only one (and a half?) attempt to do so in the entire thread...and then someone comes in to talk him down......by trying to convince someone who sincerely believes that icons are satan, that he just hasn't really thought about it enough with an open mind yet.  I rolled my eyes just at much as the exaggerated original complaint as I did at the misguided attempt to mollify that complaint.  
> 
> First of all, every old religious image is not an attempt to portray God, and second of all, asking a reform Christian to keep an open mind about something they believe is idolatrous blasphemy is desperately counter-productive, and will only lead to retrenching.


  I've seen more than one and a half.  I count three and a half.  Jacob wrestling with God certainly counts, as does the Jesus on the cross drawing, as does the other Jesus picture.  The burning bush is somewhat debated in the Reformed camp but I'm not really comfortable with its use either, given that that IS an appearance of God.  The only one I can think of that's probably OK is the Hagar one (IIRC that was just an ordinary angel and not a representation of God.)  All that being said, AT BEST the Orthodox should view us as weaker brethren and accomodate us here if they want us to read their stuff (which I probably would.)

----------


## tod evans

> AT BEST the Orthodox should view us as weaker brethren and accomodate us here


The beauty of Orthodoxy is that it doesn't change, not for you or 10,000 of you.

If you actually desire to learn from their teaching then it is you who must adapt.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The beauty of Orthodoxy is that it doesn't change, not for you or 10,000 of you.
> 
> If you actually desire to learn from their teaching then it is you who must adapt.


Eh, they can do what they want, unfortunately our civil magistrates aren't inclined to destroy idols like the godly kings of Judah did.  But I'm not going to read through a thread full of forbidden images.

----------


## fisharmor

> More probably some _new_ normal we are unaccustomed with as yet. 
> 
> Actually I think the bigger irony of this thread is one person came in to complain that the thread was full of depictions of God, when there is only one (and a half?) attempt to do so in the entire thread...and then someone comes in to talk him down......by trying to convince someone who sincerely believes that icons are satan, that he just hasn't really thought about it enough with an open mind yet.  I rolled my eyes just at much as the exaggerated original complaint as I did at the misguided attempt to mollify that complaint.


You're reading things I didn't write.  If you go back and review, I counseled TER to remove the images.  Provided Sola actually means to read the thread.




> First of all, every old religious image is not an attempt to portray God, and second of all, asking a reform Christian to keep an open mind about something they believe is idolatrous blasphemy is desperately counter-productive, and will only lead to retrenching.


I didn't tell him to keep an open mind.  I asked him if he intended even to read the thread.
And was not answered.
Sola, if you intend to read the thread, then I think TER should remove the images.  And HB too.  Because without a proper understanding of the incarnation of Christ, understanding icons is impossible.  And this thread was started in part to help people gain some understanding of the incarnation.

Again, Sola, if you intend actually to read the thread, TER should remove the images.

If you don't intend to read the thread, then you're just coming into these to troll and I think you should buzz off.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're reading things I didn't write.  If you go back and review, I counseled TER to remove the images.  Provided Sola actually means to read the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't tell him to keep an open mind.  I asked him if he intended even to read the thread.
> And was not answered.
> Sola, if you intend to read the thread, then I think TER should remove the images.  And HB too.  Because without a proper understanding of the incarnation of Christ, understanding icons is impossible.  And this thread was started in part to help people gain some understanding of the incarnation.
> 
> Again, Sola, if you intend actually to read the thread, TER should remove the images.
> ...


  I'll make you guys a deal.  You guys remove the images, I'll read the thread.  I can't speak for Sola though.

----------


## fisharmor

> I'll make you guys a deal.  You guys remove the images, I'll read the thread.  I can't speak for Sola though.


For the sake of discussing the historical understanding of the incarnation, I have PMed both of my brothers and requested it on your behalf.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> For the sake of discussing the historical understanding of the incarnation, I have PMed both of my brothers and requested it on your behalf.


Thank you

----------


## TER

> If you are reading what he writes, and trying to come to a better understanding of historical Christianity, I would think that for your sake he should indeed stop posting them until the point where you understand how icons fit in with theology.


Hi fisharmor.  You are truly my brother in Christ, and I take your requests very seriously.

That is why it is difficult for me to say no to you. 

I will honor your request this time in the hopes that it may bear good fruit.

However, in the future, I will not remove the pictures or images of Christ in a thread which I started (to share the depth and beauty of the Christian faith), but I will avoid posting such images in threads which others have started, out of courtesy and respect (as I have done before).  

I hope you understand.

----------


## fisharmor

> Hi fisharmor.  You are truly my brother in Christ, and I take your requests very seriously.
> 
> That is why it is difficult for me to say no to you. 
> 
> I will honor your request this time in the hopes that it may bear good fruit.
> 
> However, in the future, I will not remove the pictures or images of Christ in a thread which I started (to share the depth and beauty of the Christian faith), but I will avoid posting such images in threads which others have started, out of courtesy and respect (as I have done before).  
> 
> I hope you understand.


Well let me clarify.  I wrote what you quoted, but I didn't intend to ask that you stop forever.  Only in this thread.  And only because the subject may indeed bear fruit with respect to icons.  Or at least lead to a discussion on how the incarnation and icons are related.

Neither you nor Sola nor CL should take this as a concession of any sort.  It is more a good faith effort to get effect understanding why we will not make concessions.

----------


## fisharmor

http://www.antiochian.org/Orthodox_C...Icons_Mean.htm

WHAT
DO ICONS MEAN?

By Michael Goltz

The iconography of our Orthodox Church, with all of its symbolism and spiritual
meaning, is central to the Churchs teaching. People are greatly influenced by
what they contemplate, and so the Church, in its love for its faithful, has
given us iconography in order to help us contemplate God. The Church has
elevated iconography to a place of prominence as a teaching tool. What the
Gospels proclaim with words, the icon proclaims visually.

The very meaning of the icon has as its foundation the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Christ
is the icon of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), and His transfiguration on
Mount Tabor offers support of this (Matt. 17:1-13). It is because Christ became
man and allowed man to glimpse the divine glory of heaven that we are able to
write icons and venerate images of Christ, the Theotokos and the saints. If
Christ had not become incarnate, and had not revealed to us his transfigured
glory on the Mount, it would be impossible to depict the spiritual realm
of Heaven in icons. Precisely because of the incarnation and transfiguration,
everything in the icon is represented in relation to Divinity. This impacts all
parts of the icon, from how the face is painted, to the robes, to even the
scenery of the festal icons. While the incarnation is the basis of
iconography, the icon itself, in its role as a window into Heaven, affirms the
incarnation and speaks of Gods great mysteries. The chief task of the icon is
to proclaim the wonder and mystery of Christ, the Theotokos and the saints,
while reminding us they were human like we are, and calling us to the same
spiritual perfection which Christs incarnation allows us to seek. All
naturalism, whether it is spacial, figural or proportional, is set aside
and man, landscape and architecture are shown in a transfigured state.

One of the first things which I discovered about icons before converting to Orthodoxy
is that icons are initially not easy to see. At first they appear distorted and
unreal, almost impressionist, full of symbolism. In a society more familiar with
western art, we are concerned with the response of our external, empirical
senses. Yet the icon is not meant to excite our external senses. It is not
painted to depict the mundane everyday life, but rather the spiritual realm. It
is written as a window into heaven, a physical means which allows us to
gaze into the invisible spiritual reality. The simplicity of the icon is not
meant to stir our emotions but rather to quietly invite us to leave the world
for a moment and guide every emotion toward the contemplation of the Divine. To
achieve this level of spiritual communion, one must quietly, prayerfully and
patiently gaze on the image. It is the way to prayer, and the means of prayer
itself.

The communion with the Divine to which the icon calls us is achieved through a
symbolic language in which clothing styles, colors, gestures, architecture and
human form in the icon are fixed. The painting of iconography must not be based
on artistic speculation, emotion or abstract ideas but soundly on the teachings
of the Orthodox Church. To depict these teachings requires an understanding of
Orthodoxy, study, meditation and attention to detail, as well as artistic skill.
The iconographer must understand what parts of the icon he can adjust using his
best artistic skills and what parts of the icon he ought to leave intact.

In this language of iconography, certain meanings are ascribed to the subjects of the
icon. People of importance in icons are often depicted as larger than other
people in the icon and are always indicated by name on the icon. In icons of single
saints, the saint is also usually depicted with the instrument of his or her
salvation. Bishops are usually depicted wearing episcopal robes, whether
monastic or Liturgical, holding the gospel and giving a blessing. The blessing
hand is formed in the monogram of the name of Christ, ICXC, just as an Orthodox
priest blesses. The evangelists are depicted holding the gospels, St. Paul the
epistles, and great spiritual writers a scroll. Martyrs are depicted holding the
crown of martyrdom, the cross or the instrument of their martyrdom. St. Andrei
Rublev, the great Russian iconographer of the fifteenth century, is depicted
holding the icon of the Trinity which he painted (and which some regard as the
standard for all other icons). The subject of the icon is usually depicted
looking straight ahead, or at a 3/4 angle. Icons gaze into eternity; yet while
focused on the divinity, the transfigured icon is not avoiding the earthly realm
but rather gently addressing it and calling it to be transfigured
in Christ as well.

The physical features of the icon are also very important in conveying this symbolic
spiritual language. Because the subject of the icon is transfigured by the
love of Christ, the light of the icon is interior, not exterior as in other
forms of art. Thus, the areas of the robes and skin which protrude the most have
the brightest highlights. The forehead on the subject on many icons is often
high and convex, to express the power of the spirit and wisdom.; Ascetics, monks
and bishops are given deep wrinkles in their cheeks. The nose of the subject is
long and thin, which gives it a sense of gracefulness; it no longer
smells the odors of the world, but rather the sweet incense of Heaven. The lips
of the subject are closed, expressing true contemplation which requires total
silence. The eyes are large and pronounced, gazing into Heaven. While the
physical features of the face are spiritualized, they still retain a likeness to
the saint depicted. Thus the face of St. Peter is different from that of his
brother Andrew and from that of St. Paul. The hands are either holding the
instrument of the depicted saints salvation, raised in a work of mercy, or
giving a blessing. The feet, if depicted, walk in the way of God. The halo
symbolizes the Divine light which radiates from the person who lives in close
communion with God.

As important as the physical features of the icon are the colors used to depict the
subject. Certain colors are generally used to depict certain ideas in icons.
However, iconography, while being a sacred art, is still art. Iconographers in
the past have painted certain icons in certain colors because it was
theologically correct to do so as well as visually appealing. The
iconographers job is to write an icon which is theologically correct, in good
artistic taste and visually pleasing; good artistic taste has a role to play in
what colors are used in the icon. Artistic harmony, for lack of a better phrase,
is as important to the icon as theological accuracy. A visually unpleasing icon
can be as disturbing as a theologically incorrect one because it draws attention
to what should not be important, namely the skills of the iconographer, and
draws attention away from what is most important, namely the message which the
icon should convey.

Having said this about icon colors and artistic harmony let us now discuss the meanings
commonly associated with colors. Gold is used to depict divinity, as it is a
rare and precious metal; when light strikes gold it gives a radiance which most
closely reflects uncreated light. Gold leaf or a golden color of paint is used
for the halo. White, like gold, is used to depict uncreated light, as well as
physical and spiritual purity. Christs robes at the Transfiguration and
following His resurrection are painted white, or sometimes gold. The color blue
is used to depict transcendence, truth and humility. A famous icon of St.
Ignatius of Antioch depicts the saint wearing a deep blue robe with a blue background.
The color serves to remind us of the great spiritual truths which St. Ignatius
taught us. Red is the color of blood, martyrdom, youth and beauty, but also the
color of sin and war. Martyrs are often depicted wearing red, or, as is the case
a famous icon of St. George, with a deep red background. Christs outer
garments are blue and his under garments are red to symbolize that He is both
divine and human. The Theotokos outer garments are red, or a deep earthen
tone, while her under garments are blue, symbolizing that she is human who bore
the Divine. Green is the color of the plant world and thus is used to denote
spring time and revival. Finally, black is the color of death, and the
renunciation of earthly values. In the icon of the Last Judgment the damned are
painted black, as they have lost all hope of salvation. On the icon of the
Crucifixion, the cave under the cross is black, denoting death and despair.
Monks are depicted wearing black robes as the black symbolizes the monks
renunciation of all that is vain.

The scenery in an icon has its meaning in the larger context of the icon.
Architecture and landscape serve only to tie the icon to a specific event in
time.

That our churches are full of icons is no coincidence, no fluke of artistic taste. The
iconostasis does not serve aesthetic purposes only. While the iconostasis does
function to separate the altar from the faithful and the rest of the church, it
also acts as a bridge between the faithful and the eternal heaven. The saints
and angels depicted on the iconostasis are there to remind us that we are not
praying alone and in vain, but that we are surrounded by the saints and the
heavenly host when we worship together. They also call us to a deeper love and
commitment to God. They instruct us in our faith and remind us that we are not
the first to walk the sometimes hard, sometimes lonely road of faith. Icons are
given as gifts to the faithful at very important times in their lives 
baptisms, chrismations, weddings, for a persons feast day. An icon of the
cross is placed in the tomb with the faithful when he/she leaves this world. The
icon clearly plays an integral role in the lives of the faithful.

*Everything in the icon points to the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.* It is indeed the
contemplation of the Divine which is the goal of the icon painter, as well as
that of the faithful praying in front of the icon. I have painted many icons,
prayed before many more, and in doing so have been brought to a much deeper love
of Christ while using my humble talents to manifest the incarnation to others.
The Orthodox Church, in its sincere love for its faithful, has for centuries provided
us with icons that we may come to a deeper understanding of God. To man, God is
a mystery, and the Church in its wisdom and love for man has given us the icon
to help us gain a glimpse of Heaven.

----------


## RJB

> , but I will avoid posting such images in threads which others have started, out of courtesy and respect (as I have done before).  
> .


. Don't be too hard on yourself TER.  I tend to be skeptical until given proof and in this thread I saw irrefutable proof that icons do indeed keep the devil at bay.  Lol

----------


## tod evans

TER is probably the nicest person that posts in the religion sub forum, I've never read an unkind or judgmental post from him.

----------


## TER

> TER is probably the nicest person that posts in the religion sub forum, I've never read an unkind or judgmental post from him.


Thank you tod for the kind words, although I am sure you probably have missed many of my pasts posts which have not been kind and have indeed been judgmental.   There is much I need forgiveness for.  Thank you nonetheless.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well let me clarify.  I wrote what you quoted, but I didn't intend to ask that you stop forever.  Only in this thread.  And only because the subject may indeed bear fruit with respect to icons.  Or at least lead to a discussion on how the incarnation and icons are related.
> 
> Neither you nor Sola nor CL should take this as a concession of any sort.  It is more a good faith effort to get effect understanding why we will not make concessions.


  That's all I take it as.  You still believe such images are OK but you are removing them on this thread for our sakes.  I appreciate that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> TER is probably the nicest person that posts in the religion sub forum, I've never read an unkind or judgmental post from him.


  Despite often disagreeing with him, I will absolutely agree with this

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK I just read through the whole thread.   There are two major things I wouldn't agree with.

1. At this point Christ is no longer a helpless infant.  He is sitting at the right hand of the Father ruling.  Thus it seems inappropriate to approach him as though he was an infant NOW, even though it was appropriate to do that at the time when he actually was an infant.  

2. As a Reformed Christian who adheres to the regulative principle of worship, I believe we should only do in worship what is commanded by scripture.  Thus I'm not in favor of things like Christmas, Pascha (Easter) or "holy friday" (Good Friday.)  I don't expect to actually convince you on that point, even still I did feel compelled to mention it.  A fair portion of the thread is mentioning these holidays in a positive light, which I'd expect.  I believe the Lord's Day is given to us, 52 times a year, as a celebration of Christ's entire life and particularly his resurrection, in some ways I believe that "big days" like Easter (what you call Pascha) replace the role that the weekly sabbath (the Lord's Day) is supposed to have for a Christian.  Furthermore, given that a number of Christian hymns are mentioned, I will say that while I believe hymns can have value outside of the context of corporate worship, we should offer only the best (that is, the psalms of David) to God in worship.  

*****

In general I agreed with the rest.  I agree that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are Christophanies, and pointing to the ultimate incarnation.  I honestly hadn't thought about the Nebuchadnezzar thing and don't have a strong opinion on it, its possible that you are correct.  I also fully believe in the reality of the incarnation even though I don't believe we're supposed to image it ourselves.  In general your Christological insights were insightful (I just used that word twice didn't I? :P  )

I'll have to think on whether anything else needs to be said, but I'll start there

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> OK I just read through the whole thread.   There are two major things I wouldn't agree with.
> *
> 1. At this point Christ is no longer a helpless infant.  He is sitting at the right hand of the Father ruling.  Thus it seems inappropriate to approach him as though he was an infant NOW, even though it was appropriate to do that at the time when he actually was an infant. * 
> 
> 2. As a Reformed Christian who adheres to the regulative principle of worship, I believe we should only do in worship what is commanded by scripture.  Thus I'm not in favor of things like Christmas, Pascha (Easter) or "holy friday" (Good Friday.)  I don't expect to actually convince you on that point, even still I did feel compelled to mention it.  A fair portion of the thread is mentioning these holidays in a positive light, which I'd expect.  I believe the Lord's Day is given to us, 52 times a year, as a celebration of Christ's entire life and particularly his resurrection, in some ways I believe that "big days" like Easter (what you call Pascha) replace the role that the weekly sabbath (the Lord's Day) is supposed to have for a Christian.  Furthermore, given that a number of Christian hymns are mentioned, I will say that while I believe hymns can have value outside of the context of corporate worship, we should offer only the best (that is, the psalms of David) to God in worship.  
> 
> *****
> 
> In general I agreed with the rest.  I agree that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are Christophanies, and pointing to the ultimate incarnation.  I honestly hadn't thought about the Nebuchadnezzar thing and don't have a strong opinion on it, its possible that you are correct.  I also fully believe in the reality of the incarnation even though I don't believe we're supposed to image it ourselves.  In general your Christological insights were insightful (I just used that word twice didn't I? :P  )
> ...


Don't Reformed folks celebrate Christmas? (it was always celebrated at my mother's Baptist church and my father's Southern Baptist church) If so, you are celebrating Christ God's incarnation as an infant at lest one day a year. For this, I respect y'all.  ~hugs~

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't Reformed folks celebrate Christmas? (it was always celebrated at my mother's Baptist church and my father's Southern Baptist church) If so, you are celebrating Christ God's incarnation as an infant at lest one day a year. For this, I respect y'all.  ~hugs~


  Well, its more complicated than that :P  Southern Baptists aren't really Reformed, even though some of them hold to Reformed soteriology in particular.  Some Presbyterians today celebrate Christmas, but historically they did not.  The Continental Reformed were more likely to do so but I think this was inconsistent with the RPW which they do hold to.  I as well as many 17th century Presbyterians do not believe in celebrating Christmas.

----------


## TER

Hi CL,

It is good to be back amongst friends.  




> OK I just read through the whole thread.   There are two major things I wouldn't agree with.
> 
> 1. At this point Christ is no longer a helpless infant.  He is sitting at the right hand of the Father ruling.  Thus it seems inappropriate to approach him as though he was an infant NOW, even though it was appropriate to do that at the time when he actually was an infant.


I'm not understanding what you mean by 'NOW'?  How did the Magi approach the infant Savior?  How would we had we entered into the cave 2000 yeas ago to see the awaited Messiah?

The Holy Evangelist Matthew records this in the Holy Bible :  "And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him."

There is no difference in glory and worship towards Christ, whether in the form of a burning bush or accompanied with angels.  Whether an infant or the returning King of kings and Judge of mankind.

----------


## TER

The Church worships Christ of all times, for He is the Author and Creator of time.  There is no difference in glory from the Pre-Incarnate Word of God manifested to the Prophets or the incarnate Infant in the cave of Bethlehem, for there is One Glory, and One God.  We worship not only Christ the Crucified or Christ the Resurrected, but also Christ the Savior of Daniel and Christ the God of Abraham.  So too, Christ the Child.  One glory, one love.

----------


## TER

> 2. As a Reformed Christian who adheres to the regulative principle of worship, I believe we should only do in worship what is commanded by scripture.


But this has never been the expressed and practiced teaching of the Christian Church and only started to pop up by the Reformed Protestants in the sixteenth century.  Why do you think that is?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But this has never been the expressed and practiced teaching of the Christian Church and only started to pop up by the Reformed Protestants in the sixteenth century.  Why do you think that is?


  Well for one thing that isn't entirely true.  There's a quote from one of the church fathers (I think it might be Tertullian but I'm not sure) that expresses the principle, and there may be others.  But aside from that, I tend to weight the Old Testament more heavily than tradition, in which case Deuteronomy 12 and Leviticus 10 are in my mind fairly clear. 

As for your other point, I understand that Christ is still perfectly glorious as an infant, but given that Christ is incarnate man, I'm uncertain about the "timeless" aspect as it pertains to worship.  That's something I want to do more study on.  I know the Reformed (in contrast with lutherans and Catholics) do not accept Christ's human nature as being omnipresent

----------


## TER

> Well for one thing that isn't entirely true.  There's a quote from one of the church fathers (I think it might be Tertullian but I'm not sure) that expresses the principle, and there may be others.  But aside from that, I tend to weight the Old Testament more heavily than tradition, in which case Deuteronomy 12 and Leviticus 10 are in my mind fairly clear. 
> 
> As for your other point, I understand that Christ is still perfectly glorious as an infant, but given that Christ is incarnate man, I'm uncertain about the "timeless" aspect as it pertains to worship.  That's something I want to do more study on.  I know the Reformed (in contrast with lutherans and Catholics) do not accept Christ's human nature as being omnipresent


Christ's human nature is deified because it is united with His eternal, omnipresent and uncreated divine nature.  It is through this union whereby He could walk on water and perform His miracles.  We are called to share in these gifts by the Holy Spirit, and that is why the history of Christianity is filled with stories and witnessing of Saints doing such wondrous things.

But getting back to Christ, He was God of God even as a newborn.  Even before, within the the womb of the Virgin, He was the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, omnipresent, omniscient, the I AM.  While He voluntarily submitted Himself to the form of a newborn, He still is the Power and Wisdom of God, the Almighty.  

Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  When we worship Christ, we do so with this at heart.

With regards to your reference to Tertullian, can you quote where he states that worship should be only as it is written in the Scriptures?  I know the Scriptures themselves don't make this claim, but I would like to see the context and quote you are referencing.

----------


## TER

Here is what Tertullian wrote (emphasis mine):  from De Corona, 3.

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? *If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it.* For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? 

Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, *if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent.* 

To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign (of the cross - TER).

----------


## TER

He immediately continues:

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. *Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as theirr observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.  Meanwhile you will believe that there is some reason to which submission is due.* 

 I add still one case more, as it will be proper to show you how it was among the ancients also. Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognised. I ask in this instance for the law. I put the apostle aside. If Rebecca at once drew down her veil, when in the distance she saw her betrothed, this modesty of a mere private individual could not have made a law, or it will have made it only for those who have the reason which she had. Let virgins alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have recognised their destined husband. If Susanna also, who was subjected to unveiling on her trial, furnishes an argument for the veiling of women, I can say here also, the veil was a voluntary thing. She had come accused, ashamed of the disgrace she had brought on herself, properly concealing her beauty, even because now she feared to please. But I should not suppose that, when it was her aim to please, she took walks with a veil on in her husband's avenue. Grant, now, that she was always veiled. In this particular case, too, or, in fact, in that of any other, I demand the dress-law. If I nowhere find a law, it follows that tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the true interpretation of reason. *This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance.* 

But even in civil matters custom is accepted as law, when positive legal enactment is wanting; and it is the same thing whether it depends on writing or on reason, since reason is, in fact, the basis of law. But, (you say), if reason is the ground of law, all will now henceforth have to be counted law, whoever brings it forward, which shall have reason as its ground. Or do you think that every believer is entitled to originate and establish a law, if only it be such as is agreeable to God, as is helpful to discipline, as promotes salvation, when the Lord says, But why do you not even of your own selves judge what is right? Luke 12:27 

And not merely in regard to a judicial sentence, but in regard to every decision in matters we are called on to consider, the apostle also says, If of anything you are ignorant, God shall reveal it unto you; Philippians 3:15 he himself, too, being accustomed to afford counsel though he had not the command of the Lord, and to dictate of himself as possessing the Spirit of God who guides into all truth.* Therefore his advice has, by the warrant of divine reason, become equivalent to nothing less than a divine command.*

* Earnestly now inquire of this teacher, keeping intact your regard for tradition, from whomsoever it originally sprang; nor have regard to the author, but to the authority, and especially that of custom itself, which on this very account we should revere, that we may not want an interpreter; so that if reason too is God's gift, you may then learn, not whether custom has to be followed by you, but why.*

----------


## TER

Here is a beautiful excerpt by Tertullian in Apologetica:


“I will now set forth the real facts concerning the Christian society in such a way as, having already refuted the evil, to shew the good. We are a body united in the knowledge of religion, the divine character of our doctrine, and in the bond of hope. We meet together in an assembly and congregation that we may besiege God like a marshalled corps with our prayers. This violence is pleasing to Him. We pray for emperors, for their ministers, and those in authority, for the state of the world, for general quietude, and for the delay of the end. We assemble together to call to remembrance the divine writings, if the aspect of affairs requires us to be forewarned or reminded of anything. In any case we feed our faith on these holy words, we encourage our hope, we confirm our confidence, and we enforce the teaching of their precepts none the less during attacks of persecution: at the same time we pronounce exhortations, chastisements, and the divine censures of excommunication. For our judgement is delivered with great weight, as by men who are assured that they are acting in the sight of God; and it is the gravest anticipation of future judgement, if any one has so sinned as to be banished from the communion of prayer, and assembly, and all holy intercourse.

Certain approved elders preside, who have obtained this honour not by purchase but by testimony; for no divine privilege is obtainable by money. Even the kind of treasury which we have is not filled up with sums paid under a sense of obligation, as if they were the price of religion; but each one places there a small contribution on a certain day of the month, or when he wishes, provided only he is both willing and able,—for the offerings are not compulsory but voluntary. These are as it were the deposits of piety. For afterwards they are not spent in feasting or drinking or in repulsive eating-houses, but in supporting and burying the needy, and in relieving destitute orphan boys and girls, and infirm old men, or shipwrecked sufferers, and any who may be in the mines, or islands, or prisons, provided it is for the cause of God’s religion, who thus become pensioners of their own confession.

But even the putting into practice of so great a love as this brands us with a mark of censure in the opinion of some. ‘See,’ say they, ‘how they love each other!’—for they themselves hate each other; and, ‘how ready they are to die for each other!’—for they are more ready to kill each other. And they defame us also, because we call each other by the title of ‘brethren;’—for no other reason, I imagine, than that amongst themselves every title of kinship is counterfeited from affectation. Yet brethren we are, even of yourselves, in right of our one common mother, Nature; although you are scarcely men, because such bad brethren. Yet how much more worthily are those called and regarded as brethren, who acknowledge one Father, God; who have drunk of the One Spirit of holiness; who from the one womb of common ignorance have awakened with awe at the one light of truth. But perhaps it is on this account that we are the less thought to be legitimate brethren, because no tragedy noisily proclaims our brotherhood, or because we are brethren in family possessions, which with you generally dissolve brotherhood. In this way we, who are united heart and soul, never hesitate to communicate our substance to one another. All things are common amongst us, except our wives: in that particular alone we dissolve partnership, in which other men practise it; who not only take the wives of their friends, but even most patiently let their own wives subserve their friends, according to the teaching, I believe, of those ancient sages, Socrates the Greek and Cato the Roman: who shared with their friends the wives whom they had married for the sake of begetting children, even if by another;—I know not indeed whether the wives were unwilling or not; yet why should they care for a chastity, which their husbands so readily gave away? A fine example of Attic wisdom and Roman gravity! —the philosopher and censor acting the part of pimps!

What marvel, then, if love so great as ours should lead us to feast together? For besides branding our modest suppers as criminal, you also denounce them as extravagant…  The feast of the Christians alone is made a subject of comment. Our feast shews its principle in its name [agape]: it is called that which in the Greek signifies ‘love.’ However much it may cost, expense incurred in the name of piety is a gain; since we help by this consolation those in need : not in the same way as parasites amongst you eagerly strive for the glory of enslaving their liberty for their belly’s wage, amidst insults begotten of gluttony; but amongst us, as with God Himself, greater consideration is shewn for the poor. If the reason for our feast is an honourable one, you can estimate what the rest of our disciplinary regulations are with respect to religious duties: nothing disgraceful, nothing immodest is admissible; no one reclines at the feast without first tasting beforehand of prayer to God: sufficient is eaten to satisfy hunger; so much only is drunk as becomes the chaste. Satisfaction of appetite is so far indulged in, as is consistent with the remembrance of the duty of worshipping God during the night: conversation is regulated by the knowledge that the Lord is listening. After hand-washing, the lights are brought in, and a general invitation is given to sing to God as each one is able, either from the Holy Scriptures or from his own natural capability; it may be gathered from this how little one has drunk. Prayer in like manner closes the feast. The meeting then breaks up, not into bands for the perpetration of acts of violence, nor into groups for running hither and thither, nor into outbursts of wantonness, but with the same regard for propriety and modesty as becomes those who have feasted not so much off a supper as off a godly instruction.

This assembly of the Christians would, indeed, have been deservedly made illegal, if it resembled illegal meetings; and it ought deservedly to be condemned, if it were not unlike assemblies that merit condemnation,—if any complaint could be brought against it on the same ground as against factions. Who has ever been the loser by our meeting? We are the same when gathered together as when separated; the same unitedly as individually, causing neither injury nor sorrow to any one. When the honest and good assemble, when the pious and pure are gathered together, it ought not to be called a ‘faction,’ but a solemn court.”

----------


## Christian Liberty

TER, I will get back to this when I'm feeling a bit better.  I'm feeling really sick ATM and can't really think straight (really bad ear infection.)

----------


## TER

Tertullian also wrote this, about authority and the importance of apostolic succession within the ecclesiology of the Church which grew from the Apostles and those they ordained.  In his _Prescription Against Heretics_, he explicitly challenges heretics to produce evidence of the apostolic succession of their communities.

 "Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic mena man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed."

----------


## TER

> TER, I will get back to this when I'm feeling a bit better.  I'm feeling really sick ATM and can't really think straight (really bad ear infection.)


I'm sorry to hear that.  I hope you feel better.  I just saw this after I posted my previous post.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm sorry to hear that.  I hope you feel better.  I just saw this after I posted my previous post.


Thank you

----------


## fisharmor

> Well, its more complicated than that :P  Southern Baptists aren't really Reformed, even though some of them hold to Reformed soteriology in particular.  Some Presbyterians today celebrate Christmas, but historically they did not.  The Continental Reformed were more likely to do so but I think this was inconsistent with the RPW which they do hold to.  I as well as many 17th century Presbyterians do not believe in celebrating Christmas.


I think one thing you should bear in mind is that what you would categorize as "practices" or "doctrines" or "principles" or "soteriology", we generally call only tradition.

You see RPW as something apart from tradition.  We do not.  It is a holy (set apart) tradition (set of beliefs and practices held over time) of Reformed Christians.

That is why we tend to say things like "this was never the tradition of the early Church" or "this is a new tradition which we date to X".  We place great importance on tradition - in fact I see it as nothing less than how the Holy Spirit glues the Church together and keeps error out.

I'm sure that's what TER was bolding - he is reading Tertullian and finding that it comports EXACTLY with our understanding of Holy Tradition.  I will warn you, CL - quote the early fathers, please, I beg you to!  Because within their writings is a tar pit of Orthodoxy.


I too hope you are feeling better, CL.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think one thing you should bear in mind is that what you would categorize as "practices" or "doctrines" or "principles" or "soteriology", we generally call only tradition.
> 
> You see RPW as something apart from tradition.  We do not.  It is a holy (set apart) tradition (set of beliefs and practices held over time) of Reformed Christians.
> 
> That is why we tend to say things like "this was never the tradition of the early Church" or "this is a new tradition which we date to X".  We place great importance on tradition - in fact I see it as nothing less than how the Holy Spirit glues the Church together and keeps error out.
> 
> I'm sure that's what TER was bolding - he is reading Tertullian and finding that it comports EXACTLY with our understanding of Holy Tradition.  I will warn you, CL - quote the early fathers, please, I beg you to!  Because within their writings is a tar pit of Orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> I too hope you are feeling better, CL.


  Getting better slowly   I'll get back to this thread more later.  I've commented on a few other threads but I think this one might require more time.

----------


## TER

> I think one thing you should bear in mind is that what you would categorize as "practices" or "doctrines" or "principles" or "soteriology", we generally call only tradition.
> 
> You see RPW as something apart from tradition.  We do not.  It is a holy (set apart) tradition (set of beliefs and practices held over time) of Reformed Christians.
> 
> That is why we tend to say things like "this was never the tradition of the early Church" or "this is a new tradition which we date to X".  We place great importance on tradition - in fact I see it as nothing less than how the Holy Spirit glues the Church together and keeps error out.
> 
> I'm sure that's what TER was bolding - he is reading Tertullian and finding that it comports EXACTLY with our understanding of Holy Tradition.  I will warn you, CL - quote the early fathers, please, I beg you to!  Because within their writings is a tar pit of Orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> I too hope you are feeling better, CL.



Excellent points, fisharmor.

Tradition is what is handed down.  St. Paul mentions it when he teaches his brethren to hold fast to the traditions handed down to them.  The word is _paradosis_, literally meaning 'handed down' or 'given to'.  Much of it can be directly found in the Holy Bible.   Others are found in the early hymns of the Church, which sing the theology of the Christian faith.  Of course, others in the writings of the early Christian writers and the iconography and symbols of the Church.  So too, through creed and councils.

The mark of orthodoxy is that it adheres to what has been handed down, faithfully, by the one body of Christ, namely, the Church.  When new teachings sprout up, which are innovations which contradict the core fundamental teachings of Christ and the Apostles (and the faith they handed down to their successors), these teachings are tested and exposed within the furnace of the _entire_ Church, (that is, the Church of today and _yesterday_).  If they do not demonstrate catholicity (that is, held everywhere and at all times to be true) or consensus of our spiritual forefathers of the Christian faith (that is, according to the holy members called the Saints), then these teachings are cast aside and disregarded, and those who continue unrepentantly to pronounce such false teachings against what has been handed down, is excluded from the worship of the Church and the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  They are excommunicated, and in this way, the teachings of the Church (spread far and wide and through time) remain undefined and protected.  This, by the grace of God.  By the working of the Comforter and Spirit of Truth working within the members of the Church.

What has always kept the Church to survive and endure and prevail in every age is the Body and Blood of Christ.  What has allowed the teachings and doctrines revealed by Christ to be guarded and protected and handed down even after 2000 years is centered around the Lord Himself.

This awesome miracle through the centuries of the handing down faithfully of the truths revealed by Christ is because of God, for it is 'glued' and 'sown' by the Holy Spirit working within the members of the body (i.e. the baptized faithful in Christ), and sealed and fulfilled by Christ Himself, namely, in the Holy Eucharist, which is (_and always has been_) the center of the Christian life.

Unfortunately, with the loss of the mystery of this awesome truth, (because of scholasticism and rationalism and the mis-elevation of human reason and logic to be the safest way to knowledge and communion with God), there has been a disconnect between the life of the Church and the worship of God around the holy altar.  So too, with the hyperindividualism and relativism of the modern age, what has been lost is the Christian teaching handed down that the most God pleasing and greatest worship is within a liturgical and communal gathering of united believers ("for where two and three are gathered, I am there"), in a feast of divine life and loving unity.

  In the image of the Holy Trinity, the Church _as Church_ is manifested through holy and sacramental communion, not merely alone (i.e. 'me and my personal relationship with Jesus'), but with 'the other', indeed, amongst _persons_:  God, my neighbor, and myself, - all three sharing in love, - in holy and divine communion.  

What has been central to all this, and why it is stressed within the Gospels and the Epistles, (and why the early baptized members of the Church risked life and limb to meet on the Lord's Day), is the Lord's Supper, because by coming together in worship, in the presence of invisible angels and amongst a cloud of witnesses, the participating members enter into the heavenly worship of the Kingdom.  Sanctified by the grace of God, molded into one body, in union through unity of faith, spirit, and glory and worship of God, partaking in the divine nature, what the Church Fathers call 'theosis'.  For this is the aim of life.

Central to this worship of the Apostles is the Body and Blood of Christ, which Christ gives for the life of the world and which keeps the Church protected, so that the gates of hell could not prevail over her.

And when those who introduced false teachings and doctrines persisted in their error before the rest of the body, they, like Tertullian (even though they may hold many apostolic Christian teachings as Tertullian did), were excommunicated.  This was the dead man's switch to prevent the true teachings of Lord from being misinterpreted and distorted.  It was for the sake of not only of the rest of the Church, but for the heretic as well, lest he approach the Body and Blood unworthily and, like those who touched the Ark of the Covenant, suffer real and mortal harm.  "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor 11:29)

----------


## TER

> Getting better slowly   I'll get back to this thread more later.  I've commented on a few other threads but I think this one might require more time.


Happy to hear you are doing better!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Excellent points, fisharmor.
> 
> Tradition is what is handed down.  St. Paul mentions it when he teaches his brethren to hold fast to the traditions handed down to them.  The word is _paradosis_, literally meaning 'handed down' or 'given to'.  Much of it can be directly found in the Holy Bible.   Others are found in the early hymns of the Church, which sing the theology of the Christian faith.  Of course, others in the writings of the early Christian writers and the iconography and symbols of the Church.  So too, through creed and councils.
> 
> The mark of orthodoxy is that it adheres to what has been handed down, faithfully, by the one body of Christ, namely, the Church.  When new teachings sprout up, which are innovations which contradict the core fundamental teachings of Christ and the Apostles (and the faith they handed down to their successors), these teachings are tested and exposed within the furnace of the _entire_ Church, (that is, the Church of today and _yesterday_).  If they do not demonstrate catholicity (that is, held everywhere and at all times to be true) or consensus of our spiritual forefathers of the Christian faith (that is, according to the holy members called the Saints), then these teachings are cast aside and disregarded, and those who continue unrepentantly to pronounce such false teachings against what has been handed down, is excluded from the worship of the Church and the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  They are excommunicated, and in this way, the teachings of the Church (spread far and wide and through time) remain undefined and protected.  This, by the grace of God.  By the working of the Comforter and Spirit of Truth working within the members of Church.
> 
> What has always kept the Church to survive and endure and prevail in every age is the Body and Blood of Christ.  What has allowed the teachings and doctrines revealed by Christ to be guarded and protected and handed down even after 2000 years is centered around the Lord Himself.
> 
> This awesome miracle through the centuries of the handing down faithfully of the truths revealed by Christ is because of God, for it is 'glued' and 'sown' by the Holy Spirit working within the members of the body (i.e. the baptized faithful in Christ), and sealed and fulfilled by Christ Himself, namely, in the Holy Eucharist, which is (_and always has been_) the center of the Christian life.
> ...


TER, are the chants considered part of church hymnology (like Apolytikion of the Resurrection in tone 2 and that tune that's chanted during communion) or is that considered "supplementary" to the 4 part choir parts?

----------


## TER

> TER, are the chants considered part of church hymnology (like Apolytikion of the Resurrection in tone 2 and that tune that's chanted during communion) or is that considered "supplementary" to the 4 part choir parts?


I am not sure how the terminology is used, that is, what classification these may be called, but they all fall under "prayers sung in worship of God", which are basically what hymns and chants are.

----------


## TER

HB, your parish priest or choir director would probably have the answer.

----------


## TER

HB, just checked.

Yes, these all fall under the hymnology of the Church.  

In fact, if you didn't know, the hymns of the Church, theologically speaking, have more authority in pronouncing and expressing the doctrines of the faith than almost everything else (after, of course, the Holy Scriptures and the Ecumencial Councils).  A Church Father or a Saint may err in a particular theological position, but the hymns are a product of the universal Church.  

This is from the principle of _Lex orandi, lex credendi_ (in Latin meaning, "the law of praying [is] the law of believing"

 In the early hymns of the first centuries which were spread around the Roman Empire and beyond, in a time when it was criminal to confess Christ is Risen, we find some of the richest theology of the faith in Christ.  These still are hymned within the Church to this day.

----------


## TER

from Wikipedia:

Lex orandi, lex credendi (Latin loosely translated as "the law of praying [is] the law of believing") is a motto which means that it is prayer which leads to belief, or that it is liturgy which leads to theology. It refers to the relationship between worship and belief, and is an ancient Christian principle which provided a measure for developing the ancient Christian creeds, the canon of scripture and other doctrinal matters based on the prayer texts of the Church, that is, the Church's liturgy. In the Early Church there was liturgical tradition before there was a common creed and before there was an officially sanctioned biblical canon. These liturgical traditions provided the theological framework for establishing the creeds and canon.

----------

