The first essay, by Seitz, examines the phrase, "maker of heaven and earth," specifcally its roots in Old Testament theology. He recounts Paul's encounter with the Athenians inscription the unknown god in Acts 17:
"... Paul was stipulating that the Lord of heaven and earth was not the summation of all the other gods (a high god) or an alternative with a more compelling account of creation (a better god), but was an unknown and unknowable god, without his speaking or sending, without his self-declaration."
He points to Isaiah's (chapter 45) mention of God who hides himself and again references Paul's proclamation. This all reminds me of Paul's own writing in Romans 10:17 that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word." Is Paul, in Acts 17 and Romans 10 contradicting his own concept of human knowledge of God's eternal power and divine nature through what has been made? Or is there a more subtle difference in Paul's language or arguments between these passages? Or is Seitz stretching Acts 17 and Isaiah 45 further than they were intended to go? Answering those questions would make for an interesting essay topic.
Jenson, in a essay I found elsewhere on the internet seems to be on board with Seitz's view when he says,
"The one-word epithets in the creeds—in the Nicene creed, holy, lordly and life-giving—are little help in identifying the Spirit among the spirits, since while most of the world's spirits are pretty plainly unholy, mean and deadly, a good many can plausibly claim to be holy, lordly, and life giving. Only 'who proceeds from the Father' and 'who spoke by the prophets' serve to pick out the Spirit from the welter."
In other words, Jenson is grounding the identity of Jesus, the identity of the one true god, in the Old Testament concepts and proclamation of Israel's god, the maker of heaven and earth. Seitz goes on to say that, "The God of the Old Testament has fully identified himself with Jesus Christ." I think this was evidenced most clearly in the resurrection. I would add to that and say that the reverse is also true: Jesus Christ has fully identified himself with the God of the Old Testament. One need only perform a cursory glance at the gospels to glean this fact. This all sounds reasonable enough, but as I said above, what of Paul's own conflicting statements?
Posts
2 comments:
Good questions about Paul's seeming "contradiction." Let's take Seitz's commentary on the Acts passage as an accurate interpretation of what Paul was saying, that "[God] was an unknown and unknowable god, without his speaking or sending, without his self-declaration." This might seem to contrast with Paul's teaching (particularly in Romans 1) about human knowledge of the divine through what has been made. However, Seitz's statement actually fits well with the orthodox understanding of general revelation: that God is giving self-declaration/"revelation" in his creation, so that - according to Acts 17 - "...[humanity] should seek God... feel their way toward him and find him."
Paul goes on to talk about how God overlooked the "times of ignorance," but now that he has sent and spoken through his Christ, "he commands all people everywhere to repent..."
Creation is sufficient for knowledge of the divine enough that men might be held accountable for their failure to acknowledge and treasure God (vis-a-vis Romans 1); but God's self-declaration in the Scriptures and most of all in Christ alone is sufficient for the salvation of sinners and the redemption of creation. Scripture seems to point to more than one kind of revelation; and all of revelation in Scripture is progressive - we gain more and more clarity on all kinds of things: the triune nature of God, the meaning of the sacrificial system, the true purpose of God's covenant people ("that all the families on earth will be blessed through you"), etc.
Helpful?
Yes, very. I think you're right that these two dueling concepts seem to fit into our modern language of general and special revelation.
I do still struggle with the concept of (a) the word (presumably the gospel alone) being necessary (not just sufficient) for faith while at the same time
(b) the "bad" people referred to in Romans 1 are without excuse just by virtue of their knowledge of creation.
It just doesn't seem just to me. But God is just, I believe that. So I need to dig in on this one to flesh this out more.
Notice that starting at Romans 1:21 Paul begins switching in and out of present and past tense and by the time he gets to verse 32, he explicitly says they are guilty because they did not listen to God's righteous decree, though they knew it. In other words, what he has introduced as guilty by failure to acknowledge general revelation, he has concluded as guilty by failure to acknowledge special revelation. So there's a blend going on and I'd like to read more comments on the Paul's intent in Romans 1.
Post a Comment