First, a few clarifications. By “modalist” I do not mean “Sabellian” or “monarchian.” (Those ancient catholics probably did hold to various forms of modalism, but the term is not a historical one, and can refer to other views which probably no ancient person held.) Nor do I mean modalism by definition to be heretical relative to orthodox/catholic creeds. What I mean is that at least one of these – Father, Son, Spirit – is a mode of the one God, in some sense a way that God is. That last phrase is deliberately ambiguous.
In his recent Christmas sermon the Pope said:
In all three Christmas Masses, the liturgy quotes a passage from the Prophet Isaiah, which describes the epiphany that took place at Christmas in greater detail: “A child is born for us, a son given to us and dominion is laid on his shoulders; and this is the name they give him: Wonder-Counsellor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace. Wide is his dominion in a peace that has no end” (Is 9:5f.). … A child, in all its weakness, is Mighty God. A child, in all its neediness and dependence, is Eternal Father. …
God has appeared – as a child. It is in this guise that he pits himself against all violence and brings a message that is peace. (emphases and link added)
This last phrase, X has appeared as S, is ambiguous. It could mean that X has manifested as it really is, really being S. Or it could mean that X appeared to be (whether or not X really is) S. But given the Catholic theological tradition, I assume the first is meant here. God has appeared as a human baby, meaning, at least at that time, he really was a baby. This is not to comment on a quality or property he has; rather, the idea is that he was numerically identical to this baby. This baby, this little human self – was the same self as God. The one true God, that is, the Father, just was certain baby.
But doesn’t the Father differ from the Son, and from the Spirit? Sure. The child just is the Son. And this is a “guise” of God/the Father. The Son is a different guise than the Father, and both are different guises from the Spirit. Which is just to say, these three ways God acts are really three such ways.
The view seems to be this: God is a single self: the Father/Son/Spirit – call him what you will. Any two of those are the same god as one another, and so the same self as one another. If considered as guises, as ways of appearing to us, then they are different – the Father-guise is not the Son-guise, etc. But it is one and the same self who may, as it were, put any of them on.
Coincidentally, the Pope brings up St. Francis, saying that
Francis loved the child Jesus, because for him it was in this childish estate that God’s humility shone forth. God became poor. His Son was born in the poverty of the stable. In the child Jesus, God made himself dependent, in need of human love, he put himself in the position of asking for human love – our love. (emphases added)
Again, the baby (and so, the Son) is a guise of God – a way God appears and is. He continues with a bit of traditional human-reason-bashing, and then back to his main point:
…if we want to find the God who appeared as a child, then we must dismount from the high horse of our “enlightened” reason. We must set aside our false certainties, our intellectual pride, which prevents us from recognizing God’s closeness. … We must bend down, spiritually we must as it were go on foot, in order to pass through the portal of faith and encounter the God who is so different from our prejudices and opinions – the God who conceals himself in the humility of a newborn baby. (emphases added)
Suppose that a priest named Len is very learned. Yet when among simple folk, he adopts the persona of a simple man, so as to relate better to them. Learned Len conceals himself in Simple Len – for there is far more to Len than we see in Simple Len. In those moments, Len really is Simple Len – that’s really him, using simple words, eschewing the airs and manners of a scholar – he is really acting in that way. And yet, that way, that guise, is inherently misleading; it would naturally lead one to think Len to be unlearned. One could call Learned Len a “guise” of Len too, though it doesn’t tend to mislead about how he really is.
Simple Len and Learned Len aren’t two men any more than the Father and Son, in the Pope’s view, are two gods. They “are” the one God. Or more accurately, he thinks that God, the Father, appears as a human – the Son, the human being, is a guise of God. Of course, there’s more to God that we see in this baby (child, man) but that’s while God conceals himself, that is, certain features of himself, by appearing to us in this way.
This view of God and Jesus is arguably a theological disaster.
But am I right that this is the current Pope’s view? Can anyone point us to some other relevant statements by him?
I hate it when Greek font’s dont show up in these pokey little coment boxes. Ah well. The comments stand. You can see the Greek if you follow the link.
QUOTE: “…There are 2 Fathers, of course. Just like there are 2 lords [Ps 110.1] But Jesus is “the Father of the age to come” [Isa 9.6] and God “the Father”…”
Yes, that is true, there – are – “…two lords…”
But this is qualified in the NT.
Compare the following:
“…THE GOD – ( OF ) – our Lord Jesus Christ, THE FATHER…” = Ephesians 1:17.
Plus the numerous “…the God – ( and ) – Father – ( of ) – Jesus Christ…” etc that occur throughout the NT.
Also in regard to Isaiah 9:6.
See:
Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) — Book 7 CHAPTER 1 (b) From Isaiah.
http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.co.nz/2010/04/part-1-isa-96-lxx-variant-readings.html
For how the earliest Greek versions interpreted this text:
To summarize:
Eusebius who had access to Origen’s Hexapala gives these readings for the Heb., ( ???? ????????? ) el gibbor in the LXX Versions of his time:
1. ??????? ?????? ??????? = Original LXX
2. ???? ??????? = Some Copies LXX = Minority
3. ???????, ??????? = Aquila
4. ???????, ??????? = Authorised Heb., LXX
5. ???????, ??????? = Symmachus
6. ???????, ???????? = Theodotion
7. ??????? ?????? ??????? = Received LXX
W.J. Ferrar (1920) English Translation:
1. Angel of Great Counsel
2. Mighty God
3. Mighty, Powerful
4. Strong, … Powerful
5. Strong, Powerful
6. Strong, Powerful
7. Angel of Great Counsel
Just to throw a theological spanner in the works.
Hi Dale,
I am unsure of all the details of your argument/question in this thread, and I will explain one of my criteria for the doctrine of modalism. Modalism rejects that the Farther and Son have an interpersonal relationship with each other. So by my definition, if the pope teaches that the Father and Son have an interpersonal relationship, then he is not a modalist. Do you accept or reject my criterion?
John
(January 9, 2012 at 8:49 am)
I guess I was reacting to an earlier comment that the ‘Father’ in Isaiah [9] v 5(6) was the Messiah. You appeared to endorse this point.
I do endorse that point, although I didn’t exactly speak of Messiah, but of “mysterious messianic figure presented by Isaiah”. This, anyway, is the standard understanding of Christian exegetes.
I was not entering into the debate on what the Pope said or intended to say!
But that cannot be avoided, in view of Dale’s interpretation …
Maybe I’m listening too much to my Hebrew friends-who state quite categorically that the child was young Hezekiah.
LOL! And why not Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, the mysterious son that Isaiah had from the “prophetess” with whom he had “sexual relations” (Is 8:1-4)?
(January 9, 2012 at 8:53 am)
I’d appreciate your comments on Philippians 2.
See my (graphically ghastly) comment at ‘Merry Christmas’
Best.
MdS
“I fully agree that the term “eternal begetting” is meaningless. But those who held it were not Modalists. They were confessed trinitarians.”
In ancient times, yes. But I’m aware of some pretty clear cases, in the present day, and in early modern times, of trinitarians who were also modalists.
Villanovanus
I’d appreciate your comments on Phillipians 2.
My use of the word ‘contradictions ‘ was unfortunate.
The points I raised are more in the nature of ‘problems’ I have with the Trinitarian position.
Best Wishes
John
Hi Villanovanos
I guess I was reacting to an earlier comment that the ‘Father’ in Isaiah ( v 5(6) was the Messiah.
You appeared to endorse this point.
I was not entering into the debate on what the Pope said or intended to say!
Maybe I’m listning too much to my Hebrew friends-who state quite catagorically that the child was young Hezekiah.
God Bless
John
John,
thanks for your post.
First, I don’t see much difference between ‘prophetic’ and ‘foreshadowing typology’, but, most of all, I’m baffled at how and whence, from my posts, you would infer that alleged conflation.
Second, I’ve looked that the ‘Merry Christmas’ post and comments, and there is absolutely nothing of relevance to your point, either in Dale’s post, or in your comment, or in anybody else’s, for that matter.
The whole point, once again, is, what did the Pope really mean when he quoted Is 9:5 f. HT (9:6 f. ET).
Perhaps, another time I will try and tackle all your questions on the alleged ‘contradictions’ in the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians. (As you can easily infer from my avatar, I am not a trinitarian …)
BTW, my nick is with two l’s
Take care.
Vilanovanus
You are assuming that Isaiah 9.5 and 6 is ‘prophetic’ and not just ‘foreshadowing typology’
See Comments under “Merry Christmas”
Best
John
Errata Corrige
Here are the correct quotation ad comment (see villanovanus post of January 8, 2012 at 2:14 am)
[d5] Again, the baby (and so, the Son) is a guise of God – a way God appears and is.
[v5] In your post, you repeatedly use the word “guise” as semantically equivalent to “mode” (in your words: “way of appearing to us”), in the obvious sense of Modalism. It is far-fetched to attribute this sense to the way the Pope uses the word “guise” in the expression:
“It is in this guise [viz. as a child] that he pits himself against all violence and brings a message that is peace.”
Dale
Once again, it is NOT correct to base the assertion that the Pope is a modalist (whether in your “special” sense or in the obvious general, standard sense–and it is rather problematic to distinguish the two, anyway) on the misunderstanding of the ambiguity with which he uses the expression “Eternal Father”. It would be like accusing him of ignorance and stupidity, whereas he is obviously perfectly aware that the expression “Eternal Father” (or “Everlasting Father” – Is 9:5 f. HT or 9:6 f. ET) is NOT referred by Isaiah to YHWH, BUT to the mysterious messianic figure.
If the Pope is a modalist, he is because Western Christianity adheres to Latin Trinitarianism (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), which is essentially modalism; not be cause of what he may have said, colourfully and unguardedly, during his Christmas sermon.
Thanks Dale.
I fully agree that the term “eternal begetting” is meaningless. But those who held it were not Modalists. They were confessed trinitarians.
There are 2 Fathers, of course. Just like there are 2 lords [Ps 110.1] But Jesus is “the Father of the age to come” [Isa 9.6] and God “the Father”.
villanovanus,
a few quick replies – don’t have much time today.
on the last – I’m not talking of people who reject et. gen. – rather, people who basically say it is ineffable. Clarke, Scr. Doctr. which I don’t have at hand, quotes some saying this.
“The above is definitely modalism, but it is not fair (anyway, not obvious from his Christmas sermon) to attribute it to Pope Benedict XVI.”
I don’t see why not – this is mere assertion.
I’m well aware that the Pope is committed to the orthodox formulas, and that these are intended to rule out monarchianism. But I distinguish between what people believe and what they’ll officially commit to, or what formulas they’ll use, agree with, etc. The former is more important, and is revealed in non-polemical, unguarded moments, like a Christmas sermon.
” This is not entirely correct, from an orthodox trinitarian POV. Granted, the “self” (nature, ousia) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the same, but it is still more correct to say that “This baby, this little human self – was the same self as God’s Word“.”
Right. But traditionally, catholic Christians will aver from saying that the Son is 1/3 of God, or a part of God. And it has seemed to me for some time that many such, and in particular those who hold to what’s now called LT, are really some sort of modalists.
Dave
… a number of 4th c. “fathers” emphasized that we can’t grasp what eternal begetting is supposed to be.
Off the cuff, the only one I can think of, who rejected the Origenian “eternal generation” is Marcellus of Ancyra. Who else are you thinking of?
Dale
[d1] What I mean [by modalism] is that at least one of these – Father, Son, Spirit – is a mode of the one God, in some sense a way that God is.
[v1] How does this definition, albeit restricted, differ essentially from the standard definition of “modalistic monarchianism” (bka Sabellianism)?
[d2] This last phrase, X has appeared as S, is ambiguous.
[v2] The phrase that is ambiguous is NOT “God has appeared – as a child” (which, AFAIK is perfectly in line with trinitarian and incarnational orthodoxy), BUT “A child … is Eternal Father”, which is based, on the part of the Pope, on playing with the expression “Eternal Father” (or “Everlasting Father” – Is 9:5 HT or 9:6 ET) as though it was referred to God, the Father Almighty, whereas it is referred to the mysterious messianic figure presented by Isaiah.
[d3] This baby, this little human self – was the same self as God. The one true God, that is, the Father, just was certain baby.
[v3] This is not entirely correct, from an orthodox trinitarian POV. Granted, the “self” (nature, ousia) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the same, but it is still more correct to say that “This baby, this little human self – was the same self as God’s Word“.
[d4] But doesn’t the Father differ from the Son, and from the Spirit? Sure. The child just is the Son. And this is a “guise” of God/the Father. The Son is a different guise than the Father, and both are different guises from the Spirit. Which is just to say, these three ways God acts are really three such ways.
[v4] The above is definitely modalism, but it is not fair (anyway, not obvious from his Christmas sermon) to attribute it to Pope Benedict XVI.
[d5] But doesn’t the Father differ from the Son, and from the Spirit? Sure. The child just is the Son. And this is a “guise” of God/the Father. The Son is a different guise than the Father, and both are different guises from the Spirit. Which is just to say, these three ways God acts are really three such ways.
[v5] The above is definitely modalism, but it is not fair (anyway, not obvious from his Christmas sermon) to attribute it to Pope Benedict XVI.
[d6] We must bend down, spiritually we must as it were go on foot, in order to pass through the portal of faith and encounter the God who is so different from our prejudices and opinions – the God who conceals himself in the humility of a newborn baby.
[v6] The funny thing, here, is that, while the Pope invites us to “dismount from the high horse”, it is him who spectacularly resorts to highfalutin rhetoric. Besides, and again, it is NOT God, the One and Only self-subsistent/existent, that “conceals himself in the humility of a newborn baby”, BUT He conceals His own Eternal Word/Logos etc. etc.
[d7] Suppose that a priest named Len is very learned.
[v7] I wonder if with your fictional “priest named Len”, you had in mind Chesterton’s fictional creation, Father Brown. Or perhaps, if you were thinking of the Paul of…
“To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.” (1 Cor 9:22)
[d8] This [modalistic] view of God and Jesus is arguably a theological disaster.
[v8] It is a disaster precisely because modalism IS a disaster, just as the doctrine of the trinity is. And there is no point in discriminating between “good” “Latin Trinitarianism” and “bad” “Social Trinitarianism” (as Brian Leftow does) because the latter is ultimately tri-theism, and the former is ultimately modalism.
I believe the Pope’s POV can be described, more correctly, as “relativity”. See the article that he wrote, for Communio: lnternational Catholic Review, in 1990, the as Joseph Ratzinger: Concerning the notion of person in theology.
I don’t think that settles anything. Yes, one may think it obvious that “begetting” is a relation which can only hold between two selves, but with the speculations about each “person” in the Trinity being a “subsistent relation”, or not being “a person in the modern sense”, it is far from clear that he must think the Father and Son to be two selves.
Suppose on thinks of the Son as sort of God-in-a-humble-stance-towards-us. And the Father is God-who-dwells-in-unapproachable-light or something. One might think that the first, somehow eternally, timelessly, puts forth the second.
What could this mean? I don’t know! But don’t forget that a number of 4th c. “fathers” emphasized that we can’t grasp what eternal begetting is supposed to be.
Dale,
I don’t think it’s possible to interpret people so precisely on this subject without extensive evidence. I suppose the Pope’s words are not obviously unmodalistic, but that’s about as specific as I think can be warranted.
I’ve always liked the notes in the Jerusalem Study Bible myself.
Anthony,
everything you say is so obvious as to be embarrassing …
I will come back with a direct comment on Dale’s post.
Dale,
Thanks for unpacking this but in fairness to the Pope he believes that the Son is eternally begotten. And in that sense it is not just in the “guise” of the Father. As to “eternal Father” in the Isaiah passage, “Father” there is a reference to the Messiah as “the Father of the age to come” [see LXX].
So, the Pope is not saying that “the Father” is eternal in both directions since this is a Messianic title. No trinitarian says ‘Jesus is the Father’ & ‘there is also God the Father’. They distinguish between 2 senses of “the Father” in this case.
I grant that it is very confusing when one uses the language of “eternal Father” without further explanation.
John – thanks for all that – very interesting.
Brandon – you have to take off your logician’s hat. I’m wondering about the best explanation for what he said. Seems to me it is modalism; the scheme fits his words there to a T.
Thanks for that interesting info about the NAB.
Myself, I’m a big fan of the Jerusalem Study Bible, unwieldy though it is. To my eye, it has less theological biases than others, e.g. ESV. And I love the notes.
John,
The Pope would never quote the NAB (nor will you usually find it being used in English translations of papal documents and speeches) for the very good reason that nobody outside the United States uses it — and the only reason it’s used even in the United States is that the USCCB sponsors it, holds the copyright on it, and insists that it be used for the readings at Mass. It’s a purely American translation. (And it’s not an especially popular one, either; many American Catholics refuse to use it outside of when it is required.) Most other Catholics in the English-speaking world use some version of either the NRSV or the Jerusalem Bible, depending on the preferences of the relevant conference of bishops.
Dale,
Happy New Year!
Again, I don’t understand your comment. You first say that none of the language being used requires modalism and then say that I should conclude that the language should be read modalistically.
Likewise, whatever you yourself may think, I’m pretty sure the Pope would deny your claim about the Father in the NT, because it is contrary to the traditional reading of the NT; and since we’re talking about the Pope’s view, we’d need proof that the Pope held the same view.
Dale
The KJV (Ezekiel 32 v 21)translates “e-LEI goh-bo-RIM “(plural) as “The strongest among the mighty”
Some of the English-Hebrew Interlinears have their own ‘agendae’and what purports to be a “Hebrew’ Bible have in many cases been edited – almost certainly for the purpose of ‘doctrinal reinforcement.’
As Always
John
Hi Dale
The Hebrew words used in Isaiah 9v5(6) are ” Pele-joez- el-gibbor-abi-ad- sur-ad-sar-shalom’ -and it is to the words ‘el-gibbor’ that you are referring.
As you observe, the words can mean “Mighty God”
The word ‘el’ has many meanings -ranging from a powerful person to the one true God.
The word ‘gibbor’ means mighty (see Genesis 10v9 and Zech 9v13).
The combination of the two words can mean anything ranging from ‘mighty hero’ to Mighty God’
The meaning of the words will vary according to context
(i) They mean “Mighty Hero” when referring to a person
(ii) They mean “Mighty God’ when referring to YHWH
As noted we find the words in Isaiah Chapters 9 and 10 -only context can tell us the meaning in each case.
We find the words used in the plural form in Ezekiel 32v21 to mean’ the mightiest of men’
And so the ‘fun’ starts.
(i) Hebrews (Jews) say that the verse refers to King Hezekiah and that the context cannot possibly allow for the insertion of ‘YHWH”-to do so would ‘put God in a box” They assert that the words have been manipulated to give them a ‘christological gloss’ which does not exist. How can the “Son’ become the “Father”,? they ask
(ii) Christians like myself would say that Isaiah 9v5(6) may be used as a sort of ‘foreshadowing typology’- but the mainstream would describe it a hugely prophetic
As you will see, evangelical authors go to extreme lengths to ‘spin’ stories which they believe add authenticity to their interpretation.
My Hebrew friends find them laughable.
I am not sufficiently knowledgable to determine the truth – but the evangelical arguments appear to me to be similar to the endless ‘gymnastics’ and ‘juggling’ used to ‘prove’ the Doctrine of the Trinity’
Like Psalm 110, Isaiah 9 is a battle to be fought and won at all costs!!!
What is interesting is that the NAB (Catholic Bible) has gone to great lengths to deterime the truth- and inserted “God-Hero” -signifying their acceptance that the subject of the verse is a human.
The footnote in the NAB is most revealing!
“in terms of Christian tradition and liturgy, this passage is used to refer to Christ….”
“God-Hero , a warrior and defender of his people”
I checked the translation of Isaiah 9v5(6)some time ago with the Hebrew Department at a famous British university- and my contact agrees with this interpretation. He has been the subject of savage attacks by evangelicals and ‘tame’ Hebrews to the extent that he now ‘keeps his head below the parapet.’
Every Blessing
John
John – thanks for the comment, and Happy New Year to you!
“God-hero”? I usually see the translation “mighty God”. Are there other OT examples of this phrase?
Hi Brandon,
Happy New Year!
I agree, it could be that, e.g. God appears as a man, say, in wrestling Jacob – and this needn’t be modalism. An omnipotent God could generate an man-illusion, make it wrestle, and thereby reveal something about himself. That doesn’t mean he *became* a man. It was just a theophany. Modalism is a way of understanding the Father, Son, and Spirit.
“Father” can’t name a relation in the NT. There, it refers, uncontroversially, to the one God YHWH and/or to the divine self Jesus prayed to. Neither of those are or could be relations.
I think you should agree that the Pope is assuming a one-self view of the Trinity. And the Son is a guise, he repeatedly says, of that one self.
I understand that you’re inclined to protest the term “mode,” but if you’ll grant me that vague term, why not grant that the Pope’s view is modalism?
I suppose I’m not entirely following the argument here. Surely it’s not modalism to say that (in a certain context) God appears as the child, etc. That’s consistent with a lot of non-modalist ways of talking, particularly if you take it to be vague or poetic rather than rigorously precise. Likewise, the ambiguity in using ‘Father’ to indicate a relation to the Son and using ‘Father’ to indicate a relation to creation is old hat; and doesn’t mean anything modalistic as long as we aren’t conflating the two.
Hi Dale
May 2012 be a blessed year for you and your family!
I havn’t had time to get into the detail of your post – but I was immediately struck by the fact that the words used by the Pope differ from those found in the Catholic NAB Bible.
In fact the NAB translation of Isaiah 9v5 is remarkably similar to the Tanakh!
The Tanakh and NAB use the words
“They name him Wonder-Counsellor
God-Hero
Father-Forever
Prince of Peace.”
Note
(a) The use of the present tense in both versions of the scripture
(b) The child born was NOT God -but “God-Hero” – (as David was described)
(c) Christ was never called “Father -Forever”
Clearly this verse may be used TYPOLOGICALLY, but NOT prophetically!!
it’s not surprising that the Pope chose to quote alternative translations of the Bible.- after all Dogma and Doctrine must be protected at all costs!!! (the footnote to the verse in NAB is most revealing!)
Every Blessing
John
Comments are closed.