I can’t think of a better way to celebrate Christmas than to start an argument by attacking one of our favorite Christmas hymns.
“Hark the Herald Angels Sing” has that one line “veiled in flesh the Godhead see,” and I just thought it would be fun to nitpick that bit. I don’t know what Wesley had in mind when he wrote these words, but I wonder if they display an unwitting gnosticism.
Taken at face value they seem to suggest that Christ’s divinity was hidden when He took on flesh. But is that the case? Granted, Philippians 2:5ff suggest that in the incarnation there was some type of emptying of Christ’s divine prerogatives. No matter what your perspective is on the exegesis of that passage there is nothing to suggest that the taking on of human flesh is what caused this.
Further, John 1:14 suggests that the taking on of human flesh was a revelation of God’s glory, not a “hiding” or “veiling” of it. I’m not accusing Wesley of any particular agenda here but I do think it illustrates the natural pull of gnosticism. Gnosticism prefers the spiritual to the material and we are so accustomed to associating “flesh” with sin that it may have seemed quite reasonable to associate “en-flesh-ment” with veiling of the Godhead. Certainly Wesley knew better to associate incarnation with sin, but maybe it was natural to associate it with veiling.
Also, simply in the hopes that I can draw John Mark Reynolds into this discussion I’d like to bring up Plato (in case you haven’t heard, it is well know that John Mark carries Plato in his backpocket). Could there be some sense in which Wesley unconsciously (of course by using that word it looks like I’m trying to bring Freud into the discussion, I am not sure which of our Evangel bloggers carries Freud in their backpocket) assumed that prior to the incarnation Christ existed in some more perfect “form” of deity that was diminished when he entered our world of “shadows.” I do realize I am setting myself up for a platonic beatdown, I’ve had two classes in philosophy and I’m acting like some kind of authority on Plato here.
Still, I wonder if this illustrates how we devalue the goodness of the physical, material world in which we live, and maybe it diminishes our celebration of Christmas. The Christian response to the secularization of Christmas often seems to be a religious sentimentalization of Christmas where we “celebrate” the baby Jesus in all His cuteness and warm-fuzziness. But the incarnation was for much more than creating warm sentiments. Christ took on a body and suffered in the body for sins committed (by us) in the body to redeem our souls and bodies and give us a hope for a bodily resurrection. It doesn’t sound like He was hiding anything by taking on human flesh.
Of course I could just be making a big deal about nothing.
December 16th, 2009 | 8:06 pm | #1
Well, the natures remain distinct in the Incarnation. Looking at Jesus the human being we do not see Jesus in his divine nature, except by the communication of properties (that is, insofar as the person we refer to when we refer to the thing that has particular human nature is in fact a divine person, we can refer to that person who is human as God, and so we can say when looking at a human body that we are looking “at God”). We see only a human body, which is not identical to the divine nature (in fact, it is infinitely less than God).
December 16th, 2009 | 8:23 pm | #2
I can’t think of a better way to celebrate Christmas than to start an argument by attacking one of our favorite Christmas hymns.
You can’t? That’s too bad.
December 16th, 2009 | 8:26 pm | #3
But…since you mentioned it. I’ll have a wee bit of fun too.
Why is it that Christians who recoil in horror at the thought of a Crucifix showing dead, grown-up Jesus, love to display cute-cuddly baby Jesus in a manger?
It gives one furiously to think, does it not?
December 16th, 2009 | 8:35 pm | #4
I don’t think Wesley had a Gnostic pull on him. I think he’s simply describing a “reverse transfiguration.” At the transfiguration, he was “unveiled”:
(2 Pet 1:16-18) “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. {17} For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. {18} And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”
(Luke 9:29-31) “And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. {30} And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: {31} Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.”
So in a certain sense, the Incarnation was a veiling. The transfiguration an unveiling. And isn’t it the latter that John is referring to in John 1:14?
(John 1:14) “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
Also John seems to indicate a few times in his gospel that the miracles he did were an unveiling too, especially at the raising of Lazarus.
December 16th, 2009 | 8:53 pm | #5
Sam – thanks for that – “reverse transfiguration” is a new one on me.
December 16th, 2009 | 9:15 pm | #6
Certainly the incarnation did reveal God in Jesus Christ in a greater manner, yet, was he not also in his first advent, coming in humility. Thus, while there was glory, it was certainly in some way veiled as even the transfiguration revealed. Looking at the response of many in Jesus time, especially his opponents, it seems they saw him as human, perhaps a prophet, but not God. Again, it seems there is a veiling of that in his humility taking on the form of a servant joining himself to a human nature and body. Further, is not Jesus Christ’s glory now more resplendent than it was when he walked the earth?
December 16th, 2009 | 9:29 pm | #7
I think it refers back to the OT when Moses had to have his face veiled after he’d been with God on Mt. Sinai because his face shone and the people were afraid of him.
Jesus was God come in a form that “veiled” the glory. Sinful people could be in his presence without being consumed.
I’d say this is the same idea, sort of, as the “reverse transfiguration.”
December 16th, 2009 | 9:33 pm | #8
Although I am not a Wesleyan, I love Charles Wesley’s hymns, which now belong to the church universal. Could it be that “veiled in flesh” is just a poetic way of speaking of the incarnation? Perhaps you are taking veiled too literally.
I agree fully with you, David, over Plato’s deleterious influence on Christianity, but I don’t see it implied in this particular phrase.
December 16th, 2009 | 9:38 pm | #9
Rev. McCain,
I think you’re bang on there. We like to think of God as cute and manageable and, above all, someone at my beck and call, not someone who has absolute power over my life and who answers to no one.
And the natural man hates the idea of substitution does it not? Both Adam for us, making us sinners, and Jesus for us, taking away our sin.
Somethin’ about foolishness and stumbling blocks comes to mind…
About “veiled in flesh”, well His “Godness” was certainly veiled, and the main difference in Jesus from 1BC to 1 AD is the whole human nature/body thing so it seems a reasonable way to put it.
December 16th, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #10
David Koyzis – yeah, I probably don’t know enough philosophy to be throwing Plato around, so I probably need to be more careful, I’m sure Wesley wasn’t thinking Plato. I was just kind of wondering if maybe he’s in the air we breathe and if some of his ideas just kind of come out of us without thinking.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:47 pm | #11
“Of course I could just be making a big deal about nothing.”
Not really. Just demonstrating ignorance about the brothers Wesley.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:53 pm | #12
David and David:
I am quite fond of Plato’s impact on Christianity . . .
Safe to say that Plato “hated the body” is one of those over simplifications that live on in seminaries everywhere. Plato did not think bodies “evil” . . . if you take his philosophy as a whole and don’t just get stuck in Phaedo!
December 16th, 2009 | 11:53 pm | #13
Ken – ouch !
December 17th, 2009 | 12:14 am | #14
What can I say John Mark, being Reformed I’m predestined to believe these things about Plato.
December 17th, 2009 | 1:07 am | #15
David,
Yes.
Nobody blames you.
I certainly don’t, because as a Western Rite Orthodox Christian I am a member of a group so confusing that we hardly believe in our own existence . . . and so admire people with strong beliefs . . . even when they are false.
Insert cheerful emoticon here.
John Mark
December 17th, 2009 | 2:00 am | #16
David:
First, “veiled in flesh the Godhead see” should be understand in parallel with “hail incarnate deity,” which says the same thing in terms that I doubt anyone would find objectionable.
Second, Wesley, an Anglican, may have had in mind the chalice veil used to cover the bread and wine until it is unveiled in the liturgy of the altar.
First, Marcus Borg made the same complaint (in the God We Never Knew), so not to imply any guilt by association, but hey…
December 17th, 2009 | 2:59 am | #17
David,
Whether Wesley or the good doctor Plato are being unduly maligned, the church is still full of this “the body is nothing” baloney. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to hear of churches still railing about the deemin likker (HT: Philosopher Turk), with the same churches practically full to bursting with overweight, indolent bodies subsisting on the American four food groups (salt, sugar, fat and caffeine). We of all people, who are His people because the God who made our bodies was with us in a body, and dwells in our bodies even now, should know better than to think that as long as our enormous, underused and abused bodies are covered from neck to knee, we’re all good.
And don’t even get me started on the pastors and parents who don’t consider whether the fact that Jesus was fully man, right down to his “man parts”, might bring significant comfort and joy to their fifteen year old sons as they try to sort out why God gave them those parts and what they’re for.
Sorry if that’s a little rant-ish. But I didn’t want your great point lost if the general consensus was that Wesley and Plato were going to be let off the hook about it.
December 17th, 2009 | 9:57 am | #18
“I am quite fond of Plato’s impact on Christianity . . .
Safe to say that Plato ‘hated the body’ is one of those over simplifications that live on in seminaries everywhere. Plato did not think bodies ‘evil’ . . . if you take his philosophy as a whole and don’t just get stuck in Phaedo!”
There is much more to Plato than this, as I’m sure you must know, John Mark. Plato’s anthropology is incompatible with a biblical anthropology. The body-soul dualism is certainly a big part of this, but also the inability to distinguish clearly between Creator and creation. Moreover, Plato’s philosophy represents nothing less than a soteriology at variance with that of Christianity. I will post on this at some point, because I think too many people miss this, mostly because they neglect to look for the distinctive Platonic redemptive narrative that conditions his philosophy. Stay tuned.
December 17th, 2009 | 12:50 pm | #19
Wow, I got a hat trick here – ignorant of Plato, ignorant of Wesley, and in cahoots with Marcus Borg – Woohoo!!
December 17th, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #20
David Wayne,
I propose that as your new tagline. It’s what all the kids aspire to!
David K.,
Oooh, this should be good. It’s been a few years since John Mark’s Platonism has been on the hot seat. : )
My question is, which side should I take in the coming throw down? Oh, the dilemmas.
matt
December 17th, 2009 | 9:49 pm | #21
Matt,
Are you kidding? Kicking Plato around is the one thing that unites the Evangelical left and right.
Saying you like Plato is the only way I know to make everyone at an Evangelical academic party get mad.
At least this time the critic will have read him! I look forward to the opportunity to think about my favorite philosopher!
In any case, I am abuzz to know the Platonic anthropology that will unite the Phaedo and Timaeus . . . woo! hoo!
We should start by noting that technically Plato did not believe in the existence of either the body or soul in his sense of “existence” and so was not a dualist. “Platonic dualism” is a very refined term and only applies within the framework of a cosmos that is “becoming.”
This mistake (which I am sure nobody here would make) has caused many an Evangelical to attack the neo-Platonists while thinking they are attacking Plato. (See Schaeffer, Francis.)
December 17th, 2009 | 10:03 pm | #22
David Wayne:
But we love you . . .
Just a guy ignorant of Platonic sociobiology, bacteriology, and soteriology,
John Mark
December 18th, 2009 | 12:32 am | #23
Thanks for loving me John Mark. Matt, should I use the tagline I created or just take John Mark’s – “I’m just a guy ignorant of . . . well, just about everything.”
BTW – since I’m off to a roaring start talking about people I’m ignorant of, why stop now? Is anyone here familiar with Rene Girard and his work on the scapegoat? Given John Mark’s comment about the unifying character of kicking Plato around I think JMR and Plato are perfect Girardian scapegoats. But then again, it’s me saying that . . .
December 18th, 2009 | 1:00 am | #24
The Orthodox are long used to being kicked around.
Kick away. . . Frank Turk says it will help me earn my salvation.
December 18th, 2009 | 10:15 am | #25
John Mark,
Sorry, I meant for or against Plato. I really could go either way, which serves my contrarian heart well.
But I agree, maybe evangelicals should just define ourselves at the anti-Plato people, and then we’ll all just get along!
David, I think your reference to Girard now disqualifies you from using ‘everything’ with reference to that which you are ignorant of. Better stick to the original suggestion. : )
Matt
December 18th, 2009 | 10:18 am | #26
John Mark,
Incidentally, your point about the non-existence of the body and the soul, properly speaking, for Plato brings to mind our friend Hartenberg’s reading of Descartes, which he expresses in the comments here.
http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=2044
Functionally, it’s the same: ‘substance’ is only properly predicated of God, not of either the body or the soul. I still don’t know what to make of it.
matt
December 29th, 2009 | 8:35 pm | #27
I don’t think you are nit-picking, I think you are nit-witting. You do not do justice to Philippians 2 at all. Re-study, re-think and try renewing your mind a bit.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact