No such action

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

The action specified by the URL is not recognized by the wiki

Return to Main Page.

Quote:

"He has been, it is true, called "the Angel of great counsel," that
is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of
nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the
Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not
on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael.
(De carn. 14)"

Tertullian concludes the chapter from which the above citation is taken
with a proof of the absolute Deity and authority of Christ. And,
interestingly, Isa 63:9 is integral to that proof. If by the term
"angel" Tertullian meant a created being, it is hard to imagine a
more striking contradiction within the space of just a few lines
(especially if one takes seriously Tertullian's forensic training).
Clearly, in applying both Isa 9:6 and 63:9 to Christ in the same
chapter, Tertullian shows that Christ is not by nature an angel.
Nevertheless it is legitimate to use the title Angel as a functional
description.

For Tertullian Christ is by nature God and Lord. By God Tertullian
meant "verily God" (De carn. 14). And by Lord Tertullian meant
Lord absolutely. He states categorically that "the Father is Lord,
and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in
Genesis: "Then the Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Adv. Prax. 13).
No, says Tertullian, it is not the Christians who believe that Christ
was a created angel. Rather, it is "the heretics, who ... make the
Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate
agent" (Adv. Prax. 19). The Fathers are emphatic: angels had no part
in creation (cf. Dial. 62; Adv. haer. 3.11.2 and 4.20.1).

Tertullian refers to Isa 9:6 on two other occasions but avoids, or at
least does not mention, the title Angel (Adv. Marc. 3.19; Adv. Jud.
10.11). In both places he uses Isa 9:6 to show, in words almost
identical to those of his predecessors (e.g., 1 Apol. 35; Dem. 56),
that the child to be born was the Son of God and the "King of
ages"; and that the cross which was placed on his shoulders revealed
his kingly glory and dominion. Although Tertullian hesitates to use the
title Angel apart from the reference to Isa 9:6 noted above, he
categorically and without hesitation refers all of the OT theophanies
to Christ (e.g., Adv. Jud. 9; Adv. Marc. 2.27, 3.9, and 5.19). In
doing so he is clearly following in the footsteps of Barnabas, Justin,
Melito, Theophilus, and Irenaeus. There is thus some justification for
his claim that this belief was part of the Rule of Faith common to all
the churches (even if it cannot finally be demonstrated that it was
handed down by Christ himself):

[Taken from, "Christ As Angel: The Reclamation Of A Primitive Title" by
Günther Juncker]
Trinity Theological Journal, fall 1994.

He concludes this rather length article (for a TJ) by writting:

Quote:

Justin's affinity to Johannine theology has already been noted. For
John, Christ was always the Logos, the Messenger, and Revealer of the
Father. But for John Christ was also God. And it was Christ's glory
which was seen in all of the OT theophanies: cf. John 1:14-18, 108
3:13, 8:12, 109 56-59, and 12:41. (While this may seem p. 249] like
a hasty generalization, we are virtually compelled to it by John's
view of the transcendence and invisibility of the Father.) But John is
not unique in this regard. That the preexistent Son of God was active
in the OT is axiomatic to much of the NT. The best known passage is 1
Cor 10:1-4. But note also 1 Cor 10:9 and Jude 5. For in the latter
two passages the best textual readings place Christ squarely into the
Exodus theophanies. It is not simply a matter of typology, but of the
"real presence" of Christ. Christ, as Hanson has capably argued in
his several books on the subject, can hardly be a type of himself. And
even if Hanson has been guilty of overstating his case, the basic
thesis appears to be as sound as it is unoriginal.

The OT theophanies were Christophanies. But if this is the case, then
the title Angel is an almost inevitable development, given the
pre-Christian messianic status of Isa 9:6 and the prominence of the
Angel of the Lord in the OT theophanies. The question is not, how
could the Fathers have come up with such a title? But rather, how
could they possibly have avoided it? And again, if this is the case,
then the trinitarian formulations of Nicea are also an almost
inevitable development. Prior to the advent of Arianism the Nicene
formulations had been, so to speak, in solution. But they crystallized
quickly with the addition of the necessary catalyst. For it was not
the old "Angel-Christology and the [new] Trinitarian dogma of
Nicaea" which were "absolutely incompatible." It was instead the
old Angel-Christology (i.e., the apostolic tradition) and the new
Arianism which were absolutely incompatible. In a very real sense the
old Angel Christology was the new Nicene orthodoxy: a fact which
accounts for the continued popularity of the title Angel after Nicea
among the orthodox Fathers. Justin Martyr, it has well been said,
"is easy to underestimate." Yet at the same time one must also be
careful not to overestimate him. For all his genius, he was not a
theological innovator. And when all is said and done, he may not have
been the one who set the trajectory to Nicea and beyond. That
prodigious feat may have required a greater than Justin.


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))