Thursday, February 28, 2013

Terrance Lindall on "Satan's Peculiar Grace"

Terrance Lindall
WAH Center

A couple of weeks ago, Bienvenido Bones Banez gave an extemporaneous piano recital, "The Satanic Rhapsody," followed by Terrance Lindall expounding, also extemporaneously, on the "peculiar graces" of Satan in extrapolating from Bien's now-famous dictum, that "Satan gives color to the world!"

Bien's statement sounds rather disturbing, initially, but Lindall sets it within the context of the quasi-orthodox position known as the felix culpa, or "fortunate fall." The basic idea is that without Satan's role in bringing about the fall, Christ would never have taken on flesh to take on humankind's sins, but in order for Satan to 'cooperate' with God's aims -- whatever Satan's intentions -- Satan has to be graced by God with certain gifts, Satan's peculiar graces.

Lindall opens with a gambit that plays on Steve Fallon's views about John Milton's peculiar grace, and since the video was finally put up on YouTube, I took the time to transcribe Lindall's extemporaneous talk:
Milton's peculiar grace was the fact that he always wrote about himself so much, and of course he was the great inspiration for truth. He said truth on any battlefield against any foe will prevail.

Now, when Bien came here a few years ago, he inspired me with a saying of his. He said, "Satan gives color to the world." Well, what does that mean exactly? It means that all of the strife and everything in the world inspires poets, writers, artists. If you go to a museum, you'll see a lot of that. If you read a book, books from the sixteenth-century on, it's all about conflict and war, love and hatred, and all these things, competition -- well, that's Satan-inspired.

Can you imagine if this were God's perfect world, if you had everything you wanted, good food, place to rest, no problems, no pain, live forever? You could live as vegetables! Imagine that! So, Satan's peculiar grace is that he has given you something to aspire to, to compete with. He's the adrenaline rush in your blood, and he also gives you great literature talking about the struggles you have, and so that is Satan's peculiar grace. It's a grace given to you by Satan.

Also, something else in the history of religious philosophy, there was something called the "fortunate fall." Does anybody know what the fortunate fall is? Ah (pointing to man in audience), here's one scholar. The fortunate fall is . . . because man has fallen, we have been given the grace of Christ being born into the world, and Christ, of course, is sacrificing himself for your good, supposedly. He has taken all your sins upon him[self], that you might be redeemed. That's the fortunate fall of man, the fortunate fall of Adam and Eve from the garden. They had to be redeemed, and Christ did that. That's the fortunate fall.

So, just recently, I came up with a hair-raising idea. Well, every year at Christmas -- and I know some of you aren't Christians -- but every year at Christmas, we should thank Satan because Satan has caused Christ to be born into the world, so let's thank Satan as well as God for giving us Christ.

Of course, I got a letter from a professor in South Korea who said, "Why, that's hair-raising, that's nearly heretical!" And of course, it's not. And I'll tell you why. Everybody should be thinking about ideas and things. If you're Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or whatever, you should actually be thinking about your religion, not just following it, because I do believe that knowledge, supposedly given to man when Adam and Eve bit into the apple, is a good thing, and I also believe . . . I also believe that, ultimately, knowledge is the savior of mankind, whether you believe in a mythology of religion or whether you believe that religion is exactly the truth of the world, I believe man will be redeemed through knowledge.

And it's coming to understand yourself. Accommodate yourself to the world. Accommodate yourself peaceably with other men. And that's our struggle right now, accommodating ourselves with the different cultures around the world, the different religions, accommodating ourselves to build a better world. And that's what Yuko's idea is all about: Peace, Harmony, and Unity. And that's her idea. It comes from a Japanese concept, of wah, which is what WAH means, WAH Center.

And we created recently the Williamsburg Circle of International Arts and Letters, which is a very intellectual organization. We have people on it like Arthur Danto, the famous art critic, probably the most outstanding art critic or commentator of the twentieth century. He's now ninety years old. We also have the former president of St. Bonaventure University, who's probably the foremost Milton scholar, apart from Steve Fallon, and he formed the largest Milton collection in the world, of which of course I'm part. But it's an outstanding scholarly group.

Bien is one of the members, and so, it's not a thing [only] about knowledge. We're pursuing knowledge, we're finding out about how literature intersects with the arts. And you can look it up on the internet.

Meanwhile, do you have any questions?
There were questions and Lindall's further extrapolations on his concept of Satan's peculiar graces, but I didn't have time or energy to transcribe those. After I first watched the video, I wrote Lindall a note:
Good talk, Terrance. Your gestures show the peculiar grace of good public speakers. I was especially impressed that you could speak well extemporaneously despite the distractions of people walking through, people talking, and infants crying.
And I asked:
Is there a transcript?
There wasn't. There is now . . .

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 16, 2012

Benjamin Sommer and the Johannine Divine Name applied to the Son

Astarte

In The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, Benjamin Sommer draws attention to examples of the 'fluidity' of divine identity (i.e., the 'ability' of a Semitic deity to maintain an identity in more than one place simultaneously), for example, as described in some ancient Near Eastern texts concerning the term shem, that is, "name":
The same phenomenon [of being at once an independent deity and a part of another deity] occurs also with the term shem. In a Phonecian inscription, we read that the king Eshmunazor built a temple for Baal of Sidon and a temple for . . . "Astarte, Name of Baal . . . . The same epithet is applied to this goddess twice in Ugaritic myths. One of the occurrences comes from the Kirta epic: . . . (May) Astarte, Name of Baal, (break) your scalp!" An almost identical passage appears again in a passage from the Baal epic. In these three texts, Astarte as the Name of Baal appears in parallel with another god. She appears on her own, however, with some frequency in Ugaritic and Phonician texts (as well as in Egyptian ones). Here again, a goddess who elsewhere has her own self appears as an aspect of Baal's self. As in the more abundant Akkadian texts . . . then, the selfhood of Canaanite deities was at times fluid: Gods could fragment and overlap, even though at the level of worship and mythology they usually were distinct from each other. (page 27)

Sommer later applies this model to a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible, but I want to draw attention to another parallel, in John's Gospel:
17:11 καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι πάτερ ἅγιε τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς. 12 ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου οὓς δέδωκάς μοι ἐφύλαξα . . . (Morphological Greek New Testament)

17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name -- the name you gave me -- so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me . . . (New International Version)

A bold, but careful hermeneut might venture to read this as meaning that the Son is the Name of the Father, analogous to how Astarte is the Name of Baal. Ben doesn't comment on these two Johannine verses, but I see by looking ahead that he later cites the Johannine prologue on page 96 in a particularly relevant discussion of John 1:14 concerning the manner in which the divine Word "tabernacled" in the world. Of special interest are Ben's notes 60 through 63 to this point, found on page 239, especially note 63's reference to "Name theology" in the Hebrew Bible, about which I'll comment upon when I've read that material thoroughly. I'd be curious to know what Ben makes of the two verses in John 17, as well as that chapter more generally.

Perhaps we can expect another book?

Labels: , , ,

Monday, October 18, 2010

"I Am That I Am" in the Gospel of John?

God Appears to Moses in Burning Bush (1848)
Eugène Pluchart
Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Saint Petersburg
(Image from Wikipedia)

About a week ago, I posted a hermeneutic on John 17:11b, speculating on the possibility that the verse should be read as meaning that the Son bears the Father's name, i.e., "Yahweh":
Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.

Holy Father, keep them in Your Name, which You have given me, that they may be one as We are.
My suggestion was that the clause "Your Name, which You have given me" implies that the Father has given His Name to the Son. Since that post one week ago, my Uncle Cran has reminded me that John 8:58 rather clearly identifies Jesus with Yahweh:
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am.
As Uncle Cran notes, this alludes to Exodus 3:13-14 of the Burning Bush theophany, especially to vere 14, where God reveals his name to Moses in a pun on the Tetragrammaton "Yahweh" (יְהוָה):
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶֽהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
There's some debate over how to translate the Hebrew, e.g., "I Am That I Am" or "I Will Be What I Will Be," but the allusion in John's Gospel is fairly clear, as the Septuagint might also suggest:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
The red-fonted expressions are "I Am The Being One" and "The Being One," respectively. While a more rigorous argument would need to be constructed, the evidence -- cf. ἐγώ εἰμι (i.e., "I Am") in John 8:58 and in Exodus 3:14 of the Septuagint -- seems to me to support my suggestion that John 17:11b, in stating "Your Name, which You have given me," implies that the Fourth Evangelist presented the Son as bearing the name of the Father, i.e., "Yahweh."

But I've not yet constructed a rigorous argument, which would be time consuming . . .

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 09, 2010

Tetragrammaton and "Your Name" in John 17:11b?

Crucified Jesus
and the
Tetragrammaton
יְהוָה
Photo by P. Vasiliadis
(Image from Wikipedia)

If the text of the Greek New Testament critically edited under the direction of Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (3rd edition, 1983) has the correct reading, then the Greek of John 17:11b is as follows:
Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.

Holy Father, keep them in Your Name, which You have given me, that they may be one as We are.
The dative case of the neuter singular relative pronoun, ᾧ (hō), should be accusative, ὅ (ho), but this relative pronoun has been attracted to the dative of "Name," ὀνόματί (onomati), according to Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981, page 336).

Anyway, the thought suddenly struck me yesterday that the Fourth Evangelist meant that Jesus has received from the Father the Name of the Father, i.e., "LORD," which in Greek is κύριος (Kyrios) and in Hebrew is יְהוָה (Yahweh). The Gospel of John is written in Greek, of course, and Jesus is often called Kyrios (cf. GJn 1.23; 4.49; 6.23; 34, 69; 9.38; 11.2, 3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13.6, 9, 13, 14, 25, 36; 14.5, 8, 22; [cf. 15.15]; 20.2, 13, 18, 20, 25, 28; 21.7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21), though Jesus is routinely called Kyrios in the New Testament.

By bearing the Divine Name, Jesus would be presented by the Fourth Evangelist as bearing the stamp of God's approved authority and therefore as able to speak authoritatively in the Name of God (cf. GJn 12:13).

Undoubtedly, some clever hermeneut has already noted this interpretive possibility and speculated at lengh upon the point.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

God the Absent Father

Marco Mazzoleni, God the Father?
Not exactly absent...
(Image from Wikipedia)

In an article somewhat flawed by what I consider its partial misapplication of Robert Bellah's findings in Habits of the Heart, the prison chaplain Charles Colson remarks:
When I walk through the nation's cellblocks, I speak to kids about God the Father. They look at me as if I'd said a dirty word. Most don't know who their father is. They're like feral children, devoid of any kind of moral instruction. (Charles Colson, "Community of Memory," Christianity Today, October 2007)
I don't think that this reaction is due so much to "radical individualism" -- which is what Colson takes from Bellah and uses to explain criminality -- as it is to absent fathers.

Now, these absent fathers might be radical individualists, yet they might not be, so I'd be careful about drawing too direct a connection on that point.

But I can understand the kids who react to the word "father" as though it were a "dirty word," for this word "father" lacks the resonance for me that it has for those who grew up with present, caring, reliable fathers.

"God the Grandfather" sounds better to my ears. I can't vouch for the kids in prison...

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Milton's God: Freedom and Necessity

(As Mounted on Wikipedia)

On the Milton Listserve, the scholar John Rumrich has noted that Milton's God acts freely in all that he does:

[It] is certainly correct to say that the Son plays no necessary part. Milton unequivocally asserts in Christian Doctrine 1.5 that even the Son's generation occurs freely, according to the Father's sovereign freedom. In PL the character of God insists that necessity keeps its distance from him, and the Son voluntarily chooses to do what he will do. The method of salvation they light upon is not the necessary one. It's the one they extemporize, so to speak. I don't see the problem with acknowledging this. Milton never associates the necessary with the praiseworthy so far as I can remember.

This seems correct to me, but I've raised a question on the Milton List that I'd like to reprise here. As John Rumrich has noted, Milton's Father-God is not bound by necessity but acts freely in all things, including in his offer of grace. However ... there may be some things "required by the theology of the poem," e.g., for free grace to be offered, a sacrifice is necessary to preserve divine justice, as PL 3.203-216 informs us:

But yet all is not don; Man disobeying,
Disloyal breaks his fealtie, and sinns
Against the high Supremacie of Heav'n, [205]
Affecting God-head, and so loosing all,
To expiate his Treason hath naught left,
But to destruction sacred and devote,
He with his whole posteritie must dye,
Dye hee or Justice must; unless for him [210]
Som other able, and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.
Say Heav'nly Powers, where shall we find such love,
Which of ye will be mortal to redeem
Mans mortal crime, and just th' unjust to save, [215]
Dwels in all Heaven charitie so deare?

Why is this sacrifice (i.e., the "death for death") necessary for justice to be preserved? Because the Father-God had previously commanded that one eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil must die? -- presumably because, as stated above, one who commits treason through disloyalty to God must die?

But why, in the Miltonic economy of salvation, would God be required by his divine justice to demand a sacrificial death in order to offer his saving grace?

In short, why does Milton think that somebody must die?

Labels: , ,