God Speaking To Persons
In both the Old and New Covenants, there are five consistent ways in which God communicated with persons.
Firstly, through the appearance of God Himself in some way or other, that can be described in the Old Covenant as a Theophany and in the New Testament in the Incarnation itself.
Secondly, God has revealed his message through dreams and visions. Some of which needed translation other which were self contained in terms of meaning.
Thirdly, God has communicated by a mediator in various forms such as a Prophet or an Angel who has received the Word of the Lord and then communicates to a wider group.
Fourthly, through the inspired Text of scripture that is given to persons by the Holy Spirit, received and accepted by the community of God’s people as the God’s Word and then collected, stored and retrieved for use in hearing God’s voice concerning the full council of God’s will for humanity.
Fifth, God embeds truth, that as a concept is to be sociologically and spiritually enforced in a repetitive manner, through the use of sacramental rituals. In the Old Covenant for the nation of Israel God gave the seven Feasts of Yahweh in Leviticus 23: The Sabbath, Feast of Passover, Feast of First Fruits, Feast of Pentecost, Day of Atonement, Feast of Trumpets and The Feast of Tabernacles.
In the New Covenant, for Jewish Christians Christocentric versions of the Feasts of Yahweh. In the non Jewish Christian world other festivals that are not Sacraments developed: Lent, Easter, Pentecost and Advent.
In the New Covenant The Eucharist was introduced by Command for all Christians, whereas the other rituals developed by tradition and through conciliar agreement.
In the Old Covenant there was a rite of passage to be part of the community that partakes in the Sacramental rituals which was circumcision for adult males in the first generation then of infant males in their posterity which was then followed up by a coming of age ritual known as Bar Mitzvah for males and Bat Mitzvah for females.
In the new Covenant the rite of passage was Baptism for adult men and women in the first generation and then of infant males and females in their offspring followed by a coming of Age ritual for both males and females referred to as Confirmation.
In the history of both the Old Covenant the revelation of God as Theophany and in the New Covenant in the Incarnation were instigated by God according to His own will. God was not and is not like deities in many pagan religions summoned as a result of actions and rituals designed to “Bring Him down”.
In the Old and New Covenant the role of the mediator was to communicate specifically concerning events or to interpret the Scripture. The Scriptures in both Old and New Covenant were the ultimate authority for what God has said concerning the full spectrum of an Old Covenant or New Covenant Worldviews.
In the area of God given ritual or sacrament the people of God in the Old and New Covenant were commanded to participate as a means of entering into either “Pictures of Participation” or in the case of the Eucharist as an ontological meeting place for the real presence of Christ and His Church Universal meeting together in unity in a ceremonial ritual. All of these revelations are in themselves held accountable to inspired scripture as the point of reference for authority and authenticity.
Revelation Within Dialectic Containers
These revelations always function inside of a dialectic or a working unity of paradoxes.
The two aspects of this dialectic is a God who brings judgement and the same God who brings redemption and healing. The whole concept of Mercy and Judgement functioning together is the Meta narratives of Scripture. James 2:13 (ESV) “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
The focus of this research is to see the role of the Ritual in the life of the Church and specifically to identify in the Ritual Meals of scripture the Beauty of God’s Holiness draws us to His presence to be Children who love him.
Distinctive Realities At Work In Ontological Christian Ritual
When looking at Revelation in both the Old and New Covenants there is a distinction between that which is known ontologically at the phenomenological level and that which is processed in a different space in a persons consciousness in the rational cognates that function in non kinaesthetic epistemic functioning. In short, “knowing” by ritual is a different form of “knowing” reading, hearing or seeing. The “knowing” of all Christian ritual is characterised by five attributes: (i) Organic Aesthetics, (ii) Childlike Perception, (iii) Theurgic Liturgy, (iv) Cosmogenic Reconciliation and (v) Eucharistic Community.
It is important to define what could be called the aesthetic principle. Firstly, it demands beauty to be the focal point of the principle. Aesthetics are not about art renditions but rather about the presentation of, the perception of object and its relationship to Beauty.
In this series of Teaching Modules Beauty relates to how God and his Word is portrayed by beauty to his creation. The relationship can be in correspondence to the creation itself or even God Himself but very specifically as it connects and interfaces with the concept of beauty.
The term Organic Aesthetic is used by way of placing the Aesthetic within what is real or ontological. Non Organic Aesthetics could be perceivably be constructed by the beauty attached to ideas. Organic Aesthetics is the delivery of beauty through that which actually exists. It does not demand form in the sense of a matter but usually it does involve form. The presence of the Spirit is ontological and yet is not matter and yet can have an aesthetic value.
Aesthetics from a Christian standpoint are often multi sensory in their construction. For example the Eucharist at a High Church Mission service would involve the presence of incense, the light of candles, the sound of chants or singing, the taste of bread and wine in the mouth. This would or could be enhanced by the reflection of the candles on a brass ornament, the movement of vestments that effect the motion of the incense, the sun or even moon shining through the coloured stain glass window and the sounds mixing that are then reflected off the marble pillars in the Church. The actual event is the meeting of God and man as was promised by the Lord in the breaking of the bread and taking the wine. That meeting of God and Man though travels along the aesthetics described. There would be a strong case that within the phenomenological realm that some kind of space evolves, grows or is created that involves both the eternal and finite time with individual consciousness creating the sanctuary of the meaning of the event.
Hans Urs von Balthasar has been able to elucidate this principle so effetely when he writes,
“The form of Jesus Christ does not stand in isolation before the gaze of the believer. On the contrary: in an inextricable manner, Christ’s form is imbedded into a context of truths which constitute the content of Jesus’ preaching and which, in a variety of ways, situate this preaching both historically and dogmatically.”1
Within a similar context Adrienne von Speyr writes of how all the manifestations of God in Christ are connected in some way to the sacraments.
“It is not by chance that water is turned into wine, for later the wine will be turned into blood. In every one of the Lord’s miracles, a link with the sacraments become visible.”2
Childlike Perception - The Rejection Of The Mechanistic Rational
This event just described is by nature an experience that does not fit into a mechanistic rational framework. It is an appeal not to intellect but to childlike wonder at the phenomenological level. Curiosity demands the subject searches and hunts for a specific goal. Wonder is very much a response to a given aesthetic revelation. The most sacred of moments within the Christian milieu is without doubt the sombre preoccupation with the redemptive suffering of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross. That focus through is perceived at its highest with the simplicity of innocence and childlikeness.
Cosmogenic Reconciliation - Confession As Ruptured Time and Space
Confession has three primary levels in our understanding of Spiritual Formation, (i) I confess my sins to God privately and in person, (ii) I seek the assistance of a Priest in walking with me in the confession of my sins to God, (iii) I join with a group at the Eucharist to confess my sins, make things right with someone I may be out of fellowship with, and receive forgiveness by faith as the words of absolution are given in the liturgy.
It is the latter that is of importance for this study. I am confessing sins myself, receiving forgiveness for my sins in the midst of a meal between God and Man that places its focus upon the healing power of the Blood of the Cross.
The word Cosmogenic is used as this event, the Eucharist, is a place of participation and symbolic of the meta participation that every believer is involved with which is working towards both Theosis of the person and the restoration and union of the seen and unseen worlds.
Theurgic Liturgy - Process Healing
The Sacrament Of The Eucharist is by its nature liturgical and one could say is the centrepiece of all Church liturgies.
What is unique to the Eucharistic liturgy is that it is given as a meeting place between God and man and is given a privileged place in terms of the presence of Christ being ontologically present in the liturgy. The presence of God in Christ by the Spirit has by its essence a power to heal. The sacrament does not nourish at this level it heals. This healing is also Theurgic in that it is a real and actual healing that takes place.
It is of course not a crisis healing, although that does take place on occasion, rather it is healing process as the Eucharist itself is a picture of Salvation being a process rather than either a crisis or some kind reified entity to obtain and possess.
The Eucharistic Community - Participation in the unity of all that is in heaven and earth
The vast corpus of writing concerning the Eucharist has such abundant and rich content that even in a more advance research project it is difficult to do anything other than skim the surface of the material. For our purposes in this research the focus is placed upon the role of the Eucharist on a Community.
Conceptually, more from the East than the west, there is a long tradition of teaching that when we meet together at the Eucharist Meal we are meeting the Lord Jesus but also, mysteriously by faith, the whole body of Christ as well. Running this as a schemer one can say that the Lord Jesus never separates from his Body the Church and thus when and wherever he is uniquely present in some mysterious and yet real way the whole Church is present with him.
The implications of this teaching is vast and brings forward a series of questions that need to be answered.
1. If the Lord Jesus is present with His whole body is there any reason for any other member to object to being present with Christ’s whole body?
2. If Christ does not reject fellowship with a particular group or an individual, is there any acceptable reason for anyone to reject fellowship with a group or person who Christ extends fellowship to?
The implications of this thinking leaves a very narrow binary environment to function within. The only reason to exclude in the broad sense, the caveat being at the local level concerning sin and lack of repentance, is to claim that a group or individual is simply not a member of the Body of Christ.
Sadly, this latter has been the route taken in terms of the major branches of Christianity. In short, the statement would be made we are not in communion because “they” are not true members of the body of Christ.
The Eucharistic Community stands strongly against these political and power based assumptions that are so often made.
God Has In These Last Days Spoken To US By His Son
The Lord Jesus is the Incarnate son of God and the unique Theophany of the New Covenant. He revealed and continues to reveal Himself by dreams and visions to persons. He used scripture as means of sharing his heart and mind for persons and he mediated that scripture with interpretation. He instituted a sacramental means of “Knowing” in the Eucharist. The five earlier mentioned types of Revelation were not abolished by the coming of Christ as Messiah but rather He embodied them.
It is incumbent on His Body the Church to be obedient to the framework of revelation that was established in the Old Covenant and affirmed and continued in the New Covenant.
The focus of this research is Sacramental Liturgy and the importance of its restoration in bringing sacred divine order to its proper place within the church especially as it relates to the mission of the Church being to the new subaltern partitions. Whilst stating that it is important to stress that any Theology that over emphasises one type of revelation over another will create imbalance with the common life of the Church.
Third Transcendental Eros As The Starting Point of The Gospel
When von Balthasar makes the claim that he sees, “truth as a transcendental property of Being, truth which is no abstraction, rather the living bond between God and the world.” He forces the notitia, assensus and fiducia of Reformation Theology into a corner. He forces Truth into the linguistic schemer of kalokagathia when he says, “Beauty is the last thing which the thinking intellect dares to approach, since only it dances as an uncontained splendour around the double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.” 1
MELCHISADEK THE DECONSTRUCTION OF MYTH AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF REALITY BY A RHYZOMATIC FRAMEWORK
A multi-dimesional rhizomatic hermeneutic is based upon the concept that in the realm of spirituality there are multiple dimensions at work most of them unseen, in the realm of spirit, but also in the realm of material there are layers of unrelated connectivity.
An example is Daniel and his interaction with the Angel who came to him but was resisted by the Demonic force, the Prince of Persia reveals how a dimension unseen and largely unknown effects what is known and seen. The existence of that unseen reality has a direct effect upon the limited scope of three dimensions.
The search for discovering verifiable facts to construct reality becomes a impossible if multiple layers of facts are hidden in the unseen world and are not discoverable other than by faith.
In the case of Melchisadek there is no historiographic definition of his origin, and end in Genesis. Whereas there is greater content it is even more opaque when written of in the book of Hebrews.
In short, a hermeneutic that can not facilitate the vast array of unknown facts about Melchisadek creates a myth which can not be proven as being either fact or fiction.
When Melchisadek is viewed through a Rhizomatic frame that involves multiple unknown variables, contingencies and nominative factuals, the story is contained inside of the “visual thought patterns” that occur.
The Rhizomatic allows the narrative to be placed in a set of multi dimensional realities of the story. Bradley McLean explains,
“Therefore, what I propose is a dynamic, non-deterministic, non interpretive model or process that would enable scholars to view complex networks of relations within which biblical texts are situated. 2
“In the case of the Reformation, the interpretation of the meaning of a particular text consisted of relating it to the meaning of Scripture as a whole, and beyond that, to the whole of classical literature and western knowledge. 3
There is a “locus” that we refer to as Space and Time which has within it a series of factuals that we call historical “facts” for which we have established a feasibility, plausibility and probability index to determine if those facts are verifiable or not.
The “locus” is the full spectrum of facts that are known or have the capacity to be discovered within our three dimensional framework.
This by default creates, concerning the facts, a threshold of possibility that either accepts or rejects the facts as having taken place or not inside of the “locus”.
For example Neil Armstrong could not have been both on the moon and in Huston Texas at 22.56 hours on July 20, 1969. He could not have been on the Moon at 22.56 hours on July 20, 1969 and then 15 minutes later be back in Huston.
His whereabouts would be determined by our stated threshold of possibility. That Threshold of possibility can only be applied to facts that we have knowledge of or can discover.
It is possible the Russians were already on the Moon but in a different place than the Apollo craft.
The details of that “fact” were unknown to everyone in the world with the exception of a small group of Russian scientists. The fact known by the Russian scientists has no relevance unless the fact moves from a theoretical possibility to real which then must pass through our feasibility, plausibility and probability index and then be placed into the Threshold of possibility.
What this means is that what we call verifiable facts does not have to be a reflection of truth in a broader context.
In the ultimate sense as simplistic as the statement is, that even within the limited three dimensional “locus” there is no such thing as verifiable history, all historical narrative is ultimately hearsay.
If we place the biblical person Melchisadek into this framework we create a series of questions important questions.
Is it verifiable that Melchisadek could be a human being without having a mother or father?
Can we verify or reject the premise that there were many more beings like Melchisadek who existed and continue to exist?
The existence of Melchisadek does not fit into the feasibility, plausibility and probability index and as result does not pass any Threshold of possibility tests that we apply unless there is another interpretation to “locus” than the one proffered at the beginning of this illustration.
If we are willing to accept a different view of the universe the whole structure of the possibility threshold has to be redefined.
The position of “locus” throughout the history of ideas has been governed by the concept of a three dimensional environment. As has been stated earlier even within the three dimensional realm there is still only a “probability factor” and no real verifiability.
Several areas of science have moved outside of the three dimensional “locus”. Most specifically quantum mechanics which affirms the existence of a multi-dimensional “locus”.
In the relatively new field of “wave function realism” the attempt is made to reconcile the theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics and our three dimensional experience of reality.
In short, wave function realism proffers that there is a “locus” that encompasses all dimensions, known and unknown. We exist at the metaphysical level within some or all of these dimensions but can only measure our existence within our three dimensional realities.
If we place Melchisadek inside of a wave function reality locus there are multiple applications of a possibility and probability threshold that can be established.
If we were able to create a Theological term for a wave function reality“locus” that fits the multi dimensional parameters we could with confidence state the following proposition which has enormous theological implications.
Since Rene Descartes knowledge has been divided into two areas, that which can be verified, that we call fact and that which can not be verified that we call faith.
Since our understanding of wave function reality the division collapses. What previously was considered is verifiable has now been expanded into infinity and all knowledge now fits a new epistemic context that has no known method of verifiability and turns of all knowledge into Rhizome knowledge.
The obvious epistemic implications are vast. From the positive side this means that new epistemic forms exist and have always existed but we have not accepted them as they did not previously fit our various possibility thresholds or more pragmatically our social constructions of reality.
I would suggest that this is not as traumatic to the Christian view of truth than what first appears on the surface.
Christianity has always affirmed there is a place that we refer to as ruptured time and space. In short the place the three dimensional and the multi dimensional merge.
This place would be classically what we think of when we refer to the Eucharist.
A New Cosmological Paradigm That Embraces The Rhizomatic
I propose it would be helpful to use Sergei Bulgakov’s “Sophia” as the eternal multi universe “locus” and follow his speculative cosmology in our quest for a new epistemic frame to interpret knowledge in and through.
A Wave Function Reality “locus” that we call “Sophia” allows for levels of concrete clarity and yet at the same time it would provide for mystery to be that which would hold concrete clarity accountable.
In real and perhaps populist language the Science of Quantum Physics has emancipated theology from the previous narrow confines of applied and theoretical science.
When looking at similar paradigm but not the scientific realm but in hermeneutics the thinking behind Deleuze and Guatarri has some similar thoughts to those of wave function. Brad Mclean writes,
“In the language of Deleuzian geophilosophy, a 'machine' ( machine ) is anything that connects with anything else in such a way as to produce some kind of flux, flow, or 'lines of flight' (whether physical, intellectual, or emotional), either leaving or entering the machine.”
The idea behind this being that locality becomes important to understand how knowledge emerges in any given situation.
In the case of Melchisadek he exists within a locality rather than just a theoretical place. The “machine” in this case is his hand that moves to pass bread and wine to Abraham. Abraham’s hand is another “machine” that interacts with the hand of Mechizadek. This interaction creates a flow, motion or a wave which Deleuze and Guatarri write releases knowledge.
This interaction is what is real, not the Bible text that contains the narrative but rather the actual transaction of passing bread and wine in the multi dimensional “locus” we shall call “Sophia”.
The text is theoretical the interaction is real. That interaction, hands passing bread and wine needs to be understood in light of all that we know of bread and wine, human physiology and the cultural norms of the context of the interaction.
Why this is important is that knowledge that emerges from the interaction is not built on previous foundations of knowledge but the interaction within the “locus”. This knowledge is autonomous and not restricted to the limited foundations of knowledge whether they be in a dialectal form or not.
In real terms that the interaction, hands moving bread and wine has multiple levels of meaning. In fact one could say that the possibilities around that one wave are infinite.
When we add the infinity that is involved in the possibilities of multiple dimensions then the wave of bread and wine moving from hand to hand becomes unimaginable in terms of infinite commutation and permutation.
From a Christian perspective if we place Christ in the midst of this frame everything changes.
There are two structures that can and in fact do exist. (i) All that is uncreated as a something and (ii) all that is created as a something.
There is that which is preexistent and uncreated, which is God in Person and Essence and then that which is created which is God’s created energies taking on various forms.
The schemer though has one possible “exception world” attached to it and that is that in the incarnation of the Eternal Logos there is a hyperstasis that transcends the uncreated essence and the created energy.
In short, the eternal Logos, uncreated essence, entering by the spirit into the physical womb of the Theotokos (created energy) forms and brings to birth what is often referred to as the God-Man. That God man is the Lord Jesus Christ the incarnate son of God.
Separate to but certainly connected is the totality of the Humanity of Mary who we refer to as the Theotokos. Her human totality, unless it was simply an agnostic container, was like the Incarnate son of God, transformed into something also unique. It is impossible to be dogmatic but the idea that Mary served a purpose in bearing the Son of God and then went back to life as normal has a probability level of zero. One can argue strongly that there is another unique “locus” within “Sophia” that being Mary the Mother of Jesus.
It is only the incarnate Christ though, who is able to function as an equal hyper static union in both the created and the uncreated realms.
The Locus Expands With the Birth of the Church
At Pentecost that Hyperstasis of the Logos is enlarged when the Holy Spirit enters into the first group of Apostles and in so doing causes an ontological shift whereby they, the Apostles become the “Corpus” of Christ thus extending His God-Man ontological being into God-Man-Spirit-Corpus.
The presence of Christ in his Body is the agency for all that relates to the will of God in heaven and earth. In short, the authority that belongs to Christ seated at the right hand of the Father is exercised by agency through His Corpus, His Body the Church.
The three dimensional boundaries have been fully transgressed by the existence of this God-man-Spirit-Corpus and any attempt to force the common life of the Church restricted to a three dimensional reality can only lead to an incorrect error based understanding of the construction of reality.
The Church functions at the multiple dimension level but processes all information inside the three dimensional level.
The existence of Meclchisadek, not the story about him but actually he himself pushes theology into a very interesting place.
There are two specific and probably more expressions,
1. A Melchizadek creates a Sacrament of Bread and Wine that has an eternal meaning attached to it. In the case of Melchizadek it is a type or shadow a similar but unique Sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Melchisadek creates by his existence the rule of a “locus” outside of three dimensional traditional time and space. In that “locus” our Lord Jesus Christ as the only mediating reality between uncreated essence and created energy constructs a sacrament that expands to fill all that is seen and unseen.
His constructed Sacrament involves a set of characters that we find are The Incarnate Son of God and all Christians both living and dead meeting in “Sophia” wave function reality.
This endorses and enforces the concept of the world of matter being the place or substance of spiritual energy we can call a Sacramental interpretation of life.
An example of this is in Matthew 25, “If you do it to the last of these, you do it to me.” Christ dwells, by the Spirit in the poor, and expresses love for the poor via the agency of His Corpus, The Church.
2. A similar model can be constructed concerning, what is the Church? Equally what is a Christian? If we interpret those two questions by the various hermeneutics since the Reformation we come to conclusions based upon “facts”. What a person believes and practices being passed through a possibility threshold test. The Text of scripture moves from being a means of revealing the truth to some kind of magic gnostic writing.
If we push those two questions through a “Sophia” wave function realism we interpret those questions differently.
You can claim to the watching world you are a Christian if you love all other Christians. If you do not love all Christians you have no right to claim being Christian before the watching world.
In our three dimensional frame work you can know that you love the Church by the humility with which you serve the Church. In the wider frame when you hold the bread and wine in your hands, using the Melchisadek the unseen is as viable as the seen, you are connecting with the symbols of the body and blood of Christ united in the spirit with all Christians in heaven and on earth.
THE ONTOLOGICAL SHIFT THROUGH KINISTHETIC PRAXIS
Abraham At the Oaks of Mamre
The Biblical narrative in Genesis 18, is the first of the overtly Sacramental allegories in the Old Covenant scriptures. It is the first record of God eating in the presence of man that which had been prepared for him. In this narrative the foundations of what would become Sacramental theology are laid.
The idea of preparing food for the gods was common practice in the pagan religions of the area.
They set before the gods the ritual portion of beef and the ritual portion of mutton.111
They set before the gods seven standard loaves,122 seven dried cakes, and two dried cakes with fruit.
They fill goblets with wine.k3
The great distinction between Yahweh and the other gods was that he appeared, was seen and actually ate the food prepared for him. The pagan gods did not appear and the food if eaten would be eaten on their behalf by a priest or mediator. The concept of presence is very important in early Israelite history as the core of God’s dealing with persons was that he “tabernacled among us”.
22.214.171.124 THE TEXT Genesis 18:1-8
Origen gives a detailed allegorical interpretation, “Three men, therefore, come to Abraham at midday; two come to Lot and in the evening. For Lot could not receive the magnitude of midday light; but Abraham was capable of receiving the full brightness of the light.”
Origen then builds on this allegory of explaining that the Lord is with Abraham who represents Mercy and the two Angels who represent the destruction that is about to come to Sodom, come to Lot, “observe that the Lord also was present with Abraham with two angels, but two angels alone proceed to Lot.” 5
Origen then develops the theme further by revealing the words of the Angels to Lot. “And what do they say? “The Lord has sent us to consume the city and destroy it.” He, therefore, received those who would give destruction. He did not receive him who would save.” 6
Origen then emphasises that Abraham embodied a relationship with God that drew upon both Judgement and Mercy. “But Abraham received both him who saves and those who destroy.”7
Derek Kidner develops this theme when he writes, “The noon encounter in this chapter and the night scene at Sodom in the next are in every sense a contrast of light and darkness. The former, quietly intimate and full of promise, is crowned by the intercession in which Abraham’s faith and love show a new breadth of concern. The second scene is all confusion and ruin, moral and physical, ending in a loveless squalor which is even uglier than the great overthrow of the cities.”8
In Abraham’s case the critical point for this study is that he “Saw God”. In response to seeing God he joyfully runs to meet with the strangers and then prepares a meal of hospitality in which both God and man together partook of food.
This idea of “Seeing God” holding to the idea that this was an Old Covenant Theophany and that the Eternal Logos saw Abraham rejoicing in His presence, fits well with the passage in John 8:56 (CSB) "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad."
Caesarius of Arles makes this point in his commentary on Genesis.
“The vision and discernment of Abraham delighted him; he was clean of heart, so that he could see God. Therefore in such a place and in such a heart the Lord can have his feast. Of this vision our Lord spoke to the Jews in the Gospel when he said, “Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 9
The first act of Abraham is run to and then bow down before God who is standing before him. He then gives instructions for a meal to be prepared. Before they eat Abraham washes the feet of the travellers.
This is clearly a picture of John 13, where the Son of God extends synkatabasis (condescension) to his disciples by taking the role of the servant. In Chapter 13 we read,
“ You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.”
The meal that has been participated in becomes the means or the agency by symbol, of Jesus becoming a friend to His disciples. The whole Upper Room redemptive drama is saturated in the symbolism of Genesis 18 with Abraham and the Lord becoming friends by the Fellowship meal.
That Friendship meal with God and His creation speaks to profound sense of that, a Holy God which can not be one by nature, a mortal fallen man, becomes one by intervention by the infinite eternal Lord. The very act of mutual hospitality is a picture of the Grace and Goodness of God towards man in his potentially unfulfilled desire to meet with God.
Sergei Bulgakov writes that the very fact Jesus calls His disciples friends represents an aspect of the Incarnation that is fundamental to our faith. His statement of friendship means that the ineffable mystery of God himself as Divine person, not just his represented energies is able to be in union with his creation. He writes“The Lord calls the apostles His friends and in their person summons every soul to co-friendship, to reciprocal personal love with Him.”10
Through the washing of feet in both Genesis 18 and John 13 the act of humility surrounds and sets the emotional context of the meal that is served.
This friendship that is given by God to man is not legal in a representative way but is an ontological reality and as Hans Boersma states,
“God's hospitality is rather unlike human hospitality, The Greek fathers marked this infinite difference between our hospitality to God and his hospitality to us by means of the distinction between philoxenia (hospitality) and synkatabasis (condescension). The term philoxenia derived from philos (friend) and xenos (stranger) describes the stranger turning into a friend. As the opposite of xenophobia (fear of foreigners), philoxenia is a virtue that counters our isolationist inclinations." 11
To outline the text into a short working explanatory model it reads, (i) God is revealed to Abraham as the Lord who has authority to grant Mercy and execute Judgement. (ii) When God is seen, Abraham responds by running to Him without fear and falling down with a sense of awe. In so doing he is aware of the authority to judge and (iii) he does not stay prostrate but rather prepares a meal. (iv) That meal is preceded by Abraham washing the feet of the travellers. (v) Abraham and the travellers become friends by the meal. Philoxenia is the act of hospitality from man and synkatabasis is the act of condescension from God. The end result is communion in friendship.
(vi) The meeting place of God and man from both their perspectives was the meal. The meal was not a metaphor in the abstract sense of the word it was actual and real. God and man unite in the meal of friendship.
John Chrystostom develops the theme into an exhortation for the Christian to be not just the receiver of synkatabasis but those that extend philoxenia.
“Hence Paul too said, “Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some people have entertained angels all unawares,”referring precisely to the patriarch. Hence Christ too said, “Whoever receives one of the least of these in my name, receives me.” 12
What needs to be emphasised here is that in the face of Judgement and Mercy God seeks to extend “Friendship”. As we look at this Scripture we can see the five distinctive points at work. (i) Abraham “sees” God and the sight of God even though veiled in an anthropomorphic form is beautiful to behold. (ii) The response is a Childlike “running to greet” the strangers, as opposed to concern in the case of danger, (iii) there is clearly a rupturing of time and space as The Eternal Logos makes reference to the encounter with Abraham as is noted by Caesarius of Arles in his commentary. There is also a transactional cosmogenic confession taking place as Abraham deals with the reality of the rationality of God’s promise concerning Sarah giving birth to a son. (iv) The cosmogenic aspect of it is that Abraham by faith participates with God in the realm of the eternal. The liturgical is evident in that the meal that was prepared was detailed and specific with each element having meaning ascribed to it. It was healing in that by eating together God and man become friends. (v) The Eucharistic aspect is, that in the future the nation of Israel as a community are involved, albeit unknowingly, in the actions on their behalf taking place between God and man.
The Promise that Becomes a Covenant
The meal establishes the relationship within its parameters of Mercy and Judgement in the face of love. This is the context for Abraham to receive an enhanced version of the Promises from God he has already received. The promise was a son who would be the seed from out which the Messiah would come and Bless all the nations of the earth.
Abraham was well aware of the importance of direct offspring and would have been knowledgable. Even though the dating of the Instruction of Any has some questions, 18th or 22nd Dynasty the proverb here quoted would have been what Abraham would have collected in terms of his wisdom as he travelled.
Instruction of Any 1:46
Take a wife while you’re young,
That she make a son for you;
She should bear for you while you’re youthful,
It is proper to make people.
Happy the man whose people are many,
He is saluted on account of his progeny.13
The promise of God, the context of family seed and then impossibilities faced with His not being young and having a wife who was not young, was a complex place where only Faith could be applied.
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) – literal
(i) The Peshat of this text is that in real time and space the Eternal enters in the form of an Anthropomorphic Representation of the Triune God and two angels.
(ii) The Anthropomorphic Representation can allow entrance into the ineffable mystery of who God is but is as much dominated by who and what God is not.
(iii) God as Theophany is still a representation that allows persons to come as close as is possible.
(iv) God in this Anthropomorphic Representation uses material, flesh, blood, clothing and the Hebrew language as a means of revealing Himself to Abraham.
(v) If God revealed himself without this Anthropomorphic Representation Abraham would be consumed.
(Vi) God uses symbols, in this case in the form of a human being, to reveal himself to persons.
A Theophany is the perfected Sacrament; created matter taking a material form that contains the Living God.
John Keble assists our understanding of this level of supreme Sacramentality when he writes,
“So, and much more, in the Christian Church. If we kneel, and bow the knees of our hearts, to receive a blessing in the Name of the Most High from His earthly representatives, Father, Priest, or Bishop, how should we do other than adore and fall prostrate, inwardly at least, when the Son of Man gives His own appointed token that He is descending to bless us in His own mysterious way?”14
Remez (רֶמֶז) – allegoric
The Remez of the text is in the form of the many allegories that are identified by the commentators.
(i) Mercy and Judgement are seen with the act of God sharing the meal and thus establishing friendship with Abraham.
(ii) Abraham being the recipient of both the Lord and the Angels. He sees Mercy and Judgement.
(iii) Lot is given only the vision of Judgement with a means of escape. Escape is a different form of mercy than is given to Abraham. Abraham does not need to escape as he enclosed by the love and friendship of God that consumates in God giving the promises in the form of a covenant.
(iv) When Abraham sees God he is not afraid which is a picture of the Beauty of Holiness when approached in innocence.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) – comparative (midrashic)
Using a comparative concept to assist in our understanding we draw from the Incarnation.
The Logos combines, albeit mysteriously, with Mary the young Virgin in Nazareth and in so doing Mary becomes the Theotokis, her son born as a child, the perfect and Holy God-Man our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sod (סוֹד) mystery
When Abraham saw the Lord he entered into the mystery of seeing the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ as the Stranger at the Terebynth of Mamre. The Glory of God is in the Face of Jesus Christ. When Abraham saw the Stranger he beheld the Glory and it did not cause dread but childlike wonder within his adult mind. He can do nothing else other than to run to Him without fear and then fall down before his Lord.
1 11 The noun parṣu (GARZA) means “ritual,” but in this context refers to a specific portion of sacrificed meat, apparently determined by ritual standard.
2 12 Just as the ḫizzibu represents a standard allotment of drink for one person at one meal, so the naptanu provides one portion of bread at a single “meal.”
3 k Exod 29:40; Lev 23:13; Isa 65:11 William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, The Context of Scripture (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–), 428.
4 Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, Homily 6 ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Ronald E. Heine, vol. 71, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 103.
8 Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 142.
9 Caesarius of Arles Mark Sheridan, ed., Genesis 12–50, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 62
10 1 Sergius Bulgakov, “Smith, Thomas Allan,” in Jacob’s Ladder: On Angels, trans. Thomas Allan Smith (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 3.
11 Hans Boersma, Ed. George Westhaver, Transforming Vision, (London, SCM Press, 2018), 86
12 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 18–45, Homily 41 ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Robert C. Hill, vol. 82, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 400.
13 The understanding of this maxim was much advanced by Gardiner’s rendering (1959a:12–14). William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, The Context of Scripture (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–), 111
14 John Keble, On Eucharistical Adoration, Third Edition (Oxford; London: James Parker and Co., 1867), 3
JUDGEMENT AND MERCY EXTENDED TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL
THE PASSOVER MEAL - AN ALLEGORY OF GROUP MERCY AND JUDGEMENT
Central to the Passover Feast and its commemoration was the recognition of both Mercy upon the Nation of Israel and Judgement upon the Egyptians. The narrative is a complex web of interactions between the leadership of Egypt on one hand, Pharaoh, Courtiers (His Government) and Priest/Diviners, and the general population of Egypt that was complicit in the oppression of the Israelites and especially complicit in the murdering of Hebrew new born recounted in the early chapters of Exodus.
The National Sin involved in the oppression of the Hebrews with specific emphasis upon the murder of new born Hebrew children is judged with the collapse of the economy of Egypt through the plagues and a judgement on National Egypt in the killing of the first born in the final plague.4
In the presence of this judgement the Hebrews experienced a national salvation through the institution of the Passover Feast. This feast marks the beginning of the New Nation of Israel with the ritual remembrance annually as the first marker of Israels cultural identity.
Throughout scripture we read of many similar but geographic markers to a work of God. These became places that were revisited and to some extent is the biblical origin of the concept of a Pilgrimage.
Returning to the place where a person met with God is a way “Re-Membering”3 the experience. In the case of the Passover when God tells Moses to make the beginning of the Calendar marked by the time of their deliverance, the marker is in time not place. The same process is at work when on given days we remember specific acts of history that effect our spiritual formation. This reality is a subtext illustration of the form of the liturgical being a “Re-Membering”. To be technical one could state that the birth of Israel as a Nation that had a law, a priesthood and a Messianic notion based on liturgical expressions begins at this Passover point.
Within the following text we have an unfolding by allegory of the Love of God for his creation and yet not avoiding the judgement and punishment that comes from idolatry.
The overall context is in four parts:
1. The prophetic Message from Moses and Aaron to the council of Egypt to allow the slaves to leave.
2. The resistance to that message by the Council made up of Monarchy in the person of Pharaoh, the Parliament of Leaders in the form of the Courtiers and the Priesthood in the Diviners.
3. As a result of the refusal to set the Israelites free God brought a comprehensive judgement upon Egypt.
The Plague of the Nile turning to Blood. Frogs, Lice, Insects, the Death of Live stock through disease, the Plague of Boils, Hail, Locust, Darkness and the Death of the First Born. Every aspect of the culture was ruined by this set of judgements.
4. The Passover as both Sacramental in Symbol and Theurgic in application. Take place in the ritual and there would be life and deliverance, to refuse the ritual would mean death and destruction.
5. The destruction of Physical Egypt in the Plagues, The emotional collapse of the family structure in the death of the first born and the collapse of the spiritual worldview by the defeat of their religious beliefs and practices caused the Egyptians in Pagan appeasement to send away in fear the Israelites by giving them their precious metals and fabrics.
6. The creation of a new community, the community has a date for its beginning, a ritual and liturgy of deliverance is given to the people a rite of passage is established to become part of that community, circumcision.
7. The Red Sea Crossing and Judgement accomplished a series of objectives. Once more the People of God in the embryonic form of Israel experience supernatural deliverance and the enemies of God are destroyed in the presence.
8. The Songs of Praise
The response to the great deliverance was to worship in the form of a pslam sung in some kind of liturgical form. Mary the sister of Moses led the worship with voice and tambourin. One of verses acts as an epicentre for their experience.
In Your love You lead the people You redeemed; In Your strength You guide them to Your holy abode.4
An apt paraphrase of the text may well be made, It is your Love that leads people to yourself to be redeemed and you lead them to where you are in your Holiness.
For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast;
Gregory of Nyssa forces his readers to wrestle with the obvious areas of human injustice. If we are presenting that God evokes from persons a childlike wonder to His revelation and yet observe in this narrative a painful set of judgements evoking dread and horror, how do we reconcile the two?
Asks the question, If such a one now pays the penalty of his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?5
Gregory answers his own question by focusing on the eradication of evil at its source or as he says the beginnings.
For when he slays the beginning, he destroys at the same time what follows after it. The Lord teaches the same thing in the Gospel, all but explicitly calling on us to kill the firstborn of the Egyptian evils when he commands us to abolish lust and anger and to have no more fear of the stain of adultery or the guilt of murder.
Neither of these things would develop of itself, but anger produces murder and lust produces adultery. 6
And if it is necessary to perceive the meaning presented here more fully, the history provides this perception in both the killing of the firstborn and the safeguarding of the entrance by blood. In the one the first impulse to evil is destroyed, and in the other the first entrance of evil into us is turned away by the true Lamb. For when the destroyer has come inside, we do not drive him out by our own devices, but by the Law we throw up a defense to keep him from gaining a foothold among us.7
and I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt, I the LORD.
The idea of breaking the idols is more than just a practical removing of the the objects of false worship.
From the Old Kingdom through the Roman era, priests performed official ritual cursings of the potential enemies of Egypt. The ceremonies included the breaking of red pots1 a and figurines inscribed with formal “Execration Texts” listing Nubians, Asiatics, Libyans, living and deceased Egyptians, as well as generally threatening forces. The texts themselves contain no explicit curses, but instead serve to identify the fate of the enemies with that of the destroyed pot or image.
Rabbinic and Talmudic View of Punish The Gods
The Gemara responds: ….idol worship is also called: God, in the Bible, as it is written: “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exodus 12:12). Therefore, this would not have been a special stipulation in their minds but a misguided intention within the oath itself. Moses suspected this and therefore issued the warning.
The Sages said: There is no nation that is afflicted whose god is not afflicted with it, as it is stated: “And against all the gods of Egypt I will mete out judgment; I am God” (Exodus 12:12). The Gemara adds: When the Jewish people perform God’s will, they need not fear any of these omens, as it is stated: “Thus says the Lord: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of Heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them” (Jeremiah 10:2). The nations will be dismayed, but the Jewish people will not be dismayed, provided they do not follow the ways of the nations.
Targum Jonathan on Exodus 12:12
And I will be revealed in the land of Mizraim in the majesty of My glory this night, and with Me ninety thousand myriads of destroying angels; and I will slay all the firstborn in the land of Mizraim, of man and of beast, and against all the idols of the Mizraee I will execute four judgments: the molten idols shall be melted, the idols of stone be broken, the idols of clay shall he shattered, and the idols of wood be made dust, that the Mizraee may know that I am the Lord.
Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 3:2
Another explanation as to why Jacob did not want to buried in Egypt. He was afraid that the Egyptians might use him as an object of idolatrous worship. Just as punishment is exacted from the worshipper of an idol, so is it exacted from the (idol) which is worshipped, as it is written: And against all the gods of Egypt will I execute judgment (Exod. 12:12).
And the blood on the houses where you are staying shall be a sign for you: when I see the blood I will pass over you, so that no plague will destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time.
The Passover narrative is one of the central features of the Old Covenant.
It is also a very strong and dynamic picture of the Judgement and Mercy dialectic that we have established as the principle idea that governs much of God’s dealings with humanity.
Through out scripture God reminds his People Israel that He is the God who delivered you from our the land of Egypt.
The locus of the narrative, which is full and rich in meaning throughout, is the Passover Meal.
The Lord Jesus in His going to the Cross did so inside of the allegorical timeline of Passover. One of the questions that needs to be answered by this work is why Passover and not The Day of Atonement.
As we look at the text there are several keys that need to be explored.
1. Why did the innocent fall under Judgment in terms of the children, many of them babies and also animals.
2. The Blood that was placed over the door posts represented the Lamb Of God that takes away the sin of the world.
3. The absence of yeast is significant especially in light of the Pentecost festival when yeast was present in the offerings.
4. What did the elements of the meal represent to the Israelites but also to wider meaning.
5. Was what took place Penal Substitution or another atonement model.
It was commanded that the paschal lamb, by whose immolation the people of Israel were freed from slavery in Egypt, should be selected five days before the [feast of] Passover, that is, on the tenth [day of the lunar] month, and immolated on the fourteenth [day of the lunar] month at sundown.
(Jesus) came into God’s temple, and he was there teaching daily. At last, after five days, having observed up to that point the sacraments of the old Passover, he brought them to perfect fulfillment, and he handed over the new sacraments to his disciples to be observed henceforth
We read in Exodus that on the fourteenth day a lamb is sacrificed; on the fourteenth day when the moon is a full moon, when its light is at its brightest. You see Christ is not immolated except in perfect and full light.11
It was fitting for Christ to offer the sacrifice in evening of the day in order that the very hour might show the setting and evening of the world as it is written in Exodus: “And the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall slaughter it in the evening.12
Basil The Great
Moses caused the doorposts of the Israelites to be signed with the blood of a lamb; but you have given us a sign, the blood itself of a Lamb without blemish, slain for the sin of the world.13
IMPUTATION BY FIAT EXPRESSED AS A SACRAMENT
Mephibosheth Eating At King David’s Table
We are introduced to Mephibosheth with the account of how he became crippled as a small child running in fear of David’s retribution against Saul.
4 Jonathan, the son of Saul, had a son who was crippled in his feet. He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel; and his nurse took him up, and fled; and, as she fled in her haste, he fell, and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. 14
Mephibosheth moves to a small city called Lo-debar. Hebrew the name Lo-Debar means “nothing.” 15
There is an allegorical application with Mephibosheth loosing all his inheritance, his ability to walk normally and be located in an a town whose very name represented Nihilism. The town was in an arid desert region.16
Mephibosheth is a picture of existential modern men and women struggling not to loose everything and end up living in abject nihilism.
Extracted from such a difficult set of circumstances Mephibosheth is located and summoned to appear before David. Mephibosheth, who had apparently been dependent up to this point on the hospitality of a generous individual, suddenly became a rich man, the owner of wealth-producing property (cf. 1 Chr. 27:25–31, where David’s estates are listed; Saul’s may have been less extensive but were no doubt ample).17
What follows is an allegory of persons encountering the Living God.
Mephibsheth falls down before David in a sense of defeat, despair and fear. He referred to himself as a dead dog.
David then reaches out to him and tells him he is going to inherit all of his families fortune and the employees to run his new estate.
The enormous ambiguity in the heart and mind of Mephibosheth is difficult to fathom. He was maimed and living in Lo-Debar a place of nothingness because his carers had feared that David would have him put to death. He has no way of rebelling or acting out any anger he may feel internally. At the same time the word that David uses to describe what he wants for Mephibisheth is the Hebrew hesed. Hesed is one of the most comprehensive terms for kindness, loyalty, love, faithfulness and mercy. David is saying to Mephibosheth you think I am going to pour out a curse on you but I have brought you here to this place to experience Hesed.
As the story continues David makes it clear to Mephibosheth that is going to place him by his side at his table and they will eat together.
The allegory for our faith is both rich and nourishing and follows the same pattern as the earlier studies.
Mephibosheth functions at the axes point of Judgement and Mercy. David is the arbiter of that Judgement and Mercy. Mephibosheth is summoned by the Love and Grace of David despite his feelings of unworthiness to receive that Love and Grace.
Conversion takes place as Mephibosheth aware of is inability to earn any kind of favour from David collapses in despair and self loathing. David then reaches out to Mephibsheth and shares with him the blessings and kindness that he wants to pour out upon him in Hesed.
Mephibosheth is then received as a member of the Royal household as he is to sit at dinner with the King everyday.
The allegory expands as David sits with Mephibosheth at his table and extends Hesed to him. The critical theological point is in what the meal represents in a Sacramental sense.
1. David and Johnathan were bound by their Covenant made in 1 Samuel 18.
2. At the meal Mephibosheth is accepted because of the covenantt that David has with Johnathan.
3. When we come to the Eucharist and participate in the blessings and nourishment of the Sacrament we do so because of the Covenant God the Father has made with his Son our Lord Jesus.
4. The blessings of hesed are poured upon him because when David sees Mephibosheth in reality he is seeing Johnathan through the eyes of the Covenant.
5. The hesed blessings that are poured us is the Father sees His Son our Lord Jesus in us and us in Him through the eyes of the Covenant. This concept of the Father seeing the son is of great importance. If we use the Baptism of our Lord Jesus as starting point we can see the structure of the father seeing the son by the spirit and being pleased.
Jesus comes up from the waters of Baptism, the Spirit descends upon him and the Father sees him and declares he is pleased in the sight of his son.
REDEFINITION OF STATUS HIERARCHIES IN THE WEDDING FEAST
The Feast Of Those On Highways And Hedges
θυμός Thymos (Thumos)
The term θυμός is complex as it has gathered through research a more defined description of itself than the word implies. Very often the word is translated as anger, passion, soulishnes, spirited and similar corresponding terms.
Aristotle saw θυμός as able to incorporate all those different yet similar attributes but also sees within θυμός the concept of desire that relates to a form of “desire in recognising” both shame and honour in actions and virtues.
This concept of the desire for honour is one of the central features of the New Testament that the Disciples of Jesus were told to avoid and not seek after.
This concept was so embedded in 2nd Temple Judaism that significant converge is given by Jesus to the subject from the discussions with his Disciples who would be the greatest in the Kingdom to the various parables dealing with the subject.
In Lukes parable of the Wedding Feast this is given a Sacramental perspective. In short, when we come together as a body to eat and celebrate at a Wedding Feast we do so by turning all the status structures of the culture into a reversal of what the dominant cultural value system accepted as normative.
The wedding feast itself is an intricate part of the ceremony of marriage. That ceremony has the outcome of two people becoming united and referred to as one flesh. It is one of the most dramatic ontological shifting experiences known to Judea-Christian thinking.
The guests become part of the ontological shift and as a result the whole structure of ritual becomes a display or thought picture of what is happening to the recipients in this case the bride and groom.
It is also a picture or a type of the marriage of Christ and the Church is prefigured in the Wedding of Cana in Galilee where the first miracle of Jesus took place where Wine id produced from water.
Within 2nd Temple Jewish culture there was an identifiable index of communal status points. The general categories being
Social Position by Wealth
Medals, Diplomas,Trophies symbols of accomplishment
6 On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. 7
14:18. One would think that this man would have examined the land beforehand, even if he had bought it through an agent. The buyer may have been legally obligated to go to complete the purchase; deals were also sometimes made contingent on a later inspection. But like the excuses that follow, this late notice would be heard as a weak excuse that would serve as a grievous insult to the dignity of the host, who had prepared the feast at much expense.
14:19. Having even a total of five yoke of oxen would mean that this man had much land to plow; he must be a wealthy landowner in his own right. It would be inconceivable that he had no one working for him.
Secular titles -
Religious Titles -
Marxist Comrade -
THE SACRAMENT AS OBEDIENCE TO UNVERIFIABLE REALITIES
The Institution Of The Lord’s Supper
The Meal At Emmaus - An Allegory Of Revealing Christ
This unique narrative spoken of in XXXX is unique in what is accomplished at the allegorical level but also in the realm of the literal.
1. The Lord Jesus Himself draws near to the couple walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus. The revelation is not a dream or vision but the real and otological physical presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The two travellers are unaware that is Jesus who is walking with them.
3. Jesus then teaches, interprets and applies scripture for the travellers, And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
4. Their response to this teaching from their own testimony later was “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
5. When they sought Jesus to come and eat with them there eyes were opened,
“When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.”
He was revealed to them in the breaking of bread. The kinaesthetic action of the Lord Jesus taking the bread and breaking it was ritual of what broke through their consciousness to reveal who was with them.
THE TRAUMATIC REASSIGNING OF MEANING TO SYMBOLS
Peter’s Vision Of Unclean Food On The Roof Of His House
INTRODUCTION OF A NEW HUMANITY
The Post Resurrection Meal At Galilee - An Allegory Theosis
MEAL AS A TELEOLOGICAL CELEBRATION
The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb - An Allegory Of The Restoration Of All Things
1 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics I: Seeing the Form, trans. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (San Francisco; New York: Ignatius Press; Crossroads Publications, 2009), 192.
2 Adrienne von Speyr, Water and The Spirit Meditations on Johns Gospel, (San Fransisco, Ignatius Press, 2006), 40
4 Exodus 15:13
5 Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 76
6 Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 76
8 Cp. the biblical “Oracles against the Nations” where the places named become the target of magic or divine action (e.g., Isa 13–27; Jer 45–51; Ezek 25–29; Amos 1–2; Zeph 2; Zech 9).
a a Jer 19:1–11; Amos 1:2–4; Num 22–24
1 William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, The Context of Scripture (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–), 50.
9 Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Ronald E. Heine, vol. 71, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic
10 Bede the Venerable. Homilies on the Gospels. Cistercian Studies 110–111. Translated by Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1991
11 Jerome, Homilies On The Psalms, Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947
12 Cyprian, Letters,63-16 Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947
13 Basil Exegetic Homilies 46:337–38 Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-
14 The Revised Standard Version (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1971), 2 Sa 4:4.
15 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Am 6:13.
16 Lo-debar—no pasture, (2 Sam. 17:27), a town in Gilead not far from Mahanaim, north of the Jabbok (9:4, 5). It is probably identical with Debir (Josh. 13:26). M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893).
17 Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 243.
18 Heb. Hebrew
1 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics I: Seeing the Form, trans. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (San Francisco; New York: Ignatius Press; Crossroads Publications, 2009), 18.
2 Bradley H. McLean Source: Neotestamentica , 2008, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2008), 52
3 Bradley H. McLean Source: Neotestamentica , 2008, Vol. 42, No. 1 (2008), 52
4 Exodus 1:22