A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
1671

I think it is important to distinguish between the temporal order of human history and the timeless order of the heavenly life.

From a historical perspective you are right that the resurrected and glorified Christ come after incarnation.

However, from the timeless perspective of God and those in heaven, incarnation, resurrection, and glorification, although distinct, they are seen at once and not as a temporal sequence of events coming one after the other.

When the apostle John was writing his first letter (1 John) Jesus had already resurrected, and John had seen him several times with his glorious body.

Accordingly, the passage “when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” in 1 John 3:2, is clearly referring to the state we will have in heaven after the last judgement, and therefore it means that those who are in heaven are like the Son of God because they shall see Christ as he is, i.e.: “sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3).

From this it follows that Melchizedek (who is like the Son of God, but is NOT the Son of God) necessarily shares in the state of someone who sees Christ “sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3). As said, all this is perfectly fitting as it happens beyond space and time.

Notice that Jesus Christ himself refers to something similar when speaking about Abraham he claims:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.
‘You are not yet fifty years old,’ they said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’
‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ “
(John 8:56-58).

Here the Patriarch Abraham (in the unseen world beyond) is allowed to know and rejoice in the fact of the Incarnation. Nonetheless his vision is far inferior than that of Melchizedek, since Abraham is not spoken of as “being made like the Son of God”. And contrarily to Melchizedek, Abraham is not said to be “without end of life”: Abraham was not sinless, died, and was in the afterlife waiting for Christ’s resurrection. Melchizedek was sinless, did not die, and was in heaven enjoying the vision St. John describes in 1 John 3:2.

Finally, this interpretation is supported by the messianic Psalm 110 you yourself quote as well:

I would rather say that Hebrews 7 is developing the inspired theology of the messianic Psalm 110, on the basis of Jesus teaching in Matthew 22:42-45:

“What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied.
He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit , calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’
If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

Here Jesus states that David in Psalm 110 is speaking inspired by the Spirit, so that he (David) can hear what God says to the Messiah (Jesus) before the incarnation of Jesus, and this happens manifestly in heaven, beyond space and time).

In Psalm 110 we read as well:

“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’ “

This is not a “metaphorical comparison” between two different priesthoods, but rather a solemn definition that the Messiah, when he comes, will take on the priesthood of Melchizedek and continue this priesthood forever.

This presupposes that the order of Melchizedek is a real priesthood at the moment David is speaking. But how is this possible, if Melchizedek is no longer on earth, and the only order in force at this time is the Levitical one? The author of Hebrews, undoubtedly “speaking by the Spirit” as well, interprets Psalm 110 as a declaration that Melchizedek is “like the son of God”, and so the order of Melchizedek really goes on in heaven: When the son of God became flesh, he became priest in the order of Melchizedek as well.

What “lasts forever” is Melchizedek himself as a human being with his body in heaven, and so lasts his order as well, till it is adopted by Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7:6-8 clearly establishes a strong contrast between the descendants of Levi, who were “people who die”, and Melchizedek, as someone who lived: The Levites were mortal priests and thus inferior to the High Priest Melchizedek, who did not die.

1672

I fully agree with you that infants who have done nothing “wrong” to deserve being damned to hell, in case they die without Baptism, they are NOT damned to hell at all.

Nonetheless, without the grace of Baptism they are stained by sinful propensities and cannot in principle enjoy the vision of God in heaven. In this sense they are “in need of redemption”.

This “being in need of redemption” is common to all humans coming into existence after the first human sin.

The grace of Baptism restores in us the state of original grace and gives us a seed of God’s love we can make grow by fighting against sinful temptations with God’s help.

With these quotations you are arguing that Jesus himself states that children “are not in need of redemption” and can enter the kingdom of Heaven without necessity of being baptized; aren’t you?

I acknowledge this is a very good objection.

I would like to answer as follows:

One can very well interpret Jesus’ words (“Let the children come to me; do not try to stop them”) as an urge to baptize children, since through Baptism we come to Christ, we become the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12: 12, 27).

So, in the passages you quote Jesus is implicitly stressing the necessity of baptizing children in order they can grow as the body of Christ. From these passages it follows also that baptized children go to heaven if they die.

As a final point, one may consider that the state of “being in need of redemption” is permitted by God in order the sinners can remain on earth and get opportunity to repent. In this perspective the passages you quote can be interpreted in the sense that God applies the grace of Christ to those who die without having they themselves sinned and without baptism, to satisfy their need of redemption, “by analogy with the gift of salvation given sacramentally to baptized infants”.

1673

This confuses the timeless perspective of God with the time-bound perspective of human beings, even after death (whatever sort of existence that entails). Only God is outside time. As limited creatures, we necessarily will change with experience, which means even in the glorified state we will continue to experience time as a succession of moments.

Even those witnesses who preceded Jesus in death did not see Christ “sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” until it occurred on Earth after his temporal resurrection. As the martyrs beneath the throne of God in heaven ask, “How long until our blood is avenged…?” They are not in a timeless existence, but are awaiting something. 1 John 3:2 refers to Christ’s return to Earth, and as you say “the state we will have in heaven after the last judgment.”

Even in heaven, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God, the saints await the parousia and the last judgment. Just as they await their own resurrection. Only God is outside time.

I’ll try to return to Melchizedek tomorrow.

1674

Antoine,
I don’t know how to respond to your response to my post regarding Jesus’ special attention to children? It’s all religion.There is nothing in your response that reflects the narrative integrity of the Biblical text. Children don’t acquire the knowledge of good and evil from birth, the knowledge of good and evil comes as they develop a sense of “self.” Signs of the self are spoken language and self-referential statements. I think you are saying that Jesus’ loving attention to children was due to their coming baptism and not at all because the child cannot sin? You are ignoring the bio for the logos. you should be able to see the bio in the logos if you are to reconcile religion and science. You have to cover both perspectives, not just one. There is only biologos. There cannot be a bio alone or a logos alone to reconcile science and religion.
To stay on track, I try not to ignore the biology of religion in my posts.

1675

I apologize for the lack of clarity.
The idea I try to convey is precisely that “it was NOT all at the same exact moment”.

This implies obviously that there was an epoch where there were two types of Homo sapiens on earth: one consisting of human beings “in the image of God”, and another type of creatures “not (yet) made by God in the image of God”.

Since we acknowledge that today all Homo sapiens are in the image of God, we must admit as well that:

  1. There is an exact moment T in history such that after T there is only one type of Homo sapiens on earth, consisting of human beings in the image of God.

Additionally, for reasons of attribution of rights and sanctity of marriage, we must admit also that:

  1. Before moment T God arranged things so that human beings in the image of God NEVER lived together with sapiens creatures NOT made in the image of God.

It seems to me that these two Statements 1 and 2 are truths we should hold tightly, rather than guesses we can hold very loosely.

I would be thankful to know whether you may share this view too, and we find common ground for this conversation.

1676

I agree with you that the huge number of “witnesses” referred to in Hebrews 11, the “martyrs” referred to in Revelation 6:9, and more in general the saints in heaven “await the Parousia and the last judgement”, and do not YET see Christ the way referred to in 1 John 3:2, i.e.: “as he is”, “sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 110:5).

But none of these saint people is referred to as “being made like the Son of God”.

Melchizedek is the only one deserving such an appellative.

So it is fitting to conclude, in agreement with 1 John 3:2 and Hebrews 1:3, that at the moment Melchizedek appears to Abraham he is already in heaven seeing Christ “as he is”.

1677

I think this is stretching what is essentially a metaphor, “image of God” (literally God’s representatives), to a level of precision it probably wasn’t meant to bear. Image of God is a corporate designation, not an individual designation. I don’t think it’s true that you could zoom in at a point in time and designate on an individual level “he is image of God” she is not “image of God.” Humanity in a corporate sense represents God on earth. I think that makes sense looking backward at human history as an explanatory frame for our “story,” I don’t think it makes sense as some kind of taxonomic category for branches of the Homo sapiens family tree. That strikes me as overly literalistic and concordist and making Scripture do something it wasn’t intended to do and puts you in a position of trying to explain ridiculous hypotheticals about who interbred with whom.

I don’t think “image of God” is something essentialist to humanity, a way of being created. I think it is a calling. If we have to speak of moments of time, then from the moment of the calling, all humans everywhere are called to represent God. Some don’t know this. Some don’t do it.

4 Likes
1678

Your post quotes extensively Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:1-7 and Matthew 19:13-14.

I try to interpret these passages taking account of the complete text and in the light of other biblical verses, precisely “to reflect the narrative integrity” of Jesus’ words.

I am saying that Jesus’ loving attention to children was due to the fact that to be “the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” one has to become like “these little ones who have faith in me ”.

You are apparently overlooking the part in bold, and disregarding “the narrative integrity of the Biblical text”!

In fact, through Baptism children are supposed to “receive infused as a seed the faith in Jesus Christ”. Christ’s urge “Let the children come to me; do not try to stop them; for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these”, was soon understood by the first Christians as part of the commandment “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

I am not ignoring “the bio for the logos” but rather highlighting the importance of the “bio” to better understanding the “logos”: As evolved animals we all inherit the evolutionary selfish mechanisms and urges, which within humans without the original grace infect our souls and become perverse tendencies (very much like a virus infects a host with immunodeficiency). The grace of Baptism restores the state of original righteousness in us (heals our spiritually inherited immunodeficiency) and makes us capable of growing as part of Christ’s body, provide we want to and look for our health.

This means that infants who die after being baptized will enter the kingdom of Heaven and be there like the greatest.

By contrast this does NOT mean at all that infants who die without Baptism are damned to hell:

What is more, according to my explanation after the first sin God let all humans to come into existence lacking original grace, and therefore “being in need of redemption”, because God ardently desires “to have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32); in other words, the so called “state of original sin” is eminently “relational”.

Therefore, God can very well cancel “the need of redemption” from infants who die without Baptism, as they are no longer living within “a sinful humanity”, i.e.: “a humanity in need of redemption”. But he could as well let such infants to be born again, as tehy have not yet been judged.

God engraves in the heart of all humans since the very moment they come into existence “the knowledge of good and evil”, basically the principle established in Genesis 9:3, 5-6, or “the Golden rule”. This principle is a moral archetype present in the corporate subconscious-conscious of humanity, a universal divine revelation across all cultures and civilizations.

Nonetheless as you rightly claim, children cannot sin as long as they are not self-conscious.

1679

Thank you, Antoine.

1680

Thanks for this Christy.

It seems to me that the two following claims contradict each other:

I would be thankful if you could clarify your position:

Are the homo sapiens creatures called to be in the image of God all at the same moment, YES or NO?

Notice that the call to be in the image of God surely means to be called to represent God, as you rightly say, but also that each human being in the image of God is accountable toward God and the humankind for harming other human beings in the image of God (Genesis 9:3,5-6).

1681

I guess a “calling” applies in some respects only when one receives it. So sure, at a moment in time, God called some segment of humanity to bear his image and at that moment the calling was open to the rest of humanity as well. But whether or not different populations can fulfill the calling depends on whether or not they’ve “heard” it and I don’t think God was required to reveal himself and his calling equally at the same moment to all humans on the planet, nor do I think all humans are accountable in the same ways from some magical moment on. I think all this image of God language is describing corporate human relationship and partnership with God in his mission, and different populations experienced that revelation and relationship differently and at different “moments.”

I don’t think it’s helpful to conflate the calling to be “image of God” with original innocence or sin and the Fall.

Yes, but does accountability to God’s law apply to those to whom God’s law has not yet been given? When in time are humans “judged”? Are all humans accountable in the same way from some moment on? I don’t think so. I think some of their accountability depends on the level of revelation they have received and their relationship with God.

1682

The “image of God” refers to a specific characteristic that is unique to the human race. A calling refers to a specific person who has received a message from God, or has been chosen by God for a particular purpose.

1683

Could you please explain what do you mean by the term “the human race”?

In particular, how do you relate “the human race” to the biological species homo sapiens?

Thanks in advance.

1684

The human race is us. Biological classifications are irrelevant to the image of God that is characteristic of the human race.

1685

Good questions!

In my view, Genesis 9:3,5-6 promulgates the universal prohibition of homicide by God, and the reason given for this prohibition is that “God made humankind in the image of God”.

So, Genesis 9:3, 5-6 clearly entails that from this very moment on, each homo sapiens individual is accountable toward God and toward humankind for killing another homo sapiens individual, but not for using animals for food.

As I have argued in previous posts, an accurate analysis of the narrative structure in Genesis 9:3, 5-6, in the light of the available scientific data, allows us to establish that the declaration of Genesis 9:3, 5-6 happens in the Neolithic, i.e.: later than 12,000 BP and not later than 5,300 BP.

I agree. I endorse the position that before the declaration by God in Genesis 9:3, 5-6, God’s law was given to only one segment of homo sapiens living in ANE. So for instance, Cain and all “the corrupt and violent people” referred to in Genesis 6:11-12, belonged to this segment and for this reason they were judged by God. By contrast, at this same time, homo sapiens creatures in America or Tasmania may have killed each other without being accountable for this.

Sure, but I dare to repeat:

To overcome tendencies to discrimination and racism (sadly present in history over and over again) it is crucial to accept that today all populations on the planet have the dignity of being in the image of God and therefore deserve the right to life, according to Genesis 9:3,5-6. And therefore we cannot help accepting as well that from a certain time in history on all populations on earth (the ancestors of today’s populations) have the dignity of being in the image of God, called and ordered to “the kingdom of heaven”.

The declaration of Genesis 9:3, 5-6 can be considered a universal revelation God engraves in the heart of each human being coming into existence, and therefore an archetype of morality and law contained in the collective (corporate) subconscious of humanity.

In summary, I get the impression that we basically agree in the main points and would be glad if you could confirm this.

1686

On the main points, sure. :slight_smile:
I also think it’s unwise to try to designate some human populations as “image of God” and others as not.

3 Likes
1687

I fear you are begging the question, and dare to ask more precisely:

Are the Native Americans, Africans and Tasmanians in the 16th century “human race in the image of God”?

Are the Palestinians, Romans, and Greeks at the time of Jesus-Christ “human race in the image of God”?

Are the Sumerians and Egyptians at the dawn of civilization “human race in the image of God”?

Are the painters of Lascaux and Altamira “human race in the image of God”?

Are the Neanderthals “human race in the image of God”?

Are the people buried in Sungir “human race in the image of God”?

Do the skulls found in Jebel Irhoud originate from people who are “human race in the image of God”?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

1688

The idea that Melchizedek was a contemporary of Adam and Eve (the first human sinners) who did not sin, is reinforced by considering where the extraordinary priesthood of Melchizedek may come from.

On the one hand, “Melchizedek is the first priest named in Scripture”. He is “a priest of God Most High”, who blesses Abram “by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.” (Genesis 14: 18-19). This description directly links to Genesis 1:1.

On the other hand, Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7:3 stress the likeness of Melchizedek and the Son of God, and thereby link to Genesis 1:26, where God says “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.”

All this suggests that Genesis 1:26 marks the origin of the priesthood Melchizedek is invested with.

Which kind of priesthood is this?

To answer this question, the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor is helpful: God entrusted to man, created in his image and likeness, the mission of unifying the cosmos. And just as Christ unified the human being in himself, the Creator unified the cosmos in man (see here).

St. Maximus’ theology has been defined as “cosmic liturgy”. In Genesis 1:26 God invests each human being with the task of representing God on earth and participating to the grow of God’s people and kingdom. The creation of humankind means at the same time the institution of a universal priesthood.

One could also consider that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice aims ultimately to achieve that humankind becomes like God by becoming the body of Jesus Christ. As St. Maximus’ “cosmic liturgy” suggests, this was the aim of the creation of humankind after all.

So, it is fitting to relate Melchizedek’s priesthood to the universal priesthood God establishes at the very creation of humankind in the image of God. In this light, the statement “you are priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” would mean that Jesus Christ restores the primeval universal priesthood that went lost after the Fall. Such an interpretation is clearly supported by (1 Peter 2:9): “you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.”

The idea that Melchizedek is a sinless person is actually conveyed by the strong statement that he is “made like the Son of God” (Hebrews 7:3). In fact, this idea has motivated interpretations proposing that Melchizedek is one of the divine persons: An appearance of the Holy Spirit (Ambrosiaster), similar to the appearance of the three Visitors in Genesis 18:1-2 (when “The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre”); or a preincarnate manifestation of Jesus Christ (Gnosis).

As said, such interpretations are not fitting: Since Melchizedek is High Priest, he has really to be a true human being, and thus cannot be the Holy Spirit. But neither can Melchizedek be Jesus Christ himself, as this would entail a violation of the temporal order in human history, and thereby one would support the gnostic belief that Jesus Christ has no true human body.

By contrast, the explanation that Melchizedek is one of the primeval humans (contemporary of A&E) who did not sin, entails straightforwardly the idea conveyed by Hebrews 7:3: Melchizedek is a sinless human being, as he is “made like the Son of God”, because he is seeing the Son of God as he is (1 John 3:2).

1689

Thanks Christy!

I am glad seeing that apparently we agree in this claim:

It is fitting (or at least “not unwise”) to endorse that AFTER the declaration of Genesis 9:3, 5-6, at the end of the flood, all human populations are “image of God”.

This is a very encouraging moment in this conversation!

What about the declaration of Genesis 1:26 before the flood?

Two alternative interpretations seem appropriate:

  1. After the declaration of Genesis 1:26 all homo sapiens in the planet became image of God.

  2. After the declaration of Genesis 1:26 and till the declaration of Genesis 9:3, 5-6, at the end of the flood, only a segment of homo sapiens became image of God, but God ensured that the two types of homo sapiens (“made in the image of God” and “not made in the image of God”) did not live together at any time.

As said in previous posts, I support the interpretation 2, and have the impression you also do.

But then the interesting question arises:

Which is God’s motivation for preferring option 2?

I think that trying to answering this question is not an attempt “to confine God into our little brains”, but rather an effort for better understanding what God has revealed us, expression of the conviction that the Bible is more than a collection of fairy tales.

It is noteworthy that 4 of 11 chapters about the beginnings in Genesis are dedicated to the flood narrative (Genesis 6-9): Thereby this event acquires a terrific relevance, justifying the interpretation of the flood as a re-creation of humanity.

On the other hand, Jesus-Christ and the Apostle Peter refer to the flood as a universal judgement of sinners in the beginning times, to prophecy and warn us about the universal judgment in the end times. With the flood God wants to make clear this Basic Truth:

We sinners are allowed to remain on earth in order we can atone and reach salvation.

On this basis, I would like to propose the following answer to the question above about God’s preference for option 2:

God foresaw the possibility that humankind dismiss this Basic Truth, and becomes corrupt and full of violence (Genesis 6: 5-6, 11-12). In such a case, a big corrective would be needed, to remind us, sinners of all times, the Basic Truth about our sojourn on earth; and thus God planned the flood (Genesis 6:6-8). However, to avoid killing millions of people, God thought to make a “first-version of accountable humans” reduced to a little population (i.e. transformed only a segment of homo sapiens into the image of God). This primeval population of image bearers increased in number, possibly to several hundreds of thousands, who chose in fact the path of corruption and violence (Genesis 6: 5-12), and was deleted by the flood (Noah and his family excepted).

At the end of the flood God definitely re-create the humankind by making all homo sapiens (up to possibly 14 millions) into the image of God.

In the light of this explanation one can say that the option 2 above is clearly motivated by God’s mercy: God made first a “beta-version” of humankind, and scheduled the “general release” for after the flood.

I thank you (and other readers) in advance for any comment on this explanation: They will be highly useful to continue the conversation.

1690

I’m not too keen on drawing lines in human history between image of God humans and pre-image of God humans. I think it is highly speculative and theologically unnecessary and it pulls attention away from the main point Scripture is making to the people who originally heard it and to us today. It doesn’t matter to their or our obedience when this calling was made or who it did or did not apply to in ancient history. I think Scripture has zero concerns about clarifying this issue. It matters that in the present we hear it and act on it.

3 Likes