The bond of the universe, the chain that holds it together, the one active unity, the harmony of things, the negation of difference, the reconciliation of all forms, all shows, all wandering desires, all returning loves; the fact at the root of every vision, revealing that ‘love is the only good in the world,’ and selfishness the one thing hateful, in the city of the living God unutterable, is the devotion of the Son to the Father. It is the life of the universe. It is not the fact that God created all things, that makes the universe a whole; but that he through whom he created them loves him perfectly, is eternally content in his father, is satisfied to be because his father is with him. It is not the fact that God is all in all, that unites the universe; it is the love of the Son to the Father. For of no onehood comes unity; there can be no oneness where there is only one. For the very beginnings of unity there must be two. Without Christ, therefore, there could be no universe.
I honestly don’t get this idea—I like the idea of relationship, but it doesn’t seem to fit in with the Shemah (“Hear, O Israel: the Lord, the Lord your God, is One Lord.”). .but I don’t know that I’m understanding him well.
I’d like to hear others’ ideas here, though. Thanks.
I had trouble with this one too - certainly if one tries to apply it to the creation of the cosmos.
I feel like I have a bit more of a chance at getting a handle on it for the point being made about relationship, though. I hear him saying that speaking of “unity” is nonsensical if there is nothing to be unified. So in that sense he is insisting on there being some difference between the trinitarian members that could have at least in principle have been disunified, but … they aren’t. They make the perfect eternal unity.
Not saying he’s right. Or wrong. It’s way above my paygrade, and beyond my comprehension really. But I do understand at least the human terms of saying that “unity” is meaningless if all you had to begin with was “one unit.”
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2
The same reason applies – for the joy set before him… he created the cosmos and the Earth in it: that involves relationships. With his children.
We too must have life in ourselves. We too must, like the Life himself, live. We can live in no way but that in which Jesus lived, in which life was made in him. That way is, to give up our life. This is the one supreme action of life possible to us for the making of life in ourselves. Christ did it of himself, and so became light to us, that we might be able to do it in ourselves, after him, and through his originating act. We must do it ourselves, I say. The help that he has given and gives, the light and the spirit-working of the Lord, the spirit, in our hearts, is all in order that we may, as we must, do it ourselves. Till then we are not alive; life is not made in us. The whole strife and labour and agony of the Son with every man, is to get him to die as he died. All preaching that aims not at this, is a building with wood and hay and stubble.
In reading today’s bit that I just shared above, I was reminded of how this very sermon of his began, which may help shed light on some of these, and also gives insight into how MacDonald rolls with scriptures. He begins by taking issue with the punctuation such as what typical English translations have presented in John’s prologue - and argues that the artificial misplacement of an unfortunate punctuation mark (a period) has taken a higher meaning and turned it instead into something unclear, and in any case “unworthy” of the apostle. (Read for yourself the first two paragraphs of the linked sermon if you wish to see MacDonald’s own words about this.) But here is an even more concise summary of GM’s words there: It is in regard to verses 3-4.
All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
GM notes that the phrase “…without him was not anything made that was made.” includes a redundantly awkward phrase at the end with that period placed as it was. He goes on to note that had the period been placed earlier, as in …
All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made. that was made in him was life, and the life was the light of men.
… then the passage takes on a much higher and better meaning, and “so satisfied was I to see this that it added little to my satisfaction to discover the change supported by the best manuscripts and versions.”
It does make sense to me too. But I just add this here to show how MacDonald isn’t afraid to tread in some places that others will not permit themselves to go … he is not afraid to subject the received printed page to the high expectation that it must ring true to the whole of the text that surrounds it.
Thanks. It’s above my paygrade, too. I am not sure that the Shemah required “unity,” though–I thought it said “one”. So, I’m not sure that MacDonald isn’t reading in a bit.
Thanks
Edit: I see that there is more in your note that I missed- I am sorry! I’ll come back to that–thank you for the opportunity to muse
Thanks, Merv. This was really interesting.
I have often felt reading MacDonald’s quotes, that he is playing fast and loose, but sometimes, I think he is working harder to stay true to the text than the tradition that has been given. If nothing else, he makes one think.
Thanks for acknowledging our agreement here. I just saw this comment after our little tiff (the definition of this word is fitting) was moved.
So often, I wonder what would have been the outcome of Hamann, Kierkegaard or even MacDonald shoving the coequal nature of unity and diversity up the tail pipe of dialectical philosophy. Wow!!! And now more than ever, the future lays before us, and it looks depressing… but God… he is still capable of doing above and beyond what any one of us can imagine.
Edit: A further thought, if my language offends the reader, whoever that may be, I’m in a place where that’s ok for me. I am totally disgusted (gut wrenched) with abominable (inhumane) philosophical thinking. As if an emptiness of being lead to God’s becoming and some people here appear to dance around this possibility.
Edit 2.0: I wonder if those who find this language offensive would find it acceptable to call a person who molests children a monster. Which they are and whose only hope is the blood of Jesus.
(178) Why We Have Not Christ’s “Ipsissima Verba” (“Ipsissima Verba” - ‘the very words’)
God has not cared that we should anywhere have assurance of his very words; and that not merely, perhaps, because of the tendency in his children to word-worship, false logic, and corruption of the truth, but because he would not have them oppressed by words, seeing that words, being human, therefore but partially capable, could not absolutely contain or express what the Lord meant, and that even he must depend for being understood upon the spirit of his disciple. Seeing it could not give life, the letter should not be throned with power to kill; …
By doing what you know to be true, and calling nothing true until you see it to be true; by shutting your mouth until the truth opens it. Are you meant to be silent? Then woe to you if you speak.
I’m going to need more context here, I think!
My guess is that he’s saying we more or less know how to do best for our fellow man/woman, as Jesus did–and that is the gospel; that quibbling about nuances isn’t very helpful.
At least, that’s what fits in my knowledge of Macdonald.
By doing what you know to be true, and calling nothing true until you see it to be true; by shutting your mouth until the truth opens it. Are you meant to be silent? Then woe to you if you speak.
What a marvelous statement that presumes upon what a person knows to be true. And how is a person to know that which they think is true, is actually true?
If no thing is true, then what must the individual do? Not only say nothing, but to also do nothing. But to be nothing, that is really something.
Can nothing be? Is this not the greatest question?!?
If the Lord were to appear this day in England as once in Palestine, he would not come in the halo of the painters, or with that wintry shine of effeminate beauty, of sweet weakness, in which it is their helpless custom to represent him.
God has not cared that we should anywhere have assurance of his very words; and that not merely, perhaps, because of the tendency in his children to word-worship, false logic, and corruption of the truth, but because he would not have them oppressed by words, seeing that words, being human, therefore but partially capable, could not absolutely contain or express what the Lord meant, and that even he must depend for being understood upon the spirit of his disciple.
If the words themselves are poor vessels which must suffice then fundamentalism and inerrancy must be rejected and we might go further to question the wisdom of the entire Protestant enterprise of trusting the transmission of wisdom to the naive reading of each new and as yet unwise individual.
