|
The LCMS Commission on worship is proposing that the Nicene
Creed be changed
to read, "who for us human beings and our salvation" to replace
the current "who for us men and our salvation."
The following is a reply to John Dorsch's second of three written
questions. (The first question and answer were published on Reclaim News
on January 22, 2003.)
Dorsch disagrees with me and is in favor of changing the Nicene Creed to
read, "who for us human beings and our salvation," instead of
what we currently confess, "who for us men and our salvation."
Dear John Dorsch:
Your second question is:
"2. Could you explain why appealing to the New Testament use of 'anthropos'
(man) serves to explain the patristic use of such a common word in the
Nicene Creed? Have you done a similar study of the non-Christian
Greek use of 'anthropos'? Hint: the word is used by classical
writers to mean: a man, men (non-specific = men and women), a woman, or
one (= Ger. man). See Lidell-Scott, p 141 (Great, btw) for numerous
examples.
Reply From Pastor Cascione:
Yes, I also have a copy of Liddell and Scott's "A Greek-English
Lexicon" all 15 pounds of it. For those who don't have a copy,
it is the most authoritative Greek Lexicon in the world. The book is
approximately 9" by 12" and 3" thick. It has 2042
pages of tiny print with another 160 pages of supplements on very thin
paper. If you don't know Greek, you can't look up anything. It
was first published by Oxford in 1843, four years before the LCMS was
founded. My copy was published in 1978.
I use the book to refute all kinds of errors people have thrown at me over
the years.
The first line in Liddell & Scott under "anthropos" (man) on
page 141, (lower right hand column) reads, "man, both as generic term
and of individuals." It then goes on to give nine more
definitions. Then under "II" it states, "as fem.,
woman, contemptuously, of female slaves, with a sense of pity." (All
Greek citations were omitted.) So I agree with your statement,
"I Esdras 9 refers to a woman specifically." However, I
Esdras is not in the Bible. There is not one citation out 508 uses
of "anthropos" (man) in the New Testament that refers to a
woman.
You write: ". . . you cannot simply assume the New Term words inform
the meaning of fourth century Greek."
Yes I can. According to Kelly, in "Early Christian
Creeds," on page 197, the word "anthropos" (man) appears
well before 272 AD. According to Kelly (page 74) we find (man) in
Justin Martyr's Creed (155-160 AD).
I can also assume that 508 cases of "anthropos" (man) in the
Bible inform the correct teaching of the Nicene Creed, or else, why write
the Nicene Creed? "Anthropos" (man) must be understood in
the context of the Bible just as we understand, the words,
"church," "baptism," "justification," and
"faith" in the context of the New Testament. If we
followed the original definition of these words, as you want to do with
"anthropos," there would be no Christian religion. Plato
and Socrates would be the real teachers of the New Testament and not Jesus
Christ.
There is no question that the Greeks used the "anthropos" (man)
in the general or abstract sense but Jesus Christ did not do this.
God's focus is on the concrete and not the philosophical abstractions that
men love.
"Concrete terms which apply to both natures are Christ and Immanuel.
Thus Luther, in commenting on Isaiah 53, says that in concrete language
the human nature of Christ is a man." ("Two Natures
of Christ" Martin Chemnitz, Translated by J. A. O. Preus, CPH, 1971,
page 32)
"On this point, in commenting on Isaiah 53, Luther writes about the
separated divinity and the separated humanity, or the humanity considered
by itself, and he adds: 'This ought not be done, for abstract things ought
not be separated, or else our faith is false; but we should believe in the
concrete that this Man is God . . . Furthermore, at this point we ought to
be absolutely silent about the abstract, for faith teaches that here there
is no abstraction but a concretion, a union, and a junction of both
natures. '" (Chemnitz, page 33)
"For Christ is called not only flesh but also Man and the Son of Man,
and His body and soul are expressly mentioned together with the conditions
which are proper and characteristic of human nature, as we have already
shown." ( Chemnitz, page 60)
"Therefore I believe that the grammars are correct and divinely
guided when they call some words concrete and the other abstract, even
though there are endless arguments about the concrete and abstract, and I
believe it can never be decided, even in philosophy and created things,
whether there is such a thing as an abstract. For instance, when I
speak of whiteness, I am not speaking of anything white nor mentioning
anything at all. The mention of whiteness excludes any subject,
which must afterward be conjoined and connected by the mention of the
white thing from which it was separated and abstracted."
("Martin Luther's Fuller Exposition of Isaiah 53," compiled by
George Roerer, 1544, Trans. Ken Miller, 1988 page 132, available through
CN)
We should all take Luther's advice here and see that the Bible doesn't
call us to faith in abstractions nor does God save abstractions.
"Anthropos" (man) is not an abstraction, such as human beings,
in the Bible or in the Nicene Creed. Christ did not die for
abstractions, such as human beings, but rather for men and women.
Christ did not merely become an abstraction, that is an human being, but
He became a man. We should confess that Christ became more than
fully human, namely, he became a man. We should confess that Christ
came to save more than human beings. He came to save people with
specific genders, namely men and once they are identified as men they also
include all women and children as is found repeatedly in the New
Testament.
Once we make Christ into an abstraction, we lose our identity and gender
and open the door for feminist, gender neutral, and homosexual theology as
is happening in the ELCA.
I'll get to your third question later.
|
|