Jenson on the Logos ensarkos
Halden recently posted Jenson's take on the Logos Asarkos/Logos Ensarkos in parallel with the large debate that recently transpired at Faith & Theology between Dr. Hunsinger, Dr. Molnar, and Dr. Ben Meyers, Kim Fabricus and Halden. I was flipping through David Bentley Hart's The Beauty of the Infinite, landed at his critique of Jenson, and so went back and flipped through Jenson's two volume Systematic Theology and found a good quote in the second volume to supplement Halden's quote from the first volume:
"This work has to this point used the Old Testament's category of prophecy to interpret God's word both in Israel and in the church, as the New Testament itself does. Now, however, we have begun with the church's discourse itself, interpreting it by the trinitarian and christological doctrine this discourse has developed for its own interpretation...The present order of interpretation traces the ontologicall founding order.[emphasis mine] If Christ's advent is the fulfilling of Israel's story, then his discourse in the church is the possibility of all prophecy, also in Israel. The eternal Logos is the one Word of God, whenever spoken. And Christ's preexistence as this Logos is precisely his preexistence, the preexistence of the very one he is in and for the church. The fathers could read the Old Tetament no other way: the Word of God that 'came' to make prophets and that was then spoken by the prophets was none other than this Christ. Even the apologetic Logos-doctrine had to sacrifice conceptual purity to this conviction. Thus according, for example, to Origen: 'By the words of Christ we do not mean those only which he taught...when present in the flesh; for also before this Christ was the Word of God in Moses and the prophets.' Note that Origen does not revert from 'Christ' to 'the Logos' in the last clause."
--Systematic Theology II:272
And also
"Given the Incarnation, so that the human person Jesus is in fact the Son who lives with the Father in the Spirit, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity holds only in the same way as does the distinction between two natures in Christ. Therefore the Father’s role as un-originate Originator of deity is concretely not other than his role as the One who sends the Son and the Spirit on their ecclesial missions; the Son’s role as the one in whom the Father finds himself is concretely not other than his role as head of the church that in him finds the Father; the Spirit’s role as the one who frees the Father and the Son is concretely his role as the one who frees the Christian community."
--Systematic Theology II:173
"This work has to this point used the Old Testament's category of prophecy to interpret God's word both in Israel and in the church, as the New Testament itself does. Now, however, we have begun with the church's discourse itself, interpreting it by the trinitarian and christological doctrine this discourse has developed for its own interpretation...The present order of interpretation traces the ontologicall founding order.[emphasis mine] If Christ's advent is the fulfilling of Israel's story, then his discourse in the church is the possibility of all prophecy, also in Israel. The eternal Logos is the one Word of God, whenever spoken. And Christ's preexistence as this Logos is precisely his preexistence, the preexistence of the very one he is in and for the church. The fathers could read the Old Tetament no other way: the Word of God that 'came' to make prophets and that was then spoken by the prophets was none other than this Christ. Even the apologetic Logos-doctrine had to sacrifice conceptual purity to this conviction. Thus according, for example, to Origen: 'By the words of Christ we do not mean those only which he taught...when present in the flesh; for also before this Christ was the Word of God in Moses and the prophets.' Note that Origen does not revert from 'Christ' to 'the Logos' in the last clause."
--Systematic Theology II:272
And also
"Given the Incarnation, so that the human person Jesus is in fact the Son who lives with the Father in the Spirit, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity holds only in the same way as does the distinction between two natures in Christ. Therefore the Father’s role as un-originate Originator of deity is concretely not other than his role as the One who sends the Son and the Spirit on their ecclesial missions; the Son’s role as the one in whom the Father finds himself is concretely not other than his role as head of the church that in him finds the Father; the Spirit’s role as the one who frees the Father and the Son is concretely his role as the one who frees the Christian community."
--Systematic Theology II:173
Comments
Have a great Christmas! If you ever want to get together over break, please let me know.
Did you wrap up the "Wheeler Project." I worked on it from Wenesday early afternoon to late afternoon Thursday.
Shalom,
JT