Old Testament Theophanies

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi all,

In recent Sunday readings [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/071804.htm"](Link--July 18th, Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time)[/url], we read that God appeared to Abraham.

My question is: what constraints (if any) does orthodox Catholic theology place on the meaning of the various Old Testament theophanies (i.e. appearances of God to man)?

This is somewhat related to a Muslim argument against the Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Apparently, they have trouble believing that He (in His human nature) would eat. In particular, they have a problem with the Divine Jesus eating animals. Interestingly, in this Old Testament passage, Abraham "picked out a tender, choice steer" as part of a meal for his three guests. So, the natural question: did God make Himself manifest materially and eat?

Of course, Islam rejects both the Old Testament and the New Testament; but this is an interesting question because of the centrality of Abraham in the three main monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

Thanks!

Edited July 28, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[Mateo el Feo]

BTW, here's my Google search: [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=theophany+genesis+abraham+old+testament+catholic"](Search terms: Theophany Genesis Abraham Old Testament Catholic)[/url]

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]So, the natural question: did God make Himself manifest materially and eat?[/quote]

In the case of Genisis 18- no,

In the case of Jesus-yes.

This quote is answering a comment about the angels eating in Genisis 18. Read objection 1 to see context.

From The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

Reply to objection 1


[quote]

As to the angels who appeared, they did not say they were men, as Christ asserted that He was truly a man. Moreover, the manner of eating was different in Christ and the angels: for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated, there was no true eating, although the food was really masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body: hence the angels said to Tobias (12:18,19): "When I was with you . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use an invisible meat." But since Christ's body was truly animated, His eating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xiii), "it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken away from the bodies of them who rise again." Hence Bede says on Lk. 24:41: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed." [/quote]


[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/405506.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/405506.htm[/url]



This might help in your discussion.

Again from The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

[quote]
[b]Whether it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature of the stock of Adam?[/b]

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 18): "God was able to assume human nature elsewhere than from the stock of Adam, who by his sin had fettered the whole human race; yet God judged it better to assume human nature from the vanquished race, and thus to vanquish the enemy of the human race." And this for three reasons: First, because it would seem to belong to justice that he who sinned should make amends; and hence that from the nature which he had corrupted should be assumed that whereby satisfaction was to be made for the whole nature. Secondly, it pertains to man's greater dignity that the conqueror of the devil should spring from the stock conquered by the devil. Thirdly, because God's power is thereby made more manifest, since, from a corrupt and weakened nature, He assumed that which was raised to such might and glory. [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/400406.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/400406.htm[/url]

Hope this helps

Edited July 28, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[phatcatholic]

an interesting side note:

St. Justin Martyr, in his [i]Dialouge with the Jew Trypho[/i], makes a rather intriguing claim that one of the angels who ate with Abraham was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. to read his proofs start with [url="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4499_940094"][b]Chapter LVI[/b][/url] ("God Who Appeared to Moses Is Distinguished from God the Father") and read through Chapter LXI ("Wisdom is Begotten of the Father, as Fire from Fire")

cool stuff

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited July 28, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Cure of Ars]

I probably would not use St. Justin Martyr when talking with a Muslim. St. Justin’s understanding of the Trinity was not totally correct and he did not have the luxury of having the Church define this doctrine. It could muddy the waters and get you off on a tangent. Just my opinion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 28 2004, 12:13 PM'] an interesting side note:

St. Justin Martyr, in his [i]Dialouge with the Jew Trypho[/i], makes a rather intriguing claim that one of the angels who ate with Abraham was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. to read his proofs start with [url="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4499_940094"][b]Chapter LVI[/b][/url] ("God Who Appeared to Moses Is Distinguished from God the Father") and read through Chapter LXI ("Wisdom is Begotten of the Father, as Fire from Fire")

cool stuff

pax christi,
phatcatholic [/quote]
That is because the Fathers of the first four centuries, and the Eastern Fathers even after that time, held that all the Old Testament theophanies were manifestations of the pre-incarnate Logos. This idea was rejected by St. Augustine, and by some in the west after his time.

Edited July 29, 2004 by Apotheoun

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 28 2004, 08:22 PM'] That is because the Fathers of the first four centuries, and the Eastern Fathers even after that time, held that all the Old Testament theophanies were manifestations of the pre-incarnate Logos. This idea was rejected by St. Augustine, and by some in the west after his time. [/quote]
why was it rejected? such a proposition does not seem heretical to me.

[Cure of Ars]

Here is one place where Augustine talks about this subject;

[quote][b]
CHAPTER II.--THE ESSENCE OF GOD NEVER APPEARED IN ITSELF. DIVINE APPEARANCES TO THE FATHERS WROUGHT BY THE MINISTRY OF ANGELS. AN OBJECTION DRAWN FROM THE MODE OF SPEECH REMOVED. THAT THE APPEARING OF GOD TO ABRAHAM HIMSELF, JUST AS THAT TO MOSES, WAS WROUGHT BY ANGELS. THE SAME THING IS PROVED BY THE LAW BEING GIVEN TO MOSES BY ANGELS. WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THIS BOOK, AND WHAT REMAINS TO BE SAID IN THE NEXT. [/b]


25. Can there be any one who will say that the Lord appeared to Moses by an angel, but to Abraham by Himself? Let us not answer this question from Stephen, but from the book itself, whence Stephen took his narrative. For, pray, because it is written, "And the Lord God said unto Abraham;" and a little after, "And the Lord God appeared unto Abraham;" were these things, for this reason, not done by angels? Whereas it is said in like manner in another place, "And the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mature, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;" and yet it is added immediately, "And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him:" of whom we have already spoken. For how will these people, who either will not rise from the words to the meaning, or easily throw themselves down from the meaning to the words,--how, I say, will they be able to explain that God was seen in three men, except they confess that they were angels, as that which follows also shows? Because it is not said an angel spoke or appeared to him, will they therefore venture to say that the vision and voice granted to Moses was wrought by an angel because it is so written, but that God appeared and spake in His own substance to Abraham because there is no mention made of an angel? What of the fact, that even in respect to Abraham an angel is not left unmentioned? For when his son was ordered to be offered up as a sacrifice, we read thus: "And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains that I will tell thee of." Certainly God is here mentioned, not an angel. But a little afterwards Scripture hath it thus: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him." What can be answered to this? Will they say that God commanded that Isaac should be slain, and that an angel forbade it? (St. Augustine of Hippo On the Trinity, BOOK III.)
[/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130103.htm[/url]


Just because I'm a freak and looked it up, I though that I might as well post it.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 28 2004, 11:18 PM'] why was it rejected? such a proposition does not seem heretical to me. [/quote]
I don't know if it is heretitical but this is Augustine's short answer to why it was not persons of the Trinity but angels.

[quote]Wherefore the substance, or, if it is better so to say, the essence of God, wherein we understand, in proportion to our measure, in however small a degree, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit since it is in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper self be visible. [/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 28 2004, 09:45 PM']I don't know if it is heretitical but this is Augustine's short answer to why it was not persons of the Trinity but angels.

[quote name='St. Augustine']Wherefore the substance, or, if it is better so to say, the essence of God, wherein we understand, in proportion to our measure, in however small a degree, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit since it is in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper self be visible.[/quote][/quote]
Although I like St. Augustine, and I especially admire his commentaries on the Psalms, I don't agree with his view of the Old Testament theophanies. All the Fathers prior to him saw any mention of the Angel of the Lord as a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Logos, and the vast majority of the Fathers saw Abraham's three visitors as a theophany of the Trinity. There is even an icon of this encounter, and I have a copy of it somewhere on my website. Not everything that St. Augustine taught has been accepted by the Magisterium, and as great as he was, he was not infallible, and some of his opinions are even contrary to the views of the [i]Consensus Patrum[/i].

As far as the quotation from Augustine is concerned, I don't think it is heretical, but it is only his opinion, and one which no one is obliged to accept.

As an Eastern Catholic, I distinguish between the essence ([i]ousia[/i]) of God and the uncreated divine energies ([i]energia[/i]). The divine essence is incomprehensible and totally transcendent, but the uncreated divine energies are both transcendent and immanent. Human beings can participate in the uncreated divine energies, but not in the divine essence. Thus, the manifestation of the three persons of the Trinity to Abraham would not have involved the divine essence in any way, but it would have involved the uncreated divine energies.

[phatcatholic]

i see the opinions of both Justin Martyr and Augustine as equally plausable, and personally i prefer Justin's.

cure..........yes, u are a freak, but that's why ur cool

apotheoun...........as for "uncreated divine energies" can you define what these are? that is a new concept to me.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 29 2004, 10:29 AM']apotheoun...........as for "uncreated divine energies" can you define what these are? that is a new concept to me.

thanks,
phatcatholic [/quote]
The uncreated divine energies are the glory of God (i.e., the Shekinah), which flows out from the divine essence, and which pervades all of creation, both sustaining it in existence and redeeming it from sin and death. Grace itself is the uncreated energy of God, and when a man is deified by grace, he is deified by his participation in the uncreated energy of God, and not by any kind of participation in the divine essence. The divine essence is incommunicable and is totally transcendent, while the uncreated divine energies are transcendent, but they are also immanent, and so man can participate in them. The energies are the wondrous works of God, the [i]Mirabilia Dei[/i], by which He redeems and sanctifies His people. To participate in the divine energies is to be filled with the glory of the Lord. The uncreated divine energies are the manifestation of God in the world.

Let me explain the mystery of the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies through an analogy, bearing in mind always that analogies are an imperfect representation of what they are intended to convey.

Think of the essence as the mind of a man, and the energies as his voice. When he thinks of something in his mind and then speaks to another person about what he has thought, the other person hears his voice, and participates in it, as it reverberates on his eardrum. The man's ideas are conveyed to the other person, in other words, they are manifested to the other person through the spoken word. By participating in the man's voice, the other person has been filled with a real knowledge, or better, a real experience, of what is present in the man's mind, but the other person's mind has not thereby become that man's mind. Their minds remain distinct from each other, but by participating in the man's voice the other person has really come to know or experience the man's thought. Thus, the man's voice is an effluent expression of his mind, distinct from his mind, but not separate from it. This is analogous to the distinction between the essence and the energies of God in Eastern Catholic theology.

I hope this helps explain the nature of this theological distinction.

Edited July 29, 2004 by Apotheoun

[phatcatholic]

apotheoun.............that was a tremendous help............thanks bro