Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Veiled in flesh the Godhead see

Thread: Purgatory: Veiled in flesh the Godhead see Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000749

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Apologies if this has been done recently.

For the purpose of this thread I am taking it as read that Jesus was God incarnate, the God-Man, fully human and fully divine. Otherwise the question has no ground and is meaningless.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see

Is this line from "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" good incarnational theology? Is the Godhead "veiled in flesh" in our Lord? Or is that docetic? Do we see the Godhead when we see Jesus? (By "we" here let's assume the apostles in the old days when our Lord walked the earth in the flesh.)

It sounds heretical to me but maybe I'm just not looking at it from the right angle.

Please discuss.

[ 06. May 2010, 19:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I've always thought there is something about that line that makes it sound vaguely parasitic

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Well, I tend to think it's all God, and I don't fuss much about the details. If the story is true, then it's God with us ("Emmanuel"), as one of us but still God.

FWIW.

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

Context is everything - the next line is 'Hail the Incarnate Deity'. If you sing both lines then you don't have a problem.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I see it as a poetic expression of the fact that one can't see God in his Essence without our human frailty being overwhelmed. It's link to the OT concept of God needing to be "veiled" by cloud or hidden in fire in order for a human to be able to apprehend him. In the Incarnation, the Godhead made this possible for humans.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

It's veiled as in clothed rather than veiled as in hidden. It's the same point that Tertullian makes in "On the Flesh of Christ":

quote:
For One who was to be truly a man, even unto death, it was necessary that He should be clothed with that flesh to which death belongs.

As Clavus points out, heretical interpretation is anyway ruled out by the context.

Posted by Mikko (# 13710) on :

Seasick expresses it well:

quote:
It's veiled as in clothed rather than veiled as in hidden.

I work in translation. "The Word became flesh" was the greatest translation ever done. Therefore, as Andrew Walls writes:

quote:
God is the great Translator. In Christ, God is translated into humanity, so that we can look at that human being and say, 'This is what God is like.'

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Hark the Herald is by far my favourite Carol. I love the tune, I love the words. And unlike most carols I don't have theological problems with it - but that's a different thread, although I haven't seen the All Carols are rubbish because... thread yet this year.

As said above, this is a peice of poetry and context is key, consider:

quote:
Veiled in flesh the God-head see,
Hail the incarnate deity.
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
Jesus our immanuel.

Now, I sure ture scholars will correct me with this is two rhyming cuplets. Taking as a whole, Wesley is desribing, in what I think is beautiful language, the wonder of the incarnation - the true God-man who is content - more than content to dwell 'with man' - God become flesh - God with us.

Taking the first line on it's own it could be seen as a docetic statement but I really don't think it is.

From the old-testament we know that man cannot look on the God-head directly or we will die. So this 'veiled' is making the holy God accessible. To me, this line is an affirmation of the incarnation.

AFZ

Posted by Pokrov (# 11515) on :

MT,

I've also thought over this line and have happily settled my heart that this carol (and this verse particularly) is the MOST incarnational carol in the 'canon'. Given I attend a number of non-Orthodox carol services at this time of year, I just love singing this carol.

Posted by Fuff (# 14655) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Apologies if this has been done recently.

Is the Godhead "veiled in flesh" in our Lord? Or is that docetic? Do we see the Godhead when we see Jesus? (By "we" here let's assume the apostles in the old days when our Lord walked the earth in the flesh.)

It sounds heretical to me but maybe I'm just not looking at it from the right angle.

Please discuss.

What about when Jesus was asked to show the disciples, the Father? Wasn't His answer that those who see Him see the Father?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yes, also that verse about "in him dwelt all the fullness of God bodily" or some such. (sorry, brain not awake yet)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Mousethief, a lot of apparent problems with Wesleyan hymnody are solved when you read on to the next line rather than treating it as an end-stopped line-break.

That certainly applies in this case.

I would go further and say that I owe an emerging understanding of the Incarnation and the Deity of Christ to this hymn. I remember singing it when I was about 11 and having something of an epiphany on that score.

You Orthodox are always out to pick holes in us Westerners' theology. I don't get uptight about that, you're just doing your 'job'.

[Biased]

But relax. Charles Wesley was as Orthodox as you are on this particular point.

Gamaliel

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Also, like lots of Wesley, its Temple spirituality. A reference to the Veil of the Temple. Jesus himself takes the place of the Lord in his Holy of Holies as the object of worship.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

There's always the alternative wording

'Veiled in Flesh the Godhead see,
Is the Docetic heresy' [Biased]

More useful for remembering which heresy is which, than understanding Wesley's intention.

Posted by Bacchus (# 11408) on :

I've never worried about it because I've never sung enough of the verses to reach that point.

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

Then there's the excellent Chip Davis instrumental version; no text to cause "problems" at all....

Posted by Fr Cuthbert (# 3953) on :

I should imagine there is a lot of heresy in Carols, that may help make them more interesting!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Hebrews 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh (KJV)

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I think it's fairly widely regarded as docetic. An old vicar of mine would puse his lips and all but cover his ears whenever it was sung.

But it sounds like good poetry. Who was it said "When, the hymn's shown to be heretical, sing the heresy." [Devil]

Posted by Pokrov (# 11515) on :

If you understand 'veiled' to equate to 'clothed', and take 'Godhead'/'Deity' to be poetic parallels (as often happens in the Psalms - english having it's origin from more than one language root allows for such parallelisms) and thus basically just saying 'God' (note NOT the Father etc...) then what's unorthodox about saying that in Christ Jesus we see God (obviously the Son/Word - but then Wesley doesn't say that) 'put on' flesh?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Whatever construction can be placed on the phrase under discussion, one doubts whether Charles Wesley had docetic intentions.

Consider two of his other nativity hymns;-

In 'Glory be to God on hight,' he writes: 'See the Lord of Earth and skies;/ Humbled to the dust he is,/ And in a manger lies.' And concludes: 'Knees and hearts to him we bow;/ Of our flesh and of our bone,/ Jesus is our brother now,/ And God is all our own.'/

And in 'Let earth and heaven combine..' he states: 'He laid his glory by,/ He wrapped him in our clay/...Infant of days he here became,/ And bore the mild Immanuel's name.'/ In another stanza he says: 'He deigns in flesh to appear,/ Widest extremes to join/...And we the life of God shall know,/ For God is manifest below.'/

Furthermore, in his passion hymn 'With glorious clouds encompassed round..' he is moved to exclaim: 'Didst thou not in our flesh appear,/ And live and die below,/ That I may now perceive thee near,/ And my Redeemer know?'

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
It's veiled as in clothed rather than veiled as in hidden.

I think 'veiled' is supposed to suggest hidden. Charles Wesley is delighting in the possibilities of rhetorical paradox that the incarnation gives rise to. He's set up the paradox as a chiasmus: Veiled in flesh the godhead see.
He's emphasizing the greater rhetorical paradox of seeing the godhead.

As Leo points out the equation of the veil with the flesh of Jesus is Biblical. Also the docetic heresy would mean that there wasn't really flesh there at all.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

If it has to be heretical, I should have thought it was Apollinarian ("God in a meat-suit") rather than Docetic ("Jesus' body wasn't real at all").

But I think it's a bit silly to imagine that a single couplet has to provide a complete description of the Incarnation. As it stands it is a partial description. It only becomes heretical if we treat it as the sum of all possible statements about Jesus Christ.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Well, isn't it simply the case that Jesus' Godhead (Divinity / Divine nature) was "veiled", in the meaning of "somewhat hidden, recognizable only in the outlines", by His human nature? If the unveiled Logos had walked Palestine, how could anyone not have recognized Him as Divine? A supernova of eternal light would have bent every knee for sure... Yet many people did definitely not recognize Jesus as God. Jesus the man shall be transfigured to us when we do not see dimly anymore, when the Divine brightness does not turn us blind like it did a certain traveler on the road to Damascus.

Perhaps that's a nice definition of what human nature shall become: something that can let the Divine Light shine forth unimpeded (in Christ), and something that can stand seeing this Light (in the saints). But human nature sure veiled Divine nature in 1stC Palestine. I don't think that this is contrary to orthodox dogma. It does not deny that Christ is true God and true man in one Person. Rather it affirms that He had "two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union", hence with mere physical eyes God was not to be seen in Jesus, one had to acquire eyes of faith.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Jesus was one with the Father (from conception) and filled with the Holy Spirit from conception (cf. John the Baptist) so I don't see a problem with the entire God-head being veiled in flesh in a way that could be seen and touched etc (cf. 1 John).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Gamaliel, thanks for the insult. [Disappointed]

I think it's just the word "veiled" that bugs me. And yes I think I meant Apollinarism. "The incarnate deity" doesn't distinguish orthodoxy from Apollinarism.

Ricardus, if your criterion is right (has to be more than a couplet to be a heresy) then you could write any heresy into a hymn as long as you were terse. That's not right.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ricardus, if your criterion is right (has to be more than a couplet to be a heresy) then you could write any heresy into a hymn as long as you were terse. That's not right.

That's not quite what I meant. Consider the three statements:

a. "Jesus Christ was not really human" is heretical.
b. "Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man" is orthodox.
c. "Jesus Christ was fully God" is orthodox as far as it goes, and only becomes heretical if it's taken to be a complete description of Jesus.

My contention is that the couplet under discussion falls under category (c) rather than (a).

[ 20. December 2009, 23:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I really don't see the heresy; this is really getting to the point of seeing a Red under every bed. [Disappointed]

The Word became incarnate in the Flesh. I really don't think Charles Wesley was thinking heretically.

"Veiled in Flesh the Godhead see, Hail the Incarnate Deity, Pleased as Man with Man to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel."

There is absolutely nothing Docetic or Appollinarian here. MT your argument seems to be failing to see the forest for the trees. Haven't we seen *Cough* other shipmates *cough* try to construe the Nicene Creed itself heretically.

Charles Wesley was working within the many assumptions of orthodox Christology. If somebody has an interpretation problem with a through-away line in a song the answer is to seek the original teaching in full (find the asumption and get it explained to you), not make every utterance a legalistic declaration of orthodoxy. We wouldn't have many hymns in that case then would we?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then there's the excellent Chip Davis instrumental version; no text to cause "problems" at all....

If by Chip Davis you mean Mannheim Steamcleaner, then text is the least of the problems!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I really don't see the heresy; this is really getting to the point of seeing a Red under every bed.

If you, SPK, don't see it, then anybody who does must be paranoid. Noted.

[ 21. December 2009, 01:21: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

While I think trying to parse the internal relations of what the rest of you (non-Quakers) call the "Trinity" is futile, that line does bother me a bit. It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.

After all, to be perfectly human is to be in the image and likeness of God. So maybe Jesus is divine because he is perfectly human--there's nothing hidden. Or maybe that's a different heresy.

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.

Thanks for that image!

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

There is a strange paradox in the use of the veil - both in the Jewish Temple and in Catholic liturgy, veils are used both to cover or hide and to reveal. The veil is the primary sign of the presence of God in the Holy of Holies and in the Tabernacle. Taken with the line from the Letter to the Hebrews, I wonder, MT, if this might not be used to acquit Wesley of the charge of Apollinarianism.

Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :

Its my second favorite carol, not that i particularly like carols but this one is excellent. I think both lines together tend to summarise very well what most of us have discussed.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Its my second favorite carol...

Which begs a question...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it's a metaphor. Taken literally, I suppose one might imagine a clothing of flesh over "something else" - without meaning to offend, "Terminator" springs to mind. Whereas "fully man" means more than just skin deep. The Word became flesh, not "covered in flesh" (i.e. physically existing inside that covering). But it seems very unlikely that the Wesleys thought in "Terminator" type terms.

I think Trisagion's post does a fine job of pointing to the deeper meanings of "veil".

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

You couldn't tell jesus was God by looking at him. His deity was 'veiled' in flesh only in the sense that Jesus wasn't some kind of "god-like" super-specimen of humanity.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

We mustn't make the mistake - not that anyone is! - of suggesting that Jesus was not "really" human but only appeared to be so. To say that is to place himself alongside Dr. Who ("really" a Time Lord) or Superman ("really" an alien from Krypton).

I'm sure this idea of Jesus "seeming" to be human is one of the ancient Christological heresies - I just can't remember which one! We must surely assert his full divinity and genuine humanity, both at the same time.

(Thus concludes the summary of last night's sermon!!)

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I would just like to note that, if Charles Wesley was a heretic, the faith needs all the heretics it can get...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm sure this idea of Jesus "seeming" to be human is one of the ancient Christological heresies - I just can't remember which one!

It's docetism (from the Greek verb dokeo, meaning to seem), although I think the heresy that MT is rightly concerned about is apollinarianism, where Jesus is seen as having a real human body and emotions but a divine mind and will.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Thank you, Trisagion; and (pace Tom Clune) I'm not saying that Wesley was a heretic!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the heresy that MT is rightly concerned about is apollinarianism, where Jesus is seen as having a real human body and emotions but a divine mind and will.

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of -- which I mistakenly called Docetism.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Make your minds up with the charge sheet! Is it Docetism or Apollinarianism? Why not split the difference and call it Orthodoxy?

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then there's the excellent Chip Davis instrumental version; no text to cause "problems" at all....
If by Chip Davis you mean Mannheim Steamcleaner, then text is the least of the problems!

Oh piffle. Mannheim Steamroller is excellent, even inspiring; a whole lot better than RAP, for instance....

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

As Dafyd touched on earlier, the whole purpose of veiling something is so it can't be seen. On the other hand, a lyric that essentially said "you can't see it because it's veiled, but trust us, the Godhead is in there somewhere, probably behind the pancreas" wouldn't have had quite the same feel to it.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
While I think trying to parse the internal relations of what the rest of you (non-Quakers) call the "Trinity" is futile, that line does bother me a bit. It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.

After all, to be perfectly human is to be in the image and likeness of God. So maybe Jesus is divine because he is perfectly human--there's nothing hidden. Or maybe that's a different heresy.

I'm not sure if it would comfort you or not that my history professor uses Superman as an example of a proper approach to the incarnation (as opposed to Batman.)

I guess the question in yours would be whether Jesus' perfect humanity was attained by effort and practice or simply natural to him. My prof's argument was that Superman didn't have to practice to be superman, it was just a byproduct of who he was. The ordinariness was the disguise, while Batman is an ordinary person who works his tail of to maintain the disguise of a superpower.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Make your minds up with the charge sheet! Is it Docetism or Apollinarianism?

This immediately after the post where I admitted my mistake and said it was Apollinarism. Yes, I made up my mind. I just said so. Learn to read for content.

quote:
Why not split the difference and call it Orthodoxy?

Because it isn't. D'oh.

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

For some reason this thread reminds me of the inspired advice Fats Domino offered:

quote:
You should never sing the lyrics out very clearly.

Now that's sound theology. [Biased]

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

"veiled in flesh the Godhead see" gives a wonderful poetic description of Rublev's 2nd person in his OT Trinity.

The central figure, with a red tunic for man clothed with a blue outer garment for God is sometimes taken for the 2nd person of the Trinity. However, here the 2nd person represents the Father on the grounds that we can only see the Father through the Son.

On the right hand of the representation of the Father (lhs of the icon) is the Son with a blue tunic for God and robed in an outer garment of flesh. In the original it is translucent. Absolutely beautiful.

The Trinity is completed, on the rhs of the picture by a figure wearing a blue tunic for God and clothed in an outer garment of green which represents the Holy Spirit.

However, there is still a space in front of the table/cup for the worshipper to kneel and complete the picture.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
While I think trying to parse the internal relations of what the rest of you (non-Quakers) call the "Trinity" is futile, that line does bother me a bit. It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.

After all, to be perfectly human is to be in the image and likeness of God. So maybe Jesus is divine because he is perfectly human--there's nothing hidden. Or maybe that's a different heresy.
I'm not sure if it would comfort you or not that my history professor uses Superman as an example of a proper approach to the incarnation (as opposed to Batman.)

I guess the question in yours would be whether Jesus' perfect humanity was attained by effort and practice or simply natural to him. My prof's argument was that Superman didn't have to practice to be superman, it was just a byproduct of who he was. The ordinariness was the disguise, while Batman is an ordinary person who works his tail of to maintain the disguise of a superpower.

I don't like it any better for that--it still implies that Jesus' humanity is a disguise, not his "real" self. It says we see God through the man,not in the man. While I have no investment in orthodoxy (upper or lower case),that feels wrong to me.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

That line on its own does give me pause, but even on its own it's no more heretical IMO than some verses of Scripture might seem if you isolate them too. Like others have said above, it's reminiscent of Hebrews, and also of many OT references to God's glory having to be veiled for us (in the Temple, or on Moses' face, e.g.).

What I don't like in that hymn - well, to be fair, it's in a recent revision - is the gender-inclusive change from

quote:
Born to raise the sons of earth

quote:
Born to raise us from the earth

which is decidedly not a gender-neutral equivalent. The line as Wesley wrote it (I assume he wrote all the verses) is not up to our current standards of inclusivity, but it is better theology.

I'm pretty sure we've discussed that on these boards last year or some previous year...

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

John Wesley on the alteration of hymns (again with language of his time):

quote:
Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them ; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours : either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse ; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page ; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

[Cool]

Thanks for that!

I think it's good counsel for any use of older literature - hymns are, at least on one level, poems, and so literature.

Has any survey or study shown that women/girls singing this song think, "Oh, this doesn't apply to me"? Are we thought to be that stupid?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Do these verses from Mark 15 help?

quote:
37And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

38And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. 39And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Could it be that Wesley is suggesting that the veil in the temple being torn is about the identity of the man Jesus as divine being revealed?

Could there even be eucharistic overtones here? Elsewhere Jesus' is revealed in the breaking of bread/flesh (i.e. tearing of the veil?)?

[ 22. December 2009, 09:09: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
John Wesley on the alteration of hymns (again with language of his time):
quote:
Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them ; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours : either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse ; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page ; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.

But I don't want to sing "Hark, how all the welkin rings!" (Although, thinking about it, they might have changed it themselves.)

Thurible

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

If "veiled in flesh the godhead see" is any kind of heresy, isn't it possibly modalism?

I assume it would be more accurate to say "veiled in flesh the 2nd person of the Trinity see.."

Godhead implies to me (perhaps incorrectly) the whole trinity "veiled in flesh"..which, if I'm not getting my heresys mixed up..is modalism

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
If "veiled in flesh the godhead see" is any kind of heresy, isn't it possibly modalism?

I assume it would be more accurate to say "veiled in flesh the 2nd person of the Trinity see.."

Godhead implies to me (perhaps incorrectly) the whole trinity "veiled in flesh"..which, if I'm not getting my heresys mixed up..is modalism

I think you are getting them mixed up (a state that is almost impossible to avoid ISTM). Modalism is the heresy to which I tend, and essentially sees the three persons of the trinity as three manifetations of the one God. They are, as it were, three "faces" of the divine, rather than three distinct "persons" in modalism. If you can claim with a straight face to be both a monotheist and a Christian, you have probably fallen into the modalist heresy...

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you can claim with a straight face to be both a monotheist and a Christian, you have probably fallen into the modalist heresy...

Um, no, then you're a Trinitarian.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you can claim with a straight face to be both a monotheist and a Christian, you have probably fallen into the modalist heresy...
Um, no, then you're a Trinitarian.

Ah, but did you type that with a straight face? [Biased]

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

[Big Grin]

(actually, yes)

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
John Wesley on the alteration of hymns (again with language of his time):
quote:
Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them ; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours : either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse ; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page ; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.

Can you get me hte source for that q

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you can claim with a straight face to be both a monotheist and a Christian, you have probably fallen into the modalist heresy...

Monotheism isn't reducible to monadism.

Posted by English Ploughboy. (# 4205) on :

Our biology teacher told us that "veiled in flesh" refered to the fact that babies are sometimes born with the membranes of the womb acually wrapped around their head like a veil. This is obviously dangerous as the membranes have to be cleared before the baby can breath.
Wesley may have witnessed a birth like this.
This then makes the carol very earthy and orthodox with the son of God born into a bloody, messy, precarious humanity.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Bullfrog. said:
Can you get me hte source for that q

It's from the Preface to the 1780 hymnbook.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, isn't it simply the case that Jesus' Godhead (Divinity / Divine nature) was "veiled", in the meaning of "somewhat hidden, recognizable only in the outlines", by His human nature? If the unveiled Logos had walked Palestine, how could anyone not have recognized Him as Divine? A supernova of eternal light would have bent every knee for sure... Yet many people did definitely not recognize Jesus as God. Jesus the man shall be transfigured to us when we do not see dimly anymore, when the Divine brightness does not turn us blind like it did a certain traveler on the road to Damascus.

Perhaps that's a nice definition of what human nature shall become: something that can let the Divine Light shine forth unimpeded (in Christ), and something that can stand seeing this Light (in the saints). But human nature sure veiled Divine nature in 1stC Palestine. I don't think that this is contrary to orthodox dogma. It does not deny that Christ is true God and true man in one Person. Rather it affirms that He had "two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union", hence with mere physical eyes God was not to be seen in Jesus, one had to acquire eyes of faith.

Bravo!. You always write so cogently.

I like the line,
"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see," because of the literary qualities of of antithesis and paradox that I think are profound. Knowing exactly what Wesley thought from other sources helps the theology.

The next line,
"Hail the incarnate Deity," kind of clears up the ambiguity if there was any since incarnate clearly implies humanity doesn't it?

However, what about the first line of the carol.
"Hark the herald angels sing." Does it say anywhere that they sang? Sorry for the tangent.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Luke 2:14

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Luke 2:14

Sings and says are different.
What about:

"Hark the herald angels say
Glory to the new born day?"

Not the same ring really. He needed a word to rhyme with king.

I actually can't recall a Biblical singing angel can you?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

<door> knock knock

<Mary> Who's there please?

<Gabriel> Singing Angelgram.

<Mary> Come in!

<Gabriel> Hail Mary full of grace
Most blessed chick in time and space
God is mighty pleased with you
So here is what He's going to do
(etc)

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Luke 2:14
Sings and says are different.
What about:

"Hark the herald angels say
Glory to the new born day?"

Not the same ring really. He needed a word to rhyme with king.

I actually can't recall a Biblical singing angel can you?

I think its the 'praising God' bit that get interpreted as singing.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Luke 2:14
Sings and says are different.
What about:

"Hark the herald angels say
Glory to the new born day?"

Not the same ring really. He needed a word to rhyme with king.

I actually can't recall a Biblical singing angel can you?

Revelation 5:13 says that every creature in heaven sang. Presumably that includes angels.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0