Musonius’ God

G. Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The Schools of the Imperial Age, trans. John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990) 72.

The following are quotes from Musonius Rufus (30 C.E.-101 C.E.), whom Reale claims was influenced by Middle Platonism:

In general, man alone among terrestrial beings is an image of God[,] he has virtues similar to him, because not even among the Gods can we suppose anything superior to prudence, to justice, and even to courage and temperance. And as God, by the presence of these virtues, is victorious over pleasure and victorious over immoderation, he is superior to the passions and to envy and jealousy, magnanimous, loving towards man (because it is of such a nature that we imagine God to be); in this way we think that man, who is the image of him, when living according to nature is in the same condition as God, and in this way he is enviable: being enviable, he will himself also be happy, because we only envy the happy.

Your father forbids you to philosophize, but the father of all, men and Gods, Zeus, commands you and imposes it on you. His order, his law is that man be just, noble, beneficent, sober, magnanimous, above fatigue, above pleasures, free of all envy and all deception: to speak briefly the law of Zeus commands all men to be good human beings.

To be honest, this is the second time that I’m reading this book, since I didn’t fully comprehend it the first time around. I read that the Middle Platonists believed in man becoming like God, but I didn’t know what they meant by that. Did they conceive of God as a personal being? It turns out that they did, and they exhorted people to imitate the gods in virtue, self-control, and happiness.

I’ve often read that certain philosophers did not like Homer’s depiction of the gods, which made them out to be like humans: wrathful, lustful, jealous, etc. That’s why they treated Homer as an allegory rather than taking his accounts of the gods literally. What’s interesting is that Musonius views Zeus as virtuous, which tends to contradict some of the myths about the gods, and yet he doesn’t seem to think that virtue is automatic to the gods. He claims that the gods are “victorious” over pleasure and immoderation. Does that mean that they have desires like humans, yet they have managed to conquer them?

Christianity has this sort of concept because it believes in a God who became a man, Jesus Christ. According to Hebrews, Jesus was tempted in every manner as we are, yet without sin, and he also became perfect through suffering (Hebrews 2:10; 4:15; 5:9).

Handmaid, Know-It-All, Temporary Law

1. Yehoshua Amir, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) 439.

“…it is possible to read into Philo’s allegory the doctrine of philosophy as ‘handmaid of Scripture,’ in analogy to the famous formula of philosophy as ‘ancilla theologiae‘ which was later developed by Christian theologians.”

I don’t know what it means to say that philosophy is a handmaid of Scripture or theology. Does it mean that philosophy can help us understand what’s in the Bible, or that it confirms biblical teaching, or that the Bible coincides with it? Was it a way to assure people that the Bible was consistent with the best of Greek philosophy?

At Harvard, I attended a discussion group on the Bible and the historical-critical method. Some suggested that historical-criticism should be a handmaid for the church, meaning that the church should feel free to draw from its insights when they can assist it in its mission: to evangelize and promote righteous living among the flock. Others expressed concern about such a move, since they felt that it compromised the historical-critical method. For them, that approach allowed Christians to cherry-pick the parts of the method that helped their mission and coincided with their theology, while they could disregard the parts that they found more uncomfortable, e.g., challenges to biblical inerrancy and the notion that the entire Bible is an evangelical Christian tract.

I’m not sure what to say about this. Philo probably drew from Greek philosophy because he believed in it, but he didn’t take everything from it. For example, Aristotle thought the cosmos was eternal, whereas Philo (as a Jew) believed it had an origin. Was he untrue to Aristotle? I don’t know about him, but the medieval Jews who cherry-picked from Aristotle at least tried to show why they disagreed with him in certain areas. Saadiah Gaon, for instance, offered reasons that the universe had a beginning (e.g., you can’t go back forever and arrive at the present, if that makes any sense). Whether the church is able to explain why it accepts parts of historical-criticism while rejecting others, I don’t know. The important thing, I guess, is what Augustine said: an interpretation of Scripture is good if it encourages us to love God and neighbor.

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1910) 836-837.

“Caecilius [in the third century C.E. dialogue, Octavius] speaks first (chs. 5-15), in defence of the heathen, and in opposition to the Christian religion…He charges the Christians with presumption for claiming a certain knowledge of the highest problems which lie beyond human ken…He concludes with the re-assertion of human ignorance of things which are above us, and an exhortation to leave those uncertain things alone…”

Christians often do claim to know the mysteries of the universe. My problem is that there are all of these questions out there, and Christians offer their answers, and I’m usually left scratching my head, thinking, “Is that all there is to it?” Is all of life encapsulated in the truths that God made us, we sinned, Christ redeemed us, we’re supposed to do good, and Christ will return? Is there nothing else to know?

There have been times when Christianity has appeared rather deep, however. When I was in a Bible study group at DePauw, we were studying I-II Peter, and we could practically derive a sermon out of each verse. It was so deep and multi-layered! The leader of the group said, “It’s like God said, ‘I’m going to put this in language that the people can understand,’ then he does so, and the product is still overwhelming and beyond us!”

At least the Christians tried to understand the deep things. Caecilius, however, did not. He wanted the pagans to offer their sacrifices and be good citizens. His perspective was roughly the same as what we see in Deuteronomy 29:29, only he was a pagan: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law” (NRSV). Perhaps Christians believed, however, that knowing certain mysteries could actually enable them to live good lives.

3. “The Law,” A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938) 155, 157-159.

“God says, ‘In this world, in the chapter of the red heifer, you are made clean and are purified by the mouth of the priest’ (Num. XIX, 7-9). But in the world to come it shall not be so. Then God himself will purify you from all your sins and impurities…(Ezek. XXXVI, 25). (Pes. R. 66a.)”

“It is written, ‘For this commandment is not in heaven’ (Deut. XXX, 11, 12). Moses said to the Israelites, ‘Lest you should say, Another Moses is to arise, and to bring us another Law from heaven, therefore I make it known to you now that it is not in heaven: nothing is left of it in heaven’…(Deut. R., Nizzabim, VIII, 6.)”

Many Christians believe that Jesus came with a new law, or he changed the old one. Consequently, we don’t have to do what the Israelites of the Old Testament did (e.g., Sabbath, sacrifices, avoid pork, etc.). Many Jews, however, have countered that the Torah is eternal and perpetual, meaning God intended for them always to do those rituals. But there is one Jewish view that things will be different in the World to Come, meaning that Israelites will not always obey every law of the Torah. Could such a belief form the backdrop to what we see in Hebrews? Hebrews asserts that Christians don’t need to offer animal sacrifices now that Christ had come, and, in some sense, its author holds that the world to come has broken into the world through Jesus (see Hebrews 6:5). Maybe that’s why he sees the Law as flexible.

Gnostic Soteriology

Source: Birger A. Pearson, “Jewish Sources in Gnostic Literature,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 460-461.

“A closer look reveals that the passage posits three classes of men: the perfect, on whom the Spirit of life has descended; ‘those who have not known to whom they belong’ (NHC II, 26, 33-34), and ‘those who did know but have turned away’ (II, 27, 22-23). The ‘perfect’ (=the Gnostics) are, of course, saved. Those in the second group are given another chance in another incarnation, and can thus be saved once they acquire gnosis. Those in the third group are ‘punished with eternal punishment’ (II, 27, 30). Moreover the entire passage has been placed by a redactor into the discussion of Seth and his race…as an anthropological excursis. Thus it is the race of Seth which is seen to constitute the ‘unmovable race’ (NHC II, 25, 23) of perfected and perfectible Gnostics.”

Pearson is discussing the Gnostic Apocryphon of John, which was probably written in the second century C.E. (according to my Nag Hammadi Library).

The passage seems to believe that certain people are racially predisposed to enlightenment: the race of Seth. Does the Bible agree with this idea? I’m not sure. In John 8:42-44, Jesus says to the Jewish leaders who rejected him: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (NRSV).

I’m not sure if Jesus is saying that those who reject him are the literal children of the devil. Arminians like to claim that the Jewish leaders Jesus was addressing chose to be children of the devil, by their own free will. If that is true, why did Jesus tell them that they could not accept his word? Where’s the free will, here?

(NOTE: I’m not calling any people-group the “seed of Satan,” and I disagree with any denomination that believes in racial hatred. I notice, however, that the concept of Satan’s seed appears in various parts of Scripture, and I wonder what it means.)

The Apocryphon of John, however, does not seem to hold that a class of people is unable to receive God. Rather, as far as they’re concerned, there are some who do not know to whom they belong, and God will give them another chance in another incarnation. The Christianity that made its way into the New Testament does not really agree with this notion, for Hebrews 9:27 states, “And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment[.]” Even if the New Testament does not exclude the possibility that God will have mercy on those who never heard, it’s not explicit regarding this gray category, as is the Apocryphon of John. Neither is early Christian literature, as far as I can see.

But both the New Testament and the Apocryphon of John agree that there is an eternal punishment, and that those who fall away from God will suffer it. As Hebrews 6:4-6 states, “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.”

Similarly, early Christian literature exhorts Christians to stay in the faith and do good works, since otherwise they will face eternal punishment. There’s no “once saved always saved” here, though, of course, the Gnostics apparently assume that the Sethites will persevere in the faith.

Hebrews and Animal Sacrifices

The epistle to the Hebrews contends that animal sacrifices cannot take away sin. Why not? In Hebrews 10:1-4, we see its rationale:

“Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach. Otherwise, would they not have ceased being offered, since the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (NRSV).

I want to concentrate on the part about animal sacrifices being offered “year after year.” The author of Hebrews wonders: if sin offerings truly cleansed the Israelites of sin, then why did they have to offer them every year on the Day of Atonement? Shouldn’t once be enough? By contrast, v 12 says that “Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins.” Unlike animal sacrifices, Christ doesn’t need to be offered on a continual basis, for his one sacrifice of himself was sufficient to atone for sin.

I don’t entirely understand Hebrews’ reasoning. Just because the Israelites offered animal sacrifices every year, does that show that the sacrifices were ineffective for atonement? Maybe they cleansed the sins of the previous year. But when a new year arrived, so came a fresh batch of sins, and they too had to be removed. Just because a ritual is continually needed, that doesn’t make it ineffective. I need to take a bath on a regular basis, but that doesn’t mean the bath doesn’t do its job for the day. Does the bath fail to remove dirt just because I have to do it more than once?

And the same is true in Christianity: sure, we have been cleansed through the sacrifice of Christ, but we still need to ask for forgiveness on a continual basis (Matthew 6:12, 14-15; I John 1:9). Why must we do that, if we’ve been forgiven once and for all? Isn’t continual confession and repentance similar to the regular offering of the animal sacrifices? In both, we have to keep the slate wiped clean.

Hebrews says that animal sacrifices didn’t work because the Israelites were not cleansed once and for all, plus they still had a consciousness of sin even after they had offered them. But isn’t that true of Christians as well? They need to ask for forgiveness on a continual basis, which shows (1.) that they need repeated cleansing, and (2.) that they still have a consciousness of sin.

Of course, Hebrews 8:8-13 is clear that the old covenant by itself was defective because of the sinfulness of the Israelites. That’s why the new covenant is about God writing his laws on people’s hearts: we need a new nature in order to become sinless. The Israelites could offer their sacrifices year-in and year-out, but did that change their sinful nature? If it did, then why did they have to sacrifice sin offerings every single year?

Maybe Hebrews is saying that only Christ can take away sins–in the sense of bringing Christians to a state of actual sinlessness. And, indeed, Hebrews does use such terminology as “perfecting.” Yet, at the same time, Hebrews also seems to say that Christ’s death brings forgiveness (not just practical cleansing from sin) in a way that animal sacrifices do not. Hebrews 10:18 says, “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin,” which indicates that, in contrast to the Old Covenant sin offerings, Christ’s one sacrifice was sufficient for atonement.

And so I’m back where I started: If Christ’s one sacrifice cleansed Christians of sin once and for all, then why do they need to keep on receiving forgiveness? And how does what Christians do differ from the Israelites’ continual offering of animal sacrifices?

Maybe Hebrews doesn’t hold that Christians need to keep their slate clean. Perhaps it thinks that their slate is already clean–and that it always will be, unless they deliberately leave Christ (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-27). Hebrews is clear that Christians will still sin, so it encourages them that they have a faithful and merciful high priest who is eager to help them (Hebrews 4:15-16). But maybe (unlike Matthew and I John) it doesn’t assume that they need to receive continual forgiveness; rather, as far as Hebrews is concerned, Christians have already been forgiven–once and for all time–and they come to Christ primarily for compassion and aid as they struggle against sin.

Could it be that Matthew and I John resemble Catholics in their view on forgiveness, whereas Hebrews is more like a lot of Protestants on that issue?