And Can It Be? (i)

Verse 1
And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Saviour's blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain-
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

So begins one of the theologically richest hymns ever written. Written by Charles Wesley, many say that if Methodism were to have a fight song this would unquestionably be it.

Thanks to Jonathan Powers' direction, I was taken to this article, which is a snippet about some of the background of Charles' writing the hymn. For instance, the hymn was first published under the title 'Free Grace,' which is interesting given that one of John Wesley's most famous sermons shares the same title (another reason to make this the fight song of Methodism). The lyrics, the author of the article notes, relates closely to Charles' special experience on May 21, 1738 (three days before his brother John's experience at Aldersgate where his heart was "strangely warmed"). Although rules of grammar are suspended to a certain degree when it comes to poetry, I am struck that this hymn begins with a coordinating conjunction: "And can it be...". I wondered if this meant that Charles originally had this hymn as a follow-up to a previous hymn or if it had some sort of poetical or theological significance. With no evidence that I've seen to the former, the latter seems most probable. Since Jonathan (mentioned above) is more of an expert on Charles and on hymnody in general, I asked him. He responded with this insightful thought: "By using 'And'+ it marks the song as a response/reflection on conversion." This strengthens the case that this hymn is deeply connected to the experience referenced above, an experience (similar to John's) that many call Charles' conversion.

The hymn begins with a coordinating conjunction because this hymn marks the response of someone who is in awe of the extent of God's love. Or, as the author of the article above put it, "The questions that open the hymn are a remarkable reiteration of the perplexion faced by one who is confronted by the wonder of God’s forgiving love...This mystery is at the heart of God’s love and mercy, which is inexplicable even to the angels. We are left simply to adore the depths of divine mercy."

This is that upon which this hymn is grounded. This is that upon which our salvation is founded: God's infinite, perplexing, and forgiving love! In Charles' journal on 14 August 1741, he records this:

I went after a stray sheep, who was turned out of the way by the predestinarians; but the good Shepherd had found her himself, and brought her home rejoicing. For some days she had been under the full influence of that narrow opinion, and could not bear any of her brethren and sisters. Then she cried unto the Lord to show her the truth, and he answered her by his own mouth. The true light broke in upon her, and in his light she saw that God is love. She is now humbled in the dust before him, for having "robbed him of his most darling attribute."

Notice that he says it is love that is God's "darling attribute." We'll see the theme of 'light breaking in' in another verse, so stay tuned for that. Interestingly, the topic of John's sermon 'Free Grace,' Charles' journal entry above, and John's treatise 'Predestination Calmly Considered' all center on the controverted issue of predestination and the Wesleys' disagreement with the Calvinists' take of the issue. But in all of these (and more), it is 'love' that is at the heart of God's nature and hence God's intent in saving fallen humanity. John, in 'Predestination Calmly Considered':

So ill do election and reprobation agree with the truth and sincerity of God! But do they not agree least of all with the scriptural account of his love and goodness? that attribute which God peculiarly claims, wherein he glories above all the rest. It is not written, “God is justice,” or “God is truth” (although he is just and true in all his ways). But it is written, “God is love,” love in the abstract, without bounds; and "there is no end of his goodness."

Two final points that probably deserve much more consideration. First, the lyrics 'gain an interest in the Saviour's blood' convey the metaphor of sin as debt and atonement as redemption (or perhaps ransom) with the language of commerce in gaining interest. This should not be read to suggest that 'ransom' or commercial atonement theology governs the Wesleys' (or at least Charles') approach to the atonement. Indeed, this hymn will go on to portray other themes that lay at the heart of Jesus' atoning death, but it does show that there is something immeasurable we gain in the death of Jesus. I think this is conveyed somewhat in 'How Deep the Father's Love for Us' by Stuart Townend in the lyrics:

Why should I gain from his reward?
I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart:
His death has paid my ransom.

Second (and finally), in relation to the recent posts about Tertullian's and Cyril of Alexandria's takes on the Godhead at the cross (you'll want to read the couple of comments on each post) comes the question of the final part of this verse: what did Charles import into "That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" Jonathan raised this question in the comments on the post about Tertullian. Though I could be mistaken as to Charles' meaning, I don't think he was making a theological argument to suggest that Christ's divinity died at the cross. If he was doing that, then I think he stood in opposition to the conclusions of the early church (most notably Cyril's theology, affirmed in the Council of Chalcedon). I rather think that Charles was using 'my God' as an expression much like Thomas cried in John 20.28. Charles rightly recognizes that Jesus is indeed "My Lord and my God!" It is an exclamation that, returning to an earlier point, shows our wonder at the infinite and perplexing breadth and depth of God's love, God's 'free grace'!

Tertullian on the Godhead at the Cross

As promised in the last post I did on Psalm 31, I now want to revisit the issue of the unity of the Godhead at the crucifixion of Jesus. Last week, I wrote a brief post with some quotes from Saints Athanasius and Chrysostom that counter any suggestion of a "split Trinity" or "split Godhead" and in fact they conclude in agreement with the Roman centurion at the cross that even in Christ's deepest moment of despair and seeming (or felt) forsaken-ness that the Father and the Son were actually very, very close to one another. Isaac Hopper and Matt O'Reilly then posted much more elaborate posts than mine delving into the biblical, theological, and pastoral implications of the statement(s) from Marva Dawn, who had suggested that the Trinity was split at the cross. I highly recommend you check those posts out. You can read Isaac's here and Matt's two posts here and here.

My aim in this post is not to rehash the debate about Dr. Dawn's statement specifically, but to bring a related issue to light that might bear on the debate that has taken (is taking?) place regarding the relationship between the Persons of the Godhead at Jesus' crucifixion. When I posted on Psalm 31 and came across a statement that was also quoted by Jesus and was the last one he cried before breathing his last, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit," I started digging into some other early Church Fathers' writings to see if they had some wisdom on this connection with Psalm 31 and Jesus' death. I turned to Tertullian and found some helpful insights not only into this statement, but also of the relationship of the Godhead at the moment of Jesus' death.

Tertullian: But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man - not of the Word and Spirit, that to prove the impassibility of God, who "forsook" His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. This verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this affect: "If the Father spared not His own Son." This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the Lord hath delivered Him up for our offences." In this manner He "forsook" Him, in not sparing Him; "forsook" Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended his Spirit. Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died.

To let you know briefly about Tertullian: he was a Church Father in the West who wrote in Latin. Likely his most known quote is "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? The Church with the academy?" He was a lawyer by trade and so was very technical and investigative into theological matters. What makes Tertullian especially important is that he was the first to employ the language of the Trinity (Trinitas in Latin) as well as the formulation of tres Personae, una Substantia (translated to English: 3 Persons, 1 Substance). He employed this language prior to the Council of Nicea (AD 325), whose conclusion, championed by Athanasius, was the Greek equivalent of Tertullian's description. So it is certain that Tertullian is an important figure of the first of the two primary theological controversies (Trinitarian & Christological) of the first few centuries of the Church. But from the statement above (taken from his treatise Against Praxeas) we can even begin to see glimpses of how the Christological controversy would be centered upon, which would come to a head at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451).

I realize I'm glossing over quite a bit here, but since it's a blog...The conclusion at Chalcedon is that Jesus Christ is 1 person, 2 Essences, and further that he is fully divine and fully human. However, to understand how the two essences relate within him is beyond our capacity but we should avoid any belief that leads us into separating the essences so much that he essentially becomes two people or anything that leads us into blending the two essences such that they lose their distinction. You can read the Chalcedonian definition here. In (very short), Jesus is God-Human. The place where these two controversies (Christological and Trinitarian, which we should note have significant implications upon each other) comes with perhaps the most difficult questions is with the death of Jesus.

St. Augustine suggested that when Jesus cried aloud, "Why have you forsaken me?" it was his humanity that was crying. Tertullian seems to have suggested the same above, or at least it is along the same lines when he says He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death.

So, here I'm asking for your help...perhaps I'm missing a key element of these controversies and their implications at Jesus' death. I wince a little bit when people say, "God died." That statement is problematic because 'God' implies Father, Son, and Spirit. Only Jesus died, so to say 'God died' can easily imply what the early church denounced as patripassianism (or belief in the passion/death of the Father). But if one affirms that Jesus died without his divinity being sacrificed is that not dividing the essences, something that goes against the Chalcedonian definition? If that isn't a necessary conclusion, then that Jesus' divinity was not sacrificed seems to be the case, at least in terms of how Tertullian and St. Augustine see it. If so, then we have further reason to conclude that the unity of the Godhead was preserved in and through the cross/Jesus' death.

Please know that I'm not trying to speak with authority or convince you that you need to believe this or else you're a heretic. Perhaps I'm the heretic here, but if so, I ask you to be gentle in your correcting me, and be patient if I still have questions. At the very least I ask for your hand as we worship this God who has so demonstrated his love that his Son has tasted death for every one of us.