lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
This isn't necessarily something I agree with, but it's certainly a novel and interesting exegesis, and possibly worthy of discussion:
About Pavel Florensky
Pavel Florensky was an early 20th century Russian orthodox priest and theologian, as well as a mathematician and physicist. In 1914 he published a book called The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, a collection of 12 letters addressing various theological subjects: religious epistemology, the nature of hell, divine wisdom, and mysticism. In the 30s, he was first exiled, then imprisoned, and eventually sentenced to death by the soviet state for his failure to conform to communistic ideas. Philosophically, the influence of Kant and Hegel in his work is distinctly felt. He tends to arrive at a mystical approach after considering various apparent antinomies in religious dogma and exploring possible syntheses.
The Question of Universalism
In The Pillar and Ground of Truth, in a letter entitled Gehenna, Florensky considers the question of universal salvation in just such an antinomy:
Synthesis
Exegesis
Florensky notes what I would expect to be the immediate objection: that Paul is talking about the building of the Church, and not necessarily those outside of it, but given an understanding that the foundation laid down by Christ is universal, at least in its offer (“one has died for all… God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” — 2 Cor 5:14,18; also 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2), and taking into account his distinction between character and “personhood”, the latter of which is the image of God, which is also foundational and which has been given to all, he applies the passage universally.
Everyone must take care of their work, which is in the living of life and the building of one’s character. When Paul says “if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved”, it is that image of God, one’s essential personhood, that shall be saved, universally because of Christ, but the very personality, the human egoic construction of the little “I”, the value of which is evident in the works of life, must be purified, and it is that which, as Jesus warns, might be cut off and thrown into the fire (“if your hand offends you, cut it off…” — Mark 9:43, Matthew 5:29).
He further defends the idea of a person being split into two parts based on the wording of a particular passage repeated in Matthew and Luke:
“Cut him in pieces” is διχοτομήσει, literally to cut in two, the same from which we get the word dichotomy. He finds an agreement for this interpretation in Origen, who writes:
There is quite a bit more to his discussion, but I think this covers the main thrust. What do you think?
About Pavel Florensky
Pavel Florensky was an early 20th century Russian orthodox priest and theologian, as well as a mathematician and physicist. In 1914 he published a book called The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, a collection of 12 letters addressing various theological subjects: religious epistemology, the nature of hell, divine wisdom, and mysticism. In the 30s, he was first exiled, then imprisoned, and eventually sentenced to death by the soviet state for his failure to conform to communistic ideas. Philosophically, the influence of Kant and Hegel in his work is distinctly felt. He tends to arrive at a mystical approach after considering various apparent antinomies in religious dogma and exploring possible syntheses.
The Question of Universalism
In The Pillar and Ground of Truth, in a letter entitled Gehenna, Florensky considers the question of universal salvation in just such an antinomy:
Love cannot create in order to ruin; it cannot create, knowing of death; Love cannot fail to forgive. The idea of retribution directed toward creation and all that is creaturely is dispersed in the light of immeasurable Divine Love as a mist is dispersed in the rays of the sun. From the point of view of eternity, everything is forgiven, everything is forgotten: “God will be all in all”. In brief, the impossibility of universal salvation is impossible.
That is how it is from the height of the idea of God. But taking the bi-conjugate point of view, i.e proceeding not from God’s love of creation but from creation’s love of God, the same consciousness inevitably arrives at the diametrically opposite conclusion. Now, consciousness cannot admit that there could be salvation without the answering love of God. And since it is impossible to admit that love is unfree, that God has compelled creation to love, it inevitably follows that it is possible that God’s love could exist without creation answering. In other words, the impossibility of universal salvation is possible.
The thesis and the antithesis are clearly antinomic. Insofar as one accepts God’s love of creation, the thesis is inevitable, whereas insofar as one accepts the freedom of creation (a freedom that is a necessary consequence of God’s love), the antithesis is inevitable.
That is how it is from the height of the idea of God. But taking the bi-conjugate point of view, i.e proceeding not from God’s love of creation but from creation’s love of God, the same consciousness inevitably arrives at the diametrically opposite conclusion. Now, consciousness cannot admit that there could be salvation without the answering love of God. And since it is impossible to admit that love is unfree, that God has compelled creation to love, it inevitably follows that it is possible that God’s love could exist without creation answering. In other words, the impossibility of universal salvation is possible.
The thesis and the antithesis are clearly antinomic. Insofar as one accepts God’s love of creation, the thesis is inevitable, whereas insofar as one accepts the freedom of creation (a freedom that is a necessary consequence of God’s love), the antithesis is inevitable.
Synthesis
A person created by God, that is, a person who is holy and absolutely valuable in his very core, has free creative will, which is revealed as a system of acts, i.e, as an empirical character. In this sense, a person is a character.
But a creature of God is a person and must be saved. An evil character is precisely what prevents a person from being saved. It is therefore clear that salvation postulates a separation between person and character. What is one must become disparate…
In other words, the essentially holy “in itself” of a person (according to the mode “He”) is separated from the person’s “for itself” (according to the mode “I”) insofar as the latter is evil.
But a creature of God is a person and must be saved. An evil character is precisely what prevents a person from being saved. It is therefore clear that salvation postulates a separation between person and character. What is one must become disparate…
In other words, the essentially holy “in itself” of a person (according to the mode “He”) is separated from the person’s “for itself” (according to the mode “I”) insofar as the latter is evil.
Exegesis
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
— 1 Corinthians 3:10-15
— 1 Corinthians 3:10-15
Florensky notes what I would expect to be the immediate objection: that Paul is talking about the building of the Church, and not necessarily those outside of it, but given an understanding that the foundation laid down by Christ is universal, at least in its offer (“one has died for all… God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” — 2 Cor 5:14,18; also 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2), and taking into account his distinction between character and “personhood”, the latter of which is the image of God, which is also foundational and which has been given to all, he applies the passage universally.
Everyone must take care of their work, which is in the living of life and the building of one’s character. When Paul says “if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved”, it is that image of God, one’s essential personhood, that shall be saved, universally because of Christ, but the very personality, the human egoic construction of the little “I”, the value of which is evident in the works of life, must be purified, and it is that which, as Jesus warns, might be cut off and thrown into the fire (“if your hand offends you, cut it off…” — Mark 9:43, Matthew 5:29).
He further defends the idea of a person being split into two parts based on the wording of a particular passage repeated in Matthew and Luke:
Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
— Matthew 24:45-51, Luke 12:46
— Matthew 24:45-51, Luke 12:46
“Cut him in pieces” is διχοτομήσει, literally to cut in two, the same from which we get the word dichotomy. He finds an agreement for this interpretation in Origen, who writes:
The gospel says of evil servants that they must be cut asunder, and part of them placed with the unfaithful. In other words, the part that is no longer their own, as it were, must be sent to another place. This saying unquestionably indicates the special kind of punishment of those whose spirit must be separated from the soul
— Origen, On First Principles, II, 10, 7;
— Origen, On First Principles, II, 10, 7;
There is quite a bit more to his discussion, but I think this covers the main thrust. What do you think?
