In my first post on this topic, I didn't really mention why I feel so passionately about this topic except as a historical matter of me liking the hymns. It may surprise you based on the wacky takes I can sometimes grab onto, but I am often a pretty skeptical guy. Luther once wrote in a letter on the Lord's Supper that to believe something which nobody in the early church taught is a very perilous endeavor, and I would tend to believe the same thing. I think it's related to the oft-quoted passage by Roman Catholics that "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church." While I wouldn't overthrow the clear words of scripture for a practice that the Church seems to have done for a very long time (prayer to saints, for example), I have a constant fear that what we Lutherans believe, teach, and confess is merely the novel fever dreams of a bunch of 16th century Germans, and this is why I love reading the church fathers: so often these funny Germans are perfectly in line with the Church Catholic in ancient times. What's more, where they aren't, the confessional documents don't bind us to such a view, as I have written about here. Well, with the distinction between Law and Gospel being so baked into modern Lutheranism, especially our Waltherian branch in America, I had a nagging concerned that this was merely a 19th century novelty, based in the confessions but emphasized to an inordinate degree. However, I have since come to the conclusion that at least St. Ephrem clearly taught such a distinction, which has greatly strengthened my confidence about our church teaching. With that hopefully edifying excursus, let's go back to the man's words themselves! In the last post, we discussed St. Ephrem's view of the second use of the law and its fulfillment in the preaching of the gospel, and I think he actually summarizes it well in hymn 6.7,
"God planted the fair Garden, He built the pure Church; Upon the Tree of Knowledge He established the injunction [prohibition, law]. He gave joy, but they took no delight, He gave admonition, but they were unafraid. In the Church He implanted the Word Which causes rejoicing with its promises, which causes fear with its warnings: He who despises the Word, perishes, he who takes warning, lives.
In the Hymns on Paradise, St. Ephrem is very often making analogies between Eden, the Church, and the Resurrection, and this is one of those cases where he does so most clearly. In this section, he is specifically comparing the first two, with a further connection between the Tree of Knowledge and the Word. From this Word, we see two things preached: "promises" and "warnings." While this is not necessarily the same as our modern distinction between Law and Gospel, earlier on, the Lutherans would write eerily similarly to St. Ephrem on this matter: "All Scripture should be divided into these two main topics: the law and the promises" (AC 4.5). This law/injunction/admonition/warning was given to make them afraid, with the hopes that man would take such warnings and live, but the natural man hates the things of God and insolently disregards His threats. He also promises wonderful things, namely life and salvation, but the worlds takes no delight in the Lord's Word and thus "perishes." Perhaps this is the double death Moses writes about (Gen 2:17), condemned by the Law because of their wickedness and by the Gospel because they reject it. So is the fate of the natural man. However, there is hope in the "assembly of saints" (6.8). Here, they still bear "resemblance to Paradise." This is because there "is plucked the fruit of" the Lord and there "is trodden the cluster of grapes, to be the Medicine of Life." The solution to this twofold death is the Eucharist! This is the fruit of God and the Medicine of Life. It also seems that this is the other tree, the Tree of Life. Thus, Eden had the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, but in the Church, we have Word and Sacrament. This fruit of God, however, is not merely the Eucharist. Just as the Gospel has a condemnatory aspect, if it is rejected, so too the Law has a blessing, if kept. This looks like the good fruits that the Christian bears from the root of their faith; these are the blessings of the righteous. This is most clearly described in verses 10-13, which go into great detail to describe the glorious fruits of free will.
Oftentimes Lutherans are allergic to the language of free will, so I must assure you, I am not falling away from the Monergism that the scriptures so clearly describe. Instead, I am following the confessional language when I say that we cooperate with the Holy Ghost in our sanctification. While we are by nature bound to sin, our Lord has freed us from this bondage and restored the image of God in us, though the Old Adam continues struggling. Thus, while we live, we ought to pursue virtue, as such is the end of our faith (see Eph. 2:10). This is what St. Ephrem clearly describes, and he well explains why such free will was necessary in the garden. While it was originally made by "the [divine] arm that never tires" and is beautified "without effort," now it is "the effort of free will that adorns the Church with all manner of fruits" (6.10). When the righteous enter the New Jerusalem, which "exults with every form of fruit," "the fruits of the just surpass in their excellence the fruit of [Paradise's] trees" (11) and "the flowers of Paradise...were vanquished at the sight of the blossoms of the celibate and chaste" (12). In other words, the good works that we produce through free will are more blessed than those works God Himself planted. It's also important to note, "both creation and its Creator rejoice" at such fruits (12). This contest is not so ugly that the creation hates us for being favored, like the murderous Cain and the brutish Esau. Rather, as St. Paul says, "the creation waits with eager longing for the revelation of the sons of God" (Rom 8:19). This is because our blessings flow forth from us into all creation, and "the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God"(Rom 8:21). This is a favorite passage of mine, as it is relevant for the discussion of the fate of animals, but that's a discussion for another day.
Back to the verse at hand, see that it says that the Creator too rejoices to see our good works. As Ephrem says later, "The fruits of the righteous were more pleasing to the Knower of all than the fruits and produce of the trees" (6.13). Ephrem says it is simply because nature points to the glories of man, but I would also lean on his description of fruits grown from free will. Such fruits are more blessed because while they too are works of God (Phil. 2:13), unlike the trees, they are done with goodwill from the mediate actor. In the case of charity, for example, the trees give freely to mankind, but they can't really do so cheerfully, as they have no free will. The Jews are analogous, as they are forced by the Torah to give ten percent of their income, but Christians are free, and "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7). Thus we see that the goodwill of an actor magnifies the glory of God, who works through them. While there's obviously much more that could be said, I think these four hymns really give an excellent taste of the preaching of Law and Gospel in St. Ephrem, and they put forth an absolutely fascinating view of how this distinction works out in Eden, both the old and the new.
Comments