“The logos asarkos, the fleshless Word, is a metronomic thought experiment without purchase on the trinitarian economy”

A speculative position in trinitarian theology is that the flesh of Jesus is an atemporal fact about the LORD, and therefore belongs to the trinitarian economy essentially. Slightly more technically, in the metronomic temporal order, according to which time passes and is measurable by clocks and calendars, there was a time before the incarnation, and, therefore, a time when the second person of the Trinity was not enfleshed. But the triune LORD is not subject to that temporal order—the metronome, time whose law is measure, is time damaged, and the LORD is in no way subject to or responsible for damage—and so in the LORD’s time, the time of the diastolic/systolic circumincession of the three persons, what the LORD does in the world, ad extra, is atemporally, which is roughly to say, in the language of the metronome, always, present to the LORD. This entails that the flesh of Jesus is always present to the LORD as the flesh of that divine-human person. Which is in turn to say that the logos asarkos, the fleshless Word, is a metronomic thought experi­ment without purchase on the trinitarian economy. There may be reasons for using the locution, but there are none that require Christians to think that it labels anything. (Divisions of Christian opinion about this matter are, without exception, traceable to disagreements about the nature of time.)

Paul J. Griffiths

Quote | This entry was posted in Paul Griffiths. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to “The logos asarkos, the fleshless Word, is a metronomic thought experiment without purchase on the trinitarian economy”

  1. What do you wager is the upshot of an eternally enfleshed Word?

    Like

    • Fr Aidan Kimel says:

      In terms of preaching, it keeps the preacher properly tied to the economy of salvation. As Torrance liked to say, “There is no God behind the back of Jesus.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Fair enough. I’ve been thinking through those ideas because of some pastoral responsibilities, and Sanders’ Deep Things of God spurred the question deeper. The distinction between the immanent and economic trinity, if pursued wrongly, can make the immanent trinity different from (in terms of identity) the economic, which makes pointing to Jesus as our Mediator and Savior problematic at best.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s