Peter J. Leithart

John 6:53: Jesus therefore said to them, Truly, Truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food and My . . . . Continue Reading »

Docetism can take subtle forms. We can affirm that Jesus was truly human, with human hands and human eyes and human feet and human hair. But we fall into docetism if we fail to see how specific Jesus’ humanity is. The Son became human, but we need to be more specific if we are going to grasp . . . . Continue Reading »

Doctrine matters, and no doctrines matter more than the doctrines concerning Jesus Christ. We can test every other doctrinal concern this way: What does it say about Jesus? One of the earliest heresies was “docetism,” which comes from the Greek verb for “seem.” Docetists . . . . Continue Reading »

Ruth Fox points out how the Roman Catholic lectionary deletes passages that have to do with heroic women. This happens so consistently that even the most anti-feminist reader has to get a tad suspicious. Among the more egregious examples is this one: “A survey of the lectionary reveals that . . . . Continue Reading »

Naomi is as central to Ruth as the title character. She’s the one emptied, then filled; bereft and restored; dead and risen again. The son of Boaz and Ruth is “Naomi’s son,” and this chiastically matches (as several of my students have pointed out) her loss of sons at the . . . . Continue Reading »

The rhyming Hebrew phrase reyach niychoach (“soothing aroma”) is used frequently in Leviticus in conjunction with ishshah (“fire offering” or “food offering”; this combination found in Leviticus 1:13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5, 16). reyach niychoach is found without i . . . . Continue Reading »

Hegel’s erotic Trinity seeks the other out of need and lack, an indeterminacy that the other determines. What, however, if we think of the Triune love as arising from plentitude rather than lack? One immediate result is that the other is affirmed: “is this not what agapeic love does: . . . . Continue Reading »

Desmond suggests that when Hegel defines God as love, he has in mind God as erotic love, and God specifically as needy erotic love: “For Hegel . . . the movement up and the movement down seem not to be two different movements, but two expressions of a singular movement of eternally circular . . . . Continue Reading »

In a brilliant chapter of his book on Hegel’s God, William Desmond asks whether Hegel can count to two. He wonders if Hegel is capable of accounting “for the true otherness of creation as temporal and not as eternal?” More, “Let God’s self-movement be eternal, but the . . . . Continue Reading »

In his book on the Trinity in German Thought, Samuel Powell gives a remarkably lucid summary of Hegel’s Trinitarian theology. A few of his major points: 1) Hegel worked out his position as a way between the Enlightenment and pietism, focusing on the question of whether and how we can know . . . . Continue Reading »