PDA

View Full Version : Days of Proclamation and Clement of Alexandria


Constantine
February 5th 2005, 02:32 AM
I didn't think my ECF essay was long enough so I was looking for more quotes before I finalized it and ran across something astounding. As you may know I am not really a proponent of the Days of Proclamation view (but I do not object to it) mainly because I am not aware of the ECF's supporting such a view. But it appears I might be wrong, Take a look at this paragraph from the 16th chapter of book 6 in the Miscellanies written by Clement of Alexandria:

The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," " by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder. For the creations on the different days followed in a most important succession; so that all things brought into existence might have honour from priority, created together in thought, but not being of equal worth. Nor was the creation of each signified by the voice, inasmuch as the creative work is said to have made them at once. For something must needs have been named first. Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.
(Miscellanies 6:16)


This is a link to the text: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but he seems to be saying something similar to the Days of Proclamation view of things being announced first. If this is helpful to that view then great! If not I hope you find it interesting.

You find so many cool things when you read what the Early Church Fathers wrote, if you've got the time I suggest reading some of it.

grmorton
February 5th 2005, 11:00 AM
I didn't think my ECF essay was long enough so I was looking for more quotes before I finalized it and ran across something astounding. As you may know I am not really a proponent of the Days of Proclamation view (but I do not object to it) mainly because I am not aware of the ECF's supporting such a view. But it appears I might be wrong, Take a look at this paragraph from the 16th chapter of book 6 in the Miscellanies written by Clement of Alexandria:



This is a link to the text: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but he seems to be saying something similar to the Days of Proclamation view of things being announced first. If this is helpful to that view then great! If not I hope you find it interesting.

You find so many cool things when you read what the Early Church Fathers wrote, if you've got the time I suggest reading some of it.


Thanks for that Constantine, it is indeed fascinating. I would have bolded the last sentence because that is what makes it pre-temporal and that is the biggest piece of the Days of Proclamation. The idea that time itself was created is both an ancient and a modern idea. General Relativity has time created along with space at the Beginning. Clement, though wasn't the first to view things pre-temporally. this came out from the first century Rabbi's who believed that the Torah itself was pre-temporal--meaning that the account of creation was written pretemporally.

While Clement probably didn't hold exactly the views I did, we are not far apart in the role that pre-temporality had to play in the creation.

Edited to add: the more times I read Clement's passage, the more clearly I see that he almost has to be teaching Days of proclamation. He talks about things being 'created together in thought', he denies that the creation of each thing is 'by the voice' which mirrors what I say that God's proclamations didn't immediately result in instantaneous existence of the object. His definition of the resting could be read as an intermediate process taking place.

This is a most fascinating jewel from the Church fathers. Thanks very very much for this.

Constantine
February 5th 2005, 07:18 PM
Edited to add: the more times I read Clement's passage, the more clearly I see that he almost has to be teaching Days of proclamation. He talks about things being 'created together in thought', he denies that the creation of each thing is 'by the voice' which mirrors what I say that God's proclamations didn't immediately result in instantaneous existence of the object. His definition of the resting could be read as an intermediate process taking place.

This is a most fascinating jewel from the Church fathers. Thanks very very much for this.

You are very very welcome!

Your writings played a big role in my rescue from YEC so I am more than happy to help you out if I can.

Perhaps my next project could be to see if I can find any other ECF's talking about Days of Proclamation.

You may make me a convert to the Days of Proclamation view yet if I find further evidence in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. You present very strong evidence that some early Rabbi's taught such a view but being a stubborn Catholic I need to hear it from the ECF's before I fully commit to the viewpoint. Thats why I currently lean toward the Framework view, it originated (as far as I know) with Augustine. You know us RC's and our Tradition.

Does anyone else have a comment on this that does not hold to the Days of Proclamation view?

rogero
February 6th 2005, 06:18 PM
Thanks for starting this thread Constantine!

I don't hold to the Days of Proclamation view, but then I don't hold tenaciously to any particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11. I'm open to any and all interpretations that don't contradict the observable evidence that God leaves for us to study in his creation. The only interpretations I will reject are ones that make God a liar.

Everyone who believes there is truth in scripture should hold to (at least!) a minimalist view: Genesis 1-11 contains theological truth, explaining how God relates to humans as bearers of the God-likeness. The particulars of how much historicity to assign to this narrative is another issue, which should not, hopefully and prayerfully, affect the message of Christianity as revealed through the crucified and risen Christ in the NT.

Personally, I do respect Glennn's need for historicity. I had a slight epiphany about Ge 1:1 last week in a conversation with Glennn when he asked whether I would still believe in a literal beginning of the Universe were Sir Freddy Hoyle's "Steady State" universe the accepted paradigm. Being a 1954 baby, I have never experienced a scientific consensus that did not consider the Cosmos to have a beginning. Had I been born in 1920, this would have been a different story.

R

Jack777
February 8th 2005, 03:50 PM
Clement could have derived his views simply from the Bible and no other source as Scripture agrees with him that the universe was planned before it was created.