A paper written at the Unification Theological Seminary
In presenting Unification Theology, one of the main topics, and probably the central area of concern for Christians, is Christology. A Christian professor states: "In an effort...to understand and respond to the fresh theological energy of the Unification movement, Christological issues obviously have a pivotal role." 1
This paper will present something of the history of discussion of the divinity and the humanity of Jesus in Unificationism, the prerequisites and ramifications of these, and some evaluative comments.
Before speaking about Unification Christology per se, it seems necessary to clarify the status of a "perfected" individual, as this is the primary issue informing the Unification view of the person of Christ:
According to Divine Principle, our first human ancestors were supposed to attain individual perfection, reflecting God's own character.
...a person who passes the "perfection" state "enters the direct dominion of God," which is a dominion of love rather than compulsion. Since love is the strongest force in the universe, the bond of love between God and a perfected individual can never be broken. 2
...the relationship between God and a perfected man or woman may be compared to the relationship between a mind and a body. Just as the body is "the substantial object to the invisible mind, which it resembles," so a perfected individual is the substantial object to the invisible God, taking after his image." Such a person becomes the "temple" of God, "assuming deity." Therefore, someone who attains the purpose of creation "would assume the divine value of God." (Wells, 1982, p. 194) 3Adam was to perfect himself by harmonizing his mind and body into total unison with God's heart, thus embodying the ideal of creation. Paul calls such a person the temple of God (I Cor 3:16). The Fathers of the Eastern Church like Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria describe such a perfected state as deification. (Kim, 1987, pp. 164)
Unification Theology clearly speaks about the work of Christ,4 but whether or not it deals specifically with the person of Christ has been questioned:
Unification theology seems not to make use of this distinction [between the person and work of Christ]. Rather, Christ's person is subsumed under or into his work or office, i.e., his historical role as unifier of humankind under God. (Foster, 1982, p. 215) 5
Dr. Wells explains the Unification position on Jesus's status of perfection, however, in a way that seems indeed to magnify Christ's person:
Divine Principle affirms that "Jesus was a man who had attained the purpose of creation." This does not in the least diminish his value." Rather, Jesus was a man of divine value, and "in light of his deity, he may well be called God." (Wells, 1982, pp. 194) 6
There seem to be a range of views within Unificationism as well as among those who examine Unification Christology from the outside.
Does not the New Testament call Jesus God? There is no easy answer to that question. Repeatedly in the Synoptics, Jesus make a clear distinction between God and himself.
...In other words, Jesus is never called "God" in our earliest sources but it becomes increasingly common to ascribe divinity to him as the years pass.
In the later first-century Roman world it was not unusual to ascribe divinity to an exceptional man. ...Hence, it was easy for Gentile Christians to turn the human Jesus into a god to be worshipped. This deification of Jesus was widespread by the middle of the second century. (Kim, 1987, pp. 162-3)
Though more moderate in tone than Professor Kim, Dr. Theodore Shimmyo makes it clear that he evaluates Unification Christology as rejecting the central Nicene concept of homoousion as well as the status of Jesus's hypostasis as decided by later councils:
Unificationism is not Nicene, for it does not accept the Nicene formula of homoousios from which traditional Christology "from above" starts. (Shimmyo, 1993, p. 14) Hence this Unification approach believes that the divinity of Christ is a non-hypostatic nature assumed in his person which is fundamentally human. To use the Neo-Chalcedonian language in a completely reverse way, Unification Christology would say that the divinity of Christ is a physis anhypostatos, having no hypostasis or person of its own, so that it is a physis enhypostatos, finding its hypostasis only in the hypostasis of the man Christ. (Shimmyo, 1993, p. 3)
In The Moon is not the Son, the assertion is made that according to Divine Principle, "[Jesus] was not Deity." (Bjornstad, 1976, p. 59) 8
Does Divine Principle deny the divinity of Jesus?
Second question: is Jesus God? It seems to me that Divine Principle is not in any way denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact I see it as asserting all of those things that Paul and the other New Testament writers want to assert about Jesus Christ. I do not see that it is denying that Jesus possesses the full deity of God. What it is doing is distinguishing between God the Father and God the Son, and saying that one has to see that ideal man as the personification of deity. Therefore, whatever qualities one can ascribe to God the Father can also be ascribed to that ideal man. Since Jesus does fulfill those qualities, then it is true that he is fully divine. Fully human, fully divine, just as the Creed states. (Lloyd Eby, quoted in Bryant, 1980, p. 128, my emphasis.) 9
Some Unificationists attempt to show that Unification Christology even agrees with Nicaea and Chalcedon:
As a trinitarian phrase, 'only-begotten son' refers to the divine nature of Christ, which is 'true God from true God, begotten not created' (Nicaea). Christ's divinity is the 'only-begotten logos of God', and 'before time began, he [i.e., Christ] was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity' (Chalcedon). The purpose of these phrases is to affirm that Christ's divine nature, as the second person of the Trinity, is God himself. Since God's basic nature is unchangeable, He always had and always will have only one Logos. In this affirmation, Divine Principle concurs. (Wells, 1982, p. 197)
It seems to me that Divine Principle clearly considers the divine nature of Jesus Christ to be fully divine. The word which confronts us in Jesus Christ is not a subordinate demi-god (as in Arianism), but the same God who created the universe. (Wells, 1984, p. 143)
Moderate views usually draw a distinction (though typically this distinction is only implicit) between Jesus as deity itself and Jesus who has "assumed" deity. Jesus was divine but not the Divine (i.e., God).
Divine Principle "does not deny the attitude of faith held by many Christians that Jesus is God, since it is true that a perfected man is one body with God." However, Jesus "can by no means be God himself" since "the Bible demonstrates most plainly that Jesus is a man." The relationship between God and Jesus "can be compared to that between mind and body," but "the body can by no means be the mind itself." (Wells, 1982, pp. 194-5)10
Christian piety has often tended toward monophysitism and docetism. Taken by itself, the popular statement that "Jesus is God" verges on heresy. (Wells, 1982, p. 193)Unificationism recognizes the divinity of the man Christ and regards it as assumed in him when he attains the purpose of creation, whereas Arianism completely denies him divinity. ...Unificationism maintains based upon its unique doctrine of creation11 that it is possible for a creature to assume divinity, whereas Arianism believes on the ground of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo sharply distinguishing between the Creator and a creature that a creature cannot assume any divinity. (Shimmyo, 1993, p. 14)
There is really no question that Unificationism affirms Jesus's humanity.
What set [Jesus] off from others was not his personality or his nature but his mission. Jesus was different from ordinary men because he had been chosen by God to be the Messiah.
...For Unification Theology, the essential distinction between Jesus and any other Jew of first century Palestine is derived from his messianic mission. (Kim, 1975, p. 126)
By his calling and work alone was Jesus set apart from his contemporaries....12 (Kim, 1975, p. 148)
The Synoptic Gospels contain an early Palestinian stratum that makes the complete humanity of the historic Jesus quite plain. Jesus was in appearance no different from other men. Even his brothers failed to see anything unusual about him. (Kim, 1975, p. 146)
Kim uses the same arguments to show "that Jesus was thoroughly human" (Kim, 1975, p. 147) that The Principle and Outline use to show that Jesus is not God himself,13 adding six additional points:
He often retired to a lonely spot to pray because, as a man, he needed strength from God to continue his exhausting ministry. Like anyone else, he was hungry and sleepy at times. More than once the Evangelists tell us, he broke down and wept. Jesus also became disheartened by the opposition he encountered from the Pharisees and the disbelief of his fellow-countrymen even in his hometown of Nazareth. He was filled with distress when his inner circle betrayed, denied, and then abandoned him to his fate....consider his agony in the garden of Gethsemane.... (Kim, 1975, p. 147)
Theologians (even conservative ones) familiar with developments in theology in the last hundred years should appreciate the obvious strength in this aspect of Unification Christology.
One of the most deep-seated principles of Unification theology generally is its clear and emphatic recognition that "the providence of restoration cannot be fulfilled by God's power alone, but...is to be fulfilled by man's joint action with God."14 It should be underscored what a notably Christological principle this is. In spite of obscurations that have occurred in the classical theological tradition (viz. the virtual theoretical annulment at some points of a real human participation in the salvific processÑas has been tellingly analyzed in our time by Process Theology), it is elemental to the very notion of Christ that the setting free and making whole of the world is a divine and human action....Unification Christology gets high marks for its categorical affirmation of human soteriological responsibility in indefeasible give and take with God's. At the christic center of soteriology this means a theologically healthy predisposition in behalf of Christ's unimpeachable humanity. (Foster, 1981, p. 182)
Johnny Sonneborn: Jesus is God in the flesh. The quotation was not "Jesus was God Himself, the Father" but "Jesus was God in the flesh, the first begotten Son of God, so that finally God Himself, the Creator, God the Father, could be seen through seeing the Son, Jesus Christ." The Son is not the Father.
Virgil Cruz: Does He partake of the divine essence in any way?
Johnny Sonneborn: Divine essence is not discussed this way in Unification theology. (Quebedeaux, 1979, p. 119)
If the connection between God and Jesus is not because they are homoousios (the same substance or essence), what is the connection?
It is not clear that in Unification Theology either Jesus or the Lord of the Second Advent becomes or remains essential to the parental God. The connections are not thought ontologically but rather in terms of divine plan or providence and human success in cooperating therewith. The sensibility of the classical Christological mainstream found such connections, as in Ebionism and Nestorianism, too loose. (Foster, 1982, p. 219) 15
Dr. Foster is apparently thinking of the Greek categories of Nicene orthodoxy when he asserts that "the connections are not thought ontologically" and that they are "too loose." Dr. Wells disagrees with his conclusion:
Divine Principle justifies all these claims by referring to standard Christological passages in the New Testament. It also relies on Unification ontology which, like the now-archaic Greek metaphysics of the creeds, does not claim to be derived from the Bible. Unification ontology maintains that a subject-object relationship, such as the one between internal character (mind) and external form (body), is the basis for all "existence, multiplication, and action." [DP, p. 20-29] This strong relational emphasis indicates that the unity between God and Jesus, like that between mind and body, is ontological and not merely moral.16 The result is a Christology that is consistent not only with scripture, but also with the definition of Chalcedon. (Wells, 1982, p. 195, my emphasis)
Since the East-West schism and the Protestant Reformation, the proliferation of denominational confessions has enormously complicated the doctrinal situation, but in the most basic sense of 'Christian', Christian doctrine is limited to scripture and the creeds of the seven ecumenical councils. To be orthodox, a Christian must affirm, in essence, what scripture and the creeds affirm, and refrain from asserting what they prohibit. (Wells, 1982, pp. 196-7)
A non-Unificationist lays out quite similar criteria in a rather more terse (if presumptive) way:
How can Unification theology be orthodox if it hasn't a Christology that's in any way in keeping with what all Christians were supposed to think after the fourth century? (Dr. Elizabeth Clark, quoted in Bryant, 1978, p. 27.)
The Commission on Faith and Order of the National Council of Churches seems to presume to condense scripture and the councils (with regard to Christology) into the following formula:
"Essential to Christian identity is the biblical affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the eternal Word of God made flesh." (Cunningham, 1978, p. 117)
"...Nicea and Chalcedon look like moss-covered gravestones over a very dead past." (Kim, 1975, p. 142).
This negative stance toward Christian tradition can be seen as being reciprocated by some Christian statements about Unification Christology. Following a discussion of "Moon's Theology," about half of which involves Christology, one conservative Christian Bible-college professor concludes:
There is no getting around it. Rev. Moon's theology is separate and distinct from Christian theologyÑthey are mutually exclusive. (Bjornstad, 1976, p. 59).
After quoting some of the statements from Divine Principle that have been discussed above (which affirm the humanity of Jesus, affirm the ontological "one body" unity of God with perfected man and thus with Jesus, and deny the literal identity of Jesus and God) and providing a terse definition of what it means to be Christian (above), the Commission on Faith and Order makes a vague pronouncement:
...we conclude that the Unification Church is not a Christian church because its doctrine of the nature of the triune God is erroneous; its Christology is incompatible with Christian teaching and belief;.... (Cunningham, 1978, p. 117)18
Many of the statements in the Commission's report seem as though they could not possibly result in an honest way from even a relatively superficial study of Unificationism. On the other hand, theologians who have a quite thorough knowledge of Unification theology sometimes surprise us with their assessments:
In Struggling with and against heresy to formulate its classical dogma, mainstream Christianity: (i.) rejected any version of the faith that would (like Arianism) make God in Christ less than the ultimate God. Comment: So far Unificationism seems to have an even lower christology than Arianism. (Foster, 1982, p. 219)19
Again, Dr. Foster may be thinking in terms of deeply ingrained Greek categories.
There is disagreement even among Unificationists about the position of Unification Christology:
...I conclude that Unification Christology affirms, in essence, what scripture and the ecumenical creeds affirm, and refrains from asserting what they proscribe. Therefore, Unification Christology cannot easily be dismissed as heretical, much less as "un-Christian." (Wells, 1984, p. 145)
Unification Christology...is basically a Christology "from below," so that it does not necessarily agree with the traditional Christological approach "from above" established through Niceno-Chalcedonian orthodoxy. (Shimmyo, 1993, p. 1)
That there is divergence of opinion within Unificationism is normal, but the degree of difference even on large questions such as "Is Unification Christology high or low?" may result from the extent to which Unificationism lacks certain fundamental ontological presuppositions of the ancient Greek philosophical worldview which underlie most historical Christian theology.
Far more so than Professor Kim, Dr. Shimmyo (1993) finds points of contact between Unificationism and "orthodox" Christianity;20 Dr. Wells makes much greater effort along these lines than does Dr. Shimmyo. Dr. Wells makes full use of the typically oriental talent for finding bridges rather than fences; nevertheless he may undermine his thesis by his being a bit too ingenious in finding ways of asserting that Unification Christology is saying essentially the same thing about Jesus as did the councils.
With what might be criticized as verbal slight-of-hand (above, in "Conservative Views"), Dr. Wells would have the casual reader assuming that Unificationism follows Nicaea's homoousion. If we read carefully what Wells is saying, however, it is not Jesus, but the word that was begotten of the Father before time began. According to Unification theology, that word was not Jesus until Jesus became perfected,21 i.e., sometime during his life on earth.22 Unless Dr. Wells can discuss what appears to most to be a point of difference in such a way as to clarify what he sees as a point of contact, such arguments appear to be misleading.
Other Unificationists may be more on track by joining with most Christian theologians23 in rejecting some aspect of the councils as narrowly archaic, criticizing such specific weaknesses from a Unificationist perspective. Dr. Shimmyo begins to do this:
But as long as the Nicene tradition [of homoousion] is presupposed, the Chalcedonian creed cannot really explain the relationship of the two natures [divine and human] except in a negative and obscure way: "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." (Shimmyo, 1993, p. 17)
It might be more productive in the long run to abandon the effort to make literal harmony with the councils and instead claim unity with the spirit of what they wanted to preserve. Unificationism's very contemporary, relational ontology may yet provide a basis by which to vindicate the spirit of high Christology against the inevitable attack of modern criticism.
The rather straightforward questions about Jesus's divinity and person have been answered variously, but with relative adequacy in my opinion, (especially those in the sections above entitled "Moderate Views" and "The Unity between God and Jesus"). The picture of the relation of Unification Christology to Christian tradition and heresies is less clear, and will require continuing, creative theological work by Unificationists.
The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version); Cleveland OH: World, 1962.
James Bjornstad; The Moon is not the Son; Minneapolis, MN: Dimension Books, 1976.
Thomas Boslooper; "Unification Christology" in Unity and Diversity, Henry O. Thompson, ed.; Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1984.
M. Darrol Bryant, ed.; Exploring Unification Theology; New York: Rose of Sharon Press, 1978.
_____________________; Proceedings of the Virgin Islands' Seminar on Unification Theology; New York: Rose of Sharon Press, 1980.
Divine Principle; New York: The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1973.
Frank K. Flinn, ed.; Hermeneutics and Horizons: The Shape of the Future; Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1982.
Durwood Foster; "Notes on Christology and Hermeneutics: Especially Regarding Dialogue with Unification Theology" in Hermeneutics and Horizons: The Shape of the Future, Frank K. Flinn, ed.; Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1982.
______________; "Unification and Traditional Christology: An Unresolved Relationship" in Ten Theologians Respond to the Unification Church, Herbert Richardson, ed.; New York: Rose of Sharon Press, 1981.
[Sang Hun Lee]; Essentials of Unification Thought; New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1992.
______________; Explaining Unification Thought; New York: Unification Thought Institute, 1981.
Sebastian A. Matczak; Unificationism: A New Philosophy and Worldview; Jamaica, NY: Learned Publications, 1982.
Outline of the Principle, Level 4; New York: Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 1980.
Richard Quebedeaux and Rodney Sawatsky; Evangelical-Unification Dialogue; New York: Rose of Sharon Press, 1979.
Klaas Runia; The Present Day Christological Debate; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984.
Theodore T. Shimmyo; "Nicea, Chalcedon, and Unification Christology"; unpublished manuscript (to be published in a volume entitled Explorations in Unificationism.), 1993.
Ruth Tucker; Another Gospel; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989.
Williston Walker; A History of the Christian Church; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1985.
Jonathan Wells; "Unification Christology" in Unity and Diversity, Henry O. Thompson, ed.; Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1984.
______________; "Unification Hermeneutics and Christology" in Hermeneutics and Horizons: The Shape of the Future, Frank K. Flinn, ed.; Barrytown, NY: Unification Theological Seminary, 1982.
Wolli Kangnon (mixed script version); Seoul: Segye Kidokkyo Tongil Shillyong Hyophoe, 1966.
The man whose mind and body have formed a four-position foundation of the original God-centered nature becomes God's temple (I Cor. 3:16) and forms one body with Him (John 14:20). This means that man attains deity. (DP, 1973, p. 43).
...a perfected man, in light of the purpose of creation, should become perfect, as God is perfect (Matt. 5:48); thus he is so valuable as to even possess deity. (DP, 1973, p. 209)
When a person fulfills the Purpose of Creation, he becomes God's body, a being in which the spirit of God dwells (I Cor 3:16). Naturally he has a divine nature and is one in heart with God. (Outline, 1980, p. 93)
...Jesus, as a man having fulfilled the purpose of creation, is one body with God. So, in light of his deity, he may well be called God. Nevertheless, he can by no means be God Himself. The relationship between God and Jesus can be compared to that between mind and body. The body, as the substantial object which resembles the mind, is one body with the mind, so it may be called a second mind (image of the mind), but the body can by no means be the mind itself. In like manner, Jesus, being one body with God, may be called a second God (image of God), but he can by no means be God Himself. (DP, 1973, p. 211)24
The Principle does not deny the attitude of faith held by many Christians that Jesus is God, since it is true that a perfected man is one body with God. Furthermore, when the Principle asserts that Jesus is a man having attained the purpose of creation, this does not in the least diminish his value. However, the principle of creation sees the original value of perfected man as being equal to that of Jesus. (DP, 1973, p. 209)
The Principle does not flatly deny the conventional belief held by many Christians that Jesus is God, because a perfect, true person is one with God. Furthermore, when The Principle asserts that Jesus is a true human being, this does not in any way diminish his value. It is simply that when one examines the value of the perfect person, we find it is equivalent to the value of Jesus. In fact, if the first man and woman had not fallen and had become a man and a woman of such value, then Jesus' coming would not have been necessary. It would be a grave error, indeed, to suppose that the value of fallen man can be compared with Jesus' value simply because Jesus was a human being. He was a true human being. (Outline, 1980, p. 95)
If Jesus is God Himself, how could he intercede for us before himself? Moreover, we see that Jesus also called upon "God" or "Father" for help, which is good evidence that he is not God himself (Matt. 27:46, John 17:1). If Jesus was God Himself, how could God have been tempted by Satan, and finally crucified by the evil force? Furthermore, when we find that that Jesus said on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it becomes clear that Jesus is not God himself. (DP, 1973, p. 212)
If Jesus were God, how could he intercede with himself? When he prayed, he made it clear that he was not God by calling God Father (Jn 17:1). If Jesus were God, how could he be tempted (Mt 4:1) and tortured and driven to the crucifixion by Satan? It is especially evident that Jesus is not God when, on the cross, he cried out, "'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'" (Mt 27:46). (Outline, 1980, p. 97)
Jesus, on earth, was a man no different from us except for the fact that he was without original sin. (DP, p. 212)
Then, is Jesus a human being? Yes, he is. He is an example of a person who has fulfilled the Ideal for the Creation; he is a true person, an example of man as he was originally created, and as such his value is not to be compared with the value of fallen man. (Outline, 1980, p. 95)
[Following the excerpt quoted above in the Appendix section entitled "Adamology Applied to Jesus (The Person of Christ)" {previous page}, Outline goes on to cite passages in the Bible which describe Jesus as a man (I Tim 2:5, Rom 5:19, I Cor 15:21, Acts 17:31).] (Outline, 1980, p. 95-6)
1. Foster, 1981, p. 181.
2. Wells, 1982, p. 194. Divine Principle (hereafter DP) references are from pp. 52-57, 80-81.
3. DP references are from pp. 43, 206. For a similar presentation, see also Foster, 1981, p. 184; Shimmyo, p. 13; Wells, 1984, p. 137. For the centrally relevant DP text (p. 43), see Appendix.
4. Although the topic of the work of Christ is not specifically addressed in this paper, see Professor Kim's comments quoted later in the section entitled "Jesus's Humanity."
5. Foster continues: "This is the kind of christology that is generally called 'low,' as contrasted with a 'high' christology that magnifies Christ's person."
6. DP references are from pp. 209-10.
7. Dr. Ruth Tucker claims that Unification Theology is liberal; quoting Unificationist theologian Young Oon Kim, she states that Unification theology is "heavily indebted to nineteenth- and twentieth century theologians." (pp. 250-1).
8. A similar challenge comes from Yamamoto, pp. 115-120. For example, "If Rev. Moon is to succeed in selling himself as the Lord of the Second advent...he must teach that Jesus is neither the only Savior and Lord, nor is he God." (p. 115) Also: "Certainly there is a distinction between Jesus and the Father, but it does not follow that he does not possess the full deity of God." (p. 119). See Also Cunningham, discussed later in this paper (p. 11).
9. Though the portions I have underlined are moderate, I have placed this excerpt in the "conservative" section because Eby refers to Jesus as "God the Son" and uses other language which makes Unificationism sound quite traditional. Dr. Matczak (p. 335) has a similar view of claims.
10. DP references are from pp. 209-11. For a similar presentation, see also Shimmyo, p. 13; Wells, 1984, pp. 138-9.
11. See [Sang Hun Lee], 1981, p. 34-36.
12. Kim continues: "...therefore his morality and capability are not unreachable." (p. 148)
13. See above or Appendix.
14. DP, p. 283.
15. In 1981, Foster also asserts that "...the christological mode of union one must judge to be construed morally or functionally rather than ontologically." (p. 184). During a discussion, Foster tells Wells: "Tillich puts the fusion [of God and Jesus] at the point of resurrection. This is a little bit heretical, but not as heretical as you are Jonathan, if I may say so." (Flinn, 1982, p. 240). Also: "They possess what is known as a functional Christology as over against an ontological Christology..." (Boslooper, 1984, p. 314)
16. Also: "...perfection is not merely relational, since Unification Ontology is based on relationality." (Wells, 1984, p. 137).
17. Leaving aside the issue of the councils, there has been historical disagreement among Christians even about which books are genuinely scriptural, most notably between Catholics and Protestants in regard to the Old Testament. Less well known is that Luther was not happy with Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, which he felt did not belong to "the true and certain chief books of the New Testament." (Works of Luther 35,394, as quoted in Williston Walker; A History of the Christian Church; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1985, p. 432.)
18. This is essentially the same challenge as that made by Bjornstad above. Although a discussion of the logos is beyond the scope of this paper, the qualifications set forth by the commission would almost certainly be seen by nearly any Unificationist as inclusive of the Unification stance.
19. In 1981, Foster also characterizes Unification christology as "typologically a 'low' christology of the Antiochan type, as opposed to the 'high' one of Alexandrian tradition." (p. 184).
20. though these are beyond the scope of this paper.
21. DP, p. 209. See also pp. 39 and 41-43.
22. Even so, the accuracy of Dr. Wells assertion that the word is 'the same God who created the universe' could be challenged. According to Unification Thought: "Logos as the Word uttered by God is the conception, or blueprint, of each created being at the time of creation. Therefore, Logos is a multiplied entity (i.e., a created entity) that arose within God's mind." ([Sang Hun Lee], 1992, p. 23).
23. See Runia, 1984.
24. The phrases "image of the mind" and "image of God" do not appear in the original Korean text (Wolli Kangnon, p. 217). These are attempts to clarify the phrases translated "second mind" and "second God," which would otherwise be easily misunderstood as indicating a kind of Arian-type line of Origenism.
This page hosted by GeoCities, a free web site community.