For Further Reading: Urmson

The concept, devised by Sergius of Con­stantinople, was promoted by the emperor, Her-aclius, as a compromise attempt to persuade those who persisted in the monophysite position (the notion that the divine and human natures in Christ are blended into one nature in a "natural" union) to accept the Chalcedon Definition of a.d. 451. In this it failed.

Chalcedon had earlier defined the boundaries of the doctrine of the two natures, safeguarding the completeness and integrity of each. Beyond this human minds could hardly go. But because human logic and speech are inadequate in the face of this revealed mystery, controversy had persisted.

The Third Council of Constantinople (a.d. 681) condemned monothelistism and declared that in Christ there were two natural operations and two wills, with the human will always sub­ject to the divine will. The monothelite heresy was seen as a threat to faith in the complete hu­manity of the God-man, a very precious and es­sential truth.

See christology, monophysitism, hypostatic union.

For Further Reading: Bethune-Baker, An Introduction
to the Early History of Christian Doctrine; Burkill, The
Evolution of Christian Thought; Berkhof, The History of
Christian Doctrines. ARNOLD E. AlRHART

MONTANISM. This was a movement founded in the last half of the second century by a Phrygian named Montanus. He proclaimed the "Age of the Spirit" as the preparation for the end of all things. Montanism constituted a revivalistic reac­tion to the increasing worldliness of the church and the centralization of authority and charis­matic gifts in the office of the bishop. In one or the other of its many factions it prevailed until the ninth century.

Charges of irregularity were brought against the self-proclaimed prophet Montanus and his female associates, Maximilla and Priscilla, not because of doctrinal deviation but because of their challenge to the growing institutional au­thority of the Catholic church of the time. Oppo­sition arose largely in response to their claims to the right of personal revelation, personal proph-esyings, and their radical moralism which re­quired a much stricter code of discipline than was held to by the church in general. They were against remarriage for any reason, mandated strict asceticism, and invited martyrdom. The movement was greatly strengthened by the con­version of the famous Tertullian to its cause.

Similar tensions between irregular renewal movements and the contemporary established structures of the church have recurred through­out history. Reformers frequently have found comfort and support in early Montanism. John Wesley, among others, looked upon this "heresy" with more charity than did its Catholic contem­poraries.

See revivalism, fanaticism.

The apparent dichotomy of these moral attri­butes of God emerges from the interplay of God's holiness and His will for those beings whom He has created in His own image and like­ness. God "spoke us forth" (a more dynamic ren­dering of the roots of the Greek ek-lego ["choose"] which reflects God's creative acts in Genesis 1: "God said .. . and it was so") in himself before "the foundation of the world, that we should be holy [hagios] and blameless before him in love" (Eph. 1:4, author's free translations in this para­graph); "this is the will of God, your sanctifica­tion [hagiasmos]" (1 Thess. 4:3); "for God has not called us for uncleanness but in sanctification [hagiasmos]" (1 Thess. 4:7). God's repeated call to His covenant people throughout the Bible is that they are to be a holy (LXX, hagios) nation (Exod. 19:6, et al): "You shall be holy [LXX, hagios], for I the Lord your God am holy [LXX, hagios]" (Lev. 19:2, et al.; cf. 1 Pet. 2:9; 1:15-16); "Pursue ... the holiness [hagiasmos] without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). Behind these sample statements of God's will and call is the implication (often expressly stated, Rom. 3:10, 23) that those addressed are not holy as God cre­ated them to be. The interaction of the holiness of God with the unholiness of humanity creates the seeming dichotomy of the moral attributes of God.

On the one hand, the holiness of God is a moral purity of being of such a total, absolute, in­



348

MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT


finite intensity that nothing unholy can endure or exist in His presence. The holiness of God "burns" against all that is unholy until it is com­pletely consumed. The intensity of this antipathy to unholiness is often called the "wrath" of God. The uncompromising nature of this holiness is characterized as the "justice" of God. The un­changing quality of this holiness is termed the "righteousness" of God. These astringent attri­butes of God are manifestations of His holiness against the unholiness of humanity.

On the other hand, God's "holiness as the sum of His being must contain the creative love which slays but also makes alive again" (Kittel, 1:93). The "consuming fire" of God's holiness has at its heart the transforming purpose of God to make us holy. The "wrath" of God's holiness is but the love that abhors all that pollutes the beloved. The "justice" of God's holiness illumines His mercy which comes to us in our unholiness. The "righteousness" of God's holiness is mag­nified in His forgiving grace which delivers us from the bondage of our unholiness that He might make us holy. These regenerative attri­butes of God are manifestations of His holiness for the holiness of humanity.

Thus the basic dynamic of the moral attributes of God is encompassed in the fact that He is the holy God who kills, and makes alive; who wounds, and heals (cf. Deut. 32:39).

See ATTRIBUTES (DIVINE), GOD, HOLINESS, WRATH, JUSTICE, AGAPE.

Abelard (1079-1142) disagreed with Irenaeus and Anselm. He felt that Christ came to be the perfect example for man to follow. Christ died in order to show man how much God loves him. Salvation comes when man recognizes this ulti­mate example of love as a life-style that he de­sires to pursue. God's purpose in the Cross, then, was to make such a disclosure of His love that men would be won over by it to a forgivable state (Hughes, The Atonement, 203). Some of the pro­ponents of this view down through the centuries have been Socinius, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Bushnell, and Rashdall, to name a few. Although variations have been made on the theme, the major thrust has remained the same.

The theory is an obvious attempt to deal with some of the flaws in the penal satisfaction the­ories. Since moral influence advocates contend that there is nothing in the divine nature that de­mands justice or penalty for sin, the sole obstacle to forgiveness of sins is found in the sinner's un­belief and hardness of heart. When through edu­cation and exposure to God's love this obstacle is removed, forgiveness is the natural outcome.

Some shortcomings of this theory need to be noted. For one thing, it is atonement by mere ex­ample. The Incarnation becomes the atoning event rather than the Crucifixion. Scripture is clear that it was Christ's death that makes possi­ble forgiveness and renewal of the relationship between man and God. Another fault lies in the fact that it is totally subjective in nature. There is no room in this theory for God to act in the sal-vific process. Forgiveness comes as the natural outcome of a spiritual law. With this theory noth­ing happens in the mind of God when a person seeks forgiveness. The emphasis is on the human obedience rather than the divine sacrifice. Still another weakness is that there seems to be little sense of the cost of redemption in this theory. Little mention is made of the great price paid on the Cross.

While it is true that the motive for the Atone­ment is found in the love of God (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8), its necessity is grounded in God's holi­ness. Christ's death was more than an example to observe, and more than a moral influence on so­ciety. His death was a vicarious sacrifice. Pas­sages like John 11:50; Rom. 5:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 2:6; and a multitude of others, compel us to look beyond the moral influence theory for the definition of the Atonement.

See ATONEMENT, GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT, PENAL SATISFACTION THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT, MYSTICAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT, MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.

Christian morality differs from secular or other-religion morality in its basic assumption of a revealed divine standard of right and wrong, to be found in the Bible. From the standpoint of the Judeo-Christian ethic, any violation of the Deca­logue is immoral. The Christian would refine this to specify the principles of the Decalogue as ex­panded and expounded in the NT, with love as the primary rubric.

In this respect Christian morality differs radi­cally from process philosophy or any form of hu­manism, which eschews absolutes, and which is essentially relativistic and developmental. Har­old B. Kuhn observes that Whitehead's philoso­phy, for instance, "has no place for either human redemption from outside man, nor for morality as obedience to a revealed will of a personal God" ("Philosophy of Religion," Contemporary Evangelical Thought, 228). Morality severed from supernatural revelation must in the nature of the case be a "soft" morality, pliable and changeable.

Yet Christian morality cannot justly be charged with being merely moralistic rule keeping. Chris­tianity more than any other religion or philoso­phy drives straight to the heart and locates morality there. Rule keeping in the biblical view does not make a person moral unless the rules are kept for the right reason, in the right spirit, and with the active involvement of a personal moral sense. The substance of both the right rea­son and the right spirit is love, which seeks at once to please God and do right toward others. A loveless moralism falls far short of Christian mo­rality. Many persons who are "moral" in the bare sense of rule keeping are immoral, in God's sight, in the secret springs of the life.

Christianity pushes moral persons toward moral maturity. This is vastly different from the so-called maturity of a licentious and permissive society, which glories in the abandon with which laws, divine or human, are thrust aside. It is rather the maturity of persons who learn to think ethically—"who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:14). The revealed law of God will be such a person's base, but everyday life will be his sphere of application. He will see the moral is­sues and implications that are everywhere, in business methods (including his own), politics, taxation, affluence, pleasure, recreation, leisure, social class—all of the myriad and complex situ­ations not covered specifically by law, but which need the application of law principles to a razor-honed degree, an application prompted by love and aided by the Holy Spirit.

However, while most decisions, proposals, and actions have at least indirect moral overtones, it is conceivable that some may be amoral. In thought at least, sharp distinction should be maintained between morality and expediency. A question of expediency may not necessarily be a moral question. Two courses of action may be equally legitimate but not equally wise.

See virtue, christian ethics, principles, new morality, expediency. Richard S. Taylor

MORTAL, MORTALITY. "Mortal" is the word that indicates that man is subject to death. "Mortality" is the condition of being mortal. The Greek word is thnetos, and according to Brunner (Kittel, 3:21) was used in Greek thought of "men in contrast to gods." Paul uses the term primarily in reference to man's physical body (Rom. 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:53-54; 2 Cor. 4:11).

According to Wesley, mortality is more than subjection to death. Wesley (Works, 7:347) held that the soul is "hindered in its operations" be­cause of mortality. Infirmities are not sins; they are a part of mortality.

Mortality per se is not sinful. Neither does mortality make sin necessary or inescapable. Wesley's teaching (Works, 6:277) must be empha­sized—"a thousand infirmities will remain ... sin need not remain." Paul confirms this as he writes, "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body" (Rom. 6:12, all nasb).

"Death" is a broader term than mortality, and in the Bible reference is made to both physical and spiritual death (Mark 10:33; Rev. 2:11). The ideas are related in that the cause of the broader is obviously the cause of the narrower.

Christian theologians have generally held that there is an inseparable relationship between sin and death. Early biblical evidence is found in Genesis: "In the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Paul's discussion in Rom. 5:12-21 is incisive. He observes that sin leads to death, "and so death spread to all men" (v. 12). Where the word "death" is not qualified, it should be taken to include physical death. The



350

MORTIFY, MORTIFICATION—MOSAIC LAW


whole race suffers the consequence of Adam's sin.

The biblical writers leave to conjecture what might have been had man not sinned.

"To dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19) is an au­thentic word, but it is not the final word. Paul writes, "For ... this mortal must put on immor­tality" (1 Cor. 15:53). On this text Grosheide (New London Commentary, 32:377) says, "The verb [put on] expresses identity along with a qualitative difference." It is this mortal body that becomes immortal. This is in keeping with the Wesleyan view that the body is not inherently evil. The final word to the Christian is not "to dust" but "Christ Jesus [has] brought life and im­mortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10).

See CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY, IMMORTALITY, DEATH, RESURRECTION OF THE BODY SOUL.

Across the centuries, some groups in the church have taken mortification to be an ascetic practice in which the body of the Christian is subjected to forms of discomfort in order that "the flesh and its lusts" may be subdued and eventually overcome. Fasting and abstention from other pleasurable activities are means of mortification, the end result of which is thought to be the purifying of the soul and the increase of holiness of life.

In the Wesleyan tradition, in particular, these Pauline passages have been taken to refer to the act of consecration, through the help of the Holy Spirit, whereby the believer is delivered not only of "evil actions, but evil desires, tempers, and thoughts," and as a result the life of faith be­comes more abundant (J. Wesley). While experi­ence of mortification is central, the idea of daily discipline is not denied.

See ASCETICISM, TEMPERANCE, DISCIPLINE, DEATH TO

The original intention of Mosaic law is seen by examining the Hebrew word for law, torah. It has a broader and more personal meaning than its English translation, coming from a root which signifies "teaching, guidance, or instruction." In this light, its basic nature is better understood as revelation from God and constituting divine guidelines for Israel.

The form of the Ten Commandments, the heart of Mosaic law, is mostly apodictic law— strong negative statements which do not admit to any qualifications or exceptions. Those nega­tive commandments begin with the Hebrew negative which means "never." (There is a differ­ent negative particle in Hebrew for temporary in­junctions.) Much of the rest of law statement in the OT, such as the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22—23:33), as well as law codes of the an­cient Near East outside of Israel, are in the form of casuistic law, wherein specific cases are cov­ered, using the formula, "If ..., then ..."

Moses is the mediator of the law, and the five books of law in the OT (Pentateuch) are tradi­tionally attributed to him. This era of Moses has lasting theological importance for Israel. The giv­ing of the law must be seen in connection with the Exodus from Egypt, a deliverance which pro­vided a setting of mercy and grace for the law, and Israel's response in the acceptance of the law. God had delivered Israel from Egyptian bond­age, and now they were His people, bound to Him by covenant law.

In the subsequent history of Israel the theolog­ical meaning and importance of the law of Moses changed, especially during and after the Babylo­nian exile. Judaism became ingrown and devel­oped as a religion of the law, and obedience to its letter became paramount. Motivation for such obedience lay in the fact that it was a means of meriting justification, rather than in gratitude for gracious redemption. It was this legalistic under­standing of the law that brought forth strong condemnation by Jesus and Paul.

Jesus summarized the significance of the law and prophets by calling attention to two things: (1) Israel's Shema (Deut. 6:4-5), which calls for loving God with one's total being; and (2) the

"Freedom from the law" does not mean license to violate the basic moral law, reaffirmed so vig­orously in the NT, but annulment of the Mosaic law-system as a means of either (1) being recon­ciled to God or (2) becoming personally holy.

See LAW AND GRACE, FREEDOM, LICENSE, JUSTIFI­CATION, WORK (WORKS), MOSES, PENTATEUCH, TAL­MUD.