# Letham: Union with Christ



## RamistThomist (Jun 30, 2014)

Letham spins the Greek image-likeness into First and Second Adam. All of humanity shares the image with First Adam. Christ, the Second Adam, is also the image of God. Regenerate humanity participates in this image. Letham tries to claim this is what the Greek Fathers said, but he doesn’t offer any references and it doesn’t appear that they said this. They said all of humanity is created in the image but must achieve the likeness of God. I like Letham’s proposal. I just don’t think this is what the Greek Fathers said.

The Holy Spirit unites us to Christ (48). He is the agent of the indwelling (Jn. 14:20). Letham notes that the Holy Spirit makes a permanent residence (mone) within us (50). Quoting the English Puritan Rowland Stedman, he notes, "There are 'two great bonds or ligaments' of this union. On Christ's part, he dwells in believers by his Spirit. On their part they apprehend Christ by faith and 'take him home, as it were, unto themselves'" (Letham, 51, quoting Stedman, _The Mystical Union of Believers with Christ, or A Treatise Wherein that Great Mystery and Privilege of the Saints Union with the Son of God is Opened_ (London: W. R. for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Golden-Bible on London-Bridge, under the gate, 1668), 121. Wing/ 335:13).

"There is a legal aspect to union with Christ" (57). He introduces the theme of corporate solidarity: Josh. 7:1-26). "Individuals are not identified in isolation: they are A the son of B the son of C of the tribe of D" (58).

Humans remain human while deified. “It is union and communion with the persons of the Trinity” (92). While Letham is giving the East a fair reading, it must be acknowledged that the Palamite strands of Eastern Orthodoxy revert to an impersonal, energetic union. Fr. John Romanides writes, “But in Patristic tradition, God is not a personal God. In fact, God is not even God. God does not correspond to anything we can conceive or would be able to conceive,” (Patristic Theology (Uncut Mountain Press: Dalles, Oregon, 2008), pp. 139-140.)

What is truly meant by the Athanasian claim that “man becomes God?” According to Norman Russell, “It is either to emphasize the glorious destiny originally intended for the human race, or to explain that the biblical references to ‘gods’ do not encroach upon the uniqueness of the Word made flesh” (Letham 92-93, quoting Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 168). If that is all that is meant, then the Reformed tradition has no real argument against it, but would better see that under the teaching of “glorification.”

Metochoi (Partakers): we are called to glory. This is not alien to Reformed thought but sometimes it doesn’t receive enough attention. It would be interesting to link this with the OT concept of the glory-cloud. Points to our destiny.

Letham then quotes numerous sources (almost to overkill) pointing out that the Reformed had a rich and nuanced appreciation of Union with Christ (102-122).

Per Calvin, the Spirit unites the spatial difference between us and Christ in the Eucharist (Comm., 11 Corinthians; CO, 49:487, in Letham, 105; see also Institutes, 4.17.10). “That a life-giving power from the flesh of Christ is poured into us through the medium of the Spirit, even though it is at a great distance from us, and is not mixed with us.” Here Letham seems to contradict part of his narrative. He notes (correctly) for Calvin that we participate in God’s attributes, not his being (107). However, earlier he said that the Greek (Palamite?) view does not see theosis as participation in God’s attributes (92, “Nor, on the other hand, is it simply communion with God’s attributes.” If, however, Letham means for the East that the communion with the persons is also a communion with the attributes, then there is no real contradiction. Even still, I have my doubts that the East can truly avoid collapsing the communion with the Persons into a communion with the energies (see comments by Moss, Romanides, and Jenson).

Contra detractors, Calvin affirms that the body and blood of Christ are substantially offered. He simply explains the mode: the Holy Spirit transfuses the flesh of Christ to us (Theological Treatises, 267). We just reject a local presence.

Letham is aware of the Nestorian charge and senses that Calvin drifted there at times, given his comments on 1 Corinthians 15:27-28. But see Richard Muller’s response to Jurgen Moltmann on that point. It is strange that Letham didn't reference Muller on this point. 

Per Polanus there is a real sacramental union and a conjunction between signum and res.

While there are suggestions that Calvin was close to the East, I think Letham overplays that point (115). However, Letham is correct to criticize Michael Horton’s claim that we participate in the energies of Christ (Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 285, 302). The East does not mean by energies what Horton means by it. They mean the _peri ton theon_ (cf. David Bradshaw, _Aristotle East and West_, pp. 132-136 and Colin Gunton, _Act & Being_, 112.

Conclusion:
I've listed some of my criticisms above so I won't repeat them here. The book is short, focused, and easy to read. There is a lot of repetition, sometimes almost whole chapters, from every one of his earlier works (!), which admittedly made it easier to read if you have already read those other works. As usual, Letham represents mature, balanced scholarship.


----------

