dear Ray:

thanks for your fascinating exposition on "Son of Man" esp. re the Key Stone.

The CornerStone [and I stand to be corrected by any bricklayers out there] is the stone on which the entire structure of the house/building is aligned. So what one needs is basically a perfect cube or at least something with perfectly 90 degree corners. Because from the cornerstone, one runs the guiding lines to build the walls - both vertically and the 2 walls horizontally.

If the cornerstone is not perfectly 90 degrees, then one could end up with crooked walls or some sort of weird and imbalanced parallelogram or rombus or even weirder uneven polygon shape of a house. Such a house would perhaps not be very stable, the walls being crooked, the corners being too wide or whatever, hence the structural support being unsound, could easily collapse - esp. given the more fragile building materials and bricks of the time.

Herb

ps: interesting website re Providence and the Ennead of Moses, must read it thoroughly!

Subdeacon Lance,

//… the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy opens with the fourfold blessing with the trikeri/dikeri:
"O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven and see, visit this vineyard, and perfect what your right hand has planted.//

Yes. Your observation about the fourfold blessing reminds me of an earlier thread of mine on Isaiah 5:1-7. See:

http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000015

//O Lord, may your hand be upon the son of man whom you yourself made strong" (Psalm 80:15; 17-18) Metropolia of Pittsburgh translation for the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy//

Psalm 80 is definitely a psalm written for times of trouble. This psalm is particularly concerned with the King of Judah for whom the “right” hand was originally written in reference to. Of course, we know that the New Testament is the best interpretation of the Old Testament, and so, therefore, Jesus is the one to restore a failed Israel. In Christianity and in the Church, Christ is pre-eminent. Whereas, one from the Davidic line is looked upon for restoration in the past, we now know that all things have been restored in Jesus Christ. What surprises me in the Metropolia’s translation is that the word “right” is missing in conjunction with the Lord God’s hand. A lot of rich tradition is found in the notion of one’s right hand. God’s right hand denoted power. The Beloved Disciple sat at our Lord’s right at the Last Supper, and this denoted deep love. For man, his right hand is symbolic of a deep love and relationship. Notice how in the Byzantine tradition the wedding ban is on a spouse’s right hand and not the left as in the West; blessings by presbyters are given by the right hand; we bless ourselves with out right hand, and we cross our right hands on the Gospel book when the priest blesses our marriage.

The author of Hebrews writes clearly who it is who is at the “right hand” of God:

“The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven … To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?” (Heb 1:1,3,13)

//Interesting that the shift of the prayer goes from Israel to the Son of David from a Jewish perspective and from the Church to Christ from a Christian perspective because the Son of Man, the Davidic King, can be no other than Christ.//

This is so. As the NAB notes state, a vineyard has been used to refer to Israel many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Stories about vineyards (Isaiah’s story of the vineyard and the parable of the vineyard in Matt 21:22-44) have played several roles in both Jewish and Christian traditions. A vineyard was also used to refer to the early church. Carved vines weave throughout many iconostases. There is another interpretation here about the Eucharist too. Such an interpretation would lend support to the fourfold blessing at the hierarchical Divine Liturgy.

//Unless we consider that becasue we are the Body of Christ we are the son of man and also assume the Davidic kingship. I think the direct Christological interpretation is more sound. Your thoughts?//

I would say that the whole New Testament is a Christological interpretation and I would probably stick with that. There are many Christo-centric understandings of who the ‘we’ are in Christian tradition. Just as many understandings as the word “rock.” But that is another topic …

As for previous "waves" of Christology giving way to newer ones (i.e., the paradigm shift from Jewish soteriology to Greek concerns about ontology), remnants of older traditions do tend to stay around. The Son of Man is still referred to day in our fourfold blessing, albeit a liturgical use of Scripture in conjunction with ritual and its meaning. Not necessarily a full-blown Christology, but an appropriate reference nonetheless. Older forms of thinking never die. They are like the non-canonical Scriptures that, once being officially banned from the canon, find a home in our iconography, hymnography, and rituals. Good theology never dies, it just blends into its surroundings.

Joe Thur

For point of discussion...

I live in New England and there are plenty of Colonial homes left that were mortared together from just any size and shape rocks that were laying around in the cow field at the time. They are very nice homes.

In the old days a perfect 90 degrees on all angles of the cornerstone was not often had - and it is not needed because it is mortored in place and the mortor compensates. Have you never seen (at least in a movie) the brick layer with his sight string pulled tight and level as he places the brick - lay his level on - and perhaps taps it down just a bit more or take it out and throws in bit more mortar - then puts it back and perhaps taps it to seat nicely in line with the sight string?

Architectural plans, initial site survey, sight string, level with the bubble in it, straight edge, measuring tape, quality of materials, etc… the tradesman’s skill with these make for the soundness of the structure

Before any stones are laid the survey first sights were the walls will lay, then he marks the line, then stakes are driven into the ground and measurements taken including squaring, stakes are adjusted accordingly, string is pulled tight between the stakes - and the walls are built according to the straight line of the tightly pulled string makes. This has been the essential method forever. The surveyor who follows the plans is the one by whom the building will take shape.

The corner stone can be the last stone put in place on that tier - it matters not. It has only a ceremonial purpose (a name and date carved into it). The walls are not laid out by the a cornerstone at all. It is a stone just like any other in the structure. There is absolutely nothing special about it or its position or its function other than having a name and date carved into it. The first stone laid can be any stone at all and it can be laid anywhere.

Dear J Thur...

I finally got a few moments to begin reading your paper posted here. After just a taste - I look forward to an evening within which I can read it all with my attention.

Thank you so much for posting the entire item.

-ray

Ray,

You're welcome.

Joe

I appreciate your view… I am not too worried about people misinterpreting me. There is not much I can do about that and it often happened due to the nature and limits of a discussion board.

People will drive you crazy (all with good intentions) - if you let them.

My posts have been about the way in which Jesus himself separated (in concept) his human nature and his divine nature. In other parts of the gospel he makes it clear that both natures are really two sides of the same coin. Further than that - I need not go.

-ray