Luke 9:23-24 An Exegesis

             In Luke 9:23-24 the author writes, “Then he [Jesus] said to all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.’” (Lk 9:23-24 NAB) This passage is at the heart of Jesus’ teaching on discipleship and prefigures Christ’s passion while giving a sure way to reach eternal life. This short paper will explain the true meaning of this passage through a brief study of the historical and literary background, what the Church Fathers, Doctors and modern exegetes have understood from the passage, a study of the word “deny”, a comparison with other relevant passages from Sacred Scripture to the text, and how the text is used in the Church’s liturgy and teaching.     

            Scholars are unable to attribute an exact date for Luke’s gospel but most attribute its composition to sometime around 70-80 A.D. Scholars debate who the real author may be but there is a strong consensus that the author of Luke is also the author of Acts of the Apostles. [1] Unlike other biblical authors who wrote to specific audiences, it is most likely that the author of Luke intended his work to be for a general readership.[2] Amongst this general readership an important audience was any Gentile who did not feel comfortable entering Christianity because he saw it as a form of Judaism.[3]

The author heavily stresses the theological truth that Christ came to bring salvation to all peoples. More specifically this gospel demonstrates that Christ came to seek after and save those who were lost.[4] The author of Luke, throughout his gospel, calls all people, Jew and Gentile alike, to discipleship. He calls all people to follow Christ, and in doing so he calls them to follow God.  More specifically he demonstrates that Christ calls all people who want to be his disciples to model their lives after his.[5]

This message conflicted with the contemporary view of many early Christians that Christ came to save his chosen people, the Jews. Some members of the early Church saw Christianity as a form of Judaism. While St. Paul would later refute this claim when he made it clear that a Gentile did not need to be circumcised to be a member of the Church, many early Gentiles around the time of the composition of the Gospel of Luke would have struggled to join a church that resembled in many ways the Jewish religion. [6]

Understanding the author and his intentions in light of the historical circumstances shines great light upon these verses of the Gospel of Luke. Understanding that the author intended to call all, Jews and Gentiles alike, to discipleship after Christ’s own example leads one to see the exact purpose of the passage. This is emphasized in the authors use of the word “anyone” to symbolize that all are called, not just the Jews. The author also uses the demonstration of taking up one’s own cross, in essence following what Christ will do when He surrenders His will to the Father’s during His passion and death.

Taking a close look at the literary composition of this background one quickly sees this passage is a conditional passage. “If anyone wishes to come after me he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Lk 9:23 NAB) Using the word “if”, the author makes it clear that the Christ is not commanding anyone to do anything but is inviting his followers to a way of life, one that will bring them fulfillment. In making the passage conditional, Christ makes it clear that anyone who holds up his end of the deal by taking up his cross will be fulfilled.[7] 

            Moving beyond historical and literary analysis one realizes clearly that this brief, two - verse passage from the Gospel of Luke is loaded with meaning. The Church Fathers and Doctors, using the literal, allegorical, moral and analogical senses, saw much meaning in this passage. Modern exegesis, using the advances in the secular sciences, finds a different yet important meaning. Understanding both the patristic and medieval exegesis as well as the modern exegesis sheds a bright light on what Christ was teaching in this passage.

St. Bonaventure, himself a commentator from the medieval age with a good understanding of what the Church Father’s said about this passage, points out that Christ did not command but invited people to follow him. He explains that the cross represents penance and sees the importance of daily penance, because Christ challenges everyone to take up there crosses daily. Further, he explains the danger someone puts himself in when they trust themselves more than God. Often times they love themselves more than God and lose God and in doing so actually lose themselves. Most importantly, Bonaventure clearly states that to really live one’s life to the fullest one must allow Christ to save it and for Christ to save it the person must be willing to expose his life to worldly loss following after the example of Christ.[8]

Modern psychology opens this passage up to a whole new level of meaning. Modern exegetes using psychology realize that this passage is not calling the disciple to suppress his ego. Man is not called to suppress himself; he is not called to be a stoic. Rather, he is called to form his ego after the example of Christ.  This passage calls man to give over control of his destiny and to open “oneself to true self-knowledge by laying aside their image constructed from worldly illusions about the meaning of life.” [9] One is called to leave behind his old self and conform himself totally to Christ. This is important because the stakes are important. If one takes up their cross daily he will be rewarded with eternal life, but if he doesn’t he risks losing eternal life.[10]

            It seems obvious that the word “deny” is one of the most important words in the passage. The word, deny appears 52 times in the Revised Standard Bible.  It is used 46 times in the New Testament and only 6 times in the Old Testament. Luke, like the other two synoptic gospel writers, uses the word only 7 times.[11]It stems from the Greek word aparneomai which means to repudiate or to renounce someone or something.[12]

            St. Paul, in his second letter to Timothy, uses “denial” in a very similar manner: “If we endure, we shall also reign with him, if we deny him, he will also deny us, if we are faithless, he remains faithful for he cannot deny himself.” (2 Tim 2:12-13 NAB). These words from St. Paul explain one aspect of Christ’s teaching in the Gospel of Luke. St. Paul teaches that Christ always remains faithful to his people, but if they do not pick their cross by denying themselves then it is they who deny Christ.  Anyone who wants to be a disciple of Christ is called to be Christ-like; and since Christ picked up his cross so too his disciples are called to deny themselves and pick up their crosses.

            There are parallel passages in each of the other two synoptic gospels. The Gospel of Mark phrases the passage in a slightly different way. “And he called to him the multitude of his disciples and said to them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospels will save it.” (Mk 8:34-35 NAB) The author of Mark’s gospel mentions that Christ directed this saying to those who were already following him. The author shows that it is not simply enough to follow behind Christ, but rather one must walk in His footsteps by totally surrendering himself in taking up his cross. The author of Matthew has the same saying but also in a slightly different way: “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Mt:10:38-39 NAB) Matthew more than Luke and Mark stresses the importance of denying everything, even loved ones, to follow Christ.

            While there are multiple parallel passages in the New Testament there are no direct parallel passages in the Old Testament. This is to be expected because Christ is calling his disciples to a radical new form of discipleship. In the Old Testament God formed a covenant with his people in which the people upheld their end by obeying the law. Christ has come into this world to fulfill that old law. He has adopted all Christians as his brothers. Through his passion, death, and resurrection he saves his people. Following the example of Christ, his disciples, those who desire to follow him, must likewise take up their cross. It is no longer good enough to offer animal sacrifice; one must deny himself to truly follow Christ.

            This passage from Luke is often cited by the Catholic Church as the means to turning towards and following Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes the importance of this passage and its teaching on conversion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites this exact passage in its discussion on conversion and calls this passage the “surest way of penance.”[13]

            The passage from Luke is not used in the current Catholic Liturgy. The parallel passage from the Gospel of Matthew is used on the 13^th Sunday of Ordinary Time during year A. On the 13^th Sunday of Ordinary Time in year A Mt 10:38-39 is paired with 2 Kgs 4:8-11, 14-16a and Rom 6:3-4, 8-11. In the reading from the second book of Kings, Elisha comes to visit a woman. Upon visiting her he prophesizes that when he returns to visit her in a year she will be with child. This passage is clearly a pre-figuration of the Visitation. Read with the other readings it is easy to see that God desired to send His Son born to a holy woman to save the human race. This Son is destined to die for the sins of the world. Likewise if anyone dies to sin he is destined to live with Him forever. The reading of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a reminder that all who were baptized into Christ were also baptized into his death. St. Paul exhorts the Romans, “as to His death, He died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. Consequently you too must think of yourselves as [being] dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 6:3-4, 8-11 NAB) This exhortation from St. Paul paired with the Gospel of Matthew reminds the hearer that Christ died for our sins that we may live with Him forever in heaven. Just as Christ died we too must also die to sin so that we can live with Him. There is no better way to die to sin that to surrender oneself over to hime who defeated sin, Christ.   

            These short two verses from the Gospel of Luke are packed full of meaning. In these verses Christ lays out a direct way to achieve salvation through discipleship. Through understanding the historical and literary background, what the Church Fathers, Doctors and modern exegetes have understood from the passage, the word “deny”, other relevant passages to the text, and how the text is used in the Church’s liturgy and teaching the full weight of this passage begins to shine through. Through this study one is able to more clearly discern what the path of discipleship really is.

1.     Raymond E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Anchor Bible, 1997),226.
2.     Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville:The Liturgical Press, 1991),3.
3.     D.L. Bock, “Luke, Gospel of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B Green, Scot McKnight et al. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 497.
4.      Bock, “Luke, Gospel of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 500.
5.      Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 23-24.
6.     Green, The Gospel of Luke, 23-24.
7.     William F. Arndt, Bible Commentary The Gospel According to Luke (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), 259-260. 
8.     Bonaventure. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, trans. Robert J. Karris, (New York: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2003), 836-840.
9.      Dianne Bergant, and Robert J Karris, (eds), The Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1989), 954.
10.     Dianne Bergant, The Collegeville Bible Commentary, 954.
11.     Catholic Bible Concordance RSV, Catholic Edition. Emmaus Road Publishing, 2009.
12.     Mark D. Given, “Deny,” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine D. Sakenfeld et al. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007), 100-101.
13.     Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2^nd ed. (Washington DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000,) 1435.

St. Ambrose on Preaching

            St. Augustine’s conversion chronicled in his famous work The Confessions has fascinated mankind for almost 1600 years. It is clear to anyone who reads The Confessions that an integral factor in the conversion of St. Augustine was the preaching of St. Ambrose of Milan. Bertand de Margerie S.J., in his 1995 work An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, correctly points out that “the Church and mankind are indebted to the hermeneutic development by Ambrose of Milan for the conversion and Christian writings of St. Augustine of Hippo.”[1]This short paper aims to explore the preaching of St. Ambrose.

            St. Ambrose was born in 340 A.D. in Treves to a Christian family at which time his father was administering the Gallic provinces as the prefect.[2] By the time he had grown into a young man he had moved to Rome with his widowed mother.[3] In Rome he undertook a liberal arts education in preparation for a civil career composed of studies in rhetoric, jurisprudence, the works of Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and the study of Greek.[4] After studying the liberal arts he began his political career and was assigned to act as governor over the provinces of Ligui and Aemilla. Having successfully administered these provinces he was called to Milan.[5]

            It was in Milan that the life of the promising young career of Ambrose changed course forever. After the death of the Arian bishop of Milan, Auxentius, a revolt broke out in the city over who should be the next bishop. Ambrose, himself only a catechumen, was sent by the emperor to put down the revolt. While he was in the process of solving the question of who should be the next bishop, Catholics and Arian onlookers alike both shouted out his name, nominating him for the position of bishop. Ambrose who was sent as a diplomat of the emperor to find a new bishop, not to become the new bishop, considered his sins too great to be named bishop and tried to flee the city twice, only to be captured and returned each time by the citizens. Realizing that he was called to be the bishop he insisted on finding a Catholic bishop, not an Arian bishop, to baptize him and moved through the ecclesiastical grades very quickly, in only eight days after being baptized he was consecrated a bishop. Ambrose quickly came to be known as a holy bishop and a powerful preacher.[6]

            At the time that St. Ambrose was elected bishop, he was the most senior magistrate in northern Italy. He was well educated in politics and culture but he was ignorant of ecclesiastical matters, most importantly of Sacred Scripture. While not educated in the ways of churchmen, his liberal arts education, “his knowledge of Greek, -rare at that time- his habit of learning by heart, his exegetical aptitude resulting from the practice of reading and interpreting the literal and allegorical sense of a poetical text, and above all its moral meaning,” left St. Ambrose with the basic skills required for his new ministry as bishop.[7]

Even though St. Ambrose entered his new ministry without a good knowledge of Sacred Scripture, he knew well the importance of Sacred Scripture.[8]  Following the example of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, preaching became St. Ambrose’s top priority.[9] Knowing the necessity, in his role as bishop, to preach on the Word of God, St. Ambrose quickly began to study the Word of God.[10]

            Ambrose came to know the Scriptures intimately. In his sermons, the saint, frequently quoted Scripture verbatim which demonstrates how familiar he had become with the Word of God. This frequent recourse to the words of Scripture was an important for St. Ambrose because he believed that the “bible’s mode of expression was the most appropriate for pastoral speech.”[11] Ambrose believed that the bible, being the inspired word of God, was the most perfect way to instruct the faithful.

            St. Ambrose believed that the effective preacher was one who taught the faithful to participate in Divine Life by teaching them how to live as God’s people. As bishop he instructed his clergy that their primary duty as priests was to educate their people in the virtues of character. While the content of the sermon was important, St. Ambrose knew that if the preacher did not live an exemplary life his preaching would be much less effective, or worse even a potential cause of scandal.

While the preacher’s actions must agree with the way he acts, his use of rhetoric is also important. St. Ambrose believed in taking the middle road of rhetoric. The preacher’s rhetoric should not be too elaborate or too simplistic; rather it should be of a level that is dignified but understandable by everyone. St. Ambrose’s sermons, “while lacking in excitement and superficial charm, were eloquent and perceptive, full of sound learning and solid instruction, and possessing in a marked degree the power of convincing those who heard them.”[12] St. Ambrose strove to appeal his audiences’ practical mind, not to their emotions.

            St. Ambrose was greatly indebted to his predecessors, the Church Fathers of the East, for his style and content of delivering homilies. St. Ambrose, following the Eastern Fathers, truly believed that God inspired the texts of the Scriptures.[13] With this trust he drew his sermons from the practice of scriptural meditation known as lectio devina. “The method of lectio devina served to guide all of Ambrose’s preaching and writings, which stemmed precisely from prayerful listening to the Word of God.”[14] Through the practice of lectio devina the preacher opens himself up to what God desires to tell his people and in doing so truly becomes the mouthpiece of God, not his own.

In his meditation he was attuned to the allegorical method of biblical interpretation. In fact “Ambrose the exegete is often dependent on Origen, particularly in his way of allegorizing.”[15] While the allegorical level of interpretation was important for both Origen and St. Ambrose, neither of them ignored the historical or literal levels of interpretation.[16] In the application of the allegorical meaning of a biblical passage to his homily, Ambrose, proclaimed a spiritual sense, which concerned Christ, or his Church.[17] Like the Fathers, the spiritual meaning of the text always related to the profession of Faith and to the communion of the Church.[18]

Beyond the allegorical level of biblical interpretation, St. Ambrose also brought the use of Christian Platonic exegesis of Scripture into the Western Church.  St. Ambrose used the allegorical level and harmonized it with the Bible using this Platonic sense. It was precisely in this harmonizing of the Word of God with Platonic thought that drew St. Augustine to listen to St. Ambrose’s sermons and eventually led him to the Church.[19]

Many of St. Ambrose’s homilies are addressed to his local Church in Milan and are often aimed at rooting out the heresies prevalent in Milan. The majority of the saint’s homilies can be categorized as addressing the influence of the world, the truth that the Old Covenant ceaselessly prepares the image of the New Covenant and that following Christian ethics leads to eternal life. Of particular concern to St. Ambrose was the heresy of Marcion, which claimed that the Old Testament was not the inspired Word of God. One common way St. Ambrose addressed the errors of Marcion was by interpreting the Old Testament in light of St. Paul’s theology.[20]

St. Ambrose never envisioned himself as a clergyman, nor did he have any formal training for his role as Bishop, but he became an effective preacher by using the skills he formed during his formal liberal arts training and by listening to what God was saying through the Scriptures. St. Ambrose, in his method of preaching, expressed the belief, held from the earliest days of the Church that “human beings at every level of spiritual development can be enlightened and energized by the power of the word of God.”[21] Preaching, for Ambrose, began with the Sacred Texts in an attempt to live in conformity with the Divine Texts.

---

1.     Bertrand de Margerie S.J., An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Volume II The Latin Fathers, trans. Pierre de Fontnouvelle, (Petersham: St Bede’s Publications, 1995), 76.

2.     Pope Benedict XVI., The Fathers (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor , 2008), 129.

3.     Paulinus, The Life of St. Ambrose, trans. John A Lacy, Fathers of the Church 15 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1957), 34-36. 
4.     Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 618.

5.     Paulinus, The Life of St. Ambrose, trans. Lacy, 34-36.
6.   Paulinus, The Life of St. Ambrose, trans. Lacy, 34 - 43.

7.   Margerie S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Volume II The Latin Fathers, trans Fontnouvelle ,76.

8.     Benedict XVI, The Fathers, 130.

9.     Craig Alan Satterlee, Ambrose of Milan’s Method of Mystagogical Preacing (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 93.

10.    Benedict XVI, The Fathers, 130.

11.    Satterlee, Ambrose of Milan’s Method of Mystagogical Preaching, 92.

12.    Satterlee, Ambrose of Milan’s Method of Mystagogical Preaching, 89.

13.    Broz, Jarolsav. “From Allegory to the Four Senses of Scripture Hermeneutics of the Church Fathers and of the Christian middle Ages.” In Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis by Petr Pokorny, & Jan Roskovec, 302 – 309. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. 302.

14.    Benedict XVI, The Fathers, 130.

15.    Margerie S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Volume II The Latin Fathers, trans Fontnouvelle ,77.

16.    Margerie S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Volume II The Latin Fathers, trans Fontnouvelle ,78 - 79.

17.    Walter M Werbylo, Integrating Patristic and Modern Exegesis of Scripture (Front Royal: Christendom Press), 2009. 232.

18.    Broz, “From Allegory to the Four Senses of Scripture Hermeneutics of the Church Fathers and of the Christian middle Ages.” 303.

19.    Freud, The Rise of Christianity, 618 & 664.

20.    Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis Volume II The Latin Fathers, 78 & 89.  
                21.    Broz,“From Allegory to the Four Senses of Scripture Hermeneutics of the Church Fathers and of the Christian Middle Ages.” 306.

A Critique of Ludwig Geuerbach's "The Essence of Christianity."

Introduction

Ludwig Feuerbach was born in Landshut, Bavaria in 1804 to a well respected law professor. During his university years he was attracted to the work of G.W.F. Hegel. In the summer of 1824 he attended lectures in logic and metaphysics from Hegel. Feuerbach held these lectures to be the turning point in his life. [1]

Feuerbach, like many philosophers of his age, struggled in attempting to explain how a knowing subject can know a real universe which is distinct from the individual knower. He from the start took up a perceptionist view of epistemology and set out to show its significance in life especially in the area of religion His most famous work, Essence of Christianity, became a guide for revolutionaries like Karl Marx. In this work he attempted to show that the doctrines of Christianity were really wishful illusions to explain the meaning of life.

This paper intends to disprove the conclusions given in Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity by first putting Feuerbach in his historical context, giving a brief overview of the main argument of the book and then laying out and disproving his essential first principles. After disproving his first principle it will be demonstrated that Feuerbach’s first principles lead to absurd conclusions that should not be held by a reasonable person. Having disproved his first principles this paper will conclude with an attempt to place his work within the Perceptionist School.

Historical Context

In many ways Feuerbach comes at the culmination of the modern era of philosophy. His anti - Christian views were not, however, a complete turning point in the history of philosophy. If understood in the proper historical context Feuerbach's work seems to be a proper product of his age, the modern age.

The philosophers of the modern age attempted to make philosophy a “science.” As people through scientific advances discovered certain beliefs that were previously held at the time, to be false, for example that the world was not the center of the universe as previously thought, they began to question everything in a scientific way. No longer was reasoning the route to truth but only the limited scientific method. In making philosophy more scientific God and the views of traditional religion became problems that had to be wrestled with.

The modern era, beginning with the works of Descartes, saw a lack of trust in the senses leading to a philosophy that turns inward towards oneself to understand the world, rather than understanding the world through ones senses. The era of modern philosophy saw a shift from the traditional view of looking at God objectively, to looking into oneself for an understanding of God. Hegel, Feuerbach’s idol, came to the conclusion about God that “in our consciousness of God, we somehow serve to realize his own self-consciousness, and, thereby, his own perfection.”[2] This focus on consciousness was no doubt a major influence in the work of Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity.

Overview of Essence of Christianity

Feuerbach begins Essence of Christianity by explaining the essential nature of man which is based in his epistemology and philosophy of religion.  His epistemology holds that reality is that which resides in the rational and sensual perception of the human person. He holds that truth, reality and the senses are all one.[3] From this epistemology he logically comes to the conclusion that  man cannot be anything without an object that he essentially relates to.[4]

The only object that man essentially relates to is one that he is able to comprehend because truth, reality and the senses are all one.  He holds that this object which man necessarily relates to, to be the object that the subject contemplates. He substitutes anthropology, the study of humanity, for philosophy.[5]

The belief that the objet which man necessarily relates to is the subject that he contemplates, makes the claim that man becomes acquainted with himself. Because man becomes acquainted with himself the absolute man is his own nature. The power of the object over him is then the power of his own nature.[6]

Since, the absolute man is his own nature, consciousness becomes the most important factor for man. Feuerbach defines the consciousness as joy in one’s own perfection. He further claims that every being has as its highest conceivable being, God, in himself because the divine can only be known by what is divine. [7]

Having explained the essential nature of man Feuerbach goes on to explain the essence of religion. Since God is the highest conceivable being of an individual religion is the consciousness of the infinite, so it follows that consciousness is religion.[8] Man is thus capable of transcending himself.

The religious object is within man and therefore is his own consciousness. It follows that religion is an indirect form of self knowledge and so the divine being can be nothing other than the human being.[9] In other words all the attributes of the divine nature are the attributes of the human nature.[10] Having established his religion he goes on to logically disprove various Christian dogmas.

Since man, in religion, is in relation to his own nature, religion is essentially emotion. Whatever pleases man also pleases God. To be a truly happy person, one should turn inward towards  their own desire.[11] Feuerbach reaches his ultimate conclusions based on one faulty first principle.

First Principles

All arguments must start somewhere because it is impossible to trace all arguments back to an infinite starting point. Since all arguments must start somewhere it only makes sense that they would start at a point that can be agreed upon by reasonable men. Aristotle himself claims that there is no need to prove those things which are commonly understood, “for if we both refute the objections and leave the common opinions undisturbed, we shall have proved the case sufficiently.”[12] This philosophy, often called common sense philosophy. St. Thomas in his commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, rightly points out, that this common sense philosophy is the most reasonable fact of epistemology because since no human mind is able to explaining everything even the most probable things and as such it is sufficient to start with those things that appear to be true.[13]

These first principles should be spontaneous and necessary. An argument that is held up as a first principle should be evident, not reached by demonstration, and not a supposition. Since experience is what gives us the matter of the first principle it is necessary to abstract data from the world around us and use reason to come to the truth using objective and immediate evidence.[14] 

Conclusions can only be as strong as their first principles because the first principle is the foundation of the argument. Just as if you built a house on a shaky foundation you would get a shaky house, so to if you build and argument on a shaky foundation you will get a shaky argument. Because conclusions are only as firm as their first principles are, for Feuerbach’s work to be true, his first principle must be solid.

Critique of Feuerbach’s First Principle

Feuerbach takes for his first principle the idea that the object which man necessarily relates to is the object that the subject contemplates. Feuerbach comes to this position through an observation that a complete man possesses the powers of thought, will and affection. He arrives at this point because he realizes that man is incomplete without an object of the powers of thought will and affection. [15]

The notion that man necessarily relates to the subject he contemplates is a turning inward towards oneself. Whereas the intellectual approach begins with an extra mental point of departure, the world, Feuerbach begins with an internal point of departure the ego. Rather than knowing God through use of reason, Feuerbach comes to know God through intuition. His method makes knowledge of God symbolic and extrinsic.

The idea that one’s notion of God is designated intrinsically by our own experiences rather than the intellectual approach, using an object which determines the knowledge, is absurd. This upward method of Feuerbach causes God to be a symbol rather than a reality. Since in Feuerbach’s notion, God cannot transcend our mind, he cannot be known apart from our minds. It follows that any idea a person has of God is just the same as some symbol of God, not a notion of God himself. He cannot be known apart from the relation to our lives because he does transcend the mind of the thinker.[16] This notion of God taken as part of Feuerbach’s first principle is absurd because it requires two suppositions.[17]

The first supposition is that one cannot know reality through the senses. This first supposition takes ideas to be pictures or substitutes of reality because if one cannot know reality they can only have some kind of symbolic idea of the reality. This supposition is without merit, it is not readily apparent rather it is more reasonable to claim that ideas are transparent; they are real not extra mental. If God cannot be known apart from the individual mind then knowledge of God must be based entirely on experience. Feuerbach’s knowledge of God is a knowledge attained without reason. Feuerbach saw this modern method as a way to transcend the intellect and understand God at his source rather than through a false notion clouded by the intellect. At the heart of this principle is a deep seeded belief that the use of the intellectual system does not really lead to an understanding of God.[18] The problem with this argument is that  having an experience of God claims nothing about God as he is but rather only something of  how God relates to us, which itself is weak because it is impossible for one to understand how God relates to the individual person without knowing anything about God.

The second presupposition is that the mind is the true measure of reality. It follows from Feuerbach’s first principle that God is measured by men. This claim must be incorrect because what is greater is never subordinate to what is lesser.[19] In the words of Fulton Sheen “We are not the measure of God, God is our measure.”[20]  To claim that the mind is the true sense of reality claims that philosophy is merely ones analysis of experience with regard to a particular circumstance. Philosophy is then reduced to some form of contemporary psychology, a study of the brain. To believe this is to reject the truth that everything in the universe is fixed to natural laws and that man is a part of this universe and subject to its laws.[21] 

It seems obvious that everything in the universe is fixed to natural laws. Every sane human person lives their life conforming to these principles. Scientists set out to demonstrate why this are the way they are in the world assuming that there is an order to the world. This presupposition is well grounded because our sensual experience over and over again tells us it is true. No matter how many times I try to add five and five I am always going to get ten. If there were not natural laws then the sun would not always rise in the east and acorns would not always fall from oak trees rather than simply fly away when they become detached from the tree. Further it seems obvious that man realizes that he is a part of this nature. Why else cannot I fly even if my mind desires me to fly?

God of Evolution

If the world were not determined to fixed and unalterable laws our universe would always be in flux. This idea that nothing is but rather everything is becoming necessarily eliminates first principles all together. This notion of evolution is problematic because every motion presupposes something that is immutable. This does not imply that something’s change or evolve like the weather, however there must be some unmoved first mover which is immaterial, universal, and necessary that is the cause of motion for nothing is the cause of itself.[22] “We must therefore conclude that through the intellect the soul knows bodies by knowledge which is immaterial, universal and necessary.”[23] It is simply not possible for the first mover to be a mover of becoming.

If the first mover where the prime mover of becoming there would have to be some other cause that is moving him because things do not move themselves from potency to act. Things cannot move themselves from potency to act because what is lesser cannot come from what is greater. If something is only in potency to act there must be an act that acts upon it to actualize the potency. It is only logical then that there must be a first prime mover who has complete actuality because of himself.

By arguing that the idea which man contemplates is himself Feuerbach introduced a religion of evolution. As a person continues to further understand himself, God continues to change and evolve. This notion is based heavily on the belief that one’s thoughts are not representative of what is real but rather what is of value to the particular person. This evolution of religion is however unscientific because there is no longer a requirement for proof because the truth of religion is subjective.[24]

God is no longer Being, as he reveals himself in Deuteronomy but is rather becoming. If God however is becoming an apparent first principle, the law of non contradiction, ceases to be true. It all of the sudden becomes possible for a thing to both be and not be in the same respect in the same time.[25]

Perceptionist School

Essence of Christianity is a work of perceptionism or idealism, the philosophical system that holds that knowledge is relative to what is obtained through the senses. The idealist school at its core believes that the mind cannot transcend itself to know anything outside itself.[26] This notion began in the modern era with the works of Locke and was heavily influenced later by the work of Emmanuel Kant who died in 1840 was a contemporary of Feuerbach. 

It is this notion of perceptionism that brings Feuerbach to his ultimate conclusion that to understand God one must turn inward. As a perceptionsit he clearly holds that it is not possible to understand the world outside of the body, let alone a metaphysical world. Since the infinite metaphysical world is unknowable through the senses he is left with no other option than to look inward. This leads him to believe that the only way something can be affirmed is through ourselves.[27]  “The power of the object over him is therefore the power of his own nature.”[28] What is true is not true in terms of some objective truth but rather as a subjective truth, how it relates to the individual person.   

Conclusion

Feuerbach’s work Essence of Christianity, while a great influence to many, is a work that does not arrive at truth. The work is flawed from the outset with a bad first principle. The first principle is caught up in a bad epistemology and philosophy of religion that is deeply rooted in of perceptionsim. While understandable in its historical context, this work should not be read with an intention of coming to philosophical truth.

---

[1] Harvey, Van A., "Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/>.

[2] Redding, Paul, "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/hegel/>.

[3]  Sass, Hans-Martin. "Feuerach, Ludwig Andreas (1804 - 1872)." In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, by Craugm Edward, 635 - 640. New York: Routledge, 1998. 636.

[4] Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1989. 4.

[5] Coplestone, Frederick. A History of Philosophy VII Fichte to Nietzsche.Westminster:The Newman Press, 1965. 295.

[6] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 5.

[7] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 6.

[8] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 12.

[9] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 13.

[10] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 14.

[11] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 25.

[12] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. 1145b5-7

[13]Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. trans. C.I. Litzinger O.P.  Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books 1993. Book 7 lecture 1.

[14] Sheen, Fulton. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009. 142 -146.

[15] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 4.

[16] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 172-173.

[17] It has previously been demonstrated in this paper that first principles cannot be grounded on suppositions

[18] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 24 - 30.

[19] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 172-173.

[20] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 179.

[21] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 62 - 67.

[22] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 156 - 161.

[23] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 161.

[24] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 13 – 20.     

[25] Sheen. God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. 164 - 172.

[26] Coffey, Peter. Epistemology or the Theory of Knowledge. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009 reprint. 42.

[27] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 6.

[28] Feuerbach. The Essence of Christianity. 5.