One of the questions which thinking men over the centuries have addressed and which certainly calls for serious consideration today, is the question of the value, or worth, of human life and the conditions which are requisite to the successful and felicitous living of it. Indeed, a great portion of both Classical and Christian thought, considered historically, revolves around precisely this question.[2]

Classical thought first addressed the problem of human dignity in poetic form. Homer saw a world as peopled by demonic forces and suffused with movement, chaos, and mystery. Against this world appears the figure of man, whose task it is to reduce these forces to some kind of order. This he achieves by his reason. By virtue of the rational qualities of excellence (arete) and confidence (tharsos) he is able to overcome the obstacles which confront him and to determine for himself his lot or destiny (moira). Thus the heroes of the ILIAD and the Odyssey are exceptional and god-like spirits who live in proud adventure, their conquest of life tempered only by the ever-present fear of death and of the prospect which awaits even an Achilles among the shades.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

It is this double view of the man Jesus that permits his being designated as “The Man of Heaven.” In some significant sense this man is unique as bearing, in his earthly history and beyond into eternity, the quality of deity. It is our task in this essay to come to some understanding and appreciation of this very two-stage Christology.

As we hope to demonstrate, there are three basic aspects in the designation of Jesus as the Man of Heaven. They are: 1) the Man of Heaven is centered in eternity; 2) the Man of Heaven is centered in history, and 3) the Man of Heaven is centered in experience. However, it is not possible to articulate these three aspects in terms of some static structure of thought. For these aspects cannot be isolated and treated as if each were a self-contained structure. On the contrary, they are inter-twined in a unitary complex, interpenetrating each other in a way that prohibits any separate analysis. Thus, we must work through this complex interrelationship if we are to gain authentic insight into this man Jesus of Nazareth. And our own patient journey, emphasizing first one and then others of these inter-weaving lines, and doing so back and forth repeatedly, reflects the process in the experience of the disciples of Jesus as they themselves struggled to arrive at a final and definitive understanding of their Master.

There are, in the main, but two fundamental modes of reasoning in which the question of the necessarily existent may be considered. These are the a priori and the a posteriori modes.

In the a priori mode of thought, the argument contends that the idea of the necessary being carries with it its own guarantee of the independent reality of its object. This is the ontological argument: The consistent conceivability of the necessarily existent suffices to evince the necessarily existent as ontologically real. Now, two things are required in the explica­tion of the ontological proof. The manner in which the idea of the necessari­ly existent carries its own guarantee must be determined. Further, it must be shown that the necessarily existent is genuinely and consistently conceivable.

This latter consideration points up the fact that the ontological argument is initially hypothetical: If the idea of the necessary being is a genuine and consistent idea, then it is evident that such being exists. If, on the other hand, the idea is a pseudo‑idea, then the idea cannot show forth the necessarily existent. The ontological argument then breaks down. Hence, the hypothesis which initially attaches to the argument must be eliminated, if the cogency of the argument is to be finally sustained.

Phaedo, apparently on his way home from Athens, stops over at Philius, where he relates to a group of friends the events of Socrates’ last day of earthly existence. Phaedo states that he, in company with several others, met with Socrates in his prison very early in the morning before his execution at sundown. The proceedings of this final meeting are then related to the Philiasians, reenacting for them and succeeding generations the last hours of the life of Socrates as her asserts, in word and conduct, the triumph of philosophy when faced with biological death.

The central purpose of the dialogue is to establish an ultimate and positive conception of philosophical theory and practice as grounded in the ideality of the soul. This ideality of the soul is the criterion by which human existence is to be evaluated. Therefore, biological death need not be feared as the destroyer of ultimate value.

Diametrically opposed to the above stated Socratic position is the position represented especially by the Pythagoreans, Simmias and Cebes, that the significance of life is grounded in biological vitality. Therefore death is catastrophic as the destruction of the value of human existence. Thus very early in the dialogue the lines of battle are clearly drawn. The issue is ideal existence versus biological, hedonistic existence.

The history of redemption, in its sweep of divine action, may be conceived in this manner: First, there is an ethical start in racial death. Second, there is an effective ethical movement in the death of Christ. Third, there is a racial start in the resurrection and ascension and session of our Lord. Fourth, there is an effective racial movement in the actual formation of the new race by the conversion of moral persons. Fifth, the holy racial goal is reached when the redeemed race, expressing the moral love of God, is completed in organism at the final resurrection of the body[1]

St. Paul, particularly, develops the nature of the Atonement in terms that approach philosophical analysis. This is the case, pre-eminently, in Rom. 3:25-26. The Gospels give an historical account of the Redeemer’s atoning death. And throughout the Epistles generally the historical reality of the atonement is brought to view again and again.

The use of the term sacrament in association with the subject of existence may seem inappropriate, since the term is usually associated with certain Christian rites. It is advisable, therefore, to give some attention to the meanings and usages of the term.

The word sacramentum (sacrare = “to dedicate”) means “something set apart as sacred, consecrated, dedicated.” In classical times it referred to a sum that two parties to a lawsuit deposited in sacro. Hence it came to signify the suit itself and also the thing that sets apart and devotes. It was also used to refer to the military oath of obedience to the commander.

It is used in this latter sense by Pliny in a letter to the Emperor Trajan. This is the first appearance of the word sacramentum in connection with Christianity. In the letter Pliny speaks of the Bithynian Christians:

The designation of value as funded affective-volitional meaning, as an ought-to-be beyond being, and as identical with being appears to introduce an element of discontinuity prohibitive of a comprehensive and systematic interpretation of value. There are, however, considerations indicating that these three accounts of value do admit of, and even require, further interpre­tation and that Professor Urban regarded these accounts in that light.

There are two respects in which Urban’s interpretation of value is characterized by a measure of unity. First, the three axiologies are struc­tured on, and articulated in terms of, a common mode of reasoning, namely, that based on the principle of sufficient reason. Second, a further, substan­tive unity appears in the circumstance that Professor Urban’s psychological and philosophical theories are complemented by his theological theory of value. His definitive axiology maintains that, ultimately, value and being are identical and that finite values subsist within the matrix of that identity. In this respect Urban’s definitive theory of value is an axiological theism.

The centralization of Hebrew faith and worship in Jerusalem preserved the integrity of Judaism. The history of Israel was intertwined with their religion. Without their religion they had bo history, and without their history they had no religion. Their history, patriotism, religion and hope were centered in Jerusalem and the Temple as the focal point of their unity.

In times of great distress, they had rallied to their cause and restored and purified their sacred Temple, insuring that their faith would live on to bring salvation, not only to them, but to the nations of the world. The integrity of monotheism would remain as a purifying force in world history. When the dispersion of Jews over the world occurred, their faith took on new meaning: it became a salutary force in the life of peoples of other nations.

During the Babylonian captivity, the Jews continued their study of Jewish scripture. However, when the Law had fallen into oblivion, Ezra of Babylon restored it. Later, when Jerusalem was destroyed, it was the Babylonians who who restored the Law.