Bible and Beeswax

Thoughts and products about theology and culture.

Category: theology

  • Biblical Compassion: Its Relation to Evangelism

    Biblical compassion is an attitude and choice that a Christian does in the context of a fallen world.  Because the world is fallen, there are people who are hurt, and need our compassion.  Because the world is fallen, there are people who will be angered by our faith, and they too need our compassion.  One example of this is in my first interaction with one of my neighbors.  When he found out that I am a Christian he said, “Oh, you’re a Christian?  Well, didn’t you know Constantine re-wrote the whole Bible, and that Jesus got married, and all of his disciples and children moved to Europe?”  With a few simple words, I could have ended any future interaction.  But I believe Scripture teaches that biblical compassion is three things: something to prepare for, a response of truth to lies, as well a response of pity and patience to hatred.  Each of these concepts need to be wedded together if we are to show true, biblical compassion to a lost and dying world.  Let’s look at some passages of Scripture to prove this point.  

    We need to prepare to be compassionate because people will hate us or the God we serve.  In 1 John 3:13, the apostle John says, “Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.”  But we aren’t told simply to expect hatred.  We are told to love those who hate us and who hate our God.  Jesus commands us, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). 

    One way to love the enemies of God and of His people is to confront lies with the truth.  It is unloving to leave a person in ignorance, or to allow them to spew lies that can be addressed kindly and publicly.  Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).   Similarly, the apostle Peter tells us, “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15a).

    But another way to show compassion to those who hate us is simply to pity the state of their heart, and so be patient with them.  Peter adds a note that when we give a reason for our hope, “Yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15b).  Our witness to the reality of Christ’s resurrection, and of the hope of salvation, is tragically injured when we respond to animosity with a vengeful tirade.  In fact, in 1 Peter 2:15, Peter says that the main way we silence foolish people is simply by “doing good”.  Biblical compassion is a hard thing, but a blessed thing.  When we show kindness to those who hate us, and soundly and gently respond to their arguments with love, we imitate the example of our Savior.  Christ lovingly challenged our hard hearts with His truth.  Let us strive to do the same towards others!

    Cover My Web Expenses!


    Don’t want to buy art? Well, think about this one, please: I do not advertise on this website, though I do have web expenses! Consider donating to help cover these expenses, and to see more articles like this produced regularly.

  • Christians Get Depressed Too

    Christians Get Depressed Too by David P. Murray

    My rating: 5 of 5 stars


    We’ve endured a difficult season in the life of our nation, our families, and our Church. Not surprisingly, then, some recent studies suggest that rates of depression have increased exponentially during the last year or so. Indeed, I myself have struggled with some form of depression for the last nineteen years, and found that during this season of life it has been exacerbated. It was with this in mind that I picked up David Murray’s little book Christians Get Depressed Too in hope of some wise council. And some wise council it is!

    If you’ve ever wondered, “What’s the deal with that person? Why are they so glum and Eeyore-like? How can I understand them and interact with them?” Then this is a helpful starting place for you. Even if you have some years of experience dealing with depression or with a depressed friend or family member, this short book is helpful in shaping our views of depression in a compassionate and biblical way.
    Murray treats the topic of depression with six C’s: crisis, complexity, condition, causes, cures, and caregivers.

    I just want to examine his first point about how depression is a crisis. Murray points out that the Bible speaks to depression. While it does not use the term “depression”, the concept itself is clearly articulated in multiple passages, and numerous biblical characters appear to bear its symptoms (think Moses, Hannah, Jeremiah, Elijah, Job, Psalmists). A fellow pastor who has suffered from depression comments, “The Psalms treat depression more realistically than many of today’s popular books on Christianity and psychology.”
    Not only is depression a biblical idea, depression is extremely common today. Murray cites current statistics which say that one in five people experience depression, and one in ten experience a panic attack at some stage in life. It also can be prevented or mitigated if it is understood and approached appropriately! If depression is identified, and its source is understood, we can help someone walk through it, or even help them learn methods that may alleviate it. To be a useful friend to the depressed person, we need to know what is actually helpful, and what sort of counsel is actually damaging. As one little workbook says, “Being a depressed Christian in a church full of people who do not understand depression is like a little taste of hell.” Instead, we can learn how to walk beside those in a dark trial like depression in a helpful way.

    Aside from all of these reasons for reading the book, I want to end with the point that Murray makes in his first chapter, that depression is actually a talent to be invested for God. William Bridges argues similarly in his book A Lifting up for the Downcast, when he says, “Afflictions…are part of Christ’s purchase for you.” As we try to help others, or help ourselves, walk along and out of the road of depression, this little book by David Murray can be a helpful guide to us.



    View all my reviews

    Cover My Web Expenses!


    Think about this one, please: I do not advertise on this website, though I do have web expenses! Consider donating to help cover these expenses, and to see more articles like this produced regularly.

  • On the Civil Magistrate

    On the Civil Magistrate

    I was given a facsimile of the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible, and was reading through it on Sunday. In this edition, the English Church in exile in Geneva included a letter to Queen Elizabeth, along with their gift of the Geneva Bible, encouraging her to continue the work of reforming the Church according to Scripture. I think it is interesting that throughout the majority of Church history, the Church has believed it is the God-given duty of Christian rulers to establish Christianity in some form within their nation. In the middle of their letter to Elizabeth, the author writes:

    Moreover, the marvelous diligence and zeal of Jehoshaphat, Josiah, and Hezekiah are by the singular providence of God left as an example to all godly rulers to reform their countries and to establish the word of God with all speed, lest the wrath of the Lord fall upon them for the neglecting thereof. For these excellent Kings did not only embrace the Word promptly and joyfully, but also procured earnestly and commanded the same to be taught, preached, and maintained through all their countries and dominions, binding themselves and all their subjects-both the great and small-with solemn protestations and covenants before God to obey the word, and to walk after the ways of the Lord.

    Notice that they believe the methods of these Kings over the Church are intended by God to serve as examples for “all godly rulers to reform their countries”. It is not that the Church should be reformed by its own, inward mechanisms alone, though this certainly should occur, but also civil governance has a proper role in assisting the Church’s reform by ensuring that their country is religiously conformed to what God desires. With that in mind, they point out that the way a country is to be conformed to God’s will is through three means: embracing the Bible, establishing a means by which the Bible is taught, and establishing a means by which the Bible’s moral laws are enforced. They point out that this was what the good King Asa did.

    Facsimile of 1560 Geneva Bible

    Yes, and in the days of King Asa it was enacted that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be slain, whether he was small or great, man or woman. And for the establishing of this and the performance of this solemn oath, as well, Priests as Judges were appointed and placed through all the cities of Judah to instruct the people in true knowledge and fear of God, and to minister justice according to the word, knowing that, except God by his word did reign in the hearts and souls, all man’s diligence and endeavors were of no effect: for without this Word we cannot discern between justice and injury, protection and oppression, wisdom and foolishness, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil.

    It is often argued against this particular view of the role of civil governance in the Church that the government cannot make a person regenerate, or cause them to be born again. Detractors suggest that because the civil government cannot regenerate men, it really has no business in promoting Scripture, or enforcing its laws. Now, it is true that the civil government cannot regenerate men, and should not aim to lead people to falsely confess faith in Christ! But the authors of this letter suggest to Elizabeth that it is useless to try to reform a country’s morals or religion if the word of God is not promoted in it by the government. While a government cannot regenerate mankind, the word of God can regenerate. And if the word of God is promoted, then regeneration will likely follow. Even if the word of God is not employed by God to regenerate people, and cause a love of His laws, God often uses His word to restrain the wicked by threats. In the end, the promotion of the reading, preaching, and practice of Scripture will then have the effect of altering the morals of a nation. So, in this portion, they imply that the Queen should consider the best ways to promote the teaching of Scripture, as well as applying its moral imperatives in her Kingdom.

    Therefore, the Lord, who is the chief governor of his Church, wills that nothing be attempted before we have inquired at his mouth. For seeing he is our God, of duty we must give him this preeminence, that of our selves we enterprise nothing, but only that which he has appointed, he who alone knows all things, and governs them as may best serve to his glory and our salvation. We ought not therefore to prevent him [go around him], or do any thing without his word, but as soon as he has received his will, immediately to put it into action

    Contemporary format* of Geneva Bible (edited by yours truly)

    They conclude this paragraph by hinting that Queen Elizabeth should not seek to alter the morals and religion of her nation of her own wisdom or that of her councilors, but instead to consider what God has to say about it in the Bible. Knowing the role of Knox in penning this letter to her, and knowing the offense that his prior work, A Trumpet Blast against the Monstrous Regime of Women, gave to the Queen, we can only assume this letter was not received with much joy. I imagine that if I were a sovereign over a nation, I would believe this to be rather too authoritative a suggestion. But the authors of the letter intended the Queen to see their addresses not as their own suggestions, but as necessary revelations from Scripture of what God has willed for godly rulers.

    ***

    *Original format:

    Moreouer the maruelous diligence and zeale of Iehofhaphat, Iofiah, and Hezekiah are by the finguler prouidence of God left as an example to all godly rulers to reforme their countreys and to eftablifh the worde of God with all fpede, left the wrath of the Lord fall upon them for the neglecting thereof. For these excellent Kings did not onely imbrace the worde promptely and ioyfully, but alfo procured earneftly and commanded the fame to be taught, preached and maynteyned through all their countreys and dominions, bynding them and all their fubiectes both the great and fmale with folemne proteftatitons and couenants before God to obey the worde, and to walke after the waies of the Lord. Yea and in the daies of Kyng Afa it was enacted that whofoeur wolde not feke the Lord God of Ifrael, fhulde be flayne, whether he was fmale or great, man or woman. And for the eftablifhing hereof and performance of this folemne othe, afwel Priests as Iudges were appointed and placed through all the cities of Iudah to inftruct the people in true knollage and feare of God, and to minifter iuftice according to the worde, knowing that, except God by his worde dyd reigne in the heartes and foules, all mans diligence and indeuors were of none effect: for without this worde we can not difcerne betwene iuftice, and iniurie, protection and oppefsion, wifdome and foolifhnes, knollage and ignorance, good and euil. Therefore the lord, who is the chefe gouernour of his Church, willeth that nothing be attempted before we haue inquired thereof at his mouth. For feing he is our God, of duetie we muft giue him this preeminence, that of our felues we enterpife nothing, but that which he hath appointed, who only knoweth all things, and gouerneth them as may beft ferue to his glorie and our faluation. We oght not therefore to preuent him, or do any thing without his worde, but affone as he hath reueiled his wil, immediately to put it in execution.

  • An Attempt at a Tertium Quid in the Lapsarian Debate

    The age-old Post-Reformation debate between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism is useful at times, and, personally, I have flip-flopped between both. At this time, though, I have developed what I think is somewhere between the two of them. You internet theologians let me know what you think:

    Works of God with Respect to Himself and Creatures

    I. Immanent/Internal (ad intra)

    A. Intrinsic (Remain within God)

    i. of His Being

    ii. of His Persons

    B. Extrinsic (Go outside of God)

    i. Decrees, “the counsel of His will” (in older theology providence is the purposing of how the decrees will be carried out)

    a. To be glorified by vessels of glory & wrath

    b. To Create

    c. To Permit the Fall

    d. To Redeem the Elect [ie covenant of redemption & the tertium quid]

    II. Transient/External (ad extra) [execution of the decree]

    A. Creation

    B. Providence (in later theology) or Governance (early)

    C. Redemption

    Sources:
    A compilation of Heinrich Heppe, Herman Bavinck, Wilhelmus á Brakel, and Petrus van Mastricht

    Footnotes:
    i. The decrees. As Bavinck says, “The means are all subordinate to the ultimate goal, but they are not for that reason subordinate to each other. Creation is not just a means for the attainment of the fall, nor is the fall only a means for the attainment of grace and perseverance…Twisse already noted: ‘These elements are not just subordinated to each other, but are also related coordinately.’” -Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, p. 390.

  • Grief’s Fruit

    I recently published this in our Church’s quarterly publication, but also wanted to post a modified version here.

    At the beginning of this year, our Church entered into a season of grief and lament over the loss of the ordinary, over political tensions, and over sickness and death due to disease.  When my wife and I lost our baby boy, Adlai, they joined us in additional grief and lament.  It seems to me to be additional mourning for a season of mourning, more lament for a time of lamentation, grief added to grief, loss added to loss, and confusion added to confusion.  These words are not unacceptable for the Christian to utter.  In fact, they are necessary to speak and to feel in order for us to walk forward in a healthy way as bearers of the cross of Christ.  But we do not speak or feel these things without faith or hope in the restoration we shall receive.  

    We are told how to view grief mingled with hope in Psalm 126:5-6 “Those who sow in tears shall reap with shouts of joy! He who goes out weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him.”  The context of this verse is the Old Covenant believers in exile, imagining the joy that will follow when the Lord brings his people back from exile.  They were in exile on account of the sin of their forefathers, and because of their personal sin.  They anticipate that after they have mourned over their sin, God will restore them to the land.  And so the Psalm ends with a truism—if you sow seed while weeping over the lack of food, you have still sown the seed, and so eventually you will have joy in the abundance of a harvest.  This then applies to a spiritual reality—if you grieve over personal sin and over loss because of the curse, you eventually will be comforted and restored.

    This gives us two things to ponder.  The first is that mourning is not to be shunned.  This reality is confirmed and clarified in the New Covenant with our sympathizing Mediator, Jesus Christ.  He promises that those who mourn are blessed, for they shall be comforted.  His thought is that we mourn over our sin, and over the effects of sin—the curse and its conditions.  Consider Jesus, knowing He is to raise Lazarus, mourning Lazarus’ death.  He is moved to tears by the pain that gripped His holy and perfect heart—the pain of loss, and the sorrow over what has afflicted His friends.

    But a second thing I see in Psalm 126 is that we are to “go out” while weeping.  This is Jesus’ great command to us, “go therefore and make disciples of all nations”.  Our labors do not cease while we mourn, but neither does joy.  We weep over the hardness of heart we see in our friends and family, and labor over them in prayer.  One day, our tears will turn to joy if and when they finally embrace Jesus.   We mourn the effects of the curse, and wretched death’s grip upon us, but one day, that final enemy will be defeated.  “He will swallow up death forever” (Is. 25:8).  When we compel people to believe that Jesus is the Savior of sinners, we invite them to mourn over their sin with us.  But we also invite them to know the hope, grounded in Jesus’ resurrection, that our mourning is accompanied with “joy inexpressible” now, and will be transformed into shouts of joy.

  • Alternate Explanations for the Resurrection of Jesus

    Guess what: they don’t make sense.

    The resurrection of Jesus is the profoundest, and most vital element of Christianity. If Jesus is not physically raised from the dead, then Christianity is a false religion, a false hope, pitiable, and worthless.

    (more…)
  • Is Livestream Preaching, Preaching?

    This question has been generated by the influx of COVID-19 related ministerial issues. A number of ministers have discussed the nature of our ministry now. Is it really “preaching” to “preach” livestream? Is it “preaching” to “preach” through recorded audio? And in addition, if it is not preaching, then what purpose does it serve in the life of the Church?

    No.

    My short and simple answer to these questions is, “No.” No. Preaching by livestream or by audio recording is not technically preaching. If we consult the biblical data, we see preaching used solely to refer to an event in which an elder or prophet, carrying the authority of God, confronts a personal audience with the message of God. Let me hone in on that one point: every biblical depiction is one in which the preacher confronts the people personally. The gap or medium between himself and his onlookers may be one of some physical space, but it is space that enables the onlooker to personally see and hear the preacher. One could call this entire situation the “preaching event”, or the “preaching occurrence”, or “preaching instance” from the Latin eventus. It is the singular event in which preacher, attendee, and God Himself are engaged with one another. It is unrepeatable, singular, and definite. We see this particularly in the preaching ministry of Jesus Christ. I’ve often thought about his preaching, and wondered how powerful his lungs must be. He could proclaim the gospel to thousands upon thousands of people gathered around about him. He preached to those gathered in the synagogue. He proclaimed to those gathered in homes, homes so full of people that they were nearly bursting at the seems. And then the people Jesus commissioned and empowered by His Spirit preached in the same manner after their Lord. Peter stood and proclaimed the gospel, that God made this crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ, vindicated Him by raising Him from the dead, and now commands men everywhere to repent and believe in Him. Paul preached it in the streets, the synagogues, and in homes. Each of them perceived this preaching experience or event as God’s means to convict, convert, and edify the hearer. There was no preaching into a box, wondering which amorphous persons might be watching. There was no need to wonder whether people were tracking with them or not. They could see the smiles or the frowns, catch the head tilts, hear the babies crying, the children giggling, Eutychus smacking onto the ground-level floor. But what of Peter and Paul’s letters? Perhaps, by extension, they viewed their letters as a form of preaching where viewers could hear them preach from a distance outside of their personal locale, outside of a preaching “event”. Were their letters preaching? No. Nowhere do they say this, or even suggest it. What they do say, explicitly, is that their letters are authoritative, God-inspired, letters, letters that they expected to be read as authoritative commands, but also expounded by preaching!

    Yes?

    So, “no”, is my answer. No, livestream and audio “preaching” are not preaching. And though “no” is my answer, a number of my fellow ministers have suggested an alternative answer. They say, “Yes,” livestream and audio recording are both preaching, just not ideal forms of preaching. While I find this answer tempting to embrace, I only really wish to embrace it for pragmatic reasons. It feels good to believe that the congregation is getting the same sort of thing that they got when we were able to attend public worship. But the problems with this answer are too numerous for me to embrace it. For one, how does this view of preaching compare with the use of the sacraments? Hypothetically, if congregants had some sort of device in their home that could dispense bread and wine at the behest of another user, say a minister who clicks a button from his home, and they receive the bread and wine after watching their minister instruct them to do so from a computer, would this be a genuine participation in the Lord’s Supper? I hope that my fellow ministers would shrink back at the thought. There are obvious congregational and personal aspects of the Lord’s Supper that cannot be mediated by a computer. And if the Lord’s Supper is the preaching of the gospel made visible, as Augustine argues, then how is the preaching of the gospel itself any less truncated by a digital format? What makes the Lord’s Supper impossible to practice via livestream (theoretically), but preaching possible?

    Further, and from a philosophy of aesthetics, it is worth noting that “the medium is the message” to some extent. A recording of audio or video of an event is decidedly not the same thing as personally experiencing the event. A recording of an event is just that: a recording of an event. It is not the event itself. Just as a recording of an orchestra may be played in a car, and yet the car’s audio does not magically make the orchestra appear within the car, so too a recorded preaching-occurrence does not make the preaching-occurrence appear in your home or office or wherever you listen to it or watch it. Not only that, the nature of the mechanics behind “capturing” audio or “capturing” video entails a certain and extreme loss of both quality (our ears and eyes far surpass the microphones and cameras that capture these sounds and sights), as well as personal gravitas (to physically be confronted by a minister or orchestra, etc.).

    So, What are We Doing?

    So what, in my view, is actually happening in livestream and audio recorded preaching when there is no physical audience? Ministers may “intend” to send their recordings to an audience. They may “intend” their current preaching to be viewed by an hypothetical audience. But the audience is not physically present. I think what actually occurs in the room may be preaching. There is a man with ministerial authority from God, explicating the Scriptures of God, to explain and apply the mind of God to a person. But the only person to whom he preaches this message, physically, is himself. What is recorded and sent later, or translated through lenses and digital apparatus through a computer, is a recording of the preaching. It is not the preaching. It is a form of transcription, copying, or an analogy to the preaching.

    So, What’s the Point?

    So what do we do, then, with the livestream sermon or audio sermon? If it is not “preaching”, per se, then what purpose does it serve? Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath-water here (as my old philosophy professor used to say). To suggest that livestream sermons or audio sermons are not preaching is not to suggest they are unimportant. To argue this would be like arguing that books about theology or about the Bible are unimportant because, well, they’re not the Bible. This logic obviously doesn’t follow. So, though they are not actually preaching, audio and livestream sermons are important. They are especially important at this time. They give a tangible connection between ministers and their congregants. The minister intends a recording of their preaching to be received and viewed and mulled over by his people.

    In addition to a tangible connection, the content of the message is likewise helpful, as helpful as, if not more helpful than, reading a transcription of a sermon. Beyond a transcription, the visual or audible recording of preaching adds the inflection of the voice or the visual appearance of the minister. The people hear or see their minister labor to shepherd them from a distance, listen to the voice of their Great Shepherd in the recording of the sermon (just as they would in a faithful book or written sermon), and they then apply what they have learned to themselves as they conclude a time of private, home worship.

    Last, why should a minister record his own sermons if he can recommend someone else’s sermons to his congregation? He should record his own sermons, if possible, because it is more helpful, on the Lord’s Day, to listen to the minister of the congregation in which one is a member, than to listen to or watch the recordings of various other ministers. I would even prefer to listen to my own preaching on the Lord’s Day, as I am a minister of my own congregation, than to listen to the preaching of a random preacher who has no intent for me to hear a recording of his sermon. One minister knows you, loves you, cares for you, and seeks for his recorded sermons to be especially applicable to you. Another minister does not know you, does not personally care for you, does not personally love you, and intends for his recorded sermons to be mulled over and applied by another. Though you can benefit from the writings and recordings of men who do not know you, if the minister God has gifted to you sends a recorded sermon to you, this is far preferable to analyze and meditate upon throughout the Lord’s Day.

    So, ministers, I argue that during this difficult time we are blessed by the Lord to be able to offer something wonderful to our people: not preaching itself, but a recording of preaching, not public worship but private worship. It is a time that our people will look back on, and think, “God has been so kind to us for giving us loving ministers, who labored to preach, even if just to themselves, so that they could deliver a useful thing for me to worship God and grow spiritually while I was home alone.” So may we be faithful to the task the Lord has set before us, brothers, and preach in strange and odd circumstances, in season and out of season, with hope and confidence that God intends all of this for the good of those who love Him.

  • Wilhemus à Brakel on the Image

    Current theological discussion about the image of God is centered around a rather pragmatic view. “Ancient interpreters foolishly assigned the place of the image to the soul,” say contemporary scholars, “while we realize that man has no soul. Since man has no soul, the image was imbued purely to the work that God created man to do.” But this sort of reasoning is, for one thing, naturalistic. Why take the revelation of God as descriptive of truth (ie man is made in God’s image), while at the same time argue that the revelation of God is not descriptive of truth (ie that man has a soul)?

    But, for those scholars that still believe humans have souls, and yet argue that the image of God is only in the practical outworking that humanity was tasked to do, Wilhelmus à Brakel has a rather profound argument! His logic starts off in sound contradiction to the contemporary argument when he says

    The image of God does not consist in the perfection of the body, for God is a Spirit. It does not primarily consist in the exercise of dominion which was bestowed as a consequence of this image, but rather it exists in the soul.

    Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. 1, p. 323

    The three possibilities of the “seat” of the image are: the body of man, the utility of man, or the soul of man. Wilhelmus states that the body cannot be the “seat” of the image because God has no body. Dominion cannot be the image because, he reasons, dominion flows from the fact that man is made in God’s image.

    He goes on to explain how the image of God in the soul of man becomes the basis for dominion. First of all, man was created in the image, and not “in a purely natural state” without the image (p. 325). Further, the image wasn’t “bestowed upon him above and beyond his nature.” The image is “a natural element of man’s nature” (p. 326). This matters because it entails that “image-bearing” isn’t something that is imparted like a crown placed on a head. Instead, it is an element originally constituted in human nature, though not essential to it.

    So, what then is the “image”? Wilhelmus states that it is the “goodness of man” or the “perfection of man, which consists in a faint resemblance to the communicable attributes of God” (p. 323). He uses the illustration of a painting. The soul’s nature–it’s spirituality, rationality, immortality, and various faculties (intellect, will, affections) form the canvas of the image. The soul’s form, or the painting itself, or “the true essence of the image of God” (p. 324) is its knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

    In effect, Wilhelmus is saying that if you were to look simply at the “painting” without regard for the canvas, you would see un-fallen man’s perfect knowledge of God, his complete righteousness, his pure holiness, and this would be the “image” of God. You did not see what God is like, first of all in the works of man, but first of all in who man was in his innermost character. From this character, then, perfect dominion was exercised. This expressed the image, or was a consequence of the image.

  • Eternal Functional Subordination…Continued

    Debates in the Reformed circles of the Church range from petty to vicious to important, and I have no interest in jumping into unnecessary argumentation. But, I think the debate over whether Jesus is eternally, but functionally, subordinate to the Father in the Triune Godhead is an important one. The debate itself is basically over, but its after-effects linger.

    That said, I just want to contribute one additional piece of information that is best used in contradiction to the view that Jesus is eternally subordinate. It comes from that pious minister, Wilhelmus à Brakel, who says,

    When Christ acknowledges the Father to be greater than He (John 14:28), the reference is not to His divinity, for as such He is equal to the Father (Phil. 2:6) and one with the Father (1 John 5:7). This has reference to His office as Mediator, in respect to which the Father calls Him His Servant (Isa. 53:11)

    Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christians Reasonable Service, Vol. 1, p. 174.

    This quote is helpful in that it forces us to consider the manner in which God’s decrees relate to His Being, as well as to the relation of the Persons. Does God’s eternal decree to save people through Jesus entail that Jesus is eternally functionally subordinate to the Father? The problem with this concept is that it entails eternal dependency. A subordinate, even a subordinate in only a functional sense, entails dependence. If two CEOs of the same business work with equal power in their offices, but legally CEO #2 must always execute the plans of CEO #1, then CEO #2 must rely upon CEO #1. But in the Godhead there can be no “reliance” of one Person upon the Other. And the decree to be a Mediator does not make the Son functionally subordinate because it does not make the Son eternally dependent. á Brakel later says,

    Dependency is a reality in men, but not in God. The Son has life in Himself as the Father has life in Himself (John 5:26). The attribute of eternity excludes all possibility of dependency. In the execution of the covenant of grace each Person operates according to the manner of His existence. Thus, the Father’s operation proceeds from Himself, the Son’s from the Father, and the Holy Spirit’s from the Father and the Son–all of which occur without dependency as this would suggest imperfection.

    Functional subordiantion is indeed an argument in favor of dependency, and á Brakel’s argument thoroughly contradicts it. In executing the Covenant, each Person “operates according to the manner of His existence”, i.e. without dependence upon the manner of the other Person’s existence. He reasons later that since the Son is begotten, the Son may only operate as the begotten-One. This does not entail that He is subordinated to the Father, but only explains the mode of His existence. So, the concept of eternal, though functional, subordination puts the cart ahead of the horse. It seems like an unreasonable conflation of God’s immanent decrees with His external acts or extrinsic decrees. While there is obviously a relation between the economic work of God to the objective reality of God, the correspondence is not one-to-one, but of analogy. The Son is not objectively, eternally, subordinated to the Father. Instead, it is best to confess what Paul confessed, that,

    Though He was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

    Philippians 2:6-7

    In my paraphrase: Though Jesus was everlastingly God, equal in worth and power and dignity to the Father, He did not consider that equality something to be clung to greedily, but He veiled His glorious attributes and took on tangible, actual servant-hood at a particular point in time, namely when He became a human. God did not cease to be God, but willingly veiled His everlasting power by becoming a man. So too, we should humble ourselves for the sake of others.

  • A Short Critique of Liberation Theology

    Liberation theology gets one truth correct about the gospel, which is that Jesus identifies with the oppressed. But there are two major issues with liberation theology’s understanding of this concept. First, though Jesus does “identify” with the oppressed in a sense, yet the cross is emptied of its power when it is seen merely as a symbol of camaraderie with oppressed people. Liberation theologians believe that the cross is symbolic of Jesus’ identification with oppressed classes: either victims of racial, religious, and economic oppression. It is similar to the notion that lurks within liberal theology that Jesus’ sufferings are simply His public statement to the world that certain social ills are wicked. And while, certainly, at the cross of Jesus we see the height of religious, racial, and political oppression, yet the cross itself is not meaningful merely with this insight. Instead, as Paul puts it–the cross is the power of God unto salvation–not merely unto elevation or liberation from certain material evils. And so this is the reason why, first, liberation theology is largely flawed in its description of the cross: it ignores the main purpose of the cross: salvation from the condemnation of sin.


    Second, liberation theology is flawed in its understanding of the oppressed in that it misidentifies the oppressed persons for whom Jesus died. Jesus’ death was for those oppressed by the power of sin, Satan, and the fear of death. Jesus did not die to create economic equality in this world. He did not die to create perfect race relations in this world. He did not die to teach the equality of religions. No, He died to purchase a peculiar people from the wrath of God, and to restore them to fellowship with Him. Only in this context, again, only in THIS context of redemption from wrath, is there any hope of secondary effects: that of racial reconciliation, economic generosity or sharing, and religious peace. Paul’s teaching that we, though many races, though male and female, are also one in Christ, first necessitates that we be in Christ for salvation from sin. The example of the early Church in sharing our resources, in creating economic equality, necessitates that we first be disciples of Jesus Christ. God’s revelation of a sheet holding unclean foods was given to Peter, a follower of Jesus, compelling him to share the good news of Jesus’ saving grace to those of other ethnicities and religions. By misidentifying the oppressed persons for whom Jesus died, liberation theology bankrupts the cross of its power. It first obfuscates the gospel by ignoring the truest plight of man (the effects of sin), and by keeping people from truly trusting Jesus for salvation it also keeps them from additional benefits of the gospel.