Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church
Christmas Eve – December 24, 2012
Texts: 1 John 1:1-4; 4:1-3; and Isaiah 53:3-4
Title: Surely He Has Borne Our Griefs
"He was. . . a man of pains and acquainted with infirmity. . . surely he has borne our pains and carried our infirmities" (Isa. 53:3-4).
Humanity has two big problems. One, we are liable, guilty for our transgressions against God and his gracious law. We are rebels that deserve his just punishment. That’s the first problem. We might call this first problem “judicial.” We have a judicial sentence against us.
The second problem is not unrelated. We are mortal. Our humanity is damaged, weak, subject to sickness, injury, and ultimately death. And our pathetic mortal condition is the result of the fall. We brought it on ourselves. We have been afflicted with a death nature. We could call this second problem “constitutional,” because it is about our makeup, our constitution.
God graciously sent his Son into the world, born of the virgin Mary, united to our human nature, in order to solve for us both of these problems, the judicial and the constitutional, our guilt and our mortality.
Tonight we should all remember that in his suffering and death on the cross as an innocent man Jesus bore the just punishment we deserved. He took upon himself the judicial sentence against us. Therefore, humanity’s first problem is solved. The judicial problem. We can be forgiven. The sentence, the punishment against us is lifted. We are no longer liable for our sins. And we experience that now, in this life. As Paul says in Ephesians chapter one: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” This is one of chief reasons God the Son became a man. He was born to die. The angels said to Joseph, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:22).
But that leaves the second “constitutional” problem—mortality. As believers we are justified—which means forgiven and righteous in God’s sight because we are united to Jesus by faith—but we are still mortal. Our human existence is fractured and broken.
Showing posts with label christology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christology. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Christmas Heresy
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete (1 John 1:1-4)All of us have wondered if what the Church has labeled as heresies might just be nit-picky obsession about little details. For example, the dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy in one controversy is the addition of a single Greek letter. You are okay if you confess that Jesus was homoousios with God the Father, but you are literally damned if you believe that he was only homoiousios. One Greek letter – iota.
But of course, that one letter changes the meaning of the word entirely. Either you believe that the Son and the Father are of the same divine essence or you think they have only “similar natures.” So what appears to be just an iota of a difference is in truth the difference between two entirely different confessions of God and therefore two radically different conceptions of the world, life, and the future.
But it’s not just little details in doctrinal disputes. Christians claim that ostensibly “little events” make all the difference in the world. It’s kind of like the little parts without which a machine could not operate. Or like putting together a Christmas gift for your children. Let's say you don’t read, or you ignore the instructions, dismissing early on a small part here or the orientation of something little there. You get to the end and the bicycle doesn’t work or the final pieces don’t line up. And all because you got something seemingly small wrong near the beginning of the process. It is not difficult to envision the same kinds of problems when engineers and carpenters build buildings. What might appear to be a small mistake near the foundation could end up ruining the entire project.
Even though toys and buildings are often forgiving with many mistakes, there are some omissions and errors that are systemic and spoil everything. So it is with life, and God’s world, and the Kingdom God—Christian civilization. There are certain practices and beliefs that we all forgive in one another and make adjustments—different views on church government, or about the mode of baptism, etc. But there are others—what might appear to outsiders to be minuscule puzzle pieces—that are the corners and straight edge sides without which there would be no completed image. And they are game changers, culture crushers, eternally significant.
Damnable heresies.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Human Temple
One of the lectionary readings for the second Sunday of Advent was Malachi 3:1-4. The prophet prophesies that the Lord will "suddenly come to his temple" and that he will be "like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap." A couple of interesting things to note here:
First, the tabernacle and temple always stood for the people Israel gathered, organized around God’s special presence. When Peter talks about us being "living stones" he's not introducing something new. After all, did anyone expect Jesus to be scrubbing the stones on the physical temple with a soapy brush? Or blasting away at the gold and silver with a blow torch to purify the precious metals? Of course not. Jesus' cleansing the temple was all about reforming the people. The gold, silver, and stones of the temple represented various kinds of people. When Nebuchadnezzar raided the temple and took the gold and silver, at the same time he also snatched the best and brightest of Israel and brought them back to Babylon. And when he came again to destroy the temple, he destroyed and captured the rest of the people, thereby deconstructing the entire nation of Israel.
Second, the promise of the Lord coming to his temple also has a surprising fulfillment. The Son of God did not merely appear in the midst of his people as an angel or a theophany to deliver messages from heaven. And he did not simply cause his Glory to fill the old temple as in the past. The time for stone temples was past. Was a stone temple ever really a fitting dwelling place for God? Would God the Son come to his people to reside permanently in a stone house? No. Stephen makes this clear in his speech to the rulers of Israel. "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands" (Acts 7:48-49; quoting Isaiah 66).
First, the tabernacle and temple always stood for the people Israel gathered, organized around God’s special presence. When Peter talks about us being "living stones" he's not introducing something new. After all, did anyone expect Jesus to be scrubbing the stones on the physical temple with a soapy brush? Or blasting away at the gold and silver with a blow torch to purify the precious metals? Of course not. Jesus' cleansing the temple was all about reforming the people. The gold, silver, and stones of the temple represented various kinds of people. When Nebuchadnezzar raided the temple and took the gold and silver, at the same time he also snatched the best and brightest of Israel and brought them back to Babylon. And when he came again to destroy the temple, he destroyed and captured the rest of the people, thereby deconstructing the entire nation of Israel.
Second, the promise of the Lord coming to his temple also has a surprising fulfillment. The Son of God did not merely appear in the midst of his people as an angel or a theophany to deliver messages from heaven. And he did not simply cause his Glory to fill the old temple as in the past. The time for stone temples was past. Was a stone temple ever really a fitting dwelling place for God? Would God the Son come to his people to reside permanently in a stone house? No. Stephen makes this clear in his speech to the rulers of Israel. "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands" (Acts 7:48-49; quoting Isaiah 66).
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Jesus Reveals God's True Character
Let me briefly address a mistake that continues to be perpetuated and it sounds so right because it is popularly repeated over and over again in apologetics and evangelism books, tracts, and sermons.
The mistake is to think that the miracles that Jesus did proves that he was divine. That the clearest, most compelling evidence of the divinity of Jesus was when he did miraculous works of power. No. Read the Bible carefully. In the Scriptures it is human prophets who do these kinds of things. Moses was not God, but he performed great signs and wonders. He was a mighty prophet. And Moses discovered, too, that the magicians of Egypt could imitate these acts. Jesus himself knew and the author of Acts relates that other people were able to perform exorcisms and what not. Similar miracles were done by Elijah and Elisha, but they were not God. God did "extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul" (Acts 19:11). But Paul was not God.
Haven’t you every thought it odd that the epistles of Paul and Peter and John make no mention of the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his divinity? Rather, Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him" (Acts 2:22).
As it turns out, whenever the apostles speak of Jesus as God they connect it with his incarnation and self-sacrificial death? Jesus' divine nature and character are unveiled in his humble service to us in his birth, life, suffering, and death. The point is that what makes, what proves, if you will, that Jesus is God, is not his works of power and might, but his humble self-sacrifice. His self-effacing love and service for humanity. This is who God is. Jesus is the true revelation of God. And God turns out to be the Chief Servant of all, rather than the big, power-hungry God that pushes people around to show off his greatness.
The mistake is to think that the miracles that Jesus did proves that he was divine. That the clearest, most compelling evidence of the divinity of Jesus was when he did miraculous works of power. No. Read the Bible carefully. In the Scriptures it is human prophets who do these kinds of things. Moses was not God, but he performed great signs and wonders. He was a mighty prophet. And Moses discovered, too, that the magicians of Egypt could imitate these acts. Jesus himself knew and the author of Acts relates that other people were able to perform exorcisms and what not. Similar miracles were done by Elijah and Elisha, but they were not God. God did "extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul" (Acts 19:11). But Paul was not God.
Haven’t you every thought it odd that the epistles of Paul and Peter and John make no mention of the miracles of Jesus as a proof of his divinity? Rather, Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him" (Acts 2:22).
As it turns out, whenever the apostles speak of Jesus as God they connect it with his incarnation and self-sacrificial death? Jesus' divine nature and character are unveiled in his humble service to us in his birth, life, suffering, and death. The point is that what makes, what proves, if you will, that Jesus is God, is not his works of power and might, but his humble self-sacrifice. His self-effacing love and service for humanity. This is who God is. Jesus is the true revelation of God. And God turns out to be the Chief Servant of all, rather than the big, power-hungry God that pushes people around to show off his greatness.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
This Little Babe
Here's my short homily from Christmas Eve 2009. During Advent and Christmas I typically spend some time reading Martin Luther's Advent and Christmas sermons. Anyone familiar with Luther's thoughts about the baby Jesus will recognize my dependence on him. Very few theologians have grasped the full significance of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God as Luther did. The true humility of God is unveiled in the story of Jesus' birth. God the Son united himself to our human flesh forever.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Heresy with the Really Cool Name
The Good News is not that God made some external determination to forgive man, superficially exercised his divine will, waved a disinterested wand and sprinkled some salvation dust across the human race. What he did was penetrate the very depths of humanity’s being and life, to restore the distorted and corrupt condition of man’s actual human existence. In his innermost being as the Son he genuinely united himself to human, finite, creaturely existence. We call that the incarnation.
God himself bore our infirmities and sins and the whole inheritance of judgment that lay against us—God himself, not merely in some extrinsic, detached way. He personally bore all of this.
Incidentally, it is important to not evade this point by denying that Jesus assumed our fallen, mortal human nature. The Greek culture where the Gospel was preached held to the apathy or passionlessness of the divine nature. In order to avoid the revolutionary doctrine of God presented in the Scriptures, the heresy of aphthartodocetism was invented. The error here is to say that Jesus took to himself a flawless human nature, one that was not affected by the curse. God himself didn't really suffer, he only appeared to do so. Jesus' mind and body were not subject to sickness, weakness, and the liabilities of our mortal existence. That, of course, frees God from any contact with the yuckiness of mortal human existence as we experience it.
But this is not what we read in the Scriptures. Jesus, as true God, was also a man like us subject to our frailties though without sin. This is not only essential to his being our Savior; it is precisely the way the Son has revealed the true character of God to us. If the weakness, suffering, and death of Jesus was simply that of a good man from Nazareth, then God is inevitably bound to become a cold, silent, unknown heavenly power. And even if God had united himself with a pre-fall Adamic human nature, somehow remaining aloof and detached from the weakness as suffering associated with humanity's present condition, then that would be the end of the Christian faith. What Jesus’ birth—and then, of course, his life as a mortal man—manifests to us is the willing suffering of the passionate God.
God himself bore our infirmities and sins and the whole inheritance of judgment that lay against us—God himself, not merely in some extrinsic, detached way. He personally bore all of this.
Incidentally, it is important to not evade this point by denying that Jesus assumed our fallen, mortal human nature. The Greek culture where the Gospel was preached held to the apathy or passionlessness of the divine nature. In order to avoid the revolutionary doctrine of God presented in the Scriptures, the heresy of aphthartodocetism was invented. The error here is to say that Jesus took to himself a flawless human nature, one that was not affected by the curse. God himself didn't really suffer, he only appeared to do so. Jesus' mind and body were not subject to sickness, weakness, and the liabilities of our mortal existence. That, of course, frees God from any contact with the yuckiness of mortal human existence as we experience it.
But this is not what we read in the Scriptures. Jesus, as true God, was also a man like us subject to our frailties though without sin. This is not only essential to his being our Savior; it is precisely the way the Son has revealed the true character of God to us. If the weakness, suffering, and death of Jesus was simply that of a good man from Nazareth, then God is inevitably bound to become a cold, silent, unknown heavenly power. And even if God had united himself with a pre-fall Adamic human nature, somehow remaining aloof and detached from the weakness as suffering associated with humanity's present condition, then that would be the end of the Christian faith. What Jesus’ birth—and then, of course, his life as a mortal man—manifests to us is the willing suffering of the passionate God.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Triune God & Creation
Unexplored Dimensions of Our Christian Worldview
Of him, through him, and to him are all things — Romans 11:36
I. What was God doing before he created the world?
A. WCF 2.2 God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things.
B. God’s ontological/relational independence
1. God neither depends upon, nor needs any other (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 5:9; Acts 17:24, 25; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11). God has/d no need for creation. God desired to created, he didn't need to.
2. As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 1 John 4:8, 16) God experiences the fulness of personal relationship apart from creation. Out of that fulness of relational happiness the Father, Son, ad Holy Spirit created the world and humanity.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Foolish Expectations
We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
We wailed, and you did not weep (Luke 7:32)
I regularly receive phone calls from other men in the pastorate, asking my advice when there is trouble in their congregations. I don’t say this to make you think that I'm some kind of ecclesiastical guru or that I have all the answers to these kinds of church problems. I'm not and I don't. Most of these appeals come from friends or former seminary students with which I have maintained friendly relations.
Many of the problems arise when people in these congregations air their grievances with letters or emails to the pastor or session.
And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this is wrong or that you should never address your elders or pastors with corrections and suggestions. That process can be quite healthy. I welcome genuine criticism. My leadership, and our church, is always in need of reformation and development. And, just to be balanced, there are times when Pastors and sessions do things that are very wrong or don't do things that are quite necessary. In situations like these, people in the congregation are justified in addressing their leaders.
Even so, I have a sizable collection of examples of these complaints and written accusations as they are passed on to me. And there's a disturbing pattern. Everybody has certain expectations about what the church is supposed to be doing, especially for them. And, to be honest with you, often these complaints sound like whining from spoiled children. The church isn't doing this enough or that enough. Or it's doing too much of something and not enough of something else.
I should also confess here that I myself am not free from this problem. As I grow older I have to repent of the way that I once criticized former churches and pastors and sessions and even my own presbytery and denomination. This is just to say that I am not only pointing my finger, I am reflecting on my own sinful foolishness as well.
The reoccurring, disturbing pattern is to demand that the church meet all of your own personal expectations. Which is often simply another way of saying: God needs to give me this and do that, or serve me this way and that, or I'm not gonna be happy with his church. You know how it goes. The pastor talks about sin and judgment too much. Then in the next paragraph; there's too much feasting and joking and partying in this church. The details of these grievances are often quite petty, even when they are dressed up with spiritual, pious talk and accented with biblical proof texts.
Each of us is that proverbial child in the market place that is never satisfied, whose expectations are never met. This is at the heart of our sinful condition. We think we know what we want and need and therefore sit down with our arms folded and wait for God to meet our expectations. Like spoiled children. Adult babies. Brats, I think is the proper word.
What you have in the Gospel stories is the Lord of heaven and earth, appearing in the flesh to serve his people, to serve the world, and nobody is satisfied with what he is doing. Everybody thinks that it's not enough or it's too much. Confounded, we know what we need and want, and this is not it.
And we know how it ends. Where it ends. It ends with the cross. Humanity doesn't get what it thinks it needs, what it expects from God, and and so we crucify the Lord of heaven and earth.
You and I must read the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as if they were mirrors. Not just windows on the foolishness of the Jews or the arrogance of the Romans, but mirrors. If the Spirit of God is at work in your heart and mind, you will see yourself in these stories.
As I have said so often, you have to learn to identify yourself, your behavior, your motives, with the sinful foolishness of the people of God when they are face to face with their Lord. You cannot say, "I would never do that. I'm not like that. I'm better than that. If I were there, I would have followed and defended Jesus." No, you wouldn't have. No, we don't. We would have done exactly what they did.
The questions Jesus puts to the crowds in passages like Luke 7:31-35 are questions put to us. They are not merely history, but the Word of God written for us. We stand before Jesus and our expectations are challenged, and by God's grace transformed and redefined so that we are able to receive and follow Jesus as he is, to receive the ministry of Jesus as he in fact works—whether he meets with our bratty, childish expectations or not.
We wailed, and you did not weep (Luke 7:32)
I regularly receive phone calls from other men in the pastorate, asking my advice when there is trouble in their congregations. I don’t say this to make you think that I'm some kind of ecclesiastical guru or that I have all the answers to these kinds of church problems. I'm not and I don't. Most of these appeals come from friends or former seminary students with which I have maintained friendly relations.
Many of the problems arise when people in these congregations air their grievances with letters or emails to the pastor or session.
And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this is wrong or that you should never address your elders or pastors with corrections and suggestions. That process can be quite healthy. I welcome genuine criticism. My leadership, and our church, is always in need of reformation and development. And, just to be balanced, there are times when Pastors and sessions do things that are very wrong or don't do things that are quite necessary. In situations like these, people in the congregation are justified in addressing their leaders.Even so, I have a sizable collection of examples of these complaints and written accusations as they are passed on to me. And there's a disturbing pattern. Everybody has certain expectations about what the church is supposed to be doing, especially for them. And, to be honest with you, often these complaints sound like whining from spoiled children. The church isn't doing this enough or that enough. Or it's doing too much of something and not enough of something else.
I should also confess here that I myself am not free from this problem. As I grow older I have to repent of the way that I once criticized former churches and pastors and sessions and even my own presbytery and denomination. This is just to say that I am not only pointing my finger, I am reflecting on my own sinful foolishness as well.
The reoccurring, disturbing pattern is to demand that the church meet all of your own personal expectations. Which is often simply another way of saying: God needs to give me this and do that, or serve me this way and that, or I'm not gonna be happy with his church. You know how it goes. The pastor talks about sin and judgment too much. Then in the next paragraph; there's too much feasting and joking and partying in this church. The details of these grievances are often quite petty, even when they are dressed up with spiritual, pious talk and accented with biblical proof texts.
Each of us is that proverbial child in the market place that is never satisfied, whose expectations are never met. This is at the heart of our sinful condition. We think we know what we want and need and therefore sit down with our arms folded and wait for God to meet our expectations. Like spoiled children. Adult babies. Brats, I think is the proper word.
What you have in the Gospel stories is the Lord of heaven and earth, appearing in the flesh to serve his people, to serve the world, and nobody is satisfied with what he is doing. Everybody thinks that it's not enough or it's too much. Confounded, we know what we need and want, and this is not it.
And we know how it ends. Where it ends. It ends with the cross. Humanity doesn't get what it thinks it needs, what it expects from God, and and so we crucify the Lord of heaven and earth.
You and I must read the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as if they were mirrors. Not just windows on the foolishness of the Jews or the arrogance of the Romans, but mirrors. If the Spirit of God is at work in your heart and mind, you will see yourself in these stories.
As I have said so often, you have to learn to identify yourself, your behavior, your motives, with the sinful foolishness of the people of God when they are face to face with their Lord. You cannot say, "I would never do that. I'm not like that. I'm better than that. If I were there, I would have followed and defended Jesus." No, you wouldn't have. No, we don't. We would have done exactly what they did.
The questions Jesus puts to the crowds in passages like Luke 7:31-35 are questions put to us. They are not merely history, but the Word of God written for us. We stand before Jesus and our expectations are challenged, and by God's grace transformed and redefined so that we are able to receive and follow Jesus as he is, to receive the ministry of Jesus as he in fact works—whether he meets with our bratty, childish expectations or not.
Friday, October 19, 2007
The Son of God - Part VII
Continued from Part VI
The Davidic Seed as Royal Son: 1 Sam. 7:13-16
I've have already noted in my brief survey of the OT above a connection between ruling and sonship (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps. 89:26-27). The Davidic Covenant makes that association explicit. The relevant passages are 2 Sam. 7:13-16, Ps. 2:1-12, Psalm 89:26-27.
2 Samuel 7 begins with the historical assessment that the king (David) dwelt securely in his house/palace because Yahweh has given him rest from all his enemies. David, however, feels uneasy about this and tells Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house/palace of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (7:2). Nathan advises David to do all that is in his heart since Yahweh is with him. But the word of Yahweh comes to David in a dream instructing David that he is not the one to build the house. Rather, Yahweh will build David a house/palace through his seed (7:12), which is explained as “I will establish his kingdom." Furthermore, it will be the seed/son of David who will build the house/palace for the Name of Yahweh (v. 13) and Yahweh will thereby establish “the throne of his kingdom forever” (7:13b).
All of this house-building and kingdom/throne-establishing for the “seed” of David is then summarized as “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (7:14a; cf. Heb. 1:8, “about the Son he says, ‘Your throne. . .”; 3:6, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house.”). Thus, it is the seed as son whose throne and house/kingdom will be established forever (7:16).
Significantly, since earlier in Yahweh’s recounting of the history of his presence with Israel (7:5-11a), his central concern seems to have been to remind David that he has indeed “dwelt” and been “with” his people (7:9) even if it was by means of a mobile tabernacle (7:7) and rotating judges (7:11), from now on, however, his Name and presence will be mediated through the throne of his newly established “house” of David’s son. This is why, even though it is occupied by human rulers, the Davidic throne can be identified with the royal throne of Yahweh himself (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8). When the son of David rules on earth, the reign of Yahweh is properly on earth.
There are many interesting details related to the interpretation of 2 Sam. 7:1-16 that we cannot pursue here. What we should note for our purposes is that many of the motifs that are central to Old Testament redemptive history—those dealing with kingship, kingdom, throne, house, house-building, seed, rest from enemies, and the covenantal promise that Yahweh will “be with” his people—these are all correlated here to the prophetic promise to David that his “seed” would be given the full rights of Sonship by Yahweh his Father. Yahweh promised to elevate David’s seed to reign upon the throne as son, thereby establishing both his and David’s house and kingdom forever.
Even though provision is made by Yahweh for sinful human “sons” of David who would need to be “punished with the rod” when they misuse their new exalted status (7:14b), clearly the reader’s expectations are heightened by Yahweh’s use of front-end loaded words like “seed” and “kingdom” that hearken back to central covenantal promises of the past (Gen. 3:15; 9:9; 12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-12; 22:17-18) as well language that cannot but point toward some definitive future fulfillment. The same can be said for certain passages from the prophets, such as Isaiah 9, which is connected with the promise of 2 Sam. 7:12-16 that David’s offspring/son will reign on his throne and establish his kingdom: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’” (Isa. 9:6)
There is no reason to think that an Israelite reading these passages before there was access to the Holy Spirit-inspired apostolic interpretation would be able to decipher precisely how this would all work out (1 Pet. 1:10-12), but he surely would be encouraged that somehow, sometime in the future, one of David’s sons, a seed from his own body (7:12), would establish Yahweh’s kingdom forever. We, of course, who have the benefit of hind-sight and the infallible apostolic witness know that these promises were indeed fulfilled when God raised up Jesus, the seed of David, to reign over a new house and kingdom forever (Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-41; 15:16; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 1:2, 5, 8; 2: 6:3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16; etc.).
This is what Romans 1:3-4 is all about.
The Davidic Seed as Royal Son: 1 Sam. 7:13-16
I've have already noted in my brief survey of the OT above a connection between ruling and sonship (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps. 89:26-27). The Davidic Covenant makes that association explicit. The relevant passages are 2 Sam. 7:13-16, Ps. 2:1-12, Psalm 89:26-27.
2 Samuel 7 begins with the historical assessment that the king (David) dwelt securely in his house/palace because Yahweh has given him rest from all his enemies. David, however, feels uneasy about this and tells Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house/palace of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (7:2). Nathan advises David to do all that is in his heart since Yahweh is with him. But the word of Yahweh comes to David in a dream instructing David that he is not the one to build the house. Rather, Yahweh will build David a house/palace through his seed (7:12), which is explained as “I will establish his kingdom." Furthermore, it will be the seed/son of David who will build the house/palace for the Name of Yahweh (v. 13) and Yahweh will thereby establish “the throne of his kingdom forever” (7:13b). All of this house-building and kingdom/throne-establishing for the “seed” of David is then summarized as “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (7:14a; cf. Heb. 1:8, “about the Son he says, ‘Your throne. . .”; 3:6, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house.”). Thus, it is the seed as son whose throne and house/kingdom will be established forever (7:16).
Significantly, since earlier in Yahweh’s recounting of the history of his presence with Israel (7:5-11a), his central concern seems to have been to remind David that he has indeed “dwelt” and been “with” his people (7:9) even if it was by means of a mobile tabernacle (7:7) and rotating judges (7:11), from now on, however, his Name and presence will be mediated through the throne of his newly established “house” of David’s son. This is why, even though it is occupied by human rulers, the Davidic throne can be identified with the royal throne of Yahweh himself (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8). When the son of David rules on earth, the reign of Yahweh is properly on earth.
There are many interesting details related to the interpretation of 2 Sam. 7:1-16 that we cannot pursue here. What we should note for our purposes is that many of the motifs that are central to Old Testament redemptive history—those dealing with kingship, kingdom, throne, house, house-building, seed, rest from enemies, and the covenantal promise that Yahweh will “be with” his people—these are all correlated here to the prophetic promise to David that his “seed” would be given the full rights of Sonship by Yahweh his Father. Yahweh promised to elevate David’s seed to reign upon the throne as son, thereby establishing both his and David’s house and kingdom forever.
Even though provision is made by Yahweh for sinful human “sons” of David who would need to be “punished with the rod” when they misuse their new exalted status (7:14b), clearly the reader’s expectations are heightened by Yahweh’s use of front-end loaded words like “seed” and “kingdom” that hearken back to central covenantal promises of the past (Gen. 3:15; 9:9; 12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-12; 22:17-18) as well language that cannot but point toward some definitive future fulfillment. The same can be said for certain passages from the prophets, such as Isaiah 9, which is connected with the promise of 2 Sam. 7:12-16 that David’s offspring/son will reign on his throne and establish his kingdom: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’” (Isa. 9:6)
There is no reason to think that an Israelite reading these passages before there was access to the Holy Spirit-inspired apostolic interpretation would be able to decipher precisely how this would all work out (1 Pet. 1:10-12), but he surely would be encouraged that somehow, sometime in the future, one of David’s sons, a seed from his own body (7:12), would establish Yahweh’s kingdom forever. We, of course, who have the benefit of hind-sight and the infallible apostolic witness know that these promises were indeed fulfilled when God raised up Jesus, the seed of David, to reign over a new house and kingdom forever (Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-41; 15:16; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 1:2, 5, 8; 2: 6:3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16; etc.).
This is what Romans 1:3-4 is all about.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Son of God - Part V
Continued from Part IV
In the last post I offered the first two of five arguments against the "two-natures" interpretation of Romans 1:4. The first was my observation that for many commentators any other interpretation of Romans 1:4 might open the door to Adoptionist or Arian theological sympathizers. The second argument was that translating 'orizo as "declare" or "manifest," although possible, does not get at the root meaning of the word. Translating this as "appoint" should not be abandoned by orthodox commentators and theologians simply because it threatens to be theologically suspect or troublesome.
Third, I will discuss in later posts the rich web of associations and images connected with the concept of sonship in the Old and New Testaments, but for now it ought to be enough to recognize that the meaning of the designation “Son” even when applied to Jesus cannot be determined before the immediate context is consulted. Even in the space of two verses Paul uses "son" in two different, but not unrelated ways. "Son" occurs twice in verses 3-4: once at the head of the peri clause in verse 3, and then again in verse 4. The gospel is “from” and “about God” but it is further marked off as the "gospel of/concerning his son" (v. 3).
As Douglas Moo observes, this assertion in verse 3—that God’s son “has come” or “was born”—assumes the pre-existence of the Son. There are other passages from Romans (8:2, 32) and in the New Testament that also refer to the mystery of Jesus’ pre-incarnate life as the Son of the Father (Heb. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:13, 16-17; John 3:17; 1 John 4:10). It was fitting for him to become the incarnate Son because he was (or is) the eternal Son/Image of the Father (see Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989], pp. 213-223). John chapter 1 describes the coming of the Word into the world as the manifestation of the glory of eternal Son of the Father (John 1:14), the “only begotten” or “unique” God who is in the bosom of the Father. John evidently understands Jesus’ Sonship to imply a state of existence that refers beyond temporality (John 8:58; 12:41).
Fourthly, in Romans 1:2-4, there is evidence of an historical or linear movement: the eternal Son becomes a descendent of David according to the flesh and then subsequently, upon his resurrection, is appointed as the Son of God with power. Apparently, then, he was ontologically the Son of God even before he became man in the economy of salvation. The “sending” spoken of in John 3:17 and Gal. 4:4 and implied in Rom. 1:3 cannot merely refer to a “prophetic sending” as some have argued, but presuppose pre-existence as the starting point of Jesus’ mission. So let's just clear the air right now: I'm not denying the eternal sonship of Jesus.
If, as I will argue, “Son of God” has a “theocratic” meaning in verse 4, then Paul adds something to his earlier use of "son." Just as the assertion that the Son “became of the seed of David” implies that the Son came into a new mode of existence, so to speak, kata sarx, so also with the resurrection, the eternal Son as man has been appointed the “Son of God with power” according to the Spirit of holiness. This comparison between the Son’s existence kata sarx and kata pnuema does not contrast his outward or external physical life with his internal, Spirit-perfected vitality, which then qualifies him to be the Son of God in power. Nor, as we have seen, does the contrast distinguish between the human and divine natures of Jesus.
Rather, the contrast between sarx and pneuma “is part of Paul’s larger salvation-historical framework, in which two “aeon’s” or eras are set over against one another: the old era dominated by sin, death, and the flesh, and the new era, characterized by righteousness, life, and the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996], p. 50). This essay is not the place for an extended discussion of Paul’s eschatological use of the sarx-pneuma contrast. Nevertheless, as a redemptive-historical contrast it supports the interpretation that we have been arguing for here—that Jesus was appointed by the Father as the Son of God with power upon his resurrection from the dead.
Fifth, Paul says that the incarnate Son has been “appointed Son-of-God-with-power” or possibly “Son-of-God-in-power.” I understand "in power" to modify "son of God" (RSV) and not the verb "to appoint" (NASB; NIV). What we have here, then, is a clear distinction between the eternal Son’s assumption of human nature ("who was descended from David according to the flesh", v. 3), indeed his entrance into the “old age” of dominated by sin and death, and his post-resurrection appointment as “Son of God with power” Douglas Moo explains:
In the last post I offered the first two of five arguments against the "two-natures" interpretation of Romans 1:4. The first was my observation that for many commentators any other interpretation of Romans 1:4 might open the door to Adoptionist or Arian theological sympathizers. The second argument was that translating 'orizo as "declare" or "manifest," although possible, does not get at the root meaning of the word. Translating this as "appoint" should not be abandoned by orthodox commentators and theologians simply because it threatens to be theologically suspect or troublesome.
Third, I will discuss in later posts the rich web of associations and images connected with the concept of sonship in the Old and New Testaments, but for now it ought to be enough to recognize that the meaning of the designation “Son” even when applied to Jesus cannot be determined before the immediate context is consulted. Even in the space of two verses Paul uses "son" in two different, but not unrelated ways. "Son" occurs twice in verses 3-4: once at the head of the peri clause in verse 3, and then again in verse 4. The gospel is “from” and “about God” but it is further marked off as the "gospel of/concerning his son" (v. 3).
As Douglas Moo observes, this assertion in verse 3—that God’s son “has come” or “was born”—assumes the pre-existence of the Son. There are other passages from Romans (8:2, 32) and in the New Testament that also refer to the mystery of Jesus’ pre-incarnate life as the Son of the Father (Heb. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:13, 16-17; John 3:17; 1 John 4:10). It was fitting for him to become the incarnate Son because he was (or is) the eternal Son/Image of the Father (see Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989], pp. 213-223). John chapter 1 describes the coming of the Word into the world as the manifestation of the glory of eternal Son of the Father (John 1:14), the “only begotten” or “unique” God who is in the bosom of the Father. John evidently understands Jesus’ Sonship to imply a state of existence that refers beyond temporality (John 8:58; 12:41).
Fourthly, in Romans 1:2-4, there is evidence of an historical or linear movement: the eternal Son becomes a descendent of David according to the flesh and then subsequently, upon his resurrection, is appointed as the Son of God with power. Apparently, then, he was ontologically the Son of God even before he became man in the economy of salvation. The “sending” spoken of in John 3:17 and Gal. 4:4 and implied in Rom. 1:3 cannot merely refer to a “prophetic sending” as some have argued, but presuppose pre-existence as the starting point of Jesus’ mission. So let's just clear the air right now: I'm not denying the eternal sonship of Jesus.
If, as I will argue, “Son of God” has a “theocratic” meaning in verse 4, then Paul adds something to his earlier use of "son." Just as the assertion that the Son “became of the seed of David” implies that the Son came into a new mode of existence, so to speak, kata sarx, so also with the resurrection, the eternal Son as man has been appointed the “Son of God with power” according to the Spirit of holiness. This comparison between the Son’s existence kata sarx and kata pnuema does not contrast his outward or external physical life with his internal, Spirit-perfected vitality, which then qualifies him to be the Son of God in power. Nor, as we have seen, does the contrast distinguish between the human and divine natures of Jesus.
Rather, the contrast between sarx and pneuma “is part of Paul’s larger salvation-historical framework, in which two “aeon’s” or eras are set over against one another: the old era dominated by sin, death, and the flesh, and the new era, characterized by righteousness, life, and the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996], p. 50). This essay is not the place for an extended discussion of Paul’s eschatological use of the sarx-pneuma contrast. Nevertheless, as a redemptive-historical contrast it supports the interpretation that we have been arguing for here—that Jesus was appointed by the Father as the Son of God with power upon his resurrection from the dead.
Fifth, Paul says that the incarnate Son has been “appointed Son-of-God-with-power” or possibly “Son-of-God-in-power.” I understand "in power" to modify "son of God" (RSV) and not the verb "to appoint" (NASB; NIV). What we have here, then, is a clear distinction between the eternal Son’s assumption of human nature ("who was descended from David according to the flesh", v. 3), indeed his entrance into the “old age” of dominated by sin and death, and his post-resurrection appointment as “Son of God with power” Douglas Moo explains:
What Paul is claiming, then, is that the preexistent Son, who entered into human experience as the promised Messiah, was appointed on the basis of (or, perhaps, at the time of) the resurrection to a new and more powerful position in relation to the world. By virtue of his obedience to the will of the Father (cf. Phi. 2:6-11) and because of the eschatological revelation of God’s saving power in the gospel (1:1, 16), the Son attains a new, exalted status as “Lord” (cf. V. 4b). Son of God from eternity, he becomes Son of God “in power” . . . . the transition from v. 3 to v. 4, then, is not a transition from a human messiah to a divine Son of God (adoptionism) but from the Son as Messiah to the Son as both Messiah and powerful, reigning Lord (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 48-49).
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Son of God - Part II
Continued from Part I
“Son of God” in Systematic Theology
One danger must be addressed before we move on. Systematic, dogmatic, and polemic theology have largely come to identify the ascription “Son of God” with Jesus’ divinity. Most systematic theological treatments of the title “Son of God” take it to refer to Jesus’ essential or substantial oneness with the divinity of the Father. A few examples from Reformed and Lutheran theology will illustrate this.
First, toward the beginning of his locus on “The Doctrine of Christ,” the Lutheran systematic theologian John T. Mueller writes under the subheading “The True Deity of Christ” that “Scripture ascribes to Christ— a) The name "God" (theos, John 1:1) and "Son of God" ( Matt. 16:16), and these not in an improper sense, in which they are applied also to creatures (1 Cor. 8:5; John 10:35), but in their proper, or metaphysical sense, so that Christ is said to possess not only divine functions, but also the one divine essence" (John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1955], p. 256.)
This nice, neat division between the name as applied (improperly?) to creatures and metaphysically to Jesus as possessing the one divine essence gives the impression that the biblical phrase “Son of God” has some fixed technical meaning equivalent to its traditional use in trinitarian theology. Of the two biblical proof texts offered by Mueller, John 1:1 probably fits with this specific technical sense. One might wonder, however, how Mueller would exegete Matt. 16:16 in order to prove that Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” references Jesus possession of the “divine essence.” Mueller’s statement illustrates the problem with technical theological terms like this. They tend to constrain and limit a reader’s openness to the rich semantic possibilities of biblical words and phrases.
Similarly, the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck uses “Son of God” to refer to Jesus’ ontological union with his Father. Bavink’s initial discussion of the name “Son of God” carefully notes the redemptive historical origin of the term in Israel’s corporate life, especially the theocratic origin of the term during the time of the Davidic Kingdom. Quickly, however, Bavink moves from the historical to the metaphysical. Referencing Psalm 2:7, Bavink explains,
At this point, we should note again the temptation to read into Paul’s words the precise systematic theological meaning that has come to be associated with this common New Testament christological ascription. For our purposes, we can note here that the designation “Son of God” or even “Son” does indeed refer to Christ’s divinity and essential unity with the Father in many places in the New Testament (e.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:17; 1 John 4:10; Heb. 1:2), and especially in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:13, 16-17).
I am not denying Jesus eternal divine sonship. Everyone should be clear about that. What I am denying is that this phrase does not always refer to this reality in every place it is found in Scripture. I believe that even in the epistle to the Romans Paul sometimes uses “Son” with this "metaphysical" nuance (Rom. 1:3; 8:3; 32). But even so, it would be difficult to prove, even in these passages where the context (the Father’s sending his Son) favors the “systematic theological definition” that Paul intends to exclude any reference to the incarnate Christ.
It is extremely doubtful that the Apostolic authors intended everything that post-Nicea orthodox theologians mean when they speak of the eternal “Son of God.” This is because in response to various christological and trinitarian heresies the technical theological phrase “Son of God” has been assigned a very precise meaning based on a large number of New Testament texts bearing upon the larger question of Jesus’ essential divinity, some of which do not even use filial language. Thus, the meaning of the technical theological term “Son of God” has been built up from passages that do not necessarily use the phrase itself.
In systematic theology the phrase now functions as a kind of short hand, an abbreviation, if you will, of a theological composite of teachings centering on questions concerning the divine nature of the Son in relation to God the Father. There is nothing wrong with this. But it does complicate the exegete’s work and naïve readers are often prone to making such a basic category mistake when they come across familiar theological terms in the Bible. We must recognize that in systematic theology we have developed technical phrases and titles that have a precision not found in the New Testament writings. Traditionally “Son of God” has come to refer almost exclusively to Jesus divine nature. Theologians use other terms and phrases that designate his humanity. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), things are not so neat and tidy in the New Testament.
But now, the question before us is this: what does Paul mean by "Son of God" in Rom. 1:4? Our investigation will proceed in three stages. First, we will examine the immediate context and the language of Rom. 1:4. Second, we will survey the Old Testament background, concentrating on the connection between Rom. 1:4 and the Davidic covenant (1 Sam. 7; Ps. 2; Ps. 89; etc.). Finally, some modest conclusions will be outlined and the significance of our findings will briefly surveyed.
To be continued.
“Son of God” in Systematic Theology
One danger must be addressed before we move on. Systematic, dogmatic, and polemic theology have largely come to identify the ascription “Son of God” with Jesus’ divinity. Most systematic theological treatments of the title “Son of God” take it to refer to Jesus’ essential or substantial oneness with the divinity of the Father. A few examples from Reformed and Lutheran theology will illustrate this.
First, toward the beginning of his locus on “The Doctrine of Christ,” the Lutheran systematic theologian John T. Mueller writes under the subheading “The True Deity of Christ” that “Scripture ascribes to Christ— a) The name "God" (theos, John 1:1) and "Son of God" ( Matt. 16:16), and these not in an improper sense, in which they are applied also to creatures (1 Cor. 8:5; John 10:35), but in their proper, or metaphysical sense, so that Christ is said to possess not only divine functions, but also the one divine essence" (John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1955], p. 256.)
This nice, neat division between the name as applied (improperly?) to creatures and metaphysically to Jesus as possessing the one divine essence gives the impression that the biblical phrase “Son of God” has some fixed technical meaning equivalent to its traditional use in trinitarian theology. Of the two biblical proof texts offered by Mueller, John 1:1 probably fits with this specific technical sense. One might wonder, however, how Mueller would exegete Matt. 16:16 in order to prove that Peter’s confession “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” references Jesus possession of the “divine essence.” Mueller’s statement illustrates the problem with technical theological terms like this. They tend to constrain and limit a reader’s openness to the rich semantic possibilities of biblical words and phrases.
Similarly, the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck uses “Son of God” to refer to Jesus’ ontological union with his Father. Bavink’s initial discussion of the name “Son of God” carefully notes the redemptive historical origin of the term in Israel’s corporate life, especially the theocratic origin of the term during the time of the Davidic Kingdom. Quickly, however, Bavink moves from the historical to the metaphysical. Referencing Psalm 2:7, Bavink explains,
With a view to David this refers to the decree of God of which mention is made in 2 Sam. 7, and with a view to the Messiah—of whom David is a type—Heb. 1:5; 5:5 interprets it as referring to eternity, in which Christ as the Son was generated by the Father, that is, in which he was brought forth as the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of his substance. Moreover, according to Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:3, the second person of the trinity was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection of the dead. (Herman Bavink, The Doctrine of God, trans. by William Hendriksen [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eermans Publishing Company, 1951], p. 269).Aside from Bavinck’s questionable explanation of Heb. 1:5 and 5:5, the other two texts he cites (Heb. 13:3 & Romans 1:3 [4?]) appear to say that Jesus became Son of God by God’s appointment at his resurrection/ascension. For Bavinck, the verb orizo in Rom. 1:4 must mean “declare.” Bavinck goes on to clarify what he means by “Son of God.”
But the name Son of God when ascribed to Christ has a far deeper meaning than the theocratic: he was not a mere king of Israel who in time became an adopted Son of God; neither was he called Son of God because of his supernatural birth, as the Socinians and Hofmann held; neither is he the Son of God merely in an ethical sense, as others suppose; neither did he receive the title Son of God as a new name in connection with his atoning work and resurrection, an interpretation in support of which John 10:34-36; Acts 13:32, 33; and Rom. 1:4 are cited; but he is Son of God in a metaphysical sense; by nature and from eternity (p. 270).This passage illustrates well the ever-present semantic temptation theologians are faced with when they exegete biblical texts. Because various heretics and heresies have advocated erroneous senses in which Jesus “became” the Son of God at some point in his temporal existence, Bavinck succumbs to the temptation to reject any sense in which Christ might have been so designated in time and history. Clearly Bavinck is not comfortable with understanding “Son of God” as a honorific title given in connection with his atoning work and resurrection. The resurrection can only declare or manifest to the world what as already true—that the second person of the Trinity is Son of God in a metaphysical sense from eternity. Whether this is the meaning of orizo in Rom. 1:4 remains to be seen.
At this point, we should note again the temptation to read into Paul’s words the precise systematic theological meaning that has come to be associated with this common New Testament christological ascription. For our purposes, we can note here that the designation “Son of God” or even “Son” does indeed refer to Christ’s divinity and essential unity with the Father in many places in the New Testament (e.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:17; 1 John 4:10; Heb. 1:2), and especially in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:13, 16-17).
I am not denying Jesus eternal divine sonship. Everyone should be clear about that. What I am denying is that this phrase does not always refer to this reality in every place it is found in Scripture. I believe that even in the epistle to the Romans Paul sometimes uses “Son” with this "metaphysical" nuance (Rom. 1:3; 8:3; 32). But even so, it would be difficult to prove, even in these passages where the context (the Father’s sending his Son) favors the “systematic theological definition” that Paul intends to exclude any reference to the incarnate Christ.
It is extremely doubtful that the Apostolic authors intended everything that post-Nicea orthodox theologians mean when they speak of the eternal “Son of God.” This is because in response to various christological and trinitarian heresies the technical theological phrase “Son of God” has been assigned a very precise meaning based on a large number of New Testament texts bearing upon the larger question of Jesus’ essential divinity, some of which do not even use filial language. Thus, the meaning of the technical theological term “Son of God” has been built up from passages that do not necessarily use the phrase itself.
In systematic theology the phrase now functions as a kind of short hand, an abbreviation, if you will, of a theological composite of teachings centering on questions concerning the divine nature of the Son in relation to God the Father. There is nothing wrong with this. But it does complicate the exegete’s work and naïve readers are often prone to making such a basic category mistake when they come across familiar theological terms in the Bible. We must recognize that in systematic theology we have developed technical phrases and titles that have a precision not found in the New Testament writings. Traditionally “Son of God” has come to refer almost exclusively to Jesus divine nature. Theologians use other terms and phrases that designate his humanity. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), things are not so neat and tidy in the New Testament.
But now, the question before us is this: what does Paul mean by "Son of God" in Rom. 1:4? Our investigation will proceed in three stages. First, we will examine the immediate context and the language of Rom. 1:4. Second, we will survey the Old Testament background, concentrating on the connection between Rom. 1:4 and the Davidic covenant (1 Sam. 7; Ps. 2; Ps. 89; etc.). Finally, some modest conclusions will be outlined and the significance of our findings will briefly surveyed.
To be continued.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
The Son of God - Part I
What does Paul mean when he confesses that Jesus Christ has been appointed the “Son of God with power/authority” in Romans 1:4? Is he referring to Jesus' divinity - his eternal sonship as the second Person of the Trinity? Or is Paul talking about the man Christ Jesus?
To answer this we will have to broaden our inquiry beyond Paul’s epistle to the Romans and even the larger New Testament context by collecting evidence from the Old Testament regarding the motif of sonship. I will argue that the meaning of "son of God" is considerably more multi-faceted than the way it is typically employed by orthodox systematic theologies. Specifically, I will argue that confessing Jesus as the “Son of God” brings together many Old Covenant themes that are not always associated with this Messianic title, and, without denying or minimizing the confession of Jesus’ eternal filial relation to God the Father—indeed, presupposing it—Paul confesses that Jesus as the incarnate Lord now bears the title Son of God and that it was the elevation of Jesus’ humanity to the throne of his Father that constituted his investiture as the royal “Son of God with power.”
I will make some modest suggestions about the nature of Jesus sonship and the content of the preaching of the Gospel in the New Testament, which means that even a narrow focus on the meaning of this name or title in Paul’s epistolary introduction to Romans ought to provide us with a fruitful perspective on christology and soteriology as a whole. Indeed, Paul sums up the apostolic preaching of the Gospel with this climactic statement: Jesus Christ has been appointed to be the Son of God with power/authority.
Go to Part II
To answer this we will have to broaden our inquiry beyond Paul’s epistle to the Romans and even the larger New Testament context by collecting evidence from the Old Testament regarding the motif of sonship. I will argue that the meaning of "son of God" is considerably more multi-faceted than the way it is typically employed by orthodox systematic theologies. Specifically, I will argue that confessing Jesus as the “Son of God” brings together many Old Covenant themes that are not always associated with this Messianic title, and, without denying or minimizing the confession of Jesus’ eternal filial relation to God the Father—indeed, presupposing it—Paul confesses that Jesus as the incarnate Lord now bears the title Son of God and that it was the elevation of Jesus’ humanity to the throne of his Father that constituted his investiture as the royal “Son of God with power.”
I will make some modest suggestions about the nature of Jesus sonship and the content of the preaching of the Gospel in the New Testament, which means that even a narrow focus on the meaning of this name or title in Paul’s epistolary introduction to Romans ought to provide us with a fruitful perspective on christology and soteriology as a whole. Indeed, Paul sums up the apostolic preaching of the Gospel with this climactic statement: Jesus Christ has been appointed to be the Son of God with power/authority.
Go to Part II
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)