http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/04/thoughts-on-marketing-and-conf.php
Dr. Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, has posted some very interesting thoughts up at reformation21 about so-called “Reformed” megaconferences sponsored and promoted here in America. Before relating some of Dr. Trueman’s insights, it is worth noting that his remarks are not the sour grape rants of a petulant wannabe who could only wish to have the kind of slice of fame, even for just 5 minutes as it were, that many of these “reformed” starlits enjoy. Dr. Trueman is probably one of the most educated and seriously enlightened Reformed thinkers on the scene today who not only knows Reformed theology and church life, but knows and can more than capably interact with contemporary intellectual currents. Instead of taking the route which most Reformed “intellectuals” do today, which is to publish in Christian sub-culture magazines which they themselves edit, or turn in one manuscript after another rehashing some previously written about topic, to small fish Reformed publishers in order to keep a steady pay-check coming in from the book sales to their zealous disciples, he actually puts out thoughtful, respectable works which either address real academic issues or advance contemporary Reformed discussions in significant ways. All this I throw out there so that no one will be easily prone to characterize and then summarily dismiss Dr. Trueman's remarks as the bitter sniping of the poor kid left standing on the sideline after teams were chosen up at a pick-up basketball game down at the local park.
Now, to Dr.Trueman’s “deep thoughts.” First he points out the all too obvious problem in American evangelicalism more broadly, and now a huge problem among conservative Reformed types, which is the problem of the celebrity cult. It turns out, that Reformed people, who once thought they were immune to the Billy Sunday’s of evangelicalism, actually now have their own, its just that they don’t have quite the same star power in the eyes of outsiders. Never mind that though, because the sad, but humorous thing is, that we don’t care about that as much as we do that he is “our” Billy Sunday. See, if a man gets enough headlines, publishes enough popular books, speaks at enough conferences, and can throw in a few good jokes while he is at it, well, eventually he can attain a certain level of celebrity status among the Reformed, as long as he is willing to coattail the fame of other evangelical celebrities such as John Piper or John MacArthur by speaking with them at various conferences and backslapping them and refusing to condemn their gross sin of being Anabaptists.
I wish Trueman had said these things at least 10 years ago, because I fear that the time for giving a fair hearing to his message about the celebrity cult is long past. Reformed sub-culture has not only constructed its own superapostles, it has become a veritable superapostle making factory. Many in our Reformed world have taken the cues and studied the lessons well of how the evangelicals built a vast evangelical sub-culture that capitalized on the desire for star power and have now reproduced that with incredible efficiency within the Reformed world. At one time in the Reformed community, we stood shoulder to shoulder in criticism against the appalling atrocities committed in the evangelical empire, simultaneously sounding the criticism and sneering in contempt as we made light of their folly. Now however, we have our celebrity cruises with your favorite superapostles, we have “megaconconferences,” and even some of our leading lights actually know the evangelical superstars on a first name basis and have had the opportunity to shake their hand! Isn’t progress grand? What is next, can you say “Reformation theme park!”?
The second thing worth noting in Dr. Trueman's post is the prescription he offers. One, don’t advertize the names of the people speaking at the conference, instead, advertize the subject matter of the conference. The novel idea he proposes is that people will be attracted to the content not the speaker. Here, I think we should cut Dr. Trueman some slack, after all, he is a foreigner: silly Brit, don’t you know that conferences are the only time that most Reformed people will have a chance to know what it feels like to be at a church related activity that has a megachurch feel and atmosphere, and don’t you know that conferences are the only chance we have to get up close, within 15 feet or so, of bona fide celebrities (even if just a celebrity of our making)? Great idea Dr. Trueman, but it will never work. Two, he proposes that conference organizers should consider inviting small fish, from small ponds to speak at the big conferences. His reasoning is basically, that the small fish pastor has a lot more in common with the rest of the folks he is speaking to on account of the fact that most pastors who waste their time going to conferences serve churches of a 100 people or less (give or take). As much as I appreciate new ideas, and Dr. Trueman has some good ones, this is one I think I will pass on. First, if you invite the small fish pastors and people enjoy what they hear, knowing the Reformed sub-culture, they will do everything they can to feverishly commence the work of preparing this poor small fish to be absorbed into the big sea of the Reformed celebrity cult. Second, this would only reinforce the all too common tendency found among many Reformed pastors now which is to dream about one day making it to the “big leagues.” Look at how many small fish there are out there “publishing” their paltry wares with Timbuktu Publishing House in hopes that one day, just one day, they will finally hit that big break and get a chance to be a warm-up act on the Reformed celebrity circuit. Bad idea Dr. Trueman, although I will concede that your heart is in the right place in what you propose.
Well, let me conclude my thoughts on Dr. Trueman’s thoughts by saying, “seriously!”? Has it really come to the point that we need a xeno to politely tell us Reformed people that somehow in fighting against evangelicalism, we have become like our enemy? I wish it were not so, but all indications are that we really need to turn this ship around or it won’t be long before we start printing the names of our talk shows and radio programs on coffee mugs and t-shirts. Oops, we already do that!
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Cultural approach to organizations
In the HBO hit series The Sopranos, each meeting of the mafia bosses and “made men” began and ended with a handshake and hug where all the participants gave each other a firm couple of slaps on the back while standing in momentary embrace. Simple social gestures such as these handshakes and hugs are laden with meaning in many different cultures, but they don’t necessarily hold the same measure of meaning whenever they are employed. For instance, in the Sopranos episodes, these gestures functioned as forms of social communication and were designed to reinforce bonds of peace and loyalty between mafia members; however, when these gestures were not exchanged between members at the beginning and of meetings called “sit downs” it indicated that there was division and possibly even hostility brewing between the parties in question, which could eventually have serious if not deadly consequences if the problem was not resolved. It hardly goes without saying, that physical gestures such as handshakes and hugging, communicate that same kind of meaning and significance in most cultural settings. The difference in meaning does not lie in the physical exchange itself, rather it owes to a communal attribution assigned to these gestures when performed in certain situations. This concept of assigned meanings for such mundane social interactions as handshakes and hugs illustrates how certain activities within organizations take on the function of ritual, designed to communicate values and meaning which are important within the framework of a given organizational context. Other communicative features, beyond rituals, of organizational life which provide insight into the values and culture of an organization are stories, myths, vocabulary, and metaphors. These various modes of communication form the backbone of the approach to organizational study called “cultural theory” of organizational analysis.
Cultural theory
Organizational research, from a communication perspective, took a new turn in the early 1980’s when Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) proposed an alternative approach to studying organizations. Three primary issues were identified as reasons justifying the proposal for a different approach to organizational analysis: the conceptualization of what constituted an organization, the managerial bias predominant in organizational studies literature, and the dominant use of quantitative methods of analysis. A case was made by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo that the balance of organizational literature focused too narrowly on business firms and government agencies, while virtually no attention was paid to other kinds of organizations, resulting in a truncated understanding of the operations of organizations. In place of such a narrow focus, they argued that an organization is “the interlocked actions of collectivity” (p.122). What they meant was that an organization consists of places where people gather to get things done including everything from business firms to Friday poker nights to discreet family units. By enlarging the definition and conceptualization of organization, a door was opened for a broader analysis of the inner workings of groups or collectives united around certain loyalties, commitments, values, and associations. Another concern, managerial bias, added a further argument in favor of their proposal. Noting that “more things are going on in organizations than getting the job done” they complained that a managerial bias in research tended to focus narrowly on issues of utility and efficiency without ever looking under the other stones which comprised the life of an organization (p.116). Finally, they pointed out that the almost exclusive use of quantitative methods of analysis biased the research findings and imposed unnecessary limitations on research. To address the research constraints created by a quantitative methodology, they proposed an ethnographic approach to organizational study where researchers would have the opportunity to observe, interview, and analyze so that “the organizational experiences are understood in terms of the understandings of organizational members” (p.127).
Having identified concerns related above, which were typical of what was, at that time, the “traditional” approach to organizational studies, Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982), outlined a cultural approach to organizational studies which was consciously and explicitly “communication-based” (p.121). The underlying rationale for a communication-based approach was their working presupposition that communication creates and sustains organizational life and reality; by analyzing the various modes of communication employed in a specific organization, researchers would be able to understand how communication was used by organizational members to make sense of their experience and thus, would “uncover an organizations culture” (p.124). In order to get at the meaning constructed by organizational members by means of communication, and in turn uncover the organizational culture, they proposed that researchers study “indicators and displayers of organizational sense-making” including, but not limited to: constructs, facts, practices, vocabulary, metaphors, stories, and rites and rituals (p.124-126). Through becoming embedded within a culture in order to gain firsthand knowledge through observation and interviews, the researcher is enabled to build a plausible case for how organizational members “communicatively make sense of their interlocked actions” (p.127). The concerns, methods, and communication focus set forth by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) form the backdrop and constituent parts of the cultural approach to organizational analysis which was further developed in subsequent research by communication scholars.
Cultural theory
Organizational research, from a communication perspective, took a new turn in the early 1980’s when Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) proposed an alternative approach to studying organizations. Three primary issues were identified as reasons justifying the proposal for a different approach to organizational analysis: the conceptualization of what constituted an organization, the managerial bias predominant in organizational studies literature, and the dominant use of quantitative methods of analysis. A case was made by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo that the balance of organizational literature focused too narrowly on business firms and government agencies, while virtually no attention was paid to other kinds of organizations, resulting in a truncated understanding of the operations of organizations. In place of such a narrow focus, they argued that an organization is “the interlocked actions of collectivity” (p.122). What they meant was that an organization consists of places where people gather to get things done including everything from business firms to Friday poker nights to discreet family units. By enlarging the definition and conceptualization of organization, a door was opened for a broader analysis of the inner workings of groups or collectives united around certain loyalties, commitments, values, and associations. Another concern, managerial bias, added a further argument in favor of their proposal. Noting that “more things are going on in organizations than getting the job done” they complained that a managerial bias in research tended to focus narrowly on issues of utility and efficiency without ever looking under the other stones which comprised the life of an organization (p.116). Finally, they pointed out that the almost exclusive use of quantitative methods of analysis biased the research findings and imposed unnecessary limitations on research. To address the research constraints created by a quantitative methodology, they proposed an ethnographic approach to organizational study where researchers would have the opportunity to observe, interview, and analyze so that “the organizational experiences are understood in terms of the understandings of organizational members” (p.127).
Having identified concerns related above, which were typical of what was, at that time, the “traditional” approach to organizational studies, Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982), outlined a cultural approach to organizational studies which was consciously and explicitly “communication-based” (p.121). The underlying rationale for a communication-based approach was their working presupposition that communication creates and sustains organizational life and reality; by analyzing the various modes of communication employed in a specific organization, researchers would be able to understand how communication was used by organizational members to make sense of their experience and thus, would “uncover an organizations culture” (p.124). In order to get at the meaning constructed by organizational members by means of communication, and in turn uncover the organizational culture, they proposed that researchers study “indicators and displayers of organizational sense-making” including, but not limited to: constructs, facts, practices, vocabulary, metaphors, stories, and rites and rituals (p.124-126). Through becoming embedded within a culture in order to gain firsthand knowledge through observation and interviews, the researcher is enabled to build a plausible case for how organizational members “communicatively make sense of their interlocked actions” (p.127). The concerns, methods, and communication focus set forth by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) form the backdrop and constituent parts of the cultural approach to organizational analysis which was further developed in subsequent research by communication scholars.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Communication as dialogue
Dialogue and the situated individual
On account of the very nature of the human social situation, all human communication is dialogue according to Eisenberg, Goodall, & Tretheway (2010). Humans are “situated individuals” caught up in the dialectical tension between what Mead calls “the story of I” and “the story of me” (38). This distinction amounts to what a person is in their closet (the story of I) versus the person they are in the world (story of me). In the closet, they have a developed sense of self, with their own unique thoughts, creative insights, and personal identity while in the social world, they feel the pull to think and act according the constraints prevailing within their community. In this sense, constraints are limitations set upon the creativity and freedom of the self in “the story of I” and help form the context for the self in interpreting and then appropriately navigating the social world in “the story of me” (38). Since the human social experience does not exist in radical isolation, but is rather inescapably caught up in this interface between the public and private self, communication is appropriately understood as dialogue. '
Dialogue as mindful communication
Dialogue represents the intersection of the individual and the community in a conversation about the meaning or interpretation of things effecting both groups. At the level of individual self, participation in this constructive conversation begins with conscious thoughtful reflection. This is what Eisenberg et al., call “mindful communication” (41). When a particular group is faced with conflict or possible negative outcomes, individuals come together and communicate mindfully in order to construct an interpretation which is rational and strategic. At the group level, conversation includes “listening” as thoughtful ideas are communicated. This added dimension of listening now draws into the discussion the concepts of equity and quality.
Dialogue as equitable transaction
Equity, in group conversation, addresses the problem of “voice.” Voice, according to Eisenberg et al., involves not only the questions of who may participate in the conversation, when, and for how long, but the additional question of whether individuap participants maintain the confidence that they are permitted to contribute their perspective without fear of reprisal at the hands of the dominant (43). This issue of voice is an especially important consideration in situations where tensions exist between opinions of superiors and subordinates. In a situation such as this, the outstanding concern is not only who will be allowed to speak but who will be heard, and why? This last thought leads to a discussion of the quality of communication.
Dialogue as empathic communication
One response to the set of questions addressed in the concern above, about who would be allowed to speak and be heard is that of empathic communication. Empathic communication is “the ability to understand or imagine the world as another person understands or imagines it” (43). This perspective represents an attempt to try to appreciate opinions of others without being judgmental of those viewpoints which are contradictory to the prevailing opinion. In the sense that it offers voice to members in conversation and permits participation without vilification it does address the questions raised, but only up to a point. It has been successfully argued by Buber, that empathic communication tends to objectify other participants rather than include them as fellow interpreters. Buber’s concern is that merely permitting verbal participation without judgment does not necessarily entail voice for the other person if the opinion is immediately discarded all the while leaving the superficial impression that all parties are equal participants in dialogue.
Dialogue as real meeting
The counterproposal to empathic communication is dialogue as real meeting (43). On this construction, dialogue is built on a foundation of mutual respect for all involved and it acknowledges all parties as equal interpreters. Two components sharply distinguish this perspective from empathic communication. First, in dialogue as real meeting, all who contribute to the dialogue share responsibility for the conversation and are equally responsible for the risks taken as a result of the dialogue. This clearly goes beyond permitting participation without judgment in that it invites participation for all who desire to share responsibility for the outcome whether it ends up positively or negatively. Second, in dialogue as real meeting, discussion is not merely for the purpose of exchanging ideas or information in order to learn, it is engaged in for the purpose of revising how the parties involved actually understand something (46). Obviously, this involves far more than simply getting someone’s “take” on a situation for the sake of information; it involves being open to changing an opinion as the result of soliciting the perspective of another. Taking such a risk in opening up this kind of dialogue certainly requires that enormous respect must be granted up front to those invited into such a conversation.
On account of the very nature of the human social situation, all human communication is dialogue according to Eisenberg, Goodall, & Tretheway (2010). Humans are “situated individuals” caught up in the dialectical tension between what Mead calls “the story of I” and “the story of me” (38). This distinction amounts to what a person is in their closet (the story of I) versus the person they are in the world (story of me). In the closet, they have a developed sense of self, with their own unique thoughts, creative insights, and personal identity while in the social world, they feel the pull to think and act according the constraints prevailing within their community. In this sense, constraints are limitations set upon the creativity and freedom of the self in “the story of I” and help form the context for the self in interpreting and then appropriately navigating the social world in “the story of me” (38). Since the human social experience does not exist in radical isolation, but is rather inescapably caught up in this interface between the public and private self, communication is appropriately understood as dialogue. '
Dialogue as mindful communication
Dialogue represents the intersection of the individual and the community in a conversation about the meaning or interpretation of things effecting both groups. At the level of individual self, participation in this constructive conversation begins with conscious thoughtful reflection. This is what Eisenberg et al., call “mindful communication” (41). When a particular group is faced with conflict or possible negative outcomes, individuals come together and communicate mindfully in order to construct an interpretation which is rational and strategic. At the group level, conversation includes “listening” as thoughtful ideas are communicated. This added dimension of listening now draws into the discussion the concepts of equity and quality.
Dialogue as equitable transaction
Equity, in group conversation, addresses the problem of “voice.” Voice, according to Eisenberg et al., involves not only the questions of who may participate in the conversation, when, and for how long, but the additional question of whether individuap participants maintain the confidence that they are permitted to contribute their perspective without fear of reprisal at the hands of the dominant (43). This issue of voice is an especially important consideration in situations where tensions exist between opinions of superiors and subordinates. In a situation such as this, the outstanding concern is not only who will be allowed to speak but who will be heard, and why? This last thought leads to a discussion of the quality of communication.
Dialogue as empathic communication
One response to the set of questions addressed in the concern above, about who would be allowed to speak and be heard is that of empathic communication. Empathic communication is “the ability to understand or imagine the world as another person understands or imagines it” (43). This perspective represents an attempt to try to appreciate opinions of others without being judgmental of those viewpoints which are contradictory to the prevailing opinion. In the sense that it offers voice to members in conversation and permits participation without vilification it does address the questions raised, but only up to a point. It has been successfully argued by Buber, that empathic communication tends to objectify other participants rather than include them as fellow interpreters. Buber’s concern is that merely permitting verbal participation without judgment does not necessarily entail voice for the other person if the opinion is immediately discarded all the while leaving the superficial impression that all parties are equal participants in dialogue.
Dialogue as real meeting
The counterproposal to empathic communication is dialogue as real meeting (43). On this construction, dialogue is built on a foundation of mutual respect for all involved and it acknowledges all parties as equal interpreters. Two components sharply distinguish this perspective from empathic communication. First, in dialogue as real meeting, all who contribute to the dialogue share responsibility for the conversation and are equally responsible for the risks taken as a result of the dialogue. This clearly goes beyond permitting participation without judgment in that it invites participation for all who desire to share responsibility for the outcome whether it ends up positively or negatively. Second, in dialogue as real meeting, discussion is not merely for the purpose of exchanging ideas or information in order to learn, it is engaged in for the purpose of revising how the parties involved actually understand something (46). Obviously, this involves far more than simply getting someone’s “take” on a situation for the sake of information; it involves being open to changing an opinion as the result of soliciting the perspective of another. Taking such a risk in opening up this kind of dialogue certainly requires that enormous respect must be granted up front to those invited into such a conversation.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ Pt.3 (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
Having addressed the relationship of the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ to the bodily resurrection of believers from 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, I want to focus attention on a different issue. Intertwined around Paul's theologically rich exposition of the guarantee of bodily resurrection, is some very profound insight into the nature of Christ's contemporary kingdom rule. Specifically, this text leads us to engage the debate which centers on the so-called TWO-KINGDOM THEOLOGY. Our aim in this post is to concentrate on defending the Biblical, and confessionally Reformed view that Christ has TWO KINGDOMS.
First, let's set forth some of the classical distinctions and terminology typically used the two kingdom discussion. Historically, Reformed theological reflection on the kingdom of Christ has distinguished between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. The kingdom of power is Christ's rule over creation and providence in view of his concern to rule, build, and preserve his church; and the kingdom of grace is Christ's special rule over the church as the God-man, while the kingdom of glory is the eternal state of glorification following upon the consummation of this age. As we will see below, this is a crucial distinction we must maintain in the kingly rule of Christ; otherwise, failing to distinguish between the two kingdoms, will lead to substantial tension in the theological formulation of the ontological Trinity.
Second, let's just make it clear that the classic, Reformed tradition has made this distinction. John Calvin in his Institutes unambiguously upholds two kingdom construction of Christ's kingly rule when he says:
We must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it (2.2.13)
Let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform (see Book 4, chap. 10, sec. 3-6). To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other (3.19.15)
But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated (4.20.1).
Alright, you might say, "those quotes are fairly clear; Calvin seems to make a distinction in the kingly administration of Christ's rule, between his governance of the church, and his rule over creation in general. But that is just Calvin, and we know he was somewhat influenced by Luther, so probably, the rest of the Reformed theologians who stand at a greater temporal distance from Luther, don't maintain this distinction." That is a false understanding of Reformed thought. Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, commenting on the 2nd petition of the Lord's Prayer, "thy kingdom come," makes the following distinctions regarding the kingdom of God:
The kingdom of God is that in which God alone rules and exercises dominion over all creatures; but especially does he govern and preserve the church. This kingdom is universal. The special kingdom of God—that which he exercises in his church consists in sending the Son from the Father, from the very beginning of the world, that he might institute and preserve the ministry of the church, and accomplish his purposes by it—that he might gather a church from the whole human race by his word and Spirit—rule, preserve and defend it against all enemies (p.1118).
It is very clear from this first, initial comment on the 2nd petition, that Ursinus is making a distinction in the kingly rule of Christ. On the one hand, he acknowledges a kingly rule of Christ that is over all. But then, on the other hand, he explains that along side that rule, which is over all things and creatures, that Christ has a "special kingdom" which is Christ's kingly rule over the church. In subsequent remarks he expands upon and clarifies this twofold kingdom of Christ. He argues that the rule of Christ that we pray for in the 2nd petition is the rule of Christ which is "spiritual" and which he has already identified as the "special kingdom." Then he goes on to characterize this special kingdom in a manner similar to Calvin, explaining, "It is commonly spoken of and distinguished as the Kingdom of grace and of glory" (p.1119). In making use of these categories "kingdom of grace" and "kingdom of glory" he is simply clarifying the point that the kingdom of grace bears within its womb the consummate kingdom, the kingdom of glory, that is, the glorified eternal state. This is precisely the meaning in view today, when Biblical theologians describe and distinguish between this interadventual period and the eternal state by using the terminology of "already and not-yet." The "already" is the current reign of Christ manifest in the his kingly rule in the hearts of believers, and the "not-yet," as the full manifestation and outworking of Christ's saving rule in the glorified, eternal state.
Let's add one more Reformed stallwart to the mix here, Francis Turretin. Expounding upon the mediatorial kingship of Christ, Turretin offers the following distinction: we must distinguish between the twofold kingdom belonging to Christ: one natural or essential; the other mediatorial and economical. Christ possesses the former over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to the Father and Holy Spirit. The latter (according to the economy of grace) he administers in a peculiar manner as God-man. The former extends equally over all creatures; the latter is terminated especially on the church (16th question, p.486, vol.2). Obviously, Turretin is working with the kingdom categories typically used in classical Reformed discussion about the kingdom. In general, we can conclude from these three references that the Reformed were clear to distinguish between the administration of Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, and his kingly rule over the church. The rule over nature was grounded in his eternal being, shared with the Father and Holy Spirity, peculiarly administered for a time as the God-man; while, the rule over the church was Christ's very own special rule, received, exercised, and administered as the reward and fruit of his mediatorial, redemptive work.
Third, having clarified the classic, historic, Reformed teaching concerning the kingdom, let's pause to examine how 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 bears on this important distinction. Without thinking on v24 for too long, one begins to see an apparent problem when Paul explains that Jesus Christ will "hand over the kingdom to the Father." Now add to that indications of the temporal limitations of his rule in v25, implied in the words "he must reign UNTIL." Finally, v28 forces us to grasp at some sort of a distinction in order to save the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when Paul says, "then the Son also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him." Verse 28 falls on the heals of Paul's clarification that the application of the words of Psalm 8:6 to Jesus, "all things are under subject to his feet," does not involve a subjection of the Father to Christ. Rather, the Father is excepted, and once the total conquest of Christ's enemies has been achieved, then "the Son" will himself be subjected to the Father.
This language causes insuperable problems theologically, if Paul's intention is to actually refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, when he says "the Son" will be subject to the Father. If that language is designed to identify "the Son" with the second person of the Trinity, then it must follow that the Son of God is ontologically subordinate to the Father, and thus we would be forced to conclude that there is ontological hierarchy and subordination within the Trinity. In other words, we would have confess that the Son is less divine, and less authoritative than the Father. Of course, that would be completely out of accord with the full sweep of scripture which repeatedly affirms the full essential parity of the persons of the Trinity. But there have been many unscrupulous interepreters in the history of Christianity who have taken the word "Son" here to refer to the second divine person, the Son, and they have argued that such a referent, with its consequenent subordination, is consistent with the language of v24 that Christ will deliver over the kingdom to the Father, the language of v25 which implies a termination to Christ's kingly rule, and finally, to the exception clause of v27 which not only clarifies that the Father is not subject to the Son, but seems to imply, that the Son is indeed subordinate to the Father.
So, what then is the solution? Well, the solution lies in making a distinction between the kingdoms. When Paul explains that Christ must deliver over the kingdom, has a temporary rule, is subject to the Father, and eventually will yield up his authority and openly subject himself to the Father, we must see these remarks as references to Christ's mediatorial rule. The key is to see that the kingdom rule in view here in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, which he exercises as the God-man, throughout the interadventual period, and maintains with a view to his rule and preservation of the church. Charles Hodge, in commenting on v24, makes this explanation of the kingly rule in view here:
The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? Paul refers here to that dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands. This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in his mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e. when he has subdued all his enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; while his headship over his people is to continue for ever.
With that clarification in view, we are positioned to interpet the reference to "the Son" in the phrase "then the Son Himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" in way that is contextually sensitive and theologically coherent. The reference to "the Son" in v28 is not a reference to the 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God; rather, it is a messianic title, designating Jesus as the royal Son of Psalm 2 and 110 who delivers over his rule, once he has thoroughly conquered his foes. Again, Hodge offers a nuanced defense of this interpretive decision when he argues:
This passage is evidently parallel with that in v. 24. The subjection of the Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more than the kingdom spoken of in v. 24 is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. It is not the subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle here speaks.
There you have it. Hodge in defending his interpetation of "Son" as a messianic title, grounds his interpretation by appealing to classic Reformed christological categories which include both his person and his offices.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is one passage among others that has led to the classic Reformed distinction between the spheres of Christ's kingly rule. In vew of the theological problems inherent in a one kingdom view,discussed above, it is incumbent upon Christians who want to maintain fidelity to scripture, theology, and the creeds and confessions of the Church, to recognize and uphold the distinction between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. Failure to do so only leads to dangerous theological confusion which can potentially mislead the saints and provide fotter for heretics who seek the destruction of orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology. However, acknowledging the fact and necessity of this distinction, does not by itself require one to subscribe to a single, monolithic view of the implications of this distinction for culture and politics. How the confession of these distinctions in Christ's kingly rule bears upon the issue of the relationship between church and culture will have to be left for the next post.
First, let's set forth some of the classical distinctions and terminology typically used the two kingdom discussion. Historically, Reformed theological reflection on the kingdom of Christ has distinguished between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. The kingdom of power is Christ's rule over creation and providence in view of his concern to rule, build, and preserve his church; and the kingdom of grace is Christ's special rule over the church as the God-man, while the kingdom of glory is the eternal state of glorification following upon the consummation of this age. As we will see below, this is a crucial distinction we must maintain in the kingly rule of Christ; otherwise, failing to distinguish between the two kingdoms, will lead to substantial tension in the theological formulation of the ontological Trinity.
Second, let's just make it clear that the classic, Reformed tradition has made this distinction. John Calvin in his Institutes unambiguously upholds two kingdom construction of Christ's kingly rule when he says:
We must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it (2.2.13)
Let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform (see Book 4, chap. 10, sec. 3-6). To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other (3.19.15)
But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated (4.20.1).
Alright, you might say, "those quotes are fairly clear; Calvin seems to make a distinction in the kingly administration of Christ's rule, between his governance of the church, and his rule over creation in general. But that is just Calvin, and we know he was somewhat influenced by Luther, so probably, the rest of the Reformed theologians who stand at a greater temporal distance from Luther, don't maintain this distinction." That is a false understanding of Reformed thought. Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, commenting on the 2nd petition of the Lord's Prayer, "thy kingdom come," makes the following distinctions regarding the kingdom of God:
The kingdom of God is that in which God alone rules and exercises dominion over all creatures; but especially does he govern and preserve the church. This kingdom is universal. The special kingdom of God—that which he exercises in his church consists in sending the Son from the Father, from the very beginning of the world, that he might institute and preserve the ministry of the church, and accomplish his purposes by it—that he might gather a church from the whole human race by his word and Spirit—rule, preserve and defend it against all enemies (p.1118).
It is very clear from this first, initial comment on the 2nd petition, that Ursinus is making a distinction in the kingly rule of Christ. On the one hand, he acknowledges a kingly rule of Christ that is over all. But then, on the other hand, he explains that along side that rule, which is over all things and creatures, that Christ has a "special kingdom" which is Christ's kingly rule over the church. In subsequent remarks he expands upon and clarifies this twofold kingdom of Christ. He argues that the rule of Christ that we pray for in the 2nd petition is the rule of Christ which is "spiritual" and which he has already identified as the "special kingdom." Then he goes on to characterize this special kingdom in a manner similar to Calvin, explaining, "It is commonly spoken of and distinguished as the Kingdom of grace and of glory" (p.1119). In making use of these categories "kingdom of grace" and "kingdom of glory" he is simply clarifying the point that the kingdom of grace bears within its womb the consummate kingdom, the kingdom of glory, that is, the glorified eternal state. This is precisely the meaning in view today, when Biblical theologians describe and distinguish between this interadventual period and the eternal state by using the terminology of "already and not-yet." The "already" is the current reign of Christ manifest in the his kingly rule in the hearts of believers, and the "not-yet," as the full manifestation and outworking of Christ's saving rule in the glorified, eternal state.
Let's add one more Reformed stallwart to the mix here, Francis Turretin. Expounding upon the mediatorial kingship of Christ, Turretin offers the following distinction: we must distinguish between the twofold kingdom belonging to Christ: one natural or essential; the other mediatorial and economical. Christ possesses the former over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to the Father and Holy Spirit. The latter (according to the economy of grace) he administers in a peculiar manner as God-man. The former extends equally over all creatures; the latter is terminated especially on the church (16th question, p.486, vol.2). Obviously, Turretin is working with the kingdom categories typically used in classical Reformed discussion about the kingdom. In general, we can conclude from these three references that the Reformed were clear to distinguish between the administration of Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, and his kingly rule over the church. The rule over nature was grounded in his eternal being, shared with the Father and Holy Spirity, peculiarly administered for a time as the God-man; while, the rule over the church was Christ's very own special rule, received, exercised, and administered as the reward and fruit of his mediatorial, redemptive work.
Third, having clarified the classic, historic, Reformed teaching concerning the kingdom, let's pause to examine how 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 bears on this important distinction. Without thinking on v24 for too long, one begins to see an apparent problem when Paul explains that Jesus Christ will "hand over the kingdom to the Father." Now add to that indications of the temporal limitations of his rule in v25, implied in the words "he must reign UNTIL." Finally, v28 forces us to grasp at some sort of a distinction in order to save the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when Paul says, "then the Son also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him." Verse 28 falls on the heals of Paul's clarification that the application of the words of Psalm 8:6 to Jesus, "all things are under subject to his feet," does not involve a subjection of the Father to Christ. Rather, the Father is excepted, and once the total conquest of Christ's enemies has been achieved, then "the Son" will himself be subjected to the Father.
This language causes insuperable problems theologically, if Paul's intention is to actually refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, when he says "the Son" will be subject to the Father. If that language is designed to identify "the Son" with the second person of the Trinity, then it must follow that the Son of God is ontologically subordinate to the Father, and thus we would be forced to conclude that there is ontological hierarchy and subordination within the Trinity. In other words, we would have confess that the Son is less divine, and less authoritative than the Father. Of course, that would be completely out of accord with the full sweep of scripture which repeatedly affirms the full essential parity of the persons of the Trinity. But there have been many unscrupulous interepreters in the history of Christianity who have taken the word "Son" here to refer to the second divine person, the Son, and they have argued that such a referent, with its consequenent subordination, is consistent with the language of v24 that Christ will deliver over the kingdom to the Father, the language of v25 which implies a termination to Christ's kingly rule, and finally, to the exception clause of v27 which not only clarifies that the Father is not subject to the Son, but seems to imply, that the Son is indeed subordinate to the Father.
So, what then is the solution? Well, the solution lies in making a distinction between the kingdoms. When Paul explains that Christ must deliver over the kingdom, has a temporary rule, is subject to the Father, and eventually will yield up his authority and openly subject himself to the Father, we must see these remarks as references to Christ's mediatorial rule. The key is to see that the kingdom rule in view here in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, which he exercises as the God-man, throughout the interadventual period, and maintains with a view to his rule and preservation of the church. Charles Hodge, in commenting on v24, makes this explanation of the kingly rule in view here:
The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? Paul refers here to that dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands. This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in his mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e. when he has subdued all his enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; while his headship over his people is to continue for ever.
With that clarification in view, we are positioned to interpet the reference to "the Son" in the phrase "then the Son Himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" in way that is contextually sensitive and theologically coherent. The reference to "the Son" in v28 is not a reference to the 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God; rather, it is a messianic title, designating Jesus as the royal Son of Psalm 2 and 110 who delivers over his rule, once he has thoroughly conquered his foes. Again, Hodge offers a nuanced defense of this interpretive decision when he argues:
This passage is evidently parallel with that in v. 24. The subjection of the Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more than the kingdom spoken of in v. 24 is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. It is not the subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle here speaks.
There you have it. Hodge in defending his interpetation of "Son" as a messianic title, grounds his interpretation by appealing to classic Reformed christological categories which include both his person and his offices.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is one passage among others that has led to the classic Reformed distinction between the spheres of Christ's kingly rule. In vew of the theological problems inherent in a one kingdom view,discussed above, it is incumbent upon Christians who want to maintain fidelity to scripture, theology, and the creeds and confessions of the Church, to recognize and uphold the distinction between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. Failure to do so only leads to dangerous theological confusion which can potentially mislead the saints and provide fotter for heretics who seek the destruction of orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology. However, acknowledging the fact and necessity of this distinction, does not by itself require one to subscribe to a single, monolithic view of the implications of this distinction for culture and politics. How the confession of these distinctions in Christ's kingly rule bears upon the issue of the relationship between church and culture will have to be left for the next post.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ Pt.2 (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
With the two powerful and spiritually exhilerating words "but now," Paul's argument temporarily transitions from arguments for bodily resurrection to two arguments GUARANTEEING FUTURE BODILY RESURRECTION in vv20-28. It is worth noting here, that Paul will continue the line of thought which is dropped in v19, picking it back up in vv.29-32, with two more arguments for the resurrection. This time, the arguments will be practical in nature, and then he will conclude his series of arguments in vv.33-34 with a trenchant critique of the Corinthians and an admonition to ammend their ways.
As stated above, there are two arguments set forth in vv.20-28 which serve to GUARANTEE future bodily resurrection. One argument pertains to the covenant headship of Jesus Christ, and the other pertains to the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ. Though the former is a rich vein of thought, our interest here lies in explaining the relationship of Christ's mediatorial kingship to Paul's guarantee of bodily resurrection, since this relationship is often obscured or overlooked entirely. It seems a significant reason why this relationship of Christ's kingship to the guarantee of bodily resurrection is overlooked is because on the surface of things, it looks like Paul temporarily drops the topic of providing pastoral consolation by unfolding the idea of guarantee, and instead, transitions to the subject of eschatology, specifically, the unfolding of the timeline of certain last days events.
Let's take just a moment to offer a possible explanation for why the relationship between Christ's mediatorial kingship and future bodily resurrection is often obscured or entirely missed altogether. In verse 23 Paul explains that when Jesus comes in glory at the end of the age the dead in Christ will be raised upon his glorious appearance. At this point, in v24, Paul begings to unfold the sequence of eschatological events which culminate in the end of the age and the consumation of the eternal kingdom of God. The beginning of verse 24 says, "then comes the end." If you connect the thought of verse 24 back to v23 you can see that Paul is saying that once Jesus returns, the resurrection will take place and then the end of the age will come. Paul spells out a sort of time line for the end times, albeit truncated and oversimplified since he leaves out a number of other details revealed in other parts of scripture. The two clauses in v24 that immediately follow "then comes the end" further unfold WHEN the end will come. Kingdom consummation will follow fast upon the heels of Jesus handing the kingdom over to the father and after he has abolished all authority and power. Those 5 facts provide a significant amount of clarity concerning the unfolding of the events of the last days: Christ returns in glory, the dead rise, Christ puts down all authority, rule, and power, Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father, and finally the end comes.
However, an important question to consider in reflecting on these 5 rich facts is why does Paul include them here? Are these facts simply given to provide the church information about the events of the last days or are these facts given as as part of Paul's argument guaranteeing the resurrection of believers? In order to answer that question and to appreciate the fact that Paul has not transitioned from one topic to another (from resurrection to eschatology), but rather develops a second, rich, theological argument guaranteeing bodily resurrection, focus must turn to the very first word of v25. Notice the first word in v25, "for." That conjunction marks cause, reason, or explanation. In this case it looks back immediately to the last clause of v24. To help clarify things a bit, we must correct the NASV translation of the last clause and change "when" to "after" since the grammatical construction requires it. That means that this second clause clarifies when the end will come; the "end" is "after" Christ has abolished his enemies, then he will deliver over the kingdom to God the Father. It is clear by the grammatical construction Paul uses that verse 25 not only explains why the end times sequence of events must unfold as Paul explains, but it also signals that Paul is developing a second argument guaranteeing the bodily resurrection. Verse 25 explains why the kingdom cannot be delivered over until AFTER all enemies listed in v24 are destroyed. It is a PROPHETIC NECESSITY that Christ reigns UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet. Paul quotes from Psalm 110:1 in v25 in order to ground his argument for the unfolding of the eschatogolical chain events as described in vv23-24.
At this point you might not yet fully see how this represents a second argument guaranteeing the resurrection. After all, it may seem that Paul has only explained why certain end times events must follow the order set forth by Paul in vv23-24. The connection between Christ's kingly rule and bodily resurrection is made more clear by the thought Paul adds in v26 and v27. In v26 Paul adds one more enemy to the list of things that must be destroyed by Christ before he returns, and that enemy is death. The fact that Paul is adding one more enemy to the list of enemies to be destroyed before the end is signaled by his repetition of the verb "destroyed" found in the last clause of v24. By isolating "death" and setting it off on its own, Paul is indicating that there is a climax to Christ's conquest: all authority, rule, and power, and FINALLY-----DEATH! Death is the most powerful kingdom enemy, and the conquest of death is held off until the end that its destruction will mark the punctuation of of Christ's climactic kingdom victory. So in effect, Paul is saying that Christ cannot bring about the end by handing over the kingdom unto the Father UNTIL he has destroyed all rule, authority, power, and finally, death itself.
Staying with the flow of thought a bit longer, notice that v27 gives the reason why Christ MUST destroy death: FOR HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET. Paul quotes here from Psalm 8:6 and explains again, that it is a PROPHETIC NECESSITY that Christ conquer death and CRUSH THIS KINGDOM ENEMY UNDER HIS FEET as part of his kingly rule. Add all this together and the relationship between Christ's mediatorial kingship and future bodily resurrection become quite clear. Paul argues that the end will come when he delivers the kingdom over to the Father after Christ's returns in glory, which simultaneously activates the resurrection of the dead and the climactic conquest of his enemies including all rule, authority, power, and death. Why must it all happen in this order? PROPHETIC NECESSITY! Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8:6 prophecy that Christ MUST RULE AS KING until he has stomped out all opposition to his kingly rule. Only after every enemy has been DECISIVELY CONQUERED will Jesus hand over the mediatorial kingdom to the Father.
In vv.24-28 Paul brings out a huge theological argument to assure the hearts and minds of all believers that there will be a bodily resurrection in the future. Christ's mediatorial kingship requires that he must reign until death is conquered. The obvious sign of the death's total defeat is the bodily resurrection. When soul and body are gloriously and powerfully reunited there will be no doubt at all that Christ is king over all and that he has definitively DESTROYED THE POWER OF DEATH FOREVER AND EVER.
PRAISE GOD FOR THE MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST, THERE IS NO SOLID HOPE WITHOUT IT!
As stated above, there are two arguments set forth in vv.20-28 which serve to GUARANTEE future bodily resurrection. One argument pertains to the covenant headship of Jesus Christ, and the other pertains to the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ. Though the former is a rich vein of thought, our interest here lies in explaining the relationship of Christ's mediatorial kingship to Paul's guarantee of bodily resurrection, since this relationship is often obscured or overlooked entirely. It seems a significant reason why this relationship of Christ's kingship to the guarantee of bodily resurrection is overlooked is because on the surface of things, it looks like Paul temporarily drops the topic of providing pastoral consolation by unfolding the idea of guarantee, and instead, transitions to the subject of eschatology, specifically, the unfolding of the timeline of certain last days events.
Let's take just a moment to offer a possible explanation for why the relationship between Christ's mediatorial kingship and future bodily resurrection is often obscured or entirely missed altogether. In verse 23 Paul explains that when Jesus comes in glory at the end of the age the dead in Christ will be raised upon his glorious appearance. At this point, in v24, Paul begings to unfold the sequence of eschatological events which culminate in the end of the age and the consumation of the eternal kingdom of God. The beginning of verse 24 says, "then comes the end." If you connect the thought of verse 24 back to v23 you can see that Paul is saying that once Jesus returns, the resurrection will take place and then the end of the age will come. Paul spells out a sort of time line for the end times, albeit truncated and oversimplified since he leaves out a number of other details revealed in other parts of scripture. The two clauses in v24 that immediately follow "then comes the end" further unfold WHEN the end will come. Kingdom consummation will follow fast upon the heels of Jesus handing the kingdom over to the father and after he has abolished all authority and power. Those 5 facts provide a significant amount of clarity concerning the unfolding of the events of the last days: Christ returns in glory, the dead rise, Christ puts down all authority, rule, and power, Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father, and finally the end comes.
However, an important question to consider in reflecting on these 5 rich facts is why does Paul include them here? Are these facts simply given to provide the church information about the events of the last days or are these facts given as as part of Paul's argument guaranteeing the resurrection of believers? In order to answer that question and to appreciate the fact that Paul has not transitioned from one topic to another (from resurrection to eschatology), but rather develops a second, rich, theological argument guaranteeing bodily resurrection, focus must turn to the very first word of v25. Notice the first word in v25, "for." That conjunction marks cause, reason, or explanation. In this case it looks back immediately to the last clause of v24. To help clarify things a bit, we must correct the NASV translation of the last clause and change "when" to "after" since the grammatical construction requires it. That means that this second clause clarifies when the end will come; the "end" is "after" Christ has abolished his enemies, then he will deliver over the kingdom to God the Father. It is clear by the grammatical construction Paul uses that verse 25 not only explains why the end times sequence of events must unfold as Paul explains, but it also signals that Paul is developing a second argument guaranteeing the bodily resurrection. Verse 25 explains why the kingdom cannot be delivered over until AFTER all enemies listed in v24 are destroyed. It is a PROPHETIC NECESSITY that Christ reigns UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet. Paul quotes from Psalm 110:1 in v25 in order to ground his argument for the unfolding of the eschatogolical chain events as described in vv23-24.
At this point you might not yet fully see how this represents a second argument guaranteeing the resurrection. After all, it may seem that Paul has only explained why certain end times events must follow the order set forth by Paul in vv23-24. The connection between Christ's kingly rule and bodily resurrection is made more clear by the thought Paul adds in v26 and v27. In v26 Paul adds one more enemy to the list of things that must be destroyed by Christ before he returns, and that enemy is death. The fact that Paul is adding one more enemy to the list of enemies to be destroyed before the end is signaled by his repetition of the verb "destroyed" found in the last clause of v24. By isolating "death" and setting it off on its own, Paul is indicating that there is a climax to Christ's conquest: all authority, rule, and power, and FINALLY-----DEATH! Death is the most powerful kingdom enemy, and the conquest of death is held off until the end that its destruction will mark the punctuation of of Christ's climactic kingdom victory. So in effect, Paul is saying that Christ cannot bring about the end by handing over the kingdom unto the Father UNTIL he has destroyed all rule, authority, power, and finally, death itself.
Staying with the flow of thought a bit longer, notice that v27 gives the reason why Christ MUST destroy death: FOR HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET. Paul quotes here from Psalm 8:6 and explains again, that it is a PROPHETIC NECESSITY that Christ conquer death and CRUSH THIS KINGDOM ENEMY UNDER HIS FEET as part of his kingly rule. Add all this together and the relationship between Christ's mediatorial kingship and future bodily resurrection become quite clear. Paul argues that the end will come when he delivers the kingdom over to the Father after Christ's returns in glory, which simultaneously activates the resurrection of the dead and the climactic conquest of his enemies including all rule, authority, power, and death. Why must it all happen in this order? PROPHETIC NECESSITY! Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8:6 prophecy that Christ MUST RULE AS KING until he has stomped out all opposition to his kingly rule. Only after every enemy has been DECISIVELY CONQUERED will Jesus hand over the mediatorial kingdom to the Father.
In vv.24-28 Paul brings out a huge theological argument to assure the hearts and minds of all believers that there will be a bodily resurrection in the future. Christ's mediatorial kingship requires that he must reign until death is conquered. The obvious sign of the death's total defeat is the bodily resurrection. When soul and body are gloriously and powerfully reunited there will be no doubt at all that Christ is king over all and that he has definitively DESTROYED THE POWER OF DEATH FOREVER AND EVER.
PRAISE GOD FOR THE MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST, THERE IS NO SOLID HOPE WITHOUT IT!
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ Pt.1 (1Corinthians 15:24-28)
MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP GUARANTEES THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF BELIEVERS
THE CONTEXT OF vv24-28
1Corinthians 15 is one of the most rich and challenging passages in all of the Pauline literature. At the outset of the chapter Paul exercises the Corinthian's collective memory by reminding them of the fundamental principles of the gospel (vv.1-11). According to Paul the gospel is that which: he preacehd to them, it is what they received, what they stand upon, and is what saves them. Recounting gospel truths moves from catechesis to admonition as Paul commands the Corinthians to CONTINUE embracing the gospel unto the end in order to be saved (v2).
That pastoral note of admonition is an important rhetorical frame which contextualizes the proclamation of the bodily resurrection of Christ, which forms the central core of Paul's gospel. In unfolding the evidentiary basis of the bodily resurrection of Christ, it is apparent that Paul is doing more than ticking off a series of "facts" about Christ's resurrection. Rather than forming mere talking points in an apologetic encounter, these "facts" are both polemical and pastoral. On the one hand they are designed to provide objective proof of Christ's resurrection and on the other they are designed to innoculate the Corinthian believers against the spiritually corrosive effects of a false spirituality that seems to be within ear shot of some of the Corinthian believers. If the Corinthian Christians fail to heed Paul's admonition to continue embracing by faith the gospel he delivered to them, they are in danger of making shipwreck of their faith.
The double-edged nature of Paul's proclamation of Christ's bodily resurrection, already indicated in the admonition of verse 2, emerges in verse 12 and following. After placing the bodily resurrection of Christ on a firm factual footing, Paul discloses the driving concern of chapter 15 when he says, "12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised." It turns out, that the real issue in chapter 15 is not so much the apologetic need to defend the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Christ as it is to show its foundational significance both for the gospel and for believers. Specifically Paul's concern is to show the inseparable connection between Christ's resurrection and the future bodily resurrection of believers. As the logic of the argument unfolds it is clear you cannot have one without the other: either Christ rose from the dead therefore ensuring the bodily resurrection of believers, or believers don't rise bodily from the dead therefore implying Christ did not rise. The enormous danger of the novel and false spirituality circulating within hearing range of some Corinthian believers is now exposed as an ideology which is antithetical to the Christian gospel.
In verses 14-19 Paul attacks the false ideology by drawing out 1 overarching consequence of this false doctrine and then develops 4 spiritually devastating implications from it. The 1 giant overarching logical consequence of this false teaching is found in v13: if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised. Paul makes it unmistakeably plain here that the believer's resurrection is so intertwined with Christ's resurrection that if you reject a bodily resurrection of believers, you must also reject the historical fact of Christ's bodily resurrection. The rest of what Paul has to say in vv.14-19 is an UNFOLDING of the implications of that false idea:
-1- apostolic preaching is VAIN(that is, lacking in content or truth---and that the apostles are false witnesses)- v14
-2- faith is vain - v17
-3- Dead believers have perished forever – v18
-4- Christians are the most miserable of all people – v19
Fortunately for believers, the signal that these dreadful implications of the false ideology are all wrong is found in those 2 soul thrilling words at the outset of v20, "BUT NOW."
Coming to v20 it is clear that Paul is taking up a new line of thought. On the one hand those 2 words, "but now" speak a thousand words of relief for the believer. What they express is that you can come back to all those dreadful implications of vv13-19(no bodily resurrection, apostolic preaching is empty, faith is vain, hope is lost, Christianity is miserable) and turn them all INSIDE OUT so they read BUT NOW:
-there is a resurrection of the body
-apostolic preaching is fruitful
-faith is the instrument of justification
-deceased believers-are in Christ—and we will see them again
-Christianity is the only faith that makes life meaningful & brings real joy.
All these things are indisputably true because the apostles testified to a real historical FACT when they said Christ rose from the dead bodily. Because that was true, so it is true that believers will rise bodily from the dead.
On the other hand, these 2 words, "but now" move us into an argument for the GUARANTEE of the bodily resurrection of believers. In verses 20-28 Paul develops 2 lines of argument guaranteeing the resurrection of believers. The first is that the covenantal headship of Christ ensures that Christ really is the firstfruits of the resurrection (v20) and that just as certainly as all sin and die in Adam, so also, all who Christ's represents as covenant head will be raised bodily from the dead. All by itself, that is powerful and rich theological idea, but what we want to focus on here is the second argument to be developed in our next post, which is how the mediatorial kingship of Christ guarantees the bodily resurrection of believers.
THE CONTEXT OF vv24-28
1Corinthians 15 is one of the most rich and challenging passages in all of the Pauline literature. At the outset of the chapter Paul exercises the Corinthian's collective memory by reminding them of the fundamental principles of the gospel (vv.1-11). According to Paul the gospel is that which: he preacehd to them, it is what they received, what they stand upon, and is what saves them. Recounting gospel truths moves from catechesis to admonition as Paul commands the Corinthians to CONTINUE embracing the gospel unto the end in order to be saved (v2).
That pastoral note of admonition is an important rhetorical frame which contextualizes the proclamation of the bodily resurrection of Christ, which forms the central core of Paul's gospel. In unfolding the evidentiary basis of the bodily resurrection of Christ, it is apparent that Paul is doing more than ticking off a series of "facts" about Christ's resurrection. Rather than forming mere talking points in an apologetic encounter, these "facts" are both polemical and pastoral. On the one hand they are designed to provide objective proof of Christ's resurrection and on the other they are designed to innoculate the Corinthian believers against the spiritually corrosive effects of a false spirituality that seems to be within ear shot of some of the Corinthian believers. If the Corinthian Christians fail to heed Paul's admonition to continue embracing by faith the gospel he delivered to them, they are in danger of making shipwreck of their faith.
The double-edged nature of Paul's proclamation of Christ's bodily resurrection, already indicated in the admonition of verse 2, emerges in verse 12 and following. After placing the bodily resurrection of Christ on a firm factual footing, Paul discloses the driving concern of chapter 15 when he says, "12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised." It turns out, that the real issue in chapter 15 is not so much the apologetic need to defend the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Christ as it is to show its foundational significance both for the gospel and for believers. Specifically Paul's concern is to show the inseparable connection between Christ's resurrection and the future bodily resurrection of believers. As the logic of the argument unfolds it is clear you cannot have one without the other: either Christ rose from the dead therefore ensuring the bodily resurrection of believers, or believers don't rise bodily from the dead therefore implying Christ did not rise. The enormous danger of the novel and false spirituality circulating within hearing range of some Corinthian believers is now exposed as an ideology which is antithetical to the Christian gospel.
In verses 14-19 Paul attacks the false ideology by drawing out 1 overarching consequence of this false doctrine and then develops 4 spiritually devastating implications from it. The 1 giant overarching logical consequence of this false teaching is found in v13: if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised. Paul makes it unmistakeably plain here that the believer's resurrection is so intertwined with Christ's resurrection that if you reject a bodily resurrection of believers, you must also reject the historical fact of Christ's bodily resurrection. The rest of what Paul has to say in vv.14-19 is an UNFOLDING of the implications of that false idea:
-1- apostolic preaching is VAIN(that is, lacking in content or truth---and that the apostles are false witnesses)- v14
-2- faith is vain - v17
-3- Dead believers have perished forever – v18
-4- Christians are the most miserable of all people – v19
Fortunately for believers, the signal that these dreadful implications of the false ideology are all wrong is found in those 2 soul thrilling words at the outset of v20, "BUT NOW."
Coming to v20 it is clear that Paul is taking up a new line of thought. On the one hand those 2 words, "but now" speak a thousand words of relief for the believer. What they express is that you can come back to all those dreadful implications of vv13-19(no bodily resurrection, apostolic preaching is empty, faith is vain, hope is lost, Christianity is miserable) and turn them all INSIDE OUT so they read BUT NOW:
-there is a resurrection of the body
-apostolic preaching is fruitful
-faith is the instrument of justification
-deceased believers-are in Christ—and we will see them again
-Christianity is the only faith that makes life meaningful & brings real joy.
All these things are indisputably true because the apostles testified to a real historical FACT when they said Christ rose from the dead bodily. Because that was true, so it is true that believers will rise bodily from the dead.
On the other hand, these 2 words, "but now" move us into an argument for the GUARANTEE of the bodily resurrection of believers. In verses 20-28 Paul develops 2 lines of argument guaranteeing the resurrection of believers. The first is that the covenantal headship of Christ ensures that Christ really is the firstfruits of the resurrection (v20) and that just as certainly as all sin and die in Adam, so also, all who Christ's represents as covenant head will be raised bodily from the dead. All by itself, that is powerful and rich theological idea, but what we want to focus on here is the second argument to be developed in our next post, which is how the mediatorial kingship of Christ guarantees the bodily resurrection of believers.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Outline of Proverbs 2
Introduction
• chapter 2 serves as a literary setting for what is to follow in
chapters 3-7 by introducing themes that will be developed and
expanded upon subsequently:
- internalizing wisdom – 3:1; 4:1-5; 5:1; 7:1
- wisdom and preservation – 3:22-26; 4:6,10-13; 7:4-5
- deliverance from wicked man – 4:13-17 (2:12-15)
- warnings about sexual seduction – 5:1-23; 6:20-7:27 (2:16-19)
- obedience/blessing connection – 3:2,4,7-11,22-26,33-35; 4:10; 9:11-
12 (2:20-22)
I. The structure of chapter 2
A. condition-consequence connection – 2:1-11
1. condition – 2:1-4
2. consequence – 2:5-11
a. consequence sequence #1 – 5-8
b. consequence sequence #2 – 9-11
B. wisdom’s purpose – 2:12-22
1. deliverance from evil men – 2:12-15
2. deliverance from seductive women – 2:16-19
3. securing a blessed life – 2:20-22
II. The pursuit of wisdom – 2:1-11
A. conditions of wisdom
1. reception – vv1-2
a. receive my words – v1
b. treasure my commandments within you – v1
c. make your ear attentive to wisdom; incline heart...v2
2. prayer – v3
a. cry for discernment
b. lift your voice to understanding
3. searching – v4
a. seek her as silver
b. search for her as for hidden treasure
B. consequences of wisdom
1. consequence sequence #1
a. discern the fear of the Lord – v5
b. discover the knowledge of the Lord –v5
c. for the Lord gives wisdom – v6
d. from his mouth come knowledge and understanding – v6
e. he stores up wisdom for the upright – v7
f. he is a shield to those who walk in integrity –v7
g. guarding the paths of justice – v8
h. He preserves the way of His godly ones – v8
2. consequence sequence #2
a. then you will discern righteousness and justice – v9
b. equity and every good course – v9
c. wisdom will enter your heart- v10
d. knowledge will be pleasant to your soul – v10
e. discretion will guard you – v11
f. understanding will watch over your soul – v11
III. The purpose of wisdom – 2:12-22
A. deliverance from evil men – v12-15
B. deliverance from seductive women – v16-19
C. securing a blessed life – v20-22
• chapter 2 serves as a literary setting for what is to follow in
chapters 3-7 by introducing themes that will be developed and
expanded upon subsequently:
- internalizing wisdom – 3:1; 4:1-5; 5:1; 7:1
- wisdom and preservation – 3:22-26; 4:6,10-13; 7:4-5
- deliverance from wicked man – 4:13-17 (2:12-15)
- warnings about sexual seduction – 5:1-23; 6:20-7:27 (2:16-19)
- obedience/blessing connection – 3:2,4,7-11,22-26,33-35; 4:10; 9:11-
12 (2:20-22)
I. The structure of chapter 2
A. condition-consequence connection – 2:1-11
1. condition – 2:1-4
2. consequence – 2:5-11
a. consequence sequence #1 – 5-8
b. consequence sequence #2 – 9-11
B. wisdom’s purpose – 2:12-22
1. deliverance from evil men – 2:12-15
2. deliverance from seductive women – 2:16-19
3. securing a blessed life – 2:20-22
II. The pursuit of wisdom – 2:1-11
A. conditions of wisdom
1. reception – vv1-2
a. receive my words – v1
b. treasure my commandments within you – v1
c. make your ear attentive to wisdom; incline heart...v2
2. prayer – v3
a. cry for discernment
b. lift your voice to understanding
3. searching – v4
a. seek her as silver
b. search for her as for hidden treasure
B. consequences of wisdom
1. consequence sequence #1
a. discern the fear of the Lord – v5
b. discover the knowledge of the Lord –v5
c. for the Lord gives wisdom – v6
d. from his mouth come knowledge and understanding – v6
e. he stores up wisdom for the upright – v7
f. he is a shield to those who walk in integrity –v7
g. guarding the paths of justice – v8
h. He preserves the way of His godly ones – v8
2. consequence sequence #2
a. then you will discern righteousness and justice – v9
b. equity and every good course – v9
c. wisdom will enter your heart- v10
d. knowledge will be pleasant to your soul – v10
e. discretion will guard you – v11
f. understanding will watch over your soul – v11
III. The purpose of wisdom – 2:12-22
A. deliverance from evil men – v12-15
B. deliverance from seductive women – v16-19
C. securing a blessed life – v20-22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)