Calvin on the God-Man, and Matthew 28:18

In the person of Jesus we are often confronted with the two great mysteries of the Christian Faith, both the Trinity and the Incarnation. How do we have three persons in the one God, what are the distinctions, and what is the same for each person? And how can one person be both truly God and truly man, what are the distinctions, and what is the same within this one person?

Recently I was in a situation where a question was raised about the words in Matthew 28:18, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me". The question was along the lines of this: "If Jesus is God, didn't he always have all authority? How can it then be given to him?" Or to put it more technically: "Since Jesus is one of the persons of the Trinity, and equally God, didn't he always have all authority, and so how can it be given to him? Or is he somehow inferior to the Father?" But perhaps sometimes our trouble is that we jump to one mystery--the Trinity--while forgetting the other one--the Incarnation. In Jesus both these mysteries intersect, and we have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions as we try to navigate doubly difficult terrain. There is a danger sometimes of downplaying the actual text of Scripture (and perhaps we can add in another mystery, that of Divine Inspiration), and instead resorting to our doctrinal assumptions of what the sacred text may be speaking about. And sometimes the answers may be found in remembering all the mysteries of the faith.

In the case of Matthew 28:18, I think John Calvin helpfully upholds the plain meaning of the text by rightly resorting to the mystery of the Incarnation rather than being overwhelmed by the Trinity. Listen to his comments, where he interprets Jesus' words as speaking about his authority in the Incarnation rather than his authority as God:

Yet let us remember that what Christ possessed in his own right was given to him by the Father in our flesh, or—to express it more clearly—in the person of the Mediator; for he does not lay claim to the eternal power with which he was endued before the creation of the world, but to that which he has now received, by being appointed to be Judge of the world. Nay, more, it ought to be remarked, that this authority was not fully known until he rose from the dead; for then only did he come forth adorned with the emblems of supreme King.

J C Ryle on what Jesus says about the Bible

What did Jesus think about the Bible? In John 10:35 Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken".

I like these comments by J C Ryle (1816-1900) about this verse...

We should observe.. in these verses, the high honor that Jesus Christ puts on the Holy Scriptures. We find Him using a text out of the Psalms as an argument against His enemies, in which the whole point lies in the single word "gods." And then having quoted the text, He lays down the great principle, "the Scripture cannot be broken." It is as though He said, "Wherever the Scripture speaks plainly on any subject, there can be no more question about it. The cause is settled and decided. Every jot and tittle of Scripture is true, and must be received as conclusive."

The principle here laid down by our Lord is one of vast importance. Let us grasp it firmly, and never let it go. Let us maintain boldly the complete inspiration of every word of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Let us believe that not only every book of the Bible, but every chapter--and not only every chapter, but every verse, and not only every verse, but every word, was originally given by inspiration of God. Inspiration, we must never shrink from asserting, extends not only to the thoughts and ideas of Scripture, but to the least words.

The principle before us, no doubt, is rudely assaulted in the present day. Let no Christian's heart fail because of these assaults. Let us stand our ground manfully, and defend the principle of plenary inspiration as we would the pupil of our eye. There are difficulties in Scripture, we need not shrink from conceding, things hard to explain, hard to reconcile, and hard to understand. But in almost all these difficulties, the fault, we may justly suspect, is not so much in Scripture as in our own weak minds. In all cases we may well be content to wait for more light, and to believe that all shall be made clear at last. One thing we may rest assured is very certain--if the difficulties of plenary inspiration are to be numbered by thousands, the difficulties of any other view of inspiration are to be numbered by tens of thousands. The wisest course is to walk in the old path--the path of faith and humility; and say, "I cannot give up a single word of my Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The Scripture cannot be broken.""

Pushing for Same Sex Marriage?

We were at a rally on the weekend, with some of our kids. It was a peaceful protest against the "Safe Schools" program in schools, but I don't think our kids felt very safe among the counter-protesters. Of course, the "Safe Schools" issue is bundled together with the question of "Same Sex Marriage", and changing the definition of marriage in Australian law. Sadly it feels like this decision is trying to be pushed through by wearing people down, guilt-tripping peer pressure, intimidating aggression and/or fear tactics. I hope that is not really representative of the SSM advocates, but then I guess they are copying what they see happen in the main political arena (and what too often is the common modus operandi of how to get things done generally, whether even inside of the church as well as outside).

The question about redefining marriage is an incredibly significant policy decision for our society. It may seem minor to many, but I think it is symbolic of bigger things. And if the basis for our decision-making is change by intimidation, whether by forceful overpowering or emotional manipulation, I don't think it bodes well for a healthy and civil community. Our society has benefited from a Christian heritage that sees humility, respect, compassion and love of all--despite disagreement, even opposition--as virtues. And yes, it is sad that we Christians don't always live up to those standards either, sometimes avoiding healthy conflict, sometimes enabling bad behaviours. But the more we undermine Christianity, and encourage "victory by powerful assertion", the more we can expect real civility to also disappear. It won't be a healthy community. And it won't be a good side of history to be on.

May Jesus help us to live the way he showed us: "So Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.'" (Mark 10:42-45, NLT).

Is homophobia a genetic predisposition?

I was reading this Daily Telegraph article shared by someone on Facebook, and in the tangle of comments this question was one of those posed: "Were you raised to be homophobic or is it a genetic predisposition?" Whatever was intended, this question raises a significant issue. So what if homophobia is a genetic predisposition? One of the main arguments voiced in support of acceptance of homosexuality is the "fact" of genetic predisposition. How can you discriminate against the way someone was born?

But what if homophobia were also a genetic predisposition? What if, in the same way someone is "hard-wired" to be attracted to someone, another person is similarly predisposed to be repulsed by another? Is it legitimate to discriminate against their phobia? And if not, why not? On what basis do we decide what is right or wrong? Is it popular opinion? Or historical precedent? Is it majority current opinion, or majority historical opinion? Or what..?

Of course, this is a little facetious. And I'm not really wanting to comment on whether homosexuality or homophobia is a genetic predisposition. But in seriousness, I think it does highlight a key problem in the whole question. It is not so much the danger of the slippery slope, but more-so the danger of being floating adrift in a sea of moral uncertainty, blown about by every new wind, and perhaps with the only certainty being that one day we will sink beneath the waves completely.

As a Christian, I know that God has spoken into his world, to give us an anchor, and solid ground. While so many may opine that it is ridiculous and antiquated, even bigoted, to hold to the Bible as the Word of God, just because that is their opinion, it doesn't make them right.

Packer on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics

I was reading an article by J. I. Packer called "Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture" (originally from a 1978 publication), in the book Honouring the Written Word of God: Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer Volume 3. I thought this quote was good regarding a common malpractice in hermeneutics because of a view of inerrancy. Genesis 1 being a particular flashpoint in relation to the creation-evolution/age-of-the-earth debates, as also OT prophecy as related to millenial views and the prospects of ethnic Israel and Judaism. If you don't read Scripture the same way as someone else, there can be too quick a jump to a charge or suspicion of doubting the trustworthiness, authority, or inerrancy of the Scriptures. Anyhow, here is the quote:

A warning should perhaps be voiced here against the psychological trap (for it is psychological, a matter of falsely associated feelings, rather than logical, a formal mistake in inference) of supposing that the confession of inerrancy involves a commitment to treat all narrative and predictive passages in Scripture as if they were written according to the conventions that would apply to ordinary English prose used today for these purposes, rather than the conventions of their own age and literary genre. Put thus, the mistake sounds too silly for anyone to make, but in fact it is made frequently: hence Pinnock's complaint that not enough care is taken to attach the necessary hermeneutical qualifications to inerrancy as an idea. And one can see how the mistake happens: people feel, sincerely if confusedly, that the only natural, straightforward way to express their certainty that the contents of Scripture are contemporary in their application is to treat Scripture as contemporary in its literary form. So, for example, Genesis 1 is read as if it were answering the same questions as today's scientific textbooks aim to answer, and Genesis 2 and 3 are read as if they were at every point prosaic eyewitness narratives of what we would have seen if we had been there, ignoring the reasons for thinking that in these chapters "real events may be recorded in a highly symbolic manner," and books like Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are expounded in total disregard of the imaginative conventions of apocalyptic. But it does not follow that be-cause Scripture records matters of fact, therefore it does so in what we should call matter-of-fact language.