Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Christians and Identity Politics

by

The Public Discourse has a worthwhile article explaining the similarities between Donald Trump’s campaign and identity politics on the left:

Trump is a champion of identity politics, which in case we should forget, was invented by the left. He advances without apology or qualification the interests and values of his supporters. As a group, they possess the identity of people put-upon by their opponents. It may not be correct to say they are all one ethnic group, although many are indeed white; but it is true that Trump’s “tribe,” regardless of its demography, identifies with him as one of their own because of his unique political style. Like members of the politically correct left, Trump and his supporters see themselves as immune from criticism not because of the strength of their arguments, but because of the distinctive characteristics of “who they are.” They are defined by their grievances. Although their identity politics exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the left, they do make a claim to victimhood, the same as “black lives matter” activists do to assert their immunity from criticism.

There’s a warning for Christians in the Trump campaign. For many 2015 felt like the year the United States shifted from being a nation in which a Christian heritage garnered some respect to one in which holding to orthodox Christian ethics is bigoted beyond argument.

In this context Christians may also be tempted to view themselves as victims. They may be tempted to play identity politics to “get our country back.” This is a dangerous path to travel because it puts Christians in a frame  of mind contrary to that Jesus expects of his followers in such situations.

Jesus said (Matt. 5:11-12):

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

It is hard to play identity politics as the victim and truly rejoice in being slandered for Jesus’s sake. Jesus’s own example forbids this course of action (1 Pet. 2:21-23):

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

The way the Christian respond to reviling needs to demonstrate that his real trust is in God, who will render justice in the end, and not in our own verbal or political skills.

None of this means that Christians ought to be politically unengaged or that they fail to make use of the liberties they have under the law. The apostle Paul in Acts appealed to his Roman citizenship when needed. It does mean, however, that Christians engage in politics in a distinctively Christian manner, a manner informed by the two great commandments.

Christians press for laws that conform to God’s law not to take their country back, as if it is theirs and not their non-Christian neighbor’s, but because they love God and that neighbor. First, Christians love God, and they should desire for his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Second, Christians should love their neighbors, and they know that laws which violate God’s laws will ultimately harm their neighbors.

If Christians engage in the public square with love rather than with the bitterness of a victim claiming rights they will truly stand out as distinct on the American political landscape. And whether they achieve their political goals or not, they will bring glory to God for being like Christ.

On the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth

by

1. The action of the Holy Spirit points to the sovereign newness of the work that God is accomplishing.

2. The Spirit used Mary’s existing humanity so that Christ has our human nature.

3. The revelation of the virgin conception by the Spirit forbids any adoptionist Christology.

4. The work of the Spirit preserves both the reality of his union with us in genuine human nature and his freedom from the guilt and curse of Adam’s fall (Rom. 5:12-21) because his person is not of Adamic stock.

5. It underlines the principle that the work of the redemption engages every Person of the Trinity.

Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spiritt, 41-43.

 

n.b. I jotted these down originally as class reading notes, so the wording may be any variation of quotation, paraphrase, and/or summary.

The Incarnation as Revelation of God

by

This is truly the grand mystery of godliness: ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Tim. 3:16), ‘For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col. 2:9), so that He is both God and man in the same person.

Perhaps this mode of exhibiting the divine attributes in humanity may be of unspeakable importance to all intelligent creatures in heaven. It may have given them an opportunity of knowing much more of God than they ever knew before, or could know in any other way. The doctrine of redemption is not only useful to the redeemed, but to all the hierarchy of heaven. No creature can know anything of the nature of God but what He is pleased to reveal; and the method by which He makes Himself known is by His works and dispensations.

Archibald Alexander, Brief Compendium, 55-56 cited in Garretson, ed., A Scribe Well-Trained: Archibald Alexander and the Life of Piety, 69.

Why Our Savior Must be Both God and Man

by

Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.3.

Why Our Mediator Must Be God and Man – Part 2

by

He declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips, when he says, “I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God,” (John 20:17). In this way, we have a sure inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance (Rom. 8:17). Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.2.

On Why Our Mediator Must Be God and Man

by

It deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them, with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way, that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.1.

Purposes for the Incarnation

by

I’ve been intrigued by passages that explicitly state why Jesus did or did not come to do during his earthly ministry. I’ve tried to keep alert to these passages as I’ve read the Bible and have compiled them into a list (unless otherwise noted, Scripture texts should be from the ESV).

Matthew 1:21—She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Matthew 5:17-18—”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Matthew 9:12-13—But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 15:24—“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Matthew 10:34-36—“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Matthew 20:28—even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 1:38—He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” (NASB); cf. Lk. 4:43.

 

Mark 2:17—And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Mark 10:45—For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Luke 1:32—establish the throne of David

Luke 4:18–21—“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Luke 4:43—I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose [These towns are Jewish towns]

Luke 5:31-32—And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Luke 12:49-53—“I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Luke 19:10—For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (in context, the lost ones of Israel)

John 6:38—For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

John 9:39— Jesus said, “For judgment I came into the world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”

John 18:37—Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

Hebrews 2:14-15 — Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

Hebrews 2:17-18 — Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Hebrews 10:7—Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ”

1 John 3:8—Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

 

Misuse of Common Grace

by

Common grace is a theological concept that has often been abused. Cornelius Van Til, who defended the concept against thinkers who wished to deny it entirely, warns against this abuse:

When men dream dreams of a paradise regained by means of common grace, they only manifest the ‘strong delusion’ that falls as punishment of God upon those that abuse his natural revelation.

Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” in The Infallible Word, 271.

Functions of Common Grace

by

Sinclair Ferguson provides a helpful summary of John Murray’s view of the functions of common grace. I’ve highlighted the various functions that he enumerates.

Common grace is marked by both negative and positive features. It restrains human depravity and its effects. . . . In common grace God also restrains his own wrath. His longsuffering (1 Pet 3:20) and forbearance (Acts 17:30) are expressions of this. Further, God restrains the influence of the evil that entered the world through sin. The disintegration of life is contained: crops grow even in the midst of the thorns and thistles of the divine curse (Gen 3:17). Nature may well be “red in tooth and claw,” but God has graciously placed the fear of man on the animal world to restrain its destructive tendency.

Positively, God has ordained good in the beauty and abundance of creation and among even unregenerate men. Admittedly the Lord blessed the Egyptians for Joseph’s sake (Gen 39:5); but he did bless them! He bestows good gifts on men (Matt 5:44–45). . . . Furthermore, through common grace “Good is attributed to unregenerate men” (ibid.). Admittedly there is paradox in such a statement, but Murray appeals to The Westminster Confession of Faith (16.7) for confirmation of his exposition. . . .

Again, civil government provides peace and order for men. Strife and unrest are inevitable in a sinful world. That there should be any peace is an evidence of common grace.

What, then, is the function of common grace? It is the precondition for special grace, and ultimately the context in which the salvation and glorification of the elect will take place. Common grace provides both the sphere and the materials in and on which special grace operates.

Sinclair Ferguson, “The Whole Counsel of God: Fifty Years of Theological Studies,” WTJ 50, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 271-72.

One of the intriguing functions, mentioned by Ferguson at the end of his quotation, is the service common grace provides as the precondition for special grace. Abraham Kuyper expands on this function:

Without common grace the elect would not have been born . . . . Had Adam and Eve died on the day they sinned, Seth would not have been born from them, nor Enoch from Seth, and no widely ramified race of peoples and nations would ever have originated on earth. On that basis alone all special grace assumes common grace. But there is more. Even if you assumed that their temporal death had been postponed so that the human race could have made a start, but that for the rest sin in all its horror had broken out unhindered, you would still be nowhere. For then life on earth would immediately have turned into a hell and under such hellish conditions the church of God would not have had a place to strike root anywhere. . . . From whatever angle we one looks at this issue, then special grace presupposes common grace. Without the latter the former cannot function.

Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 169.

Dumbrell on the Covenants

by

Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants. Nashville: Nelson, 1984.

This is a study of the Old Testament covenants, notable for its defense of a creation covenant. The writing style is a bit obscure, but there is a great deal of valuable information in this volume. I’ve marked references to particular pages throughout my notebooks. This does not necessarily mean I agree with Dumbrell. I affirm an Adamic covenant, but I do not find his argumentation for it to be the most compelling. Nonetheless, this remains an important study of the biblical covenants.