The continuing (glorified) humanity of Jesus

Click here to read a helpful and succinct blog post at TheoCentric. It summarizes the orthodox, biblical teaching concerning Jesus' ascension (including his continuing, glorified humanity). 

The vicarious humanity of Jesus

One of our blog readers, Gerald McNaughton, wrote me wondering if by referring to Jesus' "vicarious humanity" we are saying that he participates in humanity only "vicariously."  Here is my reply to Gerald's question:

To speak of Jesus' "vicarious humanity" is NOT to say that Jesus is anything less than fully human. Scripture declares that the eternal Son of God became human through his incarnation, and remains human forever (see 1Tim. 2:5). The resurrected, ascended Jesus is fully God and fully human (now glorified in his humanity). And the one who will return in glory will be fully God and fully human.

Jesus is the permanent union of God and humanity in his own person: one person with two natures. Thus to say that Jesus is the "vicarious human" is not to suggest that he is anything less than fully human. Rather it is a statement concerning the meaning of his humanity for the benefit of all humanity. Because Jesus in his divinity, is humankind's  Creator and Sustainer, his humanity has profound import for all people everywhere in all times. In his humanity he is the unique representative of and substitute ("stand in") for all humanity. This is what we mean by referring to Jesus as the "vicarious human."

Here's what this means: what happened to Jesus in his humanity, happened to all of us. When Jesus (who became sin for us) died to sin, we all died to sin. When he rose victorious from the grave, we all experienced in him victory over death and sin. When the man (resurrected and glorified) Jesus ascended to heaven, we all ascended with and in him (Eph. 2:5-6).

Paul says that the lives of all humans are "hidden" in the life of Jesus (Col. 3:3) - we don't now fully see who we are in him, but one day we shall. And forever our lives will remain in him, because forever he remains human - the vicarious human - God with us and for us, as one of us - the one for the many, the many in the one.

Thomas F. Torrance - not an "ivory tower" theologian

On this blog we've often referred to the writings of trinitarian theologian Thomas F. Torrance (pictured right).  In this post, Mike Hale shares interesting information concerning Torrance's life - illustrating that he was no "ivory tower" theologian. Thanks Mike for sharing.

-Ted Johnston

Sometimes theologians are dismissed as living in the ivory towers of academia, far from the harsh realities of life. Thought of as having their head in the clouds, their theology might be dismissed as having little or no relevance in the "real" world, including the world of Christian living and ministry.  However, the life of  Thomas F. Torrance (arguably one of the premier theologians of the second half of the twentieth centur) stands in stark contrast to any such notion.

Elmer Colyer states that Torrance’s theology arose out of the evangelical and doxological life of family and the church, including pastoral ministry and personal experience in numerous life-threatening situations, beginning with his parents as a missionary family in China, and including attempts on his life in the Middle East, and as an army chaplain on the front lines of war in Italy, ministering the gospel to wounded and dying soldiers.

In “How to Read T.F Torrance,” Colyer states, “Experiences like these crystallized for Torrance that Christian theology has to be able to ground one’s existence amidst the most acute moments of life and death.  Torrance later called theologies without this kind of existential depth “paper theology”-- interesting reading, but inadequate for living and dying.”

Following the death of Torrance in late 2007, his youngest brother David, himself a retired parish minister of the Church of Scotland, described numerous experiences that served as formative influences on T.F. and his theology.

• T.F. was the oldest of six children born in China to missionary parents during turbulent times.  Armies of warlords killed and plundered at will, and bandits and robbers frequented the treacherous mountain paths of West China.  As a young teen, T.F. accompanied his father through those mountain valleys in distributing Scripture to peasant Buddhist farmers. 
• Constant danger made the family rely on God and continue in prayer, and there was joy and thanksgiving over answered prayer.
• In 1927 West China was in a state of civil war and “the family saw people have their heads whipped off by swords in the streets.  A missionary friend of our mother was beheaded in the street near our home in Chengdu.”
• The British Consul ordered British subjects to leave and the family journeyed by boat down the Yangste to Shanghai as bullets were hitting the steel balustrade behind which the family was sheltering on deck.
• In 1936 while still a student in New College, Edinburgh, T.F. traveled to the troubled Middle East after studying Arabic for use in visiting historical and archaeological sites. He traveled (often alone) through Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Greece. Traveling by donkey with an Arab guide in the mountains of Moab, he was suddenly surrounded by armed Bedouins, and it took some while to persuade them he was not a Jew but a Scot.
• Not long back in Jerusalem, he and seventy others were given rifles, police armbands, and asked to temporarily join the Palestinian Police, as Hitler had spread anti-Jewish propaganda and provoked an Arab revolt while most British troops were in Egypt, and not enough troops were stationed in Palestine.  T.F. was continuously on duty for several weeks until he could be released to continue his educational travel and studies.
• As anti-Semitism spread, T.F. kept running into hostility and kept being mistaken for a Jew.  An attempt was made on his life when a knife was flung at him that sailed over his shoulder.  
• In Jordan while traveling in a taxi with two nuns, they stopped to pick up a Bedouin, who suddenly pointed a revolver at Tom and shouted “Jew!”  Tom shouted in Arabic, “Not Jewish! Scottish!” and as the Bedouin hesitated, Tom and the driver were able to throw him out.
• Traveling by train through southern Iraq, Tom was arrested on suspicion of being a Jewish spy.  After questioning he tried to escape to find his way to the British Consulate but was caught and taken back to police Headquarters, was refused to see the British Consulate and was sentenced to death, until one of the judges was mercifully tempted to believe Tom was not Jewish and put him on a train to Damascus. 
• In 1943 he joined the army and served the next two years in Italy as a chaplain until the end of the war.  He insisted that whenever possible he be with the soldiers in the most forward positions.
• On one occasion when being shelled by enemy fire they were sheltered in a ditch.  Tom’s helmet was touching the boots of one solder in front while his boots touched the helmet of the soldier behind.  Both the soldier in front and behind were killed, and Tom was unscathed.
• As chaplain, Tom was given his own army truck that he normally slept in.  One night he chose to sleep outside behind a wall and that night a German shell passed through where his head would have normally been.

Tom’s work at the font lines, ministering to the wounded and dying, had strengthened his conviction of the need to preach Christ and the message of the cross, and persuaded him of the futility of any theology that does not present God as what we see in Jesus, a God who loves, is present with us in our suffering and forgives and redeems us.  Tom Told his brother David that he felt God had protected him and had a purpose for his life, and in prayer and thanksgiving he rededicated his life to God for the furtherance of the Gospel. Years later in Tom’s lectures to students, he often mentioned the lessons that he learned as a chaplain on the battlefield.

In 1994 at the age of 80, T.F. traveled back to the remote mountains of China where his family had once served.  Coming full circle, he was traveling as a Christian emissary carrying money for the rebuilding of churches destroyed by the communist takeover in 1935.  Though a respected theologian’s theologian, he was still, and had always been, a minister of the gospel with a concern for serving and evangelizing all people.

A trinitarian perspective on evangelism

If all people are included already in Jesus, why be involved in evangelism? The GCI Ministry Development Team addresses this question in a seminar titled, Relational Evangelism. The subtitle (see picture) speaks to our trinitarian focus: "Sharing with Jesus in relating with non-believers."

Evangelism from this perspective is not about bringing Jesus to people as though he were absent. Rather it sees evangelism in light of the truth that Jesus is present - including non-believers in his life, and relating to them in the Spirit, expressing the Father's love and grace.

Evangelism is about participating with Jesus in that relating. By doing so we declare the good news (which is the biblical definition of evangelism), by being the good news and then verbally sharing our own experience of Jesus (who is the good news). In short, we help people identify and come to know the Jesus who is already present in their lives. And we invite them to participate actively in Jesus' life - which includes participation in the community of Jesus' followers, the church.

Evangelism is thus a "three-way street" - the non-believer, Jesus, and we the believer - all relating one to the other through the fellowship of the Spirit. And this relating changes not only the non-believer (into a believer), it changes us too. Together we are being transformed into the image of Jesus, who in his humanity is the perfect image of God.

Evangelism from this perspective is not about heavy-handed tactics where we blow into town and unload a shotgun full of information and then depart. It's about being with Jesus who is already present and who remains.  It's about entering into friendship with people - a friendship mediated by Jesus himself. And friends share their "best stuff" with friends. For us, the "best stuff" is Jesus and the difference he has made and is making in our life.

So, yes, there is a definite role for followers of Jesus in evangelism. But forget the idea of a "role" - it's not about play-acting; it's about real life lived in communion with the Father, Son and Spirit - a communion that embraces all humanity. It's our calling to participate with Jesus in that communion - including in evangelism. We are called to be those who declare the good news of Jesus, which is good news for all people. Enjoy!

Announcing the Trinitarian Worship blog

GCI annouced this week the launch of Trinitarian Worship - a blog for discussing the principles and practices of worship ministries grounded in and shaped by trinitarian theology.

The blog will be of particular interest to those who are involved in teaching about, planning and conducting the worship of the church.

Your participation is invited, and please let others know that it is available.

What is our part in a face-to-face relationship with Jesus?

Craig Kuhlman submitted the following questions related to our personal participation in the salvation we have in Jesus. I encourage your reply to his questions via "comments."

• How can we maintain engagement (in face-to-face relationship with Jesus) without ebb and flow? 
• How do we continue to live in that relationship and bear spiritual fruit without becoming formulaic, or something "that must be done" by ourselves, when all was done by Him? 
• How can we maintain the Spirit's active regeneration that comes from face-to-face relationship with Jesus and yet avoid the impression we must "do" the spiritual disciplines, when Jesus has already done it all? 
• What is "our part," if any? And is it fair to say, that if there is any "our part," isn't that part initiated by Him to begin with? 
• If we have a part now, why didn't we have it from the beginning when we were dead in sin?

What does trinitarian theology say about ministry?

Some wonder if trinitarian theology leads to inactivity (if all are included already, why bother with ministry?).  I address this question in a recently posted You're Included interview with Mike Feazell. Click here to watch online. For additional You're Included interviews, click here.

The Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity

I'm reading Like, Father, Like Son, the Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity by Tom Smail (pictured left) who presently serves as senior visiting research fellow at Kings College in London. I think Smail does an excellent job of exegeting from a trinitarian perspective the scriptural teaching concerning humankind created in God's image. In short, his thesis is this: the image that humankind is given in creation and that is restored in redemption is the image of the Father, Son and Spirit - the tri-personal God revealed to us in Jesus.

He notes that we image God in two ways: in God's oneness (which is his three in oneness in perichoretic relatedness); and in God's threeness (the distinctive qualities and roles of each person of the triune God).

Smail then explores the implications of this triune image of God as it is expressed in and through various aspects of our humanity. Concerning the imaging of the Holy Spirit in our humanity (inclusive of human culture) he says the following on pp. 196-7:

...In every period and in every controversy [of church history] the creative Spirit has been at work and has led the Church to an outcome in which the gospel is indeed reinterpreted in a way that enables it to address the concerns of the culture but that is faithful to its origin in Christ. In him all human cultures are judged with the penetrating truth and the immeasurable mercy that define God's relationship to his people, and point them to transformations that will lead them toward a fulfilment that they cannot find immanently in themselves...We become aware of a process of sifting and discernment in which the Spirit is the hidden participant in the debate, sorting out what is valid and what is invalid in seemingly irreconcilable opinions and leading toward an ultimate solution in which the mind of God in a particular area of faith and practice can be more faithfully and relevantly apprehended and obeyed....In all these ways the Spirit whose being is characterized by the sovereign divine love expressing itself in terms of transforming creativity, reflects himself in the human activity that stems from the human life which is his gift (Gen. 2:7)...We fail to reflect what the Spirit does in what we do when our actions are not characterized either by creative freedom or transforming love, when we have neither the courage nor the imagination to engage with the status quo in hope of moving it toward God's purpose for it.

A trinitarian critique of "Walking with God" by John Eldredge

John Eldredge (pictured right) of Ransomed Heart Ministries, is a popular evangelical Christian author of such books at "Sacred Romance" and "Wild at Heart." A reader of this blog offers in this post a critique of Eldredge's book "Walking With God." Though this critique is not intended to discount the positive benefits some have derived from Eldredge's books, it does object to some of the premises of "Walking with God" that seem in conflict with a trinitarian/incarnational understanding of the gospel. See what you think. And feel free to send to The Surprising God critiques (positive and negative) of this or other books as we reason together in the light of Jesus.

-Ted Johnston
moderator, The Surprising God

It seems to me that "Walking with God" [WWG] espouses a form of magical thinking by implying that God can be manipulated by human activity. Through a highly individualistic approach to Scripture (where every verse is construed to be about "me"), Eldredge seems to ignore what I believe is the primary thrust of Holy Scripture - the revealing of the Son of God, and his in-breaking into all of creation through his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

Eldredge's stated purpose for WWG is to show that God knows us intimately and desires with each of us a conversational intimacy in which one has an ongoing "conversation" with God. To show how such conversational intimacy is attained, Eldredge offers his own experience, which was gained during a year in his life when he asked God questions and sought to hear God's answers.

Before I take exception to many of Eldredge's conclusions, I should point out that he does offer words of caution. On p. 49 he notes that sometimes he is not able to hear from God. He also notes that on important matters, we should always seek confirmation from others as to whether we have or have not heard God correctly. He also notes that God will never tell us to do what is contrary to Scripture or against God's own nature. These are good words of caution, but Eldredge seems to throw caution to the wind in making some rather bold and sweeping claims.

Eldredge's claims are largely based on his survey of nearly every Old Testament character that Scripture says God spoke with personally (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Elijah etc.). Eldredge concludes that we can (and, indeed, should) expect the same kind of personal communication with God if we will only do certain things in order to bring about such communication.

The primary flaw I see in Eldredge's argument is that he makes no mention of the Living Word of God talking and otherwise working with these OT servants in order to further the miraculous breaking into history of the Great-I-Am Creator within his creation to affect the entirety of history and prepare for the coming of the "Word made flesh," which means the renewal of all of creation.

Instead, Eldredge's focus is on hearing from God in his "still small voice" (as in I Kings). To help us get started, he cautions that listening to God in this way takes some getting used to - thus we should start with some practice - doing so by asking God "yes or no" questions, or asking about small things that don't matter too much (things that we are not emotionally wrapped up in, or are secretly or desperately wanting to hear about). For example, we might begin by asking God, "What do you want for me this weekend: should I go to the ranch (a vacation spot) or stay home?" He says he then repeats such questions quietly in his heart, and then pauses to listen for God's answer. Then he repeats the question, and listens again. He says that all during this asking and listening, it's vital to stay "surrendered" and thus open, and perhaps to say to God, "Lord - I will accept whatever it is you want to say to me" (pp. 30-31).

Eldredge's advice then continues: "If I don't seem to be able to hear God's voice in that moment, sometimes I will 'try on' one answer and then the other. Still in a posture of quiet surrender, I ask the Lord, 'Is it yes, you want me to go?' Pause. In my heart I am trying it on, letting it be as though this is God's answer. 'Is it yes?' Pause and listen. Or is it 'no, you want me to stay home?' Pause and let this be the answer. 'I should stay home?' Pause and listen again" (page 32).

It seems to me that this approach does not fit well with the concept of the mediation of Christ from above and below. In fact, I think Eldredge's "yes or no" approach sounds like using a heavenly Ouija Board - asking a question and waiting to see which way the pointer goes. In short, I see this as magical thinking.

Eldredge repeatedly references the 10th chapter of John, in which Jesus talks about the gatekeeper, and the Good Shepherd whose sheep know his voice, and the others that do not. In WWG this passage is used to show that Jesus wants to hear from us, and that we will learn to hear from him in answer to our prayers about all the details of our lives if only we open the gates of our heart and mind and listen for his voice, ignoring all other competing voices.

But Eldredge makes no mention in his exegesis of this chapter of the prophets (the gatekeepers) having already opened the way for Jesus (the Good Shepherd). He fails to note that the context of the passage is Israel's rejection of the prophets and now their Messiah. This rejection is principally the responsibility of Israel's spiritually blind religious leaders (such as the Pharisees). These false leaders failed to protect the sheep. And now comes Jesus, the true Shepherd, to lay down his life for the sheep and then take it up again (in his death, resurrection and ascension). He does this on behalf of all humanity (Jew and Gentile), making Jesus the Shepherd of all nations - one flock that the Father has entrusted to Jesus' care.

To me, this exegesis is a far more significant reading of John 10 than the one Eldredge offers. Moreover, this exegesis does not support Eldredge's use of the text to bolster his idea that God promises to speak with us on a minute-by-minute basis concerning every detail of our daily lives.

Several thoughts come to mind at this point. Certainly every believer desires a stronger relationship with God (and, indeed, trinitarian theology is about this relational life). And, no doubt, each of us can point to multiple times when God "spoke" to us in one way or another. But doesn't the notion of attempting to hear from God about every little detail of life tend to discount the need for living in faith - the need for faith in the perfect faith of Christ? And don't our lives often contain things that bring doubt and fear? Don't we sometimes face unresolved issues? And yet are we not reassured by Jesus' enduring promise to never leave or forsake us (even if it might "feel" that he has)? In this regard, I appreciate Christian Kettler's book, "The God Who Believes: Faith, Doubt, and the Vicarious Humanity of Christ."

I have seen some of the unintended consequences that come from a reliance on the approach advocated in WWG. It tends to create two groups of people - one claiming to hear regularly from God, and another that feels somewhat inadequate (even guilty) because they can't seem to hear from God in the same way as the other group.

I conclude by noting that there are no perfect books that contain perfect teaching, but I have significant reservations about WWG and thus do not recommend it. Any comments and insights readers of this blog might have would be appreciated.

The incarnation includes all creation

A key concept of trinitarian Christ-centered theology is that the incarnation encompasses all the created order. In the incarnation of the Son of God, the agent of creation, all the cosmos (not just humanity) is included in God's work of redemption - re-creation.

This view of the incarnation is expressed by Robert Webber (pictured right) in his book Who Gets to Narrate the World?

The book is cited in the September 1 issue of Preaching Now, noting that Webber (now deceased) attributes much of the secularization of Western culture to the church's shift away from this comprehensive view of the incarnation. According to Webber...

"God, in the incarnation, took up unto himself the entire creation, so that the creation redeemed by God himself is now to be once again, as in the Garden, the theater of his glory. The ancient church understood the impact of creation, incarnation and re-creation on all of creation, and that is why Christians were the leaders in the arts, in learning, and in the sciences. The Christian faith narrates the world and gives shape to culture-making and to all of civilization.

"The historic understanding of the incarnation as the assumption of the entire created order has been replaced by a view that in the incarnation God stepped into history to save souls. The focus is no longer on the cosmic work of God in history but on personal salvation. The language often used to describe salvation through Christ expresses this shift. We speak of God 'saving souls.' We focus then not so much on God who redeems the world but on Christ who saved me.

"Obviously it is true that God has saved me. We don't want to lose that personal touch. What I decry here is the loss of the cosmic vision, the idea that God's work of redemption narrates the entire world. . . . God redeemed all of life by the cross and empty tomb, so that when he returns to the earth not just souls but all of creation will be made perfect. . . .

"The assumption that the true me is a soul that lives inside of and is redeemed from the body to soar into some kind of ethereal realm is not Christian, it is Gnostic. And this is the primary spirituality of the New Age religion of our time. The current misunderstanding of the incarnation logically results in a split between the sacred and the secular because if Christ only redeems souls, the stuff of this world is unredeemable. This split in turn resulted in our loss of God's narrative of the world. Modernity began to see creation and all of life apart from God. The origin, meaning and destiny of the world found new gods in reason and science. Creation separated from redemption will always result in the secularization of life." 

God is for us!

The understanding that God is Trinity, tells us not only who God is, but also what God does. The good news is that God, who is relational love in his being, is relationally loving in his doing. Thus to know God as Trinity is to know the God who as love, and in love, saves us. To know God as Trinity is to know that God is for us!

This stunning truth is revealed in the person of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God who as one of us, is God with us and for us. This vital point is made well by Martin Davis in a recent post on his blog. Martin (pictured right) provides a careful analysis of the development of thought concerning God within Western Christianity - a development that, sadly, lost much understanding concerning God's triune being and relating. Thanks Martin for your contributions to this conversation.

Speaking of Life: trinitarian theology

Click here to view a Speaking of Life program with Dr. Joseph Tkach (pictured left) that helpfully summarizes the trinitarian theology discussed in this blog.

For a listing of other Speaking of Life programs, click here.