Why was Jesus born the son of a carpenter to work as a carpenter? The question remains answered only in the mind of God. Yet it can be said that the Father’s plan to atone for sin through Christ was perfect, and carpentry provided the perfect home life and work for the Son of God who would take away the sins of his people.

Why was Jesus born the son of a carpenter, to work as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3)? Some would respond that before the Son of God entered his public ministry he needed to work, and carpentry provided a living as good as any other. However, there are other occupations which look as if they would have been better suited to prepare him for ministry. Fishing would have been fitting work; Jesus called the disciples to become fishers of men, fed multitudes with fish and bread, and compared the kingdom of heaven to a fishing net. He could have been a vintner, growing and processing grapes for wine. Young Jesus turned water into wine, then later said he himself was the vine feeding his disciples, and he cautioned his listeners against putting new vintage into old skins. Shepherding could be called a family tradition, since the Messiah came from the line of Judah, and King David worked among the sheep. Jesus told a parable about seeking the lost lamb, he said he knows his sheep, and—most importantly—he is the sacrificial Lamb of God. Shepherding would seem a better occupation than carpentry.
Christ did not say much about wood or carpentry. He spoke of judging others with the analogy of the eyes having a splinter or a log, and he alluded to carpentry when he told of the man tearing down barns to build bigger ones. Why the Christ was born of the virgin Mary into a carpenter’s household is information the Lord has not condescended to reveal to his image bearers. However, this brief article proposes that the attributes of carpentry uniquely contributed to prepare Christ for his earthly ministry.
When I was a child visiting my grandparents, a man I did not recognize came to the house. My grandmother introduced him to me as her brother. He was a quiet and reserved man, but he none the less extended his hand in gentlemanly fashion and I grasped it. I could feel his calloused leather-like palm and fingers. I was surprised by the texture and lack of suppleness of the skin. Grandmother informed me that her brother had been a carpenter for a number of years. The manual procedures required in his trade had resulted in gloves of skin created by reoccurring contact with the rough surface of wood.
Like my great uncle, the Lord of Glory’s hands had been thickened to some degree over time by tooling wood. Some of the personal encounters Jesus experienced during his ministry might raise a question regarding God’s wisdom in selecting carpentry for a trade. Consider some of the things Jesus did in ministry. His thick-skinned fingers took mud he made from spittle and dirt and gently applied it to the eyes of a blind man to give him sight (Jn 9:6). It was his toughened hands that gently touched the children that came to see him (Mt 19:13-15). Then, following rash Peter’s slash of Malchus’s ear with a sword, the Christ, the anointed one, carefully used his calloused hand to miraculously restore the ear (Jn 18:10; Mt 26:51). The softer hands of a physician, lawyer, or scholar may be thought more appropriate for Jesus’s work, but the toughened hands of the Carpenter exemplified his full humanity as he accomplished the divine work of redemption.
Jesus often argued from the lesser to the greater in his teaching, but his carpenter’s hands show a physical argument from the intuitive, what man expects, to the counterintuitive, what God does. The ways of the Triune God are not man’s ways. Christ’s hands exhibited his mannishness—and their skill came in handy to make a whip for running the moneychangers out of the temple—
Read More
Related Posts:

If the intention of the American revision was to commend a biblical principle of pluralism, then it seems odd that non-pluralistic (theonomic) principles within the American standards were not reworked along with WCF 23.3.

Kevin DeYoung recently wrote that in 1788, American Presbyterians revised chapter 23 of the original Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) because many “grew wary of granting coercive powers to the civil magistrate and were drawn to more robust notions of religious liberty”. DeYoung reasons that by virtue of the revision, “Presbyterians in America rejected an older, European model of church-state relations whereby the magistrate was obligated to suppress heresies, reform the church, and provide for church establishments.” DeYoung goes on to say that “it’s important to recognize that the two versions of WCF 23:3 represent two different and irreconcilable views of the civil magistrate.”
DeYoung cites other changes to the American standards outside chapter 23 and observes that “[the] most significant change is in chapter 23, where the third article was almost completely rewritten, reflecting a new understanding of church and state that allowed for more toleration and gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion.”
First, a clarification is in order, which is not a criticism per se. Given the religious nature of the Westminster standards and sound Presbyterian polity, the church’s subordinate standards neither grant nor deny coercive powers to the civil magistrate. Nor is it true that they “gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion.”
By the nature of the case, confessions are not in a position to do either, though they may acknowledge civil power and declare that it comes from God.
Not to belabor the point but the purpose of the Confession is to put forth the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, which includes general principles pertaining to the duty and power of the civil magistrate. Consequently, whether the civil magistrate has certain dutiful powers over the church or not, such power is not transferred or taken back by the will of the church. The church may only declare the biblical boundaries of such power. If she tries to grant (or give) it because it is not hers, then it is not hers to give. (In other words, it would have already belonged to the civil magistrate and couldn’t be granted to it by the church.) Yet if the church tries to take it back because it is rightfully hers by divine appointment, then it never truly left her. (The church would merely need to recognize her power and act according to it.)
Consequently, we must be careful in saying that our Presbyterian forefathers “gave much less power to the magistrate over the realm of religion” and “grew wary of granting coercive powers to the civil magistrate and were drawn to more robust notions of religious liberty.” If “granting” and “gave” means allowing, permitting, bestowing etc., then hopefully they didn’t think they granted or gave coercive powers to the civil magistrate. If what was intended by “granting” and “gave” is that they got tired of acknowledging the civil magistrate’s coercive powers, then fine. (Again, this is merely intended to be point of clarification given the common confusion over the ministerial and declarative functions of the church.)
With that clarification aside, my focus as it relates to the article will be on the WCF’s revision that pertains to church and state, with particular attention given to the claim that the two versions (England’s and America’s) are irreconcilable on the matter of religious pluralism. That specific concern will be considered in the larger context of Westminster’s civil ethics. (For brevity sake, I won’t spend time on points of agreement or possible agreement as they relate to the principles of civil ethics.)
The American Revision:
The American revision confesses that Protestant denominations should be protected from being prevented to assemble and worship without violence or danger. The standards further state: “It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people… and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
Some have tried to maintain that “all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies” refers back to the duty of civil magistrates to protect only Christian denominations and, therefore, may not be applied to non-evangelical assemblies whether trinitarian or not. For instance, some have argued that the revision does not suggest in any context that public synagogue worship as well as the sacrilege of the Romish mass is to be protected under the law. It seems to me that such a reading of the revision is not only strained but would render the American emendation awkwardly superfluous. If so, then the Confession is stating now, by its revision, that false worship is to be protected under the law. Notwithstanding, if that contradicts the original standards, then it necessarily contradicts WCF 19.4 along with Westminster Larger Catechism 108 (WLC 108).
Before delving into the reason why the revision does not contradict the original with respect to religious pluralism, it might be helpful to consider those two portions of the standards (WCF 19.4 and WLC 108) in order to see how they complement both the original and the revision.
The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.WLC 108
Surprising to most, elders and deacons who subscribe to the Westminsters standards vow to disapprove of all false worship and seek its removal, even through the civil magistrate. Ordained servants also vow, according to WCF 29.4, to consider the mass a corruption of the Lord’s Supper. Consequently, faithful elders and deacons desire to see the centerpiece of Roman Catholic experience lawfully removed from the land. Consequently, faithful ordained servants are in this sense theonomic and do not advocate for a principle of religious pluralism. Accordingly, I find this troubling:
Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.Kevin DeYoung
Given WLC 108 (along with WCF 19.4, which will be touched on momentarily), Christian citizens should do all within their influence to ensure that all heresies, blasphemies and false religions are suppressed. Consequently, if DeYoung is correct regarding the American standards, then not only does it contradict the original, it also contradicts itself!
Because of what WLC 108 clearly states, consistent antinomians who have taken up a similar position to DeYoung‘s have been constrained to limit the scope of WLC 108 to families and the Christian church in order to relieve any possible inconsistency between the alleged pluralism of chapter 23 and the theonomic import of WLC 108, which without qualification declares opposition to all false worship. In other words, in order not to allow the revised standards to contradict itself, WLC 108 has been reinterpreted to mean that only heads of family and presbyters may purge false worship in the home and Christian church respectively, but civil magistrates may not do so as WLC 108 plainly teaches when it speaks of removing all false worship and monuments of idolatry.
Additionally, WCF 19.4 must be reinterpreted as to now oppose its originally intended meaning.
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.WCF 19.4
Ordained servants who subscribe to the Westminster standards have vowed to believe and teach that civil magistrates are obliged to apply Israel’s civil laws according to their general equity.
In order to reconcile WCF 19.4 with the alleged advocacy of the principle of pluralism found in WCF 23.3, the general equity of Israel’s civil sanctions can no longer apply to modern day civil sanctions. Instead, as Rick Phillips, representative of many ordained servants in the Reformed tradition, has unabashedly stated:
While there is an undisputed wisdom contained in this civil law it can not be made applicable to any nation today, since there are no biblically sanctioned theocracies now…They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline.Rick Phillips
Such a rendering cannot be derived from the standards. The claim is exegetically preposterous and has suffered from philosophically dubious argumentation. The translation defies the plain meaning of words and the proof-texts, while cashing out as an outright abrogation of the civil law as opposed to preserving its general equity in the civil sphere. (See also discussion on William Perkins’ use of general equity, the epistemological conundrum and logical incoherence of R2K, and an overview of the disagreement.)
If the intention of the American revision was to commend a biblical principle of pluralism, then it seems odd that non-pluralistic (theonomic) principles within the American standards were not reworked along with WCF 23.3. It seems highly unlikely that the unambiguous requirement of the second commandment should no longer be applied to the civil sphere without a word of explanation by American Presbyterians. Moreover, if American Presbyterians sought to teach that the plain teaching of WCF 19.4 no longer applies to the civil magistrate but instead applies to the church, then it seems axiomatic that such a bald claim must be deduced from the standards and not just assumed and asserted. (Special Pleading: If x then y, but not when it hurts my position.) However, if revision 23.3 does not contradict the original, then we can continue to take WLC 108 and WCF 19.4 at face value without contradiction. That is the common sense approach, especially if it can be shown that the American revision does not oppose the original Confession on the subject of religious pluralism. However, if the revision denies the original, then the revision is inconsistent with other portions of the Westminster standards (given the plain and unaltered portions of WCF 19.4 and WLC 108).
Read More
Related Posts:

The pattern of emphasis dictated by the text keeps verbal meaning in its rightful and prominent position in the interpretive process. All of this is not to say that implications ought not be expounded; indeed, they should. However, implications must remain submissive to the author’s intent—and to the degree that the original author wills them. Otherwise, we comprise the sufficiency of Scripture since the biblical author’s emphases are, in fact, God’s emphases. 

My previous article suggested the greatest danger in preaching, even among expositors, is not honoring the relative emphases of the biblical author. Most often, this occurs when a preacher extracts a “part” of a text and gives it more weight than did the biblical author. Sidney Greidanus calls that “part” an “atom.”
Atomistic Tendencies
Atomistic tendencies extract an implication (or sub-meaning or sub-point) of the author and cause it to dominate the author’s single verbal meaning. The result becomes an alteration of the author’s original meaning. Greidanus calls this the “isolation of certain ‘atoms’ within the text from the inner coherence, the central thrust of the text.”[1]
An “atom” might be a Bible personality’s attribute, experience, or behavior which the preacher extracts and expounds as the main emphasis of the message. The problem with this practice is the main thought of the passage is either ignored or reduced to secondary importance. In either case, the verbal meaning becomes different (or other) than that of the biblical author.
Greidanus explains:
Should any of these “atoms” be treated independently in the sermon, the result would be atomism—making absolute that which is a dependent part—and a loss of the central thrust of the text. Should one, for the sake of a unified sermon, place one “atom” central, the central thrust is displaced by that which is not central. In either case the meaning of the text will be distorted.[2]Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura
Greidanus claims this tendency produces sermons that become monotonous because they lose the uniqueness of the text.[3] For example, one can preach essentially the same sermon from the “doubt” of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:1-6) and the “doubt” of Thomas (John 20:24-29); or, one could apply the “testing” of the faith of Abraham (Gen. 22) in the same way as the “testing” of the faith of the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21ff.).[4]  He rightly asserts: “[T]he ‘atom’ (doubt, testing) is lifted out of its textual (historic) environment into another realm where, though still called ‘doubt’ or ‘testing,’ it has lost its unique connections and therefore its special meaning.”[5]
The Danger of Atomistic Tendencies
We can reduce the problem of atomistic tendencies to one basic issue: The degree of relative emphasis an implication (or sub-meaning) should receive within the sense of the larger whole. The chief concern occurs when the preacher presents an emphasis (or set of emphases) which is different than the biblical author’s, and the interpretation spawns a different meaning. Therefore, we agree with Greidanus’ argument. Further, we see no reason why we should limit it to exemplary or biographical tendencies. The argument equally is valid for those sermons which take a sub-point within the verbal meaning and cause it to dominate the central thrust of the sermon. We must never stop asking, “Who gives the preacher the authority to change the King’s emphasis? Certainly, not the King; and if not He, then who?”
Read More