What Keepers Can Teach Us About the Hypostatic Union
The hypostatic union is the theological term for the fact that Jesus, in his incarnation, has two natures. He is (and always has been/always will be) the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. In Jesus, the fullness of God dwells. He has all the attributes of God, all the excellencies of Yahweh, and all the prerogatives of deity. They are all his. He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He is truly God….Jesus was also truly man, descended from Adam and Abraham, in the line of Judah and David. He was limited in time, space, and knowledge…he is truly human.
In honor of the World Cup semi-final later today between Argentina and Croatia—which will be absolutely bonkers, by the way—here is a post to help spiritualize your soccer watching. Goalkeepers have a lot to teach us concerning the hypostatic union, the person/nature distinction evident in Jesus, and the kenosis of the Son of God.
Hypostatic union:
Goalkeepers are by far the most interesting players on the soccer field. They really do exist in two different planes. First, they are just like every other player. All the laws of soccer apply to them. The equipment rules are the same for every player. They take up a spot on the roster. They can go anywhere on the field, and do everything that any other soccer player can do. All the rules apply to them. They are, in short, just another player.
But then there is the second plane: inside the penalty area, they suddenly acquire a new nature. When they are in the 18, they can use their hands. They are protected from challenges. Other players cannot interfere with their ability to release the ball. There is a whole set of rules governing what they are allowed to do with the ball when it is in their hands, and these rules don’t apply to the other players.
Basically, the goal-keeper is a walking contradiction. Now, for most keepers and in most games, the dual nature of the position is irrelevant. Many keepers are content to stay inside the area, doing goal keeper things, and being treated by fans, officials, and opponents alike as if they were special—because, let’s face it, when they are in the box, they are sort of special.
But every now and then you’ll encounter a more adventurous keeper; one who leaves the 18 to take a free kick upfield, or to release pressure by receiving passes. Sometimes they will go all the way to the other end to take a free kick, or get on the receiving side of a corner, or maybe just to get involved in the attack.
Why would a keeper do this? Perhaps their team is down a goal, or maybe he has the best shot of any one else? It could be that he just got bored staying put. But the point is, he doesn’t really need a reason. After all, the other players don’t need special reasons to do what they do, and once the keeper steps outside of his box, he is just like every other player.
The hypostatic union is the theological term for the fact that Jesus, in his incarnation, has two natures. He is (and always has been/always will be) the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. In Jesus, the fullness of God dwells. He has all the attributes of God, all the excellencies of Yahweh, and all the prerogatives of deity. They are all his. He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He is truly God. That is nature #1.
Jesus was also truly man, descended from Adam and Abraham, in the line of Judah and David. He was limited in time, space, and knowledge. He was just like every other player on the field, in that he is truly human; that is nature #2.
-
The Blueness of the Wound
In an age of comfort & ease it is all too tempting to think that afflictions are an inconvenience to our happiness. But the Word reveals to us that all our pains, whether inflicted by our own foolishness, or due to the sorrows that still fill this world, are means which the Lord brings about our true happiness. May the Lord forgive us as a nation for hating the stern rebukes of God’s Word through the faithful preaching of righteousness. May God grant us in His church tender hearts to feel in the sting of conviction and see in the bruises of our chastisement God’s lovingkindness, His purging holiness, His great mercy towards us.
In a recent reading through Proverbs around our dinner table, I was struck by a proverb that takes a bit of pondering to make sense of:
“The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly (Pro. 20:30).”
To rephrase this verse, the black & blue of a bruise is the visible proof that the body is remedying some wound which struck the body. God not only designed your body to repair itself from being wounded, but also made that healing visible.
We’re naturally averse to suffering and pain. We try to avoid afflictions. But God’s kindness refuses to let the evil abide in us, and sends us hand-selected chastisements to purge our hearts. A stubborn child, a lawless criminal, a backsliding saint will all need to meet with the various, but stern, correcting strokes of justice. The parents must apply the rod. The judge must give punitive measures. The elders must withhold the Supper.
But the pain of discipline, the sting of rebuke, the sharpness of affliction aren’t ends in and of themselves.
Read More
Related Posts: -
In These Last Days
There is something altogether different about the time past and the last days. In time past the gospel was preached through mortal prophets, signs, sacrifices, the passover, etc… none of which were salvation for the people, nor were they intended to be salvation. They were all intended to point the people to the salvation that would come through the Redeemer. In these last days the sum and substance of the gospel has come in Jesus Christ the Lord. The one who spoke in these last days does not point to another but draws all men to Himself.
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…
HEBREWS 1:1In recent articles we have considered the treasure trove of the first verse of Hebrews. The first great proposition of theology and the Christian faith is this: God is. The second great proposition that God is this: God has revealed Himself to man. The Word spoken by God is unlike any other word for it is powerful, enduring, and living. As God speaks so God does because God Is. Therefore, we must listen to Him, look to Him in faith, and we will live.
All of this is driving at the great theme of Chapter 1 – Jesus Christ is supreme and pre-eminent over all! Before the Son is introduced in verse 2, we are faced with several questions: When Did God Speak? How did God speak? To Whom did God Speak? By Whom Did God Speak?
Hebrews addresses two epochs of time in which God spoke: In time past…in these last days.. In the first two verses a comparison and contrast are presented between these two periods that divide all of history.
God Spoke in Time Past
When did God Speak? God who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.
By referencing the fathers and the prophets, the writer of Hebrews is taking us first to the Old Testament era. In that epoch of time in the past, God Spoke. God spoke all these Words saying, I am the Lord thy God… (Exodus 20:1). Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you by the way you should go. Oh, that you had heeded My commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea… (Isaiah 48:17-18).
In time past it was God who spoke and no other Word was given in the Scripture but the Word of God communicating it to Holy men taught by the Holy Spirit. God spoke in time past. Several doctrines proceed from the teaching.
First, God was not apart from the people of the OT. He was with them, speaking to them. From the beginning God was there.
Second, Because God spoke in times past as in the present, the message of the unchanging God was unchanged from the message in the present.
Hebrews is very concerned to teach the unity of the message of God in the Old and the New Testament. The Gospel of God concerning Jesus Christ His Son, the call to repentance and faith, the promise of salvation to the uttermost for all those that are in Christ and washed with His blood. That gospel is the same in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone found in the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. It is the same salvation in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Third, God affirms the unity of the Old and New Testament message in the book of Hebrews by first quoting the Old Testament in support of the doctrine of the New Testament. Then He makes it explicit in Hebrews 4:2, “For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”
Fourth, the Lord makes the Old Testament very practical to us and our salvation. In time past the gospel was proclaimed as it is now but in those times past many did not listen. Will you listen?
Fifth, there are not two Bibles, but one. There are not multiple ways God brings salvation, but one. Not multiple people of God, but one people of God. While admittedly not the thrust of this message, this one verse refutes the teaching of historic dispensationalism popularized by the Scoffield Reference Bible that brings confusion to many Christians to the present day. It brings to nothing that old heretic Marcion who taught of the angry vengeful God of the Old Testament and compared Him against the supposedly different God of the New Testament books which Marcion decided were acceptable.
In time past the one and only God of the Old Testament who is the same and only God of New Testament spoke the gospel to the people through the preaching of the prophets.
How did God Speak? God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets…
Two different Greek words that appear just once each in the NT are here in this one verse. One has to do with a variety of time; One has to do with a variety of ways or methods. The NKJV gathers this sense by translating – who at various times and various ways.
Various Times
God did not speak all at once or on demand but He spoke as He chose according to His plan – Various times
Consider the garden after the fall. Adam did not go and find God and demand He speak. God came to Adam and spoke to Him. They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day… Genesis 3:8. The Lord goes where He wills and speaks when He pleases. In times past He spoke at various times.
Notice the limitation of the these words, various times. While God spoke in time past God did not speak all the time in time past! From creation until Moses it does not seem that one book of the Scripture was written for the people. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible many hundreds of years after the flood. Many of the generations in Genesis have no written account of God speaking to them. Others do – Enoch walked with God (Genesis 4:9). God spoke with Noah (And God said to Noah… Genesis 6:13). God spoke to Abraham many times but consider the long life of Abraham and the few special days recorded in Scripture when God spoke to Him.
Consider further the gaps in time – Nearly 400 years from Joseph to Moses as Israel was in slavery with only the promise of God to Jacob on their minds that deliverance from bondage would come. There was a similar gap between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
And yet, at that great hour when the people called upon the Lord He heard and spoke to them again. At various times God spoke but not all the time. Nevertheless, God still spoke in times past and for those times it was sufficient.
Various Ways
With these two words, God reminds us that He did not always speak in the same way or on demand. He spoke according to His good time and in His good way – various ways.
Read More
Related Posts: -
My Minority Opinion on the Dissenting Opinion of the SJC Missouri Decision
The most salient reason for the Dissent was that basically the SJC created a new Record of the Case (ROC). Generally, the ROC consists only of the documents generated by the both parties in a case during the time of the original investigation and proceedings. In this case, an additional investigation was commenced by the SJC long after the original case was documented. This appeared to be for the purpose of identifying any changes in Mr. Johnson’s present views as compared to his previous views. This may be a laudable goal, but it is irrelevant to this case.
The Dissenting Opinion on the Case that was before the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) regarding the Missouri Presbytery and Greg Johnson has been published (The Aquila Report, 12/13/21). I want to publicly thank this group of men for making known the reasons for their Dissent. Actually, even though many of us consider the decision of the SJC to be a loss, yet this public statement representing the minority vote is an encouragement for countless numbers in the PCA. I personally appreciate the position these men took in opposition to the majority of the Commission. A few remarks may be in order.
First, I hold a minority position in the PCA. I believe that anyone who identifies himself publicly as a homosexual is automatically disqualified from holding office in the PCA. I therefore have my qualms about part of the process in the Case.
The Dissent asserts that there is good reason to believe that Mr. Johnson’s self-identity as a homosexual “compromises and dishonors” his identity in Christ. This demonstrates my problem with the proposed changes to the Book of Church Order. Rather than having a clear line of demarcation regarding the ordination of homosexuals, it creates a purity of thought test where no one can score 100, but no one can define what a passing score is. The Dissent argues that Mr. Johnson’s score is not high enough to pass. The majority of the SJC concluded that he did pass. This is highly subjective. It will be highly subjective if the BOCO changes are adopted.
Secondly, the most salient reason for the Dissent was that basically the SJC created a new Record of the Case (ROC). Generally, the ROC consists only of the documents generated by the both parties in a case during the time of the original investigation and proceedings. In this case, an additional investigation was commenced by the SJC long after the original case was documented. This appeared to be for the purpose of identifying any changes in Mr. Johnson’s present views as compared to his previous views. This may be a laudable goal, but it is irrelevant to this case. If there have been changes in his views, then there are other ways to handle it. According to the Dissent, “The SJC supplemental work produced 67% of the citations used by it in support of Presbytery’s conclusions…” The SJC in essence created a new ROC, and thus, in a real sense, became the court of original jurisdiction.
By creating a new ROC, the SJC allowed Mr. Johnson to nuance his previous statements which happen to reflect the PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality. This was unfair to the Complainant. He was not challenging the discovery statements that resulted from the later investigation of the SJC; he was challenging the original decision of Missouri Presbytery based on the statements made by Mr. Johnson nearly two years ago. (The Complainant’s framing of the original Statement of the Issue: “Did Missouri Presbytery err when it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt and institute process against TE Johnson regarding his stated views on human sexuality that appear to be significantly out of accord with and not in conformity with the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards?”)
Thirdly, the final vote on the SJC shows how important it is to know in more detail about the nominees for the Standing Judicial Commission at each General Assembly. A difference in one single vote would have changed the outcome of this decision.
The PCA has a Standing Theological Examinations Committee which approves the orthodoxy of the nominees for positions at the General Assembly level, and declares them eligible to hold office. The election of men to hold this important office has become rather perfunctory. No doubt, the National Partnership (NP) has had a major influence on who gets elected.
Maybe it’s time to make public for the GA Commissioners a more thorough examination of these men, as is done with candidates for the United States Supreme Court. In some way we need to know the particular theological camp they represent in the PCA. Judgment of the law is not always neutral. Commissioners at the General Assembly need to be better informed about nominees.
Lastly, if the proposed BCO changes do not pass, then this will make two proximate losses for the conservative confessionalists in the PCA. We might expect that some leaders in the PCA will begin to contemplate an exit plan in order to create a new denomination.
Some will plead for a continual fight, pointing out the victories at the previous General Assembly, and believing that they have the grassroots numbers to eventually gain back control of the PCA. Others will not be so optimistic. It is sad that it has all come down to this.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
