The Hypostatic Union and Gospel-Centered Preaching
May 23rd, 2005How often do Christians consider the lines of implication that the doctrines of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union send out into all of life? Could we say that most Christians consider understanding these two doctrines and their implications as vitally important for living life? Or might we say that though most Christians think of these two doctrines as essential to the Christian faith, they do not see them as having any real significant relevance for Christian living? In other words, would we be right in thinking that most Christians think of these doctrines as dry and abstract without any real import for the daily grind of living life?
I would guess that most of you who are reading this article would agree that Christians in general fail to see the relevance of these two doctrines for understanding life in general and living the Christian life in particular. I’ve spent most of my life failing to see their profound relevance for “life under the sun.” So I began to wonder, “What might account for this widespread failure to recognize the deeply practical significance of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union?” Consider Ralph Smith’s thoughts about the lack of Trinitarian thought in the church.
“As Carl F.H. Henry rightly protested, ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is seldom preached in evangelical churches; even its practical values are neglected…’ It is not that the essential points are unknown—though perhaps in some churches even that may be a problem—it is more that pastors and their congregations have not really considered the implications of the doctrine. Once the doctrine is proved from Scripture, little more is taught about it. This is a tragedy since the doctrine of the Trinity is the crux of the Christian understanding of the world” (Trinity and Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith, xii).
I think this widespread failure really comes down to the fact that pastors themselves have failed to think out the practical importance of these two great doctrines particularly as it relates to interpretation and preaching. When pastors begin to think out the practical significance of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union particularly with reference to preaching, I believe their preaching will become much more gospel-centered regardless of the text. So let’s briefly explore a few of the lines of implication that these two great doctrines send out into the realm of interpretation and preaching.
The One God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Christian doctrine of God is that there is one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has never been nor ever will be just Father. Neither has God ever been or ever will be just Father and Son or Father and Spirit. No, the Christian God has forever been and will forever be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is eternally the Triune God. T. F. Torrance writes:
“God’s distinctive self-revelation as Holy Trinity, One Being, Three Persons, creates the overall framework within which all Christian theology is to be formulated. Understandably, therefore, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been called the innermost heart of the Christian faith and worship, the central dogma of classical theology, the fundamental grammar of our knowledge of God” (The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons, 2).
So what happens to redemption if God is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? What happens to the gospel if God is just one person? In other words, what relevance does the doctrine of the Triune God have with reference to the gospel? In its personification of love, 1 Corinthians 13 teaches that love is always self-giving ever moving outward in relationship with others. It always seeks the benefit of other persons.
(article is currently being revised…)
May 25th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Dan,
I appreciate your thoughts on the hypostatic union. Your observations are thought provocing and stimulating to say the least. Your drawing on the Nicine Creed and the material from Torrance is greatly appreciated and your post has resurrected questions in my thinking that I had not pondered recently. They relate to the relationship between the divine and human natures in the person of Christ.
One of the aspects that has fascinated me in thinking about the union is the question regarding the concept of “Messianic” consciousness. When did our Lord become aware of or come to the conviction that He was the Messiah? Luke 2 has always posed interesting questions for me. Verse 40 talks of His “growing” and, linked with becoming strong in spirit and wisdom, I take this growth to be more than just physical development. Verses 41 - 52 tell of His remaining in Jerusalem in the Temple at age 12. He is found there hearing and asking questions. He is also presented as having brought concern and worry to His parents. Then, in verses 51 - 52, we are reminded that He increased in wisdom and stature. Does this not imply that there are aspects of His person that imply progression in His consciousness? Can there be growth and progression in His self-consciousness? I do not want to submerge His humanity into His deity yet I do not think we want to exault His humanity at the expense of His deity either. But I do think that most evangelicals have tended to so emphasize the deity that His humanity is virtually negated. Can the relationship between His humanity and deity be understood in such a way as to preserve both as united in one person? If so, then how do we understand His coming to the understanding that He was the Messiah and could not His messianic consciousness be, itself, a manifestation of faith?
I take the phrase in Gal. 2:16,20 and 3:22 (the faith of Jesus Christ) to be a subjective genitive. (You, no doubt, detect the infuence of Richard Hays here.) This also poses some further interesting questions. What was the nature of His faith? How was this faith excercised? For example, when He stood in front of the tomb of Lazarus and uttered the words, “Come forth,” was this an act of faith? What if He would not have believed that Lazarus would actually walk out of the tomb? If He had not actually believed that Lazarus would walk out of the tomb would I have been redeemed? Or take the thief on the cross and “Today you shall be with me in paradise.” Was this a statement of faith? If He did not utter this statement in faith did the thief actually find himself in Paradise upon his expiration? Perhaps the ultimate expression of His faith is found in His statements regarding the resurrection. See Jn. 11:25 comp. with Jn.2:18 - 21; Mt.16:21; 17:22 - 23 and Lk.9:22. I do not believe for a moment that He did not believe in His own resurrection. But are these statements not experssions of faith and what if His faith regarding His resurrection had failed? Would I, or any other sinner be redeemed?
You have rightly noted, “I believe that the Hypostatic Union has huge implications for Christian preaching.” I agree. I do wonder though if some of the questions I am raising here might further enrich our preaching of the Gospel in the sense that a fuller understanding of the union would enable us to see Him as He was in the incarnation. Should we be afraid to see Him as one who lived by faith and understand that His faith has profound implications for our redemption and salvation. Might not the faith He manifested in His relationship to the Father provide a much fuller example of how we live the life of faith in our relationship to God? If so, what will be the impact on our preaching if there is some validity to the questions I am raising here? I pose these questions as more than an academic or theological excercise. It seems to me that this approach to an understanding of the union would greatly enrich our understanding of the “one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus.” I would also think that our preaching of Him would also be greatly enriched with a fuller perspective on the hypostatic union. Especially one that moves in the directions I am suggesting here.
I would be interested in your thoughts on the issues I have pondered as I have presented them here. I realize it is difficult to go to deeply into these matters on a format such as this and I have often thought that it might be worth a trip down to spend a doy or two in uninterrupted discussion with you and Colin. Or, perhaps we can do some of this in the fall.
Blessings,
Highlander
June 7th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
The Gospel and…
The work of Christ for salvation is not the sum total of the revelation of God, but it is the means by which all of the revelation of God becomes sanctifying revelation. “You believe that God is one; you do…
February 5th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Of interest:
http://www.theopedia.com/Two_natures_of_Jesus