A couple of comments about Christology stood out to me recently.
This post is not entirely about the debate in the theology-blogosphere
about whether God the Son is eternally subordinate to God the Father, in
a functional sense. But it will intersect with that debate, somewhat.
This post concerns Word of Faith Christology, or, more accurately, the
Christology of some within the Word of Faith movement.
I was listening to a sermon online that was given at a church that I
have attended occasionally. The church can probably be associated with
the prosperity Gospel and the Word of Faith movement. At the same time,
it does not just preach that believers can prosper financially or
influence reality by speaking words of faith out loud, for it also talks
about God’s broader work in the world. The church talks about other
topics besides how God can bless me, me, me.
The preacher is going through the Book of Ezra. In Ezra 4,
adversaries of the returning Jewish exiles approach the Jewish leaders
and offer to help the returning Jews to rebuild the Temple. The Jewish
leaders reply as follows:
“Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we
ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king
Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us” (v 3, KJV).
The lesson that the preacher got out of this passage was that the
Jewish leaders were being a bit presumptuous. We will build, they say?
Apart from God, they can do nothing!
The preacher then talked about Jesus. Jesus on the cross prayed,
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34
KJV). Why did Jesus ask his Father to forgive the people who were
putting him to death? Why didn’t Jesus forgive them himself? According
to the preacher, Jesus was not making the same mistake that the
returning Jewish exiles made in Ezra 4. Jesus realized that he by
himself could do nothing. He by himself could not forgive those who
were putting him to death, for, according to the preacher, Jesus was
struggling with resentment and unforgiveness. Jesus, in light of his
own limitations, was leaving forgiveness to God, the only one who could
forgive.
How orthodox that view is, well, that is a good question! Christians
believe that Jesus never sinned (II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15;
9:28). Could Jesus experience resentment and feelings of unforgiveness,
without technically sinning? On the one hand, such feelings would
arguably go against love, which is part of the fruit of the Spirit
(Galatians 5:22). Forgiveness of sins was also a significant aspect of
Jesus’ ministry, and Jesus exhorted his disciples to forgive seventy
times seven (Matthew 18:22; Luke 17:4 mentions the criterion of
repentance to receive forgiveness). On the other hand, if Jesus had any
feelings of resentment and unforgiveness, perhaps they could count as
righteous indignation, which is arguably not sinful. God often
expresses that kind of frustration in the Old Testament.
There is also the issue of Jesus being God, even when he was a
human. Jesus had to depend on God because he by himself could do
nothing, the preacher says? But Jesus was God! And yet, as seems
fairly clear in the current Trinitarian controversy in the
theological-blogosophere, orthodox Christianity seems at least to
acknowledge the possibility that the situation with the incarnate Christ
is not entirely the same as the situation with God the Son before he
came to earth. That is because the incarnate Christ had a human nature
along with a divine nature, whereas the preincarnate Christ only had a
divine nature. Many who deny that God the Son was eternally subordinate
to God the Father in function would say that such a concept of
subordination posits two contrary wills between the Father and the Son,
and that would be incorrect because the Father and the Son are united in
their will: if the Son has to consciously obey and submit to the
Father, does not that imply that the Son technically has a will that
runs contrary to the Father’s will, and that the Son needs to
subordinate that contrary will in obedience to the Father? That cannot
be, they say! At the same time, those who deny eternal functional
subordination on the part of the Son still have to deal with biblical
passages about the Son submitting to the Father in obedience (Matthew
26:42; John 5:30; I Corinthians 11:3; Hebrews 5:8). The route that they
often take is to say that the Son, as a human being, submitted to the
Father. The Son did not submit to his Father before coming to earth,
according to them, for the Son and the Father were united in will at
that time. But they maintain that the Son did submit to the Father in
obedience after coming to earth and taking on human nature: Christ’s
human nature adds something significant to the equation. This, many of
them say, is the orthodox Christian position.
That said, would such a position be consistent, on some level, with
what the preacher was talking about in his sermon? Jesus, in his human
nature, had to depend on the Father because he was inadequate in himself
to do anything. Jesus still had a divine nature, though, but there are
Christians who say that Jesus gave up certain divine privileges in
being a human: those divine capacities were still present, but Jesus was
not using them. I cannot be too dogmatic here, however, for I would
not be surprised if Christians would tell me that what the preacher said
was unorthodox and that the church fathers would be appalled at his
comments.
Now for the other comment on Christology! I was home alone for the
past few days, so I watched some things on television that I do not
ordinarily watch, because they are not exactly the cup of tea of others
in the household. I was watching Joyce Meyer. She has been associated
with the Word of Faith movement, and, indeed, she has spoken about the
importance of words and speaking words of faith out loud.
Joyce was talking about how Jesus at his trial did not say a word.
She said that this long puzzled her, but then it dawned on her why Jesus
remained silent: Jesus was in a trying time and did not want to give
the enemy (Satan) a foothold by speaking words of complaint and
bitterness. That reminded me of what that preacher said in that sermon
that I heard. Of course, there are other explanations for why Jesus was
silent at his trial. Jesus had a mission to die for our sins, so he
did not fight his execution. I Peter 2:23 states: “Who, when he was
reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but
committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (KJV). Can this
intersect, at least somewhat, with what Joyce was saying?
In terms of Christian living, what the preacher and Joyce said
resonates with me. I recognize my own limitations: I by myself cannot
forgive, and thus I need to rely on God’s power and activity. Or, at
least, there are some days when it is easier for me to think good,
loving, peaceful, forgiving, and compassionate thoughts, and some days
when that looks like an impossibility. Jesus in John 15:5 says,
“without me ye can do nothing” (KJV). And, in reference to what Joyce
was saying, I may be simmering on the inside, but I have to watch what I
say in those situations. Often, it may be better for me to say
nothing. To speak in such a situation could disrupt my own peace and
the peace of others (which is not to dismiss the appropriateness of
confrontation, in certain situations).
But was Jesus on earth in the same boat that I, and many others, are
in, in such cases? Is it unorthodox or heretical to suggest that?
Jesus had a walk with God. As a human, he showed us how to walk with
God. Did Jesus struggle, like we do? Hebrews 4:15: “For we have not an
high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our
infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin” (KJV).