Author: Matt Emerson

A Poetic Reflection on Endō’s “Silence”

/ Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

 

Footprints

In the silence

I hear

The cacophony of

the groans of my brothers

and sisters

the groans of my mother

and father.

 

But from Christ

I hear

“If you love me,

Deny your brothers

and sisters

and deny your mother and father

And come after me.”

 

In the silence

I hear

The cacophony of

the calls of Black Friday

and Friends,

the calls of Nietzsche

and Wal-Mart.

 

But from Christ

I hear

“If you love me,

Obey my commandments

and my Word;

Abide in me and

deny yourself.”

 

In the silence

I hear

The cacophony of

the cry of my flesh

to protect it,

to preserve it,

to satisfy it.

 

But from Christ

I hear

“I have been crucified

with Christ and

it is no longer I who live

But Christ

who dwells within me.”

 

Whose voice do I heed?

Or rather,

Which silence is

More deafening?

The still silence

That comes from peace

with God?

 

Whose voice do I heed?

Or rather,

Which silence is

more deafening?

The maddening silence

That comes from the absence

of God?

 

Wisdom cries

Aloud in the street:

“The fear of the Lord

is the beginning

of wisdom.”

But Folly tells me

“Curse God

and die.”

 

How many of us

have not trampled

Christ’s face,

his blood,

with our sinful feet?

Who among us

is not Judas?

 

Who among us

has not denied Christ

three times

before the cock crows?

Have not

we all

Trampled the fumie?

 

But not out of love

for our brothers and sisters.

Not out of pain

and suffering

on Christ’s behalf.

But for childish

idols.

Alliterative Trinitarianism

/ Matt Emerson / 5 Comments

Over the last month or so, I read back through Athanasius and the Cappadocians in preparation for ETS and for an essay on theological method and Trinitarian doctrine. As I’ve worked my way once again (perhaps the fourth time?) through these texts, an organizing scheme for part of their argument came to me . And of course, since I’m a Baptist, this scheme came pre-packaged alliteratively. The following four affirmations, concerning each of the three persons of God, function for the pro-Nicene theologians as some of the main arguments for the full, equal, shared divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit.

  1. Appellations – The pro-Nicene theologians were at pains to show that, while Father, Son, and Spirit each have different personal names, they all are called by the divine name and its synonyms in Scripture. Because Son and Spirit are both called (along with the Father) Savior, Creator, Majesty, etc., they are equally God.
  2. Activities – Similarly, Father, Son, and Spirit are each identified by Scripture as the persons who do what only God does – creates, redeems, judges, and sustains.
  3. Attributes – Father, Son, and Spirit are each called or identified as possessing attributes that are only possessed by God alone, either as superlative communicable attributes (goodness, mercy, justice, holiness, etc.) or divine incommunicable attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.).
  4. Adoration – The three persons of the Godhead each receive worship in Scripture, something that is only applicable to and received by God alone.

Rightly Dividing Trinitarian Grammar

/ Matt Emerson / 8 Comments

Theologians have often used the term “grammar” to refer to the vocabulary necessary to speak correctly about one doctrine or another. This is especially true with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity; this most important, most studied, most clearly defined doctrine has been passed down to us using particular terms that have particular content (and exclude other content). Included in this Trinitarian grammar are a number of important distinctions, ones that help us talk about the Trinity in a biblically faithful and dogmatically precise way. The list below is not exhaustive, but merely a foray into how the Church has rightly divided Trinitarian grammar for the last two millennia.

  1. Common & Proper. This is perhaps the most fundamental distinction, between what is common to the three persons of the one God in the divine essence and what is proper – unique – to each person. In classical Trinitarianism, the only characteristic proper to each person is their mode of subsistence in the divine essence. The Father is Unbegotten, the Son is eternally Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit is eternally Spirated from the Father and Son.
  2. Creator & Creature. This is the other fundamental distinction in Christian Trinitarian thought; what is properly (uniquely) predicated of a creature cannot be predicated of the Creator or vice versa. (This is a crucial distinction when it comes to the Son’s submission to the Father.)
  3. Immanent & Economic. The former refers to God’s existence apart from creation, including his decree. The latter refers to God’s existence, and particularly how the three persons of God relate, in the entire act of salvation, including the decree.
  4. Immanent & Transitive. These two terms refer to God’s action, the former referring to his internal activity – activity internal to God’s being, i.e. the eternal relations of origin – and activity external to God’s being, i.e. creation and redemption. While God’s action is one, and while both of these actions are therefore eternal, it is important to recognize that immanent activity is necessary and external activity is contingent.
  5. Necessary & Contingent. And that is the last distinction to be made (at least for this post). God’s immanent activity, namely the eternal relations of origin, is necessary for his being. It is just who he is. God’s contingent activity, though, the action of creation and redemption, is external to him, i.e. not necessary to his being. God does not have to take this action, and so whatever kinds of additional predications can be made about the relations that exist between the three persons in this external activity, they are contingent realities in God’s life, not necessary ones.

As you might imagine, the latter two distinctions have important implications regarding ERAS/ESS/etc. First of all, the distinction between necessary and contingent means that we cannot predicate of God’s immanent life what is only true in the contingent activity of creation and redemption. So, while some have pointed out that the Son submits to the Father in the covenant of redemption (if you accept such a doctrine), because that is part of God’s eternal but contingent activity, it is not appropriate to predicate an immanent submission of the Son to the Father.

Second, the distinction between immanent and transitive action is incredibly important. If God’s nature and his immanent existence include relations of authority and submission, that kind of relation necessitates transitive action. In other words, submission requires some external decision and activity in which one party submits to the other. This seems to undercut either the doctrine of aseity – God would be required to act in this case in order to be himself – or the eternal continuity of God’s being – God would change in his nature at some point (in his activity) and introduce a new kind of relationship in his immanent life.

These are the kinds of dogmatic questions I and Luke, among others, have continued to allude to in our posts about the Trinity and in subsequent public conversations. It is not enough to simply say that human father and son language in Scripture almost always includes an element of submission; one must also ask whether predicating what is true of human relationships of relations in God’s inner life is appropriate given these dogmatic considerations. I’d say the answer is, clearly, no.

 

Gregory of Nyssa and a “Community of Wills”?

/ Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

In Against Eunomius I.1.34 (NPNF 5), Gregory says this regarding the Father and Son sharing in one nature:

So also the Father and Son are one, the community of nature and the community of will running, in them, into one. But if the Son had been joined in wish only to the Father, and divided from Him in His nature, how is it that we find Him testifying to His oneness with the Father, when all the time He was sundered from Him in the point most proper to Him of all?

At first glance this sounds problematic from the standpoint of proponents of dyothelite Christology and, correspondingly, one will in the Godhead. A phrase like “community of wills,” along with the analogy Gregory uses right before this of two men agreeing with one another, could be taken to mean that Nyssen is here implicitly affirming multiple divine wills. This is, in fact, just the kind of passage that twentieth-century social Trinitarians might point to in favor of their understanding of “person,” and in fact the Cappadocians are employed frequently in support of their position. But there are clear reasons to reject a “social Trinitarian” reading of Gregory, at least in this particular passage.

1. Elsewhere in Nyssen, as well as in other pro-Nicenes, God is one in every way. The *only* distinction that exists in the Godhead is the means of subsistence in the essence, i.e. the eternal relations of origin that distinguish the persons. Nyssen previously in “Against Eunomius” has spoken repeatedly of the fact that God is one in every conceivable way – power, authority, command, goodness, justice, glory, etc. The only way that the persons are distinguished is via eternal relations of origin (see e.g. I.1.22).

2. The context clearly affirms one will. Nyssen speaks immediately prior to this passage about God’s will in the singular. Again, this is in accord with the way Nyssen speaks elsewhere about God’s simple unity.

3. The analogy with the two men agreeing is not intended to be one to one correspondence. Nyssen makes this quite clear throughout his works on the Trinity, including “Against Eunomius.” We should not take his analogy here as anything more than that – analogous. Nyssen consistently affirms a healthy dose of apophaticism and the analogical nature of language elsewhere.

4. The syntax of the sentence makes clear that Gregory does not mean multiple wills in the Godhead. Here it is in Greek:

καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἕν εἰσι, τῆς κατὰ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν προαίρεσιν κοινωνίας εἰς τὸ ἓν συνδραμούσης

Note both clauses. The first clause has two singular nouns (“father” and “son”) taking a plural verb to describe them (“are”), but the predicate noun is singular. The plural persons of Father and Son are one. Of course, this is no different than Jesus’ affirmation in John 17. What about the second clause, the more troubling one for our purposes? To begin with, this is an explanatory clause about how Father and Son are one, as indicated by the κατὰ preposition. So Nyssen is at the very least not contradicting his previous statement, but expanding on it. When we look at this expansion of his explanation about God’s oneness, we find two singular nouns – “nature” and “will” – in the middle of a genitive absolute clause – τῆς … κοινωνίας. In other words, whatever “community” means here, it is defined according to (κατὰ) both nature and will. (I am dependent on Seumas Macdonald for insights into the syntax of this sentence). Nyssen is certainly not positing a “community of natures” in the way a “community of wills” would have to be taken for trithelitism. In fact, all that Nyssen really seems to mean here is that, while distinct in their personhood, Father and Son are one in essence and volition.

This, by the way, is the problem with “proof-texting” the Fathers. If one simply presses CTRL-F for “will,” several passages like this will pop up. If we read them cursorily and out of context, they seem to support a social Trinitarian view of the divine persons. But on further inspection, that could not be further from the truth.

HT: Seumas Macdonald and Ryan Clevenger for help with accessing the Greek of this passage.

Oklahoma Baptist University at ETS and IBR

/ Matt Emerson / 3 Comments

OBU will have a number of faculty presenting and moderating in San Antonio this year. Here’s the list:

Matthew Arbo (Jewell and Joe L. Huitt Assistant Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies; Director of the Center for Faith and Public Life)

Christian Ethics (ETS)

Moderator

Tuesday, 2:00 PM-5:10 PM

Grand Hyatt – Mission B

Being Public: Defining the Scope of Ecclesial Action (ETS)

Moderator

Thursday, 1:00 PM-4:10 PM

Grand Hyatt – Independence

 

Alan S. Bandy (Rowena R. Strickland Associate Professor of New Testament)

The Land in Prophecy, Eschatology, and the Book of Revelation (ETS)

Moderator

Thursday, 1:00 PM-4:10 PM

Grand Hyatt – Bowie C


Matthew Y. Emerson (Dickinson Assistant Professor of Religion)

Trinitarian Thought and Development in Second Century Literature (ETS)

“The Descent to the Dead and Trinitarian Economic Relations in the Second Century”

Tuesday, 11:30 AM – 12:10 PM

Grand Hyatt – Bonham D

Trinity and Gender: A Panel Discussion presented by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ETS)

Tuesday, 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM

Grand Hyatt – Lone Star Salon C

 

Heath A. Thomas (Professor of Old Testament; Dean of the Hobbs College of Theology and Ministry; Associate Vice President for Church Relations)

Suffering, Evil and Divine Punishment in the Bible

Respondent to Richard Schultz, Wheaton College, “Suffering as Divine Punishment in the OT Wisdom Books: Is There a Shared Perspective?”

Friday, 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Room: Republic A (4th Level) – Grand Hyatt (GH)

Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar (IBR)

Theme: The Kingdom of God

“‘The Kingdom of God is Among You’: Retrieval of the Kingdom for Today ”

Saturday, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM (15 minute papers followed by Q&A)

Stars at Night 1 (3rd Level) – Convention Center (CC)

 

Michael Travers (Professor of English; Division Chair for Language and Literature; Associate Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Associate Provost)

Literature of the Bible

“‘A Lamb standing as though it had been slain’: Poetic Images of God the Son in the Bible”

Wednesday, 9:20 AM—10:00 AM; panel discussion to follow at 11 AM

Grand Hyatt – Mission A

 

 

 

 

 

Private Confessions and Binding and Loosing in Christ’s Kingdom

/ Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

I am convinced that the ordinances of Christ ought to take place in Christ’s church, and not simply in private or outside of the gathering of God’s people under the authority given to them by Christ. For Baptists and baptistic free churches, this means they take place particularly in the context and under the authority of the local church. This is because the ordinances are part of what Jesus means when he tells Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:19).”

Binding and loosing is particularly related to the proclamation of the gospel and to making disciples of those who respond in repentance and faith to that proclamation, namely through the means of grace – preaching and the ordinances. Baptism, while certainly a testimony of the baptizand’s profession of faith, is also an exercise of the local church’s charge to bind and loose – they affirm the baptizand’s confession and vow to edify them in their walk with Christ. Additionally, baptism is the first step in the lifelong process of church discipline. That term is not pejorative; rather, “discipline” simply refers to the continued formation of an individual through regular practices. The local church is integral in the discipline of the life of a believer; that role begins in baptism, and baptism is a continual reminder for the disciple and the church that s/he belongs to Christ and needs to be conformed to Christ.

Baptism is also part of how the local church manifests Christ’s kingdom; it is a visible sign of Christ’s death-defeating, resurrecting work in the baptizand’s life, and in that proclamation it also reminds other Christians of their own union with Christ’s death and resurrection. It is therefore a visible sign not only of and for the individual, but also for the congregation and for and to the world. This is why I continue to uphold the importance of the ordinances taking place in the context of the local church – they are instituted by Christ as part of the means by which the the local church exercises its authority and manifests Christ’s kingdom.

All this is particularly relevant to our current political climate. News dropped this weekend concerning the GOP nominee bragging about sexually assaulting women in a 2005 recording. Some evangelical leaders are dismissing this charge, and encouraging others to do so as well, on the basis that Trump has made a private confession of Christ and prayed privately to be forgiven of what he said in that tape. Voters are being encouraged to take this as a sign that he is a changed man.

I would be delighted to know that Trump, or anyone, has made a genuine conversion, and that they have turned from their sin and to Christ. The point here is that the Church has historically affirmed that conversions are part of its communal life, and, for baptistic churches, they are particularly and especially part of the local church’s communal life. Talk of Trump’s conversion, on the other hand, is being bound and loosed by a handful of televangelists who testify to his private change and private confession. This is part of a larger move in evangelicalism, rooted even further back in the revivals, that “tests” conversion through private, individual, emotional experience instead of via the binding and loosing of the local church. We do not have the ordinances as visible signs, or discipline as the long road of communal obedience, with private professions that are not bound and loosed in the context of the local church. We are instead asked to take a leap of faith and believe in private professions, rather than seeing them worked out publicly in the life of the local church.

I, for one, will stick with the Apostles and the subsequent wisdom of the Church and my Baptist forebearers. Confessions of faith take place within the communal life of the local congregation, and are part of the church’s “binding and loosing” of the gospel through the ordinances and discipline.

Ignatius and Submission According to the Flesh

/ Matt Emerson / 3 Comments

I was reading through Ignatius’ “Letter to the Magnesians” this afternoon, and toward the end of the letter he says this:

“Be subject to the bishop and one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the Father and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there may be unity, both physical and spiritual (12.2; emphasis mine).

In Greek it’s, in part, ὑποταγητε…ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῳ πατρὶ κατὰ σάρκα (emphasis mine).

Here we have what I’d call an early – very early – attestation to the “form of a servant / “form of God” hermeneutic that the later pro-Nicenes would use to refute the Arians, Eunomians, and other anti-Nicenes.

Biblical Studies and Systematic Theology: An Allegory

/ Matt Emerson / 3 Comments

This is anecdotal, and, for the purposes of this post, a bit hyperbolic, but in my experience there is still a divide within evangelical scholarship between biblical studies and systematic theology. To be sure, there are those who do these together and do it well, albeit from one or the other discipline, but, for many evangelical scholars, an academic version of Lessing’s ditch makes its disciplinary mark and it, like the original, cannot be crossed. Biblical studies is biblical studies, and theology is theology, and never the twain shall meet. Again, of course there are biblical scholars who believe all sorts of things about theology, and of course there are theologians who read the biblical text. But with respect to how these two disciplines mutually inform one another, the implied answer, at least from their praxis, seems to be that they don’t.

Here’s an example: I have witnessed, countless times, evangelicals trained in biblical studies exercise a hermeneutic of suspicion when it comes to systematic categories, concepts, and terms. To my biblical studies friends, theology is something that should be kept at arm’s length, at least until we’re done exegeting. Dogmatics is also something that, to many biblical scholars, isn’t rooted in the Bible but instead in tradition, philosophy, and so forth.

I have also witnessed, namely through reading but also through listening to papers and to conversations among peers, systematic theologians theologize without exegeting the biblical text. Constructing dogmatics appears to be, for many, a task we can do without exegesis. Theologians look to philosophy, the hard sciences, the social sciences, logic, and history to “do theology,” but the biblical text is a footnote at best.

To put it simply: my biblical studies friends are often suspicious of systematicians, and my systematician friends often find exegetical work boring and useless.

Or, to put it allegorically, biblical studies and systematic theology are, in this view, like Jacob and Esau: they are family, twins, even, but different in stature, interests, and outcome. While they greet each other warmly on the outside, they do so under a cloud of suspicion on the inside (Genesis 32-33).

Rather than these two roads diverging so widely in the wood of Christian scholarship, though, it would be better if we did not put asunder what God has joined together. Frankly, this mutual suspicion between tasks is born not out of the superiority of one discipline or the other, but is instead a hangover from modernism. In seeking to cast aside every authority but the self, modernism separated exegesis from theology, interpretation from the church, hermeneutics from confession. This ought not to be so.

Biblical studies and systematic theology, rather than suspicious but related brothers, are instead more like covenanted friends. They push one another, edify one another, love one another, encourage one another, protect one another. Instead of Jacob and Esau, brothers in paternity but rivals in spirit, these tasks should be seen more like Jonathan and David: covenanted friends who seek to serve the one God together. Each has its strengths, but each needs the other to edify its work in places where its tools are insufficient in and of themselves.

Suspicion is a product of the spirit of the Enlightenment; mutual love is a product of the Spirit of God.

On Scholarly Focus: Pursuing Dogmatic Biblical Theology

/ Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

I am currently reading A. G. Sertillanges’ The Intellectual Life – a feast for those pursuing an academic ministry – and last night I read the end of the chapter, “The Field of Work.” This section focuses on two poles: on the one hand, the scholar’s need to connect their discipline to other areas of knowledge, since, as God’s creation, all knowledge is connected; and, on the other hand, the scholar’s need to dig deeply in one specific area of focus. I cannot remember the exact quote, and I don’t have the book in front of me at the moment, but Sertillanges ends the chapter by cautioning the academic not to take that first principle too far because a jack of all trades is a master of none. Everything is interesting, everything could garner our attention, but the academic life is a disciplined one, and this is especially true with respect to the focus of one’s study.

I find this particularly difficult. My dissertation was an integration of canonical criticism (biblical studies), the history of interpretation (hermeneutics), theological method (dogmatics), and tracing a theme through the NT (biblical theology). That’s a lot to tackle in one monograph; too much, really. Looking back, I realize I should have narrowed considerably. In any case, I mention that because it is characteristic of how I operate: many areas of study catch my eye, and I tend to try and fit them all together. As Sertillanges says in his first principle, this is, on the face of it, not a bad thing: all areas of knowledge are connected and therefore can and should be integrated. My problem has been that I do not drill down deep enough in one area and only then, once I’ve done so, ask where the other wells of knowledge connect to mine.

This has been an issue I’ve been pondering for at least a year, and toward the end of last year and the beginning of this one I began to see with some clarity where I’d like to dig. I’ve given it the moniker dogmatic biblical theology. By “dogmatic” I mean the study of Christian doctrine in its historical and systematic formulations. By “biblical theology” I mean reading Scripture with its redemptive historical, intertextual, and contextual features at the forefront of the interpretive process. There are a couple of other terms floating at the edges that need mentioning, but I haven’t quite figured how to put these into a concise, summary phrase. “Ressourcement” would be the first; I want to retrieve the biblical-theological rationale, and the pre-critical methodologies from which that rationale arose, for traditional dogmatic categories. “Protestant” would be the second; my theological method is situated within a Protestant, evangelical, Baptist theological method. Combining these, and to state it succinctly, I want my focus to be recovering classic Christian doctrines from an evangelical perspective via pre-critical hermeneutical retrieval and biblical-theological reflection.Perhaps an even more succinct way of putting it is that I want to do biblical theology in service of hermeneutical and dogmatic retrieval. I think this gives me enough focus to dig deeply while at the same time scratching the itch of disciplinary integration.

Perhaps that last paragraph is a bit “meh” for you. Not your cup of tea, etc. That’s fine. Understanding Canaanite creation myths isn’t my favorite blend, but more power to you if that’s the well you want to dig. I’d still encourage you to a) pick up Sertillanges ASAP, if you’re pursuing an academic vocation and b) articulate your specific area of focus.

The “Scripture and…” Seminars at IBR/SBL 2016

/ Matt Emerson / 2 Comments

The highlight of my ETS/IBR/SBL experience every year is the Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar. If you’re unfamiliar with SAHS, it began in 1998 under the direction of Craig Bartholomew and produced what I consider to be some of the best biblical scholarship available in the Scripture and Hermeneutics Series. Last year, SAHS unveiled their latest project, A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation, and also presented papers on the Old Testament and Worldview. In my estimation, SAHS is a “can’t miss” event for those attending IBR/SBL (in full disclosure, I’m biased as a committee member). This year’s meeting is on Saturday, November 19th, from 4-6:30pm. The theme is “The Kingdom of God,” and the schedule is as follows:

Welcome

Opening Liturgy     

Heath A. Thomas (Oklahoma Baptist University): ‘The Kingdom of God is Among You’: Retrieval of the Kingdom for Today

Catherine McDowell (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary): The Image of God and the Kingdom of God

Break

Brant Pitre (Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans): The Last Supper and the Kingdom of God

Jonathan T. Pennington (Southern Seminary): The Sermon on the Mount and the Kingdom of God

Discussion 

Closing Liturgy

This is an outstanding group of scholars, and I’d encourage you to sign up here.

Last year Prof. Bartholomew also initiated the Scripture and Doctrine Seminar, led by a committee consisting of Bartholomew, Kevin Vanhoozer, Scott Hahn, Luke Stamps, and Benjamin Quinn. Their theme this year is a continuation of last year’s event on Divine Action. The SADS meeting takes place on Friday, November 18th from 1-3:45pm, and the schedule is as follows:

Welcome and Introduction – Benjamin Quinn
Context Setting Introduction: Craig Bartholomew and Luke Stamps
Andrew Pinsent (Oxford University, Faculty of Theology and Religion): The Second-Person Perspective on Divine Action in Hebrews
Amy Peeler (Associate Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College): A Fearful Thing to Fall Into the Hands of a Living God: Divine Action In Human Salvation
Alan Torrance (School of Divinity, St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews): What does the Continuing Priesthood of Christ tell us about the Doctrine of God?
Mary Healy (Sacred Heart Major Seminary): The Holy Spirit and Christ’s Ongoing Priesthood in Hebrews.

Again, this is a fantastic group of scholars, and I’d encourage you to sign up here.

There is also a new seminar being formed, the Scripture and Church Seminar, and it will have a planning discussion on Sunday, November 20th from 4-6:30pm. If you would like to attend this discussion, please sign up here.

Finally, please join us for a meal together on Saturday evening.

SPACE IS LIMITED SO PLEASE SIGN UP ASAP.