Category: Hear From the President

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In the Western liturgical calendar, the Sunday after Pentecost is Trinity Sunday—a day to rejoice in what theologians call “the divine mystery.” Though much about God is beyond our comprehension, by grace we are able to understand that God is one in Being and three in Person—the Trinity.

The nature of understanding

Thinking about understanding, we acknowledge that, at times, it comes suddenly—like a flash of light seemingly out of nowhere. But most often, it comes gradually—the way I came to understand mathematics when I was young. As I began to grasp the concepts of algebra, many of my classmates remained perplexed. The further we progressed in math, the smaller the classes became—many of my classmates did not want to torture their brains that way! But for those who stuck it out, the reward was a broader and deeper understanding of the marvelous world of mathematics, which tells us so much about the intricacies of God’s amazing creation.

Why it’s vital to study theology

I share this math illustration because I see a similarity in the way we grow in our understanding of God’s Triune nature. For various reasons, some Christians are unwilling to study theology, which includes challenging concepts like God’s three hypostases (Persons). Though not “lesser Christians,” these folks (who believe in and love God), remain uninformed concerning the history of how the church came to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. While this understanding is important for all Christians, it’s vital for those who teach within the church. If preachers and teachers don’t have an accurate understanding of the nature of God, what they teach may be a fuzzy (even distorted) picture of God. Lacking understanding of theology, they will be unable to answer the questions members have about God and unable to counter the false teachings about God that undermine the faith of many of God’s children.

Brothers and sisters, because this is a serious matter, I strongly encourage our pastors, preachers and teachers to carefully study theology, abandoning all false notions concerning church history and misinterpretations of Scripture, in order to embrace the historic, orthodox teaching of the church concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, which can be summarized in three fundamental truths:

1. There is one God (Mark 12:29; John 14:9; Heb. 1:2-3).
2. God is three distinct (not separate) Persons (Matt. 3:13-17; Matt. 28:19; John 1:1; Col. 1:15-16; John 14:17).
3. Each Person is fully God (Phil. 2; Col. 2:9; Acts 5:3-4).

Avoid flawed analogies

Over the centuries, several analogies have been used to help people understand the Trinity. Unfortunately, in one way or another, most of them advance false ideas. Here are four examples: [1]

1. The Trinity is like the three forms of water: ice, liquid and vapor. While it is true that water exists in these three forms, looking at God this way advances the false idea (a heresy called Modalism) that God merely represents himself in three different forms, but is not three distinct Persons. Historically, the primary proponents of Modalism taught that God first manifested himself as Father, then as Jesus, then as the Holy Spirit. These modes were viewed as consecutive, temporary and thus never co-existent, thus denying the distinctiveness of the three eternal Persons of the Trinity.
2. The Trinity is like the three parts of an egg: shell, white and yolk. By viewing God as existing in parts, this analogy teaches a heresy called Tritheism. But the three Persons of the Trinity are not three unalike parts (as with the parts of an egg). God is revealed to be three divine Persons who share one divine nature and are one in Being.
3. The Trinity is like a three-leaf clover: one entity with three parts. This is perhaps the most well-known analogy, purported to have been used by St Patrick. Like the analogy of the three parts of an egg, this analogy fails to account for the fact that the Godhead is not simply split into thirds.
4. The Trinity is like a man who is a father, a son and a husband: one man, three functions. The problem here is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not merely functions of God—they are three distinct Persons. A typical man may have a wife (and so be a husband), children (and so be a father), but he acts out these differing roles depending on whom he is interacting with at the time. This analogy is another form of Modalism.

The careful use of human language

When it comes to teaching the truth concerning God’s nature, human language (which is always analogical) falls short in one way or another because it is unable to fully embody all that God is. For example, we use the word “Persons” to refer to the three “distinctions” of God. Doing so is helpful because out of all created reality, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are most like human persons in nature (or we might say that human persons are in their nature most like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We capitalize Persons to indicate that the word is being used in a special manner in describing God’s nature. Thus we exercise great care in selecting words knowing that, as the apostle Paul wrote, “The mystery of godliness is great,” humbly acknowledging that God is much greater than we can say or understand. Not being a creature, God cannot be understood in the same way we understand created things. However, because God has revealed himself to us, we can apprehend God even though we cannot exhaustively comprehend God.

A common shorthand version of the doctrine of the Trinity says that “God is three in one.” Some anti-Trinitarians say this is a contradiction, but they are wrong—it’s a paradox. Knowing of paradoxes in the physical realm (e.g., light is both a wave and a particle) it should not surprise us to learn that, when it comes to God’s nature, there are paradoxes. To say that “God is three in one” is not to say that God is one in Being and three in Being, or that God is one in Person and three in Person (those statements are contradictions). Instead it is saying that, paradoxically, God is one in Being and three in Person.

It is not the intent of the doctrine of the Trinity to explain how God is triune. That, as Paul reminds us, is a “mystery.” The teachers of the early church taught that proper doctrine preserves this mystery, for God cannot be exhaustively explained as though God were a creature. In humility we confess that our understanding of God’s nature has limitations, though Jesus did reveal to us the personal names of the three Persons of the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We also learn from Jesus that rather than a lonely being, God is a fellowship (communion) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit who have their very being by being in a relationship of holy love—knowing and glorifying one another for all eternity. That is why John tells us that God, who is love (1 John 4:16), out of love sent his only Son to reconcile the world to himself (John 3:16). Thus it makes perfect sense that the central will of our Triune God for us is that we would love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbors as we are loved by God (Matthew 22:37-39).

With these thoughts about God in mind, GCI’s Statement of Beliefs says this:

God, by the testimony of Scripture, is one divine Being in three eternal, co-essential, yet distinct Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The One God may be known only in the Three and the Three may be known only as the one true God, good, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and immutable in his covenant love for humanity. He is Creator of heaven and earth, Sustainer of the universe, and Author of human salvation. Though transcendent, God freely and in divine love, grace and goodness involves himself with humanity directly and personally in Jesus Christ, that humanity, by the Spirit, might share in his eternal life as his children. (Mark 12:29; Matthew 28:19; John 14:9; 1 John 4:8; Romans 5:8; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 1:2-3; 1 Peter 1:2; Galatians 3:26)

Why seek to grow in understanding God?

I’ll end now with one of my favorite quotes from Charles Haddon Spurgeon—it says well why we seek a deeper understanding of God.

It has been said by someone that “the proper study of mankind is man.” I will not oppose the idea, but I believe it is equally true that the proper study of God’s elect is God; the proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father. There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can compass and grapple with; in them we feel a kind of self-content, and go our way with the thought, “Behold I am wise.” But when we come to this master-science, finding that our plumb-line cannot sound its depth, and that our eagle eye cannot see its height, we turn away with the thought, that vain man would be wise, but he is like a wild ass’s colt; and with the solemn exclamation, “I am but of yesterday, and know nothing.” No subject of contemplation will tend more to humble the mind, than thoughts of God.

Forever seeking a deeper understanding of our Triune God,
Joseph Tkach

---

[1] For a short, amusing (tongue-in-cheek) and insightful video addressing some of the common analogies related to the Triune nature of God, watch the video at https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw. For a Trinity Sunday sermon by Weekly Update Managing Editor Ted Johnston, click here.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I remember as a child lining up in the schoolyard where sides were chosen for a sports competition. Invariably, the most athletic or popular were picked first. Though kids lacking athleticism and popularity were some of the brightest in my class, they typically were picked last. I remember feeling sorry for them—some, no doubt, still bear emotional scars.

So that no child would suffer the humiliation of being picked last, a gym teacher in my school tried a different approach. He assigned two kids (ones that often were picked last) to serve as captains who then chose the other team members. One began by picking kids usually selected last. Unfortunately his team lost and the next time captains chose sides, they reverted to picking the most athletic and popular first.

Perhaps you remember Merlin Olsen (pictured at right). As a child, he was one of the non-athletic, less-than-popular kids who got picked last. The embarrassment he felt apparently motivated him to work hard at sports. Eventually he excelled—during a 15-year career in pro football he was selected for the Pro Bowl 14 times! After retiring, he was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and went on to become a popular actor, portraying Jonathan Garvey on the TV show Little House on the Prairie.

Thinking about the humiliation of being picked last in sports got me thinking of the very different way God picks people to be invited into his kingdom. Instead of choosing on the basis of talent or popularity, God chooses on the basis of who he is and what he, in Christ and by the Spirit, has done. On that basis, as we say in GCI, all are included! [1]

Jesus made it clear that he came into the world not to reject or condemn, but to include and to save. In his economy, those who (by worldly standards) seem highly qualified, may end up going into his kingdom last, while the seemingly un-qualified may end up going in first. In his parable of the vineyard workers, Jesus declared that “the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16). His point was that God invites all into his kingdom and so excludes none. Jesus made a similar point when, speaking of his death, he said, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32).

As the “son of man,” Jesus (the “Son of God”) is the elected (chosen) human. In and through him, and by the Spirit, we all have been chosen to share in all the benefits of God’s grace—we all are invited to become participants in Christ’s rule and reign. The Day of Pentecost (June 4, this year) celebrates this inclusive calling. It is made possible by Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, followed by the Spirit’s post-ascension ministry to lead all people to repentance and faith, and as followers of Jesus, to live into the reality of who they have been called to be—members of God’s household. Pentecost is thus a joy-filled reminder that everyone has this calling—everyone has been selected to be on God’s team. On Pentecost Sunday we celebrate that inclusion—the reality that, in Christ (the elected One) and by the Spirit, all are included!

The interesting twist here is that God does not force those he selects to play on his team. Each person must decide whether they will play or remain non-participants, watching from the sidelines. Though God loves all unconditionally, he loves each one of us enough to want us to participate and thus receive all he offers. But God does not force that participation—personal fellowship and communion with God cannot be impersonally coerced or mechanically caused (Hebrews 4:2). Instead, God sends the Spirit to free and enable us to share in all that Christ has accomplished for us, in our place and on our behalf. Though, in love, God permits people to reject his love, forgiveness and grace, he never stops loving them—he never stops calling them to participation.

As the captain of our salvation (Hebrews 2:10 KJV), Jesus continues to reach out to all people—and his training is available to all who say “yes” to his “Yes” to them. What a blessing it is to be on the Lord’s team—and what a joy it is to share with him in reaching out to those who, though included, remain on the sidelines.

Happy Pentecost!
Joseph Tkach

PS: For a beautifully-produced meditation with readings from the Pentecost account in Acts 2, see the video from Fuller Studio at https://youtu.be/F5w3upHui48—it would make a great introduction to a Pentecost sermon.

---

[1] Regarding what GCI means by the phrase, “all are included,” be sure to read Dr. Gary Deddo’s essay “Clarifying our Theological Vision,” being published serially in GCI Equipper—click here for the first and second parts, the third will be included in the June issue, published later this week.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Searching for something to listen to as I drove home, I landed on a Christian radio station where a preacher made this proclamation: “The gospel is good news only if it’s not too late!” Seeking to motivate Christians to evangelize their neighbors, friends and family who have not yet accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, his underlying message was clear: “You must share the gospel before it’s too late!” Though that viewpoint is shared by many (though not all) evangelical Protestants, other viewpoints have been espoused by orthodox Christians both today and in the past. I’ll briefly review some of those viewpoints here, concluding that we don’t need to know exactly how and when God brings people to receive his salvation in order to actively participate today in the Holy Spirit’s ongoing work of evangelism.

Restrictivism

The preacher I heard on the radio holds a perspective on evangelism (and salvation) sometimes referred to as restrictivism. That viewpoint asserts that if a person has not explicitly and consciously accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior before they die, their opportunity for salvation has ended; for them, God’s grace has run out. Restrictivism thus teaches that death is somehow stronger than God—like a pair of “cosmic handcuffs” it restrains God from saving people when they (even through no fault of their own) have failed to explicitly declare Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior before death. According to restrictivism, lacking the exercise of conscious faith that names Jesus as Lord and Savior before death even seals the fate of 1) those who die without hearing the gospel, 2) those who die having embraced a faulty gospel, and 3) those who die after a life of mental disability that kept them from understanding the gospel. By placing such severe conditional limits on who does and who does not enter salvation, restrictivism raises perplexing and provocative questions.

Inclusivism

Another viewpoint on evangelism held by many Christians is known as inclusivism. This viewpoint, which sees the Bible as authoritative, understands salvation as being possible only through Jesus Christ. Within inclusivism there are multiple perspectives concerning the fate of those who have not made an explicit profession of faith in Jesus before they die. That diversity has existed throughout church history. Justin Martyr in the second century and C.S. Lewis in the twentieth century both taught that though God saves people only because of the work of Christ, a person may be saved even if they do not know about Christ so long as they have an “implicit faith” that results from God’s grace being active in their life by the Holy Spirit. They both taught that “implicit” faith then becomes “explicit” when God provides the circumstances that allow the person to understand who Christ is and how God, by grace, has provided for their salvation through Christ.

Postmortem evangelism

Another viewpoint (within the camp of inclusivism) involves belief in what is referred to as postmortem evangelization. This viewpoint asserts that people who die unevangelized can still receive God’s salvation following death. This perspective was espoused in the late second century by Clement of Alexandria and made popular in our day by theologian Gabriel Fackre (born 1926). Theologian Donald Bloesch (born 1928) also taught that if someone has not had any opportunity in this life to know Christ and put their trust in him, God will give them that opportunity when they appear before Christ following death.

Universalism

Some Christians hold to a viewpoint known as universalism. It teaches that (in one way or another) everyone necessarily will be saved, regardless of whether they are good or bad, have repented or not, or have put their faith in Jesus as Savior or not. This deterministic perspective says that, in the end, all souls (whether human, angelic or demonic) will be saved by God’s grace, making the response of the individual to God of no consequence. This viewpoint apparently arose with the Christian leader Origen in the second century and various versions have been espoused since then. Some (but not all) versions of universalism repudiate Jesus as Savior and regard one’s response to God’s free gift as irrelevant. The idea that one can repudiate grace, reject the Savior, yet still enter into salvation is repugnant to most Christians. GCI does not consider such versions of universalism as biblical.

What does GCI believe?

There are many other viewpoints held by Christians concerning evangelism and the related topic of the how and when of salvation. Some believe God will give all people multiple “chances” before death sufficient to enable them to have at least an implicit faith in Christ. Others believe God will ultimately save the vast majority of humans, though they do not try to explain the how or when. What does GCI believe? As with all doctrinal matters, our commitment is to begin with the truth revealed in Holy Scripture. There we find that God has reconciled all humanity to himself through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of his incarnate Son, Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19). Concerning that work of reconciliation, Jesus, dying on the cross, declared “It is finished!”

Thus we know from biblical revelation that whatever happens to people in the end, it will not be due to any deficiency in the motive, mind and purpose of God. Our Triune God has done everything possible to save every person from the terrible and horrific condition known as “hell.” The Father has given us his one and only Son to be our representative and substitute, standing in for us as our High Priest. The Holy Spirit now works to draw each person so that they may share in all the benefits held for them in Christ. This is what we know and believe. But there is much we do not know and we must be careful not to draw conclusions (not make “logical inferences”) beyond what we are given to know for sure.

For example we must not presume upon the grace of God by dogmatically declaring a universalistic perspective that God, in saving all people, will violate the deliberate choice of some who willfully and persistently reject his love, turning away from him and repudiating his Spirit. While it is hard to believe that anyone would make a choice like that, if we are to be faithful to Scripture (with its numerous warnings against resisting the Word and Spirit), we must acknowledge that some may, in the end, reject God and his love. The important thing to remember here is that such a rejection is their choice—it is not their destiny. As C. S. Lewis shrewdly observed, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.” In other words, hell is where you have to eternally resist the love and grace of God. Even though we cannot say for certain that all humans will ultimately accept God’s grace, we can hope that will be the case. And that hope aligns with what God desires, that none perish but all reach repentance. Certainly we can and ought to hope for no less and we should join with the Spirit as he works to lead people to repentance.

As we’ve shared many times, the love of God and the wrath of God are not symmetrical opposites; they are not opposed to one another. God is against everything that is against his good purposes to reconcile and redeem his beloved creation. In other words, God opposes anything that opposes his good, loving purposes. God would not be loving if he did not do so. God hates sin because it is resistance against his love and good purposes for humanity. His wrath is thus an aspect of his love—God resists our resistance. In his grace, motivated by his love, God not only forgives us, he also disciplines and transforms us.

We must not put a limit on God’s grace. Yes, there is the real possibility that some will choose to eternally resist God’s loving and forgiving grace, but that will not be because God has changed his mind about them—his mind has been made up in Jesus Christ. I love the way our good friend Gary Deddo explains this reality:

We are living, as Paul says, living up into Christ, because we really belong to him. We belong first, and then we believe that we belong, and then, as we’re believing we’re belonging, we’re going to be living up into it. The Holy Spirit is the power within us enabling us to live more and more fully and freely as the children—the reconciled children of God that we really are. We’re living into a reality, we’re not creating a new reality—that’s been done in Christ—we’re living up into the reality. Although there are those who are resisting the reality, nobody is going to change it. We either affirm the reality or live in denial of the reality—that’s the nature of our choice. Sometimes we think our choice is to create an alternative reality. No, that would make us God. We’re not. Our only choice, and the choice that God gives and enables us by his Spirit to make, is to live in the reality that God has established and created for us, out of his goodness, holiness, mercy and grace. (Quoted from “Those Who Never Heard the Gospel” at www.gci.org/yi/deddo27)

Looking through the lens of Jesus

Because salvation, being personal and relational, involves God and persons in relationship, in thinking about God’s judgment we must not assume or impose limitations on God’s desire for relationship. The purpose of God’s judgment is always to save—it is for relationship. Through his judgment God sorts out what needs to be eliminated (condemned) so that a person can experience relationship (union and communion) with him. Thus we believe that God judges so that the sin and evil is condemned, but the sinner is saved and forgiven. He separates us from sin “as far as the east is from the west.” Like the scapegoat of ancient Israel, God sends our sin away into the wilderness so that we might live a new life in Christ.

God’s judgment sanctifies, burns away, purifies in Christ to save the person being judged. God’s judgment is thus a sorting or sifting—a separation of what is right from what is wrong, what is against you and what is for you, what leads to life and what doesn’t. To understand both the nature of salvation and of judgment, we must read Scripture, not through the lens of our own experience, but through the lens of the person and work of Jesus our holy, loving Savior and Judge. With that in mind, consider these questions and their obvious answers:

• Is God limited in his grace? NO!
• Is he handcuffed (stymied) by time and space? NO!
• Does God have to work within physical constraints like humans do? NO!
• Is he limited by our lack of consciousness? NO!
• Is he the Lord of time? YES!
• Can he squeeze into our time as many opportunities as he wants to open us to grace by his Spirit? CERTAINLY!

Knowing that we are limited and that God is not, we must not project our limitations upon a Father who perfectly and completely knows our hearts. We can count on him to be faithful, even if we do not have a final theory as to exactly how his faithfulness and grace will be exemplified in the life of each person both in this life and the next. We do know this: in the end no one will say, “God, if you had only been a little more gracious… so-and-so would have received your salvation.” We will all find God’s grace to be more than sufficient.

The good news is that the free gift of salvation for all humans relies entirely on Jesus’ acceptance of us—not on our acceptance of him. Because “all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved,” there is no reason for us not to receive his gift of eternal life and live by his Word and in the Spirit who the Father sends to us so that, today, we might share fully in the life of Christ. There is thus every reason for Christians to do the good work of evangelism—to participate actively in what the Holy Spirit is doing to lead people to repentance and faith.

Loving the knowledge that Jesus both accepts and qualifies us,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Of all the resources I’ve used in studying theology, the most complex one, no doubt, is Church Dogmatics (CD)—Karl Barth’s opus magnum, which takes up nearly two feet of my bookshelf. A few have joked with me that they are waiting for the Reader’s Digest version!

Reading CD is a rather daunting undertaking. Barth’s sentences are long, complex and densely-packed. Moreover, to understand what he says on a given topic, you must recall related concepts that he has addressed in the earlier volumes, and then recognize that he is qualifying and clarifying as he proceeds from one volume of CD to the next. As a result, Barth is often misunderstood.

Despite these challenges, I find many of Barth’s insights in CD (and in his other writings) to be truly astounding. I’m particularly fascinated with his perspective on evil, which, as I will explain in this letter, he views as a paradox. By doing so, Barth avoids the unfortunate dualistic approach to evil that is characteristic of many books on theology.

Barth’s dialectical method

In CD and his other writings, Barth approached theology knowing that God is not a creature, and thus cannot be understood in terms of creaturely experience and created realities. Nevertheless, God wanting us to know him, revealed himself to us in human form, and spoke to us with human language. But because human language has limits, speaking faithfully about God will sometimes require that we say two different (even opposing) things at the same time in order to accurately account for God’s transcendent reality. This is so because neither statement alone would be sufficient to convey the full truth. Pointing to the truth of God would, in such instances, require holding two distinct claims despite the tension between them. This approach to theology, for which Barth is well known, is called the “dialectical method.”

Examples of seemingly irreconcilable statements held together (in tension) by the dialectical method include the statements “humans are in God’s image” alongside “all humanity fell from its created state of glory.” Another pair of statements is that, in Jesus, “we are masters of all things,” yet, as fallen creatures, “we are slaves to all things.” Barth understood that there is no way to perfectly resolve these rational tensions without turning God into a creature and thus distorting the biblical witness to the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. Therefore, Barth uses the dialectical method to uphold both statements (affirmations) despite the apparent tensions between them.

Evil—much ado about nothing

Using the dialectical method to examine the topic of evil, Barth finds that evil must be understood as both not something and not nothing. Accordingly, he refers to evil as “nothingness” (Das Nichtige in German). He goes on to describe evil as a force that threatens to corrupt and destroy God’s good creation. Nevertheless, he also sees concern about evil as (to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare) “much ado about nothing.” On the one hand, evil (nothingness) is “that which God does not will,” but on the other hand (and here comes the dialectical tension) Jesus Christ overcame evil as something that truly needed to be undone. Therefore, what Jesus overcame must have real existence of some sort, though its existence, when compared to the will of God, is a bare (shadowy, ephemeral) one, so that, in the end, evil cannot and will not exist at all.

Barth is thus proclaiming that to think biblically about evil, we must understand that because it exists in a way that is wholly in contradiction to God’s eternal, set will, and because it has been decisively conquered by Jesus, it is correctly understood only as “nothingness.” Barth is not playing word-games here—he’s saying that evil is almost nothing and can only lead to being absolutely nothing. To make his point, he must stretch human language to its limits. In doing so, he helps us understand evil, in the light of Christ, for what it actually is—“nothingness” (that which is next to nothing).

Barth explains that this nothingness is utterly distinct from both Creator and creation, representing the inexplicable work of the adversary with whom no compromise is possible. So (and stay with me now to the end of a long sentence), we are left with the nothingness being something that is all but absolutely nothing, and, for a time, this nothingness brings corruption and chaos to the good order of creation, resisting as it does the coming kingdom of God. Wait a minute—nothingness bringing corruption and chaos to something? Yes, though hard to grasp, let this statement sink in. God, who created something out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) did not create the nothingness. Therefore, he is not the creator of evil. However, he is evil’s conqueror.

Evil (nothingness) moves the something of God’s good creation in the opposite direction to what God wills for it. Barth comments:

Any roads leading away from it (the Glory of God’s Eternity) can lead only to utter nothingness, and therefore cannot be roads at all. Since movement away from it is movement into the utter (or absolute) nothingness, there can be no such movement. (CD II.1, p. 629)

Nothingness, Barth continues, is “irrational” and thus “inexplicable” because it is “absolutely without norm or standard.” Evil cannot be explained (rationalized)—there is no good reason for it. There is no “why” to it that can be answered by giving it a good reason or purpose. If a good answer could be provided as to why evil exists, then we would have made evil far less evil and in fact a contributor to some good. We would, with such an answer, be justifying evil.

But evil has no justification. And were it justifiable, because it was needed to contribute to some greater good (i.e. if evil were somehow necessary), then there would be no need for Jesus Christ, because evil would simply justify itself as being needed to contribute to what is good. But that cannot be, for evil itself is completely unjustified—it is what ought not be, and, indeed, has no good reason to be. Evil is what Jesus Christ has overcome.

Jesus—the way out of nothingness

In understanding evil this way, Barth affirms the biblical claim that all people (sinners all) “have become the victims and servants of nothingness, sharing its nature and producing and extending it.” While we all experience evil (nothingness) in our temporal lives, the good news is that we don’t have to suffer forever since God is sovereign over eternity. God has provided a way for us out of the bonds of nothingness, and that way is Jesus Christ, whose humanity begins the new creation.

In Jesus, evil, sin and death are overcome. In Jesus, nothingness meets its reality, and so becomes absolutely nothing. God, in Christ and by the Spirit, limits and conquers the negative aspects of this nothingness that can and have threatened the significance of the existence of the world and the human race within it. Again, to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare (here words spoken by King Lear), “Nothing will come of nothing.”

In Christ, God has given an absolute and uncompromising “No!” to nothingness as an uninvited, unwanted intruder into his good creation. While God did not create nothingness (which was at work in the chaos from the beginning), he will vanquish and conquer it completely. That is a big reason the gospel is good news.

In spite of the difficulty and complexity involved in reading CD, it is rewarding to do so when persistently pursued. I illustrate this by relating a comment from my dear friend, Grace Communion Seminary Professor Dr. John McKenna. He once told me that when he read and understood Barth’s picture of redemption, for the first time in his life (through all the pain, sin and heartache of his past) he felt that God truly loved him—he no longer feared the nothingness. He said it was as if someone had laid hands upon him and healed him. I love that illustration, because I believe the true and miraculous path to our healing comes from realizing that Jesus Christ is the only means of freeing humanity from evil—from the grip of nothingness.

We are reminded daily that we live in a world of injustice, cruelty, pain and suffering—the picture of this present world presented in Scripture. However, the reality is that Jesus has promised to take all this pain and suffering away, leading to a new heaven and new earth at his return. In our modern times, the only philosophical problem of evil that could ever trouble a thinking Christian is some kind of confirmation of a total absence of sin and evil in the world. This is because, paradoxically, the presence of evil in the world proves the validity of Christianity’s claim that there is evil (things that simply ought not to be but somehow do exist), and Christianity’s affirmation that we all need to be rescued from evil but cannot do so ourselves. However, there is real hope because evil has been conquered and a time is coming when God (as he has promised) will wipe away all tears, and there shall be no more death, sorrow, crying, or pain. That which ought not be, will, in the end, not be. In short, evil has no future!

Loving Jesus and his promises,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I was thinking about Mother’s Day recently—trying to come up with ideas to make it special for my mother and my wife. I recalled with joy (and some nostalgia) when Tammy first became a mother. That got me thinking about Mary, the mother of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Though motherhood is the most significant, demanding and underpaid profession around, I don’t think it gets the respect it deserves. It seems natural to me that children would honor, love and respect their mothers, yet that is not always what happens. The Old Testament is full of commands that children are to respect their mothers (and fathers)—including in the Ten Commandments and multiple places in the book of Proverbs. How sad that we would need to be told to love, honor and respect the woman who gave us life!

Jesus’ mother, Mary, was a remarkable woman—she literally held Jesus in the fabric of her being! Though references in the Bible to Mary are too sparse to construct a detailed biography, the Gospels record her humility and obedience to God as an example for all time. The earliest reference (chronologically) to Mary in the New Testament is Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:4 that the Son of God was “born of a woman.” The first mention of Mary’s name is in Luke 1:26-27, in the story of the angel Gabriel advising her of the miraculous birth that would occur. The last mention is in Acts 1:14 where Mary is included among those devoting themselves to prayer following Jesus’ ascension.

Jesus had an exceptionally high regard for all women. The Gospels show him visiting their homes, forgiving their sins, caring for those who had been widowed, and healing women of all kinds of ailments. And, of course, he showed great love, concern and respect for Mary, his mother. It is highly noteworthy that just before drawing his last breath on the cross, Jesus arranged for Mary’s care:

When Jesus saw his mother there [at the foot of the cross], and the disciple whom he loved [John] standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:26)

As Irenaeus notes, there is an interesting parallel and contrast between Mary and Eve. Just as all humanity was estranged from God due to Eve’s disobedience (along with that of Adam), so too, all humanity is reconciled back to God by the saving acts of Mary’s son, Jesus Christ. Though Mary is not a co-redeemer with Jesus, she should be highly honored for her trust, faith and obedience, which is in marked contrast to Eve’s disobedience. Not only was Mary our Lord’s mother—she was also his first (and highly loyal) disciple!

Note this from Karl Barth concerning Jesus’ nativity:

[Having been] conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary… the God of free grace became man, a real man. The eternal Word became flesh. This is the miracle of Jesus Christ’s existence, this descent of God from above downwards—[by] the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. (Dogmatics in Outline, p. 96)

In his humanity, Jesus was without a biological father. In his divinity, Jesus was without a divine mother. Yet, in assuming our human nature through his mother Mary, the human race belongs to Jesus through his saving acts as its Lord and Savior. Because of who Jesus is and what he has done for us and our redemption, all creation has been elevated to a higher plane of existence, and that includes motherhood itself. By the Holy Spirit, Jesus was not only born of the virgin Mary, he was also Mary’s Savior and Sanctifier. By God’s grace, through Mary, motherhood became a witness pointing to Jesus Christ the Creator and Redeemer and to the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life.

I pray that all of us, as disciples of Jesus, will follow our Lord’s example in giving honor to all women, including those who are mothers. Let us give special honor, love, and respect to our own mothers and the mothers of our children on Mother’s Day and every day. To all the mothers reading this, I extend a heartfelt “thank you.”

Thankful for motherhood,
Joseph Tkach

PS: In last week’s issue of Weekly Update, we published an essay from Gary Deddo titled “Covenant, Law and God’s Faithfulness.” Gary has made edits and additions to that essay in order to clarify certain points and answer questions that have arisen. To read or download the revised/expanded version, click here.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

As Tammy and I waited in an airport lobby near the gate where we would soon board our plane to fly home, I noticed a young man two seats away glancing at me repeatedly. After several minutes he asked, “Are you Joseph Tkach?” He seemed delighted to start a conversation, noting that he had recently been disfellowshipped from one of the Sabbatarian groups. Our conversation soon turned to the law of God—he was quite interested in my comment that Christians understand that though God gave Israel the law, they were incapable of obeying it perfectly. We agreed that Israel truly did have a “colorful” history, often separating itself from God’s law. We also agreed that this was no surprise to God, for he knows the beginning from the end.

I then mentioned to him that the law given to Israel through Moses had 613 commands. He agreed that there are numerous arguments concerning how many of these laws are binding on Christians. Some argue all are to be kept because all are “from God.” But if that were true, Christians should be sacrificing animals and wearing phylacteries. He agreed there are all sorts of opinions concerning which of these 613 commands have a spiritual application today and which do not. We agreed that the various Sabbatarian groups are divided on this issue—some practicing physical circumcision; some the land Sabbaths and Israel’s festivals; some a first tithe but not a second or third, and some three; some keeping the Sabbath but not the annual festivals; some observing new moons and sacred names—each believing their “package” of doctrines is biblically correct and the others are not. He noted he had been wrestling personally with this issue for some time and had discontinued the way he had been observing the Sabbath, though he still worried that he might not be keeping it correctly.

Surprisingly, he agreed that many Sabbatarians err in not recognizing that the coming of God in the flesh (in the person of Jesus) established what Scripture refers to as the “new covenant” (Hebrews 8:6), making the law as it was given to Israel obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Those who do not acknowledge this basic truth, and so seek to live by the terms of the law of Moses (added 430 after God established the covenant with Abraham, see Gal. 3:17) are not practicing the historic Christian faith. I think a breakthrough in our discussion came for him when he understood to be false the idea (held by many Sabbatarians) that we are now “between the old and new covenants” (with the new covenant not coming until Jesus returns). He also agreed with me that Jesus was the real sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:1-3) and though peace offerings and fellowship sacrifices are not specifically said to be done away in the New Testament, we know Jesus fulfilled them as well. As Jesus declared, the Scriptures do testify of him, and he fulfills the law.

The young man told me he still has questions about keeping the Sabbath. I told him the Sabbatarian perspective fails to understand that the application of the law has been transformed by Jesus’ first coming. Though still valid, the law of God now applies in a spiritual way—one that takes full account of Christ’s fulfillment of the law as it was given to Israel; one that relies on our deepened relationship with God through Christ and by the Spirit, which reaches down into our very nature—into our hearts and minds. By the Spirit, we now live out our obedience to God as members of the Body of Christ. For example, if our hearts are circumcised by the Spirit of Christ, it does not matter whether or not we have been circumcised in the flesh.

Christ’s fulfillment of the law means our obedience to God flows out from that deeper and more intensive work of God accomplished by Christ and the coming of his Spirit. As Christians, our obedience flows from what always was behind the law, namely the heart, mind and ultimate purposes of God. We see this in Jesus’ new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). Jesus both spoke and lived this command, knowing that, in and through his earthly ministry, God would, by the power of the Spirit, write the law upon our hearts, thus fulfilling the prophecies of Joel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

By bringing a new covenant that fulfills and completes the task of the old, Christ transformed our relationship to the law and renewed the form that our obedience takes as his people. The same underlying law of love exists, but Jesus personified that law and fulfilled it. The old covenant with Israel and the law enclosed within it (including sacrifices, tassels and Jubilee years) had, for the nation of Israel, specific, particular applications of the underlying law of love. But those specifics are, in many cases, now obsolete. The spirit of the law remains, but the letter of the written law specifying the particular form of obedience does not necessarily hold.

The law could not fulfill itself; it could not change hearts; it could not prevent its own misuse; it could not guard against temptation; it could not specify the particular forms of obedience for each and every family on earth. Since the completion of Jesus’ earthy ministry and his sending of the Holy Spirit, there are now other ways by which we express our devotion to God and our love for our neighbors. Those who have received the Spirit can now better hear the Word of God and understand God’s purposes for their obedience because that obedience was embodied and revealed in Christ, passed on to us by his apostles, and preserved for us in the books we call the New Testament. Jesus, our great High Priest, shows us the heart of the Father and sends us the Spirit. By the Holy Spirit, we can now respond to the Word of God out of the depths of our heart, bearing witness in word and deed to God’s purposes to extend his blessing to all families of the earth. This far exceeds what the law could do, for it is far beyond what God intended the law to accomplish.

The young man agreed with these points, then asked how this understanding applies to the Sabbath. I noted that the Sabbath had several purposes for the people of Israel: it reminded them of creation; it reminded them of their exodus from Egypt; it reminded them of their special relationship with God; and it provided physical rest for animals, servants and families. Morally, the Sabbath reminded Israel of their duty to cease from evil works. Christologically, it pointed them to the need for spiritual rest and completion in the coming Messiah—trusting in him rather than in their own works for salvation. The Sabbath also symbolized the completion of creation at the end of the age.

I shared that most Sabbatarians seem unable to see that the regulations of the law, given to Israel through Moses, were temporary—restricted to a particular time and place in the history of the nation of Israel. I noted that it is not hard to see that “not cutting the corner of your beard” or “make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear” are not relevant for all times and places. When God’s purposes for Israel as a nation were fulfilled in Jesus, God, through his Word and Spirit reached out to all people. As a result, the form of obedience to God changed to fit the new situation.

When it comes to the seventh-day Sabbath, authentic Christianity does not turn the seventh day of the week into a form of astrology as if God had made one day of the week superior to the others. Instead of setting a single day aside to acknowledge God’s holiness, God now resides in us by his Spirit, thereby making all our time holy. Though we could meet together on any day of the week to celebrate God’s presence with us, most Christian churches meet for worship on Sunday, the day most widely-regarded as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead, thus fulfilling the old covenant promises. Jesus magnified the Sabbath law (and all aspects of the Torah) far beyond the temporal limits of what the written letter of the law could do. He even elevated the law of “love your neighbor as you love yourself” to “love one another as I have loved you.” This is a staggering quality of love that cannot be captured in 613 commands (or even in 6,000 commands!). God’s faithful fulfillment of the law makes Jesus, not a written code, our center point. We don’t focus on a day of the week, we focus on him. We live each day in him, because he is our rest.

Before we boarded our respective flights, we agreed that the spiritual application of the Sabbath law is about living a life of faith in Christ—a life that, by the grace of God, through the new and deeper work of the Holy Spirit within us, changes us from the inside-out.

Forever grateful for God’s grace that heals us from head to toe,
Joseph Tkach

PS: I asked Gary Deddo to write an essay that elaborates on what I’ve shared here and also in my letter on the covenants in the March 22 issue of Weekly Update. You’ll find his essay in this issue (click here)—it’s long, I know, but the topic deserves a comprehensive review. I encourage you to read his essay carefully.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

According to Holiday Insights, this week is National Karaoke Week. Perhaps you’ve heard someone singing karaoke and reflexively flinched at their off-key notes. Nietzsche had it right when he wrote, “We listen to music with our muscles.” Our unconscious bodily responses to music include tapping our feet or swaying to the rhythm. I found myself doing both during the singing at the Easter-weekend conference of our Mexican churches in Guadalajara, Mexico. Because we were singing in Spanish, the music was particularly stirring for me. I was also moved by the wonderful Mariachi worship band with its two trumpets, five violins and four guitars of various sizes. One song began with a trumpet blast so rousing we all felt like marching forward!

Neurologist Oliver Sacks had it right when he wrote, “Listening to music is not just auditory, it is motoric as well.” According to neurological studies, music has the ability to activate entire regions and networks within the brain. This is one reason music is used in several rehabilitative therapies. As the old saying goes, “Music has charms to soothe a savage breast, to soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak.”

It’s important to think about the impact that music has in our worship of God. We don’t sing in church to just fill the time, or as a mere warm-up to the sermon. Worship music (instrumental and vocal) has played a significant role in the worship of the church down through the centuries. Music has been, is, and for eternity will be a principal way the people of God worship their Lord and Savior.

After escaping Egypt by crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites sang to the Lord (Exodus 15:1-21). Music was a central part of Israel’s worship in the tabernacle and the temple (1 Chronicles 6:31-32, 16:42). The Psalms preserve lyrics to some of that music—some joyful, some sorrowful (blues is not only a modern musical genre!). Jesus and his disciples sang hymns (Matthew 26:30) and the book of Revelation tells of a day when “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them” will sing praises to the Lamb of God seated on his throne (Revelation 5:13). As Karl Barth noted, singing is an essential ministry of the church:

The Christian church sings. It is not a choral society. Its singing is not a concert. But from inner, material necessity it sings. Singing is the highest form of human expression…. What we can and must say quite confidently is that the church which does not sing is not the church. And where… it does not really sing but sighs and mumbles spasmodically, shamefacedly and with an ill grace, it can be at best only a troubled community which is not sure of its cause and of whose ministry and witness there can be no great expectation…. The praise of God which finds its concrete culmination in the singing of the community is one of the indispensable forms of the ministry of the church. (Church Dogmatics, IV.3, 16.72)

When we play instrumental music or sing in church, our audience is first the Lord (Psalm 96:1) then, secondarily, one another. Our singing seems best when it is expressive of a sense of awe and wonder at the presence of God. By directing our attention beyond the music itself to the One whom we worship, music leads our thoughts toward God rather than toward ourselves. John Calvin commented about the energy we obtain from music in worship when he wrote this:

[Music] lends dignity and grace to sacred actions and has the greatest value in kindling our heart to a true zeal and eagerness to pray. (Calvin, Institutes, III. 20, #32)

There is something very special that we feel when our hymns and choruses correlate with the biblical texts being verbalized in the Scripture reading and expounded in the sermon. It is as if our hearts are lifted, and we soar like eagles. That’s how I felt in Guadalajara over Easter, and it’s how I feel when I join the people of God in various places around the world as we lift our voices in song to worship the triune God, Father, Son and Spirit.

Holiday Insights also says that April 26 is Hug an Australian Day. So in the spirit of that holiday, I extend to all our Aussie members (and to all our members everywhere) this ancient priestly blessing:

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace. (Numbers 6:24-26)

Joseph Tkach

PS: Warm greetings to you all from our members in Mexico! For more about the conference, click here.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

As I travel around the world, I enjoy attending the worship services of our congregations. I’ve noticed that the worship service bulletins vary widely in length—anywhere from a half-page to 12 pages. More than a couple of pages is probably too long—longer than that and most folks, especially visitors, won’t read it all (this comment applies to weekly bulletins, not monthly newsletters).

Church bulletins serve a twofold purpose: 1) they orient those attending to the sequencing of the service, and 2) they introduce the congregation, indicating what it does and thus what it values. One of the things I look for is whether or not the congregation values fulfilling the Great Commission. It’s easy to confuse being busy doing “church stuff” with being effective in making disciples.

Speaking of “church stuff,” check out this tongue-in-cheek weekly calendar of a fictitious (though perhaps typical) church:

I grant that this illustration is rather extreme, but it makes a point. A busy church is not necessarily effective in following the Spirit to participate in what Jesus is doing to fulfill the Father’s mission, which is largely focused on Jesus’ Great Commission command to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19-20). Another way to describe this mission is to say that God has called us to know him and to make him known. To fulfill the first part (to know him), effective churches help those already attending to grow in their relationship with God. This growth leads to fulfilling the second part (to make him known), which involves going outside the walls of the church to join God in what he is doing in the community to “bring many sons and daughters to glory.” Thus the church, in fulfilling this two-fold mission, meets to enjoy together the God it worships, and then it goes out into the community to share the gospel so that others may be with them in the body of Christ.

Unfortunately, many churches emphasize the first part of this mission to the near-exclusion of the second. But Christ, by his word and Spirit, takes us with him both within the walls of the church and then outside. Yes, our own personal relationship with God through Christ as members of his body is foundational, but that foundation does not exist for itself—God intends that something be built on it. Christ, through the leading, empowering Spirit, sends us into the world to share the gospel with people who are not-yet believers so that they too may become followers (disciples) of Jesus.

Most Christians are familiar with the main part of Jesus’ Great Commission address:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…” (Matthew 28:19-20a)

When we think about this calling to mission, we can sometimes get discouraged. There are many obstacles and frequent setbacks. But let me give you a word of encouragement: as we go, we don’t go alone! Always remember the two “bookends” that surround the Great Commission. Jesus’ statement is preceded by these powerful words:

The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:16-18)

Wow! Imagine what was going through their minds as Jesus told them that he is in possession of all authority, everywhere! Then with that reassurance, and the authority that goes with it, Jesus commanded his disciples to “make disciples.” Then notice the reassuring words that follow that command:

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20b)

As I noted in a letter last year, these are highly significant bookends! The one who possesses all authority in heaven and on earth will be with us always as we join him in his ongoing disciple-making ministry. Read again Jesus’ statement of the Great Commission and see if you can see it as an invitation to join Jesus, the one with all power and authority. Let me paraphrase his statement this way:

Dear friends, as we journey into the mission field together, let us make disciples. Let us baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and let us teach them to obey all that I have commanded, especially my new commandment to love others as I have loved you. Oh, and remember, I’ll never leave your side, we will be doing this together, so never be discouraged and never give up.

Let us continue gathering together to worship our Lord, and then, as his disciples, let us respond to his invitation to make disciples with him so that others may be incorporated into the body of Christ by baptism in the name of the Triune God. In GCI, our motto is Living and Sharing the Gospel—this is what we do as a denomination and it is what we’re called to do as congregations. With that in mind, let me share some points regarding being busy doing “church stuff” vs being actively at work fulfilling the Great Commission:

• Help your members, those already growing in Christ, see the fullness of their calling to participate in the full sweep of the mission of God. Ask them for their input on what your congregation (no matter its size) can do to participate in Jesus’ great invitation. Identify its giftedness for doing so. Your Regional Pastor is happy to help.
• Examine everything your congregation is doing to see whether or not it serves the calling of the church to participate in fulfilling the Great Commission. It’s easy to fall into the trap of busyness, which can give the false impression of effectiveness.
• Develop a plan with others to spin off ministries and activities that are not contributing to a Great Commission focus. Be wise and gentle in doing so—you may be dealing with activities that people have invested a lot into and that God has used in some way.
• Without neglecting helping existing members grow in knowing God, lead them to focus on making God known to not-yet believers. A good way to do that is to implement on one or two “outside the walls” programs (activities/events) and then do them well (see Jacksonville Outreach in this issue for ideas). Better to do a few things well than many things poorly and perhaps burning out your members in the process.

I’m delighted that many of our congregations are doing great missional work both inside and outside the walls of the church. They have identified their giftedness, they have asked God to clarify their vision and mission, and they are participating with Jesus in his disciple-making ministry. As a result, many are growing. You will hear some of their stories at We Are GCI!—our Denominational Conference coming to Orlando in August.

Valuing mission over busyness with “church stuff,”
Joseph Tkach

PS: Are you a good singer? If so, you may be interested in participating in a choir we’re assembling to perform at our Denominational Conference in Orlando in August. For information, click here.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On Good Friday, many Christians will ponder a statement spoken by Jesus as he hung dying on the cross:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

Search the internet and you’ll find multiple explanations for why Jesus spoke these words (quoting Psalm 22:1). A common one is that he made this anguished cry knowing that his heavenly Father, being holy, had turned away from him as the sins of the world were placed upon him. The problem with this explanation is that it posits a separation in the Holy Trinity. Did the Trinity break at the cross?

As we think about this issue, we must first remember that the doctrine of the Trinity declares that there is one God who exists eternally as three distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our Trinitarian faith is based on this doctrine. A key word is eternally—had there been a separation (even momentarily) between the Father and Son at the cross, eternally would no longer apply. But it does, and therefore the Trinity cannot have been broken. Here are some of the reasons for this conclusion:

• Perichoresis. Early church teachers used the Greek word perichoresis to describe God’s inseparable, tri-personal nature. The word makes clear that God is not composed of detachable parts. The three Persons of the Trinity are one—meaning that the Father, Son and Spirit mutually indwell (coinhere) one another from eternity. This unique relationship of the Triune Persons was revealed by Jesus to his apostles who, in turn, told us. Were God not Father, Son and Spirit in this way for all eternity the Father would not be the Father nor God, the Son would not be the Son nor God, and the Holy Spirit would not be the Holy Spirit nor God. God has no other way of being God except by being Triune. The only God that was, is and will be is the one Triune God.
• God’s omnipresence. Scripture teaches there is no place where God is not present. It also teaches God is three Persons who coinhere—they are inseparable, and thus everywhere present together. That being so, God’s omnipresence calls into question how any sort of divine abandonment could have occurred, particularly considering that the “fullness” of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus (Col. 2:9).
• God’s omniscience. Scripture also teaches that there is nothing God has not known, seen or anticipated and has intended a providential response to. God knows the beginning from the end. At the moment he spoke everything into existence, he knew every sin that would ever be committed, and the remedy for it. If we take the metaphor that God cannot “look upon” sin in an absolute way, meaning not have any awareness of or have absolutely nothing to do with sin, then how did he know that humanity would continue to sin and send prophets to Israel with a warning message? If God cannot look upon sin, how could he ever deal with sin in any real way? To say that God could not look upon that which he already knew would occur, is nonsensical. The metaphor, taken from Hab. 1:3, simply means God does not in any way approve of sin and evil.
• The whole God is Savior. Jesus declares in John 17:21 that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. Jesus was describing a unique, permanent reality that tells us who he is. That’s why Scripture declares Jesus to be Immanuel (God with us). It’s also why the New Testament tells us that the whole God (Father, Son and Spirit) is our Savior, not just Jesus, or just the Father or the Holy Spirit.
• The teachings of the early church. That the idea of a breaking apart of the Trinity is unbiblical is attested by multiple leaders and teachers in the early church, and later, including Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus, Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas. Why? Because when they read all of Psalm 22 (which Jesus was quoting), they found unity and harmony between the Father and the Son, not separation and alienation.
• Jesus’ other statements on the cross. The other statements spoken by Jesus on the cross do not support the idea of a God-forsaken Son. In dialogue with his Father, Jesus says the following: “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34); “It is finished” (John 19:30); and “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Note also Peter’s comment on Pentecost, giving voice to Jesus addressing his Father: “You will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption” (Acts 2:27 ESV, making reference to Psalm 16:10 ESV). God is not defiled by sin, nor is he afraid to look on sin, even the sin of the whole world borne by his Son on the cross.
• Jesus, who is not separate from sinners, is God. Jesus, who is fully God and fully human, dwelt on earth in the midst of sinful humanity in order to deal with evil and death. He touched lepers and raised the dead. He identified sin wherever he encountered it and warned against it. He fought temptation to sin directed at him from the source of sin itself, Satan. He experienced for us the temporal wages of sin, which is human death. Jesus did all this as the eternal Son of God incarnate. God, revealed to us in Jesus, does not separate himself from sin and evil. Instead, the incarnate Son of God came right into it, taking it upon himself, and thus bringing healing to sin-sick humanity.
• God is not defiled by our sin. Had our sin defiled God, Jesus could not have been our perfect sacrifice, because as Paul explained in 2 Corinthians 5:21, Jesus, who “had no sin,” was, by God, made “sin for us.” This does not mean that Jesus became sinful (a sinner). Rather, it means he became a sin offering for us just as the Azazel goat was on the Day of Atonement as the representative of Israel’s sin. Note this in Isaiah 53:10 (ESV):

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering [‘asam] for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

Jesus did not become a sinner stained with impurity or immorality. Instead, by assuming our sinful nature and condition, and then sanctifying that nature in himself (ultimately on the cross), Jesus became the innocent, unblemished sin offering on our behalf, thereby reconciling us to God. The notion of an absolute separation of God the Father from Jesus the Son falls far short of the biblical facts.

God was not taking his wrath out on Jesus

The theory that God’s separation from sin included pouring out his wrath on his Son is another wrong-headed idea that is not biblically defensible. The truth of the gospel is that the Father was not punishing the Son, as if the Father opposed the Son, was at odds with him, or willed at that moment that the Son’s end would be the same as the end of sin and evil itself. God is not guilty of child abuse, as some who reject the cross of Christ altogether claim. That charge is based on a false inference that the church has never taught (even by those upholding a separation theory).

The idea that the Father took out his wrath on his Son is preposterous. It ignores the biblical facts that the Son was not forced by the Father to die, but that Jesus voluntarily laid down his life and took it up again (John 10:18; Hebrews 7:26). The Father and the Son (with the Spirit) are one in will and mind to do whatever it would take to rescue humanity from sin and the power of evil. The Son was no victim of a tragedy. You would expect no less from the tri-personal God who is eternally one in being.

The author of Hebrews contrasts animal sacrifices with the triune activity involved in bringing about our redemption: “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God” (Heb. 9:14). Note here that it is the whole Triune God (Father, Son and Spirit) who accomplishes our salvation. And within God’s triune nature, love and anger (wrath) are not at odds. Because God loves us, he is against all that is against us. Were God were not opposed to sin and evil he would not be loving towards us. God separates us from our sin, rescuing us, and condemning the sin and the power of sin. This he has done in the “flesh”—the human nature of the Son of God incarnate:

God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh… (Rom. 8:3 ESV)

It is not just the Father who is angry against sin. The Father and the Son are equally committed to our redemption and thus to the final judgment that condemns all evil. The whole triune God hates sin for what it does to his creation, yet he loves the sinner for whom Jesus died. The apostle Paul taught that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19 ASV). The Father, Son and Spirit deal with our sin in the incarnate Son, regenerating our fallen nature in him (Titus 3:5) so that we might share in his new humanity by the continuing ministry of the Holy Spirit. The only opposition we find in God is his opposition to sin and evil. The only separation we find involving God is what God does to separate us (his beloved) from evil. This is what was accomplished by the redemptive work of the whole Triune God in and through the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.

Like a surgeon eradicating cancer cells that threaten the life of the patient, the only object of the Triune God’s wrath is the evil that has corrupted human nature—the nature assumed by the eternal Son of God, on our behalf for our salvation. God’s wrath is his act of overcoming and eradicating evil because of his love for us. His wrath is not returning pain for pain. Only the Triune God can separate the sin from the sinner, thus rescuing and saving the patient whom he loves, while condemning the sin that he opposes so that in the end it will exist no more. That is what God has accomplished for us in and through the life, death and resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ.

A new look at Jesus’ statement on the cross

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” begins the Psalm Jesus was quoting (Psalm 22); it does not end it. The desperate opening line is answered with repeated, reassuring acknowledgements of God’s presence, not his absence. Verse 10 says, “From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Verse 11 says, “Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.” Verses 19-21 declare, “But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me. Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of dogs. Rescue me from the mouths of the lions; save me from the horns of wild oxen.” Then verse 24 is the clincher: “For he [God] has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.”

In typical rabbinic fashion, when Jesus quotes the opening line of Psalm 22, he is thereby referencing the entire Psalm, which speaks not of separation or abandonment but of God’s rescuing presence. Because Jesus suffered terribly in the flesh, there is no problem understanding that he felt, in his humanity, a sense of abandonment. But this did not surprise Jesus, or make him question the Father’s love for him. He could identify with the writer of Psalm 22—not just the opening line, but the entire Psalm. Thus Jesus spoke to God, knowing that his Father was listening. Perhaps most fully there on the cross, Jesus felt and knew the Father’s implacable opposition to evil and his commitment to eradicate it. And that is what his cry of dereliction indicates. But we are not justified in asserting or even implying that the Trinity experienced some sort of break or that the Father was pouring out his wrath on his Son.

Jesus died for us in “the flesh,” that is, in his human nature. But his divine nature did not die (by definition, being divine means not subject to death). However, since both natures are joined in the Person of the eternal Son of God, we can say that his divine nature did accompany his human nature in death. And that is why a regenerated human nature rose with Jesus in his resurrection. The perichoresis of the Trinity was not suspended during the time Jesus was dead, as if there were temporarily only two Persons in the Trinity. With the death of his humanity, Jesus did not cease being the eternal Son of God who is one in being with the Father and the Spirit.

As our ascended and ever-faithful High Priest, Jesus Christ, still fully human, identifies with us in our human feelings of abandonment, alienation, shame and scorn because of sin. Jesus voluntarily identified with sinners by experiencing these emotions, while remaining sinless. God—Father, Son and Spirit—allowed evil men to crucify Jesus and allowed him to die a cursed, humiliating death. He assumed our experience of forsakenness to overcome that death, to heal it, thus renewing our communion with and belonging to God. Never, however, did God abandon Jesus! Never was the Trinity broken asunder. Never was Jesus left alone, abandoned by God. And never are we left alone or abandoned, for God says, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5), and Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28).

I wish you all a blessed Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday,
Joseph Tkach

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

A common misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is to think that it teaches three gods (tritheism). But that is not the case. The historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity upholds one God (monotheism) while teaching that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How can God be one and three? The answer is important to understand, not merely as a point of doctrine, but as a way for us to understand and thus relate to the one, tri-Personal God.

Three Persons, one being

To be faithful to the biblical revelation, early church teachers declared that God is one in being and three in Persons. In indicating what each of the three are, they utilized the Greek New Testament word hypostasis (ὑπόστασις), which in ancient Greek has a range of meanings: nature, substance, image, essence. This range is reflected in the various translations of Hebrews 1:3 where the Son of God is declared to be “the express image of [God’s] person [hypostasis]” (KJV translation). The NASB and ESV translate hypostasis as “nature,” the ASV as “substance,” and the NRSV and NIV as “being.” Down through the ages (including in the ancient creeds of the church), when referring to the Trinity, hypostasis was most often translated into the Latin word persona (and thus person in English—I have more to say below about the limitations of this word).

Having chosen hypostasis to refer to the three personal distinctions of God, these same teachers chose the Greek word ousia (meaning being) to refer to God’s oneness. Put together, hypostasis and ousia convey the reality revealed in Scripture that God is one in being (ousia) and three in Persons (hypostases). Thus the early church theological consensus used hypostasis (person) to refer to the three personal and eternal realities that stand forth in distinction and in relationship to each other in God’s one ousia (being).

The personal names of the three Persons that constitute the one God (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) were, of course, given to us by revelation. And with that revelation came the fact that there are three Persons, not two or four or an infinite number. Note that these teachers did not say that God is one being and also three beings, or one person and also three persons. How God is one is different from how God is three. Therefore, speaking precisely, we would say that there are “three real and eternal distinct Persons in the one God.”

Limitations of language

Theologians realize that the word “person” in English is not perfectly adequate to use in speaking of God’s three personal distinctions (hypostases) in relationship. This is because the way we understand persons in our creaturely experience carries with it the idea of separate individuals or different beings—an idea that does not apply in reference to God. As Athanasius noted, we must think of God theologically, not mythologically whereby we would project human, creaturely concepts onto God, as if God were a created thing.

It’s important to understand that theological language about God is necessarily analogical wherein there can only be partial overlap of meaning of the two things being compared—a prime example being the use of the word “persons” in speaking of the hypostases (the three distinct Persons) of the one God. There are points of overlapping meaning between the Persons of the Godhead and human persons that we can affirm, but there are then points that do not overlap—things that apply only to creatures and not to God and vice versa. When it comes to humans, persons remain distinct in being—they remain individuals, no matter how close (“one”) they might be relationally. But when it comes to God, the distinctions of the divine Persons (hypostases) occur within the one being (ousia) of God.

Because God is not a creature (a created being), we do not use the word Persons when speaking of God in the exact same way we use persons when speaking of human relationships, including relationships within the human family. While there are real relationships within God’s one being, those relationships are not between separate beings. The three Persons of the Trinity, through their absolutely unique relationships with one another, constitute the one being (ousia) of God in a way that is quite unlike the oneness within a human family. The relations between the Persons of God are very different from the relations that we creatures experience. In God, the relationships constitute them one in being. That is not the case for human beings. Recognizing that we are thinking analogically, we must keep in mind that the uncreated God cannot be explained in terms of the relationships within a created human family. Trying to do so would lead us into mythology and even idolatry. Recall that some pagans taught and believed that the gods are family. They also believed that the gods were sexual beings!

God is tri-personal

The relationships that occur between the three Persons within the one eternal being (ousia) of God are neither external to the Persons or to the being of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit can and do communicate with one another. Within the one being of God there is communion (fellowship) from all eternity, even before creation (John 17:1-26; Hebrews 1:8-9). The tri-personal God was never lonely.

When the Bible speaks of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each are called God, each speak and, as Jesus tells us, each act and exhibit attributes of personhood such as knowing, loving and glorifying one another. Capitalizing the word Person is one way we indicate that the word is being used in a special way in referring to the personal distinctions within the Godhead. The word Person, understood rightly, gives us a word that emphasizes God’s personal-ness in his own being (nature), and in relationship to us as human creatures.

Grounded in the biblical revelation, early church teachers found various ways to speak of God as one in being and three in Person. Following Jesus’ teaching concerning his being “in” the Father and the Father being “in” him (John 10:38; 14:10), they spoke of the Persons “in-existing” one another (enousios in Greek). They also coined the theological term perichoresis to signify that the divine Persons “mutually indwell” or “envelope” one another, making room or space for one another. Other ways perichoresis has been translated is that the divine Persons “co-inhere” or “interpenetrate” or are “convoluted” or “involuted” with one another. The idea being conveyed is that the whole of God is present in each of the divine Persons and that all the works of the Triune God are indivisible—the three Persons always work jointly, each contributing uniquely to that work. Such a perichoretic relationship only pertains to God and to no creature or creaturely reality. God is God alone; there is none other like him.

Upholding God’s oneness, distinction and equality

The framers of the Trinity doctrine understood it to be vital to uphold simultaneously three things about God: the eternal oneness or unity of being, the eternal distinction or differentiation of the three divine Persons, and the eternal equality of divinity of the three Persons. Thus, the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity preserves for us both the biblical revelation that there is but one God and no other, as well as the biblical testimony that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally divine and true God of true God. It should also be noted that the doctrine of the Trinity was never meant to explain all of what God was or how exactly God exists in a triune way. It was meant to protect the mystery of God while affirming the most faithful way to understand, as far as we can, the revelation of God in Christ and according to Scripture. It was meant to lead us to faithful worship!

Those who claim that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches three gods demonstrate a lack of understanding of the doctrine, which as I’ve already noted is monotheistic, not tritheistic. There is only one being that is God, and this one being is tri-personal, with each of the three divine Persons having full possession of the divine nature. All three Persons of the one triune God possess all the attributes of deity. British theologian Colin Gunton explained it this way:

The Father, Son and Spirit are persons because they enable each other to be truly what the other is: they neither assert at the expense of nor lose themselves in the being of the others. Being in communion is being that realizes the reality of the particular person within a structure of being together. There are not three gods, but one, because in the divine being a person is one whose being is so bound up with the being of the other two that together they make up the one God. (The Forgotten Trinity, page 56)

The three-in-one God at work

As we approach Holy Week followed by Ascension Sunday and Pentecost, keeping in mind what these days remind us of, let’s be inspired and comforted knowing that the one God who is three in Person brought about our salvation. Our Redemption was accomplished by the whole God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our Triune God is actively at work in our world—in our lives! In that regard, note this from Colin Gunton:

If you were to ask him how God works in the world, what are the means by which he creates and redeems it? Irenaeus would answer: “God the Father achieves his creating and redeeming work through his two hands, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Now this is an apparently crude image, but is actually extremely subtle. Our hands are ourselves in action; so that when we paint a picture or extend the hand of friendship to another, it is we who are doing it. According to this image, the Son and the Spirit are God in action, his personal way of being and acting in his world—God, we might say, extending the hand of salvation, of his love to his lost and perishing creation, to the extent of his only Son’s dying on the cross. Notice how close this is to the way in which we noticed John speaking in his Gospel. The Son of God, who is one with God the Father, becomes flesh and lives among us. This movement of God into the world he loves but that has made itself his enemy is the way by which we may return to him. The result of Jesus’ lifting up—his movement to cross, resurrection and ascension—is the sending of the Holy Spirit—another paraclete, or second hand of God the Father. The Spirit is the one sent by the Father at Jesus’ request to relate us to the Father through him. (The Triune God of Christian Confession, p. 10)

The next time you hear someone object to the doctrine of the Trinity, claiming it teaches three gods, I hope you’ll be able to explain to them the difference between tritheism and the actual doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps you’ll also be able to share with them the wonderful truth of the mystery and glory of the tri-personal God revealed to us in Jesus Christ.

I wish you all a blessed Holy Week,
Joseph Tkach

PS: To learn more about the doctrine of the Trinity, I recommend that you read Delighting in the Trinity by Michael Reeves (IVP). Note also that we have a wonderful course at Grace Communion Seminary titled “The Doctrine of the Trinity.”