God did it. Have I missed something? Gordon Cheng

The only possible solution that I can think of here is that every single work of God in creation, and so, necessarily, in redemption, is at one and the same time the work of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

My first thought was, “Did God the Father hang on a Roman Cross?”

Traditionally the church Fathers used a fancy Latin phrase for this very idea - Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa - which means the external works of the Trinity are undivided. So the one God creates and redeems because there is no clash of wills between the persons. Now at any one point in the Scriptures one person in the Godhead may more obviously take the focus of the author’s attention. This doesn’t mean that the other two are on the bench. There is a complementary notion of appropriation which refers to “appropriating or assigning” a particular aspect of God’s actions in the Bible story to one particular person in the Godhead. So you may have read something like, the Father creates, the Son redeems and the Spirit sanctifies. This is the more problematic version of appropriation in that, obviously either it doesn’t matter which of the persons we refer to as they are all the same or that in certain situations, only one person of the Triune God is in action because the other two have not been specifically mentioned. Hence theologians like John Calvin described the idea of appropriating different aspects of God’s actions in creation to the different persons. So in the Institutes we read:
“Nevertheless, it is not fitting to suppress the distinction that we observe to be expressed in Scripture. It is this: to the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain and wellspring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity.” I.13.18

What Calvin means here is that God the Father works in the world through His Son and by His Spirit.

Hi Craig,

No, God the Father didn’t die on the cross.

But God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. And, it was the will of God the Father that the Jesus should die.

So in both these senses, and possibly others I haven’t thought of just now, God the Father was fully involved in the redeeming work of Jesus on the cross.

David: way cool!

Roger Gallagher30/05/2009 08:22 PM

Hi Gordon,

A pike was basically a big spear between 3 to 6 metres in length. A pikestaff was the pike without the metal pointy bit on the end.

They were popular with the ancient Macedonians, until the Romans worked out ways to get around their formations. It was then revived in the Middle Ages, and was especially popular in the 16th century. It fell out of popularity as guns became more powerful and accurate.

I suspect the origin of the expression “as plain as a pikestaff” came from the fact that the pike was a weapon of the peasant & mercenary, who didn’t have the money to bling up their weapon as aristocrats could.

Without wanting to disagree with anything already said here, it might also be worth noting that the separation and loneliness of the second person (I know, myriad issues) on the cross might itself be important - not simply because of what it does for us – but because of what he himself becomes in relation to us by it.
The Father in sending the Son *away* ensures that he will achieve his inheritance and be glorified in his own right.

Gordon, I would suspect there is a much easier “solution” [not that I see this as a problem in any event] than what you mention.

I think you have fallen prey to the tendency to read things too much in terms of trinitarian categories and found by doing so a conundrum that does not exist.

When we read in our English translations that the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters and then ascribe an understanding of the word “Spirit of God” that is common in modern dialog but would have had no place whatever to the audience of the Torah, we are simply asking for interpretive problems.

What does Genesis 1:2 say is hovering over the surface of the waters? The ruwach of God.

What is this ruwach of God in the Genesis story? It is most definitely not the “Holy Spirit” of the Trinity, for this ruwach is what gives people life [Genesis 6:3] and when we are told that people will not live forever, it is because the ruwach will not “strive with man forever” [Genesis 6:3].

Since the Holy Spirit could not be received until after Christ’s cleansing death [Hebrews 9:14-17] yet man had this ruwach from the beginning.

In the Jewish conception of life, the “Breath of God” (translated by many English Translations as “Spirit of God,”) is what animated life and caused animals to be alive [see Genesis 6:3,17], and it is this life-giving breath that we see in Genesis 1:2, ready to inhabit all creation, animating all flesh.

Note the parallel of the “Breath of God” hovering over the waters in 1:2 right before Creation and God causing a breath [same word] to pass over the flooded earth in Genesis 8:1 to begin the second major covenantal epoch. And then this same word blew again in Exodus 14:21 preparing the Red sea parting immediately before the third covenantal epoch.

Commenting rules

If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:

  1. Please use your FULL NAME (your real name, not an alias).
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Be godly.

Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.

If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.

Your Comment

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
On That Day (Zechariah)

Sponsors

Briefing cover

The Sola Panel

The Briefing

Placeholder

Recent comments

RSS logo

Michael L. Johnson on A Vine confabulation

Karen Beilharz on A Vine confabulation

Michael L. Johnson on A Vine confabulation

Lionel Windsor on God, the universe and all that: Part 3

Lionel Windsor on God, the universe and all that: Part 3

Current discussions

RSS logo

God, the universe and all that: Part 3 (11 comments)

God, the universe and all that: Part 1 (7 comments)

John Wimber changes his mind (6 comments)

A Vine confabulation (3 comments)

Stark treatment of the Crusades (2 comments)

Recent posts

RSS logo RSS logo

God, the universe and all that: Part 4 by Lionel Windsor (0 comments). In the fourth instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor uncovers the answer to the riddle. (Read … more

A Vine confabulation by Ian Carmichael (3 comments). We at Matthias Media have recently made available a free and downloadable discussion guide for Col Marshall and Tony Payne's … more

God, the universe and all that: Part 3 by Lionel Windsor (11 comments). In the third instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor discovers we humans are significant in the … more

Kids@church/Click: Some great material for your children’s Sunday School by Jean Williams (0 comments). I teach Sunday School for children regularly, but I don't always have the time and energy to write my … more

Experiencing confusion by Karen Beilharz (0 comments). I mentioned in my last Saturday post that for the next little while, we would be looking at … more

God, the universe and all that: Part 2 by Lionel Windsor (1 comment). In the second instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor contemplates the extent of our significance in … more

Stark treatment of the Crusades by Peter Bolt (2 comments). Revisionist history is probably as common as it is unethical. There are lessons to learn from the past, but … more

God, the universe and all that: Part 1 by Lionel Windsor (7 comments). In the first instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor ponders what astronomy has to teach us. … more

John Wimber changes his mind by Karen Beilharz (6 comments). As our beloved convenor Paul Grimmond has now left us, I shall be taking over the … more

The Winter Olympics, basketball, Paul and teamwork by Peter Sholl (3 comments). There are very few Mexicans competing in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. Well, that is what I assume from … more

Ministry partners