Monday Musings for June 13, 2016

Good morning Musers,

We'll have some fun today. A questioner wants to know why God didn't have more kids... you know... inaddition to Jesus! She also wants to know why his one child had to be a boy instead of a girl. Now, I can't tell through email just how far her tongue was in her cheek (I suspect that the question had "fun" underpinnings), but you know the thing about humor: something cannot be funny unless it is first true — otherwise it's just senseless babble. What this means is that there are indeed some real issues here no matter how they were couched, and I'll address two key ones.

First, (and this has been sort of a theme lately) Jesus was the only Savior. So, why was he God's only begotten child? Because he was the only one needed. Think about it: Why would God have more Savior-grade children if only one were needed to do the job... and wouldn't requiring more be an insult to Jesus' completed work? Sure. Hebrews makes that clear. But remember, although it is true that Jesus was uniquely qualified to redeem us, this does not stop religionists from lining him up as equal with other paths to "heaven" or whatever. So, his uniqueness is important as an intrinsic qualifier, but hisonliness is important in the relationship between the Redeemer and the redeemed... and that's the chunk she (and the "coexisters") miss. To quote several from the movie Highlander, "There can be only one!" 

"More" is not better. More means that Jesus was not adequate. Never accept Jesus in series with or on par with others. His death on the cross would be absurd if other methods of redemption were available.

Second, as to his gender, I had to expand my response beyond the legal requirements for the Passover lamb — that he must be a male, without blemish, etc. — and talk about what male headship means in the Body of Christ. Now, you, my regular readers, understand that I frequently beat-up fundamentalists for their extra-biblical excesses and their untoward rigidity, but like them I take a stand against female pastors... and it's not because of Paul's direct prohibitions which might be plausibly explained away as "that was then but this is now." My issue is that we must reflect Christ's headship until he returns. The symbolism here is much like that in the Lord's Supper and baptism in that the symbols were establishedin this age —  but they must also persist through this age; we simply do not have the flexibility to skew the symbolic vehicles. They must remain in play until Christ, the symbolic tenor, fulfills these symbols at his coming... after which time they would be redundant.

Therefore, I too am "stuck" sounding like a fundamentalist on this issue...for a while anyway. The Redeemer had to be a man, the pastor has to me a man, and (gulp)... the husband has to be a man... (he said in sad amazement that he had to say that at all). So, to Lord Jesus I say, come soon (and I really mean it today) — but to the rest of you I say, enjoy the musing.

Evan

(To join the Monday Musings mailing list, make that request using the comment section below.) 

 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh