Is it Christologically incorrect (or even heretical) to affirm the eternal kingship of Christ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Haeralis

Puritan Board Freshman
Recently, I had an interesting and important Christological discussion with a Reformed friend that has left me a little confused. The initial context of the discussion was political theory. I suggested that Abraham Kuyper was wrong to say that government only came into the world because of the existence of sin. There is certainly a "government" in heaven, though how it interacts with the saints will certainly be different. Sin undoubtedly changes the task of politics, but even in a world where there had been no Fall I can imagine that governments would have arisen organically to fulfill the pre-Fall creation mandate, among other things. Regarding this point, I would point out that Jonathan Edwards, Johannes Althusius, Hermann Witsius and a host of other historically orthodox Reformed theologians rejected the Thomas Paine Radical Whig position, one affirmed by Kuyper, that "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."

My friend's criticism of this position really took me aback, and I don't really know what to make of it. He implied that I was deviating from orthodox Reformed Christology with this position. As you all undoubtedly know, Christ has the three Mediatorial offices of "prophet, priest, and king." Calvin maintained that these three offices are, in fact, one single Mediatorial office. Christ can only be a prophet and a priest in a world with sin, my interlocutor said, and since these three offices are completely united we can infer that he also only became king with the entrance of sin into the world.

This sounds really questionable to me. The same book of Hebrews which speaks of Christ's three offices also speaks of his "throne" and "scepter" (terms which invoke a kingly image) as being "forever and ever, Oh Lord." Additionally, we know that Jesus Christ is the "same yesterday, today, and forever." Isn't it a little strange to suggest that Christ, the eternal member of the Trinitarian Godhead, only gained his role as Mediator because of the human decision to eat of the tree? My initial instinct would be to say that the three offices are indeed united in one single Mediatorial office, but that each role would have been fulfilled differently in a world without the Fall. But I don’t really know how to argue that Christ was our priest prior to the Fall, since that office seems to presuppose the existence of sin.

For his part, John Calvin argued that Chist would be our Mediator (and presumably prophet, priest, and king) even without sin and the Fall:

"Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator."

What are your thoughts?
 
Seems to me like there's too much speculation, when it comes to detailed suppositions about what might or would be the case in a world without the Fall. Christ is the foreordained Mediator from all eternity because that's "when" (before the world) God ordained whatsoever comes to pass; which ordination is centered on Christ's saving work.

Calvin's comment is less a statement developing a full understanding of Christ's munus triplex; and more a statement about man as creature, inherently incapable of a direct and unmediated fellowship with divinity.

It isn't apparent to me what form (if any) general human governance would have over society (or societies) in a world without sin. Sinless Adam was the original federal head of the first world, a world that began under probation. Would it come free of that estate before or while or after children were continuously being propagated into it? Would the covenant of works remain as the divine-human relational framework for all generations into eternity? What would "the covenant of works" mean in a world where humanity was confirmed in righteousness? Would it be an historic relic of sorts?

God is the ultimate Authority, the King by whatever name you will. He reigns presently over men through that Man who has two natures. Even before he took on humanity, God via the Second Person reigned over his people as King, signified in his ark-of-covenant throne. Furthermore, he judged "among the gods," Ps.82:1, 8, a depiction of the God of Israel having supremacy over all the "gods" of the nations--not that they are truly divine. Indeed it is speculative all the way around, but I don't think there would be angelic-analogues to human rulers in the same way if the world was not fallen.

Why should not every particular man in an unfallen state stand in direct rule/relation to God, allowing there need be some form of mediatorial accommodation on account of creaturehood? If an appeal is made to the hierarchy of family-structure, I only need to emphasize that there is at least some form of "temporary" quality to this; consider how without it the reality of life-without-end would thus establish a forever pyramid structure for the whole race. So either an arbitrary limit must be imposed; or else, other than Adam's honorific exaltation as supreme father, each person should stand before God without an existentially necessary family or political hierarchy. Again, this is mankind multiplied and unfallen.

For my part, I don't think that it's possible to map structures we've come to recognize in a fallen world to imagined analogues in an unfallen one.
 
Rutherford said government is natural in re, voluntary in mode. That's probably a good starting point. As to whether Christ is eternally mediator, here are some following guidelines from Muller:

Calvin did teach “it is nevertheless only in union with human nature that we recognize the person of the mediator.” (Christ and the Decree, by Richard Muller [The Labyrinth Press: Durham, North Carolina, 1986] pg. 29)

So is Calvin here saying that the mediator was not until he took flesh? No. Muller makes very clear, “Calvin does, in fact, speak of the ‘person of the mediator’ prior to the incarnation, in reference to the Old testament witness…The eternal Son is designated as mediator prior to the incarnation and performs his office in the communication of God’s Word to man.”(pg. 29)

Beyond that I wouldn't speculate on govt in heaven.
 
The only thought that I have was that there might be a passing reference to the eternal kingship of Christ in the Belgic Confession:
We believe and confess One single catholic or universal church—a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects. And this holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of men—as though it were snuffed out. For example, during the very dangerous time of Ahab the Lord preserved for himself seven thousand men who did not bend their knees to Baal. And so this holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain persons. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world, though still joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top