Trinity, Hierarchy, Books

[En Kristo]

Bruce Waltke writes this in his Theology of the Old Testament:

Hierarchy in government is not the result of the Fall. It exists eternally in the Godhead itself, wherein the Son is always voluntarily subservient to the Father’s will and the Spirit to both. In the mystery of the Godhead, in which the three persons are one and equal, the Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit obeys both. Paradoxically Jesus says both “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

The idea of a hierarchy within the trinity and the subservience of Christ isn't an easy concept to hold on to without venturing into the error of the subordination of Christ. Can anyone suggest some helpful books on the matter?

 

[arapahoepark]

Anything by Kevin Giles. He's an egalitarian but, he was sounding the alarm early about complementarians using their theology of men and women and reading it back into the Godhead.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think Waltke dropped the ball on this one. Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity gives a better picture.

 

[Aretha]

Bruce Waltke writes this in his Theology of the Old Testament:

Hierarchy in government is not the result of the Fall. It exists eternally in the Godhead itself, wherein the Son is always voluntarily subservient to the Father’s will and the Spirit to both. In the mystery of the Godhead, in which the three persons are one and equal, the Son obeys the Father, and the Spirit obeys both. Paradoxically Jesus says both “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

The idea of a hierarchy within the trinity and the subservience of Christ isn't an easy concept to hold on to without venturing into the error of the subordination of Christ. Can anyone suggest some helpful books on the matter?

I think you have to read Bavinck :boek2:
This is also interesting: https://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/425/1/2021 Choi, Changjun.pdf

 

[En Kristo]

I think Waltke dropped the ball on this one. Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity gives a better picture.

I am not a formally trained theologian and I am not all that familiar with Bruce Waltke’s writings. From what little I’ve read, Waltke seems highly regarded as an expert on the Old Testament. That said, I haven’t been impressed with his Theology of the Old Testament. I’m only about half way through reading it, but there are a number of things that make me scratch my head, starting with his exegesis of Genesis 1:1-2.

Here is just one example, not the most questionable by any means. Waltke writes: "Without philological warrant, John Calvin taught that 'the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart.' His initial error led him to wrongly argue that the image of God was destroyed in the Fall.”

But this is what Calvin says in his Institutes:

1.15.4. ☞ But our definition of the image seems not to be complete until it appears more clearly what the faculties are in which man excels, and in which he is to be regarded as a mirror of the divine glory. This, however, cannot be better known than from the remedy provided for the corruption of nature. It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God. Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and, therefore, our deliverance begins with that renovation which we obtain from Christ, who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to true and substantial integrity.

I don’t enjoy criticizing books by Christians who are far more learned than I am, but some books are very helpful and others, well, not so much. In the case of a hierarchy in the trinity, this may be my problem. How do you have a hierarchy without subordination? There may be an answer. After all, how can three be one? How can the Son be without beginning and yet eternally begotten of the Father? Reciting the Nicene Creed is a whole lot easier than understanding it.

I think you have to read Bavinck :boek2:
This is also interesting: https://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/425/1/2021 Choi, Changjun.pdf

Aretha,

Much obliged. I have Bavinck. I’ll take a look.

 

[Ploutos]

I think Waltke dropped the ball on this one. Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity gives a better picture.

Isn't it true that ESS had just kind of snuck in as part and parcel of accepted Trinitarian theology for a while until the alarm was raised in 2016? Makes sense that any number of prominent theologians would speak that way prior to then.

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't it true that ESS had just kind of snuck in as part and parcel of accepted Trinitarian theology for a while until the alarm was raised in 2016? Makes sense that any number of prominent theologians would speak that way prior to then.

I think so.

 

[arapahoepark]

I am not a formally trained theologian and...
I don’t enjoy criticizing books by Christians who are far more learned than I am, but some books are very helpful and others, well, not so much.

Join the club.
But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. I've run across a lot of Ph.Ds in history or Theology who are dead wrong and should know better especially when it's their expertise. Recently a seminary professor told me that there is a lot of laziness in academia.

 

[Polanus1561]

I heard a critique from someone (here?) Waltke is not strong in his systematics.

 

[RamistThomist]

don’t enjoy criticizing books by Christians who are far more learned than I am, but some books are very helpful and others, well, not so much.

If it were something like Hebrew grammar, then none of us would be in a position to criticize Waltke. On stuff like the Trinity, especially with the renaissance in Reformed scholasticism, we are in such a position.

 

[Polanus1561]

If it were something like Hebrew grammar, then none of us would be in a position to criticize Waltke. On stuff like the Trinity, especially with the renaissance in Reformed scholasticism, we are in such a position.

did you meet him from your time at RTS?

 

[En Kristo]

I heard a critique from someone (here?) Waltke is not strong in his systematics.

That is a very good way to put it and that is my impression of his Theology of the Old Testament. I am now half way through it. He has some hepful insights, but this is not a book I would recommend to anyone who cannot read critically.

I sometimes wonder if academics write their books with one eye on the scriptural text and one eye on their academic reputation and succumb to academic peer pressure. I don’t have any skin in the publishing or academic business. I am free to say whatever I think is true. I get the impression that there are certain things you cannot say if you want to be published by the likes of the Oxford Press or if you want to be taken seriously by secular academics. I have some specific authors in mind, but I’d rather not mention their names. I try to give them all the benefit of the doubt, but when they try to translate Genesis 1:2 the way that the New Revised Standard Version does (Gen. 1:2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.), I usually put the book down and pick up something by the Puritans so as to wash my brain out with soap.

 

[RamistThomist]

did you meet him from your time at RTS?

No. That was before my time.

 

[Polanus1561]

I believe that is why people appreciate John Goldingay. Very questionable beliefs. But his dealing with the text is always useful because he is limited to the text. That is where his gift lies.

 

[MW]

The idea of a hierarchy within the trinity and the subservience of Christ isn't an easy concept to hold on to without venturing into the error of the subordination of Christ. Can anyone suggest some helpful books on the matter?

While I disagree with the doctrinally clumsy way that Waltke has expressed himself, especially his failure to distinguish ontological and economical relations, it is important not to overlook the overall point he was making. There is a sense in which "order" exists in the Trinity (however one decides to articulate it) and there is a created "order" into which Christ has entered for our salvation. The church must not ignore this to adopt a free-for-all approach to government and ministry. Waltke's overall point about male priority is important although it is right to correct him on some of the details.

 

[En Kristo]

While I disagree with the doctrinally clumsy way that Waltke has expressed himself, especially his failure to distinguish ontological and economical relations, it is important not to overlook the overall point he was making. There is a sense in which "order" exists in the Trinity (however one decides to articulate it) and there is a created "order" into which Christ has entered for our salvation. The church must not ignore this to adopt a free-for-all approach to government and ministry. Waltke's overall point about male priority is important although it is right to correct him on some of the details.

It is a valid point that creation reflects the Creator and that people must not transgress the creation order in any sphere of life. My issue was that I was not aware of any discussion of the doctrine of the trinity which used the language of hierarchy. I was looking for some books that could explain that concept to me. I presume that Waltke didn’t pull that language out of thin air. There must be something behind it. I was just trying to fill in gaps in my own understanding. I’ve been contemplating the trinity my entire life, which basically means that I am just beginning to comprehend something about it.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is a valid point that creation reflects the Creator and that people must not transgress the creation order in any sphere of life. My issue was that I was not aware of any discussion of the doctrine of the trinity which used the language of hierarchy. I was looking for some books that could explain that concept to me. I presume that Waltke didn’t pull that language out of thin air. There must be something behind it. I was just trying to fill in gaps in my own understanding. I’ve been contemplating the trinity my entire life, which basically means that I am just beginning to comprehend something about it.

A bunch of Evangelicals had used the language of subordination and hierarchy as a tool against feminism. They really didn't know what they were talking about and after 2016, the better evangelical scholars stopped saying that.

 

[En Kristo]

A bunch of Evangelicals had used the language of subordination and hierarchy as a tool against feminism. They really didn't know what they were talking about and after 2016, the better evangelical scholars stopped saying that.

Thanks. Helpful.

 

[jwright82]

A bunch of Evangelicals had used the language of subordination and hierarchy as a tool against feminism. They really didn't know what they were talking about and after 2016, the better evangelical scholars stopped saying that.

That was such a strange move for them. I get their logic but it's taking a more problematic route to get there. Hierarchy exists between the sexes because God created it that way from two ontologically equal in value things. Pure and simple.

 

[MW]

It is a valid point that creation reflects the Creator and that people must not transgress the creation order in any sphere of life. My issue was that I was not aware of any discussion of the doctrine of the trinity which used the language of hierarchy. I was looking for some books that could explain that concept to me. I presume that Waltke didn’t pull that language out of thin air. There must be something behind it. I was just trying to fill in gaps in my own understanding. I’ve been contemplating the trinity my entire life, which basically means that I am just beginning to comprehend something about it.

It's a very complex milieu. Basically in the 20th century theologians reimagined the categories of the immanent and economic Trinity. Some then started to deny personal properties; then others reclaimed them but failed to appropriate traditional distinctions. Somewhere out of this heap of rubbish emerged a new subordinationist doctrine which was custom made to address the issue of feminism.

 

[En Kristo]

It's a very complex milieu. Basically in the 20th century theologians reimagined the categories of the immanent and economic Trinity. Some then started to deny personal properties; then others reclaimed them but failed to appropriate traditional distinctions. Somewhere out of this heap of rubbish emerged a new subordinationist doctrine which was custom made to address the issue of feminism.

I’m glad that I slept through it all.

 

[lynnie]

That is a very good way to put it and that is my impression of his Theology of the Old Testament. I am now half way through it. He has some hepful insights, but this is not a book I would recommend to anyone who cannot read critically.

I sometimes wonder if academics write their books with one eye on the scriptural text and one eye on their academic reputation and succumb to academic peer pressure. I don’t have any skin in the publishing or academic business. I am free to say whatever I think is true. I get the impression that there are certain things you cannot say if you want to be published by the likes of the Oxford Press or if you want to be taken seriously by secular academics. I have some specific authors in mind, but I’d rather not mention their names. I try to give them all the benefit of the doubt, but when they try to translate Genesis 1:2 the way that the New Revised Standard Version does (Gen. 1:2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.), I usually put the book down and pick up something by the Puritans so as to wash my brain out with soap.

When my husband went to Westminster Seminary ( long time ago) one of the professors said that sometimes it is very helpful to look at commentaries by liberal unbelieving theologians. They don't think the bible is inerrant or absolute truth or God breathed, or that Paul was to be obeyed, or anything like all that. They just say what the original language says without any denominational or theological slant- they don't believe it anyway, so they are free to translate exactly what it says. You might almost be better off sometimes with a brilliant apostate/unbeliever who knows his textual academics, than a lesser scholar with an agenda to push. Of course avoiding both would be ideal if you can find good material elsewhere.

 

[Polanus1561]

When my husband went to Westminster Seminary ( long time ago) one of the professors said that sometimes it is very helpful to look at commentaries by liberal unbelieving theologians. They don't think the bible is inerrant or absolute truth or God breathed, or that Paul was to be obeyed, or anything like all that. They just say what the original language says without any denominational or theological slant- they don't believe it anyway, so they are free to translate exactly what it says. You might almost be better off sometimes with a brilliant apostate/unbeliever who knows his textual academics, than a lesser scholar with an agenda to push. Of course avoiding both would be ideal if you can find good material elsewhere.

there is enough material today so we can have our theological cake and exegetical... uhh cream.. together. the 90s were a wild wild west.

 

[MW]

I’m glad that I slept through it all.

Sounds peaceful.