Author: Jack Kilcrease

Jack Kilcrease is a Lutheran lay theologian and member of Our Savior Lutheran Church (LCMS). He is currently a member of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Jack was born in Texas, but grew up in Oregon. He went on to receive a B.A. from Luther College and an M.A. from Luther Seminary. He earned his Ph.D. in Systematic Theology and Ethics from Marquette University in 2009. Jack’s theological work explores the gift of God’s self-donation in Jesus Christ. He is the author of several books including the most recent volume of the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series on Holy Scripture and the forthcoming Justification by the Word (Lexham Press). Jack is currently Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at the Institute of Lutheran Theology’s Christ School of Theology. He is also an Assistant Adjunct Professor teaching philosophy at Aquinas College. Jack lives in beautiful West Michigan with his lovely wife, Bethany, and his two energetic daughters, Miriam and Ruth. When he’s not thinking about theology—and even when he is—Jack enjoys running, hiking, and hanging out with his family and cat. He’s passionate about BBQ, whiskey, jazz, movies, and theological discussion.
Posted on

Theology is Always Contextual, but Never Relative

The practice of theology is always embedded within the concrete world of history and creation. As a result, it is always contextual, yet never reducible to mere relativity. The Bible is the Word of God to humanity. Yet, as centuries of biblical scholarship has demonstrated, an individual author composed each book to address a specific crisis and context.  Similarly, in each generation, the ministry of the Church catholic interprets and proclaims the Word of God within a specific context.

This may involve applying the implications of an objective Christian doctrine in relation to a contemporary cultural or civilizational challenge. Invariably, the theologian must also interpret the Word of God within the matrix of any given era’s scientific, philosophical, and general cultural beliefs. This interaction may involve the theologian demonstrating the coherence of the Word with these beliefs as articulated within the dominant epistemological paradigm.  Indeed, in order to make the Word of God intelligible to people in a given era, every theologian consciously or unconsciously adopts an ancillary philosophy.

Continue reading “Theology is Always Contextual, but Never Relative”
Posted on

Theology by Grace Alone through Faith Alone

Theology is fundamentally about knowing and confessing the Triune God through faith in his Word (Rom. 10:9). God the Holy Spirit works to create saving faith through the Word. Such faith is in no way the byproduct of human will or activity (Rom. 10:17, 1 Cor. 2:14-16). Scripture does allow that a natural knowledge of God accessible to all people exists (Ps. 19, Rom. 1-2). Yet, this philosophical recognition of God and his reality is not theology in its proper sense. At best, the natural knowledge of God is a partial, garbled knowledge that the sinful human heart will manipulate according to its own purposes. Since God saves by faith through grace alone, so too the theology that gives rise to that faith comes by grace alone.  

In this vein, the early Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582 – 1637) spoke of theology as a “practical habitus” that God implanted in the human heart and mind.  In the Aristotelian philosophy of the day, a “habitus” was an aptitude for developing a habitual behavior, such as a virtue. Gerhard argued that God’s grace made theology possible by means of the Holy Spirit working on the heart and mind of the theologian. This divine action enables readers to fully apprehend the truths present in the text of Scripture. Of course, the theologian might still draw on his own humanly acquired knowledge when studying Scripture. However, only God’s Spirit and the gifts that he bestows allows the theologian to properly apprehend the content and unity of the Faith. Such a divinely given “aptitude” is “practical” because its ultimate end is the proclamation of the grace of God in Christ through Word and Sacrament. 

From the draft manuscript for Lutheran Dogmatics: The Evangelical-Catholic Faith for an Age of Contested Truth (Lexham Press).

Cover image from: Tom Nash, “What Are Inspirations of the Holy Spirit?,” Catholic Answers, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-are-inspirations-of-the-holy-spirit; other image from Chantal LaFortune, “Sacred Scripture Unveiled,” Holy Apostles College & Seminary, December 8, 2023, accessed June 23, 2025, https://holyapostles.edu/sacred-scripture-unveiled/.

Posted on

The Suffering Servant as Our Eternal High Priest

Throughout so-called Deutero-Isaiah, the Servant eschatologically fulfills the role of priestly and prophetic mediation, but also seems to be the Davidic Messiah spoken of earlier in Isaiah.  Earlier, Isaiah speaks of the Davidic Messiah as “a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch” (Isa. 11:1) and “root of Jesse who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire” (Isa. 11:10).  Parallel to this, the Servant of the later chapters of Isaiah is called a “shoot” coming “out of dry ground” (Isa. 53:2) and a “light to the nations” (Isa. 49:6). 

The Suffering Servant

Another parallel between the two figures is that the Davidic Messiah and the Servant are both described as redeemers and servants of YHWH.1  Indeed, like David prior to his enthronement, the Servant suffers before receiving glory.  Hence, it seems logical to think that Isaiah is speaking of the same figure when describing the Davidic Messiah and the Servant of the YHWH.    

It should also not go unnoticed that Isaiah’s Servant of YHWH takes on divine qualities as well.  As we have noted earlier, after having left during the Babylonian exile (Ezek. 10), Isaiah informs us that YHWH himself will return to Zion (Isa 40). The returning divine presence merges throughout the latter half of Isaiah with the Servant.  In this vein, the Servant is the luminous glory of the Lord in that he is a “light to the nations”(49:6). It cannot be denied that this description parallels the manifestation of the returning Kavod in Isaiah 40:5. Moreover, the Servant is also called the “arm of the Lord”(Isa. 53:1, 63:12), well as the divine “Angel of the presence” sent to save the people of God (Isa. 63:9).2  

Continue reading “The Suffering Servant as Our Eternal High Priest”
Posted on

Male – Female Relationality

The most primal relationship mirroring the relationality of divine life is the male/female relationship.  This is a point highlighted in the theology of Karl Barth1 and Hans Urs von Balthasar.2  In Genesis 2 we are told that God sees that it is not good that man is alone and seeks to make him a counterpart as a “helpmeet.”  As helpmeet, the woman is created to share in man’s creational/vocational tasks as a partner.  This is what St. Paul means when he states that “man [was not] created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Cor. 11:9).  He does not mean that woman was created as man’s plaything, or a slave to be dominated.  Rather, man was first created and given certain creational tasks which woman was created to share in.

In Genesis 2, woman is derived from man, but not because she is inferior to man.  As we may recall, the idea that realities which are derivative are inherently inferior is an aspect of the metaphysics of tragedy.  The Bible works on the basis of a metaphysic of comedy, in that movement and generation do not lead to degeneracy but go from the good (the man alone) to the better (man and woman together in relationship).  In support of this, Genesis 1 makes both the male and female equal image-bearers of God.  This is confirmed in that when seeing the woman in Genesis 2 the man cries out that she is precisely what he is: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23).  In an analogical sense, the man is homoousios with the woman. 

Continue reading “Male – Female Relationality”
Posted on

The Imago Dei and Righteous Relationality

Genesis 1:26-27 speaks of humans as made in the image and likeness of God.  The meaning of this phrase has been hotly contested in the history of Christian thought. However, we can immediately reject is the interpretation first proposed by St. Irenaeus that “likeness” and “image” are distinct realities.

Early Interpretations of the Image of God

According to Irenaeus, the former refers to natural human faculties, whereas the latter refers to a special grace God gave to pre-lapsarian humans. This grace allowed humans to eventually participate in the divine life (i.e., a precursor of the later concept of theosis). As a result of the Fall, humans retain the image, but have lost the likeness.1 Modern biblical scholarship has shown that the use of the terms “image” and “likeness” in tandem with each other is simply an example of the literary poetical parallelism common to the Old Testament and much of ANE western Semitic literature. Therefore, “image” and “likeness” possess an identical meaning.2 

We can also easily reject St. Augustine’s3 and St. Thomas Aquinas’s4 claim that the mental faculties of memory, intellect, and will reflect the Trinity. Not only is there no exegetical basis for this claim, but the Bible knows nothing of Greek faculty psychology.5   

Continue reading “The Imago Dei and Righteous Relationality”