Theology Archives - Jack Kilcrease

April 6, 2025April 7, 2025

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

March 22, 2025March 12, 2025

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.

March 16, 2025March 23, 2025

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

February 18, 2025February 18, 2025

Pastoral Disaster: Justification After the Formula of Concord

Throwback Post

Although the Formula of Concord affirmed Luther’s concept of justification by the word, Lutherans of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century quickly returned to the problematic paradigm St. Augustine bequeathed to the West. In this, Lutheran theology tended to take the sacramentalist trajectory in the Augustinian Dilemma.¹ This is probably partially based on the early Lutheran desire to polemically to differentiate itself as a confessional tradition from Calvinism. It is also possible that there were lingering Melanchthonian undercurrents regarding how question of sin and grace was conceptualized. Nevertheless, the largest catalyst for the almost total abandon of the doctrine of election lay in the overreaction to the teaching of a Swiss Lutheran theologian named Samuel Huber.²

Samuel Huber and Theological Overcorrection

Samuel Huber began his career in the Reformed communion.³ Having been censored for some his views of divine grace, he left the Reformed confessional camp to become a Lutheran and taught at Wittenberg.⁴ Huber held that because the grace of God was universal as the Formula of Concord had taught, then it must logically follow that election was also universal.⁵ In teaching this, he was not affirming universalism as many of his contemporaries claimed, but merely conflated election with the gracious invitation of humanity to trust in the gospel.⁶

Aegidius Hunnius, Superintendent and Faculty of the University of Wittenberg

In response to Huber’s claim, Aegidius Hunnius⁷ and Leonhard Hütter⁸ asserted that election is merely God’s passive foreknowledge regarding who would come to faith and preserve it to the end of their lives (ex praevisa fide). Although humans cannot initiate their relationship with God,⁹ humans could lose their faith as Luther had himself affirmed.¹⁰

From the possibility of apostasy, later Lutheran theologians like Johann Gerhard drew the conclusion that preserving or wrecking faith was a matter of contingent human volition (albeit, supported by the power of the Holy Spirit), and hence not subject to the predestining will of God.¹¹ Because God clearly foreknew who would continue to cooperate with him after regeneration and who would fall away, predestination was little more than divine foreknowledge of human faith.¹²

December 30, 2024December 30, 2024

The Incarnation and Kenosis: the Son of God’s Humiliation

Before anyone can discuss Christ’s work, it is first necessary to examine the kenosis, or humiliation, of the Son of God in time. Indeed, the whole course of Old Testament history from the protoevangelium to the Virgin Birth is a kind of kenosis on the part of God. God pledges his very self in the form of the speech-act of promise and, therefore, places himself at the disposal of humanity. Later, he more specifically placed himself at the disposal of Israel in particular.

Having chained (berit, covenanted) himself to Israel through the gift of the divine Name and promise, God finally stood in such profound kenotic solidarity with his people that he actually became one of them. Lutheran philosopher Johann Georg Hamann correctly asserts that the whole history of salvation is a story of divine self-gift and humbling:

Consider how God the Father has humbled Himself by not only forming a lump of earth but also giving it a soul with His breath. Consider how God the Son has humbled Himself- he became a man, became the least of all people and took on the form of a servant; He became the most hapless of them; He was made sin for us; in God’s eyes He was the sinner of the whole people. Consider how low God the Holy Spirit has condescended by becoming a historian of the smallest, most contemptible, most insignificant events on earth, so as to reveal the mysteries and ways of God to mankind in its own speech, in its own history, in its own ways.¹