First, I would like to give a genuine thank you to all of our supporters over the last few years. While we’re not quite keeping up with the Joe Rogans of the world, we have enjoyed friends, family, and the few random internet strangers commenting on and commending our work. When we launched our flagship project, Death and Glory back in 2023, we had no idea what were doing but we were doggedly zealous to do something, anything. It was earlier in summer of 2022 that I found myself sitting in my good friend Peter’s driveway, cigar in hand, watching a dying fire under a muggy August night sky. The COVID debacle was still ruining lives and Joe Biden was hitting every innocent pedestrian he could as he fell asleep behind the wheel. We were feeling angsty and had a lot to say about the course of things at the time. Podcasting was a low barrier to entry endeavor and it seemed fun. And it was fun. We had opportunities to interview some incredible guests, ask some hard questions about life and death and solidify our stances on some secondary and tertiary issues that were rearing their ugly heads at the time. Death and Glory’s first season was packed with “celebrities” at least in our small reformed-ish world. Michael Foster, Aaron Renn, and CR Wiley were gracious with their time and we appreciated their support. Season 2 didn’t seem quite so star studded, but we had a blast talking with some friends and acquaintances from/near the Kansas City area. A huge shout out to Joshua Jenkins, Aaron Vassar, and JR Burdick for showing up and letting us pick your brains.

I enjoyed Death and Glory. I hope you did too. But it is time to say goodbye to what helped get this little media company started. We are officially retiring Death and Glory. There are many reasons for this but I want to highlight two in particular so you get a sense of how things operate in our world. The first reason is time, or lack thereof. I hope it warms your heart knowing that we are not funded by USAID or any other demoniac government program. (Sounds like something a Fed would say…) On the flip side, Puritan Pub Media is run by run of the mill, regular Joe’s who work full time, serve in the local church, and have families that put the average US birthrate to shame. Our content really is a labor of love and I appreciate your support and patience even in the seasons where we are unable to put out consistent content. The second reason is bittersweet. Over the last several months, we’ve had some personnel changes. Our friend and former producer, Noah Chesbro headed back to his roots in New York with his lovely wife and their two sons. Currently he’s working on a documentary called, What is the Family?, which we’re pretty excited to support and see.

(Find our more here: https://www.whatisthefamily.com/)

Also, Peter Rasmussen, my illustrious co-host will be stepping back from the creative side of PPM. Peter is currently working on a new startup with a mutual of ours and we hope and pray for the best in their endeavor. Peter will still be involved with PPM, but his contributions will be behind the scenes.

Looking Ahead

Fear not, listener. There is much to look forward to. I know many of you have asked about our latest podcast, The Pursuit with Stephen Freeland. That project is alive and well despite some kinks in scheduling. but Stephen will be back on the mic soon and with some guests we know you’ll enjoy. If you haven’t checked out the first 2 episodes you can find them here: https://puritanpubmedia.com/p/the-pursuit-d99 and here: https://puritanpubmedia.com/p/episode-2-deer-season-is-upon-us.

And if that’s not exciting enough for you, we have a new podcast coming your way next month. Yes, starting in March 2025, we will be releasing a brand new show called, Missouri Rambler, a podcast about all things well, Missouri. From its European discovery in the 17th century to our current place in the 21st century, I will be taking you on a journey through the fascinating history of the Show Me State. Join me in learning to love your home and your people.

As always, if you like what we’re doing here at PPM, please subscribe to our Substack for free and get emails about all new episodes and articles. And if you’re feeling generous you can also pledge support if you so choose.

Stay tuned and God bless.

Jordan Parks, Founder

Enjoy his great stories and wisdom as we cover everything from the local community and the church to why the current world is fake and ghey.

Buy milk from JR Burdick here - https://nourishingfamilyfarm.com

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/p/Nourishing-Family-Farm-100094677803810/

Twitter (X) - https://x.com/JRcowfarmer

Thank you for your support, if you enjoyed the episode please like and review.

Today’s Book Notes are from R. B. Jamieson, The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021), chapter 1, “A Classical Christological Toolkit.”

What is this book about? 

Jamieson’s main goal in this book is to answer a seemingly simple question: what does the author of Hebrews mean when he refers to Jesus as the “Son.” The reason I use the term “seemingly” is that, on the one hand, there are passages in Hebrews that indicate Jesus has always been the Son (Heb 1:1-3, 8-12; 5:8; 7:3) while elsewhere he seems to speak of Jesus becoming the Son (1:4-5). How do we reconcile this paradox? Drawing heavily from the theological and exegetical insights of the church fathers–while also bringing to bear insights from modern Bible scholars–Jamieson concludes (spoiler alert) that the author of Hebrews uses the term “Son” in two distinct but closely related ways. That is, he sometimes refers to Jesus’ identity as the eternal Divine Son, the second person of the Trinity; and at other times he refers to Jesus’ role as the Messianic Son, the descendant of David who, through the incarnation, accomplished redemption and began to rule as “Son” at His enthronement upon ascending back to His Father.

What is he doing in this chapter? 

In his opening chapter, “A Classical Christological Toolkit,” Jamieson lays out the resources provided by “conciliar Christology,” which he defines as “the sum total of the teachings of the first seven ecumenical councils of the church regarding the person of Christ” (24, footnote 2). In other words, before starting on his journey into the Christology of Hebrews, Jamieson attempts to show his readers the theological and exegetical “tools” that he plans to use from the teachings about Jesus that the church has held throughout most of its history. After listing out these six tools, he offers a further explanation of the relationship between Hebrews’ depiction of Christ and the later teachings of conciliar Christology, then concludes the chapter with a response to potential objections to his method of using these tools to interpret the text.

Walking through “A Classical Christological Toolkit”

Jamieson begins the chapter by outlining his six Christological “tools”--defined as “six distinctions, concepts, and reading strategies” drawn from the classical teachings of the church about Jesus (24)–which he will use to better understand what Hebrews is saying about Jesus’ sonship. The first three tools are phrased as answers to three key questions about Jesus: who, what, and when? The final three are “strategies of reading and predication that seek to account for the paradoxical fullness of what a text like Hebrews says about Jesus” (if you don’t understand what he means by that, don’t worry; it’ll become clearer once we look at the tools themselves).

1. Question: Who? Answer: A single divine subject. Jamieson writes, “As when we meet anyone, the first question we tend to ask on encountering Jesus naturally is, Who is he? And the answer that conciliar Christology gives, and that I will argue the text of Hebrews gives, is God the Son” (25). Jamieson’s emphasis in giving this answer is on the singleness of Jesus’ identity. In other words, there are not two “Sons” or two “Jesuses,” one divine and one human. Both Hebrews (e.g., Heb 1:2-4) and classical Christology (e.g. Nicene Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, Cyril of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, Athanasius) insist that there is only one subject, one person performing all the actions ascribed to the Son.

2. Question: What? Answer: One person with two natures. While Jesus is one, single subject, he is both “human” and “more than human,” and “what he possesses that is more than human is divine in the fullest sense of the word” (28). Jamieson insists that distinguishing between these first two questions (“who” versus “what”) is crucial to understanding both classical Christology and the author of Hebrews.

3. Question: When? Answer: Eternal divine existence and incarnation in time, in the last times. Drawing again from the example of church figures such as Athanasius and Cyril, Jamieson makes a distinction between “the Son’s existence in eternity from his incarnation in time” (30). This becomes necessary when interpreting the various activities the author of Hebrews ascribes to Jesus, such as creating the world, atoning for sin, and serving as our High Priest. In each case, to rightly understand what the text is saying, we need to ask the question: Is the author referring to the Son’s existence/activity in eternity past, during previous eras of human history, or during these “last times” after becoming incarnate?

4. Theology and economy, or “partitive exegesis.” While the term “partitive exegesis” sounds intimidating, the concept is really just a straightforward application of the answers to the previous three questions. Partitive exegesis recognizes that “certain biblical passages ascribe divinity to Christ–they ‘theologize’ him–while other passages designate Christ as incarnate and describe what pertains to his incarnate state” (32). Following the example of some of the aforementioned figures from church history, Jamieson argues that when we read a passage describing the nature and/or work of Christ, we need to discern whether the text is speaking of Jesus’ divine essence (“theology”) or his incarnate state (“economy,” which in classical Christology is shorthand for “plan of salvation” as accomplished through the incarnation). With regard to Hebrews, he writes, “Sometimes Hebrews speaks of the Son as he is God; sometimes Hebrews speaks of the Son as he has become human. The theology-economy distinction recognizes this difference and invites us to read accordingly” (36).

5. Twofold or reduplicative predication. Again, terms like “reduplicative predication” sound overly-technical (and in certain settings, they would be), the concept is again a staple of Christian orthodoxy. In sum, twofold/reduplicative predication is simply the recognition that the reason why biblical passages can speak of Jesus as divine while others ascribe human traits to him (a.k.a. theology vs. economy, or partitive exegesis) is because Jesus has two natures, one fully divine, the other fully human (i.e., the answer to question #2). Jamieson writes, “While theology and economy distinguish between the scope of different biblical passages or assertions (simply divine or incarnate), twofold predication distinguishes between the incarnate Christ’s divine and human natures as the basis of, or warrant for, particular assertions” (36). To be perfectly honest, I find it a little confusing that he lists twofold predication after partitive exegesis, since the former is really the grounds of the latter.

6. Paradoxical predication: the communication of idioms. As the final tool in his Christological toolbelt, Jamieson cites the practice sometimes referred to as the communicatio idiomatum (“communication of idioms”). The idea here is that, if the Son is truly one subject with two distinct natures, then it is perfectly appropriate to make certain kinds of paradoxical statements about him, “naming Christ according to his divine nature and predicating of him what is true only by virtue of his human nature” (39). As a couple of biblical examples of this, Jamieson cites Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8, where the apostle asserts that “the rulers of this age…would not have crucified the Lord of glory”; and Peter in Acts 3:15, where he indicts his audience by saying they “killed the Author of life.” Jamieson also cites examples from church history, such as Ignatius’s use of phrases like “the blood of God” and “the suffering of my God”; or Gregory of Nazianzus’s saying that “the fleshless one is made flesh, the Word becomes material, the invisible is seen, the intangible is touched, the timeless has a beginning” (39-40). As far as the purpose of his book goes, Jamieson writes, “While Hebrews does not feature such bracingly paradoxical sentences, I will argue that its whole witness to Jesus warrants them” (39).

After unpacking these six Christological tools, Jamieson briefly discusses the relationship between conciliar Christology and the Christology of Hebrews. He argues that while the two sources use different terms, different forms of presentation (e.g., the implications of an epistle versus the structure of a creed), and different degrees of specification, their teachings about Jesus “say substantially the same thing in different ways” (42).

In response to the potential criticism of using these teachings to read a specific theology into the text, Jamieson clarifies that he views these Christological tools as having explanatory power to unpack what is already in the text, not authority to determine ahead of time what the text says. He writes, “I will use the reading strategies sketched above not to decide in advance what the text must say but to consider the possibility that Hebrews says more things than are dreamt of in our historical-critical philosophies. I have honed these tools not to replace exegesis but to improve exegesis…My use of these tools is strictly heuristic; they are hearing aids, not an answer key…While lenses may distort vision, the right lenses restore it. The right kind of theology does not lead us away from the text but deeper into the text. It sends us back to the text better equipped to hear what the text actually says” (44-45).

Finally, Jamieson mentions two areas where, in the course of his exegesis of Hebrews, he will differ with many key figures who represent classic Christology, such as Chrysostom, Aquinas, and Cyril. First, he will argue that the term “Son” in Hebrews 1:4-5 is a title that Jesus receives upon completion of His saving work and enthronement in heaven rather than another reference to His eternal Sonship. Second, he will argue that the author of Hebrews locates Jesus’ appointment to the role of High Priest after His resurrection from the grave rather than at the point of His incarnation (47).

Why does this matter?

I am largely in agreement with the “toolkit” Jamieson advocates for and believe it to be beneficial in at least three areas:

1. It helps us to speak/write/sing about Jesus in a way that is biblically faithful, theologically sound, and genuinely glorious. On the one hand, it prevents us from diminishing the incredible Scriptural truths regarding Jesus’ full divinity and full humanity. On the other hand, it gives us the freedom to exemplify the beauty of Christ's incarnation through lyrics like, “Amazing love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me?”

2. It draws our attention to historical theology as an aid to exegesis itself rather than only a guardrail against heresy (as important as that second function is). Too often in the area of biblical interpretation, consulting church fathers or creeds becomes an afterthought, something to check off our list or satisfy our curiosity. But, as Jamieson argues, the great stream of historic Christian teaching (what some authors refer to as the “Great Tradition”) is a source of exegetical and theological wisdom that can help us understand the teachings of God’s Word.

3. That said, as helpful as church fathers and creeds can be, Scripture and Scripture alone is our final authority. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura means that all other sources of doctrinal teaching are ultimately subject to the teachings of the Bible itself. Jamieson’s willingness to differ from weighty figures of church history where he sees their conclusions differing from the biblical text should serve as an example for us to imitate as well. Draw from the well of wisdom that is historical theology; but do not make simple appeals to tradition as an authority over what the text is actually saying.

Subscribe now

Hear more of Pastor Wiley here - https://thetheologypugcast.com/

Check out his latest here - https://crwiley.com/

Connect with him on twitter - https://twitter.com/crwiley1962

Checkout https://puritan.pub/terms

If you have comments about Death and Glory, we want your feedback. Leave a review or talk to us in person.

Pastor Sparks warned us that he heard an echo, but we recorded anyway, only to find out that, yep, there was an echo. The conversation is worth a listen, even if the audio is rough.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this episode we are joined by Pastor Jared Sparks to discuss the necessity of self-defense, based on his talk from the 2023 Men's Intensive. It was a great conversation, ranging from pascifism to why we should be prepared long before the moment of defending life and property.

Listen to Pastor Sparks' at the 2023 Men's Intensive - https://theshepherdscrook.co/podcast/423-intensive-session-1-christian-defensive-v1-o-lence/

Connect with with Pastor Sparks:

- https://theshepherdscrook.co/

- https://www.youtube.com/@theshepherdscrook44

- https://gab.com/jaredsparks

Join us on Puritan.Pub!

Join us on https://puritan.pub/terms today!

If you enjoyed today's show, please let us know by leaving a review on your favorite podcast platform.

The 2023 Agros Conference will be the first weekend of November, contact Joe for more information - https://www.agrosfellowship.com/contact

Connect with us at Puritan.pub!

Join us on Puritan.Pub 

We begin our discussion around Newsletter 75: life in a post-familial society

Then we ask more questions around cities, the family, and the church. 

Subscribe to Aaron's work here - https://www.aaronrenn.com/

Follow Aaron on Twitter - https://twitter.com/aaron_renn

Join us on Puritan.Pub 

Sign up for https://puritan.pub/terms today

In this episode, Aaron Shafovaloff joins Death and Glory to give the lay of the land from Utah. 

Why should we distinguish between mormons & Christians?

Why do they have a reputation of being "good people"?

What are their "far out" beliefs?

Find more of Aaron's prolific work here:

https://www.theopedia.com/

https://practicekoine.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@AaronShafovaloff1

https://godneversinned.com/

https://godlovesmormons.com/

Mormonism Research Ministry > https://www.mrm.org/

https://irr.org/

The godmakers cartoon > https://youtu.be/vuO2Ov_D08c