One of the curses of a mindset that prefers democracy over all other forms of governance is that is assumes an equality of standing before God. Yet, there is no equality of standing before God. Let’s dig into this a bit.
Unique callings cannot be compared qualitatively. Everyone has a unique calling. The moment you subscribe to the view of uniqueness there is no basis for comparative analysis based on value. Because all are unique and necessary to one another, one calling cannot be dismissed for the preference of another.
The goal of U.S. law (including the Constitution), is to create a level playing field in order to establish for us a comparable standard. So, in the case of U.S. citizens and the 14th Amendment, we can insist on equal protection and due process of the law no matter our background or stature within society (now, I know this is not true practically, but it is legally unquestionable).
God solves the problem of an identity based in equality by giving to us something far above that which we could attain by our own striving: He gives us the status of son.
“We are all the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ.”
Once you elevate man to that position, a position he cannot attain by his own strength, you’re free to deploy your son in the manner for which you created him to function. And this is anything but “equal”, because it is based upon the unique calling of the particular son.
Therefore, equality has no relevance to sonship. (This is what the Book of Philippians speaks to)
“..although Jesus was by nature God, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
Because, in equality, you offer this for that, with the end result of both parties remaining equal. This is called quid pro quo in law.
Establishing equality of value requires a standard. For example, if we are exchanging a sum of money for a car, two inherently disparate things, how are we to decide the value of the car vs. the money? In our culture, we will use the Kelley Blue Book. This is a fiction that both parties agree upon so that a transaction can occur with the car and the money and, at the end of the transaction, both parties remain equal. The intent of the standard, then, is to ensure that neither person gains or loses within the transaction.
The best system that an orphan can hope for is a system of equality. The orphan thinks equality is important because the orphan needs to get something from God: he needs to get salvation and/or assurance that he is going to heaven. So, the orphan needs to know from God “what do you require of me in exchange for this security?” Well, he needs a Kelley Blue Book standard. In this case, the “Blue Book” is the Law.
The Law (and the Ten Commandments) specifies the medium of exchange that makes the orphan and God equal. So that’s why Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, He was a son and His relationship with God was based upon something other than equality. The assurance He had was that God loved Him and that, if Jesus would prefer someone over Himself and die on their behalf, then God’s love for Him would not fail, even to the point where His life would be forfeit. I’ve written before that this depth of love is greater than the whole of the Law because the Law was meant to preserve the lives of the ones following the Law. In The Law of the Son of His Love, however, one is asked to give up his life for the sake of another. (I won’t go into this again at this time).
For us, as sons, God may treat us totally differently and be just and righteous at the same time. The son is the radiance of his Father’s glory in the manner in which the Father choses to deploy him. That’s the uniqueness of each son and why we cannot compare, based on equality, how one son is deployed vs. another nor can we, and this is a greater part, evaluate God’s love of His sons based upon how He aligns their lives.
The son is also the exact representation of the Father in the manner in which the Father has decided to display Himself through that son. So, He may put a son in the African bush and He may put a son in Toronto and within those totally different circumstances, equip both sons based upon their needs and calling. For one, He might give an SUV that is able to traverse snow banks and ice, for the other, perhaps a bicycle is all that is needed because car repair is too costly and difficult to find. In these exchanges, between God and His sons, there is nothing about equality that sustains the relationships. The exchange is based upon representation and the unique calling of both sons and is framed in love. This is also why we should not believe, qualitatively, that we in the U.S. have advantages over people in 3rd World Countries as far as the gospel is concerned.
God solved the problem of identity by making us His sons. When You do that, You may deploy a son in any fashion that is pleasing to You. If you do not see that, you will make deals with God to offer Him something (probably the work of your own hands) so that you can hold Him accountable for your own well-being. If we are laboring to receive provision and protection from God, either for ourselves or for our nation, then we have the identity of an orphan and not a son.
Peace,
Aaron56
Unique callings cannot be compared qualitatively. Everyone has a unique calling. The moment you subscribe to the view of uniqueness there is no basis for comparative analysis based on value. Because all are unique and necessary to one another, one calling cannot be dismissed for the preference of another.
The goal of U.S. law (including the Constitution), is to create a level playing field in order to establish for us a comparable standard. So, in the case of U.S. citizens and the 14th Amendment, we can insist on equal protection and due process of the law no matter our background or stature within society (now, I know this is not true practically, but it is legally unquestionable).
God solves the problem of an identity based in equality by giving to us something far above that which we could attain by our own striving: He gives us the status of son.
“We are all the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ.”
Once you elevate man to that position, a position he cannot attain by his own strength, you’re free to deploy your son in the manner for which you created him to function. And this is anything but “equal”, because it is based upon the unique calling of the particular son.
Therefore, equality has no relevance to sonship. (This is what the Book of Philippians speaks to)
“..although Jesus was by nature God, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
Because, in equality, you offer this for that, with the end result of both parties remaining equal. This is called quid pro quo in law.
Establishing equality of value requires a standard. For example, if we are exchanging a sum of money for a car, two inherently disparate things, how are we to decide the value of the car vs. the money? In our culture, we will use the Kelley Blue Book. This is a fiction that both parties agree upon so that a transaction can occur with the car and the money and, at the end of the transaction, both parties remain equal. The intent of the standard, then, is to ensure that neither person gains or loses within the transaction.
The best system that an orphan can hope for is a system of equality. The orphan thinks equality is important because the orphan needs to get something from God: he needs to get salvation and/or assurance that he is going to heaven. So, the orphan needs to know from God “what do you require of me in exchange for this security?” Well, he needs a Kelley Blue Book standard. In this case, the “Blue Book” is the Law.
The Law (and the Ten Commandments) specifies the medium of exchange that makes the orphan and God equal. So that’s why Jesus did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, He was a son and His relationship with God was based upon something other than equality. The assurance He had was that God loved Him and that, if Jesus would prefer someone over Himself and die on their behalf, then God’s love for Him would not fail, even to the point where His life would be forfeit. I’ve written before that this depth of love is greater than the whole of the Law because the Law was meant to preserve the lives of the ones following the Law. In The Law of the Son of His Love, however, one is asked to give up his life for the sake of another. (I won’t go into this again at this time).
For us, as sons, God may treat us totally differently and be just and righteous at the same time. The son is the radiance of his Father’s glory in the manner in which the Father choses to deploy him. That’s the uniqueness of each son and why we cannot compare, based on equality, how one son is deployed vs. another nor can we, and this is a greater part, evaluate God’s love of His sons based upon how He aligns their lives.
The son is also the exact representation of the Father in the manner in which the Father has decided to display Himself through that son. So, He may put a son in the African bush and He may put a son in Toronto and within those totally different circumstances, equip both sons based upon their needs and calling. For one, He might give an SUV that is able to traverse snow banks and ice, for the other, perhaps a bicycle is all that is needed because car repair is too costly and difficult to find. In these exchanges, between God and His sons, there is nothing about equality that sustains the relationships. The exchange is based upon representation and the unique calling of both sons and is framed in love. This is also why we should not believe, qualitatively, that we in the U.S. have advantages over people in 3rd World Countries as far as the gospel is concerned.
God solved the problem of identity by making us His sons. When You do that, You may deploy a son in any fashion that is pleasing to You. If you do not see that, you will make deals with God to offer Him something (probably the work of your own hands) so that you can hold Him accountable for your own well-being. If we are laboring to receive provision and protection from God, either for ourselves or for our nation, then we have the identity of an orphan and not a son.
Peace,
Aaron56
-
1
-
1
- Show all
