Submission's difficulty...

(Tim) So why do we hate authority? Is it really that difficult to submit to our husband or father?

It struck me this morning that Jesus must have thought it important to tell His disciples what great difficulty He had submitting to His Father's will the night He was betrayed. Three times we're told "He went a little beyond" Peter, James, and John when He prayed, "My father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as you will."

Maybe the disciples overheard Him?

But Luke records the "little beyond" Jesus went to pray was "about a stone's throw." And Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record the disciples fell asleep as Jesus prayed. So no, it's unlikely they heard Him.

Our Lord must have thought it important His disciples know of His weakness, and how He pled for the cup of God's wrath to be kept from Him. And beyond His disciples, you and I, also. Our Lord determined that we should know and be encouraged by His Own terrible struggle toward submission to His Father.

Slaves, students, congregants, children, employees, wives, presbyters, citizens--every single one of us in the place of our submission to the authority God has placed over us--our Lord Jesus was tempted in all ways like as we are, yet without sin. Surely He has born our griefs and carried our sorrows.

Nevertheless, not my will, but thine.

Comments

Tim,

Can I contact you personally through email (or you can email me, so I can respond)? I have some major concerns with the PCA that I would like your advice and input on.

Thank you.

Dear DS,

My e-mail is tbbayly (at) gmail (dot) com.

Warmly,

Tim,

But the wonderful paradox about submission is that, once we give up our own tight control on things and recognize that our "control" was only an illusion, some things do get easier.

It lifts a tremendous weight off your shoulders when you realize you're not in charge.

Kamilla

If the disciples did not hear, then how do we have the account? I don't ask this in a "gotcha" way, I've just wondered about those parts of the Gospels before. Is the other option that they were handed down to the author by God?

KHC:

We know that our Lord taught his disciples for 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension. We are not told exactly what was contained in that teaching, but there are two "hints."

You have noted the first one -- material in the gospels, which could have been known only to Jesus, things such as things said and done during the Temptation in the wilderness, for example, or the struggle in Gethsemane.

Then, of course, upon departing the earth, Jesus delivers the great commission to the disciples, containing the command from Him to them to teach "whatsoever I have commanded you."

I know some who suppose that this "whatsoever" must have been recorded in the Gospels. But why? Why could some of that "whatsoever I have commanded you" not appear later in the Epistles?

And, yes, we know that Paul was caught up to heaven and saw and heard many things which he says it was unlawful for him to reveal. But why do we suppose that everything he saw and heard was unlawful to reveal? Instead, he points to several specific things he claims were revealed directly to him by the LORD (e.g. the mysteries in Ephesians).

Paul says that we spiritual should be ready to acknowledge that the things he writes are the commandment of the LORD. There is no reason at all to reject, and many reasons to acknowledge, that Paul's assessmentn of his own magisterium is exactly what he claims it to be -- Christ's commands and teaching mediated to us by His apostles.

My heart is so dark that I don't even realize how much I hate authority... the very good and valid question is lost on most people, particularly evangelicals I'm afraid.

"our Lord Jesus was tempted in all ways like as we are, yet without sin. Surely He has born our griefs and carried our sorrows."

Amen brother. May the Lord grant us the power to submit to His established authority, not grumbling but with lips filled with thankfulness.

I suspect that a lot of the resistance from Christians comes from a lack of understanding on what submission really is, what leadership really is and a proper understanding of serventhood. People think in terms of how the world would define "leadership" or "submission". And that is the somewhat militaristic view of the leader saying "jump" and the leadee saying "how high". Even a casual reading of the scriptures reveals a very different view of servanthood. The world, of course, doesn't cotton to the idea of anyone being under any one else's leadership. Especially in America.

As usual, the Bayly boys are spot on! It must be due, in part, to all that good feminism teaching we received at GCTS back in the halcyon days. Jack Davis is apparently trying to keep the women's ordination thing alive and kicking.

What I find as a pastor--and a number of my colleagues chime in on this as well--is that what women are upset about is NOT submission, but rather the lack of good, solid, and responsible male leadership in the home. In short, women don't mind the submission aspect, rightly understood, but that their husbands won't lead them in a biblical manner.

Yes, if you follow the principle that every Christian truth will be accompanied by two equal and opposite errors, we have: the Christian truth of proper roles within marriage and family, accompanied by either the error of a rather toxic chauvinism on one side; or, on the other side of the fence, an equally toxic feminism - and, not surprisingly, feminism and chauvinism feed off each other.

The other interesting thing is that the modern proto-feminist is considered to be Mary Wollstonecraft (d.1797). She first came to prominence at the time of the French Revolution, a period in European history where nearly every authority imaginable had been cast aside. Are these two things related?

Add new comment