ALPHA MAAMA (A.M.)

 Monite ‘Epeleli 19, 2021

he told them many things in parables

na‘e lahi ‘ene lea kiate kinautolu ‘i he ngaahi fakatātā 

Matiu 13 (Matthew 13)

(v. 3) 3And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. 

(v. 3) Pea na‘e lahi ‘ene lea kiate kinautolu ‘i he ngaahi fakatātā, ‘o pehē, Ko eni, na‘e ‘alu atu ha tangata tūtuu‘i ke tūtuu‘i: 

*Commentary: The Reformation Bible Study* 

13:3 parables. The term "parable," like the OT term translated "proverb," refers broadly to a comparison of some sort. Jesus' parables are His distinctive teaching through brief comparisons or longer narratives. They usually have one central point, although some have multiple points of correspondence between elements in the story and the realities they symbolize; e.g., four soils referring to four types of hearers (13:18-23) or two sons symbolizing flagrant sinners and the judgmental self-righteous (Luke 15:1, 2, 17-32; cf. Matt. 21:28-32). Most of Jesus' parables are clear, but they also contain a depth of meaning that only one with a right relationship to Jesus can comprehend. It is only to the disciples that Jesus gives the interpretation of the parable of the sower (vv. 18-23) and the parable of the weeds (vv. 36-43). The ungodly miss this deeper meaning because their lack of a proper relationship with God has darkened their thoughts and hearts (Rom. 1:21).

GOD IS . . . (KO E ‘OTUA, ‘OKU . . )

4 GOD IS INFINITE 

The Worth of Christ

Some might worry that this means that the deity suffered, so they would then shrink back from affirming that the Son of God (the second person) died on the cross. But we can say that God the Son died because of the communication of properties, a theological term that, according to Francis Turretin, means that “the person indeed claims for itself the properties of both natures, but one nature does not claim for itself the properties of the other, which belong to the person.” The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes this doctrine quite well: “Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature" (8.7). Hence, we can predicate death or hunger to the person of the Son because of the communication of properties, even though only the human nature can experience death or hunger.

It follows, then, that we do not say that God suffered on the cross in an abstract or general way as the divine essence. However, when we speak of God the Son dying and shedding his blood (in line with Acts 20:28), we are speaking about the concrete person of Christ, the God-man.

We have to say that the person, not a nature, died. Jesus, the God-man, died on the cross. It was not simply the humanity of the God-man that died, for that would divide his person. The current status of Jesus helps us to understand this idea. We can rightly say that the person seated the right hand of God the Father is the second person of the Trinity. However, we would not claim that this person is only the divine nature of Jesus (leaving us with a vestige of Christ) since his human nature does not share in the divine essence of the Godhead. Rather, because of the communication of properties, we rightly state that Jesus, the God-man, is the second person of the Trinity. Similarly, when Thomas looked on the resurrected Christ, he cried out, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). He did not qualify himself by stating, "Now, of course, I do not mean God in your humanity but only God in your divinity, even though my current amazement stems from seeing you in the flesh." He simply looked on Jesus and called him God.