Summary chapter 9; formatting

1 files changed, 129 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/sum-chap-9.tex b/sum-chap-9.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db8b93a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sum-chap-9.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+\setcounter{section}{8}
+\section{The identity and person of Jesus Christ}
+
+In the OT, political struggles are seen as conflicts between God. The exile
+posed the difficult question whether the Babylonian gods were stronger than
+Yahweh. This allowed for the introduction of \index{Messiah}messianic and
+apocalyptic ideas: Yahweh \emph{is} the strongest and \emph{will} return. There
+were various different messianic expectation around the time of Jesus' birth.
+
+\begin{description}
+	\item[Old Testament] Four messianic ideas: (1) Davidic king
+		(2~Sam.~7:11--14,~16); God's representative and adopted son (Pss.~2;
+		45:1--9; Is.~9:6--7); associated with righteousness, justice and later on
+		also warrior qualities. (2) Priestly messiah, mediating between Yahweh and
+		Israel (Leviticus 4; Daniel 9). (3) Prophetic messiah (Dt.~18:18). (4) Son
+		of Man, a transcendent heavenly figure that would bring salvation and
+		judgement (Dn.~7:13--14).
+
+	\item[New Testament] Jesus fulfils these expectations in surprising ways: (1)
+		as a non-violent and lowly king; (2) as the sacrifice of reconciliation
+		himself; (3) prophesying righteousness for sinners; (4) as a Son of Man
+		after whom the world did \emph{not} end.
+\end{description}
+
+In the NT, the humanity of Christ is not at issue. There are three ways to also
+argue for his deity:
+
+\begin{description}
+	\item[Titles] \emph{Messiah} does not imply deity\index{Christ!Titles of},
+		but \emph{Son of Man} may (Mk.~14:61--64). It is more clear for \emph{Son
+		of God}, and \emph{Lord} (the LXX translation of Yahweh).
+
+	\item[Divine functions] Several texts emphasise Christ's role in creation
+		(Col.~1:16, Jn.~1:1), sustenance (Col.~1:17), fulfilment (Eph.~1:9--10) and
+		re-creation (2~Cor.~5:17) of the world. Jesus also appears as Judge
+		(Mt.~25:31--46) and \index{Christ!Saviour} Saviour (the one who forgives
+		sins; Mk.~2:1--12).
+
+	\item[Worship] We find several prayers to Christ in the NT (Acts~7:59--60;
+		1~Cor.~16:22; 2~Cor.~12:8), that would have been idolatrous if Christ
+		weren't divine.
+\end{description}
+
+The \index{Ebionism}Ebionites, wanting to preserve Judaism and therefore strict
+monotheism, thought that the Messiah was not fully divine, but entered a
+special relationship with God at his baptism. \index{Samosata!Paul of}Paul of
+Samosata continues this line of thought, suggesting that the divine attributes
+dwell in Jesus by means of \index{Adoptionism}adoption. The council of
+\index{Nicea} (325) condemned these views, establishing
+\index{Homoousios}homoousios of Christ and the Father.
+
+\index{Docetism}Docetists and \index{Gnosticism}Gnostics on the other hand
+stressed Christ's deity to the neglect of his humanity. They thought that
+Christ only seemed or appeared as human. \index{Apollinarius} taught that the
+Logos took the place of the human rational soul of Jesus. At
+\index{Constantinople} (381), Christ was declared fully human in body and soul,
+condemning all docetic strains.
+
+The \index{Alexandria!School of}Alexandrian school, building forth on Plato,
+attempts to discern higher truths in Scripture, taking an allegorical approach
+to exegesis. They promoted a Word-flesh model, wherein the Logos assumes human
+flesh. This model has difficulties allowing for Jesus' full humanity.
+
+The \index{Antioch!School of}Antiochene school on the other hand, building
+forth on Aristotle, was more content with a literal, historical interpretation
+of Scripture. They promoted a Word-man model, wherein the Logos conjoins
+himself to a whole human person, both body and soul. This model cannot answer
+the question of Christ's personal unity.
+
+\index{Nestorius}Nestorius, representing the Antiochene school, advocated two
+persons in Christ, united by a moral union of wills. He dismissed the idea of
+the \index{Theotokos}Theotokos. This position was ruled out of bounds in
+\index{Ephesus}Ephesus (431). That council affirmed one
+\index{Hypostasis}hypostasis or person as well as the Theotokos.
+
+After this, \index{Eutyches}Eutyches took the Alexandrian tendency even
+further. He taught that Christ had one nature, neither human nor divine, but a
+third sort of thing. This was unacceptable to the Antiochenes, because it
+didn't leave room for Jesus' humanity.
+
+In \index{Chalcedon}Chalcedon (451), pope Leo decided: Christ is
+\emph{consubstantial} (homoousios) with the Father, \emph{one person} (contra
+Nestorius) with \emph{two natures} (contra Eutyches: divine, contra Ebionism,
+and human, contra docetism).
+
+\medskip
+In modern times we can discern three interpretations of Christ:
+\index{Adoptionism}adoptionism (the human Jesus achieves a level of divinity
+through a relationship with the Father); \index{Functionalism}functionalism
+(Jesus receives his divine status through work that God does through him);
+\index{Exemplarism}exemplarism (Jesus is simply a exemplary teacher or moral
+leader).
+
+\medskip
+There are two incarnational models possible after Chalcedon.
+
+\begin{description}
+	\item[Two-natures] \index{Two-natures model}Jesus and the Logos are
+		identical. He has both a human and a divine nature, that are united in
+		hypostatic union. Four questions arise with this model:
+
+		\begin{itemize}
+			\item Is it coherent? Can one person share two natures?
+			\item Can Jesus' humanity be taken seriously if He is divine as well? Is
+				this model not actually docetic?
+			\item A solution two the last problem would be to assume both human
+				consciousness and a divine mind --- but then how should we see the
+				unity of Christ's person?
+			\item What is the scriptural basis for this model?
+		\end{itemize}
+
+	\item[Kenotic model] As in Phil.~2:6--7, \index{Kenosis}Jesus, the
+		pre-existant Son of God, \emph{emptied} himself of divine attributes to
+		become fully human. The central issue of this model is Christ's true deity.
+		We can offer three reinforcing strategies for the kenotic model based on
+		the forms of unity from Chapter 5.
+
+		\begin{itemize}
+			\item All members of the Trinity share a common nature and their
+				attributes. At the kenosis, the Son lost all divine attributes except
+				one, \emph{eternality}, which lets him keep his divine status.
+			\item The members of the Trinity share a familial bond. This bond is not
+				lost at the kenosis, because Jesus is still the Son of God the Father.
+			\item The members of the Trinity are one because they share the
+				volitional ties of life and love. These ties were not affected by the
+				kenosis, because Jesus never sinned or severed fellowship with the
+				Father and Spirit (though this was not easy, recall Gethsemane).
+		\end{itemize}
+\end{description}