1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
|
\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] 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}
The kenotic model takes seriously the claim that the Logos became flesh
(Jn.~1:14) and that Jesus had to become like his brothers and sisters in
every respect (Heb.~2:17). By better accounting for Christ's humanity, it
allows for the idea of \index{Christ!Imitatio Christi}\emph{imitatio
christi}, the imitation of Christ.
\end{description}
|
