0567030245_Christ

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/0567030245christ 1/105

I n Memoriam

Colin Ewart Gu nt on 1941-2003

C h r is t o lo g y , l ik e al l theology, is a d i f f i c u l t an d d e m a n d in g d is c ip l in e I n

i t , some a t t e m p t is made to t h in k a b o u t th e l i v i n g Jesus of the C h u r ch sworship and of New Ies tame nt confession I t cannot be d o n e w it h o u t

assistance f r o m th e past, no r w i t h o u t t he great labour of exercis ing tho ught

and judgement as to where th e past was t ight and where it was w r o n g But

that is to reaff irm, not to deny, that it is the same kind of discipline as that

engaged i n by Ignat ius , Athanasius an d A n s e lm There is a c o n t i n u i t y of

approach, method, an d above ail of object, fo r Jesus C h r is t , rhe same

yesterday and today and fo r ever, is at once th e t rue subject an d t rue object

o f C h r is t o lo g y : the one w ho makes i t possible, t h r o u g h hi s S p ir i t , and the

on e whose reality as t r u l y God and t r u l y ma n ou r h u m a n concepts s tra in to

represent

- C o l i n G u n t o n

Yesterday and Today:. A Study of Continuities in Christology

(L o n d o n : Da r r o a , L o n g m a n & To d d L t d , 1983), 208-9

THE PERSON OF

CHRIST

Edited by

Stephen R Holmes and Murray A . Rae

V\ f r CLARK INTERNATIONAL

^ A Continuum imprint• L O N D O N • NEW YORK

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Published by I & T Clark International

A Continuum imprint

The lower Building, 15 East 26th Street,

I I York Road, Suite 1703,

London SEi 7 NX New Yoik, N Y 10010

ww w tandtclark com

Al l rights reserved N o part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording or any information storage or retrieval system, wirhout permission in

writing from th e publishers

Copyright © Stephen R Holmes and Murray A Rae, 2005

Brit ish Library Cataloguing-in-Publicat ion Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from th e Briti sh Libr ary

Typeset by Iradespools, Frame, Somerset

Printed on acid-free paper i n Grear Br ita in by Antony Rowe Ltd, Wiltshire

ISBN 0567030245 (hardback)

Contents

I N TR O D UC TI O N I

Murray A Rae, University of Otago, New Zealand

A T R I B U I E TO C O H N G U N I O N 13

Christoph Schwöbel, University of Tubingen

1 PROLEGOMENA r o CH R IS IOL OGY: F OU R IHESES 19

John Webster, University of Aberdeen

2. FRO M TITLES r o STORIES: A NAR R AT IVE AP P R OACH

10 I H E D Y N A M I C CHRISIO LOGIES OF I H E N E W TESTAMENT 37

Richard A Burridge, King's College, London

3 CHRIST I N THE TRI NIT Y: COMMUNICAIIO IDIOMATUM 61

Robert W Jenson, Center o f Theological Inquiry, Princeton

4 REFO RMED VARIET IES OF THE COMMUNICAIIO IDIOMATUM 70

Stephen R Holmes, St Andrews University

5. P E RS ON AN D NAT U R E : A CRITIQUE OF THE NECESSITY-

FREEDOM D I A I E C I I C I N JO H N Z IZ IOU L AS 87

Douglas Farrow, McGill University, Toronto

H E C A M E D O W N F R O M H E AVE N : IH E CH R IS T OIOGY OF

CHARLES W I L L I A M S

Brian Home, formerly of King's College, London

105

v

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


V I

7

The Person of Christ

TH E BAPTI SM OF CHRIST

Murray A Rae, Univeisity of Otago, New Zealand

121

8 I HE CONFESSION OF THE SO N i 3 8

Douglas Knight, London

9 T H E AS CE NDE D CH R IS I : M E D I A TO R O F O U R W O R S H I P 155

Sandra Lath, King's College. London

10 CHRIST FOR U S - Y E S I E R D A Y A N D TO D A Y : A RESPONSE

TO TH E PERSON OF CH R IS T 182,

Christoph Schwöbel, University of Tubingen

INDEX

Introduction

M u r t a y A Rae

I

There have been t w o major periods in the his tory of the C h r is t ia n

C h u r c h i n w h i c h th e d o ct r in e of the person of C h r i s t has been at

the forefront o f theologic al controversy Th e first spanned roughly

the per iod between th e Councils o f Nicaea i n 32.5 an d C o n s t a n t in o p le i n

5 5 3 I he second we are now in the m id s t of The p o in t s at issue i n the

patri stic conrtoversy were fitst, wheth er and ho w it is possible to speak o f

the man Jesus as fu l ly an d proper ly d ivin e, and second, i f he is d iv in e , how

s h o u ld rh e re lat ion between th e d iv in e and the h u m a n natures be

construed? I h e p o in t s at issue in our own t i m e are essentially the same.

That sameness o u g h t to banish the frequently heard suggest ion that i t is

the peculiar condit ions of the m o d e r n w o r l d that require us to abandon the

naive an d o u t m o d e d confession o f t he d i v i n i t y of Jesus of Nazareth There

are, to be sure, dis t i nct iv e characteristics of modern disbelief , but in b o t h

the modern and the ancient worlds theological controversy arose because o f

the incapacity of then current philosophical assumptions t o accommodate

the news that Go d was in Chr is t

Ir m i g h t be argued tha t , in the ancient w o r l d , th e d i v i n i t y of C h r is t was

resisted fo r G o d s sake, that is, in an e ffor t to safeguard th e transcendent

sovereignty of G o d w h o , by d e f in i t io n , co u ld not be fo u n d i n the f igure of a

weak and suffer ing human being O n the other ha nd, th e mode rn obj ect ion

to th e confession that Jesus is the Chr is t is typically advanced, so its

proponents say, for the sake of h u m a n i r y It is i n the l i g h t of m o d e r n

advances i n knowl edge and i n defence of the supposed om ni-co mpetence of

h u m a n reason t h a t we are urged t o resist th e c la im t h a t an o t h e r -w o r ld ly

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


2 The Person of Christ

God should miraculously appear in the m i d s t of the closed causal

c o n t i n u u m of human his tory

Whereas th e ancient disbelief had a precursor i n O r i g e n s rather too

accomm odating relat ion between Chris t ian theology and the surrounding

Greek modes o f t h o u g h t , a n d came to f r u i t i o n i n A r i u s and the Ar ians , themodem re ject ion of the d i v i n i t y of C h r is t has its b e g in n in g s in the l ikes of

Reimarus , Lessing an d K a n t , an d f inds contem porary expression t h r o u g h

those wh o speak of the myth of Go d incarnate , and in the w o r k of the Jesus

Seminar whose membets ins is t that Ch ris to logy must no t transcend the

bounds of w h a t may be k n o w n t h r o u g h h is t o r ica l - cr i t i ca l i n q u i r y I n b o t h

cases - ancient an d m o d e r n - the boundaries of C h r is t o lo g ica l confession

are determined by a set of philoso phical assumptions that render the

Christ ian gospel impossible I n b o t h cases those assumptions are taken to

be self-evident None of t h is is s u r p r is in g I h e Chr is t ian gospel, then, now

and always, is not a m o d i f i c a t i o n or ref inement of exis t in g philosophies but

news that th e w o r l d is not as we t h o u g h t it was I t is to be understood, not

i n th e l i g h t of our ow n conceptions an d observat ions , bu t in the l i g h t of

C h r is t i n w h o m is revealed th e creat ive and redemptiv e agency of G o d O l d

wine skins won't do for the co n t a in m e n t of rhis ne w w in e Th e conceptual

conveyances for h o l d i n g an d h a n d in g o n this news must be fashioned anew

under th e im p a ct of the Chr is to logic al reality i tself

Such fashioning is the task of t h e o lo g y I t is a fashion ing that begins

w i t h attentiveness to w h a t has been said and done before us Th is is meant

i n t w o senses; first an d foremost , and new e ver y m o r n i n g , i t means

attentiveness to the speaking of God's o w n Wo r d , t h a t t r iu n e event of the

Father, the Son a nd th e H o l y S p ir i t , i n w h i c h G o d addresses us and clai ms

us as his o w n . As it is put later i n t h is vo lu m e by D o u g l as K n i g h t , W e are

preceded by a conversat ion, th e conversation of the Father , Son and H o l y

S p ir i t Th e o lo g y s task t h e n , as K n ig h t fu r t h e r p o in t s ou t, is to set ou t

some of the lo g ic of that conversat ion Theology begins thus w i t h

attentiveness, w i t h silence before th e W o r d 1

The requirement of attentiveness to w h a t has been said an d done before

us applies secondarily to the t r adi t i o n of the C h u r ch As the c o m m u n i t y of

Christ gathered by the S p ir i t in t o co m m u n i o n w i t h th e Father, th e C h u r ch

spends it s l i f e a t t e n d in g to the W o r d , and is itself a conveyance for the

news of the gospel Th e conveyance takes shape, f irs t o f a l l , as the story o f a

co m m u n it y , g a t h e r e d by Chr is t hi mself , an d re-gathered by the risen

1 Ihe matter is puc chis way by Dietrich Bonhoeffer Christology. trans John Bowden(London: Collins, 1966) 2.J

RAE Introduction 3

Christ after being scattered by his death As the co m m u n i t y g r o w s and

spreads, it s s tory is safeguarded an d passed on thro ugh test imon y both oral

an d w r i t t en It is to these words to o that theology must be a t tent ive, not

first because they are b i n d i n g - a l t h o u g h an account may be g iven of the

ways i n w h i c h we are b o u n d to t h e m - but rarher because these testimoniesof th e c o m m u n i t y are themselves a part of the story of God's creative and

redemptive work that theology seeks to interpret

A r ce n d in g to these words rhen - of G o d , and of script ure and t r a d i t i o n -

th e essayists i n t h is vo lu m e are engaged i n in t e r p r e t in g w h a t has been said

and done, and i n f a s h io n in g a t e s t im o n y for our o w n t im e t o w h a t has been

said and done i n Chr is t They are no t persuaded by the contrary test im ony

of those w h o say, in the name of m o d e r n i t y , or even of p o s t m o d e r n i t y , t h a t

the gospel in the f o r m once g ive n to the saints can no lo n g e r be believed

I I

Because ir is generally easier to say one t h i n g , rather than several t h i n g s , at

a t im e , th e w o r k of C h r is t o lo g y has o ften proceeded w i t h a d is t in ct io n

between th e person and the w o r k of C h r is t I n t reat ing person an d w o r k

d is t in ct ly , however , it has not been supposed tha t these t w o aspects of

C h r is t o lo g y are independent of one another Indee d th e quest ion of wh o

Jesus is wa s p r o m p t e d t h r o u g h o u t Jesus career i n Palestine by what he d i d

'Are yo u the one wh o is to come? , John th e Baptis t enquires , and Jesus

responds, Go and t el l John what y o u hear and see; the b l i n d receive their

s ig h t , th e lame walk, th e lepers are cleansed, th e deaf hear, th e dead are

raised, and the poor have good news brough t t o t h e m ( M t 1 1 2-5 ) I h e

i m p l i c a t i o n of this Matthe an report is made e xp l ic i t in the Gospel o f John:

even if you do not believe me , believe t h e works , so t h a t you may

k n o w an d understand that th e Father is in me and I am in the Father' (Jn

1038 ) l i k e w i s e in the ear ly Church , it was because Jesus was confessed as

saviour that th e quest ion of his i d e n t i t y and of bis r e la t io n to God had to

be tackled I t was one of Athanasius ' ke y arguments against th e A r ia n s , for

instance, that i t made no sense for the m to w o r s h ip C h r is t as saviour i f they

w o u l d no t also confess h i m as t r u l y Go d f r o m G o d 1

That th e t i t l e of this book refers to the person of C h r is t and not to his

work therefore indicares a focus on the q u e s t io n 'W ho is Jesus?, bu t does

not entail that th e work o f C h r is t does no t also com e w i t h i n it s a m b i t . I t is

a book that focuses upon Christ's person, rather than upon salvation, or the

1 See, for example Contra Arianos 2, 2-3-4; c ^ 2 1 2

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



atoneme nt, or up on his wo rk in the creation and cons umma tion of th e

w o r l d However, the essays themselves reveal that the person of Christ is

made kno wn thr oug h his w o r k , w h i c h i n t u r n has its saving efficacy only

because it is he who does i t To pu t i t s imply: what Christ does belongs to

the descr iptio n of who he is - t he saviour, the crucif ied, the risen one, theascended one, and so on Ih at relat ionsh ip is consis tentl y apparent i n the

essays comprising this volume

I I I

We begin w i t h prolegomena, w i r h rhe attempt, that is, to articulate the

basis of the Christological task and the manner by whi ch it oug ht t o

proceed As John Webster's essay in rhis volume makes clear, however,

pro-i egome na, the beg inni ngs of what we may say, arises out of Th eo-

legomena, out of wha t Go d himself says i n ut ter i ng hi s Wo r d T he

id e n t i t y of this Word, however, is not simply past, no r is it finished The

basis of Christology is the presence of Christ - God's Word - who is

k n o w n , as Webster argues, 'by vir tue of the move men t of his being i n

w h i c h as Lor d and reconciler he freely gives hims elf to be kn ow n This

move ment of Christ s bein g is the reality w i t h wh ich Christo logy is

concerned, and to whi ch, thr oug h f a i t h f u l witness, i t seeks to be

responsible Ihe concept of presence here needs further exa mination,

however Chr ist is not present, Webster explains, as an object among

others Chris t s presence i s divine presence, and is, as such, both antecedent

and eschatological, eternal and majestic It is the presence of the Lord.

I t is by vir tu e of his presence thar Christ is known by us, and thar

k n o w i n g is - aga in, became of Christ 's presence - a j o y f u l and reverent

science Webster speaks here, not of the pious disposition of Christology s

practi t ioners, but of the means by which the object of Christology is

appropriately construe d Ih e joy and the reverence of Christology are

engendered by the reconci l ing presence of Chcist himself Ih at presence, i n

t u r n , renders redundant any prolegomenal demonstration of the v i ab i l i t y

of the Christological task Prolegomena becomes instead, as seen i n

Webster's essay, a matter of testimony to (not demonstration of) what is

already accomplished

I o speak of the presence of Christ implies a sphere of his presence i n

w h ich he can be and is known. As he presents h i m s e l f , Webster wri tes,

'he establishes a domain and gathers a com mun ity wh ich he authorizes and

empowers for knowledg e of hims elf Christolog y is thus a posi tive science

of this fellowship; it is a science of the church An d the instru ment s of

C h r i s t s presence w i t h i n this ecclesial domain ate Scripture and the

R A E / ntroduUion 5

Sacraments H o l y Script ure, under the ins pira tio n of the Spir it, is to be

undersrood, accordingly, as the f i t t i n g servant of the self-present ation of

Jesus Chri st , and is the norm to whi ch al l Christol ogy is subordinate

Fro m proleg omena, therefore, we move to a more expli cit focus on

Scripture i tsel f , and, more particula rly, to the testimonies to Jesus receivedand fashioned by the writer s of the gospels Those testimonies have been

var iously handled in recent time s Indeed the quest ion of how these

testimon ies should be handled has been at the forefront of the

Chri stol ogi cal controversy in wh ic h we are presently mi re d To what

extent , i f at all , are these testi monies reliable? Are they not so muc h

fashioned as fabricated, n ot so muc h a cra fti ng of the mater ial of Jesus

career irself, but creations more or less ex nihi/o, brought about in service,

not of t r u t h , but of the eatly Church s own interests? M a n y have argued so,

and thus conclude - or have they presupposed? - th at the confession of

Jesus d i v i n i t y can no longer be sustained

Or perhaps the gospels are not deceptions b ut rather testimonies whose

f a u l t is onl y that they are shaped by a wor ld- vi ew rhat is out mod ed and

naive I n that case, we are urged, by those seeking nevertheless to ma ke

som ethi ng o f Jesus' good n ame, to separate ou t f r o m the gospel testimon ies

the chaff of p r i m i t i v e cosmology and to salvage f r o m them the genuine

g r a in of a gospel that can be confessed today. Typi call y, th is gospel has to

do w i t h the exemplary human ity of Jesus He is pro pe rly revered — it is

u t t e r ly unclear wh y he should be worship ped - as one who lived life as it

s h o u ld be l i v ed , according, that is, ro the w i l l of a God w ho r emains

remote and uninvo lved The balance of wheat and chaff varies enormo usly

am ong scholars who adopt such an approach, as do also the resultant

pictures of Jesus George IyreLl s celebrated summa tion of the nineteen th-

century Quest of die historical Jesus remains apposite for those who adopt

s im i la r approaches today The Jesus that they see, looking back thr ough

t w e n t y centuries of hist ory , is onl y the reflection of thei r ow n faces, seen at

the bottom of a deep w e l l 3

A m o n g those who retain allegiance to a more orthodox Christology,

however, there has likewise been debate about how best to handle the

testimonies of scripture Richard Burridg e, in the second essay of this

colle ction , offers a survey of this method olog ical d ivers ity and argues that,

} See G Iyrrcll , Chr'ntianiiy at the Cross-Roads (London: Longmans, Green & Co 190;))

44 Albert Schweitzer had earlier reached a similar conclusion in remarking thai, it wns notonly each epoch that round its reflection in Jesu.s; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character' Sec Schweitzer 7he Quest ofthe Historical ferns (London; A & C Black2nd cdn 1936) 4

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



despite earlier rejections of the idea, especially by R u d o l f B u l t m a n n , the

gospels real ly ought to be seen as b i ogr aphi c a l accounts of Jesus' l i fe W e

m ust no t presume by this , however, th at the gospels are l i ke modern

biographies They are rather t o be compared w i t h ancient 'Lives i n w hi c h

th e accounts g i v en of their heroes are nor arranged chronolog ical ly bu r taketh e form of collected anecdotes, have a s t r ong focus on the hero's death, and

o f t e n serve an unde rly ing apologetic , polemic al or d idactic purpose The

gospels, Burtidge contends, were composed by their authors and

understood by their first audiences according to the conventions of

Graeco-Roman bioi Th e focus of our a t tent i on, to o , must therefore be on

their particular subjecr, Jesus of Nazareth , rather than on, say, 'presumed

problems i n their hypothetica l communitie s I h e gospels are about a

person; they are C hr i s to l ogy i n narrative f o r m Th e narrative f o r m is

im p o r t a n t here I t is i m pr oper to proceed i n C hr i s to l ogy by exclusive

a t t e n t io n to the t i t les given to Jesus, or to the sayings of Jesus, or to

part icular passages, isolated f r o m th e who le story. That wh ole story is

essential to the Chrisrologica l testimony being offered throu gh the

particulars On e imporrant result of B ur r i d ge s a r gum ent is thar particular

passages are properly to be understood in the l i g h t of the Christological

key' that is revealed thr oug h th e narrative as a whole A theological lens, as

it were, is not necessarily d i s tor t i v e , as has c o m m o n l y been c laimed, bu t is

th e conditio sine qua non of f a i t h f u l a t tent i on to these words of t es t i m ony to

Christ

F a i t h fu l a t tent i on to the t es t i m ony of Scripture has given rise i n

subsequent t r adi t i o n to the confession t hat i n Jesus Chrisr we are

encountered by one wh o is b o t h t r u l y hum an an d t r u l y d i v i ne I he

conceptual development of this confession, h owever, has not been a s imple

matter Yet the church has fel t constrained by the real i ty of Christ himself

to persist w i t h t his confession even whil e ackno wledgi ng rhat i t places our

conceptual resources under strain On e strand of the debate about how w e

are t o conceive together th e h u m a n i t y and the d i v i n i t y of Christ has

focused on the doctrine of the communkatio idiomatum This matter is taken

up i n this volume by Robert Jenson an d Stephen H ol m es

On e of the first matters to be attended to in e m p l o y i n g th e doctrine of

th e communkatio idiomatum is to say w hat on e means by such a

c om m uni c at i on. R ober t Jenson sets out wha t others have meant -

especially th e Lutheran theologians of the late sixteenth an d early

seventeenth c entur i es , i d ent i fy i n g, i n particular , three classic forms of the

Lommunicatio Jenson himself then offers hi s ow n ' m i ni m al ' s ta tement : the

one Christ lives hi s l i fe as God and as a man, divinel y and humanl y, and his

doings an d suffering s cannot be sorted o ut i n t o t w o d i f f er i ng sorts of

RAE Introduction 7

doings and sufferings . Jenson s del iberations about this matter are d irected

t h e n to two questions: ' Wh at does th e fact o f the m utu al c om m uni c at i on of

divine/human attr ibutes mean for our und er s tand i ng of the T r i ni ty? And

what is the t r i n i t a r i an i m p o r t o f doctrines about th e fact? W h a t is at stake

here, for Jenson, is the sel f-determination of G o d , and the p o i n t he arguesis that th e narrative of Jesus-in-Israel is G o d s s e l f -d eter m i nat i on as

the particular Go d he is The eternal Son is no t other, th at is to say, than

the human l i fe he lives I h e ma n Jesus is one of the T r i n i t y Unless w e

h o ld to a f o r m of the communkatio idiomatum that allows us to say this ,

Jen son concludes, th en we open the way for the story of tr iune l i fe to be

d er er m i ned by stories other than the bibl ical story

Whereas Roberr Jenson draws especially on the Luther an development

of th e d oc t r i ne of the communkatio idiomatum, Stephen H ol m es examines

the Reformed t r adi t i o n , i n part , thereby, to defend the propos ition that

there is i n fact a d i s t i nc t i v e l y R efor m ed C hr i s to l ogy C al v i n , of course, is

the s tar t i ng-po i nt , an d H ol m es argues o f C a l v i n s Christology that there is

a determined an d careful effort t o m ai nta i n the d i s t i n c t i o n of the tw o

natures i n C hr is t w hi l e no t succumbing t o Nes tor i ani sm N o t a l l

commentators have been convinced that Calvin succeeded i n this latter

in t e n t io n , b u t Holmes shows that Ca lvin s al legedly Nest otian for mula

tions, particularly i n t r ea t i ng C hr i s t s b i r t h of the V i r g i n M ary where he

appears to steer away f r o m th e t e r m Theotokos, are not a compromise of the

u n i t y of the natures b u t , rather, are designed t o preserve th e d istinctive

id e n t i t y of the d i v i ne Son Mar y is the mother of the Son alone and no t of

th e Father an d Sp i r i t Wha t is essential in the R efor m ed t r adi t i o n ,

especially so w hen th e debate spills over into eucharistie theology, is the

proper distinction of the two natures of Christ w i t h i n th e hypostatic uni on,

a d i s t i nc t i on no t pro per ly preserved, alleged ly, in the Luthe ran opponenrs

F r o m C a l v i n , H ol m es moves on to the Reformed Scholastics, and first to

François I u r r e r i n , i n w h o m he finds a careful refutation o f bo th Eutyches

and Nestorius and a c ont i nuat i on of the concern for a pr oper ar t i c u l a t i on of

the d i s t i nc t i on of the natures w i t h i n th e hypostatic un ion A form of the

communkatio idiomatum i s proper according to T ur r e t i n ' s accounr, b u t only

that f o r m w h i c h asserts a c om m uni c at i on o f the d istinct properties of the

natures to the one person of C hr i s t , and not (against th e Lutherans)

between th e natures themselves T hus th e attr ibutes {idiomata) of each

nature belong to the person of C hr i s t , b u t each nature retains its own

idiomata so tha t th e a t t r i butes of one do not become th e attr ibutes of the

other A t stake for T ur r er i n is the real i ty of rhe incarnation i tself I f this

d is t in ct io n between th e natures is not m ai nta i ned in this fashion the n i t

cannot be t r u l y said of the Son tha t he was h u m a n as one of us

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



A n exploration of the C hr i s to l ogy of John Owen provides occasion for

H ol m es t o spell out the i m pl i c a t i ons of Reformed Christol ogy for the

d oc tr i ne of sancti fication, pneumatolo gy and th e extra calvinistiuim O w en

m ai nta i ns th e l ine th at th e only admissible version of the commtinicatio

idiomatum is tha t w h i c h posi ts the communication of the attr ibutes of eachnature to the one person of Christ and n o t between each other Holm es

concludes his discussion b y t a k i n g us back t o the Chris tology of C y r i l H e

argues that a continuous l in e may be traced bet ween C y r i l an d Owen,

passing thr ou gh Chalcedon too, and that in f o l l o w i n g this line we may find

th e resources t o safeguard th e proper concerns o f Lutheran and Reformed

alike

The theme of person an d nature is c ont i nued in the essay by Douglas

Farrow, b u t here attention turns to the Greek orrhodox theology of John

Ziz io u ia s , and particularly to the necessity-freedom dialect ic in Zizioulas's

concept of the person Dr awi ng on the existential ist backgroun d to his

t h o u g h t , Ziziouias reverses th e traditional association o f being w i t h

necessity an d conceives necessity as a threat t o authentic personhood I n

contrast w i t h t he persons of the I r i n i t y , wh o are uncreated an d thus

unconstrained by all manner of creaturely mechanisms of cause and effect,

h u m a n petsons are b o u n d by their finitude, their biological nature and b y

self-centredness The incarnation of th e second person of the I r i n i t y is seen

i n this context as the adven t of free and authentic personhood, overcomin g

nature, necessity and death Jesus Christ , in Zizioulas 's account, generates

free persons by the power of his o wn pr ior personhood, that is, by virrue of

the eternal relation (schesis) to the Father w h i c h consti tutes h i m as a

person.

So far so good i t may seem, b u t Ziziouias s ex pl i c a t i on of this

theological anthropology is n ot w i t h o u t its problems, Farrow contends. I n

part icular , Farrow raises questions abou t wheth er Zizioulas's scheme is

sufficient ly Chalcedonian Nest oi ian ism is avoided clearly en ough , bu t

Fairow wonders whether i n v es t i ng th e personhood of Christ so

emphatical ly in his relation to the Father, Z i z i oui as is no t in danget of a

E utyc hi an neglect of the human nature I h e i nc ar nat i on, as such, appears

to have no bearing o n Christ s personhood'. There fo l l ow s , i n Farrow's

essay, a detai led i n q u i r y into what precisely is meant by personhood i n

Ziziouias s theology Farrow, for his part , wants a d i s t i n c t i o n t o be made

between human personhood an d d ivin e personhood A t stake here, he

argues, is the proper di stin ctio n between th e d i v i ne and the creaturely,

w h i c h even in redemption, reconci l iation, and indeed theosis, has s t i l l to bemaintained.

RAE Introduction 9

Ihe next essay, by B r i an H om e, is also a s tud y of a particular rheology,

rhat of the poet Charles W i l l i a m s W i l l i a m s s theology is certainly

idiosyncratic , as, for instance, in his description of theology i tself as 'the

measurement of e ter ni ty i n operation', bu t i t warrants attention, Ho me

argues, on account o f i t s o r i g i na l i ty - though Wi l l i am s hi m sel f l a i d no

c l a i m to the description — and because Wil l ia ms develops the connections

between th e various elements o f Christian doctrine i n ways tha t are

t h o u g h t - p r o v o k i n g at least, and o f ten pr o found l y i l l u m i n a t i n g H om e

singles ou t for a t tent i on th e relation W il l ia ms develops between the

incarnation, th e atonement, and the doctrine of creation Echoing the

p o s i t io n famously associated w i t h Duns Scotus, and advanced also b y B F.

Westc o t t , W i l l i am s ho l d s that w h i le t he particular circumstances of the

incarnation were due t o s in, th e idea of the incarn arion its elf was due to

th e p r i m al and absolute putpose of love foreshadowed i n C r eat i on ' 4 and

w o u l d have taken place, therefore, quite apart f r o m the need occasioned by

si n More controversial ly (and idiosyncratical ly), however, Wi l l ia ms

postulates creation as a k i n d of by-pr od uc t of Go d s pr i m ar y i ntent i on,

w h i c h is to take mat ter t o Himse lf in the personal u n io n of the Son w i t h

h u m a n nature' Creation merely serves that end

A t th e found at i on o f W i l l i a m s s ex pl i c a t i on of the incarnation lie the

t w i n principles of co-inherence a nd exchange. Al l genui ne hum an life

operates on rhe basis of exchange That is s i m p l y a de f i n i t i o n fo r h i m ; an

i r r e d u cib le fact In the incarnation, accordingly, there takes place an

exchange between d i v i n i t y an d h u m a n i t y , th e purpose an d outcome of

w h ich is s i m pl y joy Joy is the purpose of God , and joy is accomplished

t h r o u g h this glorious exchange Therefore there must be incarnation, and

for th i s , i n t u r n , th e stage set of creation is made ready The f a l l , for its

small part , determines only th e particular circumstances i n w h i c h rhe

incarnation is broughr about. Othe r things are associated w i t h this

conception of the incarnat ion, notably a h i gh valuation o f the body which

is held to be 'an i ns t r um ent for t h e c om m uni c at i on of heavenly beauty

H o m e considers briefly here the possibilities for theological aesthetics and

draws an interestin g comparison w i t h th e defence of Icons proffered b y

Jo hn of Damascus. W e f i n d i n Wi l l i a m s , H o m e c onc l udes , a sensibi l i ty

that wa s incapable of separating re l igion f rom life, theology from

aesthetics, C hr i s to l ogy f r o m a r t , theory f r o m practice — t h o u g h t -

p r o vo k in g an d i l l u m i n a t i n g indeed!

4 Charles Williams The Epistles of St John (London: John Murray 18861,317—18 Citedby Brian Home in this volume

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


IO The Person of Christ

F r o m th e facr of the incarnation we move to three essays tha t examine in

more detai l what is accomplished th rou gh the wo rk of Chri st and wha t is

revealed thereby about the person of the Son Mu rra y Rae investigates the

baptism of Jesus by John an d considets why i t should have been that the

one who was w i t h o u t s in should submit to John s baptism of repentance

fo r the forgiveness of sins Rae begins by noting the reticence of the gospel

writers to enter upo n this ques tion, b ut finds a clue to its resoluti on in

M a t t h e w s contention that Jesus is bapti zed to f u l f i l all righteousness'. The

theological t r adi t i o n is largely agreed tha t Jesus stood in no need of

baptism himself, but several d i fferent accounts are offered as to why he

s h o u ld have gone t h r o u g h w i t h i t nevertheless Af ter surveying these

accounts, Rae follows a line of thought that is found in the homilies of

Jo hn Chryso stom acco rding to whi ch the bapt ism is central to the event of

the incarnation itself in which the Son of God takes upon himself the

w h o le mystery of our hu ma n nature, a nature tha t is marre d by sin This is

a l ine of thought that leads eventual ly to the cross, for it is there that the

f u l l consequence of the incar nati on - C hris t s assumptio n of sinf ul flesh

(otxpO — i s redemptively work ed thro ugh

The theologies of Edward I r v i n g , Karl Barth and John Zizoulas are

called upon as the impli cari ons of this posit ion are furt her explored In

part icular , it is observed that this account of the baptism requires a

relar ional ontolog y of personhood in whi ch Chris t acts as the repres entat ive

of sinf ul huma nity , and reconsti tutes our fal len hum anit y by bring ing i t

into reconci led relation w i t h G od This is a wo rk of div ine love and so

reveals the one who does it to be God s beloved Son

Ih e actio n of the Son is fur ther explore d in the essay by Do uglas

K n i g h t , and the focus here is upon the Son s confession There are, Knight

argues, four 'moments in the theo-logic of God's speech Th e Father

speaks; the Son receives tha t speech so it comes to its proper place and is

vin d ica t e d ; the Son answers th e Father w i t h hi s obedience; and the Father

receives rhe Son In and thr oug h this act of conversation and commu nio n,

creation is bro ug ht into being , is compl ete d and perfecte d, and offered

back to the Father for his approval and joy That conversation between

Father and Son is sustained by the Spirit who continually gives the future,

completed w o r l d to the church

I h i s f o u r - f o l d speech-act constitutes the economy of God thro ugh

w h i c h th e w o r l d receives its bein g More than tha t, however, this economy

of God is also th e means by which we are made borh hearers an d speakers

of God's Wo rd Ih e action of God is an action that enables hum ani tyunder the leadership of the Son and the enabling of the Spirit to j o i n in the

Sons wo rk of presenting the w o r l d to the Father in thanksgiving and

RAE Introduction I I

praise It is in confes sing Jesus as Lo rd , finally, that we, for the first ti me ,

free ly and reall y act W e are not the Lo r d , and so we can thank God

W o r s h i p is also the theme of the essay by Sandra Facb, who explores the

role of the ascended Christ as mediator of our worship. Drawing

p a r t icu la r ly on the work of Josef Jungm an, Facb argues tha t the

m e d ia t o r ia l role of Christ in worship has long been neglecte d Of cruci al

importance here is the neglect of Christ s huma nity in the ascension Far

f r o m leaving his humanity behind in the ascension, it is precisely i n the

u n i t y of his person as hu man and div ine that the ascended Christ continues

his mediatorial work

A t t e n t i o n is focused i n i t i a l l y on the mediatorial doxology, Glory to the

Father through the Son and in the Spirit As the t r adi t i o n of Christian

w o r s h ip progressed, however, we find the mediatorial ' through' increas

i n g l y replaced by w i t h so that the role of Chr ist as media tor is lost. Fach

offers a detailed account of this l inguistic al teration, noting in particular

the increasing separation between God and humanity that the doxological

change effects If Chri st is not the mediator of our worsh ip, then we are left

t o direct towards God only our own p i t i f u l expressions of praise. L i r t l e

wonder then that God should appear remote Lhere is desperate need,

therefore, for a recovery of emphasis on the priestly mediation of Christ

Fortunately the t r a d i t i o n has not left us bereft of the means for such a

recovery Fach mines deeply the theologies of Basil and Nicolas Cabasilas,

of Calvin and Charles Wesley, along w i t h the more recent work of James

an d Thomas Torrance, and Doug las Farrow To worsh ip the Father with the

Son certainly preserves Christ 's d i v i n i t y , but to worship the Father through

the Son, maintain s in mu ch better balance th e humanity of Christ as well

Mor e yet to the poin t, we are thus enabled to worsh ip God i n spirit and in

t r u t h

The volume concludes w i t h a response to all of the above f rom

C h r is t o p h Schwobel of the Universi ty of I i ib in ge n In characreristical ly

masterful style, Schwobel provides a clear articulation of the key themes

treated in the volume and adds his own constructive contributions to the

debates engaged in by the earlier con trib uto rs

I V

The conference a t w hi c h these essays were first presented was plan ned by

Professor Colin Gunton before he died As always w i t h Co lin , he was

lo o k in g fo r w ar d w i t h great enthusiasm to the gathering of his colleaguesand friends at yet another in a lo ng series of successful conferences of the

Research I ns t i tute i n Systematic Theology at K i n g s College, Lon don

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


12. The Person of Christ

Sadly, Col in was not to be w i t h us at t he conference i n September 2003 as

be died very suddenly i n M a y of that year A s i t turn ed out, therefore,

many fr iends and colleagues gathered at tha t conference w h o w o u l d not

otherwise have been there, some o f wh om wro te papers for the occasion i n

honour of C o l i n hi m sel f

A l t h o u g h these papers are. not, for the most part , a d irect engagement

w i t h Col in's theological w o r k — there is plenty more t ime for that ahead of

us - they are, nevertheless, gathe red toget her as a mod esr t r i bu te to h i m

C o l i n s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o theology d u r i n g th e course of the past thtee decades

was both prolif ic and incomparable I t is not just a matter of what he said

and wrote - a l though that legacy w i l l serve us r i c hl y f or m any years to

come - we have much reason to be gr a te ful also for the t imel iness of his

theology. Col in helped a great man y people t o recover confidence i n the

intellectual coherence and explanatory power of the C hr i s r i an f a i t h at a

t i m e w h e n i t has been under siege He did this quite simp ly because o f his

ow n confidence that the gospel of Jesus C hr i s t is the t r u t h about God and

about th e w o r l d , and that i t is the goo d news of t he w o r l d s r ed em pt i on

I h a t meant for Colin that every part o f t he w o r l d , and every facet of its life

was a pr oper object of theological inve stigatio n H i s own interests were

broad, f t o m music , t o l i t er a tur e , t o art , and, of course, ro nature i n his

beloved hort icul tur al endeavours, and he b r o u g h t a l l these to bear i n the

theological task of bearing witness to the love a nd the g l o r y of God.

I t is in appreciation of C o l i n s theological gi fts , as also of his fr ien dship

and col legial i ty, that this volume is dedicated t o h i m I t begins therefore

w i t h 2 t r i b u t e to his theology, penned by Cht is top h Schwó bel, and firsr

delivered at a m em or i a l service in the chapel at K i ng ' s C o l l ege i n

September 2003

A Tribute to Colin Gunton

Christoph Schwóbel

Gi v i n g thanks for the l i fe of C o l i n G u n t o n , th e theo l ogi an, the

teacher, the colleague, th e f r i end, means r em em ber i ng and

celebrating what we have received f r o m C o l i n an d t h r o u g h

C o l i n I r means r em em ber i ng a particular person w i t h particular gi fts and

characteristics whose achievements are all shaped by the pers on he was and

by the patt icul ar personal characteristics that made hi m th e person we

remember w i t h respect and affection Coli n w o u l d have been th e first to

r e m in d us that wha t we received f r o m h i m was not his to give b u t is

u lt im a t e ly rooted i n G o d as the g i v er of every perfect g i f t , as the K i n g s

College Prayer has it , and wh o is the fount o f a ll goodness that ca n be

fo u n d i n created beings I n expressing out grati tude to C o l i n w e trace the

lines that relate what w e receive f r o m other persons so tha t being grate ful

to Coi i n entai ls being grateful t o G o d fo r C o l i nC o l in was first of al l a theo l ogi an A l t h o u g h he started hi s career i n this

col lege teaching phi losophy of r e l i g i o n , w h ich for him remained a l i fe l ong

conversation partner, theology was always his prima ry cal l ing Col in was a

theo l ogi an, i n a very specific sense of the w o r d , w h o understood a ll

theology as parr of the hu m an response to the message o f the gospel The

gospel was for h i m not an extra piece of supernatural info rmat ion that

guides us beyond the capacities of our natural reason I t is the way in which

God personal ly, as Father, Son and Sp iri t , relates to us, gives himse lf to us

and lays claim to all d imensions of our existence so tha t theology is a

response to this event, the response rhat is enabled by Go d s address t o us

If this is the case that theology is u l t i m ate l y r ooted i n G o d s t r i u n e self-g i v i n g , then the primary question for al l theology is that o f the i d ent i t y o f

13

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



t h is God who so relates to us W h o is God i f the message of the Gospel is

true?' is the one ques tion that guides the whole theologic al enterpris e

C o l i n was a Trini tari an theo logi an The doctrin e of the T r i n i t y was for

h i m no opti ona l extra to theo logy It was si mpl y the way in w h ich

theology can remain true to the gospel Do in g t r i n i t a r i a t i theology is themanner in w h ich a theology can be a Chris tian theology This con victio n

can already be found in his doctoral thesis, w r i t t e n under the supervision of

R ober t Jenson and published under the t i t l e Becoming and Being, 1 and it

later developed, very much in conversation w i t h John Zizioulas, into the

major focus, the organizing centre of his theology An Essay Toward a

Trinitarian Theology was the s ubt itl e of the l i t t l e book Enlightenment and

Alienati on 1 that he publis hed shortly after becom ing Professor of Christian

Doctr ine at King 's Col lege I t could have been the subtitle for every one of

the dozen further books he published later.

I f God is not simply 'a sea of essence, i n f i n i t e and unseen bu t first of all

t h is particu lar God, the Father, the Son and the Spiri r whose story begins

w i t h Israel, culmin ates i n Chr ist and involves us in the dynamic s of the

operation of the Spirit of t r u t h , the particular must have a paramount

significance i n theo logy as w e l l as in every other dim ens ion of created life

Every created being is called to be particular just as humans are called to be

persons If we s t i l l fo l lowed the ancient custom of venerating the great

doctors of the church by a particular t i t l e , C o l i n G u n t o n w o u l d have to be

th e doctor particularitatis, the teacher of the significance o f the part icul at

wh o was never content w i t h abstract generalit ies Thi s applies as mu ch to

his theology as to the other passion in his l i f e , his gardening. Gardening

was for him the activ i ty of culti vat ing part icula ri ty so that the garden

co u ld reflect the r i c h d iversi ty of particular i t ies that characterizes the

creation of this particular t r i n i r ar i an God

C o l in Gu nro n was, secondly, a theologian in commu nio n His theolog y

always needed to be rooted in a part icu lat co mm un it y First of all , in his

f a m i ly , w h ich p rovide d the secure foundation of his w o r k and was always

th e first instance of what Col in tho ugh t about wh en he talke d about the

significance of part icul ar com mun iti es The dedications of his books say

more about thi s than an yt hi ng tha t can be said here Secondly, his theology

was rooted in his church, Brentwood United Reformed Church, the church

he served for many years as associate minister , elder, interim-moderator,

' Becoming and Being: The Doctrine of God in Charles Hartshorns and Karl Barth (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1978)

Enlightenment and Alienation 1 An Essay Ipward a Trinitarian Tbeohg)' (London: Marshall,Morgan and Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, T9S5)

SCHWOBEL A Tribute to Colin Gunton

occasional v i o l i n i s t , member of the recorder group and master of

ceremonies ar the Chris tmas celebrations Th is is by no means the usual

t h i n g Theologians may w r i t e extensively or even excessively about the

c hur c h w i t h o u t ever real ly belongi ng to a local church This was diffe rent

i n C o l i n s case He has reciprocared wh at he received f r o m Brenrwood by

m a k i n g it one of the most w e l l - k n o w n churches on the theological scene

t h r o u g h his col lection of Sermons fo r B r entw ood ' : Theology through

Preaching 3 And there is the community of K i n g s Col lege to w h i c h he

remained f a i t h f u l for over t h i r t y - f o u r years, an almost unique exception in

m o d e r n academic life

Being a theologian in commun ion meant, for C o l in , to be a theologian

in conversation Teaching theology and doi ng research in theology meant

creating spaces for theological conversation i n w h ich knowledge and

w i s d o m could be cultivated. He loved to talk, but he could also l i sten

When, now fifteen years ago, a younger colleague came forward w i t h the

proposal of establishing a Research I ns t i tute i n Systematic Theology, he

immediately agreed and helped to develop the m i n i m a l organizational

structure that was needed Since then the Iuesday Seminars, the Day

Conferences, and the International Conferences have become a fixture in

theo l ogi c a l l i fe The five volumes of papers presented at the Intern atio nal

Conferences w i t h topics such as Persons Divine and Human, Trinitarian

Theology, God and Freedom, Creation, an d Reconciliation, most ly edite d by

C o l i n Gu nt on , can be found on the leadin g lists of the most imp ot ta nt

in s t i t u t io n s of theological le arning in the w o r l d Ma ny of the for mer

student participants of the conferences now return as speakers.

C o l i n h ked t o l isten. A l l of his books since th e classic The One, the Three

and the Many God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity The 199Z Bampton

Lectures* were discusse d b y colleagues an d research srudents in the Tuesday

Seminars before publication His elegant prose reflects the conversation in

w h ich the author involves the reader and echoes the ma ny conversations

b e h in d the text Ih e traces of these discussions and of remarks mad e by

those who read his manuscripts before publ icat ion can be foun d in

nume rous footnote s in his books I kn ow of no other leadin g academic who

a t t r ib u t e d so many significant points to conversations w i t h students and

colleagues The international invitati ons Col in received and fol l owed ,

always accompani ed by his wife Jenny, to America, Austral ia, Canada,

Germany, the Netherlan ds, Romania, Singapore (to name but a few) in

3

Theology through Preaching Sermons for Brentwood (Edinburgh: I&L Clark. ZOOl)4 The One, the Three and the Many God. Creation and the Culture of Modernity The 1992.

Bampton Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993}

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



recent years when he was recognized as the most significant voice of

English systematic th eology, were for h im simp ly extensions of

conversations w h i c h first began in his cramped study in K i n g s College,

London

Of course, the conversations were not always about th eolo gy only ATuesday Seminar w o u l d have no proper conclusion w i t h o u t lunch in the

Riversi de Resraurant a nd the inevita ble fish and chips A n d at the An nu al

Conferences of the Society for the Study of Iheology w h i c h Colin served

fo r te n years as Secretary and later as one of its Presiden ts, he e njoy ed

associating w i t h t he you ng ' as he called it , i n the bar after the conference

sessions where the transi tion f r o m serious theology to jokes accompanied

by l o u d laughter - his sense of humo ur was not alway s very refined —

seemed as easy as it was pleasant

I h i r d l y , Col i n Gun to n was an unc ompr omis ing theologian A declared

enemy of al l kinds of reduccionism he abhorred nothing more than the

compromise of theological thought w i t h the fleeting moods of the culture

of the day H e was not afraid to appear do gma tic , for he was too w e l l versed

i n the history of the concept of dogma, k n o w i n g that before i t became a

technical term for the agreed conciliar teaching, it denoted - as, for

instance, in its use by the Stoics - th e view of reality w h i c h can account for

th e o r i g i n , destiny and meaning of al l there is Dog ma i n the Christian

sense means interp reti ng real i ty theologica l ly In this sense, C o l i n G unton

was fond of being dogmatic , demonst ratin g that being dogmatic is not the

opposit e of bei ng crit ica l, as Ka nt supposed Every criti que has its

dogmatic f ounda tion, and dialogue only becomes possible if these

presuppositions are declared

I t was this uncomp romi sing approach to the theological task that

s im p ly accepts no predefi ned boundarie s for the olog ical discourse tha t

made this dogmatic theologian an acute observer and interpreter of the

cultural situ atio n of today The astoni shin g range of bis w r i t i n g , f r o m the

most intric ate problems of the inter pretat ion of the Fathers to the meaning

of The Lord of the Rings, f r o m problems of the modern understanding of

health to the conceptual ptobiems of modern cosmology or to Mozart, al l

these are relevant questions if 'God and the w o r l d , ' this God and this

w o r l d , is indeed the overal l theme of a theological inte rpret ation of real i ty

For Col i n Gu nt on this unc ompr omis ing approach to theology requi red

d is c ip l in e , the part icular disci pli ne of the metho ds and criteria of

systematic th eolog y Today, systematic the olog y is a well-e stab lished

d is c ip l in e in Engl ish universi t ies Wh en Col in started his academic careeri t was seen more as som eth ing one d id elsewhere - in German y or in the

U n i t e d States In the course of his career he established the discipline

SCHWÓBEL A Tribute to Colin Gunton 17

almost single-handedly in Engl ish universi t ies, and the K i n g s approach

has become one of rhe most respected species in the garden of rheology In

1980, w hen C ol i n G un ton became th e first Lecturer in Systematic

Theology in K i n g s Col lege, nobody w o u l d have guessed t h a t f rom 1999

one of the most respecred journals in the field, th e International Journal ofSystematic Theology, w o u l d be produced by Black well of Oxfo rd and edited

by C o l i n G unt on and J o h n Webster , along w i t h Ralph del Colle, and that,

even earl ier , an English theologian, Co l in Gu nt on, w o u l d become a co-

editor of one of the established competitors on the Continent, the Nei/e

Zeitschift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie It was the

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g persistence of Col in Gunton that effected the change

U n c o m p r o m i s i n g was also Col in's att i tude to his own w o r k , and

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g were the demands that he l a i d upon himself The restless

energy w h i c h everybo dy could see when he paced the corridors of King 's ,

the impatient creativi ty w h ich could lead to his sketching a new paper

w h i l e lis ten ing to another rhat had not qu ite caught his interest, were

never motivated by personal ambition, nor simply by a Puri tan w o r k ethic

W h e n t h e academic honours came - the honorary doctorate f rom

Aberdeen, the D D f r o m London and now Oxf ord , rhe named lectureships,

th e v i s i t i ng professorships - he accepted t h e m p r o u dl y , b u t also w i t h a

sheepish g r i n as if to say, that s not the real t h i n g , is it? He was too m uc h

of an English nonconformisr ever to consider himself a pi l lar of the

estab lishme nt Wh at propel led his appar ently boundless energy was his

passion for theology, the passion to offer the best response ro what he

understood to be the best pr om i se that hum anki nd ever received The

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g character of his style of do in g theo logy was never mote

apparent than du r i ng the few months at the Center of Theological I nq u i r y

i n Princeton when w i t h i n a space of three months the draft of the first

v o l u m e of the planned Systematic Theology was completed. Col i n returned

weary, but satisfied, and eager to go on, to rework the first a nd start o n the

other three volumes Unc omp rom isi ng was also hi s final reflecrion on rhe

t i t l e : A h w e l l , \ t h i n k 111 call it Do gm at ic s' after all I his

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g sty le of doin g theolog y was not only C oli n s wa y of

l i v i n g dangerously; i t also had a part icula r enjo ymen t I remember qu it e a

number of occasions when we came home on the same t r a i n or returned to

Brentwood after one of the Conferences of the Research Ins ti tute and he

w o u l d say, Tha t was a won der fu l discussion A n d imag ine , we're bei ng

p a id to do that

Let me add one last point that perhaps only a foreigner, albeit anA n g l o p h i l e , cou ld make: Co l in Gunt on was a parti cularl y Engl ish

theologian To find an Engl ish style of do in g systematic theo logy was

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



his life s project. He never ceased exto l lin g the vir tues of being English to

me, the foreigner , knowing f u l l w e l l that he was preaching to one of the

converted Englishness was the only context in whic h he w o u l d find a

construcr ive use for the term rel igi on' whi ch he, whose theological stance

was shaped by Kar l Barth and Roberr Jenson, was accustomed to use onlycr i t i ca l ly H o w o f t e n have his friend s heard hi m quot e: T h e Eng lis h are

such an irreligious race that they invented cr icket to give them a sense of

etern ity Cric ket was a rel igi on he adhered to and one tha t mar ked a cleat

cu l t u r a l boundary to cultures whi ch in other ways he admired I never

dared ask about the relat ionshi p of this part icular relig ion to the Chris t ian

f a i t h , a fra id that the answer w o u l d poinr to the batt ing of some l o n g -

fo r g o t t e n Essex cric keter as an example of rbe operation of the Holy Spirit.

A n d I am sure i r w o u l d have turn ed out that this cricketer was a member

of the Congregational Churc h Ihere was not hin g ideological about this , a t

least not often. Rather, it was part of the theol ogy of this partic ular

English theologian that these part icular it ies matter Ih is was never a

nat ionalis t ic nor an insular at t itude Col in had learned too muc h from the

theo logy of Israel, Cappadocia, Ger many , Switz erla nd and Amer ica to see

an English systematic theology as an exercise in theological iso lat ion

Qui te the opposite ; in the last t h i r t y years the English contr ibution to the

international theological discussion was to a very large extent C o l i n

Gunton s and that of the people he encouraged and influenced

I n g iv ing thanks for the life of Col in Gunt on we are comforted by the

hope that he shared fervently that out life here on earth and our

conversations here are only a beginning, because God wants to converse

w i t h us eternall y as we shall participa te in the conversation wh ic h is the

l i fe of the tri une God W e are grat efu l for all Col in has giv en us A n d we

are grateful for the g i f t that Colin was for us and continues to be for us.

Iherefore our grat itude must be directed toward the tr iune God who is

r i g h t l y addressed as the Giver of every perfect g i f t - albeit in created,

huma n, imperfect form whi ch waits to be perfected by God. Ihan ks be to

God

Chapter i

Prolegomena to Christology:

Four Theses

Joh n Webster

I

Antecedently present in his effulgent majesty as the eternal Sun of God, Jesus Christ is

known by virtue of the movement of his being in tchiih as Lord and reconcile! he freely

gives himself to be known by m, and not otherwise

In Chr is to logy, at least, the method may not be arbitrary, for

Chris to logy is determined in a fundamental way by the fact that its

' ob ject , th at towards whic h its at tent ion is turned and by whi ch it is

led, is the personal presence of Jesus Chr is t Jesus Chr is t is present; his

id e n t i t y is not s imply past Hi s iden ti ty , tha t is, is no t located i n a

temporally remote sphere, nor is i t finished i n the sense that it can be

docketed as a closed, achieved reality which does not init iate act ive

encounter w i t h us but possesses only the passivity of a past reality which

we summon into our presence He is, and is present Jesus C h r is t ' s id e n t i t y

as one who is present to us is, of course, inseparable from his past, a pasr

w h i c h has a definite, unalterable sequence an d shape, summa rized i n the

church s confession through the key moments of b i r t h , suffer ing,

crucif ixion, death, bur ia l, resurrect ion and ascension But, as the last two

events in that sequence indicate, the trajectory of Jesus Chr is t 's iden tit y

stretches inexorably into the present, hi s past being gathered into his

present id enti ty as one who cannot t r u t h f u l l y be spoken o f on ly in the past

tense H i s past is not mere contingency, but an integral part o f his ident ityas the one who was and is and is to come He is risen fr om the dead; and his

resurrect ion is not s im ply a retrospect ive declarat ion — an indic at io n,

19

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


zo The Person of Christ

perhaps, of the u n i t y of purpose between Jesus a nd his heavenly Father

s ig n a l l in g th e Father's v i n d i c a t i o n of his cause - bu t rather th e ac tua l i ty o f

his participation in the aliveness an d comprehensive presence of Go d

Moreover, as the presenr one , Jesus C h r i s t is not absent H i s temporal

presentness, th at is, is not only actual i n a sphere remote f r o m us H e is

our contemporary, no t i n the sense that hi s t i m e as it were runs parall el t o

ours i n some other region b u t does no t enter int o our ow n and remains

inaccessible, bu t in the sense th at he is with us Risen f r o m th e dead, he

ascended into heaven an d sits at the Fathers r i g h t hand i n g l ory But

t h o u g h hi s presence is no longer i n bodily fashion, he is nor thereby

separated f r o m us : ascension an d en th ron em en t are not mere w i t hdr aw al ,

bu t express t he l o r dl y freedom w i t h w h i c h he enters into relation w i t h and,

in d e e d , binds himself to those to w h o m he presents h i m sel f in the power of

th e H o l y Spiri t .

The 'matter of C h r i s to l og y is this present on e H o w is his presence to be

characterized? He is present antecedently. H i s presence precedes ou r self-

presence, and fashions i t i n t o a counterpart to i tsel f. Ih at is , the presence of

C h r is t is not an extension or m od i f i c a t i on of our presence t o ourselves; it is

no t some presence-to -hand to wards w h i c h we are en r i r l ed to dispose

ourselves as we w i l l I h e presence o f C h r i s t is d i v i n e self-presence, an d as

such becomes a huma n present autonomous ly , i n spontaneous f u l f i l m ent o f

its ow n d eterm i n at i on , by v i r t u e of the action of the H o l y Spi r i t , and not

by h u m a n acts of pro jec t i on or r ec on struc t i on Ac c ord i n g l y , ou r presence

to ourselves is not a stable and settled disposition of ourselves by w h i c h all

other presences are measured, an d before w h i c h Jesus C h r i s t may be

sum m on ed to appear as a fur th er object for our a r ten t i on I t is

eschatological : ou r h u m a n self-presence is a f u n c t i o n of the fact th at as

Jesus C h r i s t presents h i m sel f to us i n the Spi r i t s pow er , he creates a h um an

present as the aux i l i ary of his presence, ov erc om i n g ou r pretended self-

sufficiency, an d m a k i n g us i n t o the new creatures of God wh o confess that

he is before the m Th e parad i g m of his anrecedent presence as the r isen one

is thus th e effortless, unfette red an d w h o l l y effective coming of Jesus

C h r is t : 'Jesus came an d stood among the m (Jn. 20 26)

I Jesus C h r i s t is present as Go d is present, and so present in his effulgent

f majesty as 'the eternal Son of God As the eternal Son, he is no t Son by adoption

/ or annexation, dr aw n i n to th e l i f e of the Godhead f r o m outside and

I ennobled, bu t ingredienr w i t h i n th e i m m an en t l i fe of Go d No less than

': th e Father, he is in the beg i n n i n g ; w ere he not, the Father w o u l d no t be

' wh o he is I h e Son is Go d f r o m G o d , l i ght f r o m l i g h t , sharing in the1 substance of the Father, and so f i t t i n g l y praised as Go d H e does not

\ merely symbolize God ot present a patticular concentration of the divine

WE BS TE R Prolegomena to Christology 21

presence; he is divine person and agent, to be confessed as L o r d As such he

is God s only Son. His sonship is w h o l l y un i q ue : he does no t ex em pl i f y

some more general relation o f creatures ro G o d , bu t as the 'on l y -beg ot ten '

Son of the Father he is distingm shed^fro m al l creatVires_becau^ his o r i g i n

lies w h o l l y w i t h i n the inner l i fe of the Godhead; ' begotten of his Father

before al l w or l d s ' , he is the r epet i t i on of the be i n g o f God , antecedently

God's Son As t rue God and only Son of the Father, i n short, he is Lo r d ,

intr ins ic to the d i v i n e essence, sharing i n its m i g h t , m a jesty , d om i n i on and

p o w e r A n d fo r this reason the Son is - as rhe Te Deum Laudamus purs ir -

venerandus, w o r t h y of all w orsh i p , the f i t object of the creature's praise of

Go d because he shares i n the eternal g lor y of the divine nature

Th e presence of th is one is his presence i n effulgent ?najesty I t is a

majestic presence, because in his presence he is and acts as one w h o is

i n f i n i t e l y superior, disposing of h imse lf in utte r l iberty As he comes t o us,

he does no t place h i m sel f in our hands, ontîo^ ical iy or noetical ly ; he

cannot be converted into a fun c t i on of our i n t e n t i o n , t h o u g h t or action,

bu t comes as the one he is, i n boundless majesty Hi s presence, th oug h i t is

real, rel iable a nd constant and not merely asymptot ic , has the character of

p r o x i m i t y , of a c om i n g to be near rather than o f that w hi c h can be h e l d and

m a n ip u la t e d ' Yet th is majestic presence is not dark, somethi ng whose

f o r m w e cannot discern I t is radiant; in it the d i v i n e g l ory is manifest

( H e b 13; 2 Cor. 4 4 ) God is in h imself g lo rious an d therefore

resplendent H is g lory is not self-enclosed b u t se l f -d i f fus i n g , a l i ght w h i c h ,

because i t is light, sheds itself abroad, freely an d majestical ly i m p a r t i n g and

disclosing i tsel f Th e presence of Jesus Christ is th is divine effulgence:

radiant presence, presence w hi c h enl ightens and so establishes knowledge

of itself

Once again, this radiance may be characterized more closely. I h e l i ght

w h i c h Jesus Chrisr is, his effulgent majesty , is not s i m p l y a state bu t an

action an d m ov em en t In his majesty as the eternal Son, he is not i n er t and

passive, resting i n a separate an d secluded glo ry Rather, the majesty of

Jesus C h r i s t is k n o w n in and as the action or m ov em en t i n w h i c h he

im p a r t s h i m sel f H e h imself moves towards us ; he conies t o us; his be i n g is a

b e i n g - i n - c o m i n g w h i c h is e q u i p r i m o r d i a l l y a be i n g - i n -g i v i n g T h i s

In this connection. Hans Frei s worry that talk of rhe presence of Christ — at least in itsnineteenth-century idealist exposition - almost inevitably subjects Christ to the believer to

whom he is present might be countered by a more dogmatically robusr articulation o f thefreedom of Christ's presence - something which Frei s alternative concept of identity' doesnot fully succeed in doing because of its formality See H Frei. The Identity of Jesus Chris:(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1975) vii-x

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



m o ve m e n t is the m o ve m e n t of the one w h o is Lord I t is a free movement,

no t an act ion under c onstraint ; in his se lf-bestowal, Jesus C h r is t does not

give himself away I o be accosted by t h is m o ve m e n t of his presence is no t

to encounter something accidental, a process w h o l l y w i t h i n th e economy o f

human temporal causality an d sequence, b u t rather that wh ic h is the

f u l f i l m ent i n t i m e of the eternal resolve of G o d . I h e o r i g i n , energy and

m o b i l i t y o f this movem ent al l der ive fr om t he divi ne purpose whic h is set

for t h i n Chr is t (Eph I 9) , an d so t h a t w h ich is to be discerned i n Chr is t 's

presence is 'the purpose of h i m w h o accomplishes a l l thing s according to

th e counsel of his w i l l ' ( E p h 1 11) Further , this movem ent is th e

m o ve m e n t of one w h o is reconciler I h e part icular path of this movem ent,

t h a t is, is one a lo n g w h i ch th e L o r d faces a nd overcomes th e creature s

o p p o s i t io n As he moves a long this path, he directs himsel f to the evil

reality of creaturely defiance a n d r e p u d ia t io n of the h u m a n vo ca t io n to l ive

in the presence of G o d - defiance a n d o p p o s i t io n w h ich t r a p the creature i n

ignorance an d id o la t r y I h e presence of Jesus C h r is t as reconciler s im ply

abolishes t h is h u m a n h o s t i l i t y ; i t o u t b id s it by its sheer radiance,

scatter ing th e darkness a nd r e s t o r in g creatures ro f e l lo w s h ip , and so to

knowledge

I n s u m : th e m o ve m e n t of the being o f Jesus C h r is t is presence, radiance,

reconciling self-bestowal. I n this movement is the Sache o f Chr is to logy.

W h a t are the consequences of t h is for the k n o w le d g e of C h r is t and

therefore for the manner i n w h i c h the C h r is t o lo g ica l task is to be

approached? O u r p r o p o s i t io n states i t i n these terms: Jesus Christ is known

by virtue of the moiwuent of his being and not otherwise

K n o w l e d g e of Jesus Chr is t f lows from th e m o ve m e n t of his self-

presentat ion which w e have just described i n s u m m a r y fo r m W h a t is the

fu n d a m e n t a l g r o u n d of the k n o w le d g e of Jesus Chr is t? I h e j u d g m e n t of

some dominanr s trands of modern theology has been that knowledge of

Jesus C h r is t is subject to a d y n a mic w h ic h is i m m a n e n t to the h u m a n

k n o w e t , an d w h i c h can be fo r m u la t e d i n general, content- neuttal

pr inciples of h u m a n co g n i t io n C h r is t o lo g y is therefore to be preceded

by an e p is t e m o lo g y , a hermeneurics or a p h e n o m e n o lo g y o f h u m a n

k n o w i n g a nd in t e r p r e t in g as modes of b e in g in the w or l d . I f such a

procedure is C h r is t o lo g ica l ly p r o b le m a t ic , it is because i t entails a basic

co m p r o m is e of the character of the object of C h r is t o lo g y : i t cannot be

s h o w n to be fu l l y coherent w i t h th e church's confession that Jesus C h r is t is

Lo r d I f C h r is t o lo g y is erected o n this basis, t h a t is, at some p o i n t or other

there w i l l become v is ib le the fact tha t thi s strategy regards th e k n o w i n g ori n t er p r e t i ng h u m a n subject as the fundamentum inconcussum veritatis This

coheres i l l w i t h in t e l le c t u a l deference to the l o r dl y m o ve m e n t of Jesus


C h r is t s o w n b e in g , since i t involves a fa ta l exchange of subjects i n w h i c h

k n o w le d g e of his presence is subordinated to the co n d i t io n s of the knower

lucked inside this strategy there is o f t e n an assumption about crearurely

competence in the matter of k n o w le d g e of C h r is t I his may be a p r i def u l

assumption (Jesus C h r is t , l ik e e ve r y t h in g else, is subject to the dictates of

universal reason), or ir may be a very insecure and anxious assumpt ion that

we ca n re ly o n no thi ng other than o ur fragile selves B u t b o t h p r id e and

fear construe acts of k n o w le d g e as l y i n g outs ide th e sphere of C h r is t s

l o r dshi p ; and ir is precisely i nto this construal that Chris to log y must at al l

costs n ot betray itself I h e lo r d s h ip of Chr is t is his non-comparable , self-

g r o u n d e d an d axiomatic sovereignty In the matter of the k n o w le d g e of

himself , th e corollary of his lo r d s h ip is that there is no access to hi m other

than that which h e himself affords I f there were an y such access, if paralle l

to th e m o ve m e n t of his self-presence there were a creaturely moveme nt

w h i c h could anticipate , evoke or even compel Chri s t s appearance, then

C h r is t w o u l d no longer be L o r d , for he is not L o r d i f he is not the agent of

hi s o w n b e co m in g k n o w n Ih i s is s i m p l y th e extension of the p r in c ip le

solus Christus to the ordo cognoscendi I n formal terms, what is spoken of here

is revelation But to speak of revelat ion is to indicate h o w k n o w le d g e of

Jesus C h r is t is rooted in the te leology of his b e in g , hi s t u r n i n g to us in

w h i c h he is k n o w n , no t because we can draw h i m in t o ou r sphere but

because h e h im s e l f reaches o u t , a n t ic ip a t in g us by being already on the wa y

to us as the r isen one i n the Spir it 's power Onl y he can do this ; only he has

au t ho r i t y an d competence to es tablish knowl edge of h im s e l f ; and o n l y he

has th e mercy and the d e t e r m in a t io n to act w i t h such author ity and

competence. Moreover , to speak of revelat ion is at the same t im e to speak

of reconcil iat ion Revelat ion is a t e r m for Jesus C h r is t s merci ful outreach

in w h i c h he creates f e l lo w s h ip w i t h lost sinners, an d revealed' kno wledgeis that knowledge which occurs in the course of the r e co n ci l ia t io n of

sinners to w h o m it has been g ive n t o perceive the g lor ious self-movement

of the reconciler

As a result of this free, gracious mov emen t of his , Jesus C h r is t is known

by us H e bestows h im s e l f , b r id g in g th e g u l f (h is t o r ica l , m o r a l ,

exper ientia l) between himself and us, and t h e re b y g r a n t i n g a specific

permiss ion an d es tablishing a specific p r o h i b i t i o n

Ihe permiss ion is permiss ion t o k n o w h i m K n o w l e d g e of Jesus Chr is t

is possible a n d le g i t im a t e because of his antecedent, gtatuitous and utter ly

real self-presence Sett ing himself f o r t h , e xp o u n d in g h im s e l f as the present

one who encloses and orders al l t h in g s , Jesus C h r is t makes h im s e l f k n o w n ,and thereby excludes the p o s s ib i l i t y of legi t imat e, well -fou nded ignorance

of himself H e is, and therefore he is present, an d therefore he is k n o w n

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


2,4 The Person of Christ

I her e is a negative inference to be drawn here, namely char this given

presence of Christ excludes ways of approaching th e task of C br i s r o l ogy i n

w h ich there lurks th e assumption that Jesus C hr i s t is not, or may not , or

cannot be present to us Jesus Christ 's givenness sits i l l w i t h , fo r example,

those Christologies whi ch make historical scepticism or probabi l istic

reasoning th e first ptinciple of the know l ed ge of Christ . Mo re seriously, i t

cannot be made to cohere w i t h ascetical or negative Christologies whic h so

fear m a k i n g Jesus Christ into a possessed object tha t he is pushed int o

extreme transcendence Scruples a l ong these lines may be motivated

ethical ly (a desire to counter rdeological abuse of a theology of Christ's

presence) or metaphysical ly (a desire to extract Christolo gy f rom

onto theo l ogy) But the diagnosis is incorrect , i n that i t assumes tha t the

C h r is t ia n confession of Christus praesens is an instance of a degenerate

ideology or onto l ogy; and the cute - an assertion of the elusiveness of

C hr i s t as the first principle of C hr i s to l ogy - k i l l s th e patient

Jesus Christ can be k n o w n , an d k n o w n by us T h e know l ed ge w hi c h is

authorized by the self-presence of Jesus C hr i s t is a genuine huma n

k n o w i n g W h a t hi s risen presence creates are forms of t h o u g h t an d speech

w h i c h are a human counterpart to his sel f-declaration The g i f r of his

presence is thus no t s i m pl y an utterly objective an d self-enclosed perfectum,

b ut a matter for h u m a n k n o w i n g an d language Alongsid e and in str ict

s u b o r d in a t io n to revelation' there is revealedness , the h u m a n f r u i t of the

Spiri ts regeneration of the w o r k o f cr ea tur e ly kno w i n g i n w hi c h C hr i s t is

not only gl impsed f r o m afar b u t genui ne l y kno w n by those w h o m he

i l lu m in a t e s w i t h hi s presence Because this creaturely wo rk can at no po i nt

be considered i n abstraction f r o m th e w o r k of the Sp i r i t , i t has a particular

character; b o t h th e i d ent i ty of the knower and the activi ties of k n o w i n g are

transformed as they are subject t o the Spiri t 's real ization of the regenerative

w o r k of C hr i s t T hi s know i ng and its h u m a n subjects are i n C hr i s t , and

therefore they are a new creation Their newness is especially visi ble in that

the knowledge of Christ whic h the Sp i r i t realizes is not an act ok positing

bu t of confession There is certainly a genui ne l y hum an kn ow i n g w hi c h can

proper ly be characterized as a k n o w i n g by us B ut b y us' does no t entai l

' p u t fo r w ar d by us : we are not authorized or competent to make any such

proposal , once again because tha t w hi c h is the matter of our k n o w i n g is

Jesus Christ 's real i ty as l o r d , the one whose majesty an d spontaneous

freedom w h o l l y precede us The dei ty whi ch is his and i n w h i c h h e presents

himself to us is antecedent (otherwise i t w o u l d not be d e i ty) A s such, i t

cannot be ascribed t o h i m , perhaps as rhe f r u i t of some process oftheological deduction; nor can i t be an evaluation of h i m reached as the

ter m i nus of a consideration of his m or a l or experiential impact. He is Lord,

WE BST ER Prolegomena to Christology 25

and therefore knowledge of h i m cannot be derived f r o m anything other

than his ow n be i ng an d action. B u t th i s does n o t d isqual i fy knowledg e of

h i m as authentic h uman knowledge; i t s i m pl y specifies i t as confession - as

an act of hear i ng , obedience an d allegiance i n w h i c h th e church bows

before th e presence of the one by w h o m i t has been found , a nd gives voic e

to hi s sheer prevenience

To draw rh e threads toge ther: in the sphere of reality whose resplendent

centre is Jesus Christ himself, Go d rhe Father has w i l l e d a knowledge of

th e Son of God w hi c h Go d the H o l y Sp i r i t has effected The God of out

Lo r d Jesus, the Father of g l or y , has g i v en to his church a s p i r i t of w i sd o m

an d of revelation in the know l ed ge o f h i m (cf. Eph 1 17) This permission

catries w i t h i t a p r o h i b i t i o n : t h at Jesus Christ is know?/ by virtue of the

movement of his being entai ls and not otherwise Th e fact tha t i n the S p i t i t s

power Jesus Christ gives himself t o be k n o w n i n this w a y , creating thi s

very specific real i ty and th e corres pondin g capacity, entails an exclusiveness

of access. I h e r u l e by whi ch Christology must be governed is: he is L o r d i n

the knowledge of his l o r d shi p , and can therefore be know n onl y as he

moves towards us O n l y as the one he is and in the m ov em ent of his be i ng

can he be k n o w n Because he is w h o he is, and because he acts as he acts i n

his majestic sel f-presentation, he cannot be ' sought I hat is, he cannot be

apptoached as if he were an elus ive figure, absent f r o m us , locked in

transcendence or bur i ed i n the past, an d only to be d iscovered th roug h the

exercise of human inge nuit y Christolo gy cannot creep u p on h im and

carch hi m unawares No r is it at l i ber ty to decide th at hi s self-presence is so

indefinite or fogged over b y the d istortions an d incapacities of his hum an

witnesses that theology must run i ts own independent checks in order to

reassure itself that he really is able to present himself A l l such strategies,

whether i n bibl ical scholarship or phi l osophi c a l an d dogmati c theology,are in thé end methodo logical ly sophisticated forms of i n f i de l i t y Their

assumption is that he is not present unless demonstrably present - presenr,

rhat is , to und i s tur bed an d unconverred reason But to such de monstratio n

he w i l l no t y i e l d th e mystery of his person

I I

Go d sets am ong men a fact whi ch speaks f or i tsel f i W e may su m u p what

has been indicated so far by saying tha t as there is a sphere of reality over

w h i c h Jesus C hr i s t presides as the enthroned L ord who is before all thi ng s

K Barth Chunk Dogmatics IV/2 (Edinburgh: I&T Clark 1961) 221

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


z6 The Person of Christ

and in who m all thin gs hol d together , so there is also a sphere of

knowl edge of hi m H e establishes t h a t sphere in the act of his self-

bestowal; his reconciling presence sets aside th e estrangement a n d h o s t i l i t y

of m i n d o f corrupt creatures, and br ings into existence a place in which he

makes h im s e l f k n o w n Th e k n o w le d g e w h ich he creates is legit imate; it is

no t w h o l l y im per il led by the vacillat ion and pr ide of a ll human pro jects ,

but calmly, sober ly and l aw f u l l y const ituted as true, re liable knowledge of

C h r is t I t s le g i t im a cy , t r u t h and reli abil ity do not der ive f r o m i ts human

subjects (whether in the f o r m o f epis temological sophist icat ion, cr it ica l

awareness, his tor ical learning or exper ientia l finesse), but so lely f r o m the

t u r n i n g o f Jesus Chr is t Ih at move ment of his bein g is a lways gracious ; it

canno t be arrested, or considered a mov eme nt wh ic h is comp lete and can be

set behind us. As a consequence, there is always a measure o f human

insecur ity in this knowled ge Bu t what is hum anl y fragile is div inel y

secure, author itat ive and l aw f u l , because o f the self-giving of Jesus Chr is t

I n that movement of his , h e j s supremely indifferent to human H^morarje^

unbelief and anxiety; he does not temam_at„a jdis tance orJceep,.sileace, but

he l i m p l y comes and spe~akT(ciTiit 28 18), declar i ng the promise whi ch

is the unshakeable"'blisis~oTTcnowledge of himself : l a m .w kh j^ ou always_.

( M t 28 20) Before proceeding to discuss th e character o f the sphere of the

knowledge of Chris t - the sphere o f the church and, more part icular ly, o f

the church s hear ing of H ol y Scr ipture - we pause to consider the

consequences o f the cognit ive ground of Chris to logy for the undetstanding

of the Chris to logical task as posit ive science

Within the sphere of knowledge established by Jesus Christ's self-bestowal, Christology

is a joyful and reverent positive science whose prolegomena performs a didactic but not

demonstrative task

Christo logy is a posit ive science, in that it is the repet it ion, e lucidat ion and

explicat ion in human words and concepts o f the axiomatic reality of Jesus

C h r is t Because o f this , Chris to logy may not proceed as an a-priori in q u ir y

i n t o the creaturely condit ions for knowledge of Jesus Chr is t : such inquiry

cannot but subvert Chris to logy's at tent ion to its object by treating it as a

possible state of affairs, so hol di ng at bay its l o r dl y a c t u a l i t y Rather, as a

p o s i t ive science th e task o f Chris to logy is an a-posteriori depic t ion of that

w h i c h has been g ive n Cer tainly both terms, 'posit ive and science, are

stretched when deployed in a Chris t o log ical context This positum has its

o wn determinate character as the presence and act ion of Jesus Chr is t in

w h i c h by the power of the Ho ly Spir it he sheds abroad the knowledge of

his reconc iling person and wo rk Hi s 'givenness' is not that of a w o r l d l y


entity but of a his tory of w i l l ed d iv in e a c t iv i t y : o n ly i n t h is sense is

Chris to logy posit ive. Moreover , this givenness determi nes the mode of

stientia wh ic h is appropriate to itself : the operat ions of Chris t o log ical

science are at every point determined by the l o r d l y movement of Chris t ,

a n d C h r is t o lo g y w i l l a lways in some way s truggle against th e confines of

e x is t in g conceptions of science. Chr is to logy is a special science of a special

object Howe ver , the designation 'posit ive science ca n s t i l l serve to

indicate how in the circle of knowledge established by reconciliat ion and

revelat ion, quest ions of the existence and availability of its Sache have

already received an answer in the church s confession of the mystery of

Chris t s presence

C h r is t o lo g y i s a joyful and reverent science. Such terms are not merely

accidental descriptions of the subjective states o f its pract it ion ers ; rather ,

they ide ntif y Spir it -generat ed disposit ions wh ic h are prop er ly object ive ' ,

that is , fitting an d necessary if the work of theological reason is to act in

co n fo r m it y to its given matter Joy an d reverence are not simply ways of

t a l k i n g of the atmosphere o f p ie t y in w h ic h C h r is t o lo g ica l t h o u g h t i sundertaken They det ermine the operations of theology in a direct way,

shapi ng its procedures b y enab lin g it to construe i ts object appropriately,

to adopt a proper posture before t h a t object, to pursue cer ta in modes of

a c t iv i t y and to refrain f r o m o thers , to ar t iculate goals, and to establish

cr iter ia by which judgments of adequacy can be made

Chris to logy is a joyful science because t h o u g h t a n d speech about Jesus

Christ really are made possible by his presence F i ndi ng itself in the sphere

of know ledge wh ic h he br ings into being and maintai ns , Chris to logy is no t

harassed by anxious scruple. It is not , for exampl e, ov erw hel med by

concerns that ta lk of presence can s lide into a ll manner of idolatry , or t hat

may be tied to a leaden metaphysi cs of substance, or that i t requires somefoundation other rhat that of the sheer se lf-presentat ion of Chris t as Lo rd

Chris to logy can be j o y f u l in the face of these anxiet ies , no t because i t fa ils

to register that thete are real threats to its p u r i t y , s t i l l less because i t

considers i tself amply equipped to overcome the m Chris to lo gy s joy

derives instead f r o m the fact that it is undertaken in the sphere o f Chris t 's

presence and promise On ly in abstract ion f r o m t h a t sphere does C h r is t ia n

t h o u g h t an d speech seem a joyless task, condemned to an unending search

fo r reassurances which can never be had i n the manner in whi ch they are

sought Yet the joy whi ch is to characterize p o s i t ive C h r is t o lo g ica l science

is reverent joy : not brash confidence bu t the astonished gra tit ude of the

reconciled at the goodness of the one into whose presence t h e y have been

called Joy may be displaced not only by anxi ety or ir on y, bu t also by a

very human and ungodly asser t ion (or thodox or unorthodox) which

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



replaces th e sp i r i tua l positum of the presence of C hr i s t A C hr i s to l ogy i n

w h i c h th i s is the case w i l l betray lack of reverence, because i t w i l l be

forgetful of the movemenr of mercy whi ch is its found i ng c ond i t i on and

constant accompaniment I f C hr i s to l ogy is to guard i tsel f at this point,

howevet, i t w i l l not be by ad opt i ng m or e strategies of sel f-inspection, more

mechanisms to regulate trust Wh at is r eq ui r ed is a certain spiri tual

vigi lance, that fear of the L or d w hi c h fastens on the very specific cal l ing

and hope given t o theology by the presence of C hr i s t , a nd whi ch looks to

h i m no t onl y to jud ge b u t also to sancti fy a nd perfect it s w or k

I n th e l i g h t o f this characterization of the posi tive science of

C hr i s to l ogy, w hat is to be said of the task of formal prole gomen a? F irs t:

posi tive Christology requires no prolegomena! demonstrat ion of its

v i ab i l i t y , because what such a w o r k o f d em onstr a t i on seeks to achieve is

alteady accomplished by its object, Jesus Christ himself in his lotdly

sel f-demonstration

I n more detai l : Jesus C hr i s t is comprehensively L ord an d rherefore L ord

in th e know l ed ge of his l o r d shi p Because o f th i s , C hr i s to l ogy proceeds

i l l e g i t im a t e ly i f i t attempts to deduce Jesus Christ as a conclusion f rom

some premiss other than h is ow n l um i nous r ea l i ty , f r o m something

supposedly anteriot to h i m , an d more f i t m l y established or evident Jesus

C hr i s t is onl y an d always th e b e g i n n i n g , not the end, of a process of

t h o u g h t ; hi s real i ty is analytic , n o t synthetic ; basic, an d never de rivat ive

I h o u g h t an d speech about h i m may not be set w i t h i n some mote

comprehensive context or considered f r o m some higher vantage-point - a

theory of h i s tor y or r e l i g i on, some sort of phi losophical theism, an ethics o f

ju st ic e H e is nor a conclusion to be d r aw n f r o m some other real i ty; w e

cannot look beh ind h i m to d iscover somethin g more fundamental

Christology, therefore, does no t labour towards him , b u t moves easily andfreely in the l i g h t of the fact that he has already posited hims elf and

established th e sphere i n w h i c h he can be k n o w n

A cco r d in g ly , prolegomena conceived as independent demonstratio of the

reality of Jesus C hr i s t is nor a defence of h i m but a nar r ow i ng o f the range

of hi s effectiveness, even, perhaps, a covert attack on his sovereignty To

defend hi s majestic self-presence by some prolegomenal strategies is to risk

standing against th e free c lari ty, power an d t r u t h of his g i v i n g of himself,

by acting as i f we ha d competence to tender ou r assistance to complete his

sel f-manifestation a nd render i t persuasive W h y press this point? The

g r o u n d for this refusal of prolegomenal de monstratio n is not a pr i nc i p l ed

rejection of apologetics ot foundations: theology is u n l i k e l y to be served by

over-interest i n such issues o f general episremology Wh at calls into

question independent demonstration of posi tive Christological science is

WE BS TER Prolegomena to Christology 29

not epistemological theory but an ontologic al matter : Jesus Christ is the

em bod i m ent o f the divi ne omnipotence He has no g r o u n d o f reality except

i n himself, the Son who proceeds f r o m rhe Father; an d there is , therefore,

no ground of rhe knowdedge o f h i m except his ow n spontaneous and

effective sel f-exposition in the H o l y Spiri t Pu t f o r m a l l y : the law of

t h i n k i n g m ust be the law of the object Th e object is law in that i t is a

fo r m e d an d sel f-communica tive re al i ty, an author i ta t i v e presence w hi c h

commands, empowers an d directs ou r acts o f recogn ition Prolegomenal

d em onstr a t i on subjects tha t object to an a l i en la w (epistemological ,

phenomenological , metaphysical ). I n so d o i ng, i t has to evade th e fact tha t

th e object o f C hr i s to l ogy is , indeed, in se form ed, sel f-co mmunicative,

a u t h o r i t a t ive an d present, and has to operate as if f o r m , c om m uni c at i on,

a u t h o r i t y an d ptesence were bestowed on hi m by a tealiry more

fundamental than Jesus Christ himself Ihi s a wel l -ordered Christology

w i i l no t al low

I n this l i g h t , Christological prolegomena has a more mo dest, didactic

task Its ai m is to o u t l i n e basic characteristics of C hr i s tol ogi c a l th ough t

an d speech, and to indicate somet hing of rhe requirements under wh ic h

C hr i s to l ogy stands by v i r t u e of its subject matter In an i m p o r t a n t sense, i t

is retrospective, i n that i t seeks to d r aw a t tent i on to tha t w hi c h is already

established, namely Christ in his sel f-demonstra tion, and t o trace what that

sel f-demonstration entai ls for the i n te l l ec tua l ac t i v i ty o f C hr i s to l ogy Its

l i m i t e d concern is w i t h th e charactet an d modes o f operation of

C hr i s to l ogy in the face of the give n real i ty under whose tutelage i t

stands. I t is a low-level underraking, presenting a p r e l i m i n a r y map of the

Christological terrain an d offering guidance on how best t o move thro ugh

it I t orients Chrisrolog y to the natute of its object (Jesus Christ 's majestic

se l f -c om m uni c at i on) ; i t indicates th e sphere of his ptesence in thef e l lo w s h ip of the saints; and it identi fies the i ns t r um ent of his self-

c om m uni c at i on (H ol y Sc r i ptur e) an d speaks of the manner i n which that

consti tutes th e norms of C hr i s to logi c a l though t an d speech. I n this way it

serves orderly instruction. Beyond this - i n prefacing Christ ology by some

pre-theological discussion of methods, norms an d sources, or in

a r t icu la t in g a better rati onale fo r confession of Christ than that kn ow n

to th e confession itself - i t w i l l be reluctant to go

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


3 0 The Person of Christ

I I I

Christology is a positive science in the church, the fellowship o f the saints

which knows Jesus Christ

C hr i s to l ogy is church science, th e orderly expl ication of the know l ed ge of

Jesus Christ which is already present in the church because Jesus C hr i s t is

present to the church. It has, therefore, a t w o f o l d 'pos i t i v i ty ' I t is a

positive science because of i ts object, Jesus Christ , who presents h i m sel f t o

the church i n l o r d l y freedom Bu t i t is also a posi tive science because, as

Jesus Christ presents himself by the power of the H ol y Spi r i t , he posits a

sphere i n w h i c h he can be and is k n o w n As he presents himself, he

establishes a d om ai n an d gathers a c om m uni ty w hi c h he authorizes and

empowers fo r knowledge of h i m sel f I heo l ogy is the posi tive science of

that fel lowship

These t wo aspects of the pos i t i v i ty o f C hr i s to l ogy - t hat wh ic h derives

f r o m it s object, and that which derives f r o m it s social locale - exist i n strict

and irreversible sequence Christology is posi tive church science because

and only because i t is posi tive science of Jesus C hr i s t ; it s churchly

p o s i t iv i t y is w h o l l y derivative f r o m th e pos i t i v i ty w hi c h it has by v i r tue of

it s object I h i s is so for two reasons ( i ) T h e c hur c hl y pos i t i v i ty of

theology is not an instance o f a general r ule that scientia is always

embedded w i t h i n particular forms o f c om m on l i fe Appl i c a t i on of this rule

has been standard i n c r i t i c i sm of modern ideals of universal reason and

their purported el ision of the local or t r ad i t i ona l character of rational

practices; as such, i t has often fo und a welcome f r o m those w h o have

sought t o recover th e c hur c hl y character of theological w ork One of the

weaknesses i n to w hi c h these theologies may be betrayed, however, is that

of sl ipping into an i m m anent i s t ecciesiology i n whic h churchly posi t ivi tyfar outweighs Christological posi tivi ty Appeal ing t o general principles of

social i ty, th e accounts of c hur c hl y existence w h i c h are produced are often

o n ly secondari ly theological Frequently lackin g i n m u c h by w ay o f direct

deployment of language of Jesus Christ s sel f-presentation, an d frequently

g i v i n g prominence to the historical v i s i b i l i t y of the chu rch, they construe

the churchly posi tivi ty of theo l ogy pr i m ar i l y i n terms of i ts existence

w i t h i n this social domai n Ih is is often coupled w i t h a v i ew of the church

as a stable , consistent set of ptactices w h i c h it is the task of theology t o

describe. Bu t t h e c hur c h is not s i m pl y a v isible f o r m of c om m on l i f e : as the

fel lowship of the saints it is in a v er y i m por tant sense i nv i s i b l e , that is,

visible and knowable only by v i r tue of the act of Christ's eschatological

self-presence in the Spiri t . On ly as such is it a positum, an d onl y as the

science of such a c o m m u n i t y is C hr i s to l ogy a posi tive churchly science (2)

WEB STE R Prolegomena to Christology 3 i

The churchly posi tivi ty of Christology does n o t entai l a c laim that Jesus

Christ attains t o wholeness of be i ng in the sphere of the c hur c h, or tha t the

church bodies f o r t h or completes h i m Such a c l a i m is both

C hr i s to l ogi c a l l y and ecclesioiogically inadequate It s Christological

inadequacy is that only w i t h d i f f i c u l t y can it cohere w i t h a sense that

Jesus Christ is a se, an d tha t he is an ontological perfectum I t construes his

g i v i n g o f himself to the church as i n some way his generating of himself

H i s sufficiency, hi s majestic repose at the Father s r i ght hand i n w hi c h he is

head over a ll th i ngs , is not easily coordinared w i t h any a f f i r m at i on of the

coinherence of Christ and the church Certainly he is head over al l th i ngs

fo r th e church (Eph I 22); certainly th e church is his bod y an d '61110655

(Eph 1 23): b u t always an d only because of his i m m anent an d sovereign

power as the one w h o ' f i l l s a l l in a l l ' , w ho alone is properly and in himself

'ful lness Furthermore, t h e ecclesiological inadequacy of t a l k of the church

as bod yi ng f o r t h Christ is that it s expansiveness misconsttues th e character

of t h e church as treatma verbi divini, f a i l i n g t o catch th e passivi ty of the

church s existence as elect fel lowship, cal led, justi fied and made h oly for

praise, confession an d testimony That is, any account of churchly

p o s i t iv i t y has to respect t h e fundamental ontological law of the church,

namely that as G od s w or km anshi p , the church is what it is by v i r tue o f

the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe (Ep h 1.19)

W i t h this qual i ficat ion, w e t u r n t o explicate h ow i t is that Christo logy is

church science

First , th e crunch of Jesus Christ is the fe l l ow shi p of the saints, th e holy

church I h e church s holiness is its election by God. Hol iness is no r a

property which th e church has in an d of itself, b u t a r e l a t i on i nto w hi c h i t

has been adopted, and a summons wh ich it is called to obey The church s

holiness is al ien: i t is ho l y , n o t because o f any inhere nt w o r t h ot d i g n i t y , oron th e basis of m or a l or rel igious performance, b u t because of the

absolution which i t has received f r o m th e w o r k an d w o r d of Christ H e

makes th e chutch holy, cal l ing i t int o fel lowship w i t h himself, c leansing i t

f r o m it s sins by his death an d resurrection, and thr ough t h e Sp i r i t u n i t i n g

i t t o himself so that i t becomes th e ga ther i ng o f those wh o are sainrs i n

C hr i s t Jesus (Eph 5. 2 5 b -27> I h e church s holiness consists, therefore, in

the fact that ir is set apart by the t r i une God By the w i l l of God the

Father, th e church is destined to l ive i n holiness - f r o m al l eternity, before

the foundation of the w o r l d , th e church is chosen to be holy and

blameless' (Ep h 1 4 ) I h e Farher s w i l l is acted out in the saving mi ssion

of Go d the Son, in w h o m th e holy chutch has r ed em pt i on ' and

'forgiveness (Eph I 7 ) A n d t h e church is renewed i n holiness by the

action of Go d the Hol y Spiri t , whose wo rk it is to bestow Go d ' s l i fe upon

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



V

C h r is t o lo g y is a special science of a special object Hegel's worry - that

such a theology condemns i tself to become the last re lic of pre-cr it ica l

realism, busily portraying a w o r l d of t imeless supersensible objects - has

by n o w acquire d canonical status Cr it i cal theology sought to dispose o f

th e danger by refusing to allow that there are any special-status sciences: i f

coherent cla ims to knowledg e of Jesus C h r is t are to be advanced, they m ust

be defensible as instances of a more comprehensive science Mo r e recent

deconst iuct ive theology has soughr to dispose of the danger by a more

extreme measure, namely abandoning bo th 'science an d objects' W h a t is

a t t e m p t e d here is cer ta inly closer t o the t r adi t i o n for w h ich K a n t ha d only

co n t e m p t , an d over wh ich Hegel l ingered before m a k i n g a final rejection;

but there are some important differences . I t places m u c h emphasis on the

divine movement or t u r n i n g , and so its u n d e r s t a n d in g of the fit between

concepts and reality is h is t o r ica l , no t static I t sees this movement as one of

r e co n ci l ia t io n , a his tory o f repentance, r e b ir t h , ju s t i f i ca t io n an d sanctifica

t i o n , and not as abstract co o r d in a t io n of m in d s an d objects A n d it s i d i o m

is that of the petsonal presence of Jesus C h r is t in the power of the Spir it

an d i n f u l f i l m e n t of the Father's resolve C h r is t o lo g ica l science is the

science of this moveme nt To trace that movement is not to busy oneself

w i t h a comfortable science o f b e in g , bu t to be brought into cr is is - not the

pretentious crisis of dissonance f r o m cu l t u r a l n o r m s , bu t the crisis that

derives f r o m th e fact that to encounter C h r is t i n t h o u g h t is to be

encountered by one before whose feet we f a l l as though dead (Rev I 17)

Ye t the one wh o slays also addresses us: Fear not' ; and in that is the

promise under which Chris to logy ma y stand

Chapter 2

From Titles to Stories:

A Narrative Approach to the

Dynamic Christologies of the

New TestamenPR i c h a i d A . B u r r i d g e

It is commonplace w i t h i n literary rheory ro t a lk of texts as w in d o w s

and mirrors T o read a text as a w i n d o w is to lo o k t h r o u g h i t to that

w h i c h lies beyond' , behind' or 'on the o ther side of the text W i t h

regard to the N e w Testament, especially th e gospels, this approach uses the

text to gain access back b e h in d th e peri od when they were w r i t t en i n order

to reconstruct th e his tor ical Jesus, or to test o ut hypotheses about th e early

C h u r ch co m m u n it ie s I t is a meth od that has d o m in a t e d t r adi t i o n-

histor ical cr it ica l srudy of the N ew Testament over the last century or

mote From a d o ct r in a l p o in t of view, such an approach ca n also be used to

reconstruct early New Testament Chr is to logies l y i n g b e h in d th e text, such

as early belief in Jesus as Son of M a n or a prophet

The problem is that w e just do not know anyt hing about what lies on

the other side of the gospels A t least w i t h St Paul s le t ters , w e k n o w who

w r o t e t h e m an d usually those to wh om they were addressed - except, of

course, that both authorship an d recipients of m a n y epistles are d is p u t e d

an d th e dates of al l o f t h e m are open to debate W i t h th e gospels, we k n o w

Having first met Colin Gunton at the Society far tht Study of Theology i n 1994 w i i e l

> 'gave a paper on the Christology of the gospels, I am glad to offer this paper as a tribute at rlieRIST (Research institute in Systematic Theology) conference dedicated to his memory

37

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



even less about the authors, methods of produc tio n and deliver y, o r i g i na l

audiences and so for t h . Thus, w h i l e we may t h i n k we are l o o k i n g through

the text as a w i n d o w to what lies behi nd i t , in fact we may be catch ing a

reflect ion in the text as a m i r r o r of wha t lies i n f r o nt of it ' - namel y our

o wn presuppositions or prejudices. Ih us exegesis becomes eisegesis and the

hetmeneutical circle collapses i n t o a vicious circle It is not surp risi ng

therefore that many lite rary theorists have giv en up an authori al in ten ti on

an d move d instead to reader-response approaches, co ncen trat ing on the

meaning f o u nd in a tex t by its audience or reader today I f th is is usi ng th e

text as a m i r r o r , at least it is an honest attempt to recognize that this is

w hat we are d o i n g Systematic theologians and doct rine specialists have

always used the Ne w Iest amen t texts to enable them to 'reflect upon

Chr i s t i an doct rines, especially C hri stol ogy - and this is another example of

such m i r r o r approaches.

N e i t h e r tr eat ing texts as wind ows nor mirro rs really does justice to the

natute of the New Ies tamen t books, since they fail to ask ques tions

about the nature of the texts themselves Wh at k i n d of glass do we have

here? Ho w is it meant t o be used? Increasi ngly, narrat ive apptoaches have

been adopted by biblical crirics over the last decade or two, and these

may provi de a better dir ect ion for rhe use of the New Testament in

C h r is t o lo g y i n general Furt hermo re, such narrativ e approaches d emon

strate that there are a w i de variety of d i f f er i ng Christologies w i t h i n the

books of the Ne w Iestam ent w h i c h may be more use to systemat ic

theologians and doct rine specialrsts tha n more usual synthe tic'

approaches Ih is essay w i l l explore t r adi t i o na l approaches to the New

Testament as a w i n d o w ' t h r o u g h titles and historical reconstructions,

f o l l o w ed by a cons ider ati on of recent alte rnat ive approaches, especially

those arising f r o m rhe interpretat ion of rhe gospels as biographicalnarrarive

C h r i s t o l o g y t h r o u g h T i t l e s

I h e H i s t o r y of Religions approach to the New Iestament, die

religiomgesibkhtlkhe Schule - f r o m i ts early German proponents , particularly

f r o m the Univers ity of Gott inge n, t h r o u g h t o Bul tma nn and others -

tende d ro see an evolution ary devel opment i n early Chr ist olo gy, beg inn ing

w i t h Jesus as a wandering Palestinian teacher or Jewish rabbi, goin g

t h r o u g h various stages such as healer and prophet w i t h i n the early Jewish

ch u r ch ; and then increasingly he was seen as a d i v i ne man or saviour figure

w i t h i n a Hellenistic context, u n t i l f inally he becomes th e Lo r d of a mystery

BURRIDGE Prom Titles to Storks 39

c u l t , otherwise k n o w n as the early Chr ist ian chur ch This is, of course, best

l a i d out in Bousset s magisterial treatment, Kyrios Christos 1

Oscar C u l l m a n n stressed that early Christian theology is Christology

G o d is ident if ied as th e Father o f Jesus Chri s r ' 3 H e also pointe d our that

the later Christol ogic al controversies were all about the person of Chr ist '

or his n atu re, i n terms of his relation ship to God and w i t h i n the Godhead,

or in terms of his d i v i ne and hum an natures H owev er, the Ne w Tes tament

hat dl y ever speaks of the person of Christ w i t h o u t at the same time

speaking of his w o r k (p 3 ) ; the concern is not so much about the natute of

Jesus, as about his f u nc t i o n Cu ll man n was cautious about the comparativ e

r e l ig io n s approach, suggestin g that Chri stol ogy had necessarily ro

co n fo r m to the conceptual scheme already present i n Judai sm or

H e l l e n i s m ' {p 5 ) Rarher, he saw Chrisr ologi cal debate as arising, even

d u r i n g Jesus' Lifetime, w i t h the questioning at Caesarea P h i l i p p i , W h o do

peopl e say that I am? (M k 8 . 2 7 - 2 9 ) Since th e response includes

theologi cal title s such as proph et and 'messiah , Cu ll man n sets out ro

examine all the various possible titles i n t u r n . He divides the m i n t o ti tles

t h a t tefer to Jesus earthly w o r k (pr ophet , suffer ing servant, h i gh priest), to

his future w o r k (messiah and Son of Man), and to his present work (Lord

an d Saviour ), before finally con sid eri ng those th at refer to his pre-exi stence

( W o r d and Son of God ) I n each case, he looks first ar the meaning of the

t i t l e w i t h i n Judaism, then at whether Jesus saw himself in terms of thi s

t i t l e , and what it mighr have meant in his l i f e , before going on to analyse

the Ne w Testament mate rial about each t i t l e As a resu lt, he argues t hat

N e w Testament C hris tolo gy di d not arise out of a contemp orary

m y t h o l o g y , but out of the facts and events about Jesus an d t hr o u gh the

reflect ion of the eatly Church u p o n Heilsgeschkhte (p p 3 1 5 - 2 8 )

H ahn f o l l o w ed a similar approach of concentrating on the titles of Jesus,t h o u g h he l i n k e d t hem to the evolutio nary hist ory of reli gion s concept and

contended that the highest ideas of pre-exi stence and d i v i n i t y came out of a

H e l le n is t ic background 4

M o u l e protested against all of this 5 He compared the history of

r e l ig io n s approach to an evolutionary process, such as rhe evol uti on of homo

1 Wilhelm Bousset Kyrios Christos. A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings ofCb'istianity to irenaeus (ET; Nashville: Abingdon 1970); German original, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1913

5 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (EI; London: SCM Press 1959);

German original , Tubingen: ) C B Möhr 19574

F Halm The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth Press ^69); Germanoriginal, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1963

5 CFD Moule The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, T977)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


4 o The Penan of Christ

sapiens f r o m a le mu r or ape (p z) , w i t h a radical change between the early

stages of Jesus be ing seen as a revered master w i t h i n a Jewish Palestinian

s e t t in g and then bei ng wors hip ped as d i v i ne l o r d by Hellenistic

Christians Rejecting this schema, Moule argued instead for a 'develop

m e n t a l approach' in w h i c h the later stages are construed not as new

a d d i t io n s but rather as a d r a w i n g out of wh at is already there , ana logous

no t ro the evol uti on of a new1 species but rather to the u n f o l d i n g of the

flower f r o m a bud, or the g r o w t h of f r u i t f r o m the flower (p 3) . H e also

c r i t i c i zed as too clear-cut a chronological sequence f r o m early Palestinian

Jew ish C hr is ti an i ty , t h r o u g h the diaspora i n t o Pauline and later

H e l le n is t ic Gentil e communit ies Nonetheless , Moule s t i l l follows the

same basic approach by s t u d y i n g titles - f irst Son of Man, Son of God,

C h r is t and Kyn os - and other description s such as corporate phrases or

concepts l i ke the Bod y and the Temple Furth er considerati on of Paul, the

rest of the New Testament, the scope of the death of Chr ist and the theme

of f u l f i l m ent , lead h im to conclude that his develop mental mod el is a

better approach, and he finishes by arguing that all the later Christological

ideas are rooted in Jesus own understandi ng

D u n n also fo llows this method of s t u dyi ng t i t l e s c He looks at Son of

G o d , Son of Ma n, the last A d a m , sp i r i t or angel, the Wisdom of God and

th e W o r d of God I t is prob ably the most tho rou gh treat ment of the t i t l e -

based apptoach and it s tr l l repays caref ul st udy , especially in the second

e d i t i o n w i t h D u n n s extended response to his crit ics i n a new forew ord (pp

x i - x x x i x ) Du nn s conclusions go against the history of reli gions approach

by argu ing that there was not hi ng i n the Jewish or Hel leni sti c worl ds that

w o u l d have given rise to the idea of the incarnation; w h i l e we cannot claim

that Jesus believed himself to be the incarnate Son of God, this latet

develo pment was an appropr iate reflection on and elaboration of Jesus'ow n sense of sonship and eschatological mi ssi on' (pp 2 5 3 - 5 4 ) h was th e

resurrection that was the real catalyst, f o l l o w ed by the g r o w i n g backward

extension of Son of God language', w i t h P aul s use of Wi sd om language

b r i n g i n g th e process to the crucial p o i nt where Joh n t hen developed the

idea of the pre-existent W o r d . I t is imp orta nt to note that D u n n does see a

really significant break and change w i t h th e Johannine doct rine of the

in ca r n a t io n - y et nonetheless views this as an app ropri ate reflecti on

Therefore D u n n can s t i l l refer to thi s as an evolu tion ary process' (p 2 6 1 ) ,

t h o u g h in his later w o r k he prefers t o tal k of it as u n f o l d i n g 7

6

J D G Dunn Christology in the Making (London: SCM Press, 1980; 2nd edn, 1989).7 ) D G Dunn, rheMakingofChristology-EvoiutionorUnfblding?' in J B.GreenandM

Turner (eds ) Jesus 0/Nazareth: Lord andChrist (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994), 457~5 2-

BU R RIDGE From Titles to Stories 41

What ever ter m or metaphor is used, we notice that all of these

treatments concentrate on the titles and descriptions of Jesus w i t h i n the

N e w Te stament; they try to study each one separately and then telate them

t o an overall chronological sequence for the evol uti on, deve lopme nt or

u n f o l d i n g of Ne w Testament Chri stol ogy Thus all of the m have a concern

fo r an overall process of Christology w i t h i n the Ne w Testament - whe the r

that is seen against a background of the history of religions, or as a

temporal sequence being traced back to Jesus, and do w n t hr o u gh the

h is t o t y of the early Chu rch They all i m p l y th at one can talk of Ne w

Testament Ch risr ology as a single enterprise, and they use Ne w Iest ament

texts as a w i n d o w onto it. Whe the r in fact they are merely cat chin g

reflections of themselves or their presu ppositio ns in a m i r r o r remains to be

seen!

C h r i s t o l o g y f r o m B e l o w : H i s t o r i c a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n s

B o t h his torical sequences and a consideration of titles feature in the various

Quests for the historical Jesus: th e o r i g i na l Quest, w h i c h started f r om

Reimarus and progressed t h r o u g h rhe works of Strauss, Weiss and

Schweitzer;8 secondly the so-called Ne w Quest beg inn ing w i t h Kase-

manns lecture of Ocrober 2 0 , 1 9 5 3 and leadi ng inro B o r n k a m m , Jeremias

an d R o b ins o n 5 ( w hi c h is the backg round for Cull mann 's, Hah n s and

M o u l e s treatme nts) - and now, w i t h what is increasingly seen as the T h i r d

Quest, t h r o u g h th e w o r k of E P Sanders and Tom W r i g h t in their debate

w i t h the Calif otn ian school of the Jesus Seminar, represented in parti cular

by Robert Fu nk, Bu rt on Mack and Dom ini c Ctossan r o

O b vio u s ly , the attempt to provide an historical reconstruction of the life

an d m i n i s t r y of Jesus must lie at the heart of any such quest - bu t it

usually involves, or leads i n t o consideration of, the extent to w hi c h Jesus

saw himself as a prophet, teacher, or Messrah and what be considered his

r e la t io n s h ip to Go d and his missi on to be Thus E P Sandets s

A Schweitzer Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Torschung (Tübingen: Mohr 1906); EI I he Questof the HistoricalJesus (London: A & C Black. 1954)

9 J M. Robinson, A Neu Quest of the Historical Jesus ) B Green and M Turner (eds ), SB!2.5 (London: SCM Press r959)

B Mack A Myth of Innocence. Mark and Christian Origins (Philadeiphia: Fortress Press

r988); J D Crossan, J he Historical Jesus' The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (Edinburgh:l & T Clark, r 9 9 l ) ; R W Funk, R W Hoover and the Jesus Seminar The Five Gospels- TheSearch for the Authentic Words of Jetm (New York: Macmillan, 1993)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



reconstruct ion of The Historical Figure of Jesus" sets out clearly the

Palest inian context of Jesus l i f e and mini str y, depicts h i m as a mirac le-

worker and teacher-healer , an d calls hi m a char ismatic and autonomous

prophet (p 2 3 8 ) ; i t then goes on to discuss a ll the Chris to logical t it les

such as messiah, Son of God, Son oi Man, and so on Sanders concludes,

howev er, that we do not learn precisely what Jesus thought of himself and

his relat ionship to God by s tudying t it les ' (p . 2 4 8 ) . Instead he atgues that

Jesus saw hims elf as hav ing f u l l a u t h o r i t y t o speak and act on G o d s

behalf and coins the new descr ipt ion of viceroy'

l o r n W r i g h t s massive t reatmen t , i n three volumes so fat , fo llows a

s imilar line of argument 1 1 I n Jesus and the Victory of God, he entit les his

m a i n his tor ic al reconstruc t ion The Profile of a Prophet (Part I I , pp. 1 4 5 ¬

4 7 4 ) , whi le Part I I I a t tempts to reconstruct Th e Ai ms and Beliefs of

Jesus' ( 4 7 5 - 6 5 4 ) . W h i l e W r i g h t uses titles such as Prophet and Messiah,

he also atgues, l i k e Sanders, t h a t Jesus' se lf-understanding is crucial; that

w h i l e Jesus did see him sel f as a pro phet an d in messianic t e r m s , W r i g h t

concludes that we sho uld fo rger the "titles of Jesus, at least for am o m e n t I t i s t h r o u g h Jesus vo ca t io n an d in t im a cy w i t h God whom he

kne w as father th at his ideas of sonship make sense, as he enacts the return

of Go d to his people , the ret urn ing and redeeming act ion of the covenant

G o d t h t o u g h h is m in is t r y a n d d e a t h (p 6 5 3 ) Wr ig h t h as p u t fo r w a r d

similar arguments in his var ious more accessible and popular books 1 3

Ma r k u s B o ck m u e h l ' s response to the Jesus debate uses titles in its

s u b t i t le : Martyr, Lord, Messiah 1 4 He too attempts an his tor ical

reconstruct ion of Jesus l i fe , mi ni str y and death, and his messianic self-

u n d e r s t a n d in g , a n d relares this to later Chris to logical development and the

debates of the early Chu rch He concludes that ' the emergence of

Chris to logy can be seen as an authe ntic a nd consequent ial expression of t he

A p o s t o l ic faith in the risen Jesus' (p 1 6 6 )

1 1 EP Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmond sworth Penguin 1993); this is themost accessible treatment of Sanders's work using his large monographs such as Jesus and

Judaism (London: SCM, 1985)" N T Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of Cod: I . The New Testament and the

People of Cod (London: SPCK 1992); I I Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996);II I The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK. 2003) leaving two more volumes still tocome

1 3 N.I Wright , The Original Jesus- The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary (Oxford: lion.

1:996); The Clyallenge of Jesus- Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (London: SPCK, 1999); and

his debate with Marcus Borg in The Meaning of Jesus. Two Visions (San Francisco: Harper1999)-

' 4 Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr L ord Messiah (Edinburgh: I & I Clark, 1994)

BURRIDGE From Titles to Stories 4 3

Perhaps the most thorough book on the his tor ical Jesus is t he

Comprehensive Guide by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz l i After a ll th e

deta iled back gro und and settin g, this too has a titles- based approach for its

m a i n sections. It offers studies of Jesus as a Chari smat ic (pp. 1 8 5 - 2 3 9 ) ,

Prophet (pp 2 4 0 - 8 0 ) , Healer (pp 2 8 1 - 3 1 4 ) , Poet ( pp 3 1 6 - 4 6 ) ,

Ieacher (p p 3 4 7 - 4 0 4 ) , th e Founder of a Cu lt (pp 4 0 5 - 3 9 ) and Ma rt yr(p p 4 4 0 - 7 3 ) The book concludes w i t h sections on the Risen Jesus (pp

4 7 4 - 5 1 1 ) and discussion of the beginn ings o f Chris to lo gy, again look in g

at titles such as Messiah, Son of Ma n, Son of Go d and Ky ri os (pp 5 1 2 ¬

6 8 ) In the end, however , Iheissen and Merz attempt a shott narrat ive

a b o u t Jesus since narratives f o r m th e basis o f ident ity The narrat ive

a b o u t Jesus is the basis for Chris t i an ident ity ' (p 5 7 2 ) .

Fi na l l y , w e r e t u r n f u l l circle to Bousset an d Kyrios Christos Central to

the his toty of religions approach was the development of Chris to logy f r o m

a Palest inian set t ing fot Jesus as a rabbi through to his worship as Lo r d

a r is in g f r o m a Genti le , Hel lenis t ic context . Larry Hu rta do has been

w o r k i n g for many years on this area o f devotion to Jesus and worship ofh i m ! £ H i s enormous and detailed s tudy, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus

in Earliest Christianity has recently appeared 1 7 T he wh ole boo k is a careful

reappraisal of the history of religions approach and irs claims, w i t h detailed

study of Jewish mon othe ism, the ear liest forms of Judaean Jewish

C h r i s t i a n i t y , Pauline groups, the w r i t i n g of the gospels and other Jesus

books, Johannine Chr i s t ia nity , and on to the second ce n t u r y w i t h its

radical diver s ity and proto -ort hodo x devoti on After some 6 5 0 pages of

p a in s t a k in g research and argumen t, Hurt ado concludes that devotion to

Jesus as l o r d is neither a later , nor a Helle nis t i c development; rather ,

w o r shi p of Jesus as divin e eru pted suddenly and quic kly in the ear liest

Je wi sh C h r is t ia n circles (p 6 5 0 ) I t was the struggl e to w o r k out this

dev o t i o n and belief w i t h i n mo noth eism t hat led to the divers ity of

approaches w i t h i n the Ne w Iest ame nt and in the firs t centuries of

C h r is t ia n h ist o r y D e vo t i o n t o Jesus was central th en - and today the k ey

ques tion remain s: W h o do you say that I am? (p 6 5 3 )

Thus the considerat ion of t it les , especia lly Lord , has domi nated

Chris to logical s tudies of the New Testament for over a century, returning

1 5 Gerd Iheissen and Annette Merc The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London:SCM Press 1998).

Larry Hurtado One G od One L ord: Early Christian Devotion ami Ancient Jewish Monotheism

<Philadelphia; Fortress Press 1988; Edinburgh: I&T Ck rk znd edn 1998)1 7 Larry Hurtado, L ord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2003)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



f u l l c ircle w i t h Hur tad o s homage to, bu t refut ation of, Bousset. Yet

increasingly, it has become clear that titles alone w i l l not suffice; they

always need to be placed w i t h i n a narrative - b ot h in terms of a

reconstruction of the historical narrative of Jesus himself and the early

C h u r ch , as w e l l as the narratives about Jesus t o l d by the early Church and

contained w i t h i n the Ne w Testament

Protests a n d D i f f e r e n t A p p r o a c h e s

One of the first protests against such a tra dit ion al approach to N ew

Testament Christology came in Leandet K eck s Presi dential address to the

Society for Ne w Testament St udy ( S N I S ) a t I ro n d h ei m i n Aug ust

1 9 8 5 . 1 8 K e c k s interest i n Christo logy is w e l l k n o w n and long-standing.

Here, he argued that the preoccupation of scholatship w i t h h istorical

analysis of Christological materials and motifs has produced impressive

results - b ur that the ti me was at hand to take up an expl ici tly theol ogical

approach to Ne w Testament Chr ist olo gy, for onl y that can renew Ne w

Testament Christ ology Ih e forma l structure , grammar, or syntax of

C h t i s t o l o g y consists of three key relationship s or correla tions - t o Go d

(theological); to the created order (cosmological); and to humanity

(anthropological) Ih e last l inks Christo logy w i t h soterioiogy: soteriology

makes C h r i s to l og y necessary; C h r i s to l og y makes soter iology possible (p

3 6 3 ) - and the differe nt Christologies w i t h i n the Ne w Testament reflect

different understandings of the huma n condit ion and need

I h e probl em w i t h the early w o r k of Wrede and others cul min ati ng in

Bousset s Kyrios Christos was that the New T estament was replaced by 'early

C h r is t ia n lite ratu re and Chris tol ogy was supp lante d by hist ory - as is

evidenced by the concern about titles: probably no other factor has

co n t r ib u t e d more to the current a r i d i t y of the discipline than this

fascination w i t h the palaeontology of Christo logical t i t les Io reconstruct

the history of titles as if this were the study of Christology is like t r y i n g to

understand the wind ows of Chartres cathedral by stud ying the history of

coloured glass (p 3 6 8 ) Concentra ting on ti t les misses c h r i s to l og i c a l l y -

i m p o r t a n t passages i n w h i c h no t i t l e appears , and cannot deal w i t h the

p l u r a l i t y w i t h i n the texts; furt hermo re such study misses the whole point

of the Jesus-event Because the study of titles bypasses the syntax of

C h r is t o lo g y , New Testament Christolog y must be l ibe rated f r o m the

l S Leander E Keck, Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology . New Testament

Studies 32 (19S6): 362-77

BURRiDGE From Titles to Stories 4 5

t y r a n n y of titles (p 3 7 0 ) . Inst ead, we mus t focus on the texts themselves,

i n c l u d i n g g i v i n g attention to their genre, and to their subject matter — 'the

construal of Jesus iden ti t y and significance' (p. 3 7 2 ) This w i l l involve a

different approach to the p l u r a l i t y and divers ity of the Christ ologie s in rhe

canon and rhe way they are juxta posed, re qui rin g a sustained conversa tion

w i t h funda mental and systematic t heology (p 3 7 4 )

I t is a p i t y that this im po rta nt clar ion call is not better k n o w n - bu t

Keck has himself t r i ed to carry out some of the things for w h i c h he was

ca l l in g I t is significant that his contri but ion to the 1 9 9 9 Festschrift for

Ja ck Dean Kingsbury is placed after eleven separate studies of the

Christologies of Jesus, and of each of the Ne w Iest ame nt books or

authors 1 5 Keck draws attention to the different understandings of

C h r is t o lo g y i n the Ne w Testament and shows how study over the last

century was dominated by the direct ion set by Wte de an d by Bousset s

Kyrios Christos, especially thr ou gh the study of tit les Yet the Christ olog y

of a text cannot be grasped by conce ntrat ing on christo logi cal titles used

in it This is especially true of extended narratives like the Gospelsconcentrating on the titles rends to rupture the inherent nature of

C h r is t o lo g y as bipolar discourse, in w h i c h the person and w o r k mu st be

t h o u g h t togethe r (p 1 9 6 ) Thus he again conclu des w i t h a call for

interpreters to t h i n k as theologia ns (p 1 9 8 ) He has att emp ted to answer

his own call in his book, Who is Jesus-* History in Perfect Tense 1 0

M e a n w h i l e , R E Bro wn gave a somewhat differ ent dire cti on to hi s

Introduction to New Testament Christology 1 1 After a brief intr odu ctio n for his

more general leaders, he attempts to reconstruct Jesus ow n self-

u n d e r s t a n d in g as Chri st, and then looks at the diffe rent C hrist ologi es of

N e w T es tam ent C h r i s t i an s , g roup i n g those to do w i t h hi s Second C o m i n g

or Parousia, those expressed in terms of his public mi nis tr y and those

concerned w i t h his pre -mi nis try H e concludes by rakin g the story on i nr o

the early Church controversies, arguing in the process that Nicaea is

f a i t h f u l to a major directi on in Ne w Testament Cht istolo gy (p 1 4 7 )

What is significant for our purposes here i s the recognition once aga in of

"* Leandtr E Keck Christology of the New Iest ament: what, then, is New IestamentChristology> , in Mark Allan Powell and David R Bauer (eds \Vb„ Do \011 Say That I Am 3

Essays on Christology in honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury (Louisville KY: Westminster/John KnoxPress 1999), 185-200.

1 0 Leander E Keck Who is Jesus' J History in Perfect Tense (Columbia: University of South

Carolina Press 2000)Raymond E Brown An Introduction to New Iestament Christology (London: Geoffrey

Chapman 1994)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


4 6 The Person ofChtht

d if fe r e n t ChristoLogies w i t h i n the Ne w Testament - an d the absence of

t i t le s , replaced by consid erati on of diff eren t periods of the Jesus narrative

O t h e r recent treatments have fol lowed similar paths Christopher

I u c k e t r discusses the tradi tion al approach thr oug h ti t les in hts

in t r o d u ct io n to Christology and the New Testament,^ argu ing that the

'protest against an over-concentration on christological t i t les has been well

made by several scholars i n recent debates (p n ) He considers, however,

that they s t i l l 'con stitu te an imp ort an t part of the evidence for the

Christology of the New Iestament, continues to use them, and offers

discussion of such titles as Messiah, L o r d , Son of God and Son of Man, and

also of angels, and divin e attr ibut es such as Wi sd om and Wo rd He th en

considers the titles in the epistles, gospels an d Johannine l i terature,

separately, before concluding w i t h a discussion of the earliesr mater ial and

Jesus ' own sel f-understanding

I n c ontr as t , B en Wi th er i ngt on I I I argues tha t such t itle-ba sed

approaches are w r o n g , being 'synthetic in character and synchronic in

assum pt i on ' (p 6 ) 1 3 Instead of synt hesiz ing all the mate ria l about any onet i t l e together, regardless of its context or date, we need to realize that all

Christological ideas are grounded in hisrorical events I hus R aym ond

Brown's attempt to move away f r o m tit les to diff ere nt perio ds of the Jesus-

event is so he l p f u l ' W i t h e r i n g t o n stresses that there is a narrat ive

character to much of the Christologica l discussion in the Ne w Iestament '

(p 4 ) Thus his treatment is diachronic , statti ng w i t h the earliest

Christologies of Jesus himself and the pre-Pauline Jewish churches t h r o u g h

the Christologies of Paul and the gospels and the other Ne w Testament

books - and concluding w i t h a discussion of how all of this led to the great

debates of Nicaea and Chalcedon He concludes th at 'there are various

Christologies i n the New Testament and they do not al l blend or dove-t ai lnicely toget her' No r can we constr uct a histo ry-of -ideas schema where

one Christology leads natural ly into another Furth ermore , there is no

s i m pl e gr aph w her e l ow 'C hr i s to l o gy means an early date, or h i g h is later ;

some of the higher accounts are very early, w h i le some Tower assessments

persist muc h later. Thus he concludes, perhaps the mode l of the sun w i t h

various beams r ad i a t i ng out f r o m i t is more apt than the line ar

development model ' (p 2.Z7)

" Christopher Tuckett, Christology and th New Iestament Jesus and his Earliest Followers

(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press 2.001)1 3 Ben Wither ington HI , The Many Faces of the Christ: Ihe Christologies of the New Testament

and Beyond (New York: Crossroad, 1998)


So, after this extensive survey, we are back to the basic shi ft in thi s

essay's t i t l e - 'F rom Titles to Stories: A Narrative Approac h to the

Dyna mic Christologies of the Ne w Iestament The w o r k of bibl ical cri t ics

on C hr i s to l ogy w i t h i n the Ne w Testament has shi fte d away f rom

concen ttatin g upon the t i t les to the narratives ' about Jesus contained in,

or presu med by, the various books of the Ne w Testament Fur the rmor e,

the variety of such narratives w i t h i n the canon means that we should no

longer talk of New Testament C hristolo gy as a single ent i ty , but look ar

the diver sity of atte mpts t o understand the person of Jesus w i t h i n these

different texts.

Th e Gospel s a s An c i e nt B i ogr a phi es

Let us return for a moment to the image of texts as windows and/ot

m ir r o r s W e suggested above that both approaches tend to view the tex t

merely as an instrument, ei ther through w h ich we can look for historical

reconstruction 01 i n w h i c h we can reflect upon our various concerns

N e i t h e r approach handles the questi on of wha t k i n d of glass we have here -

w i ndo w , m i r r o r , or something else? This raises the crucial issue of genre,

w h i c h we need to determine w i t h regard to any t ex t 1 4

A proper und ers tan din g of genre is central to the int erp ret atio n of any

commu nica tion Comm uni cat ion theory looks at the three ma in aspects of

transmirrer , message and receiver I n w r i t t en w or ks , th i s becomes author,

text and audience or reader Imme dia tel y the impo rtan ce of disce rnin g the

k i n d o f c om m uni c at i on is clear I f the sender i s tra nsm itt ing Morse code,

b u t the receiver can only understand semaphore there w i l l be problems!

Both must use the same language a nd so correct inte rpr eta tio n depends on

a correct iden tif ica tion of the genre One does not listen to a fairy story in

th e same way as to a news broadcasr Thus genre is a key conv enti on

g u i d i n g both composition and interpretation Genre forms a contract or

agreement, often unspoken or u n w r i t t e n , or even unconsciou s, betwe en

author and reader, by w h i c h the autho r write s accord ing to a set of

expectations and conve ntion s and we interp ret the w o r k using the same

conventions Genre is iden tif ied th ro ug h a wid e range of generic features

that may be signalle d in advance, or embed ded in a wo tk s fo rm al ,

1 4 What follows is a brief summaty of my PhD thesis originally published as Richard A

Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS, 70;Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); this has now been substantially revised andupdated in a new edition published by Eerdmans, 2.004

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



structural c om pos i t i on a n d cont ent Taken togeth er, such features

c om m uni c ate t he f a m i l y resemblance' of a w o r k - its genre

Iherefore, before we can read the gospels we have t o discover w hat k i n d

of books they might be D i f f e r i n g understandings of their genre w i l l have

di f f er i ng impli cation s for their interpreta tion For much of the ancient and

mediaeval periods, t h e gospels were interpreted o n several levels: the

l i t e r a l , al legorical , moral a n d anagogical or mystical readings The

Reformers rejected a l l readings except for the l i t e r a l , an d on th i s basis

th e gospels were inrerpreted as h i s tor y - the stones of Jesus, even

biograp hies This led to their bein g used as a basis fo r t h e pr od uc t i on of

r om ant i c l i v es such as Ernest Renan's Life of Jesus ( 1863) However,

d u r i n g the nineteenth century, biographies began t o explain the character

of a person b y considering his or her upb r i n gi ng , for m at i v e year s,

school ing, psychological development and so on The gospels began t o

lo o k unl i ke such b iogtaphies

D u r i n g th e 1920s, scholars such as K a r l L u d w i g Schmidt and Rudolf

B u l t m a n n rejected an y no t i on that th e gospels were biographies: thegospels have no interest i n Jesus hu man personal i ty, appearance or

character, nor do they t el l us anyt hi ng about the rest of hi s l i fe, other than

his brief publ ic ministry and an extended conce ntration on his death

Instead, t h e gospels were seen as popular f o l k l i terature, col lections of

stories handed d o w n oral ly. Far f r o m being biographies, th e gospels were

described as uniqu e forms o f l i t er a tur e 1 5 Furthermore, the development

of for m -c r i t i c a l approaches t o th e gospels meant that they were no longer

interpreted as whole narratives Instead, they concentrated o n each

i ndi v i du a l pericope, and t h e focus fo r i n ter pr eta t i on m ov ed m or e to the

passage s Sitz im Leben i n the early Chur ch.

Redaction c ri t i c ism concentrated o n each gospel s theologic al interestsand t h e development of theories about th e commun itie s that p roduced

t h e m Once th e gospels were seen as a type o f ' c om m u ni ty d oc um ent , then

their interpretation focused on the development of groups such as th e

Jo ha nn in e or Mat thean c om m uni t i es (see, for e xample, t h e w o r k o f R E

Brown ) Ho wever, redaction cri t ics also saw t h e w r i ter s of the gospels as

theologians and the development of new l i terary approaches t o th e gospels

vie w e d t h e m as conscious literary artists This reopened the questi on of the

genre of the gospels and their place w i t h i n th e context of f i rst-century

1 5 R Bultmann, The History of [be Synoptic Tra^/iioff (Oxford: Blackwell rev edn. 197z).

371-74


l iterature, w i t h scholars such as I a l ber t and Aun e begi nni ng ro rreat the

gospels as biographies ~ 6

A generic comparison of a g r o u p of d i fferent works f r o m d i fferent

authors w i l l i l l us t r a te t h e nature of any gen re I undertook this exercise

w i t h te n examples of ancient b iograph y: Isocrates Evagoras, X enophon s

Agesilaus, Satyrus Euiipides, Nepos Attkus, P h i l o s Moses, Taci tus Agtkola,

Pl utar c h s Cato Minor, Suetonius Lives of the Caesars, Lucian s Demonax and

Philostratus Apollonius of Lyana T hi s is a d iverse grou p del iberately

chosen t o include the or igins of b i ogr aphy i n four th-c entur y BC rhetorical

enc om i a thr ough t o t h i r d - c e n t u r y AD forerunners of the novel and

hagiography. These f o r m a diverse and flexible g enre , yer s t i l l one w i t h a

recognizable family resemblance i n b o t h f o r m and content Many of them

were k n o w n as ' l i v es , ptOL or vitae; th e w o r d biography i tsel f does not

appear u n r i l th e f i f th-c entur y w o r k o f Damaseius, preserved i n the n i n t h -

c entur y w r i t er Phot i us B ul tm a nn s statement that t h e gospels ate not

biography was a result of comparing them w i t h modern examples and ideas

of biography Ih is is a category error; when usi ng the w o r d b i ogr aphy ofb o t h th e gospels and ancient l ives , w e must avoid modern connotations,

an d compare them w i t h on e another t o ascerrain th eir shared generi c

features

F r o m th e fo r m al or stru ctura l perspective, they ar e w r i t t en i n

continuous prose narrative, between 10,000 an d 20,000 words in length

- t h e am ount o n a typical scrol l of about 30-35 feet i n l e n g t h U n l i k e

m o d e r n biograph ies, Graeco -Roma n lives do not cover a person's w hol e life

in c hr onol ogi c a l sequence, an d have no psych ologi cal analysis of the

subjects character They may begi n w i t h a br i ef m en t i on of the her o s

ancestty, family or c i t y , h is b i r t h an d an occasional anecdote about h is

u p b r i n g i n g ; but usually the narrative moves r ap i dl y on t o his publ ic debu tlater i n l i fe Accounts o f generals , pol i t ic ian s or statesmen are more

chronological ly ordered, recounting their great deeds and virtues, w h i le

lives of phi losophers, writers or rhinkers tend to be mor e anecdotal,

arranged topical ly around col lections o f m ater i a l t o display t heir ideas and

teac hi ngs Whi l e th e author may claim t o pr ov i d e i nfor m at i o n about his

subject, often b is und erly ing aims may be apologetic , po lemic 01 d idactic

Ma n y ancient biographies cover th e subjects d eath i n great detai l , since

1 1 Charles H Ialbert. What is a Gospel ' I he Genre of the Canonical Gospels (PhiladelphiaFortress Press, 1977; London: SPCK 1978); David E. Aune The New Testament in Its Literary

Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1987; Cambridge: James Clarke & Co 1988);David E Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres(SBI Sources for Biblical Study. 21 ; Atlanta: Scholats Press, 1988)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



commissioned to go to the Gentiles ( 2 8 1 - 2 0 ) 3 4 A g a i n , the climax

resolves all the themes of the Go spel

L u k e begins w i t h a Greek periodic Preface ( Lk 1 1 - 4 ) an d sets Jesus

w i t h i n the history of both Israel and contemporary Roman rule (Lk 1 .5¬

8 0 ; 2 1; 3 1) j e sus is concerned for the poor, the lost, outcasts, women,

Samaritans and Gentiles He is also the man of prayer ( 1 1 . 1 - 4 ) A t the

Passion he cares for women ( 2 3 2 7 - 3 1 ) and prays for the soldiers and the

p e n i t e n t thief ( 2 3 . 3 4 , 4 3 ) , co mmi tti ng himself in trust to his Fathet

( 2 3 4 6 ) A f t er the resurrecrion, history looks f o r w ar d f r o m I srael s past to

th e w o r l d s future ( 1 4 4 4 - 4 7 ) . The Gospel ends as it began i n Jerusalem

w i t h gteat joy , w i t h the disciples 'in the Tem pl e blessing God ' ( 2 4 5 1 ¬

5 3 ; cf 1 5 - 2 3 ) . Such a clear balanced biographical natrative reflects a

single author and purpose

Jo hn be gi ns bef ore al l t i me , i n th e be gi nn i ng , w i t h God (Jn 1 1 - 1 8 )

Jesus is constantly centre stage and he is characterized as the author

interweaves signs' and discourse, revealing the effect of med ita tio n and

theological reflection u p o n the person of Jesus Oppos i t ion f r o m 'the Jewsdevelops t h r o u g h th e first half ( 2 - 1 2 ) ; at the cli max, Jesus gathers his

disciples, washes their feet and explains what w i l l happen ( 1 3 - 1 7 ) The

'hour of glory is also th e Passion: th rou g h ou t , Jesus is serenely i n con tro l,

d ir e ct in g events ( 1 9 1 1 ) , orga nizi ng his mother and discip le ( 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 ) ,

f u l f i l l i n g scripture ( 1 9 2 8 ) u n t i l f i na l l y 'it is accomplished ( 1 9 3 0 ) . A f t er

the resurrection he appears as he wishes to comfort Mary ( 2 0 1 4 ) ,

challenge Ihomas ( 2 0 . 2 6 ) and restore Peter ( 2 1 . 1 5 - 1 9 ) Once again, we

have a clear p o r t r a i t of the m i n i s t r y of Jesus cul min ati ng in his death and

resurrection

These four i ndi v i du a l accounts, each concerned w i t h the resolution of

t h e ir particular themes, were composed by four w r i t er s , each p o r t r a y i n g a

p a r t icu la r view of Jesus in the manner of ancient biography. Ihe fact that

th e Fathets chose to keep four separate accounts i n the canon, despi te the

problems of p l u r a l i t y and possible conflict, 35 demonstrates that they

recognized these work s as coheren t si ngle accounts of Jesus - and theref ore

3 4 For a good comparison of Matthew with Mark, see J.L Houl den, Backward into Light:

The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus according to Matthew and Mark (London: SCM Press 1987).3 5 For the four-fold canon and plural ity, see TC Skear, Irenaeus and the Four-Foid

Gospel Canon' Novum Testamentum 34 2 (1992): 194-99 and Oscar Cullmann, 'ThePlurality of the Gospels as a Theological Problem in Antiquity , in his collection, The Early

Church : Studies in Early Christian History and Theology ed A J B Higg ins (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1956), 37~54, translated from the original German article in Theo/ogische Zeitschrift 1 (1945): 23-42; see also Richard A Burridge , Four Gospels, One Jesus? 25-27,

X64- 79

BURRIDGE From Titles to Stories 55

they need to be read in that way today. This also raises interesting

theological questions about p l u r a l i t y and diversity w i t h i n th e l i m i t s of the

canon. Morgan sees this as offerin g bot h a stim ulus to produce more f a i t h

images of Jesus as w e l l as a control u p o n th em 3 6 I n his arguments fo r

the illocutionary stance o f biblical narrative' , Wolte rstorf f draws upon m y

w o r k on biogra phi cal genre to atgue tha t t he gospel nar rative s are bestu n d e r s t o o d as portraits of Jesus , 3 7 w h i l e Barton s i m i l a r l y uses my material

to reflect u p o n Ma ny gospels, one Jesus? 3 8 This demonstrates that the

b io g r a p h ica l focus u p o n the person of Jesus in interpreting the gospels as

C h r is t o lo g ica l narrative is mu ch more producti ve than just concent rating

u p o n titles alone.

Th e Cen tra l Ch r is to log ica l Cla im

In t e r p r e t in g th e gospels as biographical narratives also illustrates the part

played by Christological controversy in the p a r t i n g of the ways between

the synagogue and early Chu rc h, especially in the l i g h t of the absence of

any rabbinic biography or parallels to the gospels w i t h Jewish literature.

I n d i v i d u a l gospels pe ricopae are oft en comp ared w i t h rabbinic material

Thus, Rabbi Michael H i l t o n and Fr Gordi an Marsh all OP i n The Gospels

and Rabbinic Judaism:. A Study Guide compare Jesus sayings w i t h rabbinic

sources. The Great Commandment (Mk 1 2 . 2 8 - 3 4 and the parallels in M t

2 2 3 4 - 4 ° a n d Lk. 1 0 2 5 - 2 8 ) is compared w i t h a Sifra passage f r o m

Rabbi A k i b a on Lev 1 9 . 1 8 , Genesis Rabba 2 4 . 7 (on Gen 5 . 1 ) , and the

famous story f r o m the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 3 1 A, of the different

reactions f r o m Shammai and H i l l e l when asked ro teach the whole law to a

Gentile enquirer standing on one leg: Shammai chased the questioner

away, w hi l e H i l l e l repeated the Golden Rule as the sum of the whole

To r a h , w i t h the rest as commentary, but s t i l l to be learned H i l t o n

concludes that Jesus at his most rabbini c engaged in l i v e l y debare and

a n s w e r in g some of the same questions as the rabbis 3 9

3 6 Robert Morgan. Ihe Hermenéutica! Significance of Four Gospels , Interpretation 33 4(1979): 37Ó-88; see especially 386

3 7 Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that GodSpeaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 249-60

3 Stephen C Barton, 'Many Gospels One jesus?' in Markus Bockmuehl (ed )._ TheCambridge Companion to Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2oor), 170-83,

especially 178-793 9 Rabbi Michael Hilton with Fr Gordian Marshall OP, The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism• AStudy Guide (London: SCM Press 1988). 34

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



A n i n ter nat i ona l sym pos i um on H i l l e l an d Jesus he l d i n Jerusalem r n

Ju ne 1 9 9 2 devotes some 1 7 0 pages to comparisons of their sayings! 40

P h i l i p Alexander notes that ' the o ve r r id in g feel ing is one of astoni shmen t

at the convergence of the two tr ad it io ns ' 4 1 Alexander has writ ten

extensively on such rabbinic w r i t i n g s , and ho w N e w Testament scholars

s h o u ld use th i s m ater i a l 4 1 He col lecred together some rabbinic stories to

compare Rabbin ic biograp hy and the biogr aphy of Jesus, c onc l ud i ng,

there are parallels to the i ndi v i du a l pericopae, and at this level similari t ies

are very stron g In terms of f o r m , func t i on, se t t i ng and m o t i f , the rabbinic

anecdotes are very close to the Gospel pericopae, and there can be l i t t l e

d o u b t that both belong to the same broad Palestinian Jewish t r adi t i o n of

s t o r y - t e l l in g . ' 4 3

Since B ul tm ann and o ther f o r m critics saw the gospels as strung

together l ik e beads on a s t r in g , w e m i g h t expect rabbinic sroi ies to form

s im i la r accounts of H i l l e l , Shamm ai or others Yet , this is precisely what

we do not f i n d , much to everybody's surprise Ih us P h i l i p Alexander

concludes his study of Rabbinic biography and the biography of Jesusthus : there are no Rab bin ic parallels to the Gospels as such. This is by far

the most imp ort ant single conclusion to emerge f r o m this paper There

is not a trace of an ancient biography of any of the Sages Ih is is a

p r o fo u n d enigma ' 4 4

Jac ob Neusner has devote d mu ch study to this quest ion In his 1 9 8 4

book, In Search of Talmudu Biography, he states that there is no

composition of tales and stories i n t o a sustained biography 4 5 H e fo llowed

t h is w i t h an analysis of Why No Gospels in Talmudk Judaism? The stories

about sages were never compi led i n t o biographical narratives 01 gospels:

they are 'the compositions no one made 4 6 I n The Incarnation of God again

he stresses: While the two Talmuds present stories about sages, neither

4 0 James H . Charles worth and Loren L Johns (eds ) Hillel and Jesus. Comparative Studies of

Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997)4 1 P S. Alexander, 'Jesus and the Golden Rule in HUM and Jesus 363-88; quotation

from 3884 1 See. for example. Ph ili p S Alexander, Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament

Zeitscbrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenscbaft unddie Kunde der dlteren Kirche 74 (19S3): 237-464 3 Ph il ip S Alexander Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus: A Survey of the

Evidence', in C. M. Tuckett(ed.) Synoptic Studies- The Amplefortb Conferences of 1982 and 1983(JSNTSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 19S4). I9"5°; quotation from 42

4 4 Alexander 'Rabbini c Biography and the Biography of Jesus'.. 404 5 Jacob Neusner In Search of Talmudk Biography. The Problem of the Attributed Saying

Brown Judaic Studies 70 (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1984) 24 6 Jacob Neusner Why No Gospels in Talmudk Judaism? (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press

1988) 33-38

BURRIDGE From Titles to Storm 57

one contains anyt hin g we mig ht cal l a gospel ' of a sage or even a chapter

of a gospel There is no sustained bio gra phy of any sage 4 7 Final ly, he

answered the clai m of similari t ies between the gospels and Jewish material

w i t h Are There Really Tannaitk Parallels to the Gospels?**

I n the symposium on H i l l e l an d Jesus, G o t t s t e i n notes the basic

differences betwe en the nature of Tal mud ic litera tur e and the nature of the

Gospels We have no Tal mud ic Gospel of any Rabb i He accepts m y

conclusions: Fol low ing Burridg e s discussion, the present discussion

assumes Gospel w r i t i n g to be a f o r m of biogra phy and concludes One

co u ld Therefore ask why we do not have any instances of rabbinic

b i ogr aphy 4 "

O ne m i ght ex pl or e , f irst , possible l i terary reasons for this absence Af ter

a l l , most rabbinic marerial is comprised of anecdotes, w h i c h are more about

a rabb i s teach ing t han his actions Ma ny of the stories are dialogues t ha t

lead up to the actual saying, w i t h o u t any na rrati ve at the start to set t he

scene Thus the rabbinic materi al is more l ike Q or the Gospel of Thomas;

t h a t is, it has the genre of sayings, logia, more than biographical narrativeP h i l i p Alexander says that the rab bin ic stories have an intense ly oral

character against the mor e prosy w r i t t e n " style of the gospels I h e y

are extremely compressed, allusive, w i t t y , dramatic and learned ; more l ike

bi t s f r o m a play to be performed than a text to be read, intended for oral

c i r cu la t io n , not in w r i t t e n fbcm >° In The Incarnation of God, Neusner

applies a ta xon omy of narra tive to the mat eri al and finds 'five species of

the genus narrative' 5 ' The prob lem w i t h this is that 'narrative is neither a

genus n or a genre in itself according t o most lite rar y rheory of genres, and

his five species are not clearly identif ied as subgenres

H o w e ve r , th e basic p o i n t is clear, that the rabb inic anecdotes are

direct ed mor e towards sayings than actions Y et , this w o u l d

not preventt h e ir be i ng c om pi l ed in t o an ancient biography. lu cia n s Demonax has a

brief preface and account of the philo soph er s l i f e , fo l lo w e d by a large

number of anecdotes al l strung together, each composed mainly of

dialogue leading up to a pronouncement or decision by the great sage - yer

4 7 Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1988), 213

4 8 Jacob Neusner, Are There Really Tannaitk Parallels to the Gospels? A Refutation of MortonSmith (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 80; Arlanta, GA: Scholars Press1993)

4 9 A Goshen Gottstein Jesus and Hillel: Are Comparisons Possible? in Hillel and Jesus

31—55> quotations from 4̂—355 Alexander, 'Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus 425 1 Neusner The Incarnation of God 114

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


5§ The Person of Christ

i t is s t i l l called a l i f e , bios. In fact, the Demonax is mote loosely st ruct ured

w i t h less integration of teaching and activi ty than even Mark's Gospel 5 1

Ihus, although the rabbinic material is more anecdotal than are the

gospels an d some ancient lives, it s t i l l contains enough biographical

elements ( thr ough sage stories, narratives, precedents and death scenes) to

enable an editot to compile a l ife of H i l l e l or whoever Such an account

w o u l d have been recognizable as ancient biography and have looked l ike

th e Demonax. L i terary and generic reasons alone are rherefore not sufficien t

to explain this curious absence of rabbinic biogr aphy - w h i c h brings us

back to theological reasons ar ising f r o m rheir Christological focus Since

biography directs the audience s atten tion t o the l ife an d character of the

subject, the decision to w r i t e a biographical account of Jesus has important

Christologica l implications Equal ly, the fai lure to w r i t e , or even compile

f r o m th e anecdotes, any biographi es of the rabbis also has significant

implications

Neusner argues that this is because th e i ndi v i du a l sages ate not at the

centre of attention. 'Sage-stories turn out not to tell about sages at all; they arestories about the Torah personified Sage-stories cannot y ie ld a gospel because

they are not about sages anyway. They are about the Tora h The gospel

does just the opposite, w i t h it s focus on the uniqueness of the hero 5 i

Alexander makes th e same poin t: Lhe obvious answer is that nerther

Eliezer nor any other Sage held in Rabbinic Judaism the central posi tion

that Jesus held in early Christ ianit y The centre of Rabbinic Judai sm was

Torah; rhe centre of Christianity was the person of Jesus, and the existence

of the Gospels is, in itself, a testimony to this fact.' 5 4 S i m i l ar l y , Rabbr

Mi c hael H i l t o n says: 'The Gospels can thus be regarded as a k i n d of

commentary on Jesus' l i f e , in much the same way as the Rabbis comment

on b i b l i c a l texts 5 5 S i m i l ar l y , G ot t s te i n i n c om par i ng Jesus an d H i l l e l

stresses that 'Gospel w r i t i n g w o u l d be the product of the particular

rel igious understanding of the messianic, and therefore salvific, activity of

Jesus The lack of Gospels in rabbinic l i terature w o u l d then be a less

significant issue, since no salvific claim is attached to any particular

R abbi 5f i

Thus the literary shift f r o m unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, which

resemble rabbinic material , to composing them together in the genre of an

5 i See my discussion of the Demonax in What are the Gospels' 166 I 7 ° - 7 T

" Neusner Why No Gospels in Talmudk Judaism? 52-53; his italics5 4

Alexander Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus 41; 5 Hilton and Marshall, The Gospels a nd Rabbinic Judaism. 135 6 Gottstein, Jesus and Hillel 35

BURRIDGE From Titles to Stories 59

ancient biography consti tutes an enormous Christological c la im Rabbinic

biogtaphy is not possible because no rabbi is that unique and is only

i m p o r t a n t as he represents the Torah, w h ich holds the central place T o

w r i t e a biography is to replace the Io rah by p u t t i n g a hu ma n person at

centre stage. The l i terary genre makes a major th eologi cal shift th at

becomes an expl ici t Christological c laim - that Jesus of Naza reth is To ra hembodied 5 7 So our study of genre puts Jesus at the centre and this itself is

a key Christological c laim w h ich i s much more important than any

i ndi v i du a l t i t l e or theolo gical explan ation

T he Pl ur a l i ty o f Dyn am i c C hr i s to l ogi es i n the Ne w Testament

I n th i s essay, we have concentrated on the shift f r o m Christological t i t les to

the biographical narratives about Jesus in the four gospels. Space does not

p e r m i t detailed examina tion of the rest of the New Testament, bu t here

too there has been a move away f t o m merely considering the various titles

and descriptions used about Jesus to looking at the underlying narrative

that informs the author s account or is presumed by what he says

For exampl e, P aul s encounter w i t h the risen Christ on the Damascus

toad was not just a t u r n i n g point in his l i fe, bu t also in his theolog y Fr om

then on, the significance of Jesus l i f e , death and tesurrection, and the

implications of new l ife in Chris t are crucial for Paul s unde rst andi ng of

the relationship between God and human beings. Furthermore, Paul s

Christology is also set in an eschatological fram ewor k C hri st is the ke y

p ivo t of the ages, th e means whereby the new age has broken into the

present through the death and resurrection of Jesus I h u s w h i l e Paul has

l i t t l e of the biography of Jesus' actual earthly l ife or min is tr y, the story of

the whole Christ-event has become his domi nat ing Chr istologicalnarrative Si milarly , the othet New Testament books may not be in

narrative genres, but they s t i l l have underlying narratives w h ich reveal

theif various understandings of the person of Jesus

Thus bot h the histor y of religi ons evolutio nary approach and the

common meth od of stud ying Chrisrological t i t les have pro ved incorrect or

u n h e lp fu l , despite the amount of material w r i t t e n on them over the last

centu ry Indee d, the ti me has come to move away f r o m the singular idea of

N e w Testament Christology, for this essay has demonstrat ed tha t there are

, 7 Jacobus Schoneveld Torah in the Flesh: A New Reading of the Prologue of the Gospel

of John as a Contribution to a Christology without Anti-Semitism , in Malcolm Lowe (ed ),The Net? Testament and Christian-Jewish Dialogue Studies in Honor of David Flusser, (EmmanuelM / 2 5 ; Jerusalem: Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel, 1990). 77-93

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


6 o The Person of Cbtist

lo ts of different Chris to logres w i t h i n the Ne w Iestame nt If we go back to

the image of text as stained glass, we have a whole gallery of different

portraits , each o f w h ich needs to be s tudied in its own r i g h t , not for what

we can see t ht ou gh it or is reflecred by it , but for the pict ure rt contains^

F u r t h e r m o r e , these pictu res are not static, bu t dynam ic as they move a nd

develop They should not be comb ined i nto an overarchi ng s ingl e

narrat ive, s t i l l less an amalgam, but a llowed to speak each fo r themselves,

bear ing in m i n d Wi the r in gto n's warn ing that an eat ly date does not

necessarily equal a Tow Chns tolo gy, nor need later mean h. gh *

The use of the New Testament, especia lly by theologians and doctr ine

specialists m u s t respect this dive rs ity of Chns tolo gica l portraits This

means consider ing the narrat ive of each book , taken as a who le, rather t han

ju st l o o k i n g at th e ti tl es If we do th is , we w i l l be then be confronted by

the central Chris to logical cla im in a il the New Testament texts , that only

i n Jesus is God to be understood, and by his Spirit we are able to do that.

Wither ington . The Many Faces of the Christ, Z2.J - see note 2.3 above

Chapter 3

Christ in the Trinity:

Communicatio Idiomatum

R o b e r t W J enson

The collocat ion of topics , Chris to logy and T r i n i t y , is both

dogma tical ly and his tor i cally appropriate Fot the two loci are

inextr icable Indeed , a f irs t poi nt to be made is that the do gmati c

locus de Christo does no t become necessary or even possible u n t i l the decisive

bits of t r i n i t a r i an dogma are in place - Chr ist oph Schwobel has repeatedl y

made a related normative point . 1 We can of course use the word

Chrisro logy in other senses: thus we may conveniently speak o f Ne w

Iestame nt Ch ris to logy ' or refer to the apologists ' Logos -Chri s to io gy'

Nevertheless , the quest ions that tradi t ion ally compose the dogmatic and

systematic locus on Chris to logy presuppose at least the 6(iooiJOLOg TGJ

i l f x t p L Ind eed , one can say that Chr ist olo gy is born and conti nues as

exegesis of a particular text, the first part of the second article of the

N ice n e -C o n s t a n t in o p o l i t a n Cr e ed W e have th e nest of problems and

proposed answers we pu t together as the locus l a b el le d C h r is t o lo g y ,

because th e Fathers at Nicea produc ed the text they di d, f r o m which the

Fathers a t Constan tinople di d not deviate in any way imp orta nt to the

matter of this essay

Acco rding to s tandard reconstruct ion, the Nice ne dogma tic defini t ions

were accomplished by inser t ing systematic-theological phrases in t o a

b a p t is m a l creed A second p o in t t o keep i n m i n d is how differ ent the tex t

thus produced is f r o m w h a t o ne m ig h t have pred ict ed, and that it is the

See, for example, Schwobel s essay Christology and Trinitarian thoug ht in idem (ed )Trinitarian Theology Today (Edinburgh: E&I Clark, 1995) 113-46

6l

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



text actually devised that so qu ick ly and urge ntl y deman ded and s t i l l

demands exegesis

For something is most remarkably missing f r o m the Nicene-

Constan tinopoli t an Creed: the Logos-theology developed by the apologists

and perfected by Origen, that is to say, what is missing is any reference to

the theologic al system whose problemat ics tri gge red all the controversy in

the first place. Und oubted l y the Ni c ene Fathers had the Logos-theology in

m i n d as they worked But the text they actually produced bears no trace of

it On ly Son , God f r o m God , of one being w i r h th e Father . by whom

al l things were made , and so on, appear as a srr ing of predicates att ached to

a single subject; and that subject is not one Logos, incarnate in our Lord

Jesus Chr ist' - as most of the concili ar Fathers w o u l d surely have wanted i f

they had foreseen what was com ing I t is simp ly 'one Lo r d , Jesus Christ

A n d th at it is, is sutely the wo rk of the Sp iri t

N o w , it is that subject phrase, as th e subject of the attr ibutions that

f o l l o w , w hi c h i m m ed i ate l y seemed to pose a problem, and which became

and remains the assignment of Chr ist olog y most prope rly so called Ho wco u ld th e subject of all those bel l igerently unequivocal God-predicates be

the man Jesus, even if he is risen as the Christ of Israel and the

acknowledged l o r d ' of his followers ?

The one w i t h Lo r d , Jesus Christ was undoubte dly part of the

bapt ismal confession th e council took as its framew ork , and in that contex t

i t fun ctio ned as a ren unci atio n of other candidates to be Lord. But in the

new context it makes a new assertion, whether consciously inte nded at the

councils or not: that there is not a p l u r a l i t y of subjects of the f o l l o w i ng

creedal statements, that there is just one I n its new context, the one

insists that i t is indeed a single u nit ary person who is Jesus the Christ of

Israel and wh o is just so God f r o m G o d , L i g h t f r o m L ig ht , and so on.

Moreover, after the inserted theologoumena the creed reverts to the

usual second-article creedal narrat ive, wh ic h narrates of its protagonist

b i r t h f r o m a human mothet, death and bu r i a l , an d does so w i t ho u t

establi shing a new subject So no w we have, as the second article of this

creed, one long proposi tion which ascribes dei ty in the most uncompro

m is in g terms, and a defini tively creaturely career of b i r t h and death, to the

same s ingular subject, indexed by a human proper name and by a t i t l e that

is meaningful only w i t h i n the particular f a i t h and culture of Israel

However can such a pro pos iti on be true? The exegetical challenge is not

posed by any of the predic ates, od d as some of them are in themselves, but

by the u n i t y of the subject

Exegesis of one L o r d , Jesus Christ was immedia tely seen as demanded

and immediately became conttov ersial The controversy has now contin ued

JEN SON Christ in the Trinity 63

fo r seventeen centuries - C ol in Gu nt on and I kep t up an amicable version

of it f r o m nearly out first mee tin g u n t i l our last

A t t e m p t s were early made to establish at least a few rules for the

ar gum ent These efforts met w i t h notable success at the councils of

Ephesus and Chalcedon. Chalcedon itsel f is the orig ina l mo del of a bila tera l

ecumenical dialog ue whose parti cipan ts judge they can br in g a posi tive

report : each side renounces th e ev i l opin ion of whi ch the other side

suspects it - Wh o, me? I never thou ght such a t h i n g - " T w o sons"?

Whoev er w o u l d defend that? - Christ a mix tur e of dei ty and humanity ?

I t s six other persons w h o t h i n k rhat - and remaining disagreements are

j ud ge d no t le gi ti ma te ly ch ur ch -d iv is iv e I n rhe decree of Chalcedon , aga in

as in some d ialogue reports, the jud gme nt that remaining disagreements i n

the matter are not church-divisive appears in the f o r m of a hole in the

systematic-theological centre of the decree, where things that one might

t h i n k systematical ly necessary to be said, but which w o u l d probably re¬

starr an argument, are simply not said

I f I may at this po in t int rud e a remar k not immedi ate ly televant to theargument of this essay, observat ion of this structu ral equivalence between

Chalcedon and modern bilateral dialogue could be salutary in two

directions We should receive dialogue reports w i t h th e same careful ly

l i m i t e d expectat ion we bri ng to Chalcedon, the very archetype of

beneficent imprec ision . In the other direct ion , con stru ing Chalcedon as a

dialogue report has turned out greatly to faci l i tate i ts reception by those

wh o once rejected it as a supposed systematic document, b y, for example,

the Armenia ns, who, due to a t ime-overlap in ge tti ng the text, understood

i t as a systematic statement i n r i v a l r y w i t h th e Henotikon

N o w , as it has in fact come about, the formulae of Chalcedon are

regarded in the West and in most of the surviving East as the Spiri t -give n

f r a m e w o r k of al l orthodox Christology - r i ght l y so, in my judg ment Bu t

g i v e n their character as just no ted, they can be no more than that : they ate

ptecisely framewo rk and not hin g more; indeed perhaps we migh t better

t h i n k of them as scaffolding

A c c o t d i n g to Chalcedon, the one Lord Jesus Christ has 'two natures

This rs perhaps clear enough to be going on w i t h - t hough I want stron gly

to urge that the notion of natures is mere ly a no ti on of secondary reflection,

and not an i n i t i a l given for Chtistology. I f the gospels narrati ve is true , its

protagonist must indeed have th e characters natura l to Go d and the

characters natural to a member of the human race

A n d rhese natures, Chalcedon says, are rhe natures of one imoomOLC

A g a i n , so far so good Bu t i t is just here that Chalcedon falls silent, and so

is indeed only a scaffold. For Chalcedon does n o t t el l us what moaxaai^

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


64The Person of Christ

means in this context, or how an imoo maLi ; - whatever it is - can be the

protagonist of a narrative, or what difference being the natures of only one

hypostasis makes to the two natures, or what difference having two natures

makes to the hypostasis - ot indeed anyt hin g one mi g ht want to t h i nk

about if one were not t r y i n g to que ll a controversy ot herwise jud ged

l e g i t i m a t e l y containable

'The matter for whi ch Chalcedon proposed th is frame wor k is of course the

w h o le of what Scripture and the wider t t a d i t i o n of the church s first-level

discourse tells about th at one L o r d , Jesus Chris t An d that is an immense

and in many ways heterogeneous col lection of narrative propositions: Jesus

saves ; God's on ly Son . was bo rn of the V i r g i n Mary and suffered under

Pont i us P i l a te ; An d go i ng a l i t t l e farther, he threw himself on the

g r o u n d , and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass f r o m h i m ' ;

' A n d he taugh t the m, saying, Blessed are the poor '; He was despised and

rejected , and so on and on W e have all four gospels; and we have the Old

Lestament , whi ch tells of a m an of sorrows, acquainted w i t h grief and of

the variously envisioned Coming One; and we have the church's hymnsan d passions an d sermons and l i turgies , al l tel l in g us about that one Lord,

Jesus Christ' and what he does 'accordin g - as the phrase has gone - to

those two natures

The problem posed by what Chalcedon refrains f r o m saying about the

one uTOaxaOLC,, the pr ob le m posed by that ho le i n the m id dl e of its

t h i n k i n g , is that, just so. the decree gives no ind ica tio n of how - so to

speak - all this narrative fastens to the Chalcedo nian sca ffold ing It left

that to subsequent t h i n k i n g and controversy

W e have, as the second artic le of the creed, one long propo sition whic h

ascribes dei ty in the most uncompromising tetms, and human b i r t h and

death, that is to say, creatureliness ar i ts most uncompromised, to the same

singular subject Howev er can such a pro pos iti on be true? An d whe n we

l o o k to al l that mass of what is said about our one Lord in the gospels and

the Old lestamen t and the church , we observe that this pattern of the

creed is not idiosy ncrat ic, but is a patt ern manifest ed b y all the decisive

items of that discourse

If we say, 'Jesus saves , our subject is the personal name of a human

person, and the predicate attri but es to hi m what only God can do If we

say, An d goi ng a l i t t l e further, he threw himself on the ground and

prayed, 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pass f r o m me " we see a

man i n the throes of unwan ted decision, and we see h i m addressing God as

bis personal Abb a; we see indeed a chris rolog ical crux tha t stumpe d every

theologian before Maximus the Confessor, and continues to stump all who

k n o w not Ma xim us If we say, 'Th e Son of God was born of Mary , our

JENS ON Christ in the Trinity ¿ 5

subject phrase is a divine name and the predicate attributes to him what

o n l y m am m al i an creatures suffer If we say - a nd th is of course has been the

chief offence - Unus ex trinitate passus est pro nobis, w e have again a blunt ly-

d iv in e name as subject and as predicate suffe ring and death , whi ch all the

w o r l d has held impossibl e for god - or at least for any 1 0 0 per cent god l y

god.

The gospel-narrat ive is a comp oun d of propos itions w i t h subjects that

index a person we w o u l d expect to have one of those two natures in Chr ist

and then predicate of him a character we w o u l d otherwise expect to belong

to th e other, indeed in most cases to belong on ly to the other. Doctr ines of

th e communiai communicatio of natures or attr ibut es are att empt s to recognize

this fact and sort it out

N o one has sorted ou t the various modes and comb inat ions so

pai nst aki ngl y - nor to say fanati cally - as the Luthera n theologia ns of th e

late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries A qui ck present ation of the ir

posi tions w i l l be usefu l, both for their orga nizi ng and to display where th e

theological choices appear I w i l l fo llo w the presentation of the pioneer ofthis t r adi t i o n , M a r t i n Chemnitz, in his De duabus naturis in Christo I w i l l

note two points at which his presentation presents a theological choice to

be made

A first rubr ic is for propo sitio ns that sim ply att rib ute one nature to t he

other , i nd ex i ng each natur e, as they said, concre tely rather th an abs tractly,

that is, as 'a man instead of 'h uma nit y' or God instead of deity ' So we

have, Th is ma n is rhe Son of Go d , or, The Logos is Jesus These are

rubr icized as belonging to the communion of natures

I h e n propositions more properly rubricized under com muni cati on of

attr ibutes f a l l - according to Chemnitz - into three classes, or genera The

first class is of propositions that predicate what is proper to one nature to

the person 01 hypostasis, indexed by the conctete of either natu re, that is,

either w i t h a proper name, an ident i fy ing description, or w i t h the sort of

expression which i n E ngl i sh w o u l d begin w i t h an article. This class is

label led genus idiomatum, s imply taken

A n d here we encountet the first arguable matter We m ig ht t h i n k t h a t \

of course if Chr ist has two natures, whateve r is proper to either nature can

be att tib ure d to the one hypostasis, bu t that this constitu tes no

c om m uni c at i on o f a t t r i butes between th e natures But to those Lutherans,

such propositions do state a commun icati on of attr ibutes among the

natures also, for in their analysis the hypostasis is the only concrete real i ty

of both natures, and further is itself nothing other than that, so that what

is attr ibut ed to him is in fact attr ibut ed to both natures

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



Thus in refer ring to the one hypostasis, I just said, 'h im , and C he mni tz

stipulates concrete' reference to the hypostasis The tendency of Wes ter n

Christolo gy in general , however, has been to resist both modes of speaking,

to take 'the hypostasis as a sheet linguistic marker for the fact of

hypostatic u n io n , and to understand the later fact as so purely a

metaphysical event th at it has no consequences at the level of ra tûanca

The hypostasis thus cannot be referred to directly w i t h concrete terms, and

is cert ainly not a he Che mni tz s and his colleagues invaria ble argu ment

is that Since the hypostasis o f the Son is become the hypostasis of a man, it

fo l lo w s that But in the usual system of West ern Chris tolog y, nothing

fo l lo w s d i r ec t l y f r o m the metaphysical fact of hypostatic union.

I h e second class is the genus apotelismaticum Here we attend directly to

the actions of the one L o r d as one hypostasis A l l tha t he does as K i n g and

Priest, he does in and through both natures and their characters. This is,

one may say, the uncontroversial genus Here Leo s notorious max im is in

fact adopted by the Lutherans also: each nature of Christ is active in

c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h the othet, each c o n t r i b u t i n g t h at w h i c h is proper toit

I h e t h i r d genus is th e genus maiestaticum, a nd here what is said is indeed

arguable or at least has been vehemently argued I w i l l quote Chemnitz:

In this th ird genus the petson of Christ in his role as K i ng and H i g h

Priest perfo rms and carries our his divi ne missio n in , w i t h and

through the human nature ( An d he does this] nor only according ro

and throug h the atrributes which belong ro the human nature in itself

but also according to attributes which his natute has received and

possesses above, beyo nd and outside its nat ural propert ies as a

result of the hypostastk union and the pericboresis of natures w i t h i n it

W e may pu t it so: each nature of Christ is active in communication w i t h

the other, each con tti but ing what is proper to i t and in its ow n way what is

proper to the other Thus, to instance the most notot iou sly controversial

p r o p o s i t io n in this class: The man Jesus, also as man, participates in the

d iv in e transcendence of t ime and space

Th e t h i r d genus, according to the Luth eran theologians - tho ugh not

accord ing to Luther hims elf - is asym metr ical If there were a pair for

communic ations of divine attr ibu tes to the hu man nature, these w o u l d be

communi cation s of human attr ibute s to the divin e nature; there w o u l d be a

genus tapeinotikon It coul d be said: O ne of the T r i n i t y suffered for us,

according to his hu man nature and, in co mmu nio n w i t h that nature,

according to his divi ne nature ' Luther tau ght such commun icatio ns; the

Lutherans exercised more prudence

JE NS ON Christ in the Trinity

W e rerurn now more directly to the question of the relation between al l

t h is and the doctrine of T r i n i t y I t seems to me we now have two questions

to consider W ha t does th e fact o f the m utual c om m uni c at i on o f divine/

h u m a n attr ibutes mean for our understa nding of the Trini ty? An d wha t is

th e t r i n i t a r i an im p o r t of doctrines about t he fact?

I n considering the first o f these question s, I w i l l w o r k w i t h a m in im a l

and I hope generally acceptable statement of the fact of the communicatio:

the one Chrisr lives his l i fe as God and as a man, d iv in e ly and hum anl y ,

and his doing s and sufferin gs cannot be sorted ou t in to tw o d i f f er i ng sets of

doing s and sufferin gs Yo u cannot do wha t, for exampl e, the great

Iheod ore of Mopsuestia di d in his commen tary on John s Gospel :

determine of each event, This he di d as man or 'This he di d as Go d .

Thus the role played by Jesus in the human story is at once a divine role

and a hu ma n role Thus, to stay onl y w i t h creeds, hi s b i r t h is narra ted - 'he

became incarnate' - as one cannot narrate your b i r t h or min e Ih e other

way aroun d - and this is the aspect tha t here interests us - the role tha t t he

Son plays in the mutu al tr iune l i fe is at once a divine role and a humanro le , and so it includes, to stay only w i t h creeds, born of the V i r g i n M a r y

and suffered under Pon tiu s Pilate If I may press the dramaturgical

language j ust inv oke d one more srep, the part w h i c h the Son plays in the

t r iu n e drama is rhe l i fe and fate of the man Jesus An d thi s is true, by the

way, inde pen den tly of wheth er there was a logos asarkos; for present

purposes we can w i t h g r a t i t u d e finesse that question

The Son is ôôovjaioç TGJ TlaTpL and so w i t h the Spirit is a persona of the

l i fe tha t is Go d So far, so simp ly Nic ene , and so far, so goo d. Bu t wh o is

t h is Son? Were I the Son, God w o u l d be a vety dif fere nt Go d than he in

fact is, and this w o u l d be so even if, contrary to possibility, the Father and

the Spiri t were otherwise the same

The doctrine of rhe T r i n i t y has in fact

no rel igious i m p o r t unless we can and do identify the Son

The demand for ide nti fic ation of a persona can only be answered, in this

case as elsewhere, b y narrative A nd the - m i n i m a l l y stated - fact of the

communicatio is that the narrative of the Son is a human narrative, also as he

plays his role i n the divi ne life. The most alarmin g i tems of that huma n

narrative became thematic in Christolog ical debate very quic kly , and the

debate about them has never quite come to rest Am o ng m ote or less

orthodox Christians i t is often verbal ly put to test, b ut keeps pr od uc i ng

symptoms in church l i fe and various reaches of theology Ih e aspects of t he

h u m a n co ndit ion that most distressed the ancient w o r l d were, of course,

the famous p a i r in g , the wom b and the tomb Can the narrative i dent i f y i ng

^persona of God's l i fe include having inhabited a woman's bel ly? Or having

been executed?

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



I t was indeed decreed a t Chalcedon that Go d the Son did indeed have a

h u m a n b i r t h and so has a human mother, that Mary is r i g h t l y saluted as

etOTOKOC, But the churc h was ti ppe d apart i n th e process of decisio n - and

I find that the more il l-educate d amon g Protestant clergy continue t o

suppose that this is one of those w e i r d and probab ly blasphemous things

that Catholics teach.

Moreover, it was later decreed, at the second Council o f Constantinople

( 5 5 3 ) , that unus ex trinitate indeed suffered death for us Bu t the then Pope,

V i g i l i u s , condemned the council as heret ical, and it took a teciptocal

condemnation of the pope for that dectee to get currency in the West ,

w h i c h i n pract ice i t qui ckl y lost again In my rigorosum a t H eide lberg ,

Hans von Campenhausen asked me why the decrees of this council had so

l i t t l e lasting affect in the W e s t I di d not kno w A f t e t w a r d , Günther

Bor nka mm said he di d not know either , and asked Hans for the

explanatio n V on Campenhausen mated out , 'Sic warden einfaih vergessen\

Ho-ko-ho\ B o r n k a m m r e m a r k e d t h a t w i t h forgetfu lness of the matte r so

w e l l established, perhaps my lapse too could be forgiven.Reluctance about such propositions as the unus ex trinitate tesuks f rom

definit ions of the supposed tw o natures , d eity and hum ani ty, that are

posited antecedently to the gospel-narrat ive w i t h a ll its cross-over

predicat ions If , for central instance, Go d s ete rni ty is so understoo d that

d e i t y and death s imply exclude one another by defi nit ion , then unus ex

trinitate passus est is not just su rpr isi ng, or even perhaps paradoxi cal, b ut

s i m p l y nonsensical

So the fait of the (ommunuatio is that the mutu al plo t of the divi ne life,

th e ensemble of the processions as they are called, is de tet mi ned by wha t

happened w i t h Jesus of Nazat eth between his concept ion by the V i t g i n and

his Ascension to the Father An d the pay-off is : this l i fe is the l i fe that

creates all that is and that w i l l f u l f i l a l l that is If we wan t to kno w how

reality is const ituted, we must read the gospels

Moreover, rhere is another aspect of the matter It is to the Son that the

Father, by an ancient theologo umeno n, looks to kno w himself Mu ch

cu r r e n t t h i n k i n g w o u l d wa nt to adjust tha t a bi t, and say that the Son is

t h e Wo r d t h a t t h e Father speaks to himself to ide nti fy himsel f Either way,

we may ask rhe question: Very w e l l , b u t what does th e Father hear - o r see

- wh en he attends t o the Son? A n d the answer mu st be: the narrativ e of

Je su s- in -I sr ae l Ih at narrat ive is Go d s self- determi natio n as the part icular

God he is

Thus the events of salvation s history are not intrusions in the history of

the universe ; a lmost vice versa, rhe history of the universe is an incident in

the story of Jesus in Israel For the universe is the creatio n of the parti cula r

JENS ON Christ in the Trinity 69

God whose own life is t o l d by that story Here inde ed is rhe bite of the fact

rhat the man Jesus is one of the I r i n i t y

It seems to me that if preachers and liturgio logists and canonists had

this fact more to the front of their minds, preaching and l i t u r g y i n our

churches w o u l d be rather dif fere nt tha n it is W e w o u l d at least hear a

great deal less about mak in g the Bibl e relevant to the supposed truth s ofrhis w o r l d , and a great deal more about judging the w o r l d s suppositions

by the narrativ e of the Bibl e. Instead of , Y o u say you make your l i v i n g

g r i n d i n g th e faces of the poor? Neve r m i n d , those b ib l ica l precepts have,

after a ll , ro be interpreted i n our new and very differen t conte xt , we mi gh t

hear, Yo u say yo u are baptized? Ri gh t N o w let us consider h ow you are in

the meantime to make a l i v i n g The Episcopal Church in my country has

ju st consecrated as bishop a man who some years ago abandoned his wife

and children, to live w i t h a lover who m he has never mar rie d - and thac rhe

lover is of his own gender is surely the least of th is malef actor s

disqualif ic at ions But if we suppose that the histor y of the church is one

piece of the hist ory of cu ltu te - instead of the true other way arou nd -

those w h o oppose such accommodations must a lways finally be bere ft of

argument.

N o w - f i na l l y - what such ontologicaily loaded doctr ines about the

commumcatio, l ike that of those Lutherans at some p o in t s , f i na l l y determine,

is how stringently the Son s inn et- t t i nit ar ia n ro le is plot ted by what happens

w i t h Jesus Does, for a central case, the death of Jesus on the cross

manif est the paradoxical power of love by wh ic h God rules the universe,

as it is often put; or is Jesus dy i ng s im p ly G o d r u l i n g rh e universe? Does

Jesus ' resurrec tion pethaps show forth God s transcendence of time, or is

it the way God goes about to transcend time? I w i l l n ot conceal that I

t h i n k th e second statem ent is the true one in bo th cases, a n d w o u l d judge

al l s i m i l a r choices the same way W h i c h is to say, I t h i n k those Lutherans ,

and even more Luther himself, got this one t i g h t - whatever else they may

indeed have gotten badly wrong

I n m y ju d g m e n t , a n y less s tr ingent doctr ine of the lonimunkatio, that is

to say, any less s tr ingent identif icat ion between Jesus story and the Son s

role in the tr iune drama, leaves rhe way open for the plot of triune life to be

determined by other stoties than the bib lic al story - that is for a pat ter n of

r e l i g i o n w h ich t h e ch u r ch t r u l y can no longer support

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Chapter 4

Reformed Varieties of the

Communicatio Idiomatum

S t e p h e n R H o l m e s

There are three reasons for my choice of this , admitt edly somewhat

abstruse, t i t l e I h e f i rst is tha t, l ooki ng at the conference

pr ogr am m e as i t was t a k i n g shape, I t h o u g h t we needed some

technical Christology somewhere, and I was also glad of an excuse to do

some reading in the atea o f technical Chti stolog y Th e second was a desire

to carry o n a conversat ion, a lbeit after a signi fican t gap. Four yeats ago, just

before th e conference w e h e l d on reconci l iation, I ha d m y P h D v iva One of

the things I had argued, more or less i n passing, in m y thesis was that there

was a novel an d d istinc tively Reformed Christol ogy developed w i t h i n the

P u r i t a n t r a d i t io n One of my examiners, Rob ert Jenson, took issue w i t h

t h is , arguing that Reformed Christology is merely a c ont i nuat i on of the

Cathol ic t r a d i t io n , an d does no t f i n d any d i s t i nc t i v e expression I continue

to believe that I was r i g h t , bu t I am also aware that I d i d not convince m y

examiner on this point. I tealize four years is a fair gap, but I hope that m y

at tem pt to p i c k th e issue u p again i n this essay w i l l go some wa y t o explain

my obstinacy

Th e t h i r d reason is a desire to f i n d an answer to a question I never got to

ask C ol i n G unt on A l l wh o had the privi lege an d pleasure of discussing

theology w i t h h i m w i l l know that he had tw o heroes w hen he talked

Christology. C y r i l o f Al ex and r i a , whose insistence tha t al l that is

predicated of Jesus C ht i s t is predicated of the one incarnate person of

t h e D i v i n e W o r d , and not d iv id e d up int o things predicated of the human

nature an d thing s predicated of the d ivine nature, was much admired by

C o l i n ; an d John O w e n , whose demand that th e h u m a n i t y of the Jewish

7 0

HOLMES Reformed Varieties of the C om m uni c at i o I d i om at um 7 1

ma n Jesus of Nazareth was never lost sight of , C o l i n also strongly affirmed

As I thought through this paper, and par t i c ul ar l y as I read some of the

seventeenth- an d e i ghteenth-c entur y debates between Lutheran and

Reformed, Col in s choice of heroes struck me as more and more r i ght ,

bu t also more an d more odd

I h e reason fo r this is as fol lows: at the heart of the a r gum ent o f thisessay is a suggestion th at th e novel Christolo gy of John Owen, taken u p by

several others w i t h i n th e Angl ophone R efor m ed t r a d i t io n , is d istinctively

and radical ly Reformed, i n that i t can be seen t o gr ow o ut of, i n f o r m and

support posi tions th e Reformed were developing i n their disput es w i t h the

l u ther ans No w , both R efor med an d Lutherans mapped thei r Chris tolo-

gical disputes onto th e famous patri stic debate between Alexandria and

A n t i o c h , and the opposing heresies i t gave rise to The m a p p i n g was done

d if fe r e n t ly by each side, w i t h the R efor m ed i d ent i f y i ng themselves w i t h

th e t r a d i t io n declared orthodox at Chalcedon, and i ns i s t i ng that the

Lutherans were Eutychians; and the Lutherans, b y contrast , c lai ming that

the Reformed were Nestorian an d that they themselves were i n fact the

heirs of Chalcedon Give n this , if I am r ig h t i n supposing that O we n s

C hr i s to l ogy was a radical ization of standard Refo rmed position s, C olin 's

heroes are C y r i l , an d someone whose theology w o u l d have appeared to at

least some of his contemporaries as unquestionably Nestori an

There is something very r ig h t about this , i t seems to me, because we

need i n C hr i s to l ogy t o h o l d to the genius of b o t h th e ancient, and indeed

b o t h th e early moder n, schools W i t h Alexandria and Heidelberg, we must

insist that i t is of decisive importance that we confess on e Lord, Jesus

Christ , that th e hypostatic u nion is no f ict ion or figure of speech, b u t that

G o d the Son is t r u l y bomoousios w i t h us, as he is homoousios w i t h the Father

W i t h A n t i o c h an d Geneva, however, we must acknowledge that it is just

as decisive that there is no m i n g l i n g or ad m i x tur e of the natures to f o r m a

tettium quid, a bizarre spiri tual cockatrice w h o hovers los t in the void

betw een hum ani ty an d d i v i n i t y Bo th Nestorius an d Eutyches m u s t be

condemned, an d so to h o l d as heroes t w o people who grasped these two

t r u t h s w i t h p r o f u n d i t y is appropriate The oddness relates to how these

th i ngs can be held together: th e account I have sketched already gives some

reason to fear that th e Christologies o f C y r i l and Owen might prove simply

incoherent, an d good reason to suspect that they p u l l i n very diff eren t

directions I t is, I have argued, very desirable t o hold th em together, but

ho w m i g h t i t be done?

First, however, to the h i s tor y , and my a r gum ent w i t h Robet t Jenson, as

ai l th e other reflections presuppose tha t I am r ig h t about that I w a n t to

suggest that towatds th e heart of O w en s C hr i s to l ogy is a peculiar way of

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



h u m i l i a t i o n that he has chosen to share i n c om m on w i t h al l the chi ldren of

Eve w i l l be over

This is discussed i n Inst I I x i v 3 , in connecrion w i t h passages tha t speak

of the eschatological handi ng over of the K in gd om to the Father, w hi c h

C a lv in fears mig ht be used to support some f o r m of subordinatist or Arian

p o s i t io n Cal vin offers an account of the state of hu mil iat ion that insists i tcontinues u n t i l this eschatological han din g over, whe n, w i t h the coming of

the last ju dgm en t, as pattaker s i n the heavenly glor y we shall see God as

he is'. U n t i l that point our union w i t h God is mediated through the

heavenly session of Christ , who presently reign [s], joi nin g us to the Father

as the measure of our weakness permits ; at that poi nt, Christ , havin g

discharged the office of Mediator, w i l l cease to be the ambassador of his

Father, an d w i l l be satisfied w i t h th at glory whic h he enjoyed before the

creation of the w o r l d

Ihe re is mu ch we cou ld say about thi s, somewhat idiosyn cratic , account,

bu t the impor tan t poin t for my present discussion is that Calvi n connects

th e t i t l e L or d w i t h the divine reign, so presently, because the reign is

mediated thro ugh Christ alone, Christ alone is to be called Lor d , bu t it

remains a divine t i t l e , w h i c h w i l l be reclaimed by the Father (and, we

presume, rhe Spi rit , who is notice ably absent f r o m these secrions), not to

remove it f r o m Christ , but so that Father, Son and Spirit share the

L o r d s h ip in the eschatological ki ng do m, whe n 'we {sha ll] see his div ine

majesty face to face So, to get back to the main argument, to call the

blessed v i r g i n the mothe r of our Lo r d ' rarher than theotokos is not to deny

that she is the mother of one who is properly called God, but rarher to

specify more exactly that it is the person of the T r i n i t y wh o became

incarnate to whom she is mother, not the Father or the Spirir Cal vin is

part icular ly concerned to stress the unconfused and unm ing led two natures

of the mediator, but, properly understood, nothing he says can be ta ken as

d o w n -p la y in g th e u n i t y of the person

Lhis concern for the disti nct properties of the tw o natures famously

spills over int o Eucharistic cont roversy Calv in asserts that it is of the

essence of bein g hum an to be locally present i n one place alone: I am here,

so I am nor in Alb uqu erq ue Just so, claime d Cal vin , if the body and b lood

- unde nia bly huma n propertie s - of Chri st are locall y present i n one place,

they cannot be so in another: [f] or as we do not dou bt that Christ' s body is

l i m i t e d by the general characteristics common to all human bodies, and is

conrained in heaven u n t i l Chri st retu rn in judg ment , so we deem i t

u t t e r ly u n l aw f u l to draw it back under these c or r upt i b l e elements (i .e

consectated bread and wi ne ] or to imag ine i t to be present everywhere(Inst I V x v i i 1 2 ) Thus they cannot be on man y altars simult aneou sly; i n

HOIMES Reformed Varieties of the C o m m u n i c a t i o I d i o m a t u m 7 5

fact, because Christ is located at the r i g h t hand of the Father , his body and

b lo o d are not phys ically located on any altar Ih us bot h Ro man

transubstantiation and Luther 's consubstantiation must be false

(I n pa ssing, i t is not clear to me that any f o r m of the communicatio can be

helpful for a non-Calvinist posi tion; what is wanted for the Lutheran or

I h o m i s t account to be true is not a divine prope rty - omniprese nce — butthe property of being locally present in several places at once W h e n

Quens tedt argued that the majesty of the omniprese nce of the Logos was

comm uni cat ed to the huma n nature of Chri st in the first momen t of the

petsonai unio n, in consequence of which, along w i t h the div ine nature, it is

no w omnipresent , 3 he proved far too much, in that on this account C hr i s t

is no less present i n rhis glass of water th an on the altar, an d so no more

present on the altar than i n this glass of water Such a posi tion cannot

support consubstantiation, as either Luther or the Formula of Concord

defines the te rm Indeed, of all the disput ed Ref orma tio n positions on the

Eucharist , i t looks closest to that of Z w i n g l i . To support c onsubsta ntia

t i o n , an account of mult ip le particular local presences of the same h u m a n

person must be developed, not an account o f hum an omnipresence.)

I he development of the Contine ntal scholastic R efor m ed t r adi t i o n

retained this interest in stressing the distinct properries of the two natures

of Christ , not least because i t continued to f o r m an impor tan t strand of

polemic against Lutheran eucharistic doctrine A t the same time, there was

a move to more careful statements that were consciously i n line w i t h

Chalce donian or tho doxy François Tu rre tin , for example, offers a carefu l

treatment of the hypostatic uni on, in the f o r m of three questions 4 The first

of these is headed 'Did the Son of God assume human nature into the u n i r y

of his person? W e af f irm against the Socinians There is a characteristically

careful statement of the question, and a careful and orthodox account of the

hypostatic u nio n whi ch relies on an account of the enhyposta tic

assumption of the f u l l , but anhypostatic , human nature into personal

u n io n by the Logos Ih e uni on is defined as the in tima te and perpe tual

conj unc tion of the tw o natures in rhe u n i t y of person' (Inst Eleni

Iheol X I I I v i 5) The next questi on consists of a den ial of the er rors

associated w i t h Nesto rius and Eutyches, qu oti ng the Chalcedonian

def i n i t i o n as the middle way, denying both. Ihe error of Nesrorius is

asserted to be the inven tion of two persons of the two natures of Christ; as a

result of this , according t o Tu rre tin , he denied tha t Mary was theotokos; that

Cited in Heinric h Sc timid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, transChâties A Hay and Henry E Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsbur g, 3rd edn. 1961), 331

4 Inst Elenc Theot. X I I I 6-8

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



C h r is t was God , instead cal lin g h im a m an possessed by God'; and that

there was no u n i o n of natures other tha n as association and an inh abi tat ion

In t e r e s t in g ly , T u r r e t i n shows himself awate of historical questions as to

whether Nesrorius was actually g u i l t y of the error that bears his name,

a l t h o u g h he offers some reasons to assume he was N evert hele ss, as he

notes, the question is histori cal, of fact, not of r i g h t This does not hinderus f r o m re jecting as fundamental the error attrib uted to Nestorius (Inst

Elenc Theo! X I I I v i i 4 ) T u r r e t i n s reasons for re jecting the Nestotian

hetesy ate exegetical, based on three sets of passages: those w hi c h teach that

the Son of God was born of a v i r g i n ( God sent f o r t h his Son, born of a

w o m a n Ga l 4 4 ) ; those tha t speak of one person consisting of two

natures (Rom 1 3—4 is to the fore, the locus classkus i n this disc ussion);

an d those that ascribe diverse properties and operations to the one Christ'

( t h e Lo r d of glor y was cruc ified 1 Cor 2 8 ) ( X I I I v i i 5 - 7 ) H e makes

sense of this by appealing to the anhypostatia, w h i c h if r i g h t must deny

N e s t o r i a n i s m , and by asserting the communicatio idiomatum: suffer ing and

death properly and f o r m al l y belong to the human nature, but

d e n o m in a t ive ly to the person according to the other nature ( X I I I v i i 9 ) ,

before d o i n g a certain amount of sq ui rm in g around the need to af f irm that

th e Blessed V i r g i n sho uld be called Mot her of God

A f t er th is conscious display of catholic o rth odox y, T u r r e t i n turns to the

more immediate controversy: 5 Wer e certa in properties of the d i v i ne nature

f o r m al l y communicated to the human nature of Christ by the personal

union? We deny against the Lutherans T u r r e t i n asserts that the personal

u n i o n affects both the human nature and the person (the d i v i ne nature,

b e in g im mut ab le and impassible, is not changed in any way) The effects

on the human nature are t w o f o l d : pre-eminence, and the habitual graces

w h i c h are possessed in the highest manner possible for a human creature,

bu r no higher This p o i n t is perhaps best ill ust rat ed by a commonp lace of

Reformed prolegomena: the ecumenical dist inc tion between theologia

anhetypa - God s own i n t u i t i v e , complete and single knowledge of himself

- an d theologia ectypa - th e p ar t i a l , s tudi ed and complex knowledge

possessed by creatures Whereas, however, other discussions tend to assert

t h a t the higher forms of ectypal theology are the knowledge of God

enjoyed by the saints and angels in the beatific v i s i o n , the Reformed

prolegomena asserted that the most perfect and complete ectypal theology,

w h i c h s t i l l , however, was creaturely knowledge of God, and not God s own

5 SocinLanism was an immedia te controversy of coutse but I know o( little evidence thatthere were contemporary explosions of Nestorianism or Eutychianism chat Turretin wasconcerned to combat

HOLMES Reformed Varieties of the Co m m unica r io I d i o m a t u m 7 7

k n o w l e d g e of himself, was the theologia unionis - the kno wle dge of Go d

granred to the enhypostatic human nature of Christ by v i r t u e of the

hypostatic u n i o n 6

T h i s , adm it te dly somewhat abstruse, set of disri ncri ons is inter esti ng for

m y purposes because i t demonstrates t wo importa nt points One w h i c h I

shall return to , concerning the attempt to petceive two dist inctpsychological centres i n the one person of Chr ist w i t h o u t thereby denying

the hypostatic u n i o n ; the other indi cat ing that the Refor med wer e

prepared to ascribe every perfection possible to human being to the human

nature of Christ, and that in the highest degree possible to human being;

they were not, however, prepared to bridge the basic chasm be tween

Creator an d created, even in the case of that created nat ure w hi c h was

assumed i n t o personal u n i o n w i t h the creative W o r d T u r r e t i n quotes the

f o u r t h evangelist to the effect that Go d gives the Spirit w i t h o u t measure

to him (Jn 3 . 3 4 ) (Inst Elenc. Theol X I I I v i i i 1; see also X I I I v i i i . 32 ) ,

w h i c h makes th e p o i n t succinctly: as the highest of all creatures, there is no

l i m i t to God s gracious g i f t i n g , but as a creature s t i l l , th ere is a need for it

Th e effects of the hypostatic u n i o n on the person are, on T u r r e t i n s

t e l l i n g , th reef old: the commu nic ati on of attr ibut es, of office, and of

h o n o u r I n each case, he insists, the com mun ica ti on must be considered as

o n ly f r o m the natures to the person, not f r o m one natur e to the other Thu s

T u r r e t i n s accou nt of the communicatio idiomatum relies on a di st in ct ion

between communi cati on between natures and person and communi cati on

between the two natures Properties of each nature may be meaningfully

an d r i g h t l y a ppli ed to the person, but properti es of the one nat ure may no t

be applied to the other T u r r e t i n s reasons in defence of this position are

numerou s, and not too impo rt an t for my purposes here, mai nl y r e l y i ng on

supposed logi cal inconsistencies i n the opposi ng positi on, about half of

w h i c h I f i n d c onvinc ing The explanation of his posi tion is more

in t e r e s t in g , howevet: T u r r e t i n s g reat p o i n t is that the natures are

d if fe r e n t , and for there to be a real incarnat ion, and not a Eut ych ian m i x i n g

of natures leading to a tertium quid, the natures must remain distinct

A useful discussion of the distinction between theologia anhtypa and theologia ectypa, and ofthe place of the theologia unionis in the scheme occurs in Sebastian Rehnman Divine DiscourseIhe Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker. 2002) 57~7t Rehnmanindicates that although this language for the division betwten God s own self-knowledge andall creacurtly knowledge of God is first found in Franciscus Juni us, in the early years of theseventeenth century, there are hints of the concept as fat back as Aris totl e and Ps -Dionysius,

and he suggests that the Reformed themselves considered that it came from medievalscholasticism with Polanus pointing particularly to Scotus's commentary on lombatd

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



Wh at , then, is imp lie d by the hypostatic union? Turretin's defi ni ti on,

already quoted, is of l i t t l e help: i nti mate and perpetual conju nction of the

natures ' i n the u n i t y of the person is an assertion of ort hod oxy , bu t offers

l i t t l e explanation as to what it means The deploymen t of the anhypostatic-

enhyposratic distinction is, as far as I can see, only a way of denying

Nes tori anis m - insi srin g tha t there is onl y one hypostasis of the incarnateSon - bu t it offers l i t t l e or nothing in the way of positive content

l u t t e t i n s docttine is damaged by his decision to w r i t e theology in an

elenctic, or contro versial, m ood : he is very clear what is not to be believed,

in c lu d in g long cri t ic isms of the patristic heresies, th e Socinians, and the

Lutheran position, but he can offer l i t t l e in the way of posi tive Christology,

othet than a repeti t ion of the basic Reformed inst inct that somehow the

hypostatic union must preserve the int egri ty of the natures, particularly

that of the human nature, which they believed Lutheran theology was in

danger of damaging

Jo hn O w en, and w i t h h i m some others in an anglophone t radit ion,

develops the basic anti -Lut heran Christologic al impulse in another way

again, and one that has, I t h i n k , considera bly more to say about th e natur e

of the hypostatic union. Sti l l the theological instinct is to protect the

assertion of the f u l l huma nity of Christ , to prevent the divin e nature so

o ve r w h e lm in g the human that the humanity of Christ becomes a mere

cipher, something that is asserted b u t carries no m eani ng I hi s becomes

l i n k e d , in this t r adi t i o n , w i t h three other doctrines the Reformed were

characteristically concerned about: the docrrine of sancti ficarion; the extra

calvinistkum; an d pne umat olog y The doct tine is most carefully developed

in Owen, and it is his account I shall follow

O w e n , of course, says al l the appropriate orthodox things, but the heart

of what is distinctive about his Christology lies in his discussion of the role

of the Spirit in the life of the incarnate Son, which A l a n Spence discussed at

an earlier conference in this ser ies 7 In the relevant chapters of the

Pmumatologiaf' O w en sets out to explain the particular works of the H o l y

S p ir i t i n respect to the human nature of Christ Before entering into the

exposition, however, he feels th e need to deal w i t h an objection which, he

suggests, is being utged by the Socinians; the objection being that there is

no need, or indeed room, for a work of the Spirit in the life of Christ, as the

hypostatic union w i t h the Son can supply all necessary d i v i ne i nter v ent i on

7 Alan Spence Christ s Humanity and Ours: John Owen , in Colin E Gunron andChristnph Schwobel (eds ) Pmiw Divine and Human {Edinburgh: I & I Clark, 1991) 74~97-

s John Owen Pnettmatohgia Or a Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit in Works vol III (of XV I) (ed Wi ll ia m Goold; Edinburgh: Banne rol Tru th 1965)

HOLMES Reformed Varieties of the C om m uni c at i o I d i om atum 7 9

O w e n does n ot pause to explain why this point was seen as an adequate

disproof of Tri ni ta rian doctrine by the Socinians - i t was, after al l, a

p o s i t io n w h i c h C y r i l was concerned to force upon Nestorius through the

seventh of his anathemas, and so is not obviously immediately destructive

to orthodox theology - but I suppose that the argument w o u l d have been

exegetical: Scripture speaks of works of the Spirit in the life of Chrisr, so ifa particular docrrine cannot f i n d roo m for such work s, it is shown to be

false

O w e n c oul d have turned to a series of exegetical posi tions developed

w i t h i n Luth era nis m to help hi m here, but instead he develops a dist inct ive

f o r m of Refo rmed Ch rist olog y His argume nt has two patts : first he proves

ho w l i t t l e is necessatily consequent on the hypostatic union, so showing

w h i c h works need no t have been done by the Son; and then he argues w hat

w o r k s are proper to the Spirit w i t h i n the divin e economy, so

demonstrating that the works he wishes ro ascribe to the Spirit are not

necessarily those of the Son and are properly those of the Spirit The

ar gum ent begins w i t h the assertion [t] he onl y singular immedi ate act of

the petson of the Son on the human nature was the assumption of it in to

subsistence w i t h h i m s e l f ? The defence of this point is exegetical, w i t h

references to some of Owen's commentaries In these references the

ar gum ent seems to be devoted to assetting the posi tive — that thi s was

indeed an immedi ate act of the Son — rather than the negative - that there

are no other immediate acts of the Son

Second, and again quoting, ' the only necessary consequent of thi s

assump tion of the hu man nature . . is rhe personal union of Cfoist, or

the inseparable subsistence of the assumed nature in the pets on of the Son ^

I n passing it is w o r t h no t i ng that the enhypostatia is again to t he fore, but

the mai n poin t is that, again, Owe n s defence is directed toward the

positive case, that this is in fact a necessary consequence Th e defence of

b o t h negative cases comes in the t h i r d part of the argument, devoted to

p r o vin g '[tjhat all other actings of God in the person of the Son towatds the

h u m a n nature were voluntary, and did nor necessarily ensue on the union

mentione d " Wh y so? Because of the f o r m of the communicatio

idiomatum tha t Owen ho lds to: for there was no transfusion of the

propertie s of one nature int o the other , nor real physical {i.e phusis- cal;

f r o m nature to natute] communication of divine essential excellencies unto

9

John Owen Works

(ed W H Goold; London. Banner of Truth 1965) III p 1601 0 Owen Works III p 160I L Owen Works III p r6r

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



the hum ani ty 1 1 O w e n s a r gum ent for th i s pr opos i t i on is t w o f o l d : f i rst , he

rehearses i n a compact f o r m one of the standard Reformed arguments to

th e effecr rhat th e communicatio does no t necessarily i m p l y a c om m uni c at i on

f r o m natute to natute; second he relies on an exegetical p o i n t to do w i t h

know l ed ge I n M k 1 3 3 2 . the Son does n o t k n o w the day and the hour

that th e Father has appointed ; m or e s t r i k i ng l y , in Rev r. 1, th e revelationha d to be g i v en by the Father to the now -gl or i f i ed Jesus - i t was no t his

i n t u i t i v e l y or by r i ght , despite hi s ascension to the r i g h t hand of the

Father O w en reads bo th o f these as references to the l i m i t e d know l ed ge of

the human nature, and so argues that communications of know l ed ge , and

hence of other p roperties an d perfections, between th e nature s wete

voluntaty. Other, then, than the act of u n i o n and the consequent personal

u n io n , th e fact of incarnation demands that not hin g more be ascribed to

th e Son

Other theological reasoning, common to a l l sttands of the t r adi t i o n ,

demands that th e Sp i r i t is the immediate, peculiar, efficient cause ' 3 of all ad

extra d ivine works Owen qual i fies this w i t h a brief discussion of the

doctrine of appr opr i a t i on, a l though w i t h o u t n a m i n g it as such, and further

asserts tha t , as the Sp i r i t is the Sp i r i t of the Son, and not jus t of the Fathet,

i t is appropriate to insist that [wjhatever the Son of God w r o u g h t i n , by,

or upon th e hum an nature, he d i d it by the H o l y G hos t .

I n another w o r k , th e Christologia, m any of the same po i nts are made I n

the chapter on the 'bypostatical unio n' (c h X V I I I ) , four heads are treated:

the assumption of the hum an nature; th e consequent u n i o n of the tw o

natures in the single per son; th e 'm utual c om m uni c at i on o f those d istinct

natures ; and the possible pr edication that therefore fol lows Th e ineffable

assumption of the (anhypostatic) h uman nature by rhe d ivin e Logos is the

first and mosr basic act - i t is an act of th e T r i n i t y , i n tha t it is purposed b y

th e Father, wh o sent his Son 'i n the likeness of si nf ul flesh'; it is carried out

by the Son, in the actual act of assumption; and it is b r o u g h t to c om pl et i on

by the Sp i r i t , in the f r a m i n g of the huma n nature in the w o m b of the

v i r g i n - L k 1 3 5 Once again, however, the basic insistence fo l l ow s : the

assumption was the onl y immediate act of the d ivine natute on the hum an

person o f the Son ' 4

The hypostatic union is the f i rst consequence of rhe act of assumption

The orthodox conditions ate rehearsed an d respected: th e uni on took place

w i t h o u t any change of the d ivine nature; w i t h o u t ei ther division or

1 1

Owen Works II I p 16T

1 3 Owen Works, I II p 1611 4 Owen Works I p 2.2.5

HOLMES Reformed Varieties of the C om m uni c at i o I d i om atum 8 1

confusion of the two natures, and subst antial ly rather than accidentally. A t

t h is po i nt O w en suggests tha t th e error of Nest oriu s had re-appeared i n his

day, an d offers an analysis an d c r i t i c i sm of it I w i l l r e tur n to this

The various communications of the tw o natures are careful ly

enumerated: th e d ivine nature communicates i n three ways to the hum an:

subsistence, w h i c h is to say the enhypostatic existence of the anhypostaticnature; by filling th e hum an nature w i t h th e fullness of grace, w h i c h ,

however, Owen is careful to say is not an i m m ed i a te act, bu t [ b } y th e H o l y

S p ir i t ; 1 5 a nd the g i f t of w o r t h an d d i g n i t y Three further points are made

concerning th e c o m m u n i o n of the natures w i t h i n th e hypostatic uni on, i n

e xp l ic i t oppos i t i on to L uther an accounts of the communicatio idiomatum:

each nature preserves i ts ow n properties; each nature operates in the one

person according to its essential properties; and ye t evety act of Christ is an

act of the person, not of one of the natures, because onl y th e person

subsists, and so onl y the person can act H ow ev er , an d finally, the

p o s s ib i l i t y of any particula r action mig ht be determined by reference to

on e 01 b o t h of the natures, and so one f o r m of possible p redic ation

concerning rh e incarnate Son is to fo l l ow Leo and speak i m pr oper l y ,

a l t h o u g h no t w i t h o u t reason, of particular actions be l ongi ng to particular

natures It is also possible to speak - aga i n i m pr oper l y , but not w i t h o u t

reason, across th e natures, so to speak: God putchasing th e c hur c h w i t h his

o w n b l ood is the now-standard example This is the communicatio

idiomatum

The effect of O w en s C hr i s to l ogy is prof ound Clearly th e radical

d is t in ct io n between the two natutes denies an y a t tem pt to defend th e real

presence of the body and blo od of C hr i s t in the elements o n the altar on the

basis of a real communication of attr ibutes between th e natures 1 6

H ow ev er , and as has been po i nted o ut before, i t also has a particular

effect concerning sancti fication: if one believes, as Owen did, that th e only

direct act of the Son was the assumption of the hum an natute , and tha t the

hypostatic union was the onl y necessary consequence of tha t act, t h e n all

else - an d in particular the sancti fication of C hr i s t - is a w o r k of the Sp i r i t

i n th e l i fe of a hum an be i ng I hus , the c om m and to 'be h o l y as I am h o l y ,

an d th e ancient spi rit ual advice to engage in the imitatio Christi, can have

new force: th e Jewish m a n Jesus C hr i s t can be i m i ta ted because he was Tik e

1 5 Owen Works 1 p 2.33

' fi I am. of course, aware that there arc other possible defences oi trans- or

consubstantiation. not the least being straightforward exegesis of the dominical words of

institution; my argument is not about the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, but about theperson of Christ

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Sz The Person of Christ

us in every way, sin apart, and so this Christology leads directly to a robust

account of sanctif ication , a top ic of part icula r interest to the Refo rmed, and

another facet of their dispute w i t h the Lutherans Fina l ly, the strong

insistence on the cont inui ng distinctiveness of the tw o natures leads

naturally to a statement of the extra calvinisticum which, while i t was a part

of cathol ic Weste rn doctrine before the Reformation , nonetheless becameanother fla sh-p oint in disputes betwee n Luth eran and Refor med. So I

suggest that Owe n s Chri sto log y can be described as a dis tin cti vel y

Reformed Christology because it grows out of Reformed concerns, and

feeds and support s disp ute d Refo rmed positi ons The ques tion must be,

however: is it o rthodox ?

Ihe suspicion of Nestorian tendencies has hun g around Ca lvin s

Christology for a very long time; I u r r e t i n is careful to avoid

Nestor i ani sm , but does so by avoid ing any positiv e teach ing abou t th e

nature o£ the hypost atic un io n at all; surely whe n we get to Owe n, and a

m u ch more radical dis tin cti on of the natures, we are faced w i t h rampant

Nestorianism, and no amount of squirming w i l l get h i m off the h ookI h i s Christ ology mig ht be distincti vely Reformed, but i t is also

s r t a ig h t fo r w a r d ly heretical Or so the charge w i l l go I t w o u l d , I t h i nk ,

not be d i f f i c u l t to show that Owen's doctrine lies w i t h i n the bounds of

Chalcedonian otthodoxy, but i t might also not be hel pfu l : the history of

th e Eastern churches, and particularly the Eastern monasr eries, after

Chalcedon is eloquent tes timo ny to a widespread suspicion th at the

C o u n ci l gave too muc h to the Nestotian s in oppo sing Eutyches,

part icular ly in i ts acceptance o f Leo s Tome Indeed, in the Bazaar,

Nestorius himself seems happy w i t h t he Chalcedonian de fini tion , and i t is

not obvious that this is merely a pol i t ical move, al thou gh i t certainly is

tha t So inste ad let me t u r n to C y t i l h i m sel f , w hi c h w i l l in any case be

necessary to make the point concerning Coli n Gunton 's Christolo gical

in t u i t io n s w i t h which I began

Nestorius's great comp laint against C y r i l , an d indeed Apoll i nari us, was

rhat for the former to say that God the Son was born, or the lattet to say

that God the Son accepted sufferings , I ? was to make a category mista ke;

he held (as indeed did C y t i l and Apol l ina rius ) that God, being immu tab le

and impassible, could not be bo tn or suffer Chri st could suffer, and be

b o r n - th e V i r g i n could be honoured as thiistofokos — but only because

Christ had a human nature of which b i r t h and suffering couid properly be

t ?

Nestorius: Ihe Bazaar of Rerachides (trans G R Driver and L Hodgson; Oxford:Clarendon, 192.5) I i 48 (p 39) for the quotation and I I i (p 148) for the point about Godihe Son being born

HOLMES Reformed Varieties of the C om m uni c at i o I d i om atum 83

predicated , s Behind this refusal to use the language lies a more basic issue

Nestorius f inally refused ro give any significant ontological depth to the

u n io n of natures in the incarnation, arguing only for a union of prosopa,

w h i c h in his ontology more or less correspond to the medieva l idea of

accidents, in that they are the empirical qualia that attach to a t h i ng , but

not the t h i n g i t se l f .19

Because of this , Nestorius w o u l d no t accept that theC h u r ch could correctly speak of the divine Son as the possessor or agent of

h u m a n properties or actions, nor w o u l d he accept th e convetse, speaking of

th e Jewish m an Jesus as the possessor or agent of div ine properties or

actions Ih e Christ , as the complex interwe aving of the two sets of qualia,

of properties and actions, could be spoken of in either sense, but the Christ ,

as such an interweaving and nothing more, was not an ontological ly

significant being Ih e classical cr i t ic isms of Nestorius i n undergraduate

textbooks, that he desctibed the incarnation l ike two stars, so close in l ine

that they shine as one, although one is unimaginably further away f r o m us

t h a n the other, are unfair, but they capture the essence of the problem A l l

rhat is onto logi call y signi fican t for Nest orius re mains tw o, and so we mu st

be careful wha t we say - there is no real comm uni cat ion of properties, and

so to speak as if there is must be improper. 1 0

C y r i l , by contrast, started f r o m the fundamenta l posi tion that the

incarnate Son was one I be Christ , to wh om bot h div ine and hu ma n

predicates ma y be appl ied, must be of decisive ontol ogica l significance

T har aspect of Cyri ls thought that Col in found so appeal ing, the flat

refusal to divide up the actions of Chtist int o divine and human actions,

instead insisting they all flow from the one incarnate Son, a single actor,

grows f r o m th i s s tar t i ng-po i nt

Moreover, we do not allocate the statements of our Savior in the

Gospels either to two bnpottaseis or indeed to two persons, for theone and only Christ is not twofold, even if he be considered as from

two entities and titey different, which had been made itico an

inseparable unity Therefore, to one person must all the

1 Bazaai I iii (p 99)I1J Bazaar I i 57-68 (pp 53-63) and see also the editors comments on pp 411-18

2 0 This becomes clear in the later development of the Nestorian tr adi tion , wherein ousiaand hypostasis are not separated (as they were not at Nicaea, of course), and so the incarnationis described as a personal union of two hypostaseis. as by Babai the Great in the fitst half of theseventli century

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



statements in the Gospels be ascribed, to the one incarnate bupostasis

of the Word . 1 1

C y r i l ' s Chris tolog y invites expl ic ation thro ug h the anhypostatic and

enhyp ostati c elements of the hum an natu re: the 'one incarnate subject of

th e W o r d is a 'singl e person ': Cyri l 's usual phrase is mia phusis, bur this is

already unhappy in bis own w r i t i n g , in that he also uses phusis for the

d iv in e and hum an natures that ate uni te d in the incarnat e Son, and he

clearly does not mean the same t h i n g by the w o r d i n b o t h cases, as he

denies the obvious and inevitable result of such usage, that the incarnate

Son is neither d iv in e nor human but a tertium quid X i I n the later conciliar

languag e, the one hypostasis of the Di vi ne Son becomes incarnate; because

the incarnate Son is one person and one hypostasis, his human nature is

necessarily anhypostatic, has no independent subsistence, b u t because there

is a real human existence of the incarnat e Son, the hum an nature is also

enhypostatic , subsists t r u l y i n and rhrou gh the particular subsistence of the

D i v i n e Son

G i v e n th i s , the Cyr i l l i an and conci l iar understanding of the communicatio

idiomatum is as fo llows: al l tha t is said of the incarnate Son is pro per ly

predic ated of the Di vi ne Son - necessarily, as the hum an it y of Chr ist is

anhyp ostatic - bu t it is said onl y of the Di vi ne Son in his incarnate state

The qual i f ication is decisive for C y r i l - it is almo st the enti re conten t of his

second letter to Nes tor ius , for instance Henc e, again, the infamou s twelf th

anathema f r o m th e t h i r d letter : Whoever does no t acknowledge Go d s

W o r d as havin g suffered in the flesh, being crucified in the flesh, tasted de ath

in the flesh, and been made first-born f rom the dead because as God he is

Life an d l i f e - g i v i n g shall be anathema' (my emphasis). C y r i l , l ik e the

Fathers of Chalcedon, wants to af f irm d iv in e i m pas s i b i l i ty s t r ongl y , 1 *

1 1 Ep 17:13-14, in John I. McEnerney (trans), St Cyril of Alexandria. Letters 1-50(Fathers of the Church, 76; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press 1987)87 The Greek can be found in T H Bindle y, 7 be Oecumenical Documents ofthe Faith (rev F WGreen; London: Methuen , 1950 )

" I his would seem to be what Nestorius understood Cy ril ro mean; Cyr il s denials shouldhave been clear enough but his language d id perhaps invite the confusion.

1 J 'We confess that he the Son begotten of God the Father and only begotten God,though being incapable of suffering according to his own nature, suffered i n his own flesh forour sake according to the Scriptures, and that he made his own the sufferings of his own fleshin his crucified body impassibly . (Ep 17 11 {p 85] ); Thus we say that he also sufferedand rose again, not that the Wor d of God suffered in his own nature, or received blows or waspierced, or received the othet wounds, for the divin e cannot suffer since it is incorporeal B utsince his own body, which had been born, suffered these things, he himself is said to have

suffered them for our sake For he was the one, incapable of suffering, in the body whichsuffered (Ep 4 5 [p 40 ]) Many other examples could be offtrtd

HOLMES Reformed Varieties of the C o m m u n i c a t i o I d i o m a t u m 85

w h i l e also being able to say that God the Son suffered, in his incarnate

state

A l t h o u g h a l l this invoc ation of the anhypostatic- enhypostatic form ula is

anachronistic i n discussing C y r i l , i t seems to me that it is very helpful

I h a t the Jewish man Jesus Christ subsists only in the d iv in e natute of the

W o r d and, concomir antly , that the doings and sufferings of that Jewishma n ate the doings and sufferings of the W o t d , i n his incarna te state, is

almost the sum total of C y r i l s claims Giv en that , I hope it is now obv iou s

f r o m my preceding ex positio n of Owen s Christ ology , and his continu al

insistence on the an hypostatic-en hypostatic subsistence of the human

nature, that bis Christology is not incomparible w i t h C y r i l s; indeed, that

it might even be described as vety compatible 1 4 As usual, C o l i n G unt on s

theo l ogi c a l i n t u i t i o n was spot on

One last p o in t , however: even if it can be reduced to the same d ogm at i c

fo r m u la e , there is that about Owen's Christology that feels Nesrorian to us;

can we explain this, and then explain it away? I t h i n k we can: Owe n s grea r

in s ig h t is to investigate what is necessary to hypostatic u n io n ; and his

answer, l ik e the answers to the successive patristic versions of the same

question, was cerrainly noth ing that involves the confusion or d i m i n u t i o n

of the natures So, to take the most coun ter- intu itive mome nt of the

patristic development, can there s t i l l be hypostatic union if there is mote

t h a n on e v o l i t i o na l centre i n Christ ? Yes, comes the orthodox answer, nor

least because to deny the presence of a human w i l l w i t h the monothel i tes

w o u l d be to damage the human nature irreparably Owen's key move turns

no t on w i l l i n g , but on k n o w i n g : to put the p o i n t i n C y r i l - l i k e rhetoric, the

om ni sc i ent d iv in e Son is , in his human nature, simply ignorant of certain

facts, and needs to have the m revealed to hi m by the Father th roug h the

Spir it

The great p o i n t here, and it is a p o in t w h ich I t h i n k C y r i l s own

repeated example, of the W o r d s impassible suffering in the h uman na ture,

also confirms, alrhough I have no time to show how here, is that the

" 4 The ninth anathema of Cyril might appear to exclude Owen s positions but in fact doesnot: Lf anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, and theLord was using the power which was throu gh the Spirit as if it belonged t o someone else, andsays the Lord received from the Spitit thi power to act against unclean spirits, and to completeamong men the miracles and does noi rarher say that the Spirit is his very own through whom hehas performed mirailes let him be anathema (my emphasis) As can be seen Cyr il s concern isnot to anathematize those who — like Owen - believe that the mitacles of rhe Incarnate Onc

were performed in the power of the Spirit; indeed, the anathema exp lici tly affirms this in the

words I have italicized Rather, the idea that the Spirit is foreign to Christ, 'belonged tosomeone else and is not 'his very own' is the concern

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



hypostatic u n io n does not requir e a singl e psycholog ical centre A deni al of

theopaschit ism, oppo sition to monot hel i t i sm, and an affi rmat ion of Owe n s

p o i n t about ignorance, al l point in this direction. In our culture which

conflates the personal and the psychological, this is d i f f i c u l t to grasp, but i t

is surely also necessary to grasp I r i n i t a r i a n d ogm a w o u l d make the same

p o in t , after al l , albei t in a differ ent dire ctio n - in the Godhead is one w i l l ,

one w o r k i n g , one act ivi ty, one energy, and so on, as John Damascene

insists, bu t there are three persons. I n the hypos tatic u n io n there is one

person of the W o r d incarnate, but tw o w i l l i n g s , tw o know i ngs , tw o

w o r k in g s , and so on A n d so the Refo rme d and cathol ic emphasis o n the

transcendent freedom of the Wo r d even in the incarnatio n - the extra

calvinisticum — and the distinc tive ly Reforme d emphasis on the true

h u m a n i t y of the incarnate W o r d , g r o w i n g , l ear ni ng new thi ngs , able to

act, and to be holy, only as empowered by the Spirit, are in simple

c o n t i n u i t y not just w i t h Chalcedon, but w i t h Ephesus, C y r i l and the

anathemas

What prevents this f r o m being Nestorian is the hypostatic u n io n , the

single person of the incarnate W o r d . I n concihar Christo logy the u n io n is

hypostatic , not psychological , however, and what establishes the person as

one is not psychology but ontology. Ownership is perhaps a helpful way of

l o o k i n g a t th i s : 1 5 Cyri l ' s demand is not that the Divi ne W or d suffers,

simplkiter — he kno ws this to be im poss ible — bu t tha t he suffers in his

hu man natu re Ih e decisive po in t is tha t the suffe rings are his, and not

another's . An d w i t h Owe n, the omniscient W o rd knows the thoughts of

the Jewish man Jesus Christ just as he knows my thoughts and yours. But,

u n iq u e ly and decisively, he knows the thoughts of Jesus to be his own, in

his human nature, and not another s Such an understanding al lows the

necessary concerns of bot h An rio ch and Alexandria , both Refor med and

Lutheran, to be held together

And. indeed one suggested by the quotations from Cyril in n 23 above

Chapter 5

Person and Nature: A Critique of

the Necessity-Freedom Dialectic in

John Zizioulas

D o u g l a s F a r r o w

Joh n Zizioula s s preoccupation w i t h the dialectic of necessity and

freedom is not absent in the patristic sources he prizes, such as the

Cappadocians, bu t i t is more promin ent in the existential ism t hat

provides the immediate background to his theological project . Zizioulas

lays h o ld of this dialecti c and extends i t to us as the very bra nch by w h ich

we ma y escape f r o m the vortex of existential ist thought, and f r o m the

assorted intel lectual debris w h ich has been gathering around i t ovet the

last seventy years. 1 That is, he emplo ys it in the service of an ecclesiology

w h i c h dares to present itself as an ontology of personhood, an ontology

w h i c h has at its heart wh at even the most opti mis tic exist enti alis m does

n o t , v iz , a concept of freedom thr oug h love: freedom thr oug h being as an

act of koinonia w i t h G od i n w h ich al l necessity is transcended

Wh e n the chu rch is view ed in this way - that is, as the di vi ne answer to

the challenge to human personhood posed by necessity, by nature, by

finitude — i t i s immedi ate ly obvious that ecclesiology w i l l rescue onto l ogy,

b o t h f r o m the d o l d r um s i nto w h ich i t has fal len in Westet n th oug ht and

f r o m the attack of the sceptical existential ists 1 This otientation of

See already Human Capacity and Incapacity Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975):401-47.

In The Beauty of the Infinite (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) David Hart makes a quitedifferent rescue attempt that relies on a different way of reading the Cappadocians

87

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



Z i z i oul as s eccksiology to ontol ogy is one of the reasons w hy Wester n

theologians find i t both foreign and fascinating For the churc h is not viewed

merely as an instrument of divine grace in the face of human sin, or as a sign

of divine sovereignty in human history, or as a model for renewed forms of

human social i ty S t i l l less is it viewed merely as an in s t i t u t io n , however great

or hu mb le It is vie wed rathet as an antbrop ic - and indee d a cosmic - sine

qua non In a peti od of West ern uncerta inty about the church , and about i ts

place in the modern w o r l d , Zizio ulas offers us an ecclesiology tha t is no th in g

less than ontology, indispensable ontology, but an ontology attuned, for al l

its patristic ttappings, to modem questions and difficulties 3

Nei th er the ecclesiology, nor the dialectic that serves i t , i s unproble-

m at i c how ev er Me tr opo l i tan John w i l l f orgi ve me, I m sure, if I explor e

these thing s, in an appreciative but cti t ical vein I begin, as is necessaty, b y

rehearsing what is already w e l l rehearsed. 4

P e t s o n h o o d as F r e e d o m f r o m Nec ess i ty

In the Cappadocians, c laims Ziziou las, the being of God is identi fi ed w i t h

the Father, hence w i t h a hypo stat ic or personal mo de of existence The

Father i s the sel f-gr oundi ng gro un d of God s existence and the principle of

d iv in e unity. God therefore is not bound by any necessity of substance, but

lives in and f r o m the freedom of the Father s se l f -d eter m i nat i on as Father 5

God's being as Father - as the one who readies himself for communion by

lo v in g ly begetting the Son and breathing the Spiri t , w i t h o u t any

compulsion whatever - is a transcendence of the necessity w h i c h otherwise

mus t characterize t hat being in its sheer absoluteness It is in vie w of the

onto l ogi c a l p r i o r i t y of the Father, hence of hypostasis over ousia, that we can

make the ontolog ical equatio n: being = comm un ion = freedom 6

A u t h e n tic being is personal being, w h i c h means also inter-peisonal being, or

3 Some might suggest that it is attuned too much to modern questions, or at least chargethat Zizioulas misreads his patristic sources i n such a way as to favour his own project. Thatmay be the case (see e g Lucian Turcescu's ' Person" versus Indiv idual ", and Other ModernMisreadings of Gregory of Nyssa' Modern Theology l8 4 (2002): 527-39. but it does notfollow that his project is the worse for it the Cappadocians may be wrong where Zizioulas isright.

4 My task can only be performed by thinking simultaneously (as he does) theologically andChtisto logical ly, as well as ecclesiologically about the nature of personhood This meanscovering some familiar ground

5 The Father-person s being is in his self-disposal for kohionia with the Son and the Spirit,and so in his causing and communing with Son and Spirit, and this is God s being in freedom

6 Being as Communion (Crestwood: St Vladi mir's Seminary Press 1985), 4°ff ^ n e

equation is also epistemological. of course: being = communion = freedom = truth

FARROW Person and Nature 89

being free even f r o m oneself! A n d if this is true where God is concerned,

then creaturely being (wh ich depends upon God) w i l l have also to be

considered in the same l i g h t Persons and person hood and the event of

c o m m u n i o n w i l l have conceptual p r i o r i t y over being or substance or

nature

N o w personhood is somet hing w h i c h Zizioulas expounds by employing

the te tm ekstasis alongside hypostasis. The former indicates fr eedo m for th e

other, and indeed the investment and discovery of one's own being in the

other. The latter (when paired w i t h ekstasis) indicates fr eedo m for th e

w h o le , w h ich is also freedom for oneself i n one s ow n partic ular i ty as bearer

of the whole 7 Ih e two terms thus w o r k together to delineate a concept of

personhood, and of communion, w h i c h posits a perichoretic capacity for

cath olic ity This not ion of the person as 'catholic is a comp lex one, abou t

w h i c h more w i l l have to be said; it is directly l in k e d , of course, to an

ecclesial anthropol ogy Bu t why has Zizioulas tagged the entire discussion

of personhood to the problem of necessity?

For Zizioulas, as for many existentialists, necessity is the ultimate threat or

challenge to personh ood. The t r u l y authentic person is the one who exists i n

unco mpro mised freedom, who is determ ined in his existence by no necessity

whatever Zizioulas, c i t i n g Gregory of Nyssa, 8 fo l l ow s thr oug h w i t h th i s

logic The t t u l y authentic person is uncaused and uncreated, and (not being

b o u n d even by himself ) has his being in commu nio n He is in fact the Father,

apart f r o m whom we ourselves w o u l d have no capacity for freedom, no

knowledge of personhood, and hence n o i n t u i t i o n of the threat to personhood

posed by the inter preta tion of our being in impersonal (i e substantial ist or

even mechanist ic) t erms That we do have such an i n t u i t i o n i s the moment of

t t u t h i n existent ial ism Moreover, as everyone knows, creaturely freedom is

threatened by necessity, and not merely by a necessitarian w o r ld -v ie w O ur

being, rhat is to say, is threatened by non-being, w h i c h presents itself in the

f o r m of the demands of biological existence Ihese demands are reminders of

death, i n al l i ts in e v i t a b i l i t y , an d come t o us as debi l i t atin g distractions f r o m

the authentical ly personal mode of existence w h i c h constitutes real being

Perhaps some further elaboration is in order, though we are s t i l l on

familiar t e r r i t o r y Because of the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit

are true persons also Th ou gh they are not themselves uncaused, th ey

belong to the Father's own being as a bei ng- in- com mun ion ; as such t hey

are etern al If they are caused, their cause (and its consequence) is freedom

7

Hence it does double duty, indicating both freedom for and freedom from oneselfGreat Catechism 5 (Zizioulas. 'Human Capacity and Incapacity' 428)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



i tsel f 9 The huma n person, however, is both caused and created Since he

belongs to the creaturely, w h i c h i s not eternal , he is bound by al l manner

of creaturely mechanisms of cause and effect . He is bound indeed by his

f initude, by his biolo gica l nature, by the necessities of his body, and by the

self-centredness w h i c h al l of this inevit abl y entai ls I f he is to be free at al l ,

if his personhood is to be realized, he must overcome his natural or

biologica l hypostasis , and al l that i t stands for . This he does by way of his

bapt i sm al or ecclesial hypostasis, w h i c h he gains t h r o u g h the l i ber a t i ng

c om m uni on o f the c hur c h, t h r o u g h i t s c or porate par t i c i p at i on i n the

freedom of the d iv in e persons. Th at is ho w he too gains a uth ent ic

personhood For hi m personho od is a vocat ion, a ptocess, a destin y I t is

ecclesial in natu re, l i t u r g ica l ly accessed, and eschatological ly consum

mate d Personhood, prop erly speakin g, is the result of deific ation 1 0

Zizioulas thu s takes up the concern of the existential ists - reversing the

t r a d i t io n a l association of real being w i t h necessity — but also takes his leave

of them , so that he may contin ue in the compan y of the fathers His

onto l ogy of personhood may be tagged to the problem of necessi ty but i t is

made to rest on the doctrines of the I r i n i t y an d of the inca rnat ion; on th e

c l a i m that the incarnate Son becomes the cond uit for hu man beings of the

personal izing po wer of the Father an d the l iber ati ng effects of the Spirit.

V i e w e d eschatologic al ly as the chur ch, the incar natio n is i tsel f the

complete overcoming of nature, necessi ty and death, via the advent of free

and authentic hu man personhood I t is the petson al izatio n of the not yet

personal . And t h r o u g h the church the cosmos as a whole is destined to

become an ac t o f c om m uni on, p a r t ic ip a t in g thus w i t h man in the eternity

of God. For the priestly m i n i s t r y o f redeemed hu ma ni ty is such as to

enable nature to be in freedom 1 1

9 The aitea concepr obviously undergoes alteration here, since where the I r in i ty isconcerned what is caused partakes fully in the freedom of its cause (the Father) T his alterationmay be worth exploring We may nevertheless have to ask whether it is possible, on thisscheme to understand the Son and the Spirit as personal in the same sense as the Father. D othe Son and the Spirit require, as we do. to be personalized, and thus also to be made to be? i fso are they as authen tical ly personal as the Father is? An d are we to regard the Father'spersonhood as something (logically) prior to his communion with the Son and the Spirit?

1 0 Deification is a trinitarian event, as Irenaeus long ago taught It rests first of all on thefact that the uncreated Son becomes a human being, linking God and man in his own personIt rests also upon the work of the Spi rit who reconstitutes us (in the church) as one corporatehypostasis with Christ so that we may participate in his uncreated nature and in his eternalfreedom as the Father's Son Ult imat ely, of course, it rests upon the Father who is freedom

and who gives freedomSee Being as Communion. l o i f f

FARROW Person and Nature

I n sum, natur e spel ls necessi ty b ut deifica tion spel ls freedom f r o m

necessiry, t h r o u g h the o verc omin g of nature in a person al izing acr w h ich

produces the church Ecclesioiogy, t hen , is the (phi los ophica l) ant idot e

Zizioulas offers to existential ist anxiety and despair about authentic

existence For ecclesioiogy is precisel y an analysis of the tran sfo rma tio n of

the stuff of necessity i n t o the stuff of freedom; w h i c h is also to say, it is an

analysis of the eucharis t In the eucha ristie synaxis an d koinonia, in the

Great Ih an ks gi vi ng , the conditi ons ate cteated for creaturely nature to

transc end its elf and to conquer every necessity — to have its being in t he

l ib e r t y of God, whose synactic p r in c ip le of u n i t y is the Father, and whose

o w n being as t r iu n e c om m uni on i s a j o y f u l transcendence of all

nec ess i ty .11

C a t h o l i c i t y a n d P e r s o n h o o d

Ihe free or authentic person, we have said, is the catholic person: the

person who l ives katholou, w h ich is possible o n l y i n and t h t o u g h the

chur ch A cat holi c person is free because he has roo m for the oth er - i nde ed

fo r all others - in himse lf The other is no long er a source of conf lict or of

compulsion, but rather an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o m m u n i o n 1 3 The cathol ic

person, as a uniqu e and unrepeatable source of this co mm un ion , is capable

of bear i ng hum an natur e i n i t s ent i r e ty , o f m aki ng i t be 1 4

N o w one is not mista ken to see a variety of influences in the b ackg roun d

here . I he R om ant i c s , H e gel , H ei d egger , B uber , et at., hav e c ontr i b ut i ons

to make Bu t obvious ly there are older resources i n C hr i s t i an neopl a toni sm

w h i c h are less l ik e ly to lead in a no n- or even anti -ecclesial direct ion. The

best such resources are Denys and Max imu s, to w h o m Z i z i oul as f r eq uen t l y

appeals W ha t we f i n d i n Ma xim us especial ly is a concept of cath ol ici ty

that takes up the mictocosm/macrocosm dialectic of Gteek phi losophy,

r e in ve n t in g i t on a C hr i s to l ogi c a l and l i t u r g ica l t em pl ate Z i z i oul as

a tguabl y goes beyond t h is , however, in developin g the cath ol ici t y of

human personhood in terms of the imago Irinitatis, and in terms of

perso nhoo d as such I have elsewhere expressed certain reservations ab ou t

1 1 Understood as act rather than object, and more particularl y as an act of the Holy Spir it -celebrated by the people of God together with their episcopal eikon of the Father - theeucharist constitutes the church in its true being

' 3 The catholic person is undivided internally (for he is given his integri ty from without)or externally (since in the Spirit difference does not mean division)

1 4

Hence the church is reconstituted, in some quite fundamental sense with each baptism, while remaining itself

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


94 ihe Person of Christ

person w i t h o u t ceasing to be a d iv in e person? Ih at he is in fact a divine

and a human person? Of course it w o u l d not be more accurate unless it

w er e po i nted out w i t h Chalcedon that there is no d o u b l i n g of persons, as

there is of natures; that the incarnate one is the d iv in e person as a human

p e r s o n . 1 1 Nevertheless w e should be clear that there is here a human

person, one whose personhood is del ineated both by the eternal relation of

the Father ro the Son and by a tempor al relation of the same Son to the

F a t h e r , i J and to us Ih is and' (or rather, both these and's) w i l l have to be

taken in t o conside ration whe n we examine the second part of Zizioula s s

t w o f o l d answer

Let us explore further the d i f f i c u l t y w i t h th e first part , however, by

q u e r y in g the way in w h i c h Zizioulas undetstands personhood, w h i c h he

says is a schesis. 'I hi s (as far as it goes) ma y seem unobje ctionable , but

p la in ly we cannot s imp ly equate th e person w i t h th e schesis, as Zizio ula s

appears to do C an we say of the Father tha t his person is const itu ted by his

father ly relation to the Son? Und oubt ed l y , but w hen w e go on to speak of

his relation to the Spitit we make cleat (unless we adopt a radical f i l ioquist

stance) that there is more to the Father than this fatherly schesis. l i k e w i s e ,

mutatis mutandis, w i t h the Son It is this mor e' w h i c h makes possible a

repet it ion turn a l te ta t i on i n schesis w i t h o u t d es t r oyi ng the u n i t y of his

person I t is this 'mo re , in other words, w h i c h makes possible his

incarnation In the incarn ation a d iv in e petson an d a hu ma n person are one

and rhe same person; and yet this one person is related to the Father as son

1 1 Here we may appeal to anhy postas is and en hypostasis The poin t of the former, as ofthe latter is not to deny the concreteness of the Son's humanity — hence also his human

personhood - but to affirm it , by denying th at it belongs to another R igh tly regarded, rhesedoctrines serve to clarify t hat, while rhe personhood of the incarnate Son is subject toconsideration from the standpoin t ot temporal as well as eternal relations and of a human as well as a divine nature, the Son is but one petson This is not because as a person he issomehow independent of these relations or these natutes. nor yet because only one set ofrelations (the eternal) and only one nature (rhe divine) are really his Certainl y i t is not becausehis person can be regarded as the sum of both the eternal and the temporal relations, or as theproduct of both the divine and the human natures; no such sum and no such product existThe incarnate Son is but one person because, as has just been said, he is the divine petsonbeing a human petson. Cf Karl Barth Church Dogmatics I 2 I47f f . ^59^1 Aquinas Sun/maTheologian 111 2 4.

1 3 When we ask about this temporal relation from the perspective of the Father who doesnot himself become temporal or creaturely ir can only be replied that it is mediated interna llyby the Son Any other reply is li kely to resulr in Nestoria nism, and ro impl y a breach betweenthe immanent and the economic Trinity Colin Gunton's attempt in The Christian Faith to

bypass this point pneumatologically leads to an inverse form of monothelirism, for whichreason it must be rejected See Gun ton , The Christian Faith (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002) rogf


i n two distin ct ways, as God to Go d and as man to Go d. 1 4 We ought

therefore to deny that personhood is a schesis - even if it is necessary t o

t h i n k in terms of partic ular consti tut ive relations in order to t h i n k o f

persons an d personhoo d at all - for there is no t h i r d or archetypal schesis

behi nd these t w o , t o h o ld them togethet A nd these two real ly are two, just

as Christ s natures are two, w i t h o u t C hr i s t be i ng tw o per sons .15

The dangeri n Zizioulas 's construct is that i t cannot f a i l to un der min e eith er one or the

other of these claims

N o w w i t h every sentence of such a discussion we are in danger of using

words an d concepts to mediate between God and man rather than l e t t in g

the mediato r mediate Ih at is , we are in danger of f a i l i n g to take in t o

account that tetms such as person and nature and schesis must n ot be

employed i n a purely univocal way. Ih e person-na ture relation is one

t h i n g for Go d and another for man; to be a person is one t h i n g for God and

another for man; to he at all, even as an act of m u t u a l c o m m un i on, is one

t h i n g for God and another for man 1 6 For just this reason we must not fa i l

to say - not if we inte nd to take serious ly Chalcedon's dou ble homoousios -

that the incarnate Son is both a d iv in e and a human person, and we have

already seen that we must nor appeal to a single schesis or to the myst ery of

personhood as a way of avoi din g this ~ 7

4 Persons exist in and through personal relations not as these relations though they donot exist apart from these relations Relations can therefore be altered even if constitutionalThe poin t of Chalcedon is that, God being G od, the altetation which is the incarnarion doesnor undo the intra-divine or constitutional relation The eternal Son does not cease to be whohe is in taking on human natute; nor does he become another person in addition to himsel fHe does, however enter into a new and different telation to the Father in which he isconstituted as a man In this new and different relation it is perfectly appropriate to speak of

him as a human person, though for fear of adoptionism the tradition has been hesitant to do so(but cf Barth, Church Dogmatics I 2 i64f)

1 5 Two natures does not mean two persons, but it does mean two oncologLcally distinct ways of being personal For if natures cannot be abstracted f rom petsons - we may agree thatthere is no nature in the nude' — neither can persons be abstracted from natures - there is noperson in the nude either Therefore we cannot speak, as Zizioulas asks us to, of a person who'makes divine and human natutes to be that particular being called Christ ' We can only speakof a divine person who becomes and is a human person while no ting that this statement is notreversible: the human person is. but does not become the divine petson

If God, and only God is his own nature (Aquinas Summa Theologiae 1 39 1; cf II I 2 2),all of this follows

i / Could we not get round the whole prob lem, however, by observing that from Zizioulas spoint of view Chri st is not so much one person in two natures as a person, whose nature is tobe personal (and so to be) assuming an impersonal or individ ualist ic nature for the verypurpose of personalizing it (making it be)-' Would this not also permit us to answerSchleiermacher. who rejects the doctrine of the assiimpt'w in part because he supposes that itmust Lead back to docetism since the human nature in this way can only become a person in

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


cj8 The Person of Christ

t h is imago is itsel f understoo d in divi ne terms Li ke the Godh ead, i t is a

pet ichoret ic reality 3 3

N o w I do not w i sh t o w i t hdr aw f r o m the term 'deif icat io n Nor do I

w i sh to argue against t h e n o t io n t h a t h u m a n i t y , f u l l y achieved, is ecclesial,

or that ecclesial h u m a n i t y i s imago Trinitatis - 14 But I do t h i n k that we must

stop short of i d e n t i f y i n g human personhood, or human catholicity , or theecclesial mode of being, as a f o r m o f the divine perichoresis The 'de

i ndi v i du a l i za t i o n and deifica tion of the huma n person, as a bearer of the

Spir it together w i t h Jesus, does not mean t hat the hum an person is a

person in the same sense or in the same way that a divine person is a

person. We must not a llow (as Zizioulas does) a univocal use of the word

'person' in reference to bo th God and man, whether i n Chris t o log y or in

ecclesioiogy 3 5 W i t h respect t o d iv in e persons, i t is true to say that the

other divine persons are co-i nhere nt i n each, and therefore tha t the whole

of God is i n each W i t h respect to human persons, however, it is not true

to say that the others are co-inherent in each, or that the whole of man is in

each It is not tt ue to say that Jesus C h r is t is the church, or that each

communicant is Chris t and the church. 3 6 I t is true to say that every

member o f the church is in ' Chris t i n a way that is ontolo gical ly

dererminative for that member , and so also for the who le church , and

in d e e d fo r C h r is t 3 7 I n other wo rds, I do not w i sh to w i t h d r a w either f rom

Zizioulas s not ion that each Chr is t ian person makes ecclesial h u m a n i t y t o

be in a new and uni que way Bu t if this impli es a f o r m of perichoresis i t

5 3 It does appear that lot Zizioulas the term Christ has become synonymous withChurch and that both terms have become analogous to God' or 'Trinity' (the formerindicating Jesus. Mary John, etc . in their being as communion, just as the latter indicatesFather, Son and Spirit in their being as communion).

3 4

We need to be careful here, however for this claim requires us to admit that Jesus is theexpress image of the invisible God only in and with his church and not with out it

5 5 'The perfect man is only he who is authentically a person . who possesses amode of existence' which is constituted as being, in precisely the manner in which God also

subsists as being' (Being as Communion 55, emphasis his: see 54rf ) This univocity makes itdifficult to assign oncological weight to the Jesus of history: the teal hypostasis of Jesus wasproved to be not the biologica l one, but the eschatological or ttinitarian hypostasis (Being asCommunion n 49) And rhis in turn leads to formulations which underestimate Christ'shuman particular ity and undermine the pneumatology that Zizioulas wants t o encourage

3 <s See Being as Communion, 6of With respect to God, we may say that in and with theFathet (01 the Son or the Spirit) the Godhead is Respecting the church, however, rhings areotherwise Here we can say ' in and with Jesus Christ the church is: - if that is what Zizioulasreally means — but we cannot say that 'i n and with John Zizioulas or even 'in and withBishop John , the chutch is

, 7 This is where the and to us comes into play, for if the personhood of Jesus Christ is the

personhood of the eternal Son of God it ¡5 for all that a personhood not independent of that ofMary or even of Joseph

F AR R OW Person and Nature 99

does no r i m p l y the divine perichoresis, in w h i c h rhe God-man alone

part icipates 3 8 On the contrary, it implies a dis t i nct l y hum an f o r m of

perichoresis, albeit one w h i c h rests on the power of God: a perichoresis

w h i c h does no t make man God, but a llows men to share w i t h one another

the gifts o f God

What, then, is the nub of our disagreement about catholicity , ifdisagreement i t is? It is not a questi on of acceptin g or rejecting an

o n t o lo g y o f co m m u n io n , a eucharistic teali sm, or a doct tine of

deif icat ion 3 9 I t is a quest ion of adopting a vers ion of this ontology,

realism and doctr ine w h i c h does not comprom ise the dis t in ct i on between

the divine and the creaturely - e ither protolog icall y or eschatologically -

an d w h i c h does no t present the church as a k i n d of tert'tum quid between

God and man 4 0 I h i s w o u l d seem to be what Zizioulas himself wants , for

theosis, h e says, does nor mean part i cipat ion in the nature or substance of

God, but in His personal existence The goal of salva tion is that the

personal l i fe which is realised i n Go d should also be realised on the level of

h u m a n existence 4 1 But thi s dis t inc t io n between God s nature or substance

and his pets onal l i fe ' 01 personal existence' is itself problematic; indeed it

is not cleat how Zizioulas can make such a dis t inc t ion , or that we should

f o l l o w h i m in d o in g so A n d i t becomes even mor e proble mati c if the latt er

is abstracted in such a way as to make i t s tr ict l y transferable to h uma n

beings

3 We need not be embarrassed about saying the God-man alone , or about rhe fact that we cannot say how he participates (except 'enhypostatical ly) Nor should we imagine chat John 17 2i ff , e g , watrants a theological extension of his unique participation to the churchthough it certainly warrants an ecclesioiogy based on some form oianalogia communionis Cf A.Torrance Persons in Communion (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1996}, 30$f 'The Word of God ' didnot assume human nature in general bur 'i n atomo" — that is in an individual — as

Damascene says (De Fide Orrb i ii , 11)' remarks Aquinas; otherwise every man would be the Wor d of God, even as Christ was (Summa Theologiae II I 2 2) And even when we have heardZizioulas on the subject of individuality and taken into account that Christ and the Spirit aresent to liberate us from a false, self-enclosed form of the same and thought out oureschatology still we must say nothing to compromise rhe uniqueness of the God-man

3 9 I have agreed that creaturely personhood is a gift of participation with God. who alone(as the Trinity) is personal in se I have not agreed however, that human being is communionin the same sense that God s being is communion The difference is mediated by the God-man . not removed by the God-man Nor are we, like the God-man, ourselves mediators of thisdifference

4 0 Treating the uniopersonalis as something not affecting or touching the person wil l havesuch Eutychian effects

4 On the level of human existence (Being as Communion 50) it is worth noting that rhisconcern for the integriry of the human, and for rhe trinitarian — especially thepneumatologicai - und erpinnings of a theology that ttuly supports the human, is whatbound John Zizioulas and Colin Gunton together, notwithstanding the latter's rejection of'deification' as a concept injurious to that of creaturely int egri ty

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


I O O The Person of Cbust

This line of c r i t i c i s m means, of course, t h a t w e m u s t also quest ion

Ziz io u la s at a n u m b e r of related poin ts, just three of w h i c h can be

m e n t io n e d here F i r s t , does the euchar is t , as his co n t r o ve rs ia l m a xi m has i t ,

make the church? Yes i t does I h e eucharisr, t oget her w i t h b a p t is m , makes

the church because i t is t h r o u g h these sactaments, co n d u ct e d in the f a i t h of

C h t is t w h ich arises f r o m th e gospel, that G o d jo ins us to C h r is t andrenders us his body I t makes th e ch u r ch because this act ion of God in

j o i n i n g us to C h r is t is an eschatological act ion - the ascended Chr is t being

an eschatological r e a l i t y - w h i c h does no t der ive f r o m ( t h o u g h i t

implicates) ou r 'here an d n o w ' , b u t derives f r o m hi s there an d then That

said, Chris t is not the ch u r ch , and the eucharist does no t make th e church

b y m a k in g C h t is t , as Z iz io u la s m ig h t be taken to i m p l y I t makes the

church rather by the S p ir i t s o ve r co m in g o f t h at w h ic h separates or

alienates us f r o m Chr is t , just as C h r is t ovetcomes t h a t w h i c h alienates us

f r o m Go d 4 1

Second, is each lo ca l ch u ich , in i ts synaxis or euchar is t ic celebrat ion,

really the ch u r ch in i ts fullness? Wit h o u t e n d o r s in g Mir o s la v Vo l t ' sa lternat ive - an essentia lly quanti tat iv e approach t o ecclesial fullness and

u n i t y ? — we may again need t o q u a l i fy Z iz io u la s s a f f i r m a t ive answer The

local church may be said to be the ch u r ch in its fullness in asmuch as i t

cannot be at al l w i t h o u t b e i n g w i t h C h r is t and so w i t h the whol e chu rch,

past, present an d fu t u r e 4 3 But i f C h r is t is not h im s e l f the ch u r ch , and if

the church s co m m u n a l l i f e i n C h r is t is not a f o r m of, bu t o n l y analogous

to , th e divin e per ichores is , then the local churc h - even in i ts eucharistic

u ni t y w i t h C h r is t an d w i t h the whole company of heaven - is no t as such

the universal church I t is rather, in its ow n way , an expression or

manifestat ion, however petfect or im p e r fe ct , o f the universal church

T hi r d , does th e eschaton mean fbt the ecclesial petson (as opposed to his

or her human nature) capax infiniti, as Z iz io u la s suggests? Yes, if capax

infiniti — 01 better , aeterni - means th e a b i l i t y to expetience co n jo in t ly w h a t

cannot be experienced separately, v iz . , u n io n an d c o m m u n i o n w i t h Go d ,

an d to share in its inexhaust ible benefits No , i f i t means the a b i l i t y t o

co n t a in or to become G o d , as the d i v i n e persons contain on e another and so

exist as G o d , i n absolute f teedom For the eschatological f u l f i l m e n t of the

person (who cannot be absrtacted f r o m his or her nature) does no t entail

e l im in a t io n of all creaturely l i m i r a t i o n or all creatutely necessity, w h i c h

4 1 Pare Zizioulas Being as Communion n o ; cf Farrow Ascension and Ea/esia, 5ft" yoff,

passim.4 3 See Being as Communion 143ft" ; cf He b 12 i8ff

FARROW Person and Nature 10 1

w o u l d mean th e e l i m i n a t i o n of the creaturely as s u c h 4 4 But the

e l i m i n a t i o n of necessity, we may suppose, is not what Zizi oulas has in

m i n d w h e n he ta lks about freedom f r o m necessity. W h a t he has i n m i n d ,

as I have already said, is more precisely free dom in necessity, t h r o u g h

cr e a t u r e ly co m m u n io n w i t h G o d 4 S A g r e e m e n t an d disagreement w i t h

Ziz io u la s on the matter of eschatology m u s t be pursued elsewhere,however, for it is t im e to ask a f inal quest ion

Q u e s t i o n i n g t h e N e c e s s i t y - F r e e d o m D i a l e c t i c

H a v i n g expounded Zizioulas by way of reference to his n a t u r e - f r e e d o m

dialect ic, I have also ve n t u r e d some cr it ica l remarks about the C h r is t o lo g y

he uses to co n t r o l an d deploy that dialect ic I have suggested that this

Chris to logy suffers f r o m a cer ta in Eutychia n tendency, whi ch i n turn has a

d e t r im e n t a l effect on his ecclesiology I am h a p p y , of course, to be fo u n d

w r o n g , b u t since I have indeed ventured such an o p i n i o n i t seems r i g h t to

ask how far the tendency i n quest ion ma y be a p r o d u ct of the necessity-

freedom dialect ic, rather than merely a d is t o t t in g fa c t o r in it. Is there , i n

other words , a danger in the dia lect ic itself that should com mand our

attention? I think there is

The danger does not so m u c h li e (as V o l f suggests) in the association of

nature w i t h necessity an d petsonhood w i r h f r e e d o m , but in the s e t t in g of

nature an d necessity over against personhood an d freedo m, wheth er

t h e o lo g ica l ly or a n t h r o p o lo g ica l ly 4 6 I t is at this presupposit iona l level that

an even sttonger challenge to exis tent ia lism (and to Greek t h o u g h t

generally) needs to be m o u n t e d t h an Zizio u la s a t t e m p t s Di v in e

personhood should not be understood as a freedom w on f r o m , or preserved

against, necessity or sheer absoluteness of n a t u r e , t h o u g h the concept of

di v i ne personhood represenrs such a victory No r — and here is the p o i n t of

co n t e n t io n — should hum an personhood be seen as a t r i u m p h over out

creatutely nature and its exigencies. W h i c h is to say, hum an personhood

4 4 Conversely it does not entail the dissolving of the d istinction between the immanent

and the economic Trinity, any more than it entails the dis solving of the difference between the

two natutes of Chtist

4 5 It is curious that Zizioulas ( Human Capacity and Incapacity, 442ff ) does not bring

the freedom and necessity dialectic expiicity into this resolution - if resolution it is - so as to

complete the parallel with capacity in incapacity and presence in absence Less curious, of

course is the fact that he overlooks i mpoit ant aspects of human freedom (cf. e.g , Oliver

ODonovan Resurrection and Moral Order {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986] io6ff) which do

not readily lit his theological constr uct and that even in emphasizing bo dily resurrection he

shows little interest in treating it4 6 C f Volf, After Our Likeness 87

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


I O Z The Person of Christ

and freedom do not arise in contradiction of created nature, nor are they a

v i c t o r y against non- bein g It is not as if the creature qua creature must be

impersonal, inasmuch as it is created ex nihilo and is subject (as God is not)

to certain necessities Do wn this path Eutychianism does indeed lie, since

sucli a premiss makes it impossi ble to understand hum an personhood as

hu m anI t is true, of course, that huma n personhood (u ndersto od in terms of the

imago de'i) cannot be explained adequately by reference to other features of

creation 4 7 H um an personhood is sui generis, a g i f t specially given w i t h and

for th e t w i n blessings of the incarnation of the Son and the coming of the

H o l y Spiri t ; that is , fbt communion w i t h th e Fathet , which (as its final

cause) u l t i m a t e l y perfects our personhood But that special g i f t , resting as

i t does on the mediation of the God-man, is not something contrary to

creation or to our created nature Creation is for it , and it for creation

Creaturely necessities do not i n h i b i t creatutely personho od; in their proper

place and time they enhance it Whenc e arises, then, that debi l i taring

c o m p e t i t i o n between freedom and necessity w h i c h generates the

quandaries of whi ch Ziziou las (like the existentiali sts) takes notice? I t

arises no t f r om creation bur f r o m the Fall, in which the relation of freedom

and necessity i s fundamenta l ly al tered An d here we must note that, while

Zizioulas stresses the doctrine of the Fall, his conception of it requites

c l a r i f i c a t i o n A t some points he speaks as I have just spoken; at others (like

Maximus) he appears to conflate creation and f a l l . 4 8 Any suggestion that

the Fall is somehow i m p l i c i t in creation casts the necessity- freedom

t e l a t i o n into an oppositional mode, the mode of fallen m a n s al ienation

f r o m himself and f r o m G od I h i s skews the entire debate about the

r e l a t i o n between necessity and freedom in the realization of human

personhood 4 3

O n t he other hand, when we consider rbe teaching of the Scriptures and

the farhers that human persons, in bei ng made after the image of God , ate

destined to receive immo rta l i t y - that the hum an person, as immort al ,

exists by vir tue of the inve stment in that person of Go d s ow n imm or ra l

S p i r i t 5 0 - are we not obliged to speak of a t r i u m p h over our creaturely

4 7 See Zizioulas. Hum an Capacity and incapacity , 4314 8 See Zizioulas, 'Human Capacity and Incapacity. 424ft 434f, but note the word

inevitable' on 435 (n 2). and cf. Being as Communion, 4<jff4 3 It may be the case that it belongs ro the nature of living creatures, including humans to

exist by facing and overcoming necessities of various kinds B ut h does not follow that there

must be a zero-sum game here, or that human personhood should be defined in terms of this

overcoming (that is. in terms of liberation from necessity through c ommunion)

5 0 Irenaeus put this most succinctly , as I have noted in Ascension and Ecclesia 59ft7


nature? And may we nor speak of this t r i u m p h in terms of a necessity-

freedom dialectic, as Zizioulas wishes to do, before speaking of the church

as the divine f o r m of human freedom? May we not indeed regard the

church as the t r i u m p h of God over huma n nature , th at is, over th e

i n d i v i d u a l wh o seeks relief f r om necessity and finds it, not in e xistentia list

courage or commitment, but in the new ecclesial hypostasis? 51 The answer

to all these questions, surely, is yes Bu t this yes' s t i l l does not commit us

to the k i n d of dialectic which presents human personhood per se as a

t r i u m p h over our nature For it is our nature to be open to the g i f t of

i m m o r t a l i t y , as the ptoper realization of our personhood, except we be

closed to that destiny by the Fall An d this means that che necessity-

freedom dialectic is not a nature—person dialectic, but a dialectic internal

to hum an nature as orient ed to personhood W hi ch means i n t u r n that i t is

i n t er na l to human personhood as such.

This alteration in perspective removes the temptation to adopt a

Christology that tends towards the Eutychian, and an ecclesiology that

tends towatds Christ omon ism. For the funct ion of the Go d- ma n is not to

intr oduce personhood (a divine reality) into the impersonal (the

creaturely), so that the latter might attain authentic existence 5 i His

f u nc t i o n is rather to perfecr, together w i t h the Spiri t , a huma n analogy to

di v i ne personhood; that is, to secure for huma n personhood its essential

openness to God and to the other, and so to make possible its pneumatic

an d ecclesial f o r m , the f o r m r eq ui s i te to i m m orta l i ty 5 3 N o w i m m o r t a l i t y

is indeed authentic existence, and authentic existence is an existence based

on com muni on I t is personal existence 5 4 But this same alteration in

perspective a lso removes the temptation to regard personal existence for

h u m a n beings as an existence that is God-like in the sense that it is a pure

perichoreti c co mmu nio n, or a pure freedom f r o m necessity To take such a

v i e w w o u l d be to concede too mu ch to the existentialists For necessity is

not the ult ima te threat to personhood Sin is the ulti mat e threat, and not

5 1 Kierkegaard s prorest against a lake ecclesiality notwithstanding (set Farrow. Ascension

and Ecchsia ±±jf.)5 1 Throug h an extension and repetition of the hypostatic union? Personhood I have

argued is the mode in which nature exists in its ekstatic movement of communio n in which it

is hypostasised in its catholicity. This I have also said, is wha t has been realised in Christ as

the man par excellence through the hypostatic union This, I must now add is what should

happen to every man in order that he himself may become Christ ' ('Hu man Capacity and

Incapacity 442; emphasis his)

5 3 Or is this all that Ziz ioula s means when he speaks of our being joined to God in a

dialectic of difference rather than division ('Human Capacity and Incapacity'. 440)?5 4 Cf Augustine, De Trinitate 13 3 (p 12)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


ro6 The Person of Christ

interlocutors It agreed w i t h everything on the one hand, and

denounced everything on the other Fo r example, ir said nothing

against the Roman occupation; it urged obedience to the J ewish

hierarchy; it proclaimed holiness to the Lord. Bu t it was present at

doubtfully holy feasts; it associated with rich men and loose women; it

commented acerbly on the habits of cht hierarchy; and while

encouraging everyone to pay their debts, it radiared a generaldisapp roval , or at least doubt, of every kind of property I t ralked of

iove in te rms of hell, and of hell in te rms of perfection An d finally it

talked at the top of its piercing voice about itself and its own

unequalled importance It said it was rhe best an d worst thing that had

ever happened or ever could happen to man It said ir coul d control

anything and yet had to submir to everything. It said its Father in

heaven would do anything it wished , but that for itself it woul d do

nothing bu t what it s Father in heaven wished An d it promised that

when it had disappeared, it would cause some other Power to illum ine,

confirm, and direct that sm all group of stupefied and helpless followers

whom it deigned, with the sound of the rush of a sublime tenderness,

ro call its friends 1

Ihis is the high style of a master of rhetoric. The passage begins q u i t e

s im p ly : 'There ha d appeared . . ; bu t the movem ent of the prose urges the

reader forward - there must be no linge r in g - creat ing its effect by the

b u i l d i n g up of ant inomies , paradox upon paradox, u n t i l i t culminates in

that unexpected coda: ' s u b l im e tenderness , al ig ht in g finally on the

l i t t l e w o t d f riends Rheto rical i t certa inly is, but there is mu ch more than

rhetor ic here, and whar that more' is we shall investigate present ly. Th is

descr ipt ion of the event out of which all Chris to logy arises, is found in the

o p e n in g pages o f Charles Wi l l ia m s s h is t o r y o f t h e C h u r ch , The Descent of

the Dove p u b l is h e d in 1939 Or to be mor e precise - an d to use the autho r 's

ow n desc ripti on of the book - his 'Short History of rhe Spir it in theChu rch It is, perhaps, more a wo rk of theol ogy than of history; an

attemp t, to use Will iam s's words when defining theology, of measuring

eternity in operat ion , o f tracing the course o f the 'br ight cloud and the

r u s h in g w i n d in creat ion Is this the begi nnin g of Wi ll ia ms s Chtis to l ogy?

I t is wi th ou t do ubt an arresti ng begi nni ng bu t thi s was not the first ti me

Wi ll ia ms had considered the person of Christ; thi s was not his first wo rk of

theology

Charles Williams, The Detroit of the Dave (London: The Religious Book Club, 1939). 1—

H O R N E The Chtistology of Chatles Williams 107

To many of you, perhaps, the name o f Charles Wi l l ia m s i s u n fa m il ia r ; t o

some i t w i l l be known only as that of the author of fantastic fictio ns. To m e

it is the name of a man who possessed one of the most or ig inal theological

min ds of the twe nti eth century But i t is not as theologian that W il li ams

hims elf wished to be remember ed O n his gravestone in a quiet corner of a

cemetery in rhe city of Oxfo rd there is carved a s impl e insc r ipt i on: Charles

W a l t e r Stansby W i l l i a m s Poet. Unde r the Mercy . It was pr im ar il y to the

art of poetry that he gave his life and energy but it may w e l l be that his

most valuable legacy w i l l be , pr ima ril y , not his poetry, but his theology

H e spent most of his l ife wo rk in g as an editor for the Oxf ord Un ivers ity

Press and then in his last fe w years as tut or and lectuter in the En gli sh

faculty in the Univ ers it y of Oxfot d For the firs t twenty -eig ht years of his

l i fe he published no thin g but poetry, but , a fter that , a ll manner of w r i t i n g

pour ed out of hi m: plays and novels, reviews and biogr aphies , hi story an d

theo logy An d he die d at the relati vely young age of fifry-eight in 1 9 4 5 A

close fr iend of C S Lewis , TS Eli ot , J R R Io lk ie n and Dorot hy L

Sayers, he nonetheless srands apart from them, dis t inguish ed by rhe unique

quali ty of his rhetor ic and the or igin ali ty of his Chris t ian vis ion. Thoug h,

let it be said imme diat ely, the cla im to 'or igi nali ty was one that Wi ll ia ms

never made; indeed, it w o u l d have seemed, t o h i m , a k i n d o f arrogance to

str ive for an or igin ali ty in the exposit io n of the Chtis t i an fa ith He

believed he was doin g nothi ng more than dta win g attent io n to aspects of

Chris t ian orrhodoxy that had received insufficient scrutiny or explicat ion

f r o m othet interpret ers of the tra di ti on This was as true of his

Chri stol ogi cal w ri tin gs as it was of his reflections on the doctrin e of t he

Fall , or the Church , or the Atonem ent.

B u t before we move on to examine that Chtis t o logy , we must be

prepared to recognize what it is we are dealing w i t h when we approach

W i l l i a m s s w r i t i n g s There is a remarkable degree o f intellectual coherence

in the variegated assemblage of his works; remarkable precisely because

there is such a variety of literary form. But it is a coherence tha t is achieved

not only by the consistent applicat io n of cer ta in theological mo tifs , b ut

also by the pervasive spi rit of a singula r sens ibil ity: that of the poet He re

we have a mind that moves more easily in the w o t l d of images and s ymbol s

than in the sphere of abstract concept; a mind that is as concerned about

th e exact shape of a line of poetry and the precise placing of a w o r d or even

a punctuation mark in a senrence than in the observation of academic

convent ions (H e was, for example, i r r i t a t i ng l y vague in his referencing -

strange in a man who wrote often in praise of accuracy ) An d his w r i t i n g

has a peculiar density; a density of textute that is the feature of poetryrarher than the density of the philosophical treatise I ts customaty meth od

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


io 8 The Person of Christ

is the metho d of contrac t ion no t the metho d of expansion; of the

condensat ion of thought to a metaphorical express ion rather than the

discurs ive exposit ion of a conceptual posit ion; its mode is a llus ive rather

t h a n explanatory Non e of his theological essays presents any factual

i n f b i m a t i o n or arguments that are not already w e l l k n o w n , b u t W i l l i a m s

re-organizes these facts and arguments ; presents them in new relat ionships ;

makes unexpected connect ions ; arranges them like poet ic tesserae to form

the desired pattern of the verbal mosaic The contemporary theolog ian, l ike

the contemporary philosopher or his tor ian, leaves l i t t l e unsaid; he or she

tends to see his or her task as one in whic h the invest igat i on, argument or

p o i n t of view must be presented w i t h as much logic, openness and lack of

mystery as can be achieved Wi ll ia ms s w r i t i n g deliberately leaves things

unsaid and often depends for its effectiveness on the reader s sensitive

awareness of wha t is beneath the surface; on his or her abil it y to make

connections w i t h th e w o r l d beyond the confines of theo log ica l study I n

short the reader is expected to exercise a different , and sometimes more

d i f f k u l r because more complex, at t ent io n to w r i t i n g o f this k ind

Furthermore we shall f ind his Chris to logy appear ing not only where we

expect to find i t - i n his theological essays - but i n odd corners of novels,

in g la n c in g references in the lines of poetry, in pass ing comments in

reviews of books that , superficia lly , have nothing at a ll to do w i t h

Christ ianity

A l l that having been sa id, let us return br iefly to that opening passage of

The Descent of the Dove Suspicions a b o u t Wil l ia m s ' s o r t h o d o xy m ig h t

i m m e d i a t e l y have been aroused as ears caught the phrase of the second

sentence: This bein g was i n the f o r m of a man ' On ly the form of a

man? Nor a real person? Those suspicions w i l l n ot have been dissipated by

th e strange and insistent use of the impetsonal t h i r d person pronoun

t h t o u g h o u t t h e passage . i t was present at do ubt ful ly holy feasts; i t

associated w i t h r ich men and loose wo me n and so on. Fro m the start

yo u m i g h t have detected a di sti nct flavour of doc eti sm here In a d d i t io n t o

this there may be the sense of an A r l a n reading of the incarnation: that use

of the impetsonal pronoun suggests a creature rather rhan a cons ubstan tial

Son, a lesser k i n d of d i v i n i t y despite the ta lk of Fatherhood Wh at is goi ng

on here? Is Williams really to be judged g u i l t y on tw o counts of heresy? I f

we were to evaluate his Christology solely on the evidence o f this passage

f r o m The Descent of the Dove, I t h i n k that conclusion w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t to

av o i d - even whe n we rememb ei that Paul i n his famous passage f r o m the

second chapter of the letter to the Phil ipp ian s had simi la rl y made use of

t h a t t e t m ' f o r m : f o r m of God , f o r m of a slave , h u m a n f o r m . An d I dono t t h i n k it is easy to excuse hi m even whe n we remember the his tor ical

HORNE The Chii stology of Charles Williams 10 9

context of the book, when we see that part of his intention is to shock

readers into a tecognit ion of the explosiveness of the event of Jesus Chr is t .

He was w r i t i n g against a backgro und of theolo gically li beral ar tempts at

h u m a n i z i n g the figure of Jesus; against efforts to empty out his t e r r i f y i ng

strangeness Wi ll ia ms had, by this t im e, read bot h Kierkegaard and Barth

- had indeed been responsible, in his w o r k a t t h e O xfo r d U n ive r s i t y Press,

for the first translati ons and publ ica tion s of Kier keg aard s works in

English, and had included several excerpts f r o m Barth s Epistle to the

Romans in his ow n anthology of readings, The New Christian Year He even

says a t one point in this same vo lum e: I t is an ali en Power that is caug ht

and suspended in our mid st and he had l i t t l e time for what he called

immature and romantic devotions to the s imple Jesus, t h e s p ir i t u a l

g e n iu s , t h e b t o a d -m in d e d in t e r n a t io n a l Jewish w o r k i n g - m a n , t h e f a l l i ng-

sparrow and grass-of-the-f ie ld Jesus A n d s t i l l m o r e s t r ik in g l y : Th ey w i l l

no t serve I he Chris t ia n idea f r o m the begi nni ng had believed that his

N a t u r e reconciled earth and heaven, and all thin gs met in hi m, God and

Ma n A C o n fu cia n Wo r d s w o r r h does not help here 2 Even so , and taking

i n t o conside ratio n his pencha nt for the rhetoric al flourish, w hi ch coul d lead

h i m into dramatic overstatement , we mi gh t s t i l l feel, uncomfortably, that

this picture stands in an uneasy re lat io n to the formu lat io ns of the anc ient

creeds o f the Chris t i an Chur ch No r can the part icul ar passage tha t I

quoted at length be excused on the grounds that it is poetic w r i t i n g O n l y

bad poetry is vague and inaccurate; good poetry can be the most precise of

languages; and Wi ll ia ms was as aware of that as any other po et

B u t , o f course, ir w o u l d be absurd to evaluate Williams's Chris to logy

solely on the basis of this passage As I have said, he had already w r i t t e n a

substantia l essay on the incarnation before his history of the Spirit in the

Church saw the l i g h t of day This was the book for whic h, as a theol ogi an,

he is best k n o w n : He Came Down Brom Heaven ( 1 9 3 8 ) . It is easy to approach

t h is w o r k w i t h the wro ng presupposit ions The t i t l e prepares us for an

essay on the inc arna tio n - indeed I called it tha t a few mom ent s ago -

whereas it s subject is actually reconciliat ion and redemption; an essay o n

the Ato neme nt But the teason why we can also see i t as a substa nti al w o r k

of Chris to logy is that Williams, l ike many of the eat ly Greek Fathers,

chose to focus his inter preta t ion of the salvif ic w o r k o f Chris t , not on the

cross but the Wo rd made f lesh. That hav ing being said, it w i l l be observed

that one of the characteristics of his theology is that he never, even for the

purposes of organizat ional convenience, allows the separatio n of th e

Wi ll ia ms Ihe Descent of the Dope 53

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


n o The Person of Christ

categories of lncarna tion and Aton emen t in his theological system. I t w i l l

further be observed tha t his patt icula r way of exp lica tin g the dogmas of

C h r is t ia n i t y i s detetmined by a m i n d and an imagination that are rooted in

a belief in the supernatural and its constant penetration into the w o t l d of

everyday experience. Just as in The Descent of the Dove h e describes theology

as the measurement of eter nity in oper atio n', so here i n He Came Down

Prom Heaven he describes rel igio n as the defini t ion of the r elationship

between earth and heaven 3 An d, as it is p r i m a r i l y treatise on the

Atonem ent , w e w o u l d do w e l l to approach its Chri sto log y via the theoty o f

the Atonement he ptoposes.

The first chapters contain an exposition of the Fall and its consequences

for the human race, the pr i m e consequence of which is to introduce into

h u m a n na tur e w hat Wi l l i am s calls the actual schism in reason' I he

chapter that examines th e Genesis story is enti t led: The M y t h of the

A lt e t a t io n of Kno wle dge they (A da m and Eve) kne w good ; they

w is h e d to know good as evil Since there was not any th in g bu t the

good to kno w, they knew good as antagonism. A l l di fference consists i n

the mode of knowledge. 4 He is uncomfortable w i t h r he O l d Testament

language of 'covering' and f orge tting sin on the grounds that facts cannot

be erased f r o m history, cannot be made not to have been As man has

chosen to know good as evil thete is the inescapable fact of ev i l and rhe fact

cannot simp ly be forgotte n An d he remarks: i f the H i g h an d H o l y One is

prepared to forget what has been is he not only finding fel ic i ty by losing

fact ?5 The consequences of the Fall cannot be put aside, undone in a

miraculous action of the restoration of Edenic innocence; they can only be

transformed, changed f r o m w i t h i n human nature i tsel f Ev i l must be

k n o w n as good ; death kno wn as life In the f o u r t h chapter, The Precursor

and the Incarnation', he introduces phrases f r o m Julian of N o r w i c h and

Augustine to support his interpretation

Al l is most well ; evil is pardoned - ir is kno wn after another man ner;

in an interchange of love, therefore as a mums of rhe good 0 felix culpa

- pardon is no longer an obl ivi on but an increased knowledge, a

knowledge of all things in a perfection of joy 6

3 Charles Wil l ia m s , He Came Down From H[1938]), 12

4 Williams. He Came Down From Heaven zi5

Williams He Came Down From Heaven 396 Wil l ia m s , He Came Down From Heaven, 59

(repr ; London: Faber & Fabcr, t950

H O R N E The Christology of Charles Williams I I I

Yet how is this transformation to take place? I f the facts are inescapable i t

must be accomplished f r o m that place in which the facts are e xperienced,

that is, f rom w i t h i n th e life of hu man it y, and yet it cannot be done by

h u m a n i t y ; our reason is in schism a nd out lif e is one of impo ten ce The

answet is the paradox of the Incar nati on We may already be heari ng echoes

of Cur Deus Homo, but our expectations w i l l be disa ppoi nted if we ate

l o o k i n g for a version of An sel m s argume nts The forensic frame work of

A n s e l m s theory is totally absent f r o m these pages; instead of the language

of debt, Wi l l i ams employs the language of subst i tutio n I n God , as man ,

an act of subst itu tio n can be observed — indeed, i t is the supreme act of

s u b s t i t u t io n to which ai l other acts of exchange are related and f r o m w h i c h

they derive thei r mea ning

I n a book review for the periodical Time and Tide, ent i t l ed

A n t h r o p o t o k o s publ ish ed in the same year as He Came Down From

Heaven, the summary of his posi tion on the Incarnation stresses the

central i ty of the concept o f exchange - a concept closely telated to that of

s u b s t i t u t io n An d he does this by means of the use of the symbol of the city

— always, for hi m, the sym bo l of the redeemed life.

Wh at is the characteristic of any city? Exchange between citizens

What is the fact common to both sterile communication and viral

communion? A mode of exchange Wha t is the fundamental fact of

men in their natural lives? The necessity of exchange What is the

highest level of Christian dogma? Exchange between man and God, by

virtue of the union of Man and God in rhe Single Person, who is by

virrue of that Manhood, itself the City, rhe foundation and the

enclosure This office of substiruri on did not need Christendom to

exhibit it Chri sten dom declared somethin g more; it declared that

this principle ot substitution was at die root of the supernatural, of

universal life,

as well

as of natural 7

Exchange is defin ed as part of the natu re of the Godh ead I t is seen as t he

root principle of al l existence, divine as well as human; and the operation of

exchange, already known in the life of the T r i n i t y as the co-inhe rent

relationship of the three Persons, is embod ied i n an earthly countetp art as

th e co-inherence of divi ne nature and human natu re in the petson of Jesus

C hr i s t There i s no docetism in this articulat ion of his Christo logy Over

and ovet again Williams adverts to one of his favourite Christological

fo r m u la t io n s - f r o m the, so-called, Athanasian creed - a docu ment rb at he

referred to more rhan once as that gteat humanist Ode': 'One not by

Ann K-idler (ed ) I be Image of the City (London: Oxford Univers ity Press, 1958) n z

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



conversion of the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into

God Iher e is , s imila rly, no Aria nism here either. W ha t there is, of course,

is a strong sense of deification, though he nowhete uses this term -

a l t h o u g h he does once use the rather odd w o r d ' d i v i n i t i zed ' ; of the natural

w o r l d being super naturalized by the entry of the second person of the

I t i n i t y into the particu lari t y of a hu man l i fe Ih is is not to say tha t

W i l l i a m s d id not argue po wer fu lly for the realit y of the hu ma n flesh of

C h r is t ; the si ght of that was never to be lost - despi te what he had writ ten

in the opening pages of The Descent of the Dove. In that same review article

fo r lime and Tide he comments on the Nestorian conrroversy: Such remote

Christological quarrels in the slums and boulevards of the Near East are

no t w i t h o u t inte rest today It was the real natur e of Perfection as cre dible

an d discoverable by men that was then in question, and it is s t i l l perfection

that we are at', and then in a remark critical of what he sees as the victory

of Alexandrian Christology in the confl icts of the f i f t h century, he says:

T h e loss of (the t i t l e of the V i r g i n ) ' anth ropo tok os has damaged

C hr i s tend om ; the M i d d l e Ages attempted to recover it by fables, but in

general it has been left too much to the revolts against Christendom to

demand what should be one of the splendours of Christendom 8

A n t h r o p o t o k o s - beatet of the anthropos, man; such insistence would

hardly indicate a Christology that saw humanity subsumed into d i v i n i t y , a

subsum pt i on that mi gh t be hint ed at by too strong an attachment to that

phrase f r o m the Atl ianas ian creed: the tak ing of the Manh ood into God'.

One of the revolts against Christ endo m'? It seems as if he has

Nes tor i ani sm i n m i n d and this movement of his thought, w h i c h m i g h t

be read as a certain sympathy w i t h what was condemned at the Council of

Ephesus is, at firsr, somewhat surpr ising ; for I w o u l d suggest that his

fo r m u la t io n of the person of the incarnate Lo r d i n terms o f an exchange

berween human ity and d i v i n i t y w o u l d m ake Monophys i t i sm m or earrtactive to his vision of the incarnate W o t d ; but this is not, actual ly,

th e case In fact , his rejection of both Nestorians im and Eutycheanism is

spel led out in a quite diff erent, and unexpected, part of Wil l i am s s

w r i t i n g s : in a novel , The Greater Trumps

I can t h i n k of no mode rn novelis t, perhaps no novelist in the histor y of

prose f i c t i o n , w h o w o u l d place a scene i n v o l v i n g the singing of the

Athanasian creed at the centre of the p lo t Bu t so it is w i t h this novel

p u b l is h e d i n 1932. Three of the characters are attending M o r n i n g Prayer

i n a vi l lage church on Christmas Day; and, as anyone famil iar w i t h the

* Ridler (ed ), The hnagc t>f the City I I I

H O R N E The Christology of Charles Williams

rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer w i l l remember, Christmas Day is

one of the days in the Chu rch s calendar on w h i c h the Athanasian creed is

appointed to be sung at M o r n i n g Prayer

Al l the first parr went on in its usual way; she knew nothing about

musical settings of creeds, so she couldn t tell what to think of this one

The men and the boys exchanged met aphysical confidences, the y daredeach other, in a k ind of raprure to deny the Trinity or the Unity;

they pointed out, almost mischievously, that though they were

compelled ro say one thing, yet they were forbidden to say something

else exactly like it A l l this Nancy haif-ig nored But the second

patt for one verse hel d her the words sounded to her f u l l of

sudden significance The mingl ed voices of men and boys were

proclaiming the nature of Christ - God and man is one in Ch ri st ; then

the boys fell silent, and the men went on. One, not by conversion of

the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God On

the assertion they ceased, and the boys rushed joyously in , One

altoge ther, nor - they looked at the idea and rossed it airily away - not

by confusion of substance, but by unity - they rose, they danced, they

triumphed - by unity, by unity - they were sile nt, all bu t one, and

that one fresh perfection proclaimed the full consummation, each

syllable rounded, prolonged, cxacr - by unity of person y

Thus does Wil l ia ms present his Chalcedonian orthodoxy Yet , in another

area of his Christology he gives the appearance of being distinctly

u n o r t h o d o x ; and we are now arrived at what may be his most original

c o n r i i b u r i o n to the subject

He di d not subscribe to the tra dit ion al view that the Incar nati on was

necessitated by the Fall, what he called the schism w i t h i n the human s very

being; he was dr aw n instead first by his intense preoccupation w i t h the

purely h u m a n aspect of cteat ion, an d, secondly, by his not ion of t hecentral i ty of the prin ciple of exchange, in the direction of the incarnational

theo l ogy c om m onl y associated w i t h D u n s Scotus and the Franciscans of the

t h i r t e e n t h and fou rte ent h centuries That is, th at the Incar natio n of the

beloved Son was due to the p r i m a l and absolute purpose of love

foreshadowed in creation, a nd was in no way the resulr of the sin of hu ma n

beings Thi s inte rpr eta tio n of the doctrin e may be regarded as

unconventional , as he himself temarked, but i t is not forbidden ro

C h r is t ia n belief, nor is it , of couise, restricted t o Duns Scotus and t he

Franciscan t r a d i t i o n or to those centuries; there are modern advocates of t he

? Charles Wil liam s. The Greater Trumps (London: Faber & Fabet paperback edn, 1954).109-30

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


ı i 4 The P m o n °f Christ

theory, in addit ion to Charles Wi l l i am s: B F W estco tt in the nineteen th

century and, more tentatively, K a r l Rahner in the twentie th Ev en Dun s

Scotus's o lder contemporary, Thom as Aquinas, was prepared to admit that

it was possible to argue that the Incarnation was ordained f rom eterni ty

a nd mi ghr have taken place whether the Fall had occurred or not, but was

u n w i l l i n g , himsel f , to agree that such a theol ogica l posi tio n was the mostappropriate ' in the l ig h t of what was to be apprehended İn Scripture:

. since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is

assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, it is more İn accordance wi th

this to say that the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a

remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, the incarnation would not

have been '°

Bu t he is quic k to add: Al th ou gh the power of Go d is not l i m i t e d to this -

even if sin had not existed, God could have become incarnate He was

quit e prepared to see the Inca rnat ion as the cul min ati on of Go d s ori gin al

creative act

The long essay The Gospel of Crea tion of 1 8 8 6 b y B F W e s c o t t is his

ow n apologia for the v a l id i t y and appropriateness of such a vie w of Go d s

act ion in the world

Ihe belief that the Incarnation was in essence independent of the Fall

has been held by men of the most different schools, in different ways

and on different grounds A il however in the main agree in this, thar

they find in the belief a crowning promise of the unity of the Divine

Order; a fulfilment, a consummation, of the original purpose of

creation; a more complete and harmonious view of the relation of finite

being to God than can be gained otherwise 1 1

W het her W i l l i a ms knew t h i s p a r t i c u l a r essay of Westcott, or that of any of

the other scholars that Westcott cites, is impossible to say; he himself

tefers only to Duns Scotus, but, what we can say is that he is more dar ing -

perhaps more foolhardy - m ore ima ginati ve and, perhaps, less intel lec

t u a l ly secure, than West cot t or any of the others.

Ihe theory appears in a number of places, and in a varie ty of contexts, in

hi s w o r k In bis history of the Church , The Descent of the Dove, it is

discussed briefly in a Postscrip t to the text. I n his review of tw o books by

Denis Sautat (Regeneration an d The Christ at Chartres) for the periodical Time

and Tide ( 2 No vemb er 1 9 4 0 } , as in his essay N a t u r a l Goodness' p r i n t ed i n

1 0 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Iheologka II I I iii trans of 191 2 (london: Burns & Oates)1 1 Westcott TheEptsties ofît ]>,hn (London. Macmillan & Co , 2nd edn, 1886) 317-18

H O R N E The Christology of Charles Williams 1 15

Theology i n 1 9 4 1 (No vemb er ) , he speaks of it as a permissible belief for

Christians and clearly leans towatds i t himsel f Anne Ridler states

categorically that he did hold the theory; an assertion which is borne out

by the sequel to He Came Down From Heaven, the extended essay The

Forgiveness of Sins 1 1 In the opening of the t h i t d chapter of this later work he

claims that ' the beginning of al l this specific creation (the universe) was the

w i l l of God to Incarnate' (p. 1 1 9 ) He acknowledges i n a foot note that he

is f o l l o w i n g an arrang ement of doct rine wh ic h mi gh t be regarded as

unusual but which he believes to be w i t h i n the bound s of orth odox y. H e

follows up the sentence w i t h an assertion in which a far more unusual

position is advanced

It is clear that this Incarnation, like all his other acts, mighr have been

done to himself alone It was certainly not necessary for him to create

man in order that he might himself become man. The Incar nation did

not involve the Creation Bur it was within his nature to w i l l to create

joy , and he willed to create joy in this manner also. 13

To postulate that the Incarnation had always been ordained by God as thegoal and consummation of his creative activity is one t h i n g ; to suggest a

hypothetical independence f r o m creation is qui te anothet I t is possible to

draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the w i l l to incarnate, and, on

the other , the histor ical c ircumstances of the act, but the references of the

scholars ro circumsrances are speci fical ly to h uma nit y s fal len condit ion

Here is Wes tco tt again:

. it can fairly be maintained that we ate led by Holy Scripture to

regard the circumstances of the Incarnation as separable from the idea

of the Incarnation, and to hold that the circumstances of the

Incarnation were due to sin, while the idea of the Incarnation was

due to the primal and absolute purpose of love fore-shadowed inCreation 1 4

I t is nowhere suggested that creation itse lf is a circumst ance, a stage-set

made necessary for the drama of the flesh-taking, which is precisely

Wil l iam s's suggestion in this part icular passage Whereas W es t c o r t sees

crearion as an action of Go d wh ic h culmin ates in the union of himself and

man in the person of Jesus Christ , Wil l iams postulates creation as a k i n d of

by-pro duct of Go d s prim ary inrenti on: which is to take matter to H ims el f

s i Charles Williams, The Forgiveness of Sins (London: G Bles, 1942)

' 3

Ridler (ed ), The image of the City 1191 4 Westcott, The Epistles of St John, 288

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



i n the personal u n i o n of the Son w i t h h uma n nature If it were possible to

establish an order of metaphysical ptecedence i n the activi ty of the

U n cteated , I n carn at i on w o u l d rake precedence over creation.

From this i t fo l lows, w i t h a k i n d of relentless i nevi t a b i l i t y , that Christ ,

the Son of the Fathet, must be seen as the agent of creation. The fourth

Gospel s assertion: 'A ll things came i n t o be i n g th rou g h h i m , an d wi thouthi m not one t h i ng came i n t o bei ng ' is ampl if ie d and extended by Wi l l ia ms

in th e f o l lowin g way:

He (Adam - humani ty) had been created, of course, but according to a

special order which involved the non-created . He was the only

creature (whose) flesh was in unique relationship to rhe sublime flesh

which was the unity of God w i t h matt er The Incarnation was the

single dom ina tin g fact, and to that all flesh was rehired The

Incarnation was rhe Original from which the lesser human images

derived 1 5

So, to put it crudely, the Son is the instrument of a w o r l d whi c h is brought

i n t o being so that He Himself , in the womb of the V i r g i n , takes flesh toHimself What the Fal l of A d a m d id was to determ ine the circumstances

w i t h i n whi c h the purpose of God, already present to the Godhead f r o m all

eternity , to unite himself w i t h matter, was achieved

W h y d i d W i l l i a m s find this inte rprera tion of the person and work of

Christ so attra ctive ; wha t made h i m so det erm ined an advocate of so

unusual a reading of İt? The answer lies in his anthropology: his

apprehension of what human l ife is for; and central to this are the t w i n

principles of co-inherence and exchange. For him al l genuine human l ife

operates on the basis of exchange That is simp ly a defini t ion for him; an

irreducible fact; an assumption basic to all his theology as we l l as his

anthropology An d if this is true, the highest and deepest joy fot humanbeings must lie İn the exchange betwe en themselves and their Creator The

nodal p o i n t and the source of all joy is the person of the W o r d made flesh.

Some n ot i on of exchange, I w o u l d suggest, w i l l be present i n all orthod ox

interptetations of the Incarnation and the Atonement, but, so fat as I am

able to ascertain, no theologian has so emphasized its centrality as

W i l l i a m s does. The concepts of exaltation and glory fo u nd in the language

of deification of the Fathers of the early Church are surely what he means

by joy, but his w o r d İs more intensely human, more closely l i nked to the

qu o t i d i a n experiences of petsonal love and desire than either the ecstatic

language of the mystic s or the mor e abstract, philo sop hica l vocabula ry of

1 5 Williams hit: Came Down From Heaven 129-30

HORNE The Cbristology of Charles Williams

some of the Fathers Wh il e this vocabulary of subs ti tu tion and exchange,

em ph at i ca l l y u sed by W i l l i a m s , m i g h t suggest a more immediate union

betwe en the natures than was pro pou nde d at Chalcedon, whi c h wou ld lead

i n the dire ction of the confusion of natures, monoph ysiri sm is avoided by

the use of the com ple ment ary concept of co-inherence The divine and

human natures of the incarnate Lord do not merge i n t o one another, are not

confused, they co-inhere Wi ll ia ms had been very impress ed by G. L

Prestige s essay on co-inherence that concluded his study God in Patristic

Thought; 1

' W i l l i a m s found h is own theological sensibi l i ty conf irmed by

that wo r k So d i v i n i t y an d h u m an i ty exchange l ives in that pattern of co-

inherence, perichoresis , circumince ssio', whi c h is the historical Jesus

Here in the Incarnation is the utmost joy; the Fall could neither cause nor

prevent it ; the s chism in teason s imp ly became the circumstances of its

occurrence Bu t there is furt her teason, also anthropo logical I can rhink of

fe w other theologians who so consistently emphasize the significance of the

human body as does Charles Wi l l ia ms ; who so powerful ly argues for the

possibi l i ty of the revelation of the supernatural in and through the natural ;

wh o contends that human flesh, fragile and weak thought it may be, is

capable of being the vehicle of divine glor y A nd so he writ es the body was

h ol i ly created, is h o l i ly redeemed, and is to be h o l i ly raised f r o m the dead

I t is, in fact, for all our difficulties w i t h i t , less fallen, merely in itself, than

the soul. 1 7 This is what attracted hi m to Dante s s tr iking vis ion of the

Resurrection in the fourteenth canto of Paradiso: Come la carna glotiosa e

santa f ia r ive sti ta: the holy and gloriou s f lesh O f these l ines f rom the

Divine Comedy, W i l l i a m s w r i t e s :

The brightness whic h her (i e Beatrice s) body shed directed attention

ro rhis future The Resurrectio n was held in the word vi ta; i t is the

whole life thar here sing s, of whi ch . . rhe flesh has been the i ncident

an d means ' 8

B ut he comes to justi fy his contention that the human body is capable of

bei n g the vehicle of d i v i ne splendour by establishing it, not upon some

quasi- panthe istic theory about the nature of mat ter, but upo n the flesh-

t a k i ng of the Divine Son.

I he principle of the Incarnarion had been rhe unity of God and Man in

rhe flesh; and the principle of the creation had therefore been a unity of

man — soul and body — in flesh W e have, except for the poets,

! t G . L . Ptestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: Heinemann 1936)

1 7 Ridler (ed.), The Image of the City, 84.1 8 Charles Willia ms The Figure of Beatrice (London: Faber & Faber, 1943). 2.07

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



rather lost this sense of the bo dy; we have nor only despised it roo

much, b ut we have not admired ir enough ' 9

He en tit le d one of his last essays The Inde x of the Bo dy , an essay i n which

the human body is perceived to be not merely one of the most important

vehicles for the communication of heavenly beauty, but also as a

microcos m of the whole created order Hu ma n beings mi gh t disto rt thestructure of their own existence and corrupt its forces, but they were

u lt im a t e ly powerless to destroy a pa tte rn tha t had been decreed by th e

Father and embodie d in i ts perfecti on by His incarnate Son Th e Sacred

Body is the p lan u p o n w h ich physical creation was b u i l t , for it is the centre

of physical creation 1 0 ( I h i s essay was o r ig in a l ly p r in t e d i n The Dublin

Review 1 9 4 2 and suffered some censorship by nervous editors; you may

t h i n k th ey were correct) In view of al l this , i t i s hard ly surprisin g that he

should respond so pos itiv ely to the speculations he fo u n d i n D u n s Scotus.

Of course', says Wi l l i a m s , c om i ng upo n that tex t , i f C hr i s t i n hi s hum an

nature is predestined before all things, that is why the human body is as it

isBut I should l ik e to end w i t h what could be his most interesting and

provocative use of this theory. The reference occurs, not i n a theolo gical

context, but in the t h i r d of his books of l i terary cri t ic ism, Reason and

Beauty in the Poetic Mind 1 1 The subject under discussion is Jo hn M i l t o n ,

and, speak ing of the pecul iar diffic ulties of p o r t r a y in g — as M i l t o n tries to

do in Paradise Lost - Omnipo tenc e and Omniscience in a w o r k of art,

W i l l i a m s says, in an impu den t way:

If Christianity were not true, it would have been necessary, for the

sake of letters, to invent it It is the only safe means by which poetry

can compose the heavens, without leaving earth entirely out of the

picture I he Incarnati on, had it not been necessary to man sredemption, would have been necessary to his arr; the rituals of the

Church have omitted that importanr fact from their paeans "

The Incarnation is seen as the means by w h i c h heaven a nd_ earth , t he

natural and supernatural , are u n i t e d ; the paradoxical p o i n t at w h ich God

an d hu man ity are joine d, and the Absolu te presents i tsel f in muta ble arid

apprehensfble flesTi; '6Tir"flesh I used t o ' t h i n k that Wil l i am s was not being

entirely seriousT in ma ki ng ' thi s clai m - a nd, of course, it is presented i n

ll > Wil l ia m s , He Came Down From Heaven 1151 0 Ridler ( ed ) The Image of the City, 86z ' Charles Williams , Reason and Beauty in the Poetic Mind (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1933)1 1 Williams. Reason and Beauty in the Poetic Mind. 0 9

HOR NE The Christology of Charles Williams 119

jo cu la r f o r m - t ha t as bo th aesthetics and theology it was both specious

an d untenabl e No w I am less sure; and I wonder, now, if it is fanciful t o

i nt tod uc e a compatison w i t h one of the great theologians of the Byzantine

t r adi t i o n : John of Damascus. Wh at is the basis of John's defence of icons?

I t is the fact of the Inc arn ati on If the A l m i g h t y ha d not uni ted himself to

matter in the f o r m of the man Jesus there could be no ground for the

representation of d i v i n i t y i n the mannet of images, but because this has

occurred, because Jesus had appeared in history, because he could be

observed and wors hipp ed, there was, not only no reason wh y matt er sho uld

no t be used to represent the d iv in e , there was a posi tive injunction placed

upon h uman beings to do exactly this Icons, on this argumen t, become an

indispensable part of the fabric of Chris tian worshi p and theolo gy

In the former times, G od , who is with out form or body could never be

depicted Bu t now when God is seen in the flesh conversing wi th me n,

I make an image of the Go d whom I see I do not worship matter: 1

worship the Crearor of matter who became matter for my sake, who

willed to take H i s abode in matter; who worke d out my salvation

through matrer Go d s body is Go d because it is joined to His

person by a union whi ch shall never pass aw ay . 13

N o w I admit that, on the surface, John's argument is presented d i f f e r

e n t ly f r o m W il l i am s s: i t i s one w h ich advances f r o m a theologic al posi tion

on the natu re of revelation to the just i ficat ion of iconograph y. I t does no t

seem to say: Her e we have images, ho w best can we jus tif y them? Le t us

w o r k out a theory that does just that A n d, behol d, we have a conv inci ng

one to hand, namely , the Inca rnatio n ' Or does ¡t say tha t? A scept ical

h is t o r ia n t r y i n g to evaluate the motives of John s w o r k m i g h t , possibly,

arrive at such a conclusion; or, at least, propose that John's jus t i f i c a t i on

was, psychological ly speaking, more complicated in i ts motives than the

theologian and his subsequent interpreters make out Was Wi l l ia ms bei ng

as disin genu ous as that? He was in love w i t h the att of poetry, of that there

is no doubt, and was persuaded of his h i g h vocat ion as a poet Was he

i nv o ki ng a convenient for mul a to provide a theological justi fic ation for this

quasi-rel igious estimare of that cal l ing? Perhaps not conscious ly; he

certa inly never develop ed his clai m beyo nd this instance Bu t the in stance

remains interesting for a number of reasons First , his aesthetics is based, a t

least in theoty, not, as is usually the case in the West ern theologi cal

t r adi t i o n (Thomas Aquinas is the great exemplar here), on the doctrine of

1 3 John of Damascus On the Divine Images trans David Anderson (New York: StVladimirs Ptess 1980), 23

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


12.2 The Person of Christ

t h a n Ma r k of John's co n d e m n a t io n of sin, bu t again avoids co mmen t o n

t h e in co n g r u i t y of Jesus presenting himse lf o n John s terms to be baptized.

Th e reference to the b a p t is m i n John s Gospel is, as I have m e n t io n e d ,

o b l iq u e . Ih a t John s b a p t is m is a b a p t is m of repentance an d forgiveness is

i m p l i e d but not stated, th e emphasis being placed, rather , o n Johns

b a p t is m w i t h water i n contrast to the b a p t is m of the Spir i t that Jesus w i l l

br i ng . W h i l e th e b a p t i z i n g m i n i s t r y o f John is the context i n w h i c h is

reported th e descent o f the S p ir i t u p o n Jesus, it is nevet stated i n John s

Gospel that Jesus h im s e l f wa s baptized W e m a y perhaps gat her t h a t he

was f t o m th e t e s t im o n y o f John th e Baptis t tha t I came b a p t iz in g w i t h

water fo r this reason, that he [the L a m b o f GodJ m i g h t be revealed to

Israel (Jn I 3 1 ) , an d fu r t h e r , ' I saw the Spir it descending f r o m heaven l ike

a dove, and it remained o n h i m (J n 1 32) , bu t we are u n l i k e l y , I suspect,

to draw th e inference that Jesus was baptized by John i f we d i d no t also

k n o w the Synoptic t r adi t i o n . This k i n d of reticence i n r e p o r t i n g the

b a p t is m is the k i n d of t h i n g t h a t encourages the Jesus Seminar to believe

that this t h i n g really happened, and to suppose fu r t h e r m o r e t h a t t h is is an

incident that reveals wh o Jesus really was O n t h is occasion, i f few others, I

agree w i t h t h e m Th e b a p t is m does indeed reveal the t rue reality of Jesus as

the Chris t

I t is M a t t h e w alone a m o n g the evangelists w h o pauses over th e baptism

an d addresses th e p r o b l e m w i t h w h i c h I am concerned. Ma t t h e w d t a w s the

same contrast as John between th e b a p t is m w i t h water offered b y John the

Baptis t and baptism w i t h th e H o l y Spir it and w i t h fire that w i l l be offered

by on e wh o is c o m i n g a f ter ' Joh n M a t t h e w also makes clear, however, tha t

Jo hn s b a p t is m w i t h water is for repentance and forgiveness, and so reports

Jo hn s o w n ob ject i on when the one w i t h o u t si n comes to h i m to be

baptized John w o u l d have ptevented Jesus, Ma t t h e w t e l l s us, and said to

h i m , I need to be baptized by y o u , and do y o u come to me? B ut Jesus

answered him, "Let it be so for n o w ; for it is proper for us i n this way to

f u l f i l a i l righteousness ( M t 3 1 4 - 1 5 ) W e shall return in due course to

t h is response, for it is not clear w i t h o u t fur thet considerat ion how i t

resolves ou r p r o b l e m For the m o m e n t , h o w e ver , I w a n t to pause at the

p r o b le m i t s e l f W e have seen i n M a r k an d L u k e a cer ta in reticence about

r e p o r t in g the b a p t is m of Jesus, and i n John that reticence manifests i tself

i n th e avoidance o f any direct cl aim th at such an in c id e n t t o o k place O n l y

M a t t h e w pauses at the bapti sm itself and acknowledges the i n c o n g r u i t y of

th e event t h a t occasioned the descent of the S p ir i t . J o h n baptizes those who

repent and confess t h e i t sins W h a t was Jesus d o in g t h e n , i n s u b m i t t i n g t o

this baptism of John?

R A E The Baptism of Christ 12.3

Ma t t h e w 's Gospel is not alone i n t a i s in g an o b je c t io n to the prospect of

Jesus s u b m i t t i n g to J o h n s baptism. Th e extra-canonical Gospel of the

H e b r e w s places an o b je c t io n to the baptism on the l ips of Jesus h im s e l f

Ih e t e x t reads:

Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to h i m : John the

Baptist baptizes unto th e temission of sins Let us go and be baptizedby him But he said to them: Wherein have I sinned that I should go

and be baptized by him? Unless what I have said is ignorance 1

C o m m e n t i n g a p p r o v i n g l y o n this text , an d a t t e m p t i n g to reconcile i t w i t h

the canonical reports that the baptism di d indeed go ahead, Jerome suggests

that despite seeing no need for any act of repentance, Jesus shtank f r o m

f o l l o w i n g hi s conscience because he knew the united teaching of the

Scriptures to the effect that no h u m a n b e in g is free f r o m sin - Jerome s rather

contr ived effor t at h a r m o n iz a t io n of the var ious witnesses leaves us e ither

w i t h a Jesus w ho was no t after a l l w i t h o u t s i n , thus cont tavening the

t e s t im o n y of the Ne w Tes tamen t , or else w i t h a Jesus who was ignorant or at

least u n ce r t a in of his sinlessness and who thus submitted t o b a p t is m in two

m i n d s as to his o w n need of it We have a choice between a s i n f u l Jesus or a

confused Jesus, neither poss ibil ity o f w h i c h is easily reconcilable w i t h the

N e w Testament witness Bet ter , I t h i n k , s i m p l y t o recognize a t t h is p o in t the

w i s d o m of th e Gospel of the Hebrews h aving been excluded f r o m th e canon

De s p i t e b ib l ica l an d d o g m a t ic objections, there are some commentators

u p o n th e b a p t is m of Jesus who have supposed that Jesus di d need to

confess h is ow n sins D F Strauss, fo r example, contends that , being

ig n o t a n t of w h o Jesus was, J o h n the B a p t is t co u ld no t have consented to

baptize him w i t h o u t the confession o f sins r e q u ir e d of a ll o ther baptismal

candidates. Th e i m p l a u s i b i l i t y , i n Strauss s m i n d , o f a b a p t is m

unaccompanied by Jesus confession a nd repentance leads h i m to conclude:

Ihere is then no alternative but to suppose, that as Jesus had not, up to

the time of his baptism, thought of himself as Messiah, so w i t h regard

to the liCTtiU'OLO: (repentance), he may have justly ranked himself amongst

the most excellent in Israel, without excluding himself from whar is

predicated i n Job iv 18, xv 15 [ i e that God puts no trust even i n his

holy ones] 3

1 Cited by W D Davies and Dale C Allison, A Critical and Exegetkal Commentary on the

Gospel According to Matthew I (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1998). 322

See again, Davies and Allison Critical and Exegetkal Commentary, 322.3 David Friedtich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. (London: SCM Ptess, 1973)

239

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


J be Person of Christ

There i s l i t t l e h is t o r ica l g r o u n d fo r contro vert in g [the s infulness of Jesus] ,

Sttauss continues , for the w o r d s which of you convkteth me of sin > (John v i i i .

4 6 ) co uld only refer to open delinquencies , a nd to a later peri od in the life

of Jesus The scene i n his t w e l f t h yeat, even i f h is t o r ica l , co u ld not by itself

prove a sinless d e ve lo p m e n t of h is powers 4 Jesus was thus bapti zed, m

Strauss s v i e w , because, l i k e alt rhe o ther candidates presenting themselves

at th e Jordan, he too ha d need of the repentance a nd forgiveness upon

w h i c h th e r ite was focused That view ma y be correct , of course, b u t it sets

aside th e t r a d i t io n a l d o ct r in e of Jesus sinlessness w i d e l y attested i n the

Ne w Testament (see Acts 3 14; Jn 8 4 6 ; 2 Co r 5 2 1 ; H e b 7 2 6 ; 1 Pet.

I 1 9 ) , an d undermines th e soter io logy predicared upon tha t witness . I

shall argue i n conttast , below, that Jesus ma y indeed have offered

confession a nd repentance on the occasion of his b a p t i s m , no t however

because of his own need, b u t because of hi s love fo r a h u m a n i t y t h a t had

fa llen into sin and w h ic h b u r d e n he n ow shoulders on our behalf

Strauss is, of course, a rare dissenter f r o m th e o r t h o d o x defence of the

d o ct r in e o f Jesus sinlessness an d f r o m th e consequent c la im , fo u n d i n

almost every commentary on the bapti sm, that Jesus himself ha d no need

of th e baptism of Joh n Ju s t in , in his d ia lo g u e w i t h Tryph o, offers an early

t e s t im o n y to th e muc h more widespread conv ict i on that Jesus d i d no t g o

to th e river because he s tood in need of b a p t is m 5 Te r t u l l ia n l ik e w is e

comments t h a t , a l t h o u g h Jesus was baptized, 'n o tepentance was due f rom

H i m ' 6 That cla im is repeated as w o u l d be expected, t h r o u g h C y r i l of

Je ru sa le m, Ambro se, Chrysost om, Augusti ne, Bonaventura , Aquin as ,

t u t h e r , C a l v i n , et al I t is co n f i r m e d too by Schleiermacher w h o overcomes

the apparent incongruity of Jesus' b a p t is m fo r repentance an d forgiveness

of sins by p r e fe r r in g th e account of J o h n over against those of th e Synoptic

Gospels J o h n s Gospel, Schleiermacher r i g h t l y observes, makes no

m e n t i o n of any need for repentance an d confession when presenting

4 Sttauss, Life of Jesus 239 Strauss cites an heretical apocryphal work which offers a

precedent to his own view i n apparently attrib uting to Jesus a confession of his own sins at

baptism Strauss notes, 'The author of the Tractates de non iterando baptisnm in Cyprian's works

Kigali , p 139, says (the passage is also found in Fabric Co d apocr N T s 790f ): Est -

11 her qui inscribitur Vault Praedicatio In quo libra, contra omnes scripturas et de peccato propria

confitentem inventus Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit. et ad accipiendum Joannis baptisma

paent invitum a matre sua Maria esse compulsum ' Strauss, Life of fesus 238 n 55 Justin Martyi. Dialogue with Trypbo L X X X V I I I , 350 Jn Ante-Nicenr fathers, I, trans

and ed A Roberts and J Donaldson (Peabody. MA : Hendrickson 1994). l 9 4 - 2 7 ° ;

quotation on 243

6 Tertullian, On Baptism ch X I I Of the Necessity of Baptism to Solvation , in Ante-Nicene

Fathers, II I trans and ed A Roberts and 1 Donaldson (Peabody, MA : Hendrickso n. 1994)..

669-80; quotation on 674

R A E The Baptism of Christ 125

oneself for baptism in the Jordan Sc hleierma cher thus contends that Joh n s

b a p t is m is a symbolic representat ion o f th e need for sin to be abandoned if

people are to enter the k i n g d o m , but it does no t i tself accomplish the

forgiveness of s in To be baptized, on this account, is a r i t u a l means o f

ap p r o v i ng John s p r o c la m a t io n , r a t h e r l ik e s h o u t in g H a l le l u ja h w h e n the

preacher says, go and give your money to the poor , w h i l e at th e same t im e

k e e p in g one s w a l le t f i r m l y closed I n p a r t ic ip a t in g i n this symbolic r i te,

therefore , Jesus is merely endorsing John s message a n d d e m o n s t r a t in g

thereby th e co n t in u i t y b e t w e e n John's m i n i s t r y a nd his o w n 7 He does not

confess h is sins an d repent under John s baptiz ing hand because, i n fact , no

on e is required to do so In g e n io u s t h o u g h Schleiermacher s s o lu t io n may

be, i t comes at the very considerable cost of d i s c o u n t i n g th e synoptic

t e s t im o n y For this reason, among others , i t cannot be approved

If th e t t a d i t i o n is l a r g e ly agreed that Jesus d id not go t o the Jordan

because h e s tood i n need of baptism hi mself , wh at reason is g iven for Jesus

response to Joh n s ca ll to repent an d be baptized? A co m m o n v ie w is that

the baptism of Jesus is an event that sanctifies baptism itself Chtysostom

comments rhat I n t r u t h , C h r is t needed no t b a p t is m . . . but rathei

b a p t is m needed th e p o w e r o f C h r is t B The wa y i n w h i c h the p o w e r of

C h r is t sanctifies b a p t is m has been var iously conceived Ambro se considers

t h a t The Saviour w i l l e d to be baptized no t t h a t H e m i g h t H i m s e l f be

cleansed, bu t to cleanse th e water for us 9 Aquinas approves this view

co m m e n t in g t h a t a l t h o u g h w a te r is subtle an d p e n e t r a t in g in its own

nature, [ i t is ] made ye t more so by Christ' s blessing 1 0 A n d fu r t h e r ,

Chr i s t sanctified the waters hy the touch of his most pure flesh 1 1

T a k i n g a d i f f e r e n t l in e b u t h o l d i n g s t i l l to the n o t i o n t h a t C h r i s t s

b a p t is m sanctifies baptism itself , John C a lv in contends that :

For this teason (Christ] dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own

body, that he might have i t in common with us, as a most firm bond of

7 Schleiermacher s account of Jesus baptism is found jn his The Life of fesus, ed Jack C

Verheyden trans S. Maclean G ilmour (Miflintown PA : Siglet Press. 1997) 136-45

(Lectures 21 and 22)

Chrysostom Homilies on the Gospel of John. Homily X V I I In Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers ed Philip Schaff (Peabody MA: Hendrickson 1994) first series vo l X I V , 58-62:

quotation on 60

9 Ambrosiaster, Sermon 12.4; cited in St Ihomas Aquinas Catena Aurea Gospel of

Matthew, Chapter 3 vol I (ed John Henry Parker; London: J G F and j Rivington, 1842).

The same view is espoused by Chrysosrom in his Discourse on the Da y of the Baptism of

Christ'; He was baptised an d sanctified the nature of water'

Aquinas Catena Aurea

Aquinas Summa Theologiae 3a, 38, 4 2 vol 53 trans Samuel Parsons OP and AlbertPinheiro OP (London: Blackfriars 1971), 13

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



N o t for his o w n sake, therefore, b u t as an example to his disciples, Jesus

humbles himself by s u b m i t t i n g t o th e bapt i sm of John

l i k e th e three reasons previously adduced, this f o u r t h account of w h y

Jesu s und er w ent bapt i sm is no t w r o n g , b u t nei ther is it w h o l l y adequate i n

my view. Indeed, none of the reasons surveyed so far, ei thet o n their ow n o r

i n combination, adequately address th e apparent i n c ongr u i ty of the sinless

one undergoing baptism fo r repentance a nd the forgiveness of sins Ih e

c l a i m tha t i n d o i n g so Christ sancti fied bapti sm may be r i g h t bu t is no t a

suffic ient reason. I t is also c laimed that Chr ist sancti fied marriage by

at tend i ng the w e d d i n g at Cana, b u t he d i d so w i t h o u t hav i ng to be

m a r r ie d h i m sel f I t is secondly suggested tha t C ht i s t wa s baptized to f u l f i l

a particular command o f Go d , bu t i f the c om m and to t he Jews to be

baptized was in reparation of hum an faul t , w hat obl i ga t i on is there to f u l f i l

that command on one no t g u i l t y of the fault? Th at bapt ism afforded John

the Baptist th e o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n f i r m hi s testim ony about th e c om i ng

one, is , again, no t c o m p e l l i n g on its o w n John s Gospel accomplishes the

same en d w hi l e av o i d i ng m ent i on of the bapt ism i tsel f A n d f inally, i n

respect of the d isplay of exemplary h u m i l i t y by Jesus - i f tha t is a l l there is

to i t - there might be some justice i n a charge of d issimulation against one

w h o w e n t t h r o u g h th e m ot i ons of confession an d repentance merely as an

example t o others. M y c l a i m , le t me repeat, is no t tha t these accounts of

wh y Jesus shoul d have been baptized are w r o n g , b u t only tha t they f a i l , o n

their own, to get to the heart of th e matter . I n what remains of th i s essay,

therefore, I propose to explore on e fur ther account of the matter that does

better justice t o th e theological significance of Jesus baptism

I begi n w i t h Chrysostom whose considerations of the bapt i sm of Chtist

are among th e most extensive i n th e t r a d i t io n an d whose deliberat ions

i nc l ud e al l four reasons m ent i oned so far Most i nter es t i ng i n Chrysostom,

however, is th e f o l l o w i n g account of w h y Jesus was baptized Chrysostom

writes :

He [Christ] comes to baptism , that H e wh o has taken upon H i m

hum an nature, may be found to have fulfilled th e whole mystery of that

nature; no t that He is H i m s e l f a sinner, bu t he has taken on H i m a

nature that is s inful A n d therefore, thou gh he needed no t baptism

Him self , yet the carnal nature in others needed i t 1 0

C hr ysos tom here l i nks bapt i sm to i nc ar nat i on, t o C hr i s t s assumption of

human flesh, an d opens an avenue of i nq u i r y , I shall argue, that leads us

Cited in Aquinas.. Catena Aurea

R A E The Baptism of Christ

u lt im a t e ly t o the cross I h e suggestion being made here by C hr ysos tom is

that th e bapt i sm of C h t i s t , fa r f r o m being merely exemplary, or s i m p l y an

endorsement o f John s m i n i s t r y , is in fact to be understood as th e

o u t w o t k i n g of the i nc ar nat i on i n w h i c h Jesus takes upon himself and fulf i ls

the whole mystery o f hum an nature I t is, i n other word s, proper to the

incarnation i tsel f that Jesus shoul d be baptized. H o w is this t o be

understood whi le gua rdi ng against, as Chrysostom r i g h t l y does, any

suggestion that Christ wa s h i m sel f a sinner?

C h r is t ia n f a i t h holds that, i n becoming flesh, th e W o r d of Go d and

second person of the T r i n i t y assumed a hum an nature, n o t merely i n

docetic fashion, b u t genuinely. I h e W o r d became flesh and was, by v i r t u e of

that becoming, f u l l y an d t t u l y h u m a n W h a t the W o r d became according

to John 1 14 was flesh — sarx H e took upon himself, i n othet words, tha t

w h i c h ha d fal len prey to si n " Romans 8 3 has i t that G o d sent his o w n

Son in the likeness of s inf ul flesh Ih is theme, expl icated by such as

E d w a r d I r v i n g , " K a r l B a r t h , 1 3 an d r ec ent l y I hom as Wei nan d y 1 4 is crucial

to th e proper understan ding of th e bapt i sm of Jesus C hr i s t . Ac c or d i ng to

I r v i n g , I ha t C hr i s t took ou r fal len nature is most manifest , because there

was no other i n existence t o t a k e . ' 15 I h i s p o i n t needs t o be articulated

careful ly so as t o avoid the impression t hat fallenness is of th e essence of

human nature, thus casting aspersions on the goodness o f G o d s creation;

bu t I r v i n g is r i g h t t o insist that the hum an natur e an d society i n to w hi c h

th e Son of G o d came was that nature an d society w h i c h wa s d istorted and

c or r upted by th e Fal l This is t he p o i n t we saw h i nted a t i n C a l v i n I n

agreement w i t h I r v i n g , K ar l B ar th is emboldened to say tha t w hi l e sin

co u ld no t find an y place i n H i m , t he hum ani ty C ht i s t assumed is 'our o w n

f a m i l ia r h u m a n i t y out and out, namely, n o t only w i t h it s natural

problems, b u t w i t h th e g u i l t l y i n g u p o n it of w h i c h it has to repent, w i t h

the judgement of G o d hang ing over i t , w i t h the death t o w hi c h i t isl iable i 6 O n B a r t h s account Christ offers himself to be baptized n o t on

account of his o w n s i n , of w h i c h he was completely free, bu t o n account of

1 1 I owe the observation to Mattin Hengel wh o offered this explication of John 1 14 at a

conference on John's Gospel held at St Andrews in July 2003.1 1 See The Collected Writings of Edward Irving. 5 vols . ed G Cadyle (London: Alexander

Strahan, 1865). V sy^S2 3 See for example, Karl Barch. Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: I & T Clark 1956-75)12,

1 3; IV I , I 3 t ; 258-591 4 'Thomas Weinand y In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ

(Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1993)

i ;

Irving, The Collected Writings, V , 115-162 6 Barth Church Dogmatics I 2. 40

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



th e g u i l t tha t la y u p o n h u m a n i t y as a w hol e , i nc l ud i n g, no w, his ow n

h u m a n i t y H o w is th i s to be understood?

I n exploring this matter further we are assisted by the recent w o r k i n

theological anthropology o f J o h n Z i z i oul as To be h u m a n , as Christ

certainly was, is to exist i n personal rel ation w i t h others. Th e person is not

to be conceived along ind ividu al is tic l ines, b u t rather as one whose be ing is

c ons t i tuted i n relation. Her e we may see th e correctness of l i v i ng 's

assertion that i n tak ing fal len human nature Christ to ok upon himself the

o n ly human natute there was to take One cannot be h u m a n i n i solation

f r o m others; indeed th e myriad ways i n w h i c h w e a t t e m p t to do tha t is

itself a manifestation of sin. T o exist, not for others, b ut over against t he m,

in defiant 01 even resigned independence, is a v i o l a t i o n of the c om m and to

love on e another, an d defies God's j u d g m e n t i n creation th at it was not

good that m a n should be alone I f this relational ontolo gy, recently

reclaimed by theo l ogy, is correct , th en th e incarnation involves the

assum pt i on of a na tur e w hi c h , i n v i r tue of its r e l a t iona l c ons t i tut i on, was

m ar r ed an d d i s tor ted by sin. T h a t means, as B ar th puts i t , tha t the Son of

God took upon himself the g u i l t that l ies upon us al l . Or we may prefer

Paul s confession: For out sake { G o d } made h i m to be sin wh o k n e w no

sin, so tha t i n h i m w e m i g h t become th e righteousness of G o d ' (2 Cor

5 2 1 ) . Here to o is a clue to w h a t m i g h t have been m eant by Jesus i n

c l a i m i n g tha t hi s submission t o bapt i sm w i l l f u l f i l al l righteousness. A s

promised earl ier , we w i l l treat this matter more f u l l y below

The relational conception of the hum an s i tuat i on g i v i n g rise to the

b ib l ica l c laim that i n bec omin g flesh - tha t i s , i n bec om i ng w h at w e a re—

Jesus took upon himself also ou r g u i l t , does n ot come easily to the Wes ter n

m i n d that is commonl y disposed to t h i n k of h u m a n beings i n

in d iv id u a l is t i c terms Bu t the relational conceptio n is deeply rooted i n

H ebr ew thought Th e O l d Testament tells of God's deal ings w i t h a people.

W h i l e particular individuals may be called a nd ano i nted by Go d for a

special role, they are never call ed apart f r o m the people b u t rather for the

sake of the people. Their actions are actions o n behalf o f Israel as a whole

an d may be redemptive or indeed catastrophic for the w hol e of Go d s

people It is this logic that enables Paul to say that just as by the one

ma n s disobedience th e many were made sinners , so by the one ma n s

obedience the m any w i l l be made righteous ( R o m 5 19). I h e relational

conception of our hum an s i tu at i on is at work again i n Paul's reflections o n

Israel i n Romans 1 1 where he claims th at I f the part of the dou gh of fered

as f i rst fruits is holy, then th e whole batch is ho l y ; and if the root is holy,

then th e branches also are holy. Such conclusions are no t na tur a l to theWester n und er s tand i ng of our huma n si tu ation , even less so in

RA E The Baptism of Christ 131

Postm od ei ni ty w hi c h d r iv es s t i l l f u r t h e r i n the d i r ec t i on of separation and

f r agm entat i on th e already ind ividu al ist ic conceptions of the huma n pe rson

that were developed w i t h i n Mod er ni ty .

I t is helpful , therefore, to consider th e p o i n t by reference to a no n-

Weste rn cultu re that think s more natural ly i n relational an d corporate

te tm s Th e various Polynesian cultur es in the i s land nations of the South

Pacific and in Ne w Zealand do not t h i n k o f persons as i nd i v i d ual s I h e

p r im a r y hum an ent i ty is the extended fa mily or the v i l l age so that

' in d iv id u a ls are what they are onl y by v i r tue of their belongi ng t o the

f a m i ly and the v i l lage Th e i m pl i c a t i ons of this conception are t e l l i n g l y

demonstrated in the Polynesian justice sy stem, or , to pu t i t otherwise, i n

the customaiy ways i n w h i c h righteousness is f u l f i l l e d in the face of sin

Suppose tha t a cr ime has been c o m m i t t e d , a murder perhaps W i t h i n the

r e l a t i ona l c onc eptua l l y of Polynesian cult ure the g u i l t fo r that mu rder

rests no t only up on the perpetrator, b u t w i t h equal weight upon the

perpetrator 's entire fam ily Res ponsibi l i ty for penance, therefore, also rests

w i t h th e f a m i l y as a w hol e Such r espons i b i l i ty is w o r k e d out in the

f o l l o w i n g way The g u i l t y fam i l y w i l l go to the house of the v i c t i m 's

f a m i ly T hen, s i t t i n g on the grou nd outside the house, t h e g u i l t y fam i l y

w i l l begi n a process of w eepi ng an d lament, of confession and of penance

for th e cr ime tha t has been c o m m i t t e d I h e i ndi v i du a l perpetrator w i l l be

in the i r m i d s t , bu t it is the fam i l y as a w hol e w hi c h bears the gu i l t , an d so

also the r espons i b i l ity fo r repentance and the need for forgiveness Ih is

process of penance w i l l continue, perhaps for several days, u n t i l th e f a m i l y

of the v i c t i m come o u t f r o m the i r house, offer forgiveness to the

perpetrator 's family an d begin thus a process o f reconci l iation

This example is not analogous i n every respect to the bapt i sm of Christ

bu t i t does demonstrate the relational logic under which the whole fam ily

or race may be i m pl i c a ted by the sin of one of its member s. I t i s along these

l ines, I suggest, i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the bibl ic al view, that we are to t h in k

of Jesus assumption of hum an nature H i s condescension is not restr icted

to th e assumption of those l i m i ta t i on s pr oper to our h u m a n i t y w i t h i n the

conditions o f th e created order, bu t includes also hi s acceptance of the gu i l t

that l ies upon humanity as a whole I h e W o r d became flesh means that

he who was w i t h o u t si n became sin and took o u t fallenness upon hi m sel f

W e ma y note i n passing here that th e process of justice in the Polynesian

context, 01 th e f u l f i l m e n t o f righteousness, to pu t i t otherwise, is d irected

towards reconci l iation rather than punishment, an d constitu tes thus

another point of contrast w i t h most Western systems of justice, an d of

comparison w i t h th e bibl ical view

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



H e acted ju s t ly , B a r t h co n t in u e s , i n t h a t he d i d n o t refuse to do what

they w o u l d not do. Ih e one great sinner, w i t h all the consequences that

this involves , peni tent ly acknowledges that H e is the one lost sheep, the

one lost co in, the lost son (L k 15:30 3 4

I t is im p o s s ib le to understand th is w i t h i n th e i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c

co n ce p t u a l i t y o f W e s t e r n t h o u g h t by w h i c h it is s i n f u l l y asserted that

each of us is responsible for the creat ion an d o t d e r i n g of o u r o w n b e in g I t

is foolishness indeed i n co n t e m p o r a r y We s t e r n cu l t u r e t o p t o c la im t h a t the

one decisive fact o f our existence is not a fact of our o w n m a k i n g but one

t h a t is accomplished for us, even des pite us, by Jesus confession and

repentance, an d u l t i m a t e l y by his death, on our behalf

I t is in this ma nner , nevertheless, t h a t we may u n d e t s t a n d th e b a p t is m

of Jesus in th e River Jordan Bapt ism is the b e g i n n i n g of Jesus m i n i s t r y i n

w h i c h he entered on his wa y as the Judge j u d g e d i n our place 3 5 I t is th e

b e g in n in g , t h u s , of his passion Jesus no m o r e needed to be baptized than

he needed to be c r u c i f ie d , b ut for the sake of h u m a n i t y a n d i n obedience to

th e Father, he p u t h im s e l f in the place o f those w h o d i d need t o confess and

who deserved death In his co m m e n t a r y o n L u k e s G o s p e l , John M o o r m a n

w r i t e s , T he B a p t i s m is the f irs t step in the r e d e e m in g w o r k of Chr is t

It is not o n ly the b e g i n n i n g of the m i n i s t r y , i t is also th e b e g i n n i n g of the

passion 3 6 Joseph F i t z m y e r , by contrast , does n o t t h i n k t h a t th e Lucan text

s u p p o r t s t h is in t e r p r e t a t io n 3 7 b ut the evidence seems t o fa l l o n M o o r m a n s

s ide Luke himself , at 1 2 . 5 0 , speaks of Jesus l a b o u r i n g at a b a p t is m t h a t is

no t yet co m p le t e T have a b a p t i s m w i t h w h i c h to be baptized , Jesus says,

'and what stress I am under u n t i l it is accomplished Th ere seems l i t t l e

alternat ive here bu t to understand this saying as an a n t ic ip a t io n of Jesus

c r u c i f i x i o n , g i v i n g warrant , therefore , to the v ie w t h a t th e b a p t i s m i n the

River Jordan is to be seen i n co n n e ct io n w i t h the pass ion Beyo nd Luke —

a n d t h u s , a d m it t e d ly , b e y o n d the p r o vin ce of F itzmyer 's c omme nt — thep o i n t is s trengthened by the words of Jesus i n M a r k 1 0 38 After speaking

to them about hi s death, Jesus t h e n asks th e disciples , A te yo u able t o

d r i n k the cup t h a t I d r i n k , or be b a p t iz e d w i t h th e baptis m that I am

b a p t iz e d w it h ? I t seems clear again here t h a t to be b a p t iz e d means t o

suffer and to die W h a t is re p r es e n te d s y m b o l ica l ly t h r o u g h im m e r s io n i n

3 4 Ibid3 5 See again, Batch Church Dogmatics IV r, 2593 6 John R .H Moorman The Path to Glory: Studies in the Gospel According to Luke (London:

SPCK, 1963), 39.3 7 Joseph Fitzmyer Ihe Gospel According to Luke I - I X (New Y ork: Doubleday 1981),


the waters of the Jordan is actualized at Calvary Jesus bears our g u i l t , is

made sin, and endutes it s consequences H e represents us before th e Father

fo r he alone a m o n g h u m a n beings ca n offer a t t u e repentance and a true

confess ion, undistor ted b y the p r o p e n s i t y o f a ll o thers of us to disobedience

an d pretence

I n t h is h is t o t y of h is , f t o m b a p t is m t h r o u g h to c r u c i f i x i o n , Jesus fu l f i l l e d

al l righteousness; n o t , however , th e s l i m righteousness of obedience to the

law, b u t rather th e supererogatory righteousness of the God w ho w i l l not

go back on his p r o m is e to be our Go d . Righteousness here means r i ght

r e la t io n s h ip I t denotes th e fa ithfulness of God to the covenant

r e la t io n a l i t y i n w h i c h H e has set h im s e l f w i t h hi s people. Th e f u l f i l m ent

of a l l righteousness means that once and for al l h u m a n i t y i n Chr is t comes

before th e Father i n confession a n d repentance an d hears th e ve r d icr

spoken, This is my beloved Son w i t h w h o m I am w e l l pleased' I n a very

im p o r t a n t sense, therefo re, there is o n ly one w h o is t r u l y baptized, that is

Jesus C h r is t O n ly hi s b a p t is m fu l f i l s al l righteousness a n d secures the

r e la t io n a l i t y of love between th e Father an d hi s ch i ld r e n . Th a t is w h y , ever

after, those w h o f o l l o w h i m are to be baptized int o Chris t , thereby pass ing

t h r o u g h th e waters w i t h h i m , d y i n g w i t h h i m , a nd r i s in g w i t h h i m I t is in

this way that th e w o r d s of d iv in e lo ve are spoken for us as w e l l Lhis is my

beloved son, t h is is my beloved daugh ter , w i t h w h o m I a m well pleased

The suggest ion we met earlier in the t r a d i t i o n o f co m m e n t a r y u p o n

M a t t h e w 3 1 5 t h a t the f u l f i l m e n t of righteousness denotes Jesus

obedience t o a specific divin e ordinance, namely , that t he people of Israel

should be baptized, deeply impover ishes the b ib l ica l co n ce p t io n of

righteousness w h i c h is not reducible to the observance of any part of or

even t o the e n t i r e t y of the l aw Lhose w h o c la im e d to have fu l f i l l e d the law

d i d n t genetally impress Jesus who soug ht instead a righteousness

exceeding that of the Pharisees' ( M t . 5 2 0 ) A l t h o u g h t h e re are legalovertones , var iously stressed by differen t bib lic al authors , r ighteousness ,

sedaqah, is f u n d a m e n t a l l y a r e la t io n a l concept Th e righteousness of Go d

appears i n his G o d - l i k e d e a l in gs w i t h hi s people , 1 e , in r e d e m p t i o n and

salvat ion (Isa 4 5 : 2 1 ; 5 1 :5 ! ! ; 5 6 : 1 ; 6 2 : 1 ) 3 8 an d refers to the k i n d of

conduct that establishes and maintains r i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p . 59 Jesus b a p t is m ,

therefore , is not underta ken merely i n f u l f i l m ent of the l a w , but to f u l f i l all

r ighteousness , to set h u m a n i t y , i n o ther w ords , i n r i g h t r e la t io n s h ip w i t h

3 H Seebass Righteousness Justification . i n Ihe New International Dictionary of New

Testament Theology II I (ed Colin Brown; Exetet: Paternoster Ptess 19 78) , 3553 9 Seebass Righteousness Justification' 3 57

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


i 3 6 The Person of Christ

G o d , and to restore the covenant relational i ty w i t h God for which we were

created and into which we have been called.

W h a t does all this mean for the person of Christ ? The bapt ism discloses,

i t seems to me, that Christ does indeed f u l f i l the whole mystery of human

nature, as Chrysostom nicely put it But it discloses to us also the profound

myst ety of the div ine Son of Go d who does not grasp at equality w i t h God

b ut makes h i m sel f no thi ng and assumes th e f o r m of a slave I o take the

h u m a n i t y first, my arg umen t has been in this essay tha t it is imposs ible to

make sense of the baptism of Christ on an indiv idual isti c account of human

personhood W i t h an i nd i v i d ual i s t i c onto l ogy i nf or m i ng our t h i n k i n g we

have either to say, w i t h Strauss and others, that Christ himself had sinned,

or else that the bapt ism is merel y exemplary and serves only a pedagogical

rather than a soteriological purpose W i t h a relational ontology, however,

it becomes possible t o see that in assumin g hu man natu te Chris t binds

hims elf to us He allows his very being to be boun d up w i t h ours so that,

w h i l e sinless himself, he-shoujders_our gu i l t^be comes ta jnted as it were

w i t h theJajienness..r j3at„affJi^ and, the ref oje ûi te l i teral ly in

our ^/dre,..makes.„ronfession to the Father on our behalf Tha t ba ptismal

action is brought to completT6ri'^t''tSaivary"wlTere, againÎn our place, he is

made sin and meets th e f u l l consequence of that in death and descent into

hell The bitter cup that is finally dra ine d at Calvary is first accepted by

Jesus at his baptism and in his temp tati on in the wilderness As Col in

G u n t o n again puts i t in the passage already quoted, the bapt ism points

forward to [Jesus } acceptance by death of the judg ement of God on h uman

si n 4 0 I he f u l l mys ter y of hu ma ni ty thus revealed refer s to the fallenness of

our hum ani ty ; but i t refers too to the fact that this humanity is loved by

G o d , i s reclaimed by God, and is reconsti tuted in relation to him through

the baptism that Christ endutes on our behalf

What of the d i v i n i t y of Christ? I have men tio ned already that th ebaptism plays i ts part in reveal ing who God t r u l y is, that is, the one who,

t h r o u g h his Son, loves w i t h o u t l i m i t an d makes himself nothing for our

sakes But the baptism is also to be understood, i rredu cibly , as the action of

the tr iune God The Son acts by taking to himself the whole mystery of

hum an natur e , i nc l u d i ng it s fallenness, it s g u i l t , and its bondage to death;

th e Father declares the Son to be his Son, th e one wh o m he has sent, and he

confirms thereby that Jesus ac t i on i n i d ent i fy i ng hi m sel f w i t h his people

and shouldering their g u i l t is indeed what it means to be God s Son, God s

4 0

Colin E. Gunton, Father Son and Holy Spirit 1

Essays Toward a Fully Trinitarian Theology(London: T&T Ciark 2003) Z07


anoi nted one, God s servant. The n the Spir it, f inally, descends upon and

remains w i t h the Son ptecisely so that in his hu ma ni ty , under the

conditions, that is , of l i m i t a t i o n an d fallenness an d g u i l t , he may bring to

completion the baptism w i t h wh ich he is baptized Immedi atel y,

thereaftet , the S piri t drives Jesus into the wilderness where he is tempted

by the dev i l I h a t means that w i t h th e Father s declated approval and by

the Sp iri t s empowe ring , the Son goes t h r o u g h w i t h his baptism and

labours towa rd i ts compl etion He goes bey ond the symbo lic encounter

w i r h sin and evil and on rhrou gh that real encounter in whi ch evil and sin

are finally overcome

I began this essay by asking why Jesus was bap tiz ed M y answer has

been, f o l l o w i n g Chrysostom s lead, and in agreement w i t h othets along the

way, that in this way Jesus enters into the f u l l mystery of human nature,

fa llen an d g u i l t y as it is, and reconstitutes it in reconcile d relari on to God

I h i s is the work of divine love and so reveals the one who does it as God s

beloved Son

h (b

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Chapter 8

The Confession of the Son

D o u g l a s K n i g h t

W

e are preceded by a conversation, the conversation of Father,

Son and H o l y Spi ri t Like any other piece of theology this

essay attempts to set out some of the logic of thatconversation I t w i l l set out an account of the gospel in passages of

narrative, and in axioms that I state but don t argue for The narrat ive and

the axioms serve one another and require one another. A l o n g w i t h this

narrative theology, this essay also attempts to be a theology of the W o r d ,

w h i c h means broadly that God speaks and makes himself k n o w n to us It

does so by t r y i n g to show that a theology of the W o r d is also a theological

logic of that W o r d and that narrative The logic - that is , phi losop hy -

does no t ptecede th e W o r d - tha t is, the gospel - b ut it corresponds to it :

W o r d and logic are consti tut ed together, so the theology and justi f ication

for t his account of it mus t be kep t togeth er This w i l l a llo w me to say th at

th e W o r d is really w o r d not when i t is spoken, but when i t is finally heard

and an event is created by its hea ring 1

The three persons of Go d have dist inc t wor ks, yet they mak e one singl e

w o r k Relations w i t h i n th e T r i n i t y are not just about orig ins - s ending and

proceedin g - bu t also about the reception of and response to these actions.

That is to say that every thin g demands an audience, an d noth ing is what i t

is u n t i l i t has been co nfi i med by the r i g h t audience For the Son the

consti tutive audience is the Father, but at one p o in t i n the account we

Lagos means, and requires that we articulate, all of the following: Word, the secondperson of the Tfinity words, speech, an event of speech (an announcement for example),

language, gram mar/logic/order narrative, and hearing and reception (and thus a competentaudience)

l 3 8

K N l G H l The Confession of (be S~on 139

mus t be his audience too Ih e Son does not act alone, but is accompanied

and dt iven in all he does by the Spi ri t Ih e Spiri t distinguishes the Son and

the Father f r o m one another: he not only holds th em togeth er b ut he makes

t h e m free by in some measure h o l d i n g them apatt The Father, no t the

S p ir i t , is f inally the petfector and consummat or: the Spi ri t is this

subordinate ly This Christ ologic al discussion of W o r d and narrative w i l l

therefore take us thr ou gh the doctri ne of the Spiri t

I T h e D i v i n e Speech

Go d comes to us Go d is arti cula te and vocal , and he is generous and

f o r t h c o m i n g H i s speech is not a f r o n t for something beyond speech. He is

hi s speech The Father speaks Ih e Son is wh at rhe Father says; he is t he

speech of the Fath er I his is the first pa rt-stateme nt we mus t make about

Go d I t needs three furthe r momen ts of theo-lo gic Ihe next is that the Son

hears the Father The speech of the Father does not disappear into

empti ness, b ut finds its hearer Ih e Son receives th e speech of the Father,

so it comes to its propet place, and is vindicated. The Son is the event ofthe Father s w o r d s arr ival and reception; in hi m the Father s w o t d finds its

proper audience and hom e The t h i r d is that the Son does wha t the Father

says; he carries out the in st ru cti on of the Father Ih e Son answers the

Father - w i t h his act The Son is th e act of obedie nce t ha t hears an d does

the Father s w o r d , so that it is not just w o r d b u t ai t , w or d -ac t T he f o u r t h

moment is that the Father receives the Son; his is the voice the Father

wants to hear and the answer the Father is l o o k i n g for Eve ryth ing the Son

says is acceptable to the Father

The Father sends and the Son receives I h e Son sends and the Fa ther

receives back They do this in themselves; i t is thei r joint act of

conversation and communion By one free act that takes place w i t h i n thisconversation they b r in g creation i n t o being The Father gives the Son the

w o r l d , and the Son receives i t and gives thanks for i t Ih e Son cares for the

w o t l d and , hav i ng br ought i t to c om pl et i on, he br i ngs the w o r l d to the

Father Ih e Father approves the Son s cust odial and pare ntal w o r k , and

receives th e w o t l d back f r o m h i m I n th i s return act of conversation,

creation is perfected, w h i c h means that it is in i t ia t e d as a l i v i n g ,

conversa tional bei ng Their act of conversatio n makes this act of

in s t i t u t io n , reception and finally of prese ntat ion to the Fath er again Ih e

w o r l d i s the product of these various actions, and rhe single vindicated act

of creation is one i t e m of the conversation of the Son w i t h the Father

W e can also put this the other way atound The Father gives the Son to

th e w o r l d Go d presents the w o r l d w i t h this g i f t , of him self , in the person

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


140 The Person of Cbiist

of che Son Then , when many ages have passed, the perfected w o r l d

presents the Son to the Father, by the Spirit The Son w i l l present t he

w o t l d , in the f o r m of us, to the Father to receive his inspection and

approval But the Son also c ont i nual l y presents the first instalments of the

future w o t l d , the perfected creation, to the Father Th e future w o r l d is

e n t i r e ly present to the Father in the Son: it is created by tha t conv etsatio n

and continuously opened by the Spiri t who sustains the it conversation. The

future and completed w o r l d i s continual ly given to the present w o r l d by the

Spir it in the Church, which is the body of the Son for the w o r l d The Spi rit

stands in for the future act of the w o r l d Wher e the w o r l d is going to be,

one day established in its own free an d j o y f u l ac tivi ty , there the Spiti t is

now, represe nting i t and prep arin g ir for this future . The one-day

competent w o r l d w i l l take the action the S piri t gives i t and, in the

company of the Spirit, it w i l l teturn it via the Son, to the Father, and in

that act, the joint-act of Spirit and w o r l d , th e w o t l d w i l l become l i v i n g ,

active and free

Th e Father tells the w o r l d about his Son He tells the Churc h, that

particular f o r m of the w o r l d chosen for this purpose, about his Son Int e l l i n g th e w o r l d about his Son the Churc h is brou ght into being Ih e

Church is the result of the Father's joy in his Son and the Sons joy in the

w o r l d that he brings to the Father The Son is te ll in g those he wants to

present to the Fathet about bis Fathet God is tel l in g us about himself in

th e t h i r d person This narration of God is not something outside God, bu t

is itself a t h i r d person. I he story and speech of God is himself the person of

Go d , rhe H o l y Spiri t We ate t o l d the story by being dra wn int o the sto ry,

and becoming characters in it God draws and assembles us into his

narrat ion, so the story of Go d s actio n is both the story of our being b roughr

into be i ng w i t h i n his action, and the event of our being brou ght into b eing

w i t h i n his action Ih e actio n of God in t e l l i n g , hearing and receivingconsti tutes the whole economy in which we teceive our bein g Ih e call and

response of Father and Son creates a conversat ion, and their conversation

brings into being a work also shared betwee n t he m

I I . T h e D i v i n e Service

The wor k of the Son is the wo rk of God The wo rk of the Son is to make us

holy W e are made holy by that act in whi ch the Son states publ icly before

all powers and authori ties what belongs to Go d, and gives thanks Ih e Son

returns for all these powers and authori ties, and also for us, thanks to God

This retur nin g tha nks -g ivi ng is the labour of the Son

K N I G H l Ibe Confession, of the Son 141

The Son gives to the Father the ctedit for the Farher s speech an d acts

By doing so the Son prevents any other power or authority f rom t a k i n g

credit for these words and acts themselves Ih e Son forestalls their act of

self-ag grandize ment He provides for the m the speech-act that they must

make to the Father, but wh ich they first did not kno w ho w to make, and

w h i c h they then refused to make, theteby f a l l i n g int o reb elli on The Son

speaks to the Father the surrender and apology for this delayed and refused

response that all powers and authorities must make for themselves I n the

Son we return to the Farher all the credit for his speech-acts Only by this

act of the Son are we prevented f r o m being tempted to t h i n k that these acts

of God are our acts The Son prevents us f r o m making fools of ourselves

He pre-empts our impulse to say something else, to hold on to and

a t t r ib u t e ro ourselves what we have received and must return

Ihe court of God is in session Go d s people stand atou nd and before

h i m 1 He hears an d examines those wh o come before him Those around

hi m are stru ck by the expettise and insight of G o d s decisions, and are

relieved ro see that rtungs ate going to go w e l l Hi s assembly praises God

for the generosi ty and virtu osi t y w i t h wh ich he assesses and supplies wh at

is required to assemble this people and sustain them in being. 3 The

assembly l ives f rom partic ipation in this conversation of Father and Son,

an d f r o m the work of creation and rule that freely derives f rom their

conversation This assembly that lives f r o m Go d is expansive: the speech

and life of God extends this heavenly assembly outwards to create an

assembly on earth

I h e speech of heaven creates a speech on earth. The words that go out

f r o m the Father, the Spiri t gathers u p f r o m al l corners of creation, makes

fit, and returns to the Father, as the thankful speech of the creation

i ntegta ted i nto the thankful speech of the Son I t is the speech of the Father

to the Son tha t is heard on earth in the reading of Scriprut e, and it is the

God has a company Ihe Church sendee is a court in session For who in the skies abovecan compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings? In the Councilof the holy ones God is greatly feared: he is more awesome than all who surround him (Psalm89 6—7) See also Patrick Miller who writes 'Ih e assembly or members of ir whether the'divine ones' or holy ones" or particular groups within the whole for example rhe seraphim

are sometimes depicted as serving or worshipp ing the Lord, a part of the holy attay that givesGod gloty Patrick D. Mill er, 'Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: TheDivi ne Council as a Cosmic-Political Symbol', re printed in Israelite Religion ami BiblicalTheology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 200 0), 42 5 And , The council of the Lord is theplace where the goal of all creation, praise begins Ibid . 440

God provides justice and generosity and arraigns those who do nor do so. God presides

in the assembly; he gives judgement among the gods' How long will you defend the unjustand show parrialicy to che wicked' Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless (Psalm 82)

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


142- The Person of Christ

speech of the Son to the Father, tha t is heard i n the responses sung by the

eatthly congregation Wh at we take to be the words of the Church, and so

our words, is first the speech of God, and only then the speech of the

company made glad by God 4 G o d elects, ttan sforms and integrates this

conversation on earth into his own speech and labour

I he speech of God is the act of God Go d s Wo r d leaves no thi ng the

same; i t t tansforms, perfects an d opens evet ythi ng I t is sacramental This

speech is the sacrament It is the i r r u p t i o n of the holiness of God into the

w o r l d tha t makes a l l th i ngs ho l y Wor d and sacrament are not two

m i ni s t t i es There i s rather one Wo rd of God, whi ch sacramentahzes us,

that is , i t makes us holy, compatible w i t h G o d I h i s W o r d comes to us

and is received by God back f r o m us again, brin gin g us into being and

m a k i n g us holy , by parric ipati on in that speech f i t t i n g us fbt further

p a r t ic ip a t io n in that speech W e are the pro duc t of tha t antiph ony , are

sustained i n l i fe by regular re-inclus ion w i t h i n i t . Their divine service

holds in being the Chur ch, the earth -bound overflow of the heavenly

assembly T he C hr i s t i an c om m un i ty exists whe n the connectio n an d

conversation between heaven and earth is live In this call and tesponse

earth is picked up and connected into the speech an d response of the Father

and the Son, and becomes part of the reply the Son makes to the Father,

part of what we may call their service or l i t u r g y . 5

The company of heaven accompany the Son They are the procession th at

fo llows him. He regards this crowd as inseparable f r o m himself, his own

body, his glory , vin dic ati on and reward The compan y of heaven is the one

real and actual communion, the actual ization of communion and p l u r a l i t y

where before there was none. Ihis communion actualizes itself on earth, for

us, as the Chur ch Ih e company of heaven is the speech-act of God, and the

Church is the speech-act of thi s compa ny, and therefore of Go d The

Church is nothing apart f r o m God: the body is not the body apart f r o m thehead, not the w o r d th e l i v i n g Wor d apar t f r o m the speaking voice 6 The

Church is the speaking of the Son to the w o r l d , and it is the heating and

reception by the Spiri t of the Sons w o r d to the w o r l d . Everything that is ,

is because i t i s detived f r o m this conversation, that creates first an assembly

and communion, the Chutch, and then brings into being a w o r l d that

4 See Otfried Hofius, Gemeinscliaft mit den Engeln im Gottesdienst der Kirche , Zeitung far Théologie and Kirche 89 (1992,): 172,-96

5 Leitourgia = public service6 Chrlstoph Schwôbel writes, The Church is creaiura verbi divini: the crearure of the divine

Word The Church is constituted by God's action and not by any human action.' Christoph

Schwobel. ' The Church as Creature of the Word' , in C E Gunton and D W Hardy (eds ), OnBeing the Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1989), 122

K N I G H T The Confession of the Son 143

sustains, and is sustained by, that communion There i s nothing more basic

or irreduc ible than word s, specifically the words spoken by the Son and t he

Father, whose words are acts W e are beco ming par r of the conversation of

the Son and Father W e w i l l become the words they use W e have no being

outside their conversation: when they cease to employ us as the words w i t h

w h i c h the y respo nd t o one another , we are gone

I I I S p e a k in g H u m a n i t y

Th e Father and the Son speak the Spi rit Ih e Spiri t is the language t hey

speak But the Spiri t can speak and be many languages, w i t h o u t being any

less the language of the Son and Father I he Spi r i t extends the i r speech to

create a new language, hu mani ty, whic h the Father and the Son are contenr

to speak They speak humanity, and humanity is one of the modes i n

w h i c h they speak d i v i n i t y to each o t he r H u m a n i t y does not give d i v i n i t y

something that i t did not have before: i t is not a redu ctio n of or addi ti on to

their d i v i n i t y The Son is th e first speaker and the native speaker. H e

speaks hum an it y perfe ctly and is at home i n the flesh, and i n the flesh ofhumanity;TC^pTr1ecrtTyat home w i t h th e Father He is not impe ded by or

disguised by the flesh, for it is brought lhTcTexistence by the speak ing of

the Son and the Father Ih e hum an enti ty and mode of bein g is spoken by

that enfleshing w o r d and utterance Hav ing spoken us int o being they also

speak through us: the Son rep lies to th e Father in the flesh. I he n they speak

to us and so ma ke first hearers and then speakers of us, able to hear, receive

and respond to one another They speak to us one another, g i v i n g us in this

speech one another as words and gifts f r o m Go d W e are to learn to speak

to one another and receive one anothet f r o m t h e m , w i t h thanksgi v i ng.

This human ity the Son receives f r o m rh e Fathet, by the Spirit Th e

S p ir i t takes f r o m the material i ty of the Father and gives it to us, makinghimse lf materi al to us (inc arnat ion) and us to h i m (creation) The fleshly

m a t e r ia l i t y of Jesus of Nazareth derives f r o m , and is sup plie d by, the

consummated mater ial i t y of the Spiri t As yet we speak humanity very

badly : it is a language and a life we are scarcely acquainted w i t h , so like

any foreigner we mangle this language, not because we ate native speakers

of another language , bu t just because we are autistic, scarcely able to speak

But our bad performance of flesh does not make flesh problematic for God

I h e Father and Son speak the language of flesh perfec tly; thi s language is

sustained by their use of it, and they w i l l enable us to be at home i n it t o

them

This account of hu ma ni ty and mate ria lity has avoided a simpl e contrasrbetween material and spiri tu al . Ihe Spiri t extends to us some of the

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



m a t e r ia l i t y of the relation of the Son to the Father Mor e sp i r i tua l means

more real, more solid, more mate rial , more lasti ng Unde r such t heolo gical

défini tion, spiri t ual and material are two terms for the single con tin uu m of

the complex act of God 7 Ihe Spiti t intends to coax us up f r o m the bottom

of the gradient to the top, f r o m no material i ty or real i ty, through the very

sketchy and provisional real i ty we have now, on to a f u l l creaturely

p a r t ic ip a t io n in the bein g of the Son, wh o is Real ity We mus t not decide

therefore that Christ has either a spiri tual body or a physical body, or

a t t r ib u t e some actions to a div ine natute and others to a hu ma n nature W e

must say that Christ is f u l l y present to the Father — f u l l y embodied to him

- by the Spir it The Spir it makes the Son embodied and present to us, so

the Son always has a spiri tua l body and is dressed, escorted and presented

by the Spitit.

But we are not formatted to receive such a direct embodiment Since we

have as yet so l i t t l e real i ty, we have no thi ng to receive the Son s reality

w i t h . Because we are not spir itu al - not yet profi cien t at the life of the Son

- this spiri t ual body in which the Son meets us must have th e specific form

that we do share It must be a body in the part ial and serial sense i n w hi c h

we are embodied and present to one another 8 He must dress d o w n for us,

and be much more d i f f i dent l y present, under-embodied, ot serially

embodied The Son is dressed by the Spirit in a body constituted by all the

presences (bodies) of the people of Israel who have iooked for ward to hi m

He is present to us as al l the f a i t h f u l of Israel, the body of witnesses that

consti tute the Ol d Iestame nt The Ol d Testament is the Son dressed down

i n th e f o r m of many bodies, for us

Yet even that is too much for us. This host is too overwhelming for us to

receive So he is present as this host embod ied i n a single bo dy of the ma n

f r o m Naza reth He is present i n this way onl y to a single gen eratio n of

Israel by the one physical -and-spiri tual body of Jesus C hr i s t N ow becausethis many saw the Son, and because we have believed their reports, we may

also start to receive h i m W e receive hi m first in the f o r m of all the saints

wh o teach our own generation, and through them in the f o r m of all the

teachers of the Church, themselves taught by the apostles, and through the

apostolic witne ss of the scriptures, and all this th ro ug h bap tism i n the

7 I here may be many graduations in this act and contin uum, as many degrees of

differentiation as are required to move us up one at a time , one lesson after another, from levelto level from bottom to top to the full measure of Christ

s The creature is consti tuted in instalments, delivered one after another and eachintegrated into the previous to make the whole man the new Adam First comes the natural

(partial) then the spiri tual (whole) 'The spiri tual did not come first, but the natural, and afterthat the spirit ual ( I Cot 1 5 47)

K . N I G H Ï The Confession of the Son

S p i t i t A l l these witnesses are held together by the Spi rit to serve us as the

single body of the Son to us9 Ih e Spi ti t wraps them up to make th em the

w h o l e C hr i s t (totus Christus) to us. 1 0

A t r u l y theological pneumatology prevents us f r o m sett i ng spiti t ual and

material in oppos ition Spiri t does not mean less materia l but mor e

m a t e r ia l , more real: when the Spirit integtates us into the whole body, the

resurrection body, we w i l l be real at last But i f we do not cont inu all y take

steps against it , these t w o concepts always settle back to become opposites,

fo r the reigning metaphysic of our society reverts all such theol ogical

statement to what it regards as the no rm , irs defa ult settin g A t stake is the

jo b of di st in g u i sh i n g th eo lo gy f r o m the dual ism often attt ibuted to

Augus tine b ut which in fact dogs the whole t r adi t i o n Ih is may help us to

f o l l o w the discussion of Roberr Jenson and Co lin Gun ton Gun ton insists

that at bottom there are two natutes, that of God and that of everything

else, so dual i ty is most basic, and that any othet account w o u l d be

monophysite or even monist . Jenson replies that at bottom there is one

nature , that of God wh o is all in all: there mus t be a pneu mato logic al u n i t y

because u n i t y is eschatological, the wor k of God 1 1 But of course both

accounrs musr be give n, for it is part of the Chu rch s job to say both now

and not yet That means that we must not only put u n i t y and duality as

co-fundamental, first equal at top of our list of categories, b u t w i t h them

we must also p u t manyness, because for us in the economia of God there is

the possibi l i ty and actual i ty of manyness, and therefore life and freedom

and surprise

I t is not the case that the Son is available to us in terms of dua lis m, in

ju st one of these two modes, either sp i r i tua l 01 physi cal W e must move the

discussion out of our naturalistic default ontology and find a more su itable

wa y of conce iving the rela tion ship of spiri t and materia l I have used

language as an alternative paradigm because language is simulraneously

9 Augustine explains Certainly we can apply the name anointed (christus) to all whohave been anointed with his chrism; and yet it is the whole body with its head, which is theone Christ ' Augustine City of God, Book 17. chaptet 4 This does not entail that the Son isabsorbed into the Church The Spirit has distinguished him from us, and gives him hisparticular body, by which he is one identifiable human at the right hand of God

1 0 The patts must be clothed by the whole 'Fot the perishable must clothe itself with rheimperishable and the mortal with immortality (r Cor 15 51) So we have two accounts ofone act in one of which the parts are covered by the whole (= the Head)., i n the other of whichrhe many parrs are integrated to make that whole (= body)

1 1 Colin Gunion writes 'In so far as Chrisr is risen he is for this reader (Jenson) risen intoalmost as, the Church.' Colin Gunton Father Son and Holy Spirit. Towards a Fr/tty Tti/iitarian

Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2003) 219. Gunton quotes with disapproval Jenson SystematicTheology (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999) I, 105 and 206

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



one and many, discrete and open; it is both one language and very many

uttetances So now we can say that th e Son is avail able t o us i n the man y

modes and many dosages that he decides are required for us to learn to

receive him He can give himself to us faster, or more s lowly and gently,

adjust ing himself to our pace H e wears the body that we can catch h o ld

o f ' 1 He is ptesent to us in the slower and more considered way that we

w o u l d use in ta lking to a young c h i l d , w i t h those pauses for checking,

reinforcement and reassurance. He invol ves us in this gentl e, recursive

mode He can suppl y us w i t h , an d b u i l d us up i n t o , that real mater ia lity

that he intends for us, which is his and which he inrends to share w i t h us

l a l k about speech and language, itself discipli ned by a Wo rd Chris t o log y,

helps keep pneumato logy theological

I V Th e A s s e m b l y

The Son is f u l l y present to the Father - h i l l y embod ied to hi m - by the

S p ir i t 1 3 The Spir it assembles us around and w i t h i n the Son The assembly

is both in the Son and with the Son These t w o statements w i t h their

dis t inct preposit ions may not be further compressed The Son is the ir

whole def ini t ion , and he is also d i s t i n c t l y present to them, as woi-them, but

as their head 1 4 Jesus is accompani ed by the Spiri t just as any comm ander is

accompanie d by a detac hment of his troops He is he never alone, w i t ho u t

some part of his comp any, t ho ug h not always accompanied by his whole

atmy at once He sends t roops out to br ing his guests to him He gives the

saints a detac hment for theit suppo tt and prot ecti on — and yet they m ust

1 1 Otherwise we would be, as Gregory Nazianzen has it, like men loaded with foodbeyond their strength and presenting eyes yet too weak t o beat even the sun's light, risk the

ioss of that which was within the teach of their powers; but that by gtadual additions thelight of the Iriniry might shine upon the more illumi nated For this teason it was I think chathe gradually came to dwell in the disciples, measuring himself ouc ro them according to theircapacity to teceive him , at the beginning of the gospel, after the passion after che ascension,making perfect their powers being breathed upon them and appearing in fiery tongues.'Gregory Nazianzen. Fifth Oration on the Holy Spirit in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ed PSchaff and H Wace; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1893) chapter 26 p 326.

1 3 See Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 41 , in On Pentecost, XI, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers(ed P SchaffandH Wace; Giand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1893), p 383: 'He wrought first in theheavenly and angelic powers such as are first after God and around God For from no othersource flows their perfection and thei r brightness, and the difficulty or impossibility ofmoving them to sin, but from the Holy Ghost And next in the Patriarchs and Prophets of whom the formet saw visions of God or knew him and the latter also foreknew rhe futu re,having their master part moulded by the Spirit and being associated with events that were yetfuture as if ptesent for such is the power of the Spirit '

1 4

We are in him, so not distinct from him. because he does not regard us as distinct fromhim But he is distinct from us made distinc t from us by the Holy Spirit

KrMiGHT The Confession of the Son 147

ask fbt reinfo rcements Hi s servants introduce and accompany us in to

being; they br ing us into the public assembly O u r presence is our being

surrounded and escorted by these sponsors and supporters sent by the Son,

wh o are his compa ny and his Spir it Sometimes, for the benefit of those

arou nd us, his company is visi ble as the saints w h o encourage us , while at

other times we have no vis ible accompaniment Ih en for a ll the w o r l d i t

looks as rhough we have been le ft alone Bu t it merely looks that way to

them Ih e Son leads th e saints Led by him they represent us in heaven,

and sustain for us there what being we have Led by hi m they pray us in to

bei ng They ask Go d that we be made complete and be given to them

They ask fbt us, and their asking for us, and the Father s approv al of the ir

request, is all the being we have They not onl y ptay us in to existence, but

pray us into being social and vocal A l l the life we ate giv en is the life th ey

teceive f r o m the Son, and that life consists in look ing forwatd to , and

asking for, what is s t i l l lacki ng They w i l l make us as adept at seeking

f r o m the Son as they are

Unless the Son and the Father utter us, there is no us i S They uttet us as

speakers who the Spir it w i l l animate so we utt er one another Yo u mu st

speak me in to being. I have no other existence than as something you say

i n reply to the Son, and in gra tit ude to the Son Yo u are brough t in to

bei ng as under-Ia bourers of the Son Yo u, alon g w i t h all the rest of

company of heaven a n d co m m u n io n o f saints, are the medium made and

employed by the Spir it Yo u br ing me int o being by br i ngi ng me inr o the

assembly w i t h you M y integr at ion into this assembly is the event in w h ich

I am assembled and brought into being

Synaxis

The Son calls together and assembles all the scattered elements of thecosmos Assembly (ealesia) means coming together (synaxis) The resul t ing

act ion of this gather ing is thanksgiving (eucharist). 16 The comm and of God

brings this assembly in t o b e in g , integrates i t and gives i t its durat ion and

1 5 See Jenson who writes Io be we have maintained, is to be spoken of by God SystematicTheology, II , 295 And further: According to Luther the soul becomes what it hearkens toLuther. ' Do not be surprised that I said we must become the Word " Ibid., 259

1 6 The synaxis is a function of che Son s thanksgiving (euchatist) to the Father The synaxiscteates thanksgiving, and in this sense perhaps we can say that che eucharist (thanksgiving)makes the Church Gunton does not believe 'the eucharist makes che Church . insisting chatthe Church is the creature solely of the Wor d He charges Jenson with not giving sufficientaccount of the present fallenness of the Church See Gunto n. Father Son and Holy Spirit, 220¬

21 Is this perhaps because Gunton understands the euchatist as the act of the Churchconsidered apart from its head?

h

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


148 Ihe Permi of Christ

id e n t i t y Ih e Son not only calls, but he remembers (anamnesis) Other

masters use their people u n t i l t hey are al l used up, then abandon t hem ,

l e t t in g t heir bodies disappear back in t o th e earth where no one can

remember them or recover them Bu t the Son has no t f o rgo t ren t hem ; h e

has come to f i n d t h e m an d b r i n g t h e m u p f r o m where they have been

h id d e n i n death 1 7 The Son re-members hi s people, me mber t o m em bet

He assembles h is congregat ion before hi m, and leads us ou t t h r o u g h a

wilderness, he the head o f th e l in e , we the procession He is far ahead so we

do no t see h i m , b u t we are le d by his tire an d a re covered by his c lo u d W e

f o l l o w h i m a n d i m i t a t e h i m , so w h a t he does, we do ; his every act ion

r ipples through us back d o w n th e co lu m n

H e is l ea ding us to the great k i n g 1 8 Chris t o ur spokesman has already

gai ned a dm it t a nce to the t e m p l e and palace of the great k i n g Our

representat ive has gone i n and now sits i n conversat ion w i t h th e k i n g The

w h o le delegation stretches back to the door of the palace an d outs ide,

where yo u a nd I are, i n the queue. For our leader, thi s procession is one

w i t h h i m , even part of h i m N o in t e t lo per ca n snatch anyone away f r o m his

procession, for they are made impreg nable b y t he pro t ect io n he extends, his

S p ir i t , w h o holds together a n d makes vi s ible and co-ptesent th e whole

t r a i n b e h i n d th e S o n . ' 9

V T he Son M a k e s t h e G o o d Co nf es s i o n

I h e S p ir i t does not a l lo w th e c o m m u n i o n of th e So n w i t h his whole people

to be in t e r r u p t e d I h e S p ir i t cuts short every alternarive self-aggrandize

m ent H e dethro nes every master, t a k in g away their r e p u t a t io n and power,

1 7

I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the Word of Godand the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, How long,Sovereign Lord until you judge the inhabitants of the eatth and avenge out blood?"'(Revelation 6 9 -ro)

l B Psalm 68 describes this procession With mighty chatiorry, twice ten thousand,thousands upon thousands the Lord came from Sinai into the holy place You ascended thehigh mountain leading captives in your train and receiving gifts from people even from those who rebel against the Lotd God's abiding there Your solemn processions are seen, O God. theprocessions of my God, my King into the sanctuary - the singets in front the musicians last,between them gitls playing tambourines: 'Bless God in the great congregation, the Lord, O you who are of Israel s fountain!'' Because of yout temple at Jerusalem kings bear gifts to you'(Ps. 68.17-2.9)

1 9 There is, of course a gap between the one (who alone sits with the Father) and all therest of the column (who don't) The fact that there is a gap between the one man (ascended)and the many (not ascended) does not change the fact that the one man thinks that we ate with

him and is detetmined to bring i t about that we are It is the attitude of the Son that the gapis overcome and will be overcome t hat is determinative

K N I G H I The Confession of the Son 149

in order t o establish th e bet ter r e p u t a t io n and more effective and ordered

power of the Son T he l i t u r g y o f S p ir i t and Son takes ba ck f rom us th e

praise we ascribe to ourselves, and retu rns i t to the Father w ho is its proper

source and giver They take i t back f r o m us : they make us r e t u r n praise t o

G o d I hey ta ke away ou r m is direct ed speech-acts, an d readdress rh em so

that they proper ly serve t o call God to us I he S p ir i t co-opts th e sounds w e

m a ke to pu t the Son s praise of the Father i n our mout hs, even before we

k n o w th e Son s name H e speaks for us a nd t h r o u g h us , t h o u g h we ma y be

th e last t o know. I h e praise an d reco gni t io n t ha t we grasp at is wrested

away f r o m us , in order that we be p r o p e r ly established as the creatures wh o

receive their praise, w i t h their being , f r o m Go d

T he Son made th e goo d confession H e confessed th e Father as L o r d 1 0

Th e Son refused w o r s h ip to every other a u t h o r i t y 1 1 H e c o u l d no t be made

to u t t e r an y other name or enter an y other ple a H e withh eld what every

other man had conceded H e d i d n o t defer eith er to N a t u r e , o r Necessity,

01 Fate, 01 t o any other fo u n d a t io n , p r e l im in a r y or set of axioms H e gave

no concession, showed no c i v i l i t y , made no deference H e raised all hackles

an d u n i t e d a l l enemies against h i m by the insolence o f his refusal H e

w it h d r e w a u t h o r i t y f t o m evety a u t h o r i t y i n rebell ion " H i s w o r d to a i l the

i a Christ Jesus who while testify ing before Ponuus Pilate made the good confession (II i m 6 12-13) See also Larry Hurtado who explains The phrase "to call upon the name ofthe Lord is derived directly from the Old Testament usage, where it functions as a technicalexpression designating ptayer and sacrifice offered specifically to Yahweh (eg Genesis 4 26,134) Larry W Hurtado Lord Jesus Christ Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (GrandRapids: Eerdmans 2003) 197

We have ro give two accounts Ihe Son paid no respect to inteimedi ary authorities And yet the Son did also pay proper respect to intermediary authorities: he was a good son who

accepted discipline (Hebrews 5 8; 12.9-10), acted 'according to the Scriptuies', and wasobedient to the prophets and patriarchs, learning from them how to suffer and resist theresistance of the Gentiles and the aggressors

" The confession of the Lord is the disavowing and dismissal of the old lords. Now allmen must be commanded to thtow over rheir old leaders and change sides This rrial olstrength continues in every public assembly where the new troops of the king are ro confrontevery leader in the hearing of his own people The Christian witnesses are ro read our theaccusation ot God against each leader who lays hands on them and give hi m one chance toconfess the God of Israel 'I n each place you will be taken to the public assembly onaccount of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them jusc say whatever is given you at the time' (Mark 13 9 - r i ) The Christians are the message andembassy of God to the authorities in each place When these authorities fail to hear them theChristians can go over their heads and direct their complaints straight to God : i f rhey have todo this the authorities are convicted of failing in their office, and it is taken away from rhemSo Stephen (Acts 755) exercises the power of binding: the members of the court that atraignshim carry our judgment against themselves, by destroying Stephen Gods spokesman to

them

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


152 The Person of Christ K N I G H I The Confession of the Son 153

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



for those who cannot speak for themselves, to see what is missing, and to

intervene and provide what is required

The Spiri t speaks for the earth . What the Church does not yet know how

to u t te t , th e Spi r i t makes the inert things of the earth uttet for i t . 3 1 I h e

S p ir i t coaches the earth i n its proper response an d speaks the earth into the

shape and person of the one obedi ent man , the Son Ih e fleshly mat eti ali ty

of Jesus is given into our hands by the Spirit via the whole people of Israel,

i n otdet that we raise him to the Fathet w i t h thanksgiving. He is the

creation r e p l y i n g to G od w i t h i ts own voice, w h i c h is the voice it has f rom

h i m 3 1 Jesus Christ is the comi ng into speech of the earth, and the t hankf u l

creaturely w o r d God wants to hear f r o m i t

The Son Leads the Assembly in Prayer

I have said that the l i t u r g y is the conversation of the Son w i t h the Father,

an d that there is a cir cul ati on and traffic of requests (prayers) and receipts

( t h a n k s g iv in g ) u p w ar d, and of provisions and interventio ns downward.

I h e l i t u r g y is the intercession, la ment and tha nks giv ing of the Son The

psalms are the pleas and complaints the Son makes for the men who have

n o v o i c e ' 3 Ih ose who alteady have their recognition, their praise from men,

are not desperate, so no inarticulate sound calls to God f r o m w i t h i n th em

I h e w ou l d -be auton om ous m an does not intend to be held to account or to

r e m a in un d er auth or i t y , but confesses no one but hims elf or whatever name

w i l l abet h i m H e corrects others, but he cannot take correction, and so is

no true son. 3 4 I he psalms express the misery of the son who is crushed and

3 1 See Romans 8 11: We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the painsof child bitth but we ourselves who have the first-fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we

wait for our adoption as sons 8 z6: In the same way the Spirit helps us in our weakness Wedo not know what we ought to ptay for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groansthat words cannot express And he who searches our hearts knows the mi nd of the Spirit,because the Spirit intercedes with the saints in accordance with God's wi l l '

3 1 John Zizioulas points out that man was to act as priest of creation, to liberate cteation

from the predicament of mortality Zizioulas, 'Preserving God's Creation: Three Lectures onTheology and Ecology King's Theological Review iz 1-5,41-45; 13 (1990), Lecture

3. 5 In Lecture 1 Zizioulas wtites 'A ll ancient iitut gies seem to be centred . on the liftingup of the gifts of bread and wine to the Creator Fathet, the Anaphora, the lifting up.

attaches equal centrali ty - if not more — to Man s act as the priest of Creation as it does to

God s act of sending down the Hol y Spir it ro transform the offered gifts into the body and

blood of Christ (p 4)3 3 The Son sings, for example. Give ear to my words oh Lord, consider my sighing list en

to my cry for help, my kin g and my God for to you I ptay In the morning you hear my voice;in the morning I lay my requests before you and wair in expectation' (Ps 5 1-3).

3 4

If you are nor discipl ined, and everyone undergoes discipline then you are illegitimatechildren and not true sons' (Heb 12 8)

K N I G H I The Confession of the Son 153

abandoned, and they express the joy of the son w h o m God has heard and

p u b l i c l y vindicat ed I hey are songs for two voices in antiphony. F irst the y

are songs of misery 3 5 I h o s e who have received not hi ng ask ho w long the y

m ust w a i t before God w i l l rescue t h e m f r o m us It is the fai lur e of anyone

on earth to hear and answer these cries and to intercede for these w h o

cannot speak for themselves, t hat requires that the Son take action. H e

hears their prayers and comes to take them out of our power. 3 6 Ihose w h o

have received nothing cry to God because we have made ourselves deaf t o

t h e ir voice and left them no other means o f recourse T hey call on Go d to

free them f r o m us who by our unconcern ho l d th em there The psalms are

t h e ir charge against us The y are made for them by the Son: he sings t he m

u n t i l the poor men can sing them for themselves He sing the m to us —

against us - u n t i l we hear a nd react. Bu t we must also s ing these songs, for

i n s in ging the m we w i l l be transformed f r o m th e p r o u d and autonomous

ma n, too far away to hear, too busy to reply, into the poor man of the

psalms desc ript ion W e are to sing thi s role u n t i l i t takes us ovet, and we

are the men of the Son who endure that misery, w i t h h im held in complet e

disregard by the w o r l d3 7

The saints w a r n the people of the w o r l d nor to give themselves away to

th e passions an d masters who manipulate them and prey on them Each

gener ation of the saints mus t appeal to theit conte mporari es t o be no

longer passive, but to t h r o w off the it old lords W e stand in the court o f

appeal , and lodge peti t ions for those who are not yet articulate on their

o wn account, wh o cannot or do not pray It is our job to beat them to the

Father for inspection and approval, just as we are ourselves borne. We bear

t h is f uture people into being by presently bearing their needs to God and

being their voices in his court, standing in for them u n t i l they are there

w i t h us It is the priestl y l i f e W e speak and pray for th em ; they are the

confession we make W e are to be dem and ing on their account, and to

3 S During the days of Jesus life on earth he offered up prayers and petitions with loud

cties and tears to the one who could save hi m from death and he was heard because of hisreverent submission Alt hough he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered'

(Heb 5 7-8)3 The Son sings for instance. Psalm 10: Wh y oh Lord do you stand far off? Why do you

hide yourself in rime of trouble? In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, who

ate caught in the schemes he devises He says ro himself' God has forgotten; he covers hisface and never sees "' Atheism is the convenient belief that we have put ourselves out of God'srange and live in a territory policed by no power

3 7 The Son wil l give his voice to his Church Mark 9 25: You deaf and mute spirit, hesaid, I command you come out of him and never enter him again ' We may suspect that the

modern Church has a deaf and mute spirit even that it has been made deaf and silent — byGod


8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



request from God what he is wait ing to give them, and that he gives them

to us and us to them. 3 8 I h e w o t l d is the act of the Son t o us I t is his act of

h o s p i t a l i t y 1 9 Ih ek job is to pass the Son on to us, and in this way make us

ready ro receive him. A l l the people who make up the w o r l d represent the

Son to us. W e have to take hi m fr om them. But they must giv e us the Son,

and not w i t h h o l d hi m from us. He must be their confession and ours.

V I I , P n e u m a t o l o g y

Ihe Spir it is mak in g us part icipan ts in the speaking and answering of the

Son The Spi rit erects Chr is t 's w o r l d around him, and raises us to be part of

his body, his very person, i n that w o r l d The Spir ir is gi vi ng us a wor k, the

w o r k of presenr ing people , and this wor k w i l l make us atticulate and alive

G o d presents people to us, and expects us to present t h e m back to him; so ,

we are made under-labourers i n God s own work of ma ki ng them present

to himself so that they receive their l ife and being We are induc ted int o

th e Son's w o r k o f confessing and presenting the w o r l d to the Father.

Chri st is the whole , and he is a part of the whole W e are in h im , and weare with hi m, so thou gh we are part of hi m, be is dis tin ct fro m us, and we

ate dis t i nct from him and fro m one another We are made d is t in ct f r o m

hi m by the Ho ly Spir i t Ih e Spir it empowers us to dis t ingu ish ourselves

w i l l i n g l y and obed ient ly fr om the Son and one fro m another, so we are not

o n ly receivers o f an inert g i f t but act ive agents w h o jo y fu l ly confess that we

aie not the head, not the Lord. The n I can concede that you are more than I

can make you, and that I may no longer in hi bi t your grow th into the fu l l

stature of Chcisr This being dis t i nct is not a state of affairs w i t h which we

have nothing to do, but it is the act of the Holy Spirit in us by which we at

last are enabled to say we are not hi m, and you are diffe rent fro m me Our

being dis t inct fro m hi m is our very own act ion, Spir it -e nabled By it we,for the first ti me , freely and really act, and we act freely and w i l l i n g l y

precisely as we are able to say he is Lord. W e are not the L o r d , and so we

can thank God

3 8 Imis Paul exhorts the church. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds ofprayers and requests With this in mind be alert and always keep praying for all the saints'(Eph 6.18)

3 9 The Son makes the creation an image of the hospitality of the Father He is the image ofthe invisible God, the firstborn over all creation For by him all things were created: things in

heaven as in earth, visible and invisible through thrones or powers or rulers or authorities: allthings were created by him and for him (Col I 15)

Chapter 9

The Ascended Christ:

Mediator of Our Worship

Sandra Fach

The Westminster Catechism teaches that humanity 's chief end is togl o r i f y Go d and to enjoy hi m for ever. In the early Church , t he

t r i n i t a r i an nature of this praise was expressed in the mediator ia l

doxology, 'Glory to the Father thro ugh the Son and in the Spir it Due to

doctr inal controversy, however , the mediator ia l expression of the church's

wors hip faded int o the background. Tho ugh understandable gi ven th e

circumstances, the development was detr imental. W i t h the help of Josef

Ju ng ma nn s i nf l ue nt i al w o r k , The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer, 1 I w i l l

show how this development involv ed the shadowing of Chri s t s human ity

and therefore the loss o f recogni t ion of his pr iest ly ro le Ih e burden of this

essay w i l l be to argue for a renewed emphasis on Chris t 's continuing

mediat or ia l ro le , a ro le performed i n the unit y of his person as the G od -

human, that is, the one who is God as a human A l t h o u g h t h e fact of the

ascension w i l l be i m p l i c i t t h r o u g h o u t , i t s im p l ica t io n s w i l l be made clear

in th e second half of the essay There, focus on the ascension w i l l help us to

clar ify what this conti nuin g mediator i a l ro le looks like , rhis side of Christ s

departure from us.

1

Josef A Jungmann, The Place of Chris; in Liturgical Prayer trans A Peeler (London:Geoffrey Chapman, 2nd Eng edn 1989)

1 55

i 6 The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 157

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


i 56 The Person of Christ

I T e l l Me the O l d , O l d S tor y

Worship- The Story's End

H u m a n i t y ' s chief end is to g lo r i fy God and enjoy h im forever Let us use

this brief but h e lp fu l att icu iatio n of wors hip a nd al low the great

commandment given to Israel to i n f o r m its conten t: Yo u shall love the

L o r d your God w i t h a ll your heart, and w i t h all your soul, and w i t h ail

your m i g h t . 1 Hee ding the warnings in both Testaments that such love can

never be abstracted f r o m love of one s neighbour, 3 an d a f f i r m in g that the

cross does no t save h u m a n i t y from a l i f e of obedien t, sacrificial love b ut

rather to such a l i f e , let us say that living for God and for others is to glorify

God and enjoy him forever

Such love is the g i f t of the God who is love. I John teaches us that to

abide in this love is to abide in God It is, indeed, to know hi m - a

knowledge given to us through his Son and in his Spiri t . 4 Let us, then,

understand worship as a gift. Through his two hands, the Father gives us

w h a t he demands He l i f t s us up to participate in communion w i t h h i m 5

God revealed, and recognized because of recon cilia tion , can be enjoyedforever This l i f e o f fe l l ow shi p w i t h God is to be declared by the

com mun ity that participates in i t , so that others may be drawn in - a

m i g h t y gathering that w i l l make this joy complete 6

The Story's Pattern

Fro m God to Go d is the parabolic patt ern of the story It is expressed in a

mediatoria l way: Fr om the Father through the Son in the Spirit', to the

Father through the Son in the Spiri t . Regarding the Son, the mediatorial

nature of the pattern is expressed by the w o r d , ' t h r o u g h A l t h o u g h this

essay focuses on the Son's mediatorial role in worship, let i t be clear at the

outset that the Son's role can never be f u l l y understood or carried out apart

f r o m the Spiri t

1 Deut. 6 5 NRSV (New Revised Standard Version)3 See, for example Isa 58 and Amos 5 In the New Iestament, the horizontal dimension

of the Shema is explicit (Mt. 2234-40 ; Mark 1228-34; T.uke 10 25-28) Paul'sexhortation to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is yout spiritua l worship (Rom. I 2 . I NRSV) is as the context suggests, to be worked out inmutual love (see Rom 12; cf Phi l 4 18)

4 See r John 4 7-165 See James B Iorrance Worship Community and the Triune God of Grace (Carlisle:

Pateinostei Press, 1996). 96 See 1 John I 1-4

F A C H The Ascended Christ 157

Ihe early l i turgies are evidence that the church recognized worsh ip as a

gift. The corporate expression of the mediatorial nature of worship was

p a r t icu la r ly evident in the anaphoras and doxologies of the chu rch s early

Eucharisti e prayers. To the Father through Jesus C hr i s t ' reflects th e f o r m of

the chur ch s early doxol ogie s. 7 I n i t i a l l y , then, praise was given to God

through Christ , i n recognition of the t r u t h that ther e is one God ; there is

also one mediator between God and hum ank ind , Christ Jesus, himselfh u m a n s

7 thi s, like later developments, is well documented i n Jungmann s work, on which I amdependent in charting the path the church took See especially The Place of Christ, 127-71 Itshould be noted that aspects of Jungmann's thesis have been challenged, particularly by Alber t Gerhards who argues that while Jungmann's analysis of the West is generally accuratehis treatment of the East tends to ovetgeneralize Specifically he argues that there was always atradition o f addressing prayers ro Christ, a tradition built on (high) Johannine Christology Itis important to note however, that Gethards does not reject Jungmann's thesis but seeks onlyto modify it, suggesting that the Arian controversy only provided the impetus fot givinggreater weight to one existing tradition ovet another (for a summary of Gerhards s critique, seeGraham Redding, Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition [London: T&TClark.. 2003}. 22-24) Gerhards's teacher, Balthasar Fischer (himself a student of Jungmann)acknowledges this development in the foreword to the second English edition of Jungmann's work He states: 'The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer represents what was a majorbreakthrough in liturg ical theology, whose importance is not diminished by discovering thatthe total picture has turned out to be more nuanced than was supposed in the first flush ofdiscovery If anything this is proof of the value o f Jungmann's thesis, a seminal wotk whosefruitfulness has been confirmed by the refinements that subsequent research has brought to it'(see Jungmann. The Place of Christ, x) (Fischer here also reminds us of those aspects of piety,

where Christ is addressed, which Jungmann never denies ) Two things are worth noting whenconsidering the value o f Jungmann s thesis Firsr, even i f another strand ('to Christ') always

existed, it is difficult to deny the strand/movement that Jungmann outlines (or that it wasdetrimental) Second even if the Arian controversy gave greater weight to an existingtradition, that does not necessarily mean that the nature of prayer 'to Christ' post-controversyhad the same tenor as prayer 'to Christ' pre-controversy Jungmann. himself, in the context ofdiscussing the prayer to Christ which he never denies, argues thar such prayer is essentiallymediatorial (cf! note 28 below)

I T im 2 5 NRSV Although the earliest forms exh ibit a bin itarian pattern (see, forexample, Eph 5.20; Col 3 t7 ; Rom r 8, 16 2 7). union to Christ was believed to be by theSpirit in whom Christians lived and moved As Jungmann states: 'What is done in Christ isdone also in the Holy Spirit, since it is he who pervades and animates the body of Christ Fromthis it was only a short step to beginning or ending the prayer: "We praise thee through ourLord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit', or (by taking the prayer of rhe Holy Spirit to ourselvesin a more personal way and by ranging it alongside the service of the high priest) "We praisethee through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit ' (The Place of Christ, 150)This explicit inclusion of the Holy Spirit is seen as early as the liturgi cal descriptions given by

Justin Martyr (Jungmann The Place of Christ 150)

158 The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 159

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


5 f C

Theology i tsel f arises f r o m w o r s h i p 9 bu t the g i f t of theological

reflection, i n t u r n , influences th e practice of w or shi p 1 0 I h e mediatorial

structure of 'to the Father t h r o u g h Jesus C hr i s t in the H o l y Spir i t changed

w i t h d oc t r i na l dev el opm ent , to t he poi nt where Christ 's media tion faded

in t o th e bac kgr ound or disappeared alto gether 1 1 I h e change was subtle at

first Th e w o r d t h r o u g h ' was retained, but the name Jesus Christ was

replaced by So n . T h e n th e w o r d ' through disappeared an d instead of a

m e d ia t o r ia l d ox o l ogy, th e church adopted the so-called coordi nate d

d ox ol ogy: G l or y to the Father with the Son, together with th e H o ly

S p ir i t 1 1 For c l ar i ty , the tw o doxologies are: t he mediato rial doxol ogy -

G l o r y to the Father t h r o u g h Jesus Christ i n the H o l y S p i r i t ; an d the

coordinated doxology - G l o r y to the Father w i t h the Son, together w i t h

th e H o l y S p i r i t . Th e d ev el opm ent represents a sh i f t i n emphasis f r o m the

economic to the i m m a n e n t T r i n i t y W i t h th e loss o f recognized me diati on,

the atmosphere became one of distance between worshippers and the Go d

w h o m they worshipped. A retained emphasis on C hr i s t s hum ani ty c ou l d

have prevented this gap But be for e a t tem pt i ng to find a wa y forward

(indeed, th e way ba ck), let us pause to gain a deeper und er s tand i ng of whyand how th e mediat orial doxology disappeared.

9 Because knowledge of God is through the gift of pattidp ation theology itself arises out

of worship In other words, the initial movement (the first: part o f the parabola) is only

recognized when the community is drawn into the second movement. That we can say

anything at all of the Go d who freely chooses to move towards creation in reconciling love,

indeed who freely chooses to create, is a result of fellowship with him This is something that

Geoffrey Wainwright has taught us well i n his systematic theology. See Doxology. The Praise of

God in Worship, Doctrine and Life (New York: Oxford University Piess 1980) Cf. Geoffrey

Wain wrig ht, 'Trinitarian Worship, in idem, Worship with One Accord. Where Liturgy and

Ecumenism Embrace (Oxford: Oxford University Ptess, 1997)., 237-50 (246) See also Alan

Torrance, 'Being of On e Substance with the Father' in Christophe r Seitz (ed), Nicene

Christianity: The future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001) 49- 61 (56).

1 0 Wainwright, Doxology 54—571 1 For Jungmann's trace of the development see The Place of'Christ 172-2381 Z Or Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' Catherine Mowry LaCugna

provides a helpful summary of Jungmann s analysis: 'The liturgical development might be

charted in this way Initially praise was given to Go d through Christ; then, as the Atian

controversies took hold, praise was directed to Go d (or Father) through Christ in the Holy

Spirit (with the church); to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit; to the Fathet and

the Son together wirh the Holy Spirit; to the Father through Christ and in Christ, in the

Holy Spitit; to the Father and the Son a nd the Holy Spirit' (Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God

for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco 1991I, 127). It

should be noted that her summary primarily reflects the development in the East See

Jungm ann, The Place of Christ. i 9 t - 2 0 0 Th e mediatorial pattern was retained much longet

in the West, though hete too it would eventually become overshadowed by an intetpretation

of who lives and reigns that focused on Christ's divinity See 209—11; cf 221—24 This willbe discussed below.

F A C H The Ascended Christ 159

I I . O G o d , O u r H e l p i n Ages Pas t : A l e s s o n f r o m H i s t o r y

Misunderstood Mediation

C o l i n G un ton w r i tes : C er ta i n heresies are archetypal as attractive solutions

to difficulties that are i n t r i ns i c to th e f a i t h an d w i l l therefore continue t o

appear i n every gen erati on. ' 13 A r i a n i s m is one such heresy. As disastrous as

th e loss of the mediatori al pattern of w or shi p was, equal ly ba d was the

m e d ia t o r ia l pa t ter n mi sund er s tood I nter pr eta t i on is ev er ythi ng. Just as

the Arians used th e same scriptures as their opponents, they also used the

same doxology i n w o r s h i p But for them, thro ugh Chri st meant

something very different The unq ual i f i ed subotd i nat i on" 4 of the Ar i ans

saw Christ as a t h i r d t h i n g , a tertium quid I h e expression thr oug h Chri st

i m p l i e d tha t the Father was d i s tant an d unapproachable I n th i s

conception, Jesus does not per for m the w o r k of the Father, b u t does his

ow n w o r k as r he m i d d l e-per son Jesus is not the revelation o f t he Father s

love, b u t the closest we can ge t to an unknow abl e God

I n reaction, Athanasius and othets argued for the u n i t y o f God's action

There is one d i v i ne ac t i v i ty i n which al l three persons share. Those who di d

not believe i n such u n i t y could not a f f i r m th e consistency i n t he use of bo th

the mediatorial an d coordinated doxologies Fo r t h e m , the coordinated

d ox ol ogy a f f i r m ed som ethi ng th e mediatorial doxology did not I n us i ng

the mediatorial doxology, they i m p l i c i t l y argued against the unity of

Go d s action St Basi l th e Great , wh o used bot h doxolog ies, wa s accused of

confusion (indeed of heresy!) To hi s f r ie n d , A m p h i l o c h i o s , he writes:

Lately while I pray w i t h the people, we sometimes finish t he doxology

to G o d the Father w i r h the form G l o r y to the Father with th e Son,

together with the Hoiy Spi rit, and at other times we use G l o r y to the

1 3 Colin Gunton And in One Lord. Jesus Christ . Begotten, N ot Made . i n Christopher

Seitz (ed ), Nicene Christianity The Future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press,

2001), 35-48 (35)

4 Gunton atgues for a qualified subordination He thinks it is necessary to do justice

to the undoubtedly subordinationist elements of the biblical record' For example, ' the

Son is sent, is given obeys, and. indeed expresses his eternal sonship in temporal or economic

subordination This telates to his eternal begottenness It is the Fathet who begets and the Son

who is begotten However, they are ' . together one G od i n the koinonia of the Spirit They

are one because the Son and the Spirit are i n a sense th ough as God, subordinate in the

eternal taxis as they are in the economy But in anothet sense they ate not subordinate, for

without his Son and Spirit, God would not be God' ('And in One Lotd . 46-47). See also

Colin Gunton The Holy Spirit Wh o with the Father and the Son Together I s Worshipped

and Glorified', in idem, Father Son and Holy Spirit: Essays toward a Fully Trinitarian Theology(London: I& T Clark 2003) 75-90, especially 77-78 and 82-85

i6o The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 16 1

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


i6o The Person of Christ

Father through the Son in the Holy Spirir Some of those present

accused us of using strange and mutually contradictory tetms . 15

Basil unashamedly used b o t h doxologies I n a climate where parties were

c hoos i ng on e doxology over another, others were not so b o ld I n one

p a r t icu la t case, a bishop (Bishop Leontius, 344-58) m u m b l e d th e final

w o r d s of his prayer lest he offend those w h o used a d i f f e r e n t doxolog y 1 6

The burden o f Basil s arg u men t i n On the Holy Spirit is to show why h is use

of b o t h doxologies is not a result of confusion. H e argues th at i t is his

attackers who are the confus ed ones.

I h e different preposit ions in the mediat orial doxology cannot, argued

B as i l , be used to prove different natures 1 7 T h e Sons a c t iv i t y is voluntary

an d out of love; it is no t due to a lower nature: ' W e m u s t no t t h i n k that

th e salvation the Son has w o n for us is the tesult of a slave s compulsory

a"nd subo rdinate service , Basil says ' N o , H e vo lu n t a r i ly accomplishes Hi s

p la n out of the goodness an d compassion for Hi s creation, f u l f i l l i n g the

Fathet s w i l l , l K T o say th at t he Son does th e Father s w i l l is not a comment

about in e q u a l i t y ; it is an expression of u n i t y A g a i n , Basil s words help u s

to understand t he mean in g of the w o r d t h r o u g h ' fo u n d in the mediatorial

doxology:

When He says, I have not spoken on my own authority, and As the

Father has said unto me, so I speak, and the word which you hear i s

not mine b ut the Father s who sent m e an d I do as the Father has

commanded me, He does not use language of this k i n d because He is

incapable of His own choice, ot is lawless, or has to wait for a

prearranged signal He wants to make it clear that Hit will is indissolubly

united to the father W e must not think that what He calls a

commandment is an imp erious order delivered by word of mouth by

which the Father gives orders to His Son, as He would to a subordinate,

telling H i m what He should do Instead, let us think i n terms worthyof the Godhead, and realize that there is a ttansmission of w i l l . like the

reflection of an object i n a mirror, which reaches from Fathet to Son

without passage of time. The Fathet loves t he Son, and shows H i m all

that He Himself is doing Everything the Father has also belongs to

the So n 19 [emphasis mine]

1 5 Basil, On the Holy Spirit., trans David Andetson (New Yotk: St Vladimirs Seminary

Press. 1980) 1 3.

1 6 Jungmann, The Place of Christ. iy^—j61 7 Basil On the Holy Spirit z 4-5 i z1 8

Basil, On the Holy Spirit 8 181 9 Basil On the Holy Spirit 8 zo

T h e ke y p o i n t is this : i t is w r o n g to t h in k of mediat ion i n terms of a

c ha i n of c o m m a n d t h r o u g h w h ich tasks are administered or t h r o u g h w h ic h

messages a re sent Yes, the Father s ac t ion is mediated t h r o u g h his Son and

S p ir i t B u t this is not the preven t ion o f direct access to G o d , as if G o d is

in access ible1 0 I t is rather th e expression of Go d s one action 1 1

A cco r d in g ly , Basil s use of w i t h an d ' t h r o u g h is entirely consistent

Over-correction

We have seen, then, that there was an understanding o f mediat ion th at

needed to be addressed T h e ' t h r o u g h Ch r is t of the mediatotial doxology

was understood by some i n a way th at d id not a f f i r m th e u n i t y of God's

action I n reaction, th e b o ld approach of Basil eventua lly gave way to the

complete shadowing of the medi atorial doxology lest it be misunderstood

The developments that began in the f o u r t h cen tu ry are most evident i n

l i t u r g ica l prayer after the f o u r t h century 2 1 Th e move away f rom the

m e d ia t o r ia l to the coordinated doxology was made i n order t o correct the

m i sund er s tand i ng of m e d i a t i o n B u t correction came w i t h a cost The

emphasis on Christ 's d i v i n i t y w o u l d soon lead to the recession of his

h u m a n i t y in t o th e background As an example , Jung man n notes the

t r in i t a r ia n emphasis as i t stood o ut on Mon oph y s i te soil an d i n the G a l l i c -

Spanish area H e writes :

This particular cultivation of die trinitarian theme in connexion with

the anti -Arian attitude automatically impli es a closer attention to the

divini ty i n Christ , while the position of Mediator, appropriate to hi m

z o To think that Jesus takes our prayers and passes them u p the ladder i s to conceive of

through wrongly It is to conceive of a weakness in G od On the contrary Go d sends his Son

to assume our weakness In his humani ty, then., the Son prays with us As Jungmann states:

'Christ exercises his office of Mediatoi in that he suppotts (kvzvyxavei) the prayer. We must

however not now ourselves think of this support as an intercession of the Lord each t ime

someone prays In this sense John 16 z6f is probably to be understood w hic h, to be sure, was

said chiefly for the consolation o f the downcast disciples: ' In that day you w i l l ask in my

name; and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Fathet for you; for the Father himself loves

you.' But the ptayer of the individual who belongs to Christ to his Church gains only in him

its full resonance before Go d He has indeed fellow-feeling with us Likewise, the Church 's

prayers of praise to God gain meaning and value only because Christ as high priest stands at

her head and joins in them He does not stand in the way., preventing a direct prayer-

relationship between the creature an d his creator as a short-sighted criticism of the Mediator

idea would suppose But the prayer of the creature attains power and effectiveness when it is a

prayer "in the name of Jesus ', in Christ, and when it therefore arrives before God through

Christ (The Place of Christ. 137)

1 1

See Gunton, The Holy Spirit especially 85-881 1 See above note I I

Ï 6 I The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Chi ist

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


f

in his humanity, was in practice allowed t o fall mote and more into the

background, as it wa s constantly misint erpreted by the Arians 1 3

E m phas i z i ng the grandeur of Ch r is t was no t always i n response to

heresy; fo r example, t i t les f o r Christ such as K i n g and Saviour were not

ne w The new t h i n g was their frequent use i 4 W h a t became problemat ic ,

however, was the move t owar ds isolated prayer to Ch r is t i n corporate

w o r s h ip I h e c o m b i n a t i o n of the Son with th e Father ( 'Glo ry to th e Father

w i t h the Son ) meant that prayer was now addressed ro either, or back and

forth to one and then t he other even i n the same prayer I h i s le d to lack of

c la r i t y r eg ardin g th e relationship between th e Father and Son It also

meant th e emphasis o n Ch r is t as Mediator was l o s t . 15 Back i n 393, i t had

been precisely this fear that ha d caused th e C o u n c i l of H i p p o to react

against th e confusion f o u n d at the popular level I n reaction to the

co n fu s io n of the names o f Ch r is t a n d Go d , Father and Son, Canon 21

forbade corporate prayer addressed t o Christ instead o f the Father; and in the

m e d ia t o r ia l fo r m u la , th e Father was not to be n amed i n place of C h r i s t . 1 6

I h e 's tra ightforward an d unreflective nature' of popular p i e t y 1 7 is , as

those a t H i p p o noted, sometimes cause for concern Fo r t h e m , addressing it

meant f o r b i d d i n g certain forms of prayer i n corporate w o r s h ip Corporate

w o r s h ip was to p r o vid e a check to pr ivate piety 1 8 A f t e r th e f o u r t h century,

however, th e t id e against heresy proved to o s t ron g Wh a t , i n 393, had

1 3 Jungmann, The Place of Christ, 220 Other particular examples of this increasing

emphasis on Christ s divinity are given In the East Syrian liturgies, 'Chrisr appears simply as

second Person of the Godhead together with Father and Holy Spirit An d at bottom, also i n

most of the prayers which are directed to him only this his divinit y is in mind' (73) In the

liturgies of the Byzantine region, the new prayers show a preference for addressing 'Christ our

God' Here the emphasis is on what he receives and sends down as God that is, in his divinity

(79) Thus the tendency is revealed to bring out the Godhead i n Christ to honour in him

God. pure and simple (84) See 92.-95 a nd 98—104 for similar tendencies in the litutgies of the

Gallic type

2, 4 Jungmann, The Place of Christ 2241 5 Jungmann, The Place of Christ, 225 For a counter-movement to this tendency, see 227

1 6 Jungmann, The Place of Christ, 169-70. Jungmann refers to A Klawek s argument that

the popular writings were probably Gnostic-Sabcllian in nature which meant that the Father

was thrust into the backgtound (see 169)

1 7 Jungmann, The Place of Christ 214l K Here it is interesting to note a point that f ungmann never denies: direct prayer ro Christ

was always part of private worship and in the form of hymns and acclamations See The Place of

Christ 164—65, 170-71. Yet consider Jungmann s comment regarding such prayer up to the

fourth cenrury: ' . the Christians of this early period were conscious of praying to Christ, the

head of the Church, as the normal way of praying because it was the notmal way of believing —

and so much so that, even in private prayer a prayer addressed to Christ was regarded as being

addressed through Christ to God' (171) Its tenor, however, would undoubtedl y change after

the Arian controversy This, I think, is an important point to keep i n mind when considering

recent research that seeks to refine Jungmann s thesis (see above, note 7)

been cause for concern rega rding popular p ie t y wa s n ow cause fo r concern

i n th e context of corporate w o r s h ip 2 9

W i t h respect to Christ 's role as H i g h Priest of the Eucharist, here too

the emphasis moved to his d i v i n i t y Ch r is t has the power t o consecrate and

accept th e o f f e r in g by v i r t u e of his Godhead 3 0 I n the West , the movem en t

towards veneration of th e host ev entual ly resulted i n reserve i n t a k in g the

s a c r a m e n t i ' I n this context , Christ - as the object of w o r s h ip - wa s no

longer seen as th e advocate wh o enabled bold approach to the t a b l e . 32 W i t h

the loss of emphasis o n Ch r is t s h u m a n i t y and his role as advocate, i t is n o

surprise that the euchatistic a tmosphere incre asingly became on e of fear

G r a h a m R e d d i n g s su mmary of the l i t u r g i c a l development I have been

ch a t t in g serves as a f i t t i n g conclusion to this section H e w r i t e s ( q u o t in g

J un gm a nn at the end):

W h i l e these liturgical changes were perfectly understandable under the

circumstances, they had a most unfor tunate an d unfore seen effect

Ju ng ma nn po in ts out rhat, as the mediatorship an d humanity of Christ

faded into th e backgtound and C h r i s t was thrust up into the majesty

an d grandeur of the Godhead, a gap emerged an d came to yawn large in

Chrisrian th inkin g between the eternal God an d s inful humanity The

worshipper wa s confronted immediately w i t h the overwhelming

majesty of th e triune G o d Stress was now placed nor on what unites

us to G o d (Christ as one of us in his human nature, C h r i s t as our

brother), but on what separates us from G od (God s infinite majesty) 3 3

I I I O u r H o p e fo r Y e a r s to C o m e : R e c o v e r i n g L o s t G r o u n d

The Cross Mat à s the End

The Problem of the Experiential Model

Jam es Torrance argues that th e most common an d widespread view of

w o r s h ip is that it is somet hing that we ' , that is , religious people, do. Jesus

t a u g h t us and gave us an example of h o w to do i t . God s grace is needed t o

h e lp us i n our efforrs b u t it is, essentially, w h a t we do before God: W e go

to ch u tch , we s ing ou r psalms an d h y mn s to G o d , we intercede fo r the

2, 9 Cf note 25 above

3 0 Jungmann, The Place of Christ 242-443 1 Initially, when piayer to Christ finds its way into the Eucharist, it is not the euchariscic

presence of the lord that is addressed; rhe eucharist ie body of Christ temains a third factor

between the suppliant and Christ Th e first indication of the movement towards veneration is

the inclusion of the Agnus Dei during the fraction See Jungm ann. 'The Place of Christ 25S—593 1

Jungmann, The Place ofChrirt 262-63. See especially 263 n 33 3 Redding, Prayer and the Priesthoodoj Chin 20 Cf Jungmann s helpful summary 251

The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 165

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


w o r l d , we lis ten to the seimon (to o often s imp ly an exhortat io n), we offer

our money, t ime and ta lents to God 3 4 Such a view is unitar ian, he argues,

because i t has no doctr ine of the mediat ion of Chtis t and no proper

doctr ine of the H o l y S p i r i t 3 5

I he problem of separat ion (a lluded to by Redding) is also th e concer n

regarding worsh ip understood in this way What ever f o r m separation

takes, i t renders worship Pelagian 3 6 Th e v ie w o u t l i n e d above expressesitself in an exper ienti a l mode l of wors hip , summ ed up as Go d and me' ,

today 3 7 Ih i s m o d e l . . emphasizes our f a i t h , our d e c is io n , our response i n

an event theology wh ic h short-c ircuit s the vicar ious hum ani ty of Chris t

and belit t les union w i t h C h t i s t . 3 8 Ih is view requires a cross but - and thi s

is key — no fu rthe r w o r k is recognized. Many who advocate (a t least i n

pract ice) the vie w that worshi p is somet hing th at we do, believe that thei r

act ion is indeed grou nded i n what Chri s t has done Me dia t io n is

im p o r t a n t , in d e e d essential. H o w e v e t , here it is relegated to the past I n

such a view, the ascended C h t is t i s g lo r i f ie d a lo n g w i t h th e Father and

Spirit, but there is no real sense in whic h that ptaise is made possible by

th e continuing act ion of Chri s t and the Spir i t Rather, t h e d r a w in g u p in t ofellow ship is somethi ng tha t is made possible by a w o r k that is f inished on

th e cross 5 9 I t is an exhaust in g mod el to inha bit , Ionance argues, because

instead of pro cla imi ng a gospel of grace i t throws Chris t ians back o n

themselves to make an appropriate response t o G o d 4 0 I n this model, the

mediator ia l doxology has receded in t o t h e past a lo n g w i t h Chr is t s f inished

work

I t can be argued that this model separates C hr is t s w o r k f r o m his

p e r s o n . 41 M a n y issues arise regarding the relat io nship between soter io logy

3 4 Torrance Worship. J3 5 Torrance Worship. 73 6 Separation has many disguises Iron ically , in much contemporary worship , the fear that

once characterized the atmosphere of worsh ip has changed into a curious familiarit y.

FilmFour's Dogma comically expresses this all too prevalent phenomenon in the unveiling of

the church s new tecruitment tool — 'Buddy Christ' the mascot to teplace the gtim and no

longer relevant crucifix. Misguided of course Where there is no cross, the gap remains

3 7 It is often this individualistic expression — 'Go d and me. today — that receives the brunt

of much (deserved) critic ism Undoubt edly, the experiential model is usually expressed in this

way But even the communa lly minded can fall naively into a similar ttap ('God and us

today) expressing themselves more as a contemporary collective father than the ekklesia

3 8 Torrance Worship. r 83 9 Torrance Worship. 16—18 Because there is mediation at one point unitarian worship

expressed in the experiential model actually fits a truncated trinitaria» wotship4 0 Torrance Worship 7, 184 1 Torrance, Worship, 16

a n d o n t o l o g y . 4 1 We ca n n o t enter into the var ious debates here But in any

att emp t to hol d being and act togethet , one mus t not collapse into the

other. For our present concern , i t mu st be said tha t the one wh o is wh o he

is continues to act W e do no t s impl y look to a person, we also need to pay

atten tion to wha t this person is co nti nui ng to do The Med iato r con tinues

to mediate

It is Not Finished; The Once for All

The book of Hebrews describes Chr is t as a pr iest , l ik e Melchi zedek, w ho is

a pr iest not thro ugh a legal requir ement - l ike those according to the orde r

of Aaro n - but thr oug h the power of an indestruct ible l i fe (see 7 11—17)

Indeed i t is the eternality of Chris t s pr iesthood that makes h im m e d ia t o r

of a better covenant Hi s m ore excellent mi ni str y (cf 8 6) is carried out at

th e ' r i ght ha nd of the throne o f the Majesty i n the heavens' whe re he is a

mini ster i n the sanctuary a nd the true tent ' (cf 8 . 1 - 2 ) Does t h is b ib l ica l

picture not warrant a careful interpretat ion of the words that come f r o m

Jesus mouth as he breathes his last on the cross: I t i s f in is h e d '? 43 C e r t a in lys o m e t h in g i s accomplished, b u t i t does n o t m a r k t h e e n d o f h is m in is t r y . 4 4

According to Calvin, resurrect ion completes what is begun on the cross

Ihe glory of the resurrect ion does not dtaw us away f r o m th e cross because,

tho ugh dist i nct , they go togethet inseparabl y. 45 The resurrect ion fu l fi l s the

purpose of the cross, revealing the cross as the door to life 4 6 B u t a l t h o u g h

C a l v i n says that resurrect ion completes what is begun on the cross, he also

speaks of the ascension as the complet ion of the new l i fe Paul van Buren

argues that this is no contradict ion because, according to Cal vin , the

w h o l e w o r k of Christ as our Substitute is one: His death in our place, H i s

4 1 It could be argued that an overemphasis on ontology, or rather a vie w that conflates

ontology and soteriology is problematic In other words, although i t must be affirmed that

only rhe one who is fully human and fully divine can save it could be argued that the 'events'

themselves ate made redundant if Jesus Christ simply is atonement No w is neithet the time

to debate this nor decide how fat James Torranc e s argument may rend i n this direction

Nevertheless let it be said here along with Douglas Farrow that the issue is not whethet'

Jesus is who [he] is as he does what he does but the parti cular way in which this is

consttued' {.Ascension and Ecclesia- On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiologyand Christian Cosmology [Edinburg h: T&T Clark. 1999] M5> n o t e 37 2 '

4 3 John 19 30 NRSV

4 4 See Dougla s Farrow s article which argues for the ascension s inclusion in the atone ment:

Ascension and Atonement', in Colin Gunton (ed ), The Theology of Reconciliation (London:

I &T C l ar k , Z003) 67-914 5 Paul van Buren., Christ in Our Place 1 Ihe Substitutionary Charaaer of Calvin s Doctrine of

Reconciliation (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1957) 814 6 Va n Buren. Christ in Our Place 84

166 The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 167

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Resurrec tion for us, and His life w i t h God as che new life of those for

w h o m He died and rose 4 7

Th e ascension, then, marks borh Chris t s experience o f this new life w i t h

God and his enabling o f this teality for us Ho w is this a ll for us? Th e cross

is the door to life because, ironically , resurrect ion means C h r is t 's death is

eternal: once for a ll . Ihrough resurrect ion, Chrisr 's subst itut ionary death is

eternally eff icacious In his commenrary on Hebrews, Calv in writes :

Chris t so rose from the dead that, s t i l l , His death was not abolished but

tetains its efficacy for ever, as though (the author of Hebrews) had said:

Go d raised up H i s Son, but i n such a way that the blood He shed once

for all in his death is efficacious after His Resurrection for the

ratification of the everlasting covenant and brings forth irs fruit just as

if it were always flowing 4 5

Here, in the language of Hebrews, the intt ins ic connect ion of the dis t inct

events of death, resurr ectio n and ascension can be seen Ne w life made

possible because o f Chris t 's l ife l ived, g iven up on the cross, and risen f rom

the dead, is completed in the ascension to the l i g h t hand of Go d where

Chris t l ives nor only for himself but also for us

Because Chr is t carr ied out these events in the flesh, they are tru ly

representative 4 9 Let us focus on the ascension and see ho w it is for us W e

have seen, t h r o u g h C a lv in , t h a t t h e once for all is ab o u t m a k i n g w h a t was,

conti nual Ihei efore , our present c o m m u n i o n w i t h God is based on the

co n t in u a t io n o f C h r is t 's mi nis try , that is , his l ife given as a con tin uin g

offer ing Chris t , because of his perfe ct off eri ng of himse lf, is the firstfruits.

He is already in f u l l possession o f that for wh ic h we hope Bu t this f u l l

possession is , in its continuation, also th e basis for our being drawn into it .

Chris t , therefore , does not sit out merely as an example for us; as

representative he is Saviour

Christ Our Intercessor

Charles Wesley captured Chris t s con tin uin g intercess ion in this way: Five

bleeding wounds he bears, received on Calvat y They pour effectual

prayers; they strongly plead for me , J O Ho w is it that Chris t s wounds

4 7 Va n Buren, Christ in Our Place. 85-864 8 Quoted in Van Buren, Christ in Our Place 824 9 To die in the flesh but rise in any other way would mean that representation stops short

at the cross If so then we ate to be pitied indeed ! Wi th reference to Ephes ians (1 20; 2 5-6,19) and Philippian s (3 20), Calvin believed that not only life but also the opening of the

heavens — for us — is in view See Va n Buren, Christ in Our Place, 87—885 0 From the hymn . Arise, My Soul Arise which Wesley wrote in 1742

intercede for us? In und erst and ing his offerin g as bot h firstfruits fot hi m

and th e basis of assurance for us, how are we to interpret what is to be our

confident approach to the inner sanctuary? Here we gain a gli mps e of th e

mystery of the cross W e are forced to loo k f r o m a variety of angles No one

statement, model or idea can contain all the t r u t h tha t is the re for us t o

grasp I r y as we mi gh t, a penal element cannot be avoided - careful as we

must be in art ic ula tin g it Bu t, as stated at the outset of thi s essay, thecross does no r save us from a life of obed ient , sac rificial love. I t saves us to

such a life Ih e cross ma y have been th e wages o f h u m a n i t y ' s s in , w h ich

Chti s t vicat iously took upo n himself for our sake. But it was also the

full est exptession of his obedience - the fulle st expression of his life giv en

up for others, a life we are called to imi tat e The offe rin g was given in an

act that can be articulated as the consequence of sin Bur the off etin g itself

is good An d in the resurrect ion and ascension, it is affirmed and

recogni zed as such. I he eternal of fer ing , then , is not sim pl y to be

understood as the eternal efficacy of Christ's death in terms of the wages o f

si n It is also to be undetstood as the continual offer ing of the obedient life

l i v ed In one sense the offer ing, viewed as consequence, is something we are

saved f r o m Bu t throug h the resurrect ion and ascension, we are also d r a w n

i n t o the offer ing as life-giving.

Therefore, w e are to look at intercession in (at least) a t w o f o l d way. First,

si n does not mark the way of those who walk in the l i ght Ih e author of 1

Jo hn says: M y l i t t l e children, I am w r i t i n g these things to you so that you

may not sin ' Bu t he conti nues: . if anyone does sin we have an advocate

w i t h th e Father, Jesus Chr i s t the r ighteous 5 ' Jesus sits at the right hand of

th e Father as our eternal advocate The offer i ng that was giv en is continued

as it is ' forever hel d up before God on our behalf 5 i B u t second, we are

dr aw n in to share what is offered Chri st s whol e life of obedience (and is

this not what we have defined as worship?) is rhe offering that is brought

i n t o the inner sanctuaty W e are to jo in in this offer i ng Ib is means that

our worshi p is really a jo in in g in Chris t s worship. I f we f a i l to look f r o m

b o t h angles, we risk seeing a d is t o r t e d p ic t u r e Wi t h o u t t h e emphasis o n

p a t t ic ip a t in g in the offet ing, we are left w i t h the image of the Father

5 1 1 John 2 I NRSV

5 Van Buren, Christ in Our Place, 89 According to Calvin, the initial offeting and its

continuation at the right hand of the Father comprise the two parts of Christ's priesthood

(90)

i68 The Person of Christ F A C H The Amended Christ 169

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


a ve r t in g hi s eyes away f r o m us Instead th e im a ge - or shou ld we say

sound - is t ha t of a m i g h t y eucharistic chorus: th e m a n y , i n rheir

p a r t icu la r i t y , gathered to the one

The Continuing Priestly Role:

According to Divinity or Humanity?

In a n a t t em pt t o address a modern guise of separation (ar guabl y one of the

costs of ancient over-c orrect ion) , I have argued that Christ cont inues t o

m ed i ate at t he r i g h t hand of the Father W e t u r n no w to I F Torrance s

essay, 'The M i n d o f Chris t in Wo rs hi p : The Pro b lem o f A p o l l in a r ia n is m i n

th e L i t u r g y , ' 4 i n w h i c h Torrance stresses Christ 's ong oing priest ly role S 5

Agai ns t what we have seen as the experient ial model o f w o r s h ip , Thomas

Torrance stresses that our w o r s h ip is a p a r t ic ip a t io n in heavenly w o r s h ip 5 *

By rhe Spir it we are joined t o Chris t w ho , as th e wrirer of Hebrews insists,

continues to be ou r Leitourgos - t he leader of ou r w o r s h ip B u t w h a t is

im p o r r a n t here is no t s im p ly that Christ cont inues to w o t k Unders t a nding

th e w h o ' of t h i s w o r k is essent ial The medi at i ng Chri st who sits at ther i g h t hand of the Father is f u l l y h u m a n H i s h u m a n i t y is essential to his

5 3 Ihis is arguably another misconstrual of mediation Althou gh Calvin spoke of Christ

averti ng the Father's eyes this was from our sit! not from us The Father does look on us, but

in Christ tather than in ourselves This is supported by Calvi n's rejection of the idea that Chrisr

stands midway between us and the Father, beggin g for our deliverance See Va n Bur en, Christ

in Out Place, 90-911 4 T F Torrance, The Mind of Chris t in Worsh ip: I he Problem of Apollinaria nism in the

Liturgy' , in idem Theology in Reconciliation: Essayi Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in Eastand Wesi (London: Geoffrey Cha pman, 1975), 139-2.14 The last writing Colin Gunton

prepared for press before his untimely death was a collecti on o f essays inc ludi ng one on I F

Torrance s docrrine of God In it, he writes: As always rhere are resources in Iorrance's work

which are waiting to be developed. One ol his papers which has long continued to work in

my mind is that on The Mind of Chris t in Worsh ip The Problem of Apollinarianism in

the Lirurgy ' ('Eastern and Western Trinities: Bemg and Person I F Iorrance's Doctrine

of God' , in Colin Gunton, Father, Son and Holy Spirit Essays toward a Fully TrinitarianTheology (London: T & I Clark, 2003], 32-57 I54]) I came across Gunto n s wotds.

incidentally while preparing this essay for publication As a student in his research seminar, it

is my hope that in honour of his memory this essay w i l l count as a development he would

have welcomed

5 5 Torrance is also de pendent on Jungmann s work, though he argues that a subtle

Apollinarianism is also at the root of the loss of the mediat orial aspect in the litu rgy It is not

my aim to argue the case for one or the other However it would und oubtedl y be easier for

chose who affirmed a gap explicitly through liturgical exptession to do so if there was no belief

in a real union in the first place What ever the main root of the shift (and why not say both

factors are at work?) what one says about the nature of the hypostatic unio n cettainly

determines what can be said about the notion of Christ with us', whether pre- or

post-ascension

s 6 Torrance Ihe Mind of Christ in Worship 139-40

m e d ia t io n Here Torrance engages w i t h Nicol as Cabasilas Torrance argues

that a lth ough Cabasilas , in his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, affirms the

m e d i a t i n g , p r ies t ly w o r k of Chris t on our behalf, . he consistent ly

assimilates th e p r ies t ly a nd m edia t i ng a c t iv i t y o f Chris t to his d iv i n e

a ct iv i t y , an d does not show evidence of Athanasius or C y r i l {of

A le xa n d r ia ] s p o i n t t ha t as the incarnate Son comes to us as man, it is as

man t ha t he f u l f i l s his office as Media t o r ' 5 7 Cabasilas writes :

[Chrisr] is Mediator between God and man, not by his words or prayers

but in himself To think that his intercession is always made

through the prayers of the lirurgy is rank blasphemy and folly For even

if ir is true that Christ performs the sacrifice, we cannot att ribu te

everything that is said and done throughout th e liturgy to h im He

alone accomplishes the special work and purpose of the l i turgy - the

consecration of the offe rings and rhe sanct ificati on of the faithful ; but

th e prayers, supplications and demands which surround these rites are

the acts of the priest Ihe first are the works of the Lord, the rest the

work of servants; the latter pray, the former answers prayer Ihe

Saviour gives, and the puest offers thanks for what has been given; the

priest offers, and the Lord accepts what is offered Our Lord, i t is true,

offers too, but he offers himself to the Father, and also the gifts, when

they have become his Body and Blood I t is because he offers himself

rhat he is described both as Offering and Offerer, and as the receiver of

the offering; he is as God the offerer and receiver, and as m an the

offering Bu t as regards the bread and wine, when they are s t i l l simply

gifts, it is the priest who offers them and the Lord who receives Wh at

does he do in receiving them? He sanctifies them, and turns them into

his own Body and Blood; for it is the true nature of receiving to

appropriate a thing to oneself, so that ir becomes in a sense oneself, as

we have said before That is how Chris t celebrates thi s sacrifice; in this

his Priesthood consists 5 S

A t the outset, Cabasilas says t ha t Chris t is Mediat or between God an d

h u m a n i t y in himself Because he is b o t h God and human, th e t wo are

u n i t e d Is t h i s the o nt o lo gica l k n o t that prevents us f r o m separating

C hr i s t ' s w o r k f r o m hi s person? A n d does th is no t meet any concern

r egar d i ng the loss of Christ's cole as a human? Here i t is w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g

J u n g m a n n s pe rc ep ti ve no te re ga rd in g Cab asi las s use of I T i m o t h y 2 5

( There is one Media tor between God and men, the man Ch ris t Jesus )

5 7 Iorrance Ihe Mind of Christ in Worship 194

5 Nicholas Cabasilas, Commentary on the Dirine Liturgy 49 (trans J. M Hussey and P A

McNulty; London: SPCK, 1966), cited 111 T F Torrance Theology in Reconciliation (London:

Geoffrey Chapman 1975) 194—95

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


i 7 i The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 173

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


This is where he critiques Basil, saying that although Basil atgues for a

m ed i a tor i al ' th r ou gh, ' he does no t seem to be aware of a mediatorial

w i t h in the l i t u r g y 6 1

I wa nt to offer a more sympa thetic readin g of Basil tha t w i l l lead us into

the final section of this essay - the implicati ons of the ascension The

burden of On the Holy Spirit is to af f irm the deity of the Holy Spiri t

Therefore, any discussion of how it is that Christ is one w i t h humanity isi nc i d enta l There are hint s of it Bu t first, B asil s use of the p rep osi tio n

w i t h needs to be understood in context. A ccor ding to Basi l , both ' w i t h

w h o m and thr oug h wh om are approp riate to use concer ning the Son in

the doxology The first is approp riate for gi vi ng h i m praise, the second for

g i v i n g thanks (Here, then, Torrance s cr i t ique appears justi fied ) Before

lo o k in g at chapter 7 where Basil makes this expl ici t , let us jump ahead for

a moment to chapter 2 6 where the context is an explanation of the use of

the preposition in regarding the Holy Spiri t . In patagtaph 63, Basil

states:

Ihe Spirit is said to dwell in created things in many and various ways,

bu t as fax as His relationship to the Father and the Son is concerned, it

is more appropriate to say that He dwells with them, rarher than in

rhem Those who are worthy receive His grace, and He works with/«

them Howevet, we cannot contemplate His pre-eternal existence and

permanent presence w i t h the Son and the Father unless we search for

words which suitably express such an everlasting union Truly precise

co-existence can only be predicated of things which are mutually

inseparable Whenever the union between things is intimate,

natutal, and inseparable, it is more appropriate to use with since this

word suggests an indivisible union On the other hand, in situations

where the grace of the Spirit comes and goes, it is more proper to say

that the Spirit exists in someone, even in the case of well-disposed

persons w i t h whom He abides continually 6 4

Basi l is mak in g a distin ction between the telationship that the Ho ly

S p ir i t has w i t h th e Father and Son, and the relatio nshi p the Ho ly Spirit has

w i t h us Can we deduce anything from this regarding the Son? One c ould

say that this very passage supports Torrance s arg umen t That is, we should

use the w o t d w i t h regarding our relationship to Christ because Christ

u n i t e d himself to humani ty in the incarnation But I do not thi nk the

objection holds Basil w o u l d surely not deny the i n d i v i s i b i l i t y of Christ s

3 Iorrance. Ihe Mind of Christ in Worship , 1904 Basil, On the Holy Spirit, z6 63; original italics throughout

3

u n io n to humanity in this sense It is the basis on which he uses the

prep osit ion th ro ug h Basil s poi nt is that the Ho ly Spirit's relat ion to us is

different from his relation to the Father and Son Surely we must say th is, in

some sense, rega rdin g the incarnate one His relationsh ip to the Father and

S p ir i t is different from his relationship to us. That is the main point

A n d here we come back to chapter 7 where the context is not that of the

H o l y Spirit bu t the Son Yes, Basil thin ks ' w i t h who m is approp riate for

g i v i n g g l or y whereas thr oug h who m is appropriate for gi vin g thanks. Bu t

l isten:

Wh en ev er we reflect on the majesty of the nature of the Onl y-

Begotten, and the excellence of His dignity, we ascribe glory to Him

with the Father O n the other hand, when we consider the abundant

blessings He has given us, and how He has admitted us as co-heirs into

Go d s household, we acknowledge that this grace works for us through

H i m and in H i m 6 5

Note the last phrase - not only through h i m but also in him Could not the

prep osit ion in reflect the k i n d of dynamic, continual mediatio n th at

Thomas Iorrance seeks in his plea for the preposition ' w i t h ? Know i ng

w h y Basil opts for in instead of ' w i t h ' , it is at least plausible

Basi l does not - in the doxologies - use the preposition w i t h ' i n a

mediatorial sense Nevertheless, there is certainl y a dynam ic feel to what he

says elsewhere He uses words to describe Christ 's place in the Ttin i ty (for

example, Son , Onl y- Beg ott en , Wi sd om , and so on) and contrasts them

w i t h words used to describe his relati onship to creation (for example,

Shepherd , 'K in g' and Ph ysician). These latter tit les refer to how Ch ris t

satisfies th e needs of creation li st en to what he says i n chapter 8 and see i f

there is not a sense of a dynamic, continual work:

Those who flee to His ruling care for refuge, an d through patientendurance correct their evil ways, He calls sheep, and He acknowledges

Himself to be the Shepherd of those wh o hear Hi s voice, refusi ng to

listen to strange teachings My sheep hear my voice, He says He is

King of those wh o have risen to a higher way of life, submit ting

themselves to their lawful ruler. Because He leads men through the

narrow gate of His commandments to the practice of good deeds, and

because H e securely shuts in those wh o through faith in H i m find

shelter in true wisdom, He is the Door. Therefore He says, If any one

enters by Me, he w i l l go in and out an d find pasture Because He is

6 5 Basil On the Holy Spirit 716

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


176" The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 1 7 7

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


h is t o r y f r o m our o w n Jesus stands over-against us. The ascension, then,

has i m pl i c a t i ons for the a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a m ed i a tor i a l w i t h

Christ Our King

H er e , then, is w her e w e m i g h t w a n t t o offer a nuance to Thomas Iorrance's

plea for a m ed i a tor i a l w i t h . T her e is only room here fo r brief reflections

w h i c h I hope to develop elsewhere. I n a r gui ng that th e ascension is also

subs t i tut i onar y - t h a t is , also for us - C a lv in was careful t o articulat e this i n

a way that af firmed Chris t s l o r d shi p C hr i s t is our subs t i tute onl y as ou r

Lord. A g a i n , he is not just ex ample b u t Saviour Is this where we m i g h t

w a n t to emphasize not onl y C hr i s t s pr i es thood b u t also hi s k i n g s h i p ? 7 4

Psalm 1 1 0 is h e lp fu l here, for i t emphasizes bo th offices Her e the

ascension is und er s tood i n terms of e n t h r o n e m e n t 7 5 W h e n th e church

proclaims that Jesus is L o r d , it - i n Farrow s w or d s - '. serfs] th e alarm

bells r i n g i n g in the palaces o f Caesar . 7 6 Such proclamation deprives all

other rulers of any c l a i m t o d i r ec t author i ty 7 7 This psalm, then, presents

us w i t h an image that helps us und er s tand the key phr ase hi gh l i gh tedabove: w i t h respect t o ourselves Indeed, Chris t stands over-against us.

The psalmist also proclaims that Go d has gone u p w i t h a s h o u t ' . 7 8 But

wh o is th i s G od , and w hat is the na tur e of his t r i u m p h ?

H er e we l ook on e last t im e at the c hur c h s l i t u r g ica l d ev el opm ent . I h e

shadowing of the m ed i a tor i a l pat ter n of w o r s h i p d i d not happen in the

W e s t u n t i l about th e s i x th c entur y I h e sh i f t i n emphasis is evident in a

par t i c ul ar i nter pr eta t i on of the 'who l ives an d reigns in the u n i t y of the

S p ir i t that ended th e C anon of the Mass Instead o f th i s be i ng i nter p r eted

i n t e r m s of the t r ans f i gur ed G od -hum an w h o lives, exalte d, to make

intercession for us, the phrase was increasingly taken over b y those who

used i t in t e tm s o f his consubstan tial u n io n w i t h th e Father T h e t r ans i t i onto understand Christ 's 'reign solely w i t h respect ro his d i v i n i t y was

u n d e r w a y " Th e t r in i t a r ia n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h referred ' l i v i n g and

7 4 Iorrance does indeed recognize Christ s threefold office elsewhere. I believe he would,

therefore, support my thoughts here They are offered as a nuance to what he says in this

context7 5 Fatrow helpfully states: Of course we may rightly speak of an enthronement already on

the cross for this is how Christ exercises his kingship among us Ye t on the cross he is srill the

king in exile. God has anothet and better throne for hi s Son than the one we devised!'

('Confessing Christ Coming' 236 n 15).

7 <i Farrow, 'Confessing Christ Coming' 138

7 7 Farrow, Confessing Christ Comin g . 139

7 8

Psalm 47 5 NRSV.7 9 Jungmann I be Place of Christ. 207-10 221-23

r e ig n in g to the G od head o f C hr i s t led to small b u t s i gni f i c ant changes

N e w endings were formed i n w h i c h th e ' l i v i n g an d r e i g n i n g was said

s im p ly of God Jung mann summarizes: Paral lel w i t h th e decay of prayer

t h r o u g h C hr i s t , or , w her e i t was already f i r m l y r oo ted , th e decl ine in its

esteem, th e them e of the g lo r i f ie d head of the Church receded 8 0

I have argued that Christ s k i ngshi p , a l ong w i t h h i s pr i es thood , m ust be

m ai nta i ned in any a r t i c ul a t i on of a m ed i a tor i a l w i t h To recognizeC hr i s t ' s k i ngshi p is to recognize th at he stands (indeed reig ns) over ag ainst

us. B u t th i s r ec ogni t i on c annot i n v o l v e a d eni a l of his h u m a n i t y . 8 1

l i t u r g i c a l d ev el opm ent has once again served to i l l us t r a te th e dangers o f

a r t icu la t in g C hr i s t s role outside th e c ontex t o f h i s hum ani t y . A t t e n t i o n t o

the theme of the g lo r i f ie d head' must never recede. I t helps us to take bo th

offices in t o account Chris t is our head in the sense tha t he lives and rei gns

over against us. He is not just representative, he is L o r d Bu t the head mu st

be one w i t h it s bod y I n th i s sense, t h e n , he is not j u s t Lord, b ut

representative! Therefore, i n ac know l ed gi n g Chr i s t ' s k i ngsh i p w e m ust not

see his d i v i n i t y outside th e context o f h is h u m a n i t y - h e is s t i l l Go d as a

humanPaul employs another of the psalmist 's images: Wh en he ascended o n

h i g h he made captivi ty i tsel f a captive ' S l This is his t r i u m p h , a t r i u m p h

for us, i nd i c a t i v e i n Paul s t w is t : 'he gave gif ts t o his people 8 3 G i f t s can be

g ive n because booty has been take n. B ut the g i f t s a re not equal to the booty ;

that is, the g i f t s are not booty that is s i m pl y r e -d i s t r i buted B y taking

ca p t iv i t y captive, he gives us the f r eed om t o be t r u l y hum an. H e transforms

w h a t has been dama ged an d t a i nted , an d gives i t back to us anew. H i s

g i v i n g is therefore dependen t on his oneness w i t h us but also hi s t r i u m p h

against all our self-cl aims t hat have made us c a p t i v e . 8 4

8 c Jungmann The Place of Christ 222-23

Wi th teference to the 'disturbing' answer to the Where ? question, Farrow says: It is

disturbing because it challenges the assumption that to talk about a human being who cannot

be so placed is meaningless, and because it implies that every attempt to define him as

something other than a human being is really an act of violence designed to force hi m to yield

his meaning on our terms' (Ascension and Ecclesia 267)8 1 Ep h 4 8 NRSV (cf Ps. 68 18)

8 3 Ep h 4 8 NRSV (Ps. 68 18 reads: and receiving gifts from people).

8 4 Here the context o f giving is kingship. Could we not also see here rhe other side of his

priesthood— the God-humanward dimension which is nevertheless dependent on his being Go d

as a human }

i 7 8 The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 179

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


We Are 'With' Chtist

Wh en the churc h acknowle dges t he divergence of Jesus his tory from its

o w n. that is , when it refuses to place Jesus in any respect to itself, the

church recognizes what the w o r l d has not : the provis iona lity of its

existence S i Hete , th en, is the nuance I w o u l d lik e to offer to the di scussion

of a mediator ia l w i t h . Instead o f saying tha t 'Chri st is w i t h us', perhaps i t

w o u l d be better to say - thi s side o f Chris t s depatture - that we are with

Christ Yes , we should look for more than t hro ugh ' if t h is w o r d deals

solely w i t h somethi ng in the past B u t o u r a f f i im a t io n o f ' w i t h needs t o

reflect divergence as wel l

Does Chr is t pray w i t h us or do we pray w i t h him? It is not necessarily

th e same thi ng The lat ter seeks to emphasize the upwards call of the

l i t u r g y : l i f t up your hearts' - sursum corda' In Calvin 's wotds , the one who

w o u l d throw into question our hope of being in a manner present w i t h

Christ , near ly drags Chris t dow n' S b Wh a t , in d e e d , i s prayer? G r a h a m

R e d d i n g stares: 'As the Spir it br ing[s] us into personal union w i t h C h r is t ,

so our lives are joined to his and we share in his eternal life of prayer before

th e Father Prayer, therefore, is not a form of self-expression an d wishful

t h i n k i n g . It is not a chat w i t h God. It is nothing other than being united

t h r o u g h the act ivity of the Spir it w i t h the prayer of Chr is t . ' 8 7

I t is indeed the Spirit who unites us to the absent one and makes h i m in

a manner ptesent Recog nit io n is the g i f t of the Spirit. W e recognize

Chri st as Lord onl y as we are uni ted to h i m by the Spi rit In being u ni ted

to him we also recognize w h a t i t means to be t r u l y human We learn this

an d become this as we are taugh t Chri st s prayer An d we w i l l not know

Christ s prayer unless the Spi r it guides us in praying it , that is , l i f t s us up

t h a t w e m ig h t share i t .

V C o n c l u s i o n : F r o m S t o t y t o D o c t r i n e - T h e R e q u i r e d ( b u t T r i c k y )

S h i f t f r o m E c o n o m y t o T h e o l o g y

W e have explored litur gic al developmen t i n the ear ly centur ies , showi ng

that i t resulted in a g l o r i f y i n g that shifted in emphasis f r o m t h e economic

to the immanent T r i n i t y The shift brou ght w i t h it an atmosphere of

distance and the experience of separation As detrrm ent al as this was for the

8 5 Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia. 3 cf 268Hi ' Quoted in Van Buren Christ in Our Place, 88.^ Graham Redding, T o Whom Do We Direct Our Worship and Prayer And Does It

Matter? Stimulus 9 3 (2001): 5-10 (7)

church's w o r s h ip , w e have seen that the shift makes sense when the

doctr in al climate in whi ch it arose is considered But doc tr inal differences

aside, is this not a legitimate and even necessary shift? Ih e economy leads

us to an account of the God whose economy i t is Throug h the economy w e

come to understand th at salvation can only be accom plishe d by the G od

w h o created and is therefore di sti nct fro m his creation It was the

co n vic t io n o f b o t h Irenaeus and Athana sius that the Son is media tor ofr e d e m p t io n and creat ion 8 8 A g a in s t those who do not see that it is

necessary to make t h e s h i f t , 8 9 C o l in G u n t o n r e m a in e d f i r m in his

co n vic t io n t h a t w e have to move from the economic to the immanent lest

the two collapse and Go d is no longet wh o he is other t han i n relati on t o

his cteat ion 9 0 Creat ion must remain the free act of the one w ho is who he

is apart from that which he cteates

Nevertheless, the order - fr om economic to imman ent - is essential I f

this order is not maintained, theology becomes mere speculat ion 9 1 That is

to say we can only speak truthfully o f the immanent T r i n i t y by means of

th e economic T r i n i t y Gun ton writes : Our topic has to do w i t h the eternal

T r i n i t y - w i t h w h o m t h e Father and Son are eternally, and what theirrelat ionship may be But once the conception bteaks free from the

economy, fr om what happens in t ime, the dangers o f abstract ion present

themselves i n f u l l force 9 1 Certainly sonship is not l i m i t e d to the econ omy,

G u n t o n argues, but neither can it be constru ed apart fro m it 9 1

That the mediator ia l pattern of worship moved to one char fu l l y

recogni zed th e uni ty of the Godhea d is, in and of itself, not a proble m.

Gunton And in One lord , 42—458 9 Gunton cites LaCugna as an example (A nd in One Lord , 230 n 14) For his

argument, see the preface to Ihe Promise of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T&I Clark. 2ndedn 1997), xi-xx xi Hi s critique makes the reader aware of the overall context in which one

finds LaCugna's summary of the liturgical development charted by Jungmann (see above, note

12).9 0 Gunt on argues that the doctrine of the immanent Ir ini ty also serves as a

foundation for the relative independence and so integrity of worldly realiry , and thus for

human freedom It is because Go d is a commun ion of love prior to and in independence of the

creation that he can enable the creation to be itself (The Promise xviii)

9 1 Alth ough we cannot know from the inside' the nature of the Triune relations, we affirm

that they ate such that when opened up ad extra God is tevealed as he is in himself This is not

to atgue that out knowledge is exhaustive, but only that it is true. For example, the Son does

indeed reveal the Father and in such a way that we come to know that there is in the

immanent Trinity, no Father but the Father of the Son and no Son but the Son of the Father

The God who opens him self to be in relationship with us is also the God who in his very-

being is relational See Wain wrig ht Trinitarian Wors hip , 245-47 Cf Gunto n 'And in

One Lord , 45-47 See also Torrance, Being of One Substance'. 50-56

9 1 Gunton And in One Lord' 379 i Gunton, An d in One Lord 40

The Person of Christ F A C H The Ascended Christ 181

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


I nd eed t he Son an d , as later a ff irmed, th e S p ir i t are w o r t h y of worship. B u t

th e move f r o m economy t o theology mus t n o t in vo lve a move towards

w o r s h ip p in g an abstract d i v i n i t y Phis is a concern shared b y those who

m i g h t otherwise disagree 9 4 A s Catherine M o w r y LaCugna states: Praise is

never rendered t o an abstract u n i t y of three coequal d iv in e persons 9 5 W i t h

reference to the second person of the I r i n i t y , G u n t o n states: ' Th e only

begotten Son is also the la mb wh o takes away t he si n o f the w o r l d The onewh o is the object of the w o r s h ip of heaven i n Revelation is the lamb

bear i ng th e marks of s laughter u p o n h i m I t is no t a Logos w i t h no re lat ion

to Jesus w h o m w e confess. 9 6 W e have seen th at l i t u r g ica l development

after t h e f o u r t h century was n o t s t ton g i n m a i n t a i n i n g th is re lat ion. A s

L aC ugna summarizes: ' The on e w h o unites u s t o Go d n o w becomes

i n f i n i t e l y distant f r o m us , t a k in g hi s place at th e r ig h t hand of the Father

no t as exalted L o r d b u t as préexistent Chri st . 9 7

As stated at th e outset of th is essay, theology arises f r o m w o r s h ip 9 8 That

is just another w ay of a r g u in g that w e move f r o m economy t o theolo gy

We mu st , as argued, be o n g u a r d against abstract theology But we must

also be d i l i g e n t i n recognizing abstract w o r s h i p . " For the latter betrays avicious cycle, v iz , w h e n th eolog y , w h i c h arises ou t o f w o r s h ip , is

abstracted f r o m th e story i n w h i c h that w o r s h ip coheres, w o r s h ip itself

becomes abstracr I n such a s i t u a t io n , we n ot o n l y f a i l t o g ive an

appropriate account of G o d , w e r isk idolatry

W o r s h i p p i n g some other G o d th an t h e Go d w h o h as made himse lf

k n o w n is n ot gospel- or grace-centred worship. That is t he issue that has

occupied th e heart of th is essay The Son, wh o r i g h t f u l l y comes to be

recognized as consubstantial w i t h th e Father an d therefore w o r t h y of equal

w o r s h ip an d g lo r i f i ca r io n , m u s t n o t be so projected in t o the majesty o f the

Godhead that hi s h u m a n i t y and all it means for him to be one of us i s lost. I n

other w o r d s , a l th ou g h w e come t o recognize th at our Go d is freely and not

necessarily related to us, it is neverrheless a fact that G o d ha s chosen t o

create and draw hi s creation t o himself Th e incarnation i s in t r in s ic t o this

9 4 Gunton and LaCugna foi example whose disagreement lies in whether or not, given

such dangets, the move should be made

9 5 LaCugna, God for Us. r z o .9 6 Gunton. And in One Lord , 449 7 laCugna God for Us 126 See also Wainwright. Doxology 639 S See note 99 9 Wainwright concurs: Ih e ttinitarian name and doctrine is precisely not an abstract

formula It belongs to a living context. It must be kept firmly attached to the historical

revelation through the telling and tetelling of the story recounted in Scripture' ( Trinitarian

Wor shi p 247)

free ac t 1 0 0 A n d i t is n o t a temporary event God s desire was not s im p ly

that w e come t o some epistem ic awareness Rather, t h e content o f

k n o w i n g Go d and recognizing who G o d is, is p a r t ic ip a t io n i n h i s l ife o f

love This never ceases t o be th e g i f t o f th e Father media ted b y his Son and

Spir it . I h e story must ever be t o l d th is way for th is is the reality of the

story T he ascension a ffi rms this story and ensures th at the Son s h u m a n i t y

is no t lost b u t i s t he c o n t i n u i n g basis o f ou r c o m m u n i o n w i t h GodH o w , th en , can we - along w i t h Basil — h a p p i ly us e both t h e

m e d ia t o r ia l a n d coord inate d doxologies? For we want t o m a in t a in that

C hr i s t is indeed on e w i t h th e Father an d w i t h th e Spir it Th e w ay forward

is surely t o a f f i r m c ontinu ally Christ 's h u m a n i t y , especially as we move to a

r ec ogni t i on of his d i v i n i t y . For whenever an d however w e make such a

m ov e, we are not r ecog n iz in g on e w ho ceased to be h u man , b ut one wh o is

co n t in u a l ly the G o d - h u m a n , G o d as a human. H i s enthronement does not

m ar k the end of his h u m a n i t y , creating a ga p between us an d G o d Rather,

he continues to be the man 101 t h r o u g h w h o m w e come t o God. Indeed, by

th e S p ir i t , we are i n a manner present with him, g i v i n g g lo r y t o th e Father

1 0 0 It can certainly be argued that this is so regardless of whether or not creation fell

subject to sin That it d id fell means that revelation entails reconciliation Bu t as to the

importance of the distinction, see Douglas Farrow s cririque of Barth in Ascension and Ecclesia.

296 C f 229-54 Farrow's critique (296) is within a discussion of Exaltation and Pré

existence (Appendix B. 281—98) which deals with the question of the logos asarkos

Whi chev er side one takes in the debate, the point I am making here can be affirmed: the one

through whom we come to the Father is none othet than the God-human, the man Jesus

Christ

l o x I am grateful to Chtistin a Gshwandtner who read an initial draft of this essay and made

many helpful comments, one of which was a plea for inclusive language where it was lacking

My use of 'man' in this context is a delibetate attempt to affirm Christ's particularity as Jesus

of Nazareth who is not just a human, but a man. If we tob him of his particularity we cake

away the possibility o f the many — humanity in its particularity as male and female — being

gatheted, in its particularity — to the one

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


184 The Person of Christ S C H W O B E L Chist for f/ r A Response to Th e Person of Christ 185

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


seen as partia l refractions of the r ea l i ty of Jesus C hr i s t as the subject-matter

of Christ ology However, they put asunder what th e i nc ar nat i on has joined

together. If it is true that th e W o r d was made flesh, can we s t i l l separate

above a nd be l ow ' as al ternative starting-poin ts? Is it not the poi nt th at

th e f u l l real i ty of w hat is above has been disclosed to us 'be l ow so tha t i n

Jesus C hr i s t w e have access to G o d the Father t h r o u g h th e Sp i r i t - o n earth

as it is i n heaven? If it is true that Christ is the same, yesterday, today andforever, the one to w h o m th e Father speaks eternal ly and who eternal ly

responds to the Father in the c o m m u n i o n o f the Spi ri t , th e Christus praesens

an d the Jesus of h i s tor y are not al ternative starting- points b u t aspects of

the comprehen sive rea lity of the incarnate Son wh o now sits at the r ight

hand of the Father An d if it is the po i nt that the one who is exal ted o n

h ig h has no other history than th at of the man Jesus, any account of the

presence o f Chr ist mu st refer t o th e Jesus of history and an y reconstruction

of the h i s tor y of Jesus has to start f r o m hi s presence to the Father and the

S p i t i t and so f r o m ou r present as i t is shaped by that history. An d if the

very being of Jesus C hr i s t is be i ng by the Father an d in the Spi rit , coequal

w i t h th e Father and the Sp i r i t , and so be i ng for us, if the be i ng of JesusC hr i s t is disclosed as grace an d t r u t h , is it no t th e case that soteriology

cannot provide another startin g-po int fo r Christ ology than Christ ology

itsel f, because i n Chris t there is no graceless b e i n g and no grace somehow

d i s t i n c t f r o m hi s being? T he d i s junc t i on between be i ng an d meaning,

w h i c h was the reason w h y some Christological conceptions in the

t w e n t ie t h century focused on the existential mea ning of C hr i s t as opposed

to a supposedly object ivized account of his be i ng an d w h i c h is the

bac kgr ound for the thesis of the pr i m ac y of soteriology over Chris tology ,

seems to c ont tad i c t a theological under standing of the b e i n g of C hr i s t and

the being of C hr i s t for us I f C hr i s t is the Son of the Father in the

c o m m u n i o n of the Sp i r i t , th e m eani ng of his be i ng is rooted i n these

relationships, and if every created be i ng is destined fo r c o m m u n i o n w i t h

the tr iune God and thereby enabled to find th e m eani ng of its existence,

bei ng ca n onl y be d ivorced f r o m m eani ng i n the act of c ontr ad i c t i ng G od s

w i l l of c o m m u n i o n by posi ting another mean ing, another destiny for

created being

Once w e understand th e d i f fer ent s tar t i ng-po i nts of Christological

m ethod no t as al ternative routes fo r d o i ng C hr i s to l ogy bu t as d i f fer ent but

related aspects of the ac tua l i ty of the person of Jesus C hr i s t , these s t a r t i n g -

p o i n t s h i g h l i g h t the way in w h i c h th e g i v en o f C hr i s to l ogy is the

d ynam i c o f C hr i s t s s e l f -g i v i ng T hi s t u r n f r o m m e t h o d to matt er in volves

- as John Webster demonstrates in h is essay - a d esc r i pt i on i n w h i c h w e

t ry to trace th e modes of C hr i s t s s e l f -g i v i ng as the subject-matter and

m ethod ol ogi c a l gui d el i ne fo r Christolog ical reconstruction Th e person of

Jesus Christ as the subject-matter of Christologica l reflection remains the

subject of the process of und er s tand i ng since this understanding, that is,

C hr i s to l ogy, is a response to the way Christ gives himself t o us T he

methods of C hr i s to l ogy are therefore presc ribed by the m anner of Christ 's

sel f-presentation for us I n this sel f-presentation th e histori cal story of

Jesus an d the present real i t y of Jesus C hr i s t are i nex t r i c abl y i nter w ov en andf o r m a d ynam i c u n i t y i n w h i c h th e d i f fer ent aspects of the b e i n g of C hr i s t

are held together

The sel f-presentation of C hr i s t occurs t h r o u g h th e means o f creaturely

c om m uni c at i on I h e witness of Jesus w o t d , work and person is continued

t h t o u g h th e w o r d of Scripture witnes sing to C hr i s t an d offering the

promise of Chris t Ih is promise contains a reference back to the story of

Jesu s l i fe an d death, theteby ho ldin g fast to the i d e n t i t y of Jesus as it is

narrated in the story o f his lif e as the story of the constant interact ion w i t h

G o d th e Father in the Sp i r i t . Bu t, as every other promi se, i t contains a

reference to the fu tur e , to the way i n w hi c h C hr i s t w i l l h o l d fast to his

promise an d br i ng about i ts fu l f i l m ent I h i s pr om i se for the fu tur e iscontained in the bel ief that wha t Jesus has done an d has suffered has once

an d fo r all established and disclosed the true relationship of the t r i une Go d

to hi s creation. I h e Spiri t who authenticates th e w o r d of Scripture as i t is

c om m uni c ated i n Christian witness to us and thereby establishes th e l i n k

to the story of Jesus w h i c h oc c utr ed at a specific p o i n t i n t i m e an d space is

th e same Sp i r i t w ho is the 'perfecting cause' of all G o d s agency in w h o m

G o d s ways w i t h th e w o r l d w i l l achieve their ul ti mate goal This goal is

achieved precisely by the Sp i r i t authent i c a t i ng the w o r d of Scripture to us

an d so enabl i ng ou r f a i t h w h i c h is a f o r m of be i ng i n w h i c h we are

c onfor m ed to C hr i s t an d oriented towards th e f u t u r e f u l f i l m e n t in the

K i n g d o m of God C hr i s t s promise is f u l f i l l e d by hi s presence i n the w o r d of

preaching and i n the v isible wo rds of the sactaments Therefore the

promise does n o t p o i n t to an outs tand i ng fu l f i l m e nt bu t gives us already a

taste of the fu tur e c onsum m at i on o f God's c o m m u n i o n w i t h hi s reconciled

and perfected creation O u r present is therefore the space t h a t w e i nhabi t

between th e c o m i n g of C hr i s t an d C hr i s t s second c o m i n g t o b r i n g rhe

fu l f i lm e n t of G o d s c o m m u n i o n w i t h creation. I n between Cht ist s c om i ng

i n Jesus and C hr i s t s second c om i ng t o judge the w o r l d i n o r d er to disclose

rhe ultimate t r u t h an d offer th e u l t i m a t e grace w h i c h is the found at i on o f

t h e K i n g d o m of God , our present is c ons t i tuted by the fact that Ch tis t

hi m sel f f i l ls t h a t i n t e r i m by becoming present to us i n the w o r d of

Scripture i n pr oc l am at i on and in the v isible words of the sacraments. The

186 The Person of Christ S C H W O B E l Christ for Us: A Response to Th e Petson of Christ 187

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


'g iven* of C hr i s to l ogy is the sel f-presentation of C hr i s t i n order to

consti tute ou r present.

I l l , C h r i s t i n T r i n i t a r i a n C o n t e x t

A complete account of the sel f-presentation of C hr i s t as the subject-mattet

of Christology already shows the open frontiers between Chri stology andt t in i t a r ia n reflection This n o t onl y applies to the complex intetchange

between Christology and the doctrine of the T r i n i t y in the h i s tor y of

doctrine where th e basic tenets o f t r i n i tar i an d ogm a had to be defined i n

order to enable theologians to fo r m ul ate the Christologica l proble m w i t h

any precision; i t also applies to the conceptual forms i n w hi c h

Christological issues are cast C u t t i n g th e l inks that bi nd th e doctrines

of th e I r i n i t y and of the person an d w o t k o f Chr ist together always seems

d etr i m enta l fo r b o t h o f them Treated i n abstraction f ro m Christol ogy, the

d oc tr i ne of the I r i n i t y tends to become speculation on the i m m anent

relations w i t h i n the Godhead w hil e losing touch w i t h the concrete history

of God s

tr in i tar ian sel f-disclosure Similarly , Christologi cal reflectiontends to get lost in the intricacies of the relations of the two natures of

Christ if the f r am ew or k of the relations be tween th e Father, the Son and

the Spiri t are no longer seen as tha t w hi c h defines the hypostatic i dent i ty

and communal essence of God. I t must clearly be kept i n m i nd that the

p r im a r y f o r m i n w h i c h the d i v i n i t y of C hr i s t has to be understood is the

communicative relationship he has w i t h the One he calls Father, a

relationship which is m edi a ted f r o m th e Father to the Son and f r o m the

Son to the Father by the H ol y Spi r i t . l i kew i s e , the pr i m ar y for m i n w hi c h

Jesus C hr i s t s hum ani ty m ust be understood is not i n tetms of the

possession of a hum an nature bu t as the concrete story of a h u m a n life,

in i t ia t e d i n relationship to God and end i ng i n relationship to God and in

between enacted as an ongoing conversation w i t h God. Onl y when these

telations ate characterized as such whic h express th e co-equal i ty between

th e persons i n relation, on ly on the presupposition of the homoousios do we

ge t to the question to w h i c h the doctrine of the tw o natures attempts to

p r o vid e an answer B u t once we have arrived there i t is i m p o r t a n t not to

leave th e questions an d insights of t r i n i tar i an theo logy behi nd A

Christology that construes th e actual i ty of the person o f Cht i s t on l y i n

terms of the relationship between the eternal Son and the incarnate Chri st

or exclusively i n terms of an ex pl i c a t i on of the relationship of the tw o

natutes in one person is b o u n d to run into difficulties. Christ never comes

alone I h e c om i ng of Christ always occurs i n the Sp i r i t a nd always relates

us i n the Sp i r i t thr ough the Son to God the Fathet T o talk about the

d i v i n i t y a nd the h u m a n i t y of Christ is always an abbreviation suffering

f r o m premature abstraction, because i t obscures the fact tha t d i v i n i t y is

mediated only in the relationships to the Father and the Sp i r i t an d that

h u m a n i t y refers to the concrete human l i fe of Jesus i n w h i c h these

relationships are enacted i n the spatio-temporal events of a biography

b e g i n n i n g an d end i ng w i t h God

The whole range of Christological issues treated in the papers of this

volume time and again refer to the t r i n i tar i an f r am ew or k of C hr i s to l ogy I f

C ht i s t s d i v i n i t y is understood i n terms o f his relat ionship to the Father i n

the Spiri t i t m ust be understood concretely as Sonship to the God of Israel

w h o m he calls Father an d whose i d e n t i t y is accessible onl y in his self-

id e n t i f i ca t io n as Israel s Go d w hi c h is continued, vindicated an d expanded

by hi s i d ent i f i c a t i on in the Son A n d i f Christ s h u m a n i t y is the hum ani ty

disclosed i n a concrete l i fe-story, th e question of Jesus' bapt i sm w hi c h is

addressed i n M u r r a y Rae's essay is indeed a very pertinent one. It shows

that i n l i v i n g a concrete h u m a n l i f e , i n t aki ng the place o f hum ani ty i n

estrangement f r o m God the incarnate Son, a l though he is never a stranger

to th e Father, is dependent on the guidance of the Spiri t ; indeed receiveshis mission from th e Father as mediated by the Spiri t and completed in the

S p ir i t The declaration of Jesus as the Son by the Father and the descent of

the Spiri t upon h i m be l ong closely togethet an d they test ify tha t the

relationship b y w hi c h C hr i s t s d i v i n i t y is consti tuted is mediated in the

forms that are c ons t i tut i v e for a huma n l i fe If we press the matter furth er

we have to say that no t onl y the act of the c ons t i tut i on of the person of

C hr i s t , th e initio persona/is, effected b y G o d th e Fathet and mediated by the

S p ir i t , is a t r i n i t a r i a n act of God, i n v o l v i n g as the Creed resolutely

m ai nta i ns , th e action of the Sp i t i t i n otder to establish the relationship

between th e incarnate Son and Go d the Father I h e u n i t y of the person of

th e Son, the uniopersonalis, th e ongoi ng personal u nion i n w h i c h th e d i v i ne

an d th e huma n nature are br ought i nto uni on is also m ai nta i ned in and

t h r o u g h th e relationships w i t h th e Fathet an d the Son W i t h o u t th e Father

an d th e Spiri t Jesus C hr i s t is not a person

Even th e most cursory loo k a t the Ne w Iestament witnesses i n their

variety provide ample evidence tha t th e t r i n i tar i an f r am ew or k of

C hr i s to l ogy i n modes of discourse r e l a t i ng Jesus to the Father and th e

S p ir i t is much more i n evidence than an y unspecified ta lk about his

d i v i n i t y or his hum ani t y T hi s has one i m por tant effect f or the enterprise

of doin g Christolo gy Develop ing Christology w i t h i n a t r i n i tar i an

fr am ew or k makes i t easier to keep th e development of Christological

reflection close to the witnesses of Scripture

i88 The Person of Christ SCHWOBEL Christ for Us: A Response to Th e Person of C h r is t 189

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


I V T h e L a n g u a g e o f C h r i s t o l o g y : M o d e s o f Response

If we lo o k at the varieties o f Chr is to log ical discourse in the N ew

Testament and in the C h r is t ia n t r adi t i o n we can see that there is

Christo logical language i n a va r ie t y of fo r m s and on a n u m b e r of

interrelated levels A l l modes of expression have a responsive character

They are tentat ive answers to the quest ion that is taised by Jesus l i fe and

message a nd by his death an d resurrect ion: W h o do you say that I am?

Jesus l i fe is a p r o vo ca t io n i n t h a t i t offers an in t e r p r e t a t io n of Go d and of

w h a t i t means to be h u m a n w h i c h challenges received author it y The

p r o vo ca t io n , h o w e ve r, consists in the fact th at it is a n e w in t e r p r e t a t io n o f

w h a t people believe they know already It is not s i m p l y a new revelat ion of

a different b u t novel way o f u n d e r s t a n d in g e ve r y t h in g t h a t is k n o w n a b o u t

th e same G o d people already believe in and whose la w they observe

Therefore, th e accusation of heresy or even blasphe my is never far away

B u t Jesus' message an d the story also challenges th e way people unde rstan d

themselves before God The provo cat io n lies i n the co m b in e d challenge to

the undersranding of God and the u n d e r s t a n d in g of w h a r ir means to be

h u m a n B o t h are so b o u n d u p w i t h th e person of Jesus that responding to

hi s message means t a k i n g a stance w i t h regard to his person The

p r o vo ca t io n does away w i t h co m fo r t a b le escape toutes That has to do w i t h

the eschatoiogical urgency of Jesus message. I f the i m m i n e n t c o m i n g of

t h e K i n g d o m is the o r g a n i z i n g centre of Jesus' message and if his

p r o cla m a t io n is indeed part of the process of the c o m i n g o f the K i n g d o m

w h i c h has already started, the n this impl ies that all questio ns raised i n that

connect ion cannot be deferred b u t require a response A g a i n it is clear that

since Jesus petson is a lw a y s in vo lve d i n h is message, t e s p o n d in g to his

message means t a k i n g a stance w i t h regard to his person. Th e t e s t im o n y of

Jesus l i fe and death therefore has th e f o r m of a personal address that cannot

remain unanswered Th e specific a u t h o r i t y c la im e d i n t h is address is t h a t i t

cla ims to be es ch a t o lo g ica l ly u l t im a t e i n a sense in w h i ch o n ly G o d s

addtess could cla im eschatoiogical u lt i mac y Therefore Go d is the context

in w h i c h th e t e x t of Jesus witness is to be u n d e t s t o o d A n d Jesus is th e

context i n w h i c h G o d becomes the text fo r h u m a n u n d e r s r a n d in g I f one

focuses on rhis character of Jesus' l i f e s witness one can see ho w th e specific

characteristics are carrie d over f r o m hi s p r o c la m a t io n t o p r o c la m a t io n

a b ou t h i m C o n t i n u i t y i s p r o vid e d by the t w o f o l d contextualizat ion where

G o d is the co n t e xt for u n d e r s t a n d in g th e t e x t of Jesus l i fe an d dest iny and

Jesus is th e d e f in i t ive co n t e xt i n w h i c h to understand th e text of G o d s

story and being Chris to lo gy i n a ll form s is such a p r o v o k e d response to the

t e s t im o n y of Jesus l i fe an d death.

The forms of C h r is t o lo g ica l d is co u r se w h i ch we f ind in the N e w

Testament an d w h i c h , i n co n n e ct io n w i t h th e e xp o s i t io n of more than a

ce n t u t y of Ne w Testament research, are comprehensively in trodu ced i n

Rich a r d B u r r id g e s essay and display a var iety of forms o f acclamation,

p r e d ica t io n an d narrat ive o f differe nt kinds For a lo n g t im e research

focused almost exclusively o n Chr is to logic al predicat ions an d the use of

t i t le - t e r m s ; n o w , a t t e n t io n to narrat ive w i t h special reference to the fo r m sof ancient bio gtaph ies plays a s ignif icant to le From a systematic

petspective there need not be an a lternat ive between predicat ions and

narratives since they f u l f i l a d i f f e r e n t fu n ct io n O n e re lat ively s imple way

to organize Chris to logical discourse is to see it as consis t ing of three lev els

or layers where th e h ig h e r ones do not s i m p l y supetsede the l o w e t ones bu t

provide cr iter ia fo r t h e i r in t e r p r e t a t io n

The first layer is t h a t of the basic Chr is to logical predicat ions , the

g u i d i n g C h r is t o lo g ica l m e t a p h o r s , and the fo u n d a t io n a l C h r is t o lo g ica l

narratives I h e narrat ives have th e f u n c t i o n of id e n t i t y -d e f in i t io n : Th e y

respond t o the q u e s t io n W h o is Jesus? They answer the quest ion by

t e l l i ng scenes f rom Jesus l i fe w h i c h have a d isc lo s ive fu n ct io n for hisi dent i t y I n t e l l i n g th e s tory th e l is tener can grasp w ho Jesus is W h a t is

characteristic about these stories is that rhey portray Jesus i d e n t i t y as an

o p e n id e n t i t y , o ne that is not se lf-referentia lly closed bu t d e t e r m in e d by a

r e la t io n s h ip to another wh o is o f t e n addressed as Father' Th e i d e n t i t y -

def i n i ng narrat ives of Jesus a lways contain a G o d -co m p o n e n t ' : t h ey t e l l a

stoty about Jesus, bu t i n this s tory Jesus interprets God, obeys th e w i l l of

Go d , addresses G od in f i l i a l i n t i m a c y or abject d e r e l ic t io n w h ich d is p la y s a

s im i la r f am i l i a r i t y , does t h in g s o n ly Go d can do, that is, forgive s ins , bu t

does t h is n o t i n c o m p e t i t i o n to G o d bu t as a f u l f i l m e n t of God ' s w i l l for his

creat ion W h o is Jesus? Jesus is the one w ho stands i n a u n iq u e r e la t io n s h ip

to Go d so t h a t t h t o u g h h im G o d becomes actual in the stoties that are t o l d

of Jesus Th e i d e n t i t y - d e f i n i n g stories f ix the referent of C h r is t o lo g ica l

ptedicat ions

Of this referent , Jesus, var ious predicat ions are made: he is the Messiah,

th e Son of M a n , the Son of G o d , the Son of D a v i d , th e Saviour , th e K y r i o s ,

an d so on These predicat ions can have th e f o r m of a second-person

acclamation or a third -perso n predic at ion Ihey answer the q u e s t io n: Wh a t

is Jesus? Bu t just l ik e the id e n t i t y -d e f in in g n a rr a tive s t h e y co n t a in an

im p o t t a n t t e la t io n a l e le m e n t i n saying wh at Jesus is in r e la t io n to God's

people of Israel, i n r e la t io n to those wh o are i n bondage and in need of

l ib e r a t io n , those w h o a w a i t th e c o m i n g of the Son of m a n , and so on. In

this way Chris to logical predicat ions are a lways obl ique self-predic at ions of

those w h o u t t e r a C h r is t o lo g ica l p r e d ica t io n . A l l these predicat ions have

The Person of Christ SCHWOBEl Christ for Us: A Response to Th e Petson of Christ 191

l d Ih k t l i f th t l i l i f

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


eschatologicai uLtimacy After. Jesus there w i l l no t come another who is

also a Messiah, and there w i l l not be anothet saviout; thete w i l l be no need

for another sacrifice If he is the eschatologicai sacrifice, then he can also be

the protological sacrifice, because what is ultimate is also what is first,

before th e sequence of temporal events takes it s course The eschatologicai

u l t i m acy carries w i t h it the claim of the sufficiency of what Jesus is and

does. If he is the eschatologically ult ima te Saviour, then salvatio n in h im issufficient; there is no other ground of salvation than Jesus The

eschatologicai ultimacy and soteriological sufficiency have a curious effect

on th e language that is being used Jesus is the Kyrios clearly sounds

metaphorical , a w o r k i n g w i t h the juxtaposition of two realms of meaning.

However, i f Jesus and no other is the Kyrios, then this met aphor ical

character is literalized by its realistic interpretation There is no other

Kyrios and all the othet kyrioi are at best kyrioi metaphorically, to be

measured against the one through whose story the meaning of Kyrios is

l i tetal ly fixed. These t w o basic fotms of Christological discourse, i dent i t y -

defining nairarives and predications employing title-tetms, are clearly

complementary and so the Christological predications often occur i n

narrative identi ty def initions

I h e second layer of Christological discourse organizes the different

predications and identi t y-def i ning narratives by ret aining the m and

subsuming them under a 'master model and a master story' Ih e most

popular master models in early doct rina l develo pment are the Son of Go d'

and the Wo rd of God whose relationshi p is a comple x story Ih e 'master

story is the story of the incarnat ion w h i c h can be t o ld in a variety of ways

Th e master m od el specifies th e correct use of the primary Christological

predications and makes i t possible to retain them in this way. Ihe master

story provides the overarching narrative w h i c h brackets all the othet

i dent i t y -de f i n i ng narratives. It is characteristic for this second layer that it

can both be used in a Christological sense, that is, in t a l k i n g about the Son

of God, and in a theological sense, as in discourse abou t God the Son. The

same applies to the master story The story of the incar nation can bot h be

t o ld as a story about the Logos be i n g made man and as a stor y abo ut Go d

whose Logos who was w i t h God and is God becomes incarnate O n this

second level the crucial interaction between t r i n i t a r i a n and Christological

discourse is located It is imp ort ant to note that thi s second level does not

replace the first-level pr edic atio ns and stories Rath er, by p r o vi di ng a

framework for their use whi c h has a crit etio logic al funct ion , it helps to

retain them.

I h e t h i r d level is the level of technical terms in Christology where the

homoousios is located and concepts such as ousia, hypostasis, physis, persona and

natura are employed Ihe y seek to clari fy the ontological i m p o r t of

Christological discourse on the first t w o levels In doi ng so these concepts

are employed to determine the ontological status of Christ in relation to

God and in relation to humanity. Ihereby they are placing Christ in a

comprehensive fram ewo rk for the interpr etat ion of real ity No w, İn

Christology it has seldom, if evet, w ork ed we l l to find a location for the

reality of Christ in an existing ontological scheme Rathet, the teality ofChrist demands sttategies of conceptual refo rmation w h i c h , in the case of

Christian theology, has led to decisive modifications of the view of reality

w h i c h are nevertheless expressed by using existing concepts but employing

the m in novel ways Ih is is not mete ly the pla ygro und for those w i t h a

speculative interest İn technical philosophico-theological questions

Rather, it is in the field of these concepts that the reality of Christ is

interp reted as cons tit utiv e for what is really real Ih e question o f the

communicatio idiomatum is a typ ica l ques tion for th is level I n spite of the

technical character of these questions they are not merely subject to criteria

of semantic coherence and logical consistency Rat her, th ey have to be

tested over against the reality that is first expressed in the predications and

stories of the first level and then the ordering master models and master

stories of the second level. Ihis is how technical discussions remain in

tou ch w i t h the reality they are t r y i n g to capture conceptua lly Conceptua l

re-fbrmation is therefore the reflective echo of the reality of Christ s self-

presentat ion Douglas Fa rrow s reflections on the relations hip betwe en

'nat ure, f reedom' and necessity are a typ ica l exercise of conceptual

reformation

I h e homoousios İs a good example of this Wh en it was first introduced İt

had a devastating demythologizing effect By stating that Christ, the

incarnate Son, is of one essence w i t h the Father and of one essence w i t h us,

İt excluded any account of Christ as a superman, divinized humanity, or as

a demi-god, humanized d i v i n i t y A n d w i t h the ontological precision

demanded b y this act of conceptual re-f ormat ion it depopula ted the w o r l d

of ancient mythologies D i v i n i t y does no t come i n lesser degrees tha n the

f u l l possession of the divine essence, and humanity is not capable of a

gradual ontological intensif ication in the direction of the Divine

Howev er, the question must be raised whether the entetprise of

conceptual re-f orma tion went fat enough in Chris tolo gy Ih e Chalcedo-

nian defini t ion provided the fundamental rules for discourse about the two

natures arte mpt ing to depict the reality of the one person of the incarnate

Lord, but many attempts to give these tules material content seemed to

lead again along the road of heresy Is the process of conceptual

reformation s t i l l an unfinished task when i t comes to Chr istolo gy?


V C k ti idi t T h A t t i b t f C i t i

SCHWOBEL Christ for Us' A Response to I h e Person of Chr is t 193

t h a n G o d otherwise w e w o u l d not be saved A n y n o t i o n of a s e m i-d iv in e

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


V Communkatio idiomatum: T h e A t t r i b u t e s o f a C o m m u n i c a t i n g

G o d a n d o f R e s p o n s i v e H u m a n i t y

Ihe quest ion whether the task o f conceptual reforma tion has gone far-

e n o u g h is p a r t icu la r ly p e r t in e n t in one area o f C h r is t o lo g ica l r e f lec t io n : the

d o ct r in e of the communkatio idiomatum For a lon g t ime this doctr ine was

seen as a ver itable theologic al ant ique , o n display fo t those w i t h an interest

in th e q u a in t w o r l d of L u t h e r a n -C a lv in is t p o le m ics in the s ixteenth and

seventeenth centuries in The O ld e C u r io s i t y Shoppe of d o ct r in a l h is t o r y

The two treatments i n t h is vo lu m e by Rober t Jenson an d Stephen H o lm e s

not only demonstrate that there are s t i l l flames to be k i n d l e d f r o m o ld

doctr inal disputes b u t t h a t th e p r o b l e m of the communkatio idiomatum is

b o t h at the heart of the quest ion , whic h construct ive m ater ia l statements

i n C h t is t o lo g y f o l l o w f r o m th e C h a lce d o nia n De f in i t io n , an d at the centre

of th e quest ion of the in t e r r ela t io n s h ip b e t w e e n C h r is t o lo g y and the

d o ct r in e of Go d

Classical C h r is t o lo g y starts f r o m t w o major premisses Th e first is th e

co n vic t io n t h a t o n ly Go d can save Th e l i f t b e t w e e n h u m a n i t y and God,

th e estrangement that made h u m a n s th e enemies of God , can o n ly be

overcome by God h im s e l f I f humans had the p o w e r to b r id g e th e abyss

between God and hi s fa llen hu man creatures th e creatures themselves could

cla im to be G o d - l i k e or d i v i n e Th e p r o m is e of the serpent f r o m the

nartat ive of Genesis 3, th e co u n t e r -p r o m is e of the gospel, w o u l d have

become t rue I f sa lvat ion consists i n c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d o n ly Go d can

graciously grant that co mmu nio n Salvat ion is therefore a g r a t u i t o u s gif t

Th e sole a u t h o r s h ip of Go d i n all ma t t e rs p e r t a in in g to sa lvat ion and the

sovereignty of G o d s grace belong together W e can ca ll thi s th e p r in c ip le

of sole d iv in e a u t h o r s h ip i n sa lvat ion T h e second is the co n vic t io n t h a t i f

th e l i f t between Go d and h u m a n i t y concerns h u m a n beings i n their

e n t i t e t y , th e whole relat io nal s tructute of w h a t makes humans hu man ,then every dimension of h u m a n i t y m u s t be healed by b e in g r e u n i t e d to

G o d If the a l ie n a t io n f r o m G o d leaves no part or aspect of b e in g h u m a n

unaffected, then th e w h o l e of f al le n h u m a n i t y m u s t be taken into

c o m m u n i o n w i t h Go d . This second m a x i m was famo usly phrased by

Gregory Nazianzen in the s logan, Th e unassumed is the unhealed' W e

can call this th e p r i n c i p l e of complete assumption. If the co n t r a d ic t io n

against G o d pervades al l aspects o f bein g huma n, then salvat ion f r o m the

state of co n t r a d ic t io n m u s t embrace every aspect of w h a t i t means to be

h u m a n

If b o t h p r in c ip le s are a p p l ie d to the u n d e r s t a n d in g of Chr i s t , two poi nts

m u s t be made s imultaneously O n the one h a n d , th e Saviour cannot be less

t h a n G o d o therwise w e w o u l d not be saved A n y n o t i o n of a s e m i-d iv in e

m e d ia t o r is in this way effect ively ex cluded I h e Saviour mus t be vere Deus,

t r u l y Go d and no o ther tha n G od O n the o ther hand, sa lvat ion mus t

co m p r e h e n d th e whol e reality of w h a t i t means to be h u m a n . A n y t h i n g

other than complete assumption w o u l d leave a remainder th at is not saved

Ih e r e fo r e the Saviour m ust be vere homo, t r u l y h u m a n a nd not hin g other

than human

Th e t w o pr incip les , however , are merely abstractions f r o m w h a t the

gospel narratives t e l l us Wh e n t h e y relate th e r e a l i t y of salvat ion i n Jesus

they t e l l th e story of one w h o speaks G o d s w o r d i n gra nti ng forgiveness ,

w h o does Go d s w o r k i n h e a l in g th e w o u n d s of creat ion and who also

shares e ve r y t h in g t h a t makes human s h uma n — apart f r o m sin - thereby

d e m o n s t r a t in g t h a t b e in g i n co n t r a d ic t io n w i t h G o d does no t b e lo n g to

human nature so that humans can be saved w i t h o u t being transub

stantiated into somet hing that is not h u m a n Ih e r e is a consistent

emphasis on the u n b r o k e n d iv in e agency i n Jesus story and a respective

stress on the u n b r o k e n co n t in u i t y o f a l i fe l ived i n the co n d i t io n s of h u m a n

existence A r e these t w o emphases, represented in the gospels i n u n b r o k e n

r e la t io n , t r u l y co m p a t ib le or w i l l they always tend to produce c ontra

dictory reconstruct ions of the petson of C h r is t so that the emphasis o n his

d i v i n i t y calls th e a u t h e n t ic i t y of his h u m a n i t y in t o q u e s t io n or t h a t the

stress on his h u m a n i t y challenges w h e t h e r he is t r u l y d i v i n e The d o ct r in e

of th e communkatio idiomatum addresses this quest ion w i t h i n th e f r a m e w o r k

of Chris to logical conceptuality that ha d developed by the fourth century

and that has r em a in e d n o r m a t ive t h r o u g h o u t the lo n g h is t o r y of C h r is t ia n

t h o u g h t . I t is , h ow e ve r, im p o r t a n t to note tha t s tat ing the p r o b le m of the

communkatio idiomatum i n terms of the co n ce p t u a l i t y of classical'

Christo logy already presents us w i t h a p r o b l e m Ih e way in w h i c h the

communkatio idiomatum is conventio nally defined sees i t as the c o m m u

n ica t io n of a t tr ibutes of one of the tw o 'natures' of C h r is t , th e d i v i n e and

t h e h u m a n , in the u n i t y of the one person of Chr is t Ih is , however ,

presupposes t h a t we k n o w w h a t the divine nature an d w h a t th e h u m a n

nature are so that we can specify w hic h attr ibutes ca n l e g i t i m a t e l y be

co m m u n ica t e d f r o m one to the o ther This presuppos it ion is by no means

u n p r o b le m a t ica l Can we k n o w w h a t th e div ine nature is remoto Christo,

apart f r o m Chr is t? Is not C h r is t the definit ive disclosure of God so that

speaking o f w h a t makes G o d G o d , t h a t is , God ' s nature , cannot r e ly on

pre-established notions of d i v i n i t y b u t must at tempt t o reconstruct the

u n d e r s t a n d in g o f G o d s nature and its a t tr ibutes f r o m God s self-disclosute

i n Chr is t? A nd can we k n o w w h a t i t means to be h u m a n remoto Christo,

apatt f r o m Chr is t? Is not C h r is t th e definit ive disclosure of the h u m a n

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ



C h r is t o io g ica l an d both presuppose a version of the enhypostasia of the

SCHWOBEL Christ for Us: A Response to Th e Person of Christ 197

C h r is t o lo g y comes f r o m replacing the se l f - i d en t i f i c a t i on of God for

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


C h r is t o io g ica l an d both presuppose a version of the enhypostasia of the

h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t in the person of the Son

Le t us tt y to rephrase these emphases a l i t t l e In the story of the Gospels

the way i n w h i c h Jesus relates to the Go d he calls Bather are t r u l y h um an

relations and they are t r u l y divine relations because it is in these and no

other relations i n w h i c h the relationship of the Son and the Father is

exetcised This leads t o the dialectical statements: ( 1 ) T h e ways i n w hi c h

G o d the Son relates to God the Father are t r u l y human relations, a n d ( 2 )

The ways i n w h i c h Jesus relates to God the Father are t r u l y d i v i n e

relations. T h e relationship between th e Father and the Son, however, are

always mediated by the Spi r i t A n d th is applies t o b o t h sides of th e

r e la t io n s h ip : the Father relates to the Son in the Spi r i t a nd the Son relates

to th e Father in the Spi r i t B y rephrasing th e C h r i s to i og i c a l statements i n

this relational way we can see that what the story of the Gospe l require s is

to understand the d i v i n i t y of Jesus in terms of his u n b r o k e n f i l ia l

r e la t io n s h ip to God the Father w h i c h is m ed i ated in the Spi r i t Jesus'

d i v i n i t y is his Sonship and not a n y t h i n g i n addi t i o n to or apart f r o m his

Sonship. Whe re this Sonship is exercised, be it in the way the Father

relates t o Jesus as he is conceived by the H o l y Spi r i t an d is b o r n o f M a r y , as

he suffers and dies and is raised o n the t h i r d day and ascended to heaven; be

it in the wa y Jesus relates t o G o d th e Father b y p r a y i n g t o h i m , b y o f fe r i n g

his forgiveness, b y s u b m i t t i n g to his w i l l i n free obedience - there is th e

d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t I h e way th is Sonship is exercised i n being b orn l ike any

other human being, i n experiencing a l l the conditions o f h u m a n i t y , i n

suffer ing and in death and in being dependent on the ac t i on of the Father

i n th e power of the Spi r i t to be raised to eternal l i f e - there is the h um an i t y

of Chris t Bot h princip les o f classical C h r i s to l og y , th e sole auth orsh i p in all

m atters per ta i n i n g to salvation, and the pr i n c i pl e of complete assumptio n

can be satisfied b y such an account

I h e d i f f i c u l t y fo r C h r i s to l og y arises where the divin e nature is

understood as something other an d independent o f the relationships of th e

t r i u n e d i v i n e l i fe B u t what should d i v i n i t y be apart f r o m th e c o m m u n i o n

of the Father, the Son and the Spi r i t? W h a t d i v i n i t y is, is c on s t i tuted i n

these relationships and in no other way This also applies t o h u m a n i t y I h e

di f f i c u l t y on l y arises where w e i n t rod uc e a non-theologic al understand ing

of what i t means to be h u m a n B u t w h at are humans apart f r o m th e i r G od -

g ive n destiny to be created in the image of God and of f u l f i l l i n g th is

destiny as G o d s daughters an d sons b y the pow er of the H o l y Spi r i t i n

c o m m u n i o n w i t h th e t r i un e God? Fo r humans to a t t e m p t the task o f self-

def i n i t i o n apart f r o m their relationship t o their creator is the de f i n i t i o n of

si n O ne c oul d w e l l speculate whether th e i n t r a c t a b i l i t y of the probl em s o f

C h r is t o lo g y comes f r o m replacing the se l f - i d en t i f i c a t i on of God for

h u m a n i t y and the de f i n i t i o n of h um an i ty d es t i n ed fo r c o m m u n i o n w i t h

G o d in the story of the Gospels w i t h th e strategy o f negative theolo gy of

speaking of God by d en y i n g ev ery th i n g th at characterizes created

existence The old debate whether t he f inite is capable of c om preh en d i n g

the divine o r w h eth er it is not m i r rors t he l og i c of speaking of the i n f i n i t e

G o d b y negations Wh at the story of the Gospels

tells us nei ther confirms

the slogan finitum capax znfiniti nor the slogan finitum non capax infiniti

Rather, i t tel ls that and how infinitum est capax finiti

But what about the compleme ntary doctrines of anhypostasia and of

enhypostasia to w h i c h b o t h essays by Jenson an d H ol m es refer? Here again

the need fo r conceptual re-f ormari on arises Jenson reformulates the

statement that th e hum an nature o f Christ has no other hypostasis th an

t h a t of God the Son and , convetsely, tha t the h um an n ature of Christ has

hypostatic ident i ty only i n the hypostasis of th e Son by u s i n g th e language

of th e theatre: the part w h i c h th e Son plays in the t r i un e d ram a is the

l i fe and the fate of the m an Jesus Jesus role i n h istory is , consequently ,

none other than th e role he plays as the Son of Go d i n th e drama of the

t r iune l i fe W e can also express th at i n the language of narrative I h e p o i n t

of th e story of Jesus is the p o i n t of his story i n the t r i n i t a r i an l i fe Jesus

stoty has no oth et po i n t , fo r example an i n depen d en t po i n t i n h um an

h is t o t y , apart f r o m th i s po i n t i n the divine story Ih is anhypostatic

statement must at once be reversed i nr o th e enhyposratic f o r m : th e p o i n t of

the human story of Jesus is its p o i n t in the divine story

F o l l o w i n g these reflections we can take up the question o f the idiomata

W h a t does th e communicatio idiomatum say about th e a t t r i butes of God?

S i m p l y that they ate c om m un i c ated an d hence have to be undersrood i n a

precise C h r i s to i og i c a l sense, propter Christum, as c om m un i c at i v e a t t r i butes

L u t h e r s famous dis covery in the i n terpreta t i on of the m e a n i n g of justice

of G od , as he describes i t i n the preface to the first v o l u m e of the Opera.

Latina, was th at i t sh oul d not be understood as the jus t i c e we acquire

actively an d w h i c h G o d then acknowledges, b u t th at i t should be

understood as the passive justice through w h i c h G o d makes us j u s t by

f a i t h Luther understood this as th e key to language about Go d s a t t t i butes

i n the b i b l i c a l w r i t i n g s I h e w o r k of God is w h at G o d w o r k s in us; the

p o w e r of G o d means our em pow erm en t by G od , G od s w i s d o m th e w ay i n

w h i c h G o d makes us wise and so on I h e logic of the d i v i n e a t t r i butes is a

l og i c of c o m m u n i c a t i o n If one asks w h at is the theological basis for such a

v i ew , one is inevitably directed to C h r i s to l og y . I h e logic of c om m un i c a

t i o n presupposes a l og i c of exchange w h i c h B r i a n H o m e so elegantly

identif ies as the core o f C h ar l es W i l l i am s s C h r i s to l og y i n his essay The


unto hypostatics- of d i v i n i t y an d h u m a n i t y i n the person of C hr i s t is the

S C H W O B E L Christ for Us: A Response to Th e Person of Christ 199

p r ie s t ly role Aga inst this backdrop she argues fo r r ega i ni ng the

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


unto hypostatics of d i v i n i t y an d h u m a n i t y i n the person of C hr i s t is the

pr esuppos i t i on for the mirabile commercium, the wonderous exchange,

between Christ and the sinner i n jus t i f i c a t i on i n w hi c h C hr i s t takes our

place as sinners and we are i n v i t e d t o take hi s place as the one w h o is just,

so that propter Christum, because o f the Son, we as jus ti fied sinners are called

to be God's daughters an d sons. T h e communicatio id'tomatum i n C hr i s to l ogy

i n th i s w ay becomes the key to the und er s tand i ng of the a t t r i butes o f ac o m m u n i c a t i n g Go d and of the attr ibutes of a responsive hu man ity

V I P a t t e r n s o f W o r s h i p a n d P a t t e r n s o f B e i n g i n C o m m u n i c a t i o n

I h e concerns of technical Chris tology as they come to the fore i n a

discussion on the communicatio idiomatum and of C hr i s to l ogi c a l concepts

such as nature an d hypostasis are never indepe ndent f r o m the way i n

w h ich w or shi p is celebrated in the name of the t r i une G od . I h i s occurs i n

the expectation that i n w or shi p th e t r i n i t a t i a n G o d addresses us f r o m the

Father, t h r o u g h the Son in the Sp i r i t so tha t we can d irect ou r praise, our

t h a n k s g iv in g , ou r pe t i t i ons and our laments to the Father t h r o u g h the Son

an d in the Spiri t This intetre lations hip between l i turg ical ptactice and the

practice of theological reflection is par t i c ul ar l y s i gni f i c ant w i t h regard to

the person of C hr i s t In the eatly Churc h some of the most significant

Christological innovations came f t o m the way C hr i s t was addressed i n

w o r s h ip an d raised questions wh ich Christologi cal theory atte mpted t o

answer Conversely, one of the most significant tasks of the agreed formulae

of doctrinal decisions was to regulate th e ptactice of w or shi p I ec hni c a l

C hr i s to l ogy is in m any cases onl y an a t tem pt to c lari fy what Christians do

w h e n they address C hr i s t i n prayer an d l i turgical acclamation and to spell

ou t th e i m pl i c a t i ons of the practice of worshi p Technical Chris tology is a

test-case for the practice o f w or shi p and, perhaps more impo rta ntl y, the

ptactice of w or shi p is the test-case of our Christology.

O ffe r in g a conceptual reconst ruction of w hat happens i n worsh ip shou ld

never be reduced to g i v i n g an account of a m er e ly hu m an ac t i v i ty On e of

the great points of consensus in the theology of the Reforma tion, thereby

recapturing something that informed th e practice of w or shi p i n the early

C hur c h, is that worship is , f i rst an d foremost, a service tha t G o d performs

fo r us, a g i f t tha t is g i v e n to us in order to enable us to relate to God and to

one another in the way appropriate to the way Go d relates to us

I n her paper 'The Ascended Chris t : Mediator of our W o r s h i p , Sandra

Fach retraces th e steps by w h i c h th e place o f C hr i s t i n l i t u r g y was

conceived i n such a way that hi s h u m a n i t y seemed to lose it s significance

This, i n t u r n , led to the loss of the l i tutgical significance o f C hr i s t s

p r ie s t ly role Aga inst this backdrop she argues fo r r ega i ni ng the

significance of C hr i s t s continuing mediatorial role an d w i r h it the

significance of his h u m a n i t y in the u n i t y of his person This , however, can

o n ly be achieved if the f u l l y relational character o f w or shi p is retained or , if

i t is necessary, recovered i n a s i tuation where worship has become

abstracted f r o m th e Gospel stoty Ih is is apparent where th e g l or i f i c a t i on

of the i m m a n e n t T r i n i t y is offered at the expense of the w ay th e I r i n i t y isdisclosed in the d ivine economy. T his in evitably means t h a t th e l i tur gi c a l

practice of the C hur c h is separated f r o m th e bibl ical witness to G od s self-

id e n t i f i ca t io n an d s e l f - i nter pr eta t i on I h e place of Christ i n worship is a

good example of th i s If the d i v i n i t y of C h t i s t is exal ted above his

h u m a n i t y , the mediatorial role of Christ tends to be forg otten Christ 's

d i v i n i t y is consequently understood only i n t e r m s of the possession of the

coequal div ine nature and not in terms of the relationship of Go d the Son

to the Fathet w h o i n bis mediatorial role relates t o us in such a way that w e

can dare to address the i nf i n i te G od as Father, Christ s Father and our

Father, in the power of the Spirit.

Fach s reflections i l lustrat e a p o i n t of t r in i t a r ia n theo l ogy that is

Christological ly central Go d as Go d is in the imman ent relations o f the

Godhead has disclosed hims elf to us in such a wa y in the d ivi ne economy

that this consti tutes a true self-disclosure of the t r i une G o d C hr i s t as

C hr i s t is i n r e l a t i on to the Father and Spiri t must thetefore include the way

i n w hi c h C hr i s t is for us Any C hr i s to l ogi c a l onto l ogy o f fer i ng an account

of th e be i ng o f Christ mus t therefore include both th e relations of Chri st to

G o d , th e Father and the Sp i r i t , and the relations of G o d , the Father and

S p ir i t i n C hr i s t for us. Because C hr i s t s be i ng for us is par t of his be i ng,

C hr i s t s s e l f -g i v i ng is a par t of the eternal life o f God . O nl y i n this way can

we be certain that i n encount eting Ch rist for us we relate to the eternal

I r i n i t y I t fol lows that the incarnation is not an episode i n the story of the

t r in i t a r ia n Go d but a c ont i nui ng r ea l i ty i n tha t th e h u m a n i t y of Jesus in

th e u n i t y of his person is now forever part of the eternal li fe o f Go d If it is

forever part of the eternal life o f G o d i t cannot be an accident in the history

of the t r in i t a r ia n l i fe o f G o d , occasioned by the fact of hum an s i n , b u t m ust

be part of G o d s story f r o m th e b e g i n n i n g - a po i nt that is also pow er ful l y

expressed i n Charles W i l l i a m s s C hr i s to l ogy as Brian Hom e depicts i t We

can therefore offer glory to the Fathet with the Son, together with th e H o ly

S p ir i t because we can offer glo ry to the Father through Jesus Christ in the

H o l y Sp i t i t because G o d s s e l f -g i v i ng from th e Father through Jesus C hr i s t

in th e H o l y Sp i r i t enables us to relate to Go d as he is in h i m sel f for us in

w o r s h ip and in theo l ogi c a l t hough t


This argument tests o n the presupposit ion that worshi p is onto l ogi c a l l y

S C H W O B E L Christ for Us- A Response to I h e Petson of Chtist 201

c ont i nui t i es i n C hr i s to l ogy: Yesterday and Today ' After c ond uc t i ng a

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


This argument tests o n the presupposit ion that worshi p is onto l ogi c a l l y

signiticant I t relates to the t r i une Go d on the basis o f the way the t r i une

Go d relates to us and in this way i t defines th e be i ng of the c o m m u n i o n of

the Church through it s acts o f w or shi p T he ontologi cal significance

therefore no t only refers to the be i ng of the tr iu ne God and, i n our conte xt,

to th e be i ng of C hr i s t , b u t also to our be i ng Wor s hi p enacts wh o we are:

before th e t r i une God and in r e l a t i on to one another. Th e patterns ofw o r s h ip and the patterns of b e i n g i n c o m m u n i o n f o r m a coherent whole .

A l l conceptual re-forma tion must occur w i t h i n th e bounds of this

coherence

These reflections on the onto l ogi c a l i m por t of Trinitarian w or shi p

i l lustrate tha t th e language of the l i t u r g y is misunderstood if it is seen as a

l in g u is t ic expression about states o f affairs which also exist apart f rom

being spoken As the l i t u r g y shows, w o r d an d be i ng are not separate

realms; they are i n t r i c a te l y connected I he bibl ica l witnesses present

themselves as the record o f a d i v i ne- hum a n conv ersa t i on w hi c h begins

when th e w o r l d is spoken int o being by a G od w ho is the W o r d he speaks,

an d by the Sp i r i t w h o makes this Wo rd understood This is par t i c ul ar l y

significant i n C hr i s to l ogy because Christ is Go d s w o r d to creation, the

W o r d incarnate An d Christ is G o d s w o r d as the Wo r d that G od is Many

of th e d i f f i c u l t i es in C hr i s to l ogy, as in t r i n i t a r i a n theology, result f rom

t r e a t in g being an d w o r d i n sharp contr adistin ction An y way forward must

understand God s be i ng as c om m uni c at i v e be i ng an d God's w o r d as that

w h ich posits being an d so precedes being

In hi s essay, Douglas Knight offers a sketch of a complete r e-for mation

of Christology in the par ad i gm of d i v i ne speech In the f r am ew or k o f a

t r i n i t a r i an theology that proceeds f r o m th e ax i om 'Go d is his speech',

K n i g h t reformulares th e i n ner - t r i n i tar i an r e l at i ons, th e conversation wh ich

the tr iune God is, a nd the conversation whic h th e t r i n i t a r i an G od has w i t h

his creation th e be i ng of w h i c h subsists i n being spoken by God and which

is thus enabled to respond to God in w o r d an d deed This progr ammatic

sketch invites being tested against th e strands of the b i b l i c a l t r ad i t i ons i n

w h ich th e response to G o d s speech is the only approp riate access to th e

God who is as he speaks and what he speaks I t documents th at Christo logy

is w e l l advised to seek it s o r i enta t i on f r o m th e primar y strata of witnessing

to th e t r i une Go d and of confessing Chri st

V I I The End of C h r i s t o l o g y : T h e C o m i n g K i n g d o m

Ih e rich diversi ty of approaches represented by the essays i n this vo lume

confirms th e m a i n thesis Col in Gunton defended in his study of

c ont i nui t i es i n C hr i s to l ogy: Yesterday and Today Af ter c ond uc t i ng a

t h o r o u g h - g o i n g conversation w i t h Chtistologies, ol d and new , he

concludes:

There is continuity of approach, method an d above all of objecr, for

Jes us C h r i s t , the same yesterday an d today and for ever, is at once the

true subject and the true object of Christology: the one who makes it

possible, through hi s Spirit , and rhe one whose reality as truly God and

ttuly m an our h u m a n concepts s train to re p re se n t 1

By th e eschatological horiz on i n which Christologies yesterday and today

ate placed we are reminded that th e Christological efforts of yesterday and

of today are onl y stages on the way to the K i n g d o m of Go d w h e n the

id e n t i t y of C hr i s t for us w i l l be folly disclosed and w hen ou r C hr i s to l ogy,

we ma y hope, w i l l be one of praise

' Colin E Gunton. Yesterday and Today, A Study of Continuities in Christology ( london:Darton, Longman & Todd)

1 Ibid 209

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Index

Alexander, Philip 56, 57, 58

Am brose , St 12.4, 125, 127

Anselm , St i n

Apoll inar ius 82, 168

Aquinas , St Thomas 114, 119, 124,

125, 127

A r i u s , Ar ianism 2, 3, 74, 108, 112.,

159

Athanasius, St 3, 159, 169, 179

Athanasian Creed 111—12

August ine of H i p p o , St 72, 110, 124,

12.7

Babai the G teat 83

Baptism of Jesus 10, 121-37

Barth , K a r l 10, 18, 25, 94, 109,

129-30, 133-4

B a s i l of Caesarea, St 11, 159-61,

170-4, 181

Beasiey-Mutiay , G R 132

Biography, Gospels as 5—6, 47—51

Bockm uehl , Markus 42

Bonaventura, St 124

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 182-3

Bornkam m , G ünther 41, 68

Bousset , Wilhelm 39, 43, 44

B r o w n , R E 45-6,48Buber, Martin 91

Bultm ann, Rudolf 6, 38, 48, 49, 56

Bunidge , Richard 5-6, 189

Cabasilas, Nicolas I I , 169-70

C a i r d , G B 132

C a l v i n , John 7, 11, 72 -5, I I I , 124,

125-6, 129, 165-6

Campenhausen, Hans vo n 68

Cappadocian Fathers 87-9 see also:

Basil of Caesarea; Gregory of

Nazianzus

Chalcedon, Council of 8, 46, 63, 68,

71-2, 84. 86 , 92 , 94, 95, 117,

191-2

Chem nitz , Marr in 65—6Chrysostom , St J o h n see John

Chrysostom, StChurch 2-3, 29-35, 87-104 passim,

140, 146, 152-4

Communicatio idiomatum 6—8, 61—9 passim, 70-86 passim, 19i—8

Constantinople, Council of 61

Constantinople, Second Council of 1 ,

68C reation 9, 32, 64, 77 , I 0 2 , 139-40

C u l l m a n , Oscat 3, 9, 41

Cy ri l of Alexandria, St 70-2 , 79,

82-6, 169

Cy ri l of Jerusalem, Sr 124

D ante Al ighier i 117

Deification 8, 10 0 - 1 , 112

Dionysius the Areopagite 91

D ocet ism 108

D ogm a 16, 3 5

D u n n , J D G 40

Ecciesiology see Church

Edw ards , Jonathan 126

Election 31

Ephesus, Council of 63, 86, 112

Epistemology 22-5, 28-9

Eschatoiogy 40, 59, 73-4, I O I

Eucharist 74 -5, 81; see also Sacrament

203

104 Index

E t h E t hi i Mi i

Index

Ni C il f 6 6 S b t

8/13/2019 0567030245_Christ


Eutyches; Eutychianism 7.. 71-2 75,

77- 8, 82, 93, 97 , 101, 103,

I I I

Existentialism 87-104 passim

extra Calvinisticum 8, 81 , 86

E a c h , Sandra 11, 198-9

F a l l , the 102, 110, 113-14Farrow, Douglas 8. I I , 175-6, 191

Fitzmeyer , Joseph 134

Gottstein, A Goshen 57, 58

Gregory of Nazianzus, St 192-3

Gregory Thaumaturgus 127, 133

G u n t o n , C o l i n E . I I - I 2 , 13-18, 37,

63, 70-1 , 82, 94, 99, 132, 136,

145, 159, 179, 200-1

H a h n , F 39, 41

H ebrew s, Gospel of 123

H e g e l , G W F 36, 91

Heidegger, Martin 91

Hermeneutics 22, 38, 48

H i i i e l , Rabbi 55-7

H i l t o n , Michael 58

H istor ica l Jesus 37, 41-4, 183-4

History of Religions School 38—9, 43,

59

H o l m e s , Stephen R 7 -8, 192, 194-7

H o l y Scripture 26, 29, 33-5 , 144,

185, 189

H o l y Spirit 2 0, 25, 27, 60, 62 ,

78- 82, 103, I 2 i , 143-6, 154

Home. Brian 9, 197-8

Hurtardo, Larry 43Hypostatic U n i o n 71,75,78-82, 85-6

Itenaeus, St 179

I r v i n g E d w a r d 10, 129

Israel 14, 53, 62, 68

Je ns on , Ro be rt W 6-7, 14, 70, 71,

145, 192, 194-7

Jer emi as, Jo ac hi m 41

Je ro me , St 123

Jes us Christ

Minis try 45

Presence of 4, 19-25, 182-6

Priesthood of l65ffRadiance 21-2

Resurrection 20, 40

Second Coming 45

Sinlessness 124

Sonship 20-1 , 39-40, 138-54Ti t l e s of 38-40, 44-5, 59-60

W o r d of G o d 33-5, 39-40, 68, 70,

I 5 8 " S 4

Jes us Seminar 2, 122

Jo hn Ch ry so st om , St I O , 124-9,

137 Jo hn of Damascus, St S6, 119

Joy 4, 9, 27- 8, 116

Ju li an of N o r w i c h 110

Ju ng ma n, Josef 11, 155, 161-2, 171,

177

Ju st in Ma rt yr 124, 133

K a n t . I m m a n u e l 2, 16, 36

Kasem ann, E r n s t 41

K e c k , Leander 44-5

Kierkegaard , S0ren 103, 109

K n i g h t , Douglas 2, 10-11. 200

L a C u g n a , Catherine Mowry 180

Le o th e Great , Pope 72

less ing , G E 2

Luther , M a r t i n 66, 75, 124, 197

Mary, Blessed V i r g i n 64, 98

is tbeolokos/Moiht r of G o d 68, 73-4,

76Maximus th e Confessor, St 64, 91, 92,

102

Merz , Annette 43

M i l t o n , J o h n 118

Monotheli t ism 85

Moorman, John 134

M ou le , C D F 39-40, 41

Narrative 37-8, 51-5, 67-8

Nature 35, 39, 63-4, 65-6, 68, 70,

73-7, 83, 85, 87-10 4

Nicaea, Council o f 1, 45-6, 61-3,

83

Nicene-C onstant inopoli tan C reed

61-3

O rigen 2

O w e n , John 8, 70-2, 78-82, 85-6,

194-5

Pelagianism 164

Person (hupostasii) 35, 39, 63-4,

65 - 6 : 73-8, 87-104Polynesian culture 131

Prestige, G L 117

Prolegomena 4, 19-36

Q 57

Rabbinic literature 55-9

Rae, Murray I O , 187

Rahner , Ka r l 114

Redding , G r a h a m 163, 164, 178

Reim arus , H S 2, 41

Renan, Ernesr 48

Revelation 22-5

R i d l e r , Anne 115

Robinson, J M. 41

Sacrament, Sacraments 33, 92, 100

see also Baptist; Eucharist

Sanders, E P 41-2

Schleiermacher , F D E . 124-5, 126

Schmidt , K a r l L u d w i g 48

Schweitzer, Albert 5, 41

Schwöbel, Christoph 11, 61Scorus, John Dun s 9, 113—14, 118

Servetus. Michael 72-3

Soteriology see W o r k of Chrisr

Strauss, D F 41, 123-4, 136

Substance 3 5

Tertuliian 124

Theissen, G e r d 43

Theodore of Mopsuestia 67

Ibeosis see deification

Thomas, Gospel of 57

Til l ich, Paul 183I o r a h 55-9

Torrance, A l a n 99

Torrance, James I I , 163-4

Torrance, TF . 11, 168-74, I 7 é

Trinity 2, 7, IO . 14, 61-9 passim,

87 - 1 04 passim. 136, 138-54 passim, 155-8, 186- 7

Iuckett , Christopher 46

Turretin, François 7, 75- 8, 82

I y t r e l l , George 5

V o l f Miroslav 96-7, 100, l o i

Vo n Balthasar, Hans U rs von 120

We bs te r, J o h n B 4 , 1 8 4-5

We ed en , T J . 52

We in an dy , Th om as 129

We is s. D Bernhard 41

We sc ot t, B F 9, 114

We sl ey , Ch ar le s I I , 166-7

We st mi ns te r Ca te ch is m 155

Wi ll i am s, Charles 9, 105-20 , 197-8 Wi th er in gt on , B en I I I 46, 60

Wo r k of C h r i s t 3, 39, 44, 64,

109-10,140-1 Wo rs hi p 11 , 155-81, 19S-200

Wr ig ht , N T 41, 42

Zizioulas , John D 8, I O , 87-104,

130

Z w i n g l i , H u l d r y c h 75