The person of Christ

I n Memoriam Colin Ewart G u n t o n 1 9 4 1 - 2 0 0 3 C h r i s t o l o g y , l i k e a l l t h e o l o g y , is a d i ...

Author: Murray Rae | Stephen R. Holmes

287 downloads 2630 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

I n Memoriam Colin Ewart G u n t o n 1 9 4 1 - 2 0 0 3 C h r i s t o l o g y , l i k e a l l t h e o l o g y , is a d i f f i c u l t a n d d e m a n d i n g d i s c i p l i n e I n

THE PERSON OF CHRIST

i t , some a t t e m p t is m a d e t o t h i n k a b o u t t h e l i v i n g Jesus o f t h e C h u r c h s w o r s h i p a n d of N e w I e s t a m e n t confession

I t c a n n o t be d o n e w i t h o u t

assistance f r o m t h e past, nor w i t h o u t t h e great labour of exercising t h o u g h t a n d j u d g e m e n t as t o where the past was t i g h t a n d where i t was w r o n g B u t t h a t is t o r e a f f i r m , n o t t o d e n y , t h a t i t is t h e same kind of discipline as t h a t engaged i n b y I g n a t i u s , Athanasius a n d A n s e l m approach,

There is a c o n t i n u i t y of

Edited by

m e t h o d , a n d above a i l of object, f o r Jesus C h r i s t , rhe same

yesterday a n d today a n d for ever, is at once t h e t r u e subject a n d t r u e object of C h r i s t o l o g y : t h e one w h o makes i t possible, t h r o u g h his S p i r i t , a n d the one whose r e a l i t y as t r u l y G o d and t r u l y m a n our h u m a n concepts s t r a i n t o

Stephen R Holmes and M u r r a y A . Rae

represent - Colin Gunton

Yesterday and Today:. A Study of Continuities in Christology (London: Darroa, L o n g m a n & T o d d L t d , 1983), 2 0 8 - 9

\

V

^

f

r CLARK INTERNATIONAL

A Continuum

•LONDON

imprint

• NEW YORK

Contents INTRODUCTION

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

P R O L E G O M E N A r o C H R I S I O L O G Y : FOUR IHESES

19

John Webster, University of Aberdeen Published by I & T Clark International

2.

A Continuum imprint The l o w e r B u i l d i n g ,

10 I H E D Y N A M I C C H R I S I O L O G I E S OF I H E N E W TESTAMENT

15 East 26th Street,

I I Y o r k Road,

Suite 1703,

London S E i 7 N X

N e w Y o i k , N Y 10010

F R O M TITLES r o STORIES: A N A R R A T I V E A P P R O A C H

3

C H R I S T I N THE T R I N I T Y : COMMUNICAIIO

IDIOMATUM

61

Robert W Jenson, Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton

w w w tandtclark com A l l rights reserved N o part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted i n any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

4

5.

Copyright © Stephen R Holmes and Murray A Rae, 2005

R E F O R M E D V A R I E T I E S OF T H E COMMUNICAIIO Stephen R

recording or any information storage or retrieval system, w i r h o u t permission i n w r i t i n g from the publishers

IDIOMATUM

70

Holmes, St Andrews University

PERSON A N D N A T U R E : A C R I T I Q U E OF T H E NECESSITYFREEDOM D I A I E C I I C I N J O H N ZIZIOULAS Douglas Farrow, McGill

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication

37

Richard A Burridge, King's College, London

87

University, Toronto

Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Iradespools, Frame, Somerset Printed on acid-free paper i n Grear B r i t a i n by A n t o n y Rowe L t d , W i l t s h i r e

H E C A M E D O W N F R O M H E A V E N : I H E C H R I S T O I O G Y OF CHARLES W I L L I A M S

105

Brian Home, formerly of King's College, London

I S B N 0567030245 (hardback)

v

The Person of Christ

VI 7

T H E B A P T I S M OF CHRIST

121

Murray A Rae, Univeisity of Otago, New Zealand 8

I H E CONFESSION OF THE S O N

i 3

8

Douglas Knight, London 9

T H E A S C E N D E D C H R I S I : M E D I A T O R OF O U R W O R S H I P

155

Sandra Lath, King's College. London 10

Introduction

C H R I S T FOR U S - Y E S I E R D A Y A N D T O D A Y : A RESPONSE TO

T H E PERSON O F C H R I S T

182,

Murtay A

Christoph Schwöbel, University of Tubingen

Rae

INDEX

T

I here have been t w o major periods i n t h e h i s t o r y o f the C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h i n w h i c h the d o c t r i n e of the person of C h r i s t has b e e n at the f o r e f r o n t o f t h e o l o g i c a l controversy

T h e first spanned r o u g h l y

t h e p e r i o d between t h e C o u n c i l s o f Nicaea i n 32.5 a n d C o n s t a n t i n o p l e i n 553

I he second we are n o w i n t h e m i d s t o f

The p o i n t s at issue i n the

p a t r i s t i c conrtoversy were fitst, w h e t h e r a n d h o w i t is possible to speak of t h e m a n Jesus as f u l l y a n d p r o p e r l y d i v i n e , a n d second, i f he is d i v i n e , h o w should

rhe r e l a t i o n

between

t h e d i v i n e a n d the h u m a n

natures

be

construed? I h e p o i n t s at issue i n o u r o w n t i m e are essentially the same. T h a t sameness o u g h t t o banish t h e f r e q u e n t l y heard s u g g e s t i o n t h a t i t is the peculiar c o n d i t i o n s of the m o d e r n w o r l d t h a t require us t o abandon the naive a n d o u t m o d e d confession o f t h e d i v i n i t y of Jesus of Nazareth

There

are, t o be sure, d i s t i n c t i v e characteristics of m o d e r n disbelief, b u t i n b o t h the m o d e r n a n d the ancient w o r l d s theological controversy arose because of the incapacity of t h e n c u r r e n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e news t h a t G o d was i n C h r i s t I r m i g h t be argued t h a t , i n the a n c i e n t w o r l d , t h e d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t was resisted for G o d s sake, t h a t is, i n a n effort t o safeguard t h e transcendent sovereignty o f G o d w h o , b y d e f i n i t i o n , c o u l d n o t be f o u n d i n t h e figure of a weak and s u f f e r i n g h u m a n b e i n g O n the other h a n d , the m o d e r n o b j e c t i o n t o the confession t h a t Jesus is t h e C h r i s t is t y p i c a l l y advanced, proponents

say, f o r the sake of h u m a n i r y

so its

I t is i n the l i g h t of m o d e r n

advances i n k n o w l e d g e a n d i n defence of the supposed o m n i - c o m p e t e n c e of h u m a n reason t h a t we are u r g e d t o resist the c l a i m t h a t an o t h e r - w o r l d l y


2 God

should

miraculously

appear

RAE

i n the m i d s t

of the closed

causal

c o n t i n u u m of h u m a n h i s t o r y

Introduction

C h r i s t after b e i n g scattered b y his death

3

As the c o m m u n i t y grows and

spreads, i t s story is safeguarded a n d passed on t h r o u g h t e s t i m o n y b o t h oral

Whereas the ancient disbelief h a d a precursor i n O r i g e n s rather t o o

and w r i t t e n

I t is t o these words t o o that t h e o l o g y m u s t be a t t e n t i v e , n o t

a c c o m m o d a t i n g r e l a t i o n between C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y a n d t h e s u r r o u n d i n g

first because they are b i n d i n g - a l t h o u g h an account m a y be given o f t h e

G r e e k modes o f t h o u g h t , a n d came t o f r u i t i o n i n A r i u s a n d t h e A r i a n s , t h e

ways i n w h i c h w e are b o u n d t o t h e m - b u t rarher because these testimonies

m o d e m rejection of the d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t has i t s b e g i n n i n g s i n the likes of

of t h e c o m m u n i t y are themselves a p a r t of the story of G o d ' s creative a n d

R e i m a r u s , Lessing a n d K a n t , a n d finds c o n t e m p o r a r y expression t h r o u g h

r e d e m p t i v e w o r k that t h e o l o g y seeks t o i n t e r p r e t

those w h o speak of t h e myth of G o d incarnate, a n d i n t h e w o r k of the Jesus Seminar whose m e m b e t s insist t h a t

Christology

A r c e n d i n g t o these w o r d s rhen - of G o d , a n d o f scripture and t r a d i t i o n -

m u s t n o t transcend t h e

the essayists i n this v o l u m e are engaged i n i n t e r p r e t i n g w h a t has been said

b o u n d s of w h a t m a y be k n o w n t h r o u g h h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l i n q u i r y I n b o t h

a n d done, a n d i n f a s h i o n i n g a t e s t i m o n y for our o w n t i m e t o w h a t has been

cases - ancient a n d m o d e r n - t h e boundaries o f C h r i s t o l o g i c a l confession

said a n d done i n C h r i s t

are d e t e r m i n e d b y a set of p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions

o f those w h o say, i n t h e n a m e 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

C h r i s t i a n gospel i m p o s s i b l e be self-evident

t h a t render t h e

I n b o t h cases those assumptions are taken t o

They are n o t persuaded b y the c o n t r a r y t e s t i m o n y

t h e gospel i n t h e f o r m once g i v e n t o t h e saints can no l o n g e r be believed

N o n e of t h i s is s u r p r i s i n g I h e C h r i s t i a n gospel, t h e n , n o w

a n d always, is n o t a m o d i f i c a t i o n or refinement of e x i s t i n g philosophies b u t news t h a t the w o r l d is n o t as w e t h o u g h t i t was I t is t o be u n d e r s t o o d , n o t i n t h e l i g h t of our o w n conceptions a n d observations, b u t i n t h e l i g h t of C h r i s t i n w h o m is revealed the creative a n d r e d e m p t i v e agency of G o d O l d w i n e skins w o n ' t d o for t h e c o n t a i n m e n t of rhis new w i n e

T h e conceptual

conveyances for h o l d i n g a n d h a n d i n g o n t h i s news m u s t be fashioned anew under the i m p a c t of t h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y itself Such f a s h i o n i n g is t h e task of t h e o l o g y

I t is a f a s h i o n i n g that begins

w i t h attentiveness t o w h a t has been said a n d done before us T h i s is meant in

t w o senses; first a n d f o r e m o s t ,

a n d n e w every

m o r n i n g , i t means

attentiveness t o t h e speaking of G o d ' s o w n W o r d , that t r i u n e event o f t h e Father, t h e Son a n d t h e H o l y S p i r i t , i n w h i c h G o d addresses us a n d c l a i m s us as his o w n . A s i t is p u t later i n t h i s v o l u m e b y D o u g l a s K n i g h t , W e are preceded b y a conversation, t h e conversation o f t h e Father , Son a n d H o l y Spirit

T h e o l o g y s task t h e n , as K n i g h t f u r t h e r p o i n t s o u t , is t o set o u t

some of t h e l o g i c attentiveness, w i t h

of t h a t

conversation

silence before t h e W o r d

Theology

begins

thus

with

1

The r e q u i r e m e n t of attentiveness t o w h a t has been said a n d done before us applies secondarily t o the t r a d i t i o n of t h e C h u r c h

A s t h e c o m m u n i t y of

C h r i s t gathered by the S p i r i t i n t o c o m m u n i o n w i t h the Father, the C h u r c h spends its l i f e a t t e n d i n g t o the W o r d , a n d is itself a conveyance for the news of t h e gospel

The conveyance takes shape, first of a l l , as t h e story of a

c o m m u n i t y , gathered

b y C h r i s t h i m s e l f , a n d re-gathered

b y t h e risen

II Because ir is generally easier t o say one t h i n g , rather than several t h i n g s , at a t i m e , the w o r k of C h r i s t o l o g y has often proceeded w i t h a d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e person a n d the w o r k o f C h r i s t

I n t r e a t i n g person a n d w o r k

d i s t i n c t l y , however, i t has n o t been supposed C h r i s t o l o g y are i n d e p e n d e n t of one another

that these t w o aspects of

Indeed the question of w h o

Jesus is was p r o m p t e d t h r o u g h o u t Jesus career i n Palestine b y what he d i d ' A r e y o u the one w h o is t o come? , John the B a p t i s t enquires, a n d Jesus responds,

G o a n d t e l l J o h n w h a t y o u hear a n d see; the b l i n d receive t h e i r

s i g h t , the l a m e w a l k , t h e lepers are cleansed, t h e deaf hear, the dead are raised, a n d t h e poor have g o o d news b r o u g h t t o t h e m ( M t 11

2-5) Ihe

i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s M a t t h e a n report is made e x p l i c i t i n t h e Gospel o f J o h n : even i f y o u do n o t believe m e , believe t h e w o r k s , so t h a t y o u m a y k n o w and u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e Father is i n m e a n d I am i n t h e Father' (Jn 1038)

l i k e w i s e i n t h e early C h u r c h , i t was because Jesus was confessed as

saviour that the q u e s t i o n of his i d e n t i t y and o f bis r e l a t i o n t o G o d h a d t o be tackled I t was one of A t h a n a s i u s ' k e y a r g u m e n t s against t h e A r i a n s , for instance, that i t made no sense for t h e m t o w o r s h i p C h r i s t as saviour i f t h e y w o u l d n o t also confess h i m as t r u l y G o d f r o m G o d

1

That the t i t l e of this b o o k refers t o the person of C h r i s t a n d n o t t o his w o r k therefore indicares a focus o n the q u e s t i o n ' W h o is Jesus?, b u t does n o t e n t a i l t h a t t h e work o f C h r i s t does n o t also come w i t h i n i t s a m b i t . I t is a b o o k that focuses u p o n Christ's person, rather than u p o n salvation, or t h e

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

1

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

2

1

2

4

R AE


atonement, world

or u p o n his w o r k i n the creation a n d c o n s u m m a t i o n of t h e

H o w e v e r , the essays themselves reveal t h a t the person of C h r i s t is

made k n o w n t h r o u g h his w o r k , w h i c h i n t u r n has its s a v i n g efficacy o n l y

Sacraments

/ ntroduUion

5

H o l y S c r i p t u r e , under the i n s p i r a t i o n of the S p i r i t , is t o be

undersrood, a c c o r d i n g l y , as the

f i t t i n g servant of the self-presentation

of

Jesus C h r i s t , a n d is the n o r m to w h i c h a l l C h r i s t o l o g y is s u b o r d i n a t e From prolegomena,

because i t is he w h o does i t To p u t i t s i m p l y : w h a t C h r i s t does belongs t o

therefore, we move t o a more e x p l i c i t focus on

t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of w h o he is - t h e saviour, the c r u c i f i e d , t h e risen one, the

S c r i p t u r e itself, a n d , m o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y , to the testimonies t o Jesus received

ascended one, a n d so o n

a n d fashioned by the w r i t e r s of the gospels

I h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p is c o n s i s t e n t l y apparent i n the

variously

essays c o m p r i s i n g this v o l u m e

handled

testimonies

should

i n recent t i m e s be

handled

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l controversy

III

Indeed has

Those t e s t i m o n i e s have been the question

been

at

the

in w h i c h we are presently

extent, i f at a l l , are these t e s t i m o n i e s

reliable?

of how

forefront mired

these

of To

Are t h e y n o t so

the what

much

W e b e g i n w i t h p r o l e g o m e n a , w i r h rhe a t t e m p t , that is, t o a r t i c u l a t e t h e

fashioned as fabricated, n o t so m u c h a c r a f t i n g of the m a t e r i a l of Jesus

basis o f the C h r i s t o l o g i c a l task a n d the manner

career irself, b u t creations more or less ex nihi/o, b r o u g h t about i n service,

proceed

by w h i c h i t o u g h t t o

As J o h n Webster's essay i n rhis v o l u m e makes clear, however,

pro-iegomena, legomena,

the b e g i n n i n g s o f w h a t we m a y say, arises o u t of

Theo-

o u t of w h a t G o d h i m s e l f says i n u t t e r i n g his W o r d

i d e n t i t y of t h i s W o r d , however, is n o t s i m p l y past, nor is i t basis of C h r i s t o l o g y is the presence of C h r i s t -

The

finished

n o t o f t r u t h , b u t o f the e a t l y C h u r c h s o w n interests? M a n y have a r g u e d so, a n d thus conclude - or have they presupposed? - that t h e confession O r perhaps the gospels are not deceptions b u t rather testimonies

The

G o d ' s W o r d - w h o is

of

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

f a u l t is o n l y t h a t they are shaped by a w o r l d - v i e w rhat is o u t m o d e d and

k n o w n , as W e b s t e r argues, 'by v i r t u e o f the m o v e m e n t of his b e i n g i n

naive

w h i c h as L o r d a n d reconciler he freely gives h i m s e l f t o be k n o w n

s o m e t h i n g o f Jesus' g o o d name, to separate o u t f r o m the gospel testimonies

movement

o f C h r i s t s b e i n g is the r e a l i t y w i t h

concerned,

and

responsible

to

which, through faithful

I h e concept of

presence

This is

the chaff of p r i m i t i v e cosmology a n d t o salvage f r o m t h e m the g e n u i n e

be

g r a i n of a gospel that can be confessed today. T y p i c a l l y , t h i s gospel has to

examination,

d o w i t h the exemplary h u m a n i t y of Jesus H e is p r o p e r l y revered — i t is

which Christology

witness,

it

seeks

here needs f u r t h e r

I n t h a t case, we are u r g e d , b y those seeking nevertheless t o m a k e

to

among

u t t e r l y unclear w h y he should be w o r s h i p p e d - as one w h o lived l i f e as i t

others C h r i s t s presence is d i v i n e presence, and is, as such, b o t h antecedent

s h o u l d be l i v e d , a c c o r d i n g , that is, ro the w i l l of a G o d w h o r e m a i n s

however

C h r i s t is n o t present,

W e b s t e r explains, as an object

remote and u n i n v o l v e d The balance o f wheat a n d chaff varies e n o r m o u s l y

and eschatological, eternal and majestic I t is the presence of the Lord. I t is by v i r t u e of his presence thar C h r i s t is k n o w n by us, and thar

a m o n g scholars w h o a d o p t such an approach,

as do also the

resultant

reverent

pictures of Jesus George I y r e L l s celebrated s u m m a t i o n o f the n i n e t e e n t h -

science W e b s t e r speaks here, n o t o f the pious d i s p o s i t i o n of C h r i s t o l o g y s

c e n t u r y Q u e s t of d i e h i s t o r i c a l Jesus remains apposite for those w h o a d o p t

p r a c t i t i o n e r s , b u t of the means b y w h i c h t h e object of C h r i s t o l o g y is

s i m i l a r approaches today

a p p r o p r i a t e l y construed

t w e n t y centuries of h i s t o r y , is o n l y t h e reflection o f t h e i r o w n faces, seen at

k n o w i n g is - again, became o f C h r i s t ' s presence - a j o y f u l a n d

I h e joy and the reverence of C h r i s t o l o g y

engendered b y the r e c o n c i l i n g presence of Chcist h i m s e l f

are

I h a t presence, i n

the b o t t o m of a deep w e l l

Christological

task

Prolegomena

becomes

instead,

as

seen i n

3

A m o n g those w h o r e t a i n allegiance to a m o r e o r t h o d o x C h r i s t o l o g y ,

t u r n , renders r e d u n d a n t any p r o l e g o m e n a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n of the v i a b i l i t y of t h e

The Jesus t h a t t h e y see, l o o k i n g back t h r o u g h

however, there has l i k e w i s e been debate a b o u t h o w best t o handle

W e b s t e r ' s essay, a matter of t e s t i m o n y t o ( n o t d e m o n s t r a t i o n of) w h a t is already

c o l l e c t i o n , offers a survey of this m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y a n d argues t h a t ,

accomplished

of s c r i p t u r e

the

testimonies

R i c h a r d B u r r i d g e , i n the second essay o f this

I o speak o f the presence o f C h r i s t i m p l i e s a sphere of his presence i n w h i c h he can be and is k n o w n . A s he presents h i m s e l f , W e b s t e r w r i t e s , 'he establishes a d o m a i n a n d gathers a c o m m u n i t y w h i c h he authorizes and empowers for k n o w l e d g e of h i m s e l f

C h r i s t o l o g y is t h u s a p o s i t i v e science

of t h i s f e l l o w s h i p ; i t is a science of the c h u r c h Christs

presence w i t h i n

t h i s ecclesial d o m a i n

A n d the i n s t r u m e n t s of ate

Scripture

and

the

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 not only each epoch that round its reflection in Jesu.s; each individual created H i m in accordance with his own character' Sec Schweitzer 7he Quest ofthe Historical ferns (London; A & C Black 2nd cdn 1936) 4 }

RAE


6

Introduction

7

despite earlier rejections of t h e idea, especially b y R u d o l f B u l t m a n n , t h e

d o i n g s a n d sufferings . Jenson s deliberations a b o u t this m a t t e r are d i r e c t e d

gospels really o u g h t t o be seen as b i o g r a p h i c a l accounts o f Jesus' l i f e W e

t h e n t o t w o questions: ' W h a t does t h e fact o f t h e m u t u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n of

m u s t n o t presume

d i v i n e / h u m a n a t t r i b u t e s mean for o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e T r i n i t y ? A n d

biographies

b y t h i s , however,

t h a t t h e gospels are l i k e modern

w h a t is the t r i n i t a r i a n i m p o r t of doctrines about t h e fact?

T h e y are rather t o be compared w i t h ancient 'Lives i n w h i c h

W h a t is at stake

the accounts g i v e n of t h e i r heroes are n o r arranged c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y b u r take

here, for Jenson, is t h e s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n of G o d , a n d t h e p o i n t he argues

the f o r m o f collected anecdotes, have a s t r o n g focus o n t h e hero's death, a n d

is t h a t t h e narrative o f Jesus-in-Israel

o f t e n serve an u n d e r l y i n g a p o l o g e t i c , p o l e m i c a l or d i d a c t i c purpose

The

the p a r t i c u l a r G o d he is

The eternal Son is n o t other, t h a t is t o say, than

gospels,

and

the h u m a n l i f e he lives

I h e m a n Jesus is one of t h e T r i n i t y

Burtidge

contends,

were

composed

by

their

authors

is G o d s s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n as Unless we

of

h o l d t o a f o r m of t h e communkatio idiomatum that a l l o w s us to say t h i s ,

G r a e c o - R o m a n bioi The focus of our a t t e n t i o n , t o o , m u s t therefore be o n

Jenson concludes, t h e n we open t h e w a y for t h e story of t r i u n e life t o be

t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r subjecr, Jesus of N a z a r e t h , rather t h a n o n , say, 'presumed

d e r e r m i n e d b y stories other t h a n t h e b i b l i c a l story

understood

b y their

first audiences a c c o r d i n g

problems i n their hypothetical communities

t o t h e conventions

I he gospels are a b o u t a

Whereas R o b e r r Jenson draws especially o n t h e L u t h e r a n d e v e l o p m e n t

The narrative f o r m is

of t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e communkatio idiomatum, Stephen H o l m e s examines

i n C h r i s t o l o g y b y exclusive

the R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n , i n part, thereby, t o defend t h e p r o p o s i t i o n that

a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t i t l e s g i v e n t o Jesus, or t o t h e sayings of Jesus, o r t o

there is i n fact a d i s t i n c t i v e l y R e f o r m e d C h r i s t o l o g y C a l v i n , of course, is

person;

they are C h r i s t o l o g y i n narrative f o r m

i m p o r t a n t here

I t is i m p r o p e r t o proceed

p a r t i c u l a r passages, isolated f r o m t h e w h o l e story. essential

to the Chrisrological

testimony

being

T h a t w h o l e story is offered

through the

the s t a r t i n g - p o i n t , a n d H o l m e s argues o f C a l v i n s C h r i s t o l o g y that t h e r e is a d e t e r m i n e d a n d careful effort t o m a i n t a i n t h e d i s t i n c t i o n of t h e t w o

p a r t i c u l a r s O n e i m p o r r a n t result of B u r r i d g e s a r g u m e n t is thar p a r t i c u l a r

natures

passages are p r o p e r l y t o be u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e l i g h t of the C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

commentators

i n Christ

while

not succumbing

t o Nestorianism

N o t all

key' that is revealed t h r o u g h t h e narrative as a w h o l e A t h e o l o g i c a l lens, as

i n t e n t i o n , b u t H o l m e s shows t h a t C a l v i n s allegedly N e s t o t i a n f o r m u l a -

have been convinced that C a l v i n succeeded i n this latter

i t were, is n o t necessarily d i s t o r t i v e , as has c o m m o n l y been c l a i m e d , b u t is

t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t r e a t i n g C h r i s t s b i r t h o f t h e V i r g i n M a r y w h e r e he

the conditio sine qua non of f a i t h f u l a t t e n t i o n t o these w o r d s of t e s t i m o n y t o

appears t o steer away f r o m the t e r m Theotokos, are n o t a c o m p r o m i s e o f the

Christ

u n i t y of t h e natures b u t , rather, are designed t o preserve t h e d i s t i n c t i v e

Faithful attention to the testimony subsequent

tradition

t o t h e confession

of S c r i p t u r e that

has g i v e n rise i n

i n Jesus C h r i s r

w e are

i d e n t i t y of t h e d i v i n e Son M a r y is t h e m o t h e r o f the Son alone and n o t of the

Father

and Spirit

What

is essential

i n the R e f o r m e d

tradition,

I he

especially so w h e n the debate spills over i n t o eucharistie t h e o l o g y , i s the

conceptual d e v e l o p m e n t of t h i s confession, however, has n o t been a s i m p l e

proper d i s t i n c t i o n of the t w o natures of C h r i s t w i t h i n the hypostatic u n i o n ,

matter Y e t t h e c h u r c h has f e l t constrained b y t h e r e a l i t y of C h r i s t h i m s e l f

a d i s t i n c t i o n n o t p r o p e r l y preserved, allegedly, i n the L u t h e r a n opponenrs

encountered

b y one w h o is b o t h t r u l y h u m a n a n d t r u l y

divine

to persist w i t h t h i s confession even w h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g rhat i t places our

F r o m C a l v i n , H o l m e s moves o n t o t h e R e f o r m e d Scholastics, and f i r s t to

conceptual resources under s t r a i n O n e strand of t h e debate about h o w w e

François I u r r e r i n , i n w h o m he finds a careful r e f u t a t i o n o f b o t h Eutyches

are t o conceive together

and N e s t o r i u s a n d a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e concern f o r a p r o p e r a r t i c u l a t i o n of

t h e h u m a n i t y a n d t h e d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t has

focused o n t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e communkatio idiomatum T h i s m a t t e r is t a k e n

the d i s t i n c t i o n of the natures w i t h i n the hypostatic u n i o n A f o r m o f the

u p i n t h i s v o l u m e b y R o b e r t Jenson a n d Stephen H o l m e s

communkatio idiomatum is proper a c c o r d i n g t o T u r r e t i n ' s accounr, b u t only

O n e of t h e first matters t o be attended t o i n e m p l o y i n g t h e d o c t r i n e of the

communkatio idiomatum

communication.

Robert

is

Jenson

to

say w h a t

one means

sets o u t w h a t

others

b y such

have

meant

t h a t f o r m w h i c h asserts a c o m m u n i c a t i o n of t h e d i s t i n c t properties o f the

a

natures

-

between

t o t h e one person of C h r i s t , a n d n o t (against t h e natures themselves

t h e Lutherans)

T h u s t h e a t t r i b u t e s {idiomata) o f each

a n d early

nature b e l o n g t o t h e person of C h r i s t , b u t each nature retains i t s o w n

seventeenth centuries, i d e n t i f y i n g , i n p a r t i c u l a r , three classic f o r m s of t h e

idiomata so t h a t t h e a t t r i b u t e s of o n e do n o t become t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f the

especially

the Lutheran

theologians

of t h e late

sixteenth

Lommunicatio Jenson h i m s e l f t h e n offers his o w n ' m i n i m a l ' statement:

the

other

A t stake for T u r r e r i n is t h e reality of rhe i n c a r n a t i o n itself I f this

one C h r i s t lives his l i f e as G o d and as a m a n , d i v i n e l y a n d h u m a n l y , a n d his

d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e natures is n o t m a i n t a i n e d i n t h i s fashion t h e n i t

d o i n g s a n d sufferings cannot

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

be sorted o u t i n t o t w o d i f f e r i n g sorts of

8

RAE


Christology for the

d o c t r i n e of sanctification, p n e u m a t o l o g y a n d t h e extra calvinistiuim

Owen

9

I h e next essay, by B r i a n H o m e , is also a s t u d y of a p a r t i c u l a r r h e o l o g y ,

A n e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e C h r i s t o l o g y o f J o h n O w e n p r o v i d e s occasion for H o l m e s t o spell o u t t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f R e f o r m e d

Introduction

rhat

o f t h e poet

Charles

Williams

W i l l i a m s s theology

is c e r t a i n l y

i d i o s y n c r a t i c , as, for instance, i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e o l o g y itself as ' t h e

m a i n t a i n s t h e l i n e t h a t t h e o n l y admissible v e r s i o n o f t h e commtinicatio

measurement

idiomatum is t h a t w h i c h posits the c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f t h e a t t r i b u t e s of each

argues, o n account o f its o r i g i n a l i t y - t h o u g h W i l l i a m s h i m s e l f l a i d no

nature t o t h e one person o f C h r i s t and n o t between each other

c l a i m t o t h e d e s c r i p t i o n — and because W i l l i a m s develops the connections

Holmes

o f e t e r n i t y i n o p e r a t i o n ' , b u t i t warrants a t t e n t i o n , H o m e

concludes his discussion b y t a k i n g us back t o the C h r i s t o l o g y o f C y r i l H e

between

argues that a c o n t i n u o u s l i n e m a y be traced between

t h o u g h t - p r o v o k i n g at least, a n d o f t e n p r o f o u n d l y i l l u m i n a t i n g

C y r i l and O w e n ,

t h e various elements o f C h r i s t i a n doctrine

i n ways t h a t are Home

singles o u t for a t t e n t i o n t h e r e l a t i o n W i l l i a m s develops

between the

the resources t o safeguard t h e proper concerns o f L u t h e r a n a n d R e f o r m e d

incarnation, the atonement,

E c h o i n g the

alike

p o s i t i o n f a m o u s l y associated w i t h D u n s Scotus, and advanced also b y B F.

passing t h r o u g h Chalcedon t o o , a n d t h a t i n f o l l o w i n g t h i s l i n e we may

find

The t h e m e of person a n d nature is c o n t i n u e d i n t h e essay b y D o u g l a s F a r r o w , b u t here a t t e n t i o n t u r n s t o t h e Greek o r r h o d o x t h e o l o g y o f John

a n d t h e d o c t r i n e of creation

W e s t c o t t , W i l l i a m s h o l d s t h a t w h i l e t h e p a r t i c u l a r circumstances o f the i n c a r n a t i o n were due t o s i n , t h e idea of the incarnarion itself was d u e t o

Z i z i o u i a s , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o the necessity-freedom dialectic i n Zizioulas's

the p r i m a l a n d absolute

concept o f t h e person

w o u l d have taken place, therefore, q u i t e apart f r o m the need occasioned by

thought,

Ziziouias

D r a w i n g o n t h e e x i s t e n t i a l i s t b a c k g r o u n d t o his

reverses t h e t r a d i t i o n a l association

o f being

with

necessity and conceives necessity as a threat t o a u t h e n t i c personhood I n contrast

with

t h e persons o f t h e I r i n i t y , w h o are uncreated

and t h u s

unconstrained by all manner of creaturely m e c h a n i s m s of cause and effect, h u m a n petsons are b o u n d b y their self-centredness

finitude,

i n t h i s context as the advent o f free a n d a u t h e n t i c personhood, o v e r c o m i n g Jesus C h r i s t , i n Zizioulas's account, generates

free persons by t h e power of his o w n p r i o r personhood, t h a t is, by v i r r u e o f the eternal

r e l a t i o n (schesis) t o t h e Father w h i c h

constitutes

h i m as a

controversially

far so g o o d

i t m a y seem,

b u t Ziziouias s explication

of this

A t t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f W i l l i a m s s e x p l i c a t i o n of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n l i e the t w i n p r i n c i p l e s of co-inherence a n d exchange. operates o n rhe basis o f exchange i r r e d u c i b l e fact exchange between

whether

N e s t o i i a n i s m is avoided clearly e n o u g h , b u t i n vesting

t h e personhood

of C h r i s t

so

life

takes place an

d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y , t h e purpose a n d o u t c o m e of

w h i c h is s i m p l y joy Joy is the purpose of G o d , and j o y is accomplished Therefore there m u s t be i n c a r n a t i o n , and

for t h i s , i n t u r n , t h e stage set o f creation is made ready incarnation

wonders

A l l genuine human

T h a t is s i m p l y a d e f i n i t i o n for h i m ; an

I n t h e i n c a r n a t i o n , a c c o r d i n g l y , there

t h e o l o g i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g y is n o t w i t h o u t its p r o b l e m s , F a r r o w contends. I n sufficiently Chalcedonian

Williams

h u m a n n a t u r e ' C r e a t i o n merely serves that e n d

p a r t i c u l a r , F a r r o w raises questions

about w h e t h e r Zizioulas's scheme is

however,

w h i c h is t o take m a t t e r t o H i m s e l f i n the personal u n i o n o f the Son w i t h

s m a l l p a r t , determines

Fairow

(and i d i o s y n c r a t i c a l l y ) ,

t h r o u g h t h i s g l o r i o u s exchange

person. So

More

4

postulates creation as a k i n d of b y - p r o d u c t o f G o d s p r i m a r y i n t e n t i o n ,

their b i o l o g i c a l nature a n d b y

The i n c a r n a t i o n o f the second person o f the I r i n i t y is seen

nature, necessity a n d death

sin

putpose o f love foreshadowed i n C r e a t i o n ' and

is b r o u g h r

T h e f a l l , f o r its

o n l y t h e particular circumstances i n w h i c h rhe about.

Other

things

are associated w i t h

this

c o n c e p t i o n o f the i n c a r n a t i o n , n o t a b l y a h i g h v a l u a t i o n o f the body w h i c h is held t o be 'an i n s t r u m e n t for t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n of heavenly

beauty

e m p h a t i c a l l y i n his r e l a t i o n t o t h e Father, Z i z i o u i a s is n o t i n danget o f a

H o m e considers b r i e f l y here the possibilities for t h e o l o g i c a l aesthetics and

E u t y c h i a n neglect o f t h e h u m a n nature

draws an i n t e r e s t i n g comparison w i t h t h e defence o f Icons p r o f f e r e d by

t o have

I h e i n c a r n a t i o n , as such, appears

n o b e a r i n g o n C h r i s t s personhood'. T h e r e f o l l o w s , i n Farrow's

John o f Damascus. W e f i n d i n W i l l i a m s , H o m e concludes,

essay, a detailed i n q u i r y i n t o w h a t precisely is m e a n t b y personhood i n

that

Ziziouias s theology

aesthetics,

between

F a r r o w , for h i s p a r t , w a n t s a d i s t i n c t i o n t o be made

h u m a n personhood a n d d i v i n e personhood

A t stake here, he

was incapable

o f separating

Christology

from

religion from

a r t , theory

from

life,

a sensibility

theology

practice

from

— thought-

p r o v o k i n g and i l l u m i n a t i n g i n d e e d !

argues, is t h e proper d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e d i v i n e a n d t h e creaturely, w h i c h even i n r e d e m p t i o n , r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , a n d indeed theosis, has s t i l l t o be maintained.

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

RAE


IO

F r o m the facr of the i n c a r n a t i o n we m o v e t o three essays t h a t examine i n m o r e d e t a i l w h a t is accomplished t h r o u g h the w o r k of C h r i s t a n d w h a t is revealed thereby about the person of the Son

M u r r a y Rae investigates

the

b a p t i s m of Jesus by J o h n and considets w h y i t s h o u l d have been that

the

praise

Introduction

I t is i n confessing Jesus as L o r d ,

freely and really act

finally,

II t h a t w e , f o r the first t i m e ,

W e are n o t the L o r d , a n d so we can t h a n k G o d

W o r s h i p is also the t h e m e of the essay by Sandra Facb, w h o explores the role

of

the

ascended on

the

Christ

work

as

of

mediator

of

Josef J u n g m a n ,

our

worship. D r a w i n g

one w h o was w i t h o u t sin s h o u l d s u b m i t t o John s b a p t i s m of repentance

particularly

Facb

for t h e forgiveness of sins Rae begins by n o t i n g the reticence of the gospel

m e d i a t o r i a l role of C h r i s t i n w o r s h i p has l o n g been neglected

argues

that

the

Of crucial

w r i t e r s t o enter u p o n t h i s q u e s t i o n , b u t finds a clue t o i t s r e s o l u t i o n i n

i m p o r t a n c e here is t h e neglect o f C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y i n t h e ascension

M a t t h e w s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Jesus is b a p t i z e d t o f u l f i l all righteousness'.

The

f r o m l e a v i n g his h u m a n i t y b e h i n d i n the ascension, i t is precisely i n the

is largely agreed t h a t Jesus stood i n no need of

u n i t y of his person as h u m a n and d i v i n e t h a t t h e ascended C h r i s t continues

theological

tradition

b a p t i s m h i m s e l f , b u t several d i f f e r e n t accounts are offered as t o w h y he s h o u l d have gone t h r o u g h w i t h

i t nevertheless

A f t e r s u r v e y i n g these

Far

his m e d i a t o r i a l w o r k A t t e n t i o n is focused i n i t i a l l y o n the m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y , G l o r y t o the

accounts, Rae f o l l o w s a l i n e of t h o u g h t t h a t is f o u n d i n the h o m i l i e s of

Father through the Son a n d i n the S p i r i t

John C h r y s o s t o m a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h t h e b a p t i s m is central t o t h e event of

w o r s h i p progressed,

t h e i n c a r n a t i o n itself i n w h i c h the Son of G o d takes u p o n h i m s e l f the

i n g l y replaced b y w i t h

w h o l e m y s t e r y of o u r h u m a n nature, a nature t h a t is m a r r e d b y sin T h i s is

offers a detailed account of this l i n g u i s t i c a l t e r a t i o n , n o t i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r

A s the t r a d i t i o n of C h r i s t i a n

however, we find the m e d i a t o r i a l ' t h r o u g h ' increasso t h a t the role of C h r i s t as m e d i a t o r is lost. Fach

a l i n e of t h o u g h t t h a t leads e v e n t u a l l y to t h e cross, for i t is there t h a t the

t h e increasing separation between G o d and h u m a n i t y t h a t the d o x o l o g i c a l

f u l l consequence of the i n c a r n a t i o n -

change effects If C h r i s t is n o t the m e d i a t o r of our w o r s h i p , t h e n we are left

C h r i s t s a s s u m p t i o n of s i n f u l flesh

(otxpO — is r e d e m p t i v e l y w o r k e d t h r o u g h The theologies

of E d w a r d I r v i n g , K a r l B a r t h a n d John Z i z o u l a s are

called u p o n as the i m p l i c a r i o n s of t h i s p o s i t i o n are f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d p a r t i c u l a r , i t is observed

t h a t t h i s account of t h e b a p t i s m

requires

In a

t o direct t o w a r d s G o d o n l y our o w n p i t i f u l expressions of praise.

Lirtle

w o n d e r t h e n that G o d s h o u l d appear r e m o t e

need,

Lhere is desperate

therefore, for a recovery of emphasis o n the p r i e s t l y m e d i a t i o n of C h r i s t F o r t u n a t e l y the t r a d i t i o n has n o t l e f t us bereft of the means for s u c h a

relarional o n t o l o g y o f personhood i n w h i c h C h r i s t acts as the representative

recovery

of s i n f u l h u m a n i t y , a n d reconstitutes our f a l l e n h u m a n i t y by b r i n g i n g i t

of C a l v i n a n d Charles Wesley, a l o n g w i t h t h e m o r e recent w o r k of James

i n t o reconciled r e l a t i o n w i t h G o d

a n d Thomas Torrance, a n d D o u g l a s Farrow T o w o r s h i p t h e Father with the

This is a w o r k of d i v i n e love a n d so

Son c e r t a i n l y preserves Christ's d i v i n i t y , b u t t o w o r s h i p t h e Father through

reveals the one w h o does i t t o be G o d s beloved Son I h e a c t i o n of the Son argues, f o u r ' m o m e n t s

Douglas

the Son, m a i n t a i n s i n m u c h better balance t h e humanity o f Christ as w e l l

There are, K n i g h t

M o r e yet t o the p o i n t , we are t h u s enabled t o w o r s h i p G o d i n s p i r i t a n d in

is f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d i n the essay by

K n i g h t , a n d the focus here is u p o n the Son s confession i n the t h e o - l o g i c

Fach mines deeply the theologies of Basil and N i c o l a s Cabasilas,

of G o d ' s speech

The

Father

speaks; the Son receives t h a t speech so i t comes t o its proper place and is

truth The

volume

concludes w i t h

a response t o

all o f

v i n d i c a t e d ; the Son answers the Father w i t h his obedience; and the Father

C h r i s t o p h Schwobel o f the U n i v e r s i t y of I i i b i n g e n I n

receives rhe Son

the

above

from

characreristically

I n a n d t h r o u g h t h i s act of conversation a n d c o m m u n i o n ,

m a s t e r f u l s t y l e , Schwobel provides a clear a r t i c u l a t i o n of the key themes

creation is b r o u g h t i n t o b e i n g , is c o m p l e t e d a n d perfected, and offered

treated i n the v o l u m e a n d adds his o w n constructive c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the

back t o the Father for his approval a n d j o y

debates engaged i n b y the earlier c o n t r i b u t o r s

T h a t conversation

between

Father a n d Son is sustained by t h e S p i r i t w h o c o n t i n u a l l y gives the f u t u r e , c o m p l e t e d w o r l d t o the c h u r c h I h i s four-fold

speech-act constitutes

w h i c h the w o r l d receives its b e i n g

the economy

of G o d

through

M o r e t h a n t h a t , however, this economy

IV The conference at w h i c h these essays were f i r s t presented was p l a n n e d by

of G o d is also the means by w h i c h we are made b o r h hearers a n d speakers

Professor C o l i n G u n t o n before he d i e d

of G o d ' s W o r d

I h e a c t i o n of G o d is an a c t i o n t h a t enables h u m a n i t y

l o o k i n g f o r w a r d w i t h great enthusiasm to the g a t h e r i n g of his colleagues

A s always w i t h C o l i n , he

under the leadership of the Son a n d the e n a b l i n g of the S p i r i t t o j o i n i n the

and friends at yet another i n a l o n g series of successful conferences o f the

S o n s w o r k of p r e s e n t i n g the w o r l d to the Father i n t h a n k s g i v i n g and

Research I n s t i t u t e i n Systematic T h e o l o g y

at K i n g s College,

was

London


12.

Sadly, C o l i n was n o t t o be w i t h us at the conference i n September 2003 as be d i e d very s u d d e n l y i n M a y o f t h a t year

A s i t t u r n e d o u t , therefore,

m a n y friends and colleagues gathered at t h a t conference w h o w o u l d n o t otherwise have been there, some o f w h o m w r o t e papers for the occasion i n honour of C o l i n h i m s e l f A l t h o u g h these papers are. n o t , for t h e m o s t p a r t , a d i r e c t engagement w i t h C o l i n ' s t h e o l o g i c a l w o r k — there is p l e n t y m o r e t i m e f o r t h a t ahead of us - they are, nevertheless, gathered together as a modesr t r i b u t e t o h i m C o l i n s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e o l o g y d u r i n g the course o f the past thtee decades was b o t h p r o l i f i c a n d i n c o m p a r a b l e

A Tribute to Colin Gunton

I t is n o t just a m a t t e r of what he said

a n d w r o t e - a l t h o u g h t h a t legacy w i l l serve us r i c h l y f o r m a n y years t o come - w e have m u c h reason t o be g r a t e f u l also for t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f h i s

Christoph Schwóbel

theology. C o l i n helped a great m a n y people t o recover confidence i n t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l coherence and e x p l a n a t o r y power o f t h e C h r i s r i a n f a i t h at a t i m e w h e n i t has been under siege H e d i d t h i s q u i t e s i m p l y because o f his o w n confidence t h a t the gospel o f Jesus C h r i s t is t h e t r u t h a b o u t G o d and about t h e w o r l d , a n d t h a t i t is t h e g o o d news of t h e w o r l d s r e d e m p t i o n I h a t meant for C o l i n t h a t every p a r t o f the w o r l d , a n d every facet o f its l i f e was a p r o p e r object of t h e o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n

H i s o w n interests were

G

Colin

i v i n g thanks for the l i f e o f C o l i n G u n t o n , t h e t h e o l o g i a n , t h e teacher,

t h e colleague,

celebrating

the friend,

w h a t we have

received

means r e m e m b e r i n g a n d from

C o l i n and t h r o u g h

I r means r e m e m b e r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r person w i t h p a r t i c u l a r g i f t s and

b r o a d , f t o m m u s i c , t o l i t e r a t u r e , t o a r t , a n d , o f course, r o nature i n h i s

characteristics whose achievements are a l l shaped by the person he was and

beloved h o r t i c u l t u r a l endeavours, a n d he b r o u g h t a l l these to bear i n t h e

b y t h e p a t t i c u l a r personal characteristics

t h e o l o g i c a l task of bearing witness t o t h e love a n d t h e g l o r y of G o d .

remember w i t h respect a n d affection

I t is i n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f C o l i n s theological g i f t s , as also o f his f r i e n d s h i p and c o l l e g i a l i t y , t h a t t h i s v o l u m e is dedicated t o h i m I t begins therefore

t h a t made h i m t h e person we

C o l i n w o u l d have been the first t o

r e m i n d us t h a t w h a t we received f r o m h i m was n o t h i s t o give b u t is u l t i m a t e l y r o o t e d i n G o d as t h e g i v e r of every perfect g i f t , as the K i n g s

w i t h 2 t r i b u t e t o his t h e o l o g y , penned b y C h t i s t o p h S c h w ó b e l , and firsr

College Prayer has i t , a n d w h o is t h e f o u n t o f all goodness that c a n be

delivered at a m e m o r i a l service i n t h e chapel

f o u n d i n created beings

September 2003

at K i n g ' s College i n

I n expressing out g r a t i t u d e to C o l i n we trace the

lines t h a t relate w h a t w e receive f r o m other persons so t h a t being g r a t e f u l t o C o i i n entails b e i n g g r a t e f u l t o G o d for C o l i n C o l i n was first o f a l l a t h e o l o g i a n A l t h o u g h he started h i s career i n this college t e a c h i n g p h i l o s o p h y of r e l i g i o n , w h i c h for h i m r e m a i n e d a l i f e l o n g conversation p a r t n e r , t h e o l o g y was always his p r i m a r y c a l l i n g C o l i n was a t h e o l o g i a n , i n a very specific

sense of t h e w o r d , w h o u n d e r s t o o d a l l

t h e o l o g y as parr of t h e h u m a n response t o t h e message o f the gospel The gospel was f o r h i m n o t an extra piece of supernatural i n f o r m a t i o n that guides us b e y o n d the capacities of our natural reason I t is t h e way i n w h i c h G o d personally, as Father, Son a n d S p i r i t , relates t o us, g i v e s h i m s e l f t o us a n d lays c l a i m t o a l l d i m e n s i o n s of our existence so t h a t theology is a response t o t h i s event, t h e response r h a t is enabled b y G o d s address t o us I f t h i s is t h e case t h a t t h e o l o g y is u l t i m a t e l y rooted i n G o d s t r i u n e selfg i v i n g , t h e n t h e p r i m a r y q u e s t i o n for all t h e o l o g y is t h a t o f the i d e n t i t y o f

13


14

t h i s G o d w h o so relates t o us

SCHWOBEL

W h o is G o d i f t h e message of the Gospel is

true?' is the one q u e s t i o n t h a t guides the w h o l e t h e o l o g i c a l enterprise C o l i n was a T r i n i t a r i a n t h e o l o g i a n him

occasional

violinist,


member

of

the

recorder

ceremonies ar the C h r i s t m a s celebrations

group

The d o c t r i n e of the T r i n i t y was for

thing

I t was s i m p l y the way i n w h i c h

c h u r c h w i t h o u t ever r e a l l y b e l o n g i n g to a local c h u r c h

no o p t i o n a l extra t o t h e o l o g y

t h e o l o g y can r e m a i n t r u e t o the gospel

D o i n g t r i n i t a r i a t i theology is the

manner i n w h i c h a t h e o l o g y can be a C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y

This conviction

of the

T h i s was d i f f e r e n t

i n C o l i n s case H e has reciprocared w h a t he received f r o m B r e n r w o o d by m a k i n g i t one of the m o s t w e l l - k n o w n churches on the t h e o l o g i c a l scene through

R o b e r t Jenson and p u b l i s h e d under the t i t l e Becoming and Being,

Preaching

and i t

master

Theologians m a y w r i t e extensively or even excessively about

can already be f o u n d i n his d o c t o r a l thesis, w r i t t e n under t h e supervision of 1

and

T h i s is by no means the usual

his 3

collection

of

Sermons

for B r e n t w o o d ' :

Theology through

A n d there is the c o m m u n i t y of K i n g s C o l l e g e t o w h i c h he

later developed, very m u c h i n conversation w i t h John Z i z i o u l a s , i n t o the

remained f a i t h f u l for over t h i r t y - f o u r years, an almost u n i q u e e x c e p t i o n i n

major focus, the o r g a n i z i n g centre o f his t h e o l o g y

m o d e r n academic l i f e

An

Essay Toward a

Trinitarian

Theology was the s u b t i t l e of the l i t t l e b o o k Enlightenment and

Alienation

t h a t he p u b l i s h e d s h o r t l y after b e c o m i n g Professor o f C h r i s t i a n

1

B e i n g a t h e o l o g i a n i n c o m m u n i o n meant, for C o l i n , t o be a t h e o l o g i a n i n conversation

T e a c h i n g t h e o l o g y a n d d o i n g research i n theology m e a n t

D o c t r i n e at K i n g ' s College I t c o u l d have been the s u b t i t l e for every one of

creating

spaces for t h e o l o g i c a l conversation

the dozen f u r t h e r books he p u b l i s h e d later.

w i s d o m c o u l d be c u l t i v a t e d . H e l o v e d to t a l k , b u t he c o u l d also l i s t e n

i n which

knowledge

and

b u t first of a l l

W h e n , n o w fifteen years ago, a younger colleague came f o r w a r d w i t h the

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r G o d , the Father, the Son and t h e S p i r i r whose story begins

proposal of e s t a b l i s h i n g a Research I n s t i t u t e i n Systematic T h e o l o g y , he

w i t h Israel, c u l m i n a t e s i n C h r i s t a n d involves us i n the d y n a m i c s o f the

i m m e d i a t e l y agreed a n d helped t o develop t h e m i n i m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

o p e r a t i o n of the S p i r i t of t r u t h , the p a r t i c u l a r m u s t have a p a r a m o u n t

s t r u c t u r e t h a t was needed

significance i n t h e o l o g y as w e l l as i n every other d i m e n s i o n of created l i f e

Conferences, a n d the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conferences have become a f i x t u r e i n

Every created b e i n g is called t o be p a r t i c u l a r j u s t as h u m a n s are called t o be

theological life

persons

Conferences w i t h t o p i c s such as Persons Divine and Human,

I f G o d is n o t s i m p l y 'a sea of essence, i n f i n i t e a n d unseen

I f w e s t i l l f o l l o w e d the ancient c u s t o m of v e n e r a t i n g the great

Since t h e n the

I u e s d a y Seminars, the

Day

The five volumes o f papers presented at t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Trinitarian

and Freedom, Creation, a n d Reconciliation, m o s t l y e d i t e d by

doctors of the c h u r c h b y a p a r t i c u l a r t i t l e , C o l i n G u n t o n w o u l d have t o be

Theology, God

the doctor particularitatis,

C o l i n G u n t o n , can be found on the l e a d i n g lists of the m o s t i m p o t t a n t

the teacher of the significance o f the p a r t i c u l a t

w h o was never c o n t e n t w i t h abstract generalities

T h i s applies as m u c h to

his t h e o l o g y as t o the other passion i n his l i f e , his g a r d e n i n g . G a r d e n i n g

i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e o l o g i c a l l e a r n i n g i n the w o r l d

M a n y of the f o r m e r

s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a n t s o f the conferences now r e t u r n as speakers.

was f o r h i m the a c t i v i t y of c u l t i v a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r i t y so t h a t the g a r d e n

C o l i n h k e d t o listen. A l l o f his books since t h e classic The One, the Three

c o u l d reflect the r i c h d i v e r s i t y of p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s t h a t characterizes the

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

creation of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r i n i r a r i a n G o d

Lectures* were discussed b y colleagues a n d research srudents i n the Tuesday

C o l i n G u n r o n was, secondly, a t h e o l o g i a n i n c o m m u n i o n H i s t h e o l o g y

Seminars before p u b l i c a t i o n H i s elegant prose reflects t h e conversation in

always needed to be rooted i n a p a r t i c u l a t c o m m u n i t y First of a l l , i n his

w h i c h the a u t h o r i n v o l v e s the reader and echoes the m a n y

f a m i l y , w h i c h p r o v i d e d the secure f o u n d a t i o n of his w o r k a n d was always

b e h i n d the text

the first instance of w h a t C o l i n t h o u g h t a b o u t w h e n he t a l k e d a b o u t the

those w h o read his m a n u s c r i p t s

significance of p a r t i c u l a r c o m m u n i t i e s

The dedications of his books say

n u m e r o u s footnotes i n h i s books I k n o w of n o other l e a d i n g academic w h o

m o r e about this t h a n a n y t h i n g t h a t can be said here Secondly, his t h e o l o g y

a t t r i b u t e d so m a n y s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t s to conversations w i t h students and

was rooted i n his c h u r c h , B r e n t w o o d U n i t e d R e f o r m e d C h u r c h , the c h u r c h

colleagues

he served for m a n y years as associate m i n i s t e r , elder, i n t e r i m - m o d e r a t o r ,

always accompanied

The

conversations

I h e traces of these discussions and of remarks m a d e by before

p u b l i c a t i o n can

i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n v i t a t i o n s C o l i n received

be f o u n d i n

and f o l l o w e d ,

b y his w i f e Jenny, to A m e r i c a , A u s t r a l i a , Canada,

G e r m a n y , the N e t h e r l a n d s , R o m a n i a , Singapore (to name b u t a f e w ) i n ' Becoming and Being: The Doctrine of God in Charles Hartshorns and Karl Barth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978) Enlightenment and Alienation An Essay Ipward a Trinitarian Tbeohg)' (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, T9S5) 1

Theology through Preaching Sermons for Brentwood (Edinburgh: I & L Clark. ZOOl) The One, the Three and the Many God. Creation and the Culture of Modernity The 1992. Bampton Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993} 3

4

16


SCHWÓBEL

recent years w h e n he was recognized

as the m o s t

English

for

systematic

theology,

were

him

s i g n i f i c a n t voice

simply

extensions


17

of

a l m o s t s i n g l e - h a n d e d l y i n E n g l i s h u n i v e r s i t i e s , and the K i n g s approach

of

has become one of rhe m o s t respected species i n t h e garden o f rheology I n

conversations w h i c h first began i n his c r a m p e d s t u d y i n K i n g s C o l l e g e ,

1980,

London

Theology i n K i n g s C o l l e g e , n o b o d y w o u l d have guessed t h a t f r o m

O f course, the conversations

were n o t always about t h e o l o g y o n l y

A

Tuesday Seminar w o u l d have no proper conclusion w i t h o u t l u n c h i n the

when

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

the

first

Lecturer

in

Systematic 1999

one of the m o s t respecred journals i n the field, the International Journal

of

Systematic Theology, w o u l d be produced by B l a c k w e l l of O x f o r d and e d i t e d

Riverside Resraurant a n d the i n e v i t a b l e fish and chips A n d at the A n n u a l

by C o l i n G u n t o n and J o h n W e b s t e r , a l o n g w i t h R a l p h del C o l l e , a n d t h a t ,

Conferences o f the Society for the S t u d y o f I h e o l o g y w h i c h C o l i n served

even earlier, an E n g l i s h t h e o l o g i a n , C o l i n G u n t o n , w o u l d become a co-

for t e n years as Secretary a n d later as one o f its Presidents,

he enjoyed

editor of one of the established c o m p e t i t o r s o n the C o n t i n e n t , the Nei/e

Zeitschift

sessions where the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m serious t h e o l o g y t o jokes accompanied

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g persistence of C o l i n G u n t o n t h a t effected the change

by l o u d laughter -

his sense o f h u m o u r was n o t always very refined —

seemed as easy as i t was pleasant

fur

I t was the

associating w i t h the y o u n g ' as he called i t , i n the bar after the conference

Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

Uncompromising

was

also C o l i n ' s

a t t i t u d e to his o w n w o r k ,

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g were t h e demands t h a t he l a i d u p o n h i m s e l f

I h i r d l y , C o l i n G u n t o n was an u n c o m p r o m i s i n g t h e o l o g i a n A declared

and

The restless

energy w h i c h everybody c o u l d see w h e n he paced the c o r r i d o r s of K i n g ' s ,

enemy o f a l l k i n d s of r e d u c c i o n i s m he a b h o r r e d n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n the

the i m p a t i e n t c r e a t i v i t y w h i c h c o u l d lead t o h i s s k e t c h i n g a new paper

c o m p r o m i s e of t h e o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t w i t h the f l e e t i n g m o o d s of the c u l t u r e

w h i l e l i s t e n i n g t o another rhat h a d not q u i t e caught h i s interest,

of the day H e was n o t a f r a i d t o appear d o g m a t i c , for he was too w e l l versed

never m o t i v a t e d by personal a m b i t i o n , nor s i m p l y by a P u r i t a n w o r k e t h i c

i n t h e h i s t o r y of the concept of d o g m a , k n o w i n g t h a t before i t became a

When

technical

A b e r d e e n , t h e D D f r o m L o n d o n a n d now O x f o r d , rhe n a m e d lectureships,

t e r m for the agreed

conciliar t e a c h i n g , i t denoted -

as,

for

the

academic

honours

came

-

the

honorary

doctorate

were from

instance, i n its use by the Stoics - the v i e w o f r e a l i t y w h i c h can account for

the v i s i t i n g professorships - he accepted t h e m p r o u d l y , b u t also w i t h a

t h e o r i g i n , destiny a n d m e a n i n g of a l l there is

sheepish g r i n as i f to say, t h a t s n o t the real t h i n g , is it? H e was too m u c h

D o g m a i n the C h r i s t i a n

sense means i n t e r p r e t i n g r e a l i t y t h e o l o g i c a l l y I n this sense, C o l i n G u n t o n

of an E n g l i s h n o n c o n f o r m i s r ever to consider

was f o n d o f b e i n g d o g m a t i c , d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t b e i n g d o g m a t i c is n o t the

establishment

opposite

passion for t h e o l o g y , t h e passion t o offer t h e best response ro w h a t he

of b e i n g

dogmatic

c r i t i c a l , as K a n t

f o u n d a t i o n , and

dialogue

supposed only

Every

becomes

c r i t i q u e has possible

if

its

these

presuppositions are declared It

was t h i s u n c o m p r o m i s i n g approach

s i m p l y accepts no predefined boundaries

h i m s e l f a pillar o f

the

W h a t p r o p e l l e d his apparently boundless energy w a s his

u n d e r s t o o d t o be the best p r o m i s e t h a t h u m a n k i n d ever received

The

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g character of his style of d o i n g t h e o l o g y was never

mote

t o the t h e o l o g i c a l task

that

apparent t h a n d u r i n g t h e few m o n t h s at the C e n t e r of Theological I n q u i r y

for t h e o l o g i c a l discourse

that

i n P r i n c e t o n w h e n w i t h i n a space of three m o n t h s the d r a f t of t h e

first

made this d o g m a t i c t h e o l o g i a n an acute observer a n d interpreter o f the

v o l u m e of the p l a n n e d Systematic Theology was c o m p l e t e d . C o l i n r e t u r n e d

c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n of t o d a y The a s t o n i s h i n g range of bis w r i t i n g , f r o m the

weary, b u t satisfied, and eager to g o o n , to r e w o r k the first a n d start o n the

m o s t i n t r i c a t e p r o b l e m s of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Fathers t o the m e a n i n g

other three v o l u m e s

of The Lord of the Rings, f r o m p r o b l e m s of the m o d e r n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of

title:

h e a l t h to t h e conceptual p t o b i e m s of m o d e r n c o s m o l o g y or t o M o z a r t , a l l

u n c o m p r o m i s i n g style of d o i n g t h e o l o g y was n o t o n l y C o l i n s w a y of

these are relevant questions i f ' G o d and the w o r l d , ' t h i s G o d a n d t h i s

l i v i n g dangerously; i t also had a p a r t i c u l a r e n j o y m e n t

w o r l d , is indeed the o v e r a l l t h e m e of a t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e a l i t y

n u m b e r o f occasions w h e n we came h o m e on t h e same t r a i n or r e t u r n e d to

For C o l i n G u n t o n t h i s u n c o m p r o m i s i n g approach t o t h e o l o g y r e q u i r e d discipline,

the

particular

systematic

theology

d i s c i p l i n e of

Today,

systematic

the

methods

theology

and

is a

criteria

of

well-established

d i s c i p l i n e i n E n g l i s h u n i v e r s i t i e s W h e n C o l i n started his academic career

Ah

w o u l d say,

111

call

it

Dogmatics'

after

all

I his

I remember q u i t e a

T h a t was a w o n d e r f u l discussion

A n d i m a g i n e , we're b e i n g

p a i d to do t h a t Let me a d d one last p o i n t t h a t perhaps o n l y a f o r e i g n e r , a l b e i t an Anglophile,

U n i t e d States

theologian

the d i s c i p l i n e

U n c o m p r o m i s i n g was also his final reflecrion o n rhe

\ think

B r e n t w o o d after one of the Conferences of t h e Research I n s t i t u t e a n d he

i t was seen m o r e as s o m e t h i n g one d i d elsewhere - i n G e r m a n y or i n the I n the course of his career he established

well,

could To

find

make:

Colin

Gunton

was

a particularly English

an E n g l i s h style of d o i n g systematic

t h e o l o g y was

18


his l i f e s project. H e never ceased e x t o l l i n g the v i r t u e s of b e i n g E n g l i s h t o m e , the f o r e i g n e r , k n o w i n g f u l l w e l l t h a t he was p r e a c h i n g t o one o f the converted

Englishness was the o n l y context

i n w h i c h he w o u l d

find

a

construcrive use for the t e r m r e l i g i o n ' w h i c h he, whose t h e o l o g i c a l stance

Chapter i

was shaped by K a r l B a r t h a n d R o b e r r Jenson, was accustomed t o use o n l y critically

H o w o f t e n have his friends heard h i m q u o t e : T h e E n g l i s h are

such an i r r e l i g i o u s race t h a t they i n v e n t e d c r i c k e t t o g i v e t h e m a sense of eternity

C r i c k e t was a r e l i g i o n he adhered to a n d one t h a t m a r k e d a cleat

c u l t u r a l b o u n d a r y t o cultures w h i c h i n other ways he a d m i r e d

I never

Prolegomena to Christology: Four Theses

dared ask a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e l i g i o n t o t h e C h r i s t i a n f a i t h , a f r a i d t h a t the answer w o u l d p o i n r t o t h e b a t t i n g of some l o n g f o r g o t t e n Essex cricketer as an example of rbe o p e r a t i o n o f t h e H o l y S p i r i t . A n d I a m sure i r w o u l d have t u r n e d o u t that t h i s cricketer was a m e m b e r o f the C o n g r e g a t i o n a l C h u r c h least n o t often.

John Webster

I h e r e was n o t h i n g i d e o l o g i c a l about t h i s , at

Rather, i t was p a r t of the t h e o l o g y of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r

English theologian

t h a t these p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s m a t t e r

I h i s was never a

n a t i o n a l i s t i c nor an insular a t t i t u d e C o l i n h a d learned t o o m u c h f r o m t h e I

t h e o l o g y of Israel, Cappadocia, G e r m a n y , S w i t z e r l a n d a n d A m e r i c a t o see an E n g l i s h systematic t h e o l o g y as an exercise i n t h e o l o g i c a l

isolation

Q u i t e the opposite; i n the last t h i r t y years the E n g l i s h c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the international

theological

discussion

was

to a very large

extent C o l i n

G u n t o n s a n d t h a t of the people he encouraged a n d i n f l u e n c e d I n g i v i n g t h a n k s for the l i f e of C o l i n G u n t o n we are c o m f o r t e d b y t h e hope

that

he

shared

fervently

that

out

l i f e here o n

earth

and

our

conversations here are o n l y a b e g i n n i n g , because G o d wants to converse w i t h us eternally as we shall p a r t i c i p a t e i n the conversation w h i c h is the l i f e of the t r i u n e G o d

W e are g r a t e f u l for a l l C o l i n has g i v e n us A n d we

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

I

n

Christology,

at

least, the

method

may

not

be

arbitrary,

for

C h r i s t o l o g y is d e t e r m i n e d i n a f u n d a m e n t a l way b y t h e fact t h a t its ' o b j e c t , t h a t towards w h i c h i t s a t t e n t i o n is t u r n e d a n d by w h i c h i t is

l e d , is the personal presence of Jesus Christ i d e n t i t y is n o t s i m p l y past

Jesus C h r i s t is present; his

H i s i d e n t i t y , t h a t is, is n o t located

t e m p o r a l l y r e m o t e sphere, nor is i t

I h e r e f o r e our g r a t i t u d e m u s t be d i r e c t e d t o w a r d the t r i u n e G o d w h o is

docketed

r i g h t l y addressed as the G i v e r of every perfect g i f t -

a l b e i t i n created,

encounter w i t h us b u t possesses o n l y the passivity of a past reality w h i c h

h u m a n , i m p e r f e c t f o r m w h i c h w a i t s t o be perfected b y G o d . I h a n k s be t o

w e s u m m o n i n t o our presence H e is, a n d is present Jesus C h r i s t ' s i d e n t i t y

God

as one w h o is present t o us is, of course, inseparable f r o m his past, a pasr

as a closed, achieved

finished

in a

are g r a t e f u l for t h e g i f t that C o l i n was for us a n d continues t o be for us.

i n the sense t h a t i t can

r e a l i t y w h i c h does n o t

initiate

be

active

w h i c h has a d e f i n i t e , unalterable sequence and shape, s u m m a r i z e d i n the church s

confession

through

the

key

moments

of

birth,

suffering,

c r u c i f i x i o n , d e a t h , b u r i a l , resurrection and ascension B u t , as the last t w o events i n t h a t sequence i n d i c a t e , t h e trajectory of Jesus Christ's i d e n t i t y stretches i n e x o r a b l y i n t o the present, his past b e i n g gathered i n t o his present i d e n t i t y as one w h o cannot t r u t h f u l l y be spoken o f o n l y i n t h e past tense H i s past is n o t mere c o n t i n g e n c y , b u t an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f his i d e n t i t y as the one w h o was and is and is t o c o m e H e is risen f r o m the dead; a n d his resurrection

is n o t s i m p l y a retrospective

19

declaration

— an i n d i c a t i o n ,


zo

WEBSTER

21

perhaps, of the u n i t y of purpose b e t w e e n Jesus a n d h i s heavenly Father

presence; he is d i v i n e person and agent, t o be confessed as L o r d As such he

s i g n a l l i n g the Father's v i n d i c a t i o n of h i s cause - b u t rather t h e a c t u a l i t y of

is G o d s only Son. H i s sonship is w h o l l y u n i q u e : he does n o t e x e m p l i f y

his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e aliveness a n d comprehensive

presence of G o d

some m o r e general r e l a t i o n o f creatures r o G o d , b u t as t h e ' o n l y - b e g o t t e n '

H i s temporal

Son o f the Father he is d i s t i n g m s h e d ^ f r o m a l l creatVires_becau^ his o r i g i n

presentness, t h a t i s , is n o t o n l y actual i n a sphere r e m o t e f r o m us H e is

lies w h o l l y w i t h i n t h e inner l i f e o f t h e G o d h e a d ; ' b e g o t t e n o f his Father

M o r e o v e r , as t h e presenr one, Jesus C h r i s t is n o t absent

our c o n t e m p o r a r y , n o t i n t h e sense t h a t his t i m e as i t were runs p a r a l l e l t o

before a l l w o r l d s ' , he is t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f the b e i n g o f G o d ,

ours i n some other r e g i o n b u t does n o t enter i n t o our o w n a n d remains

G o d ' s Son A s t r u e G o d a n d o n l y Son of the Father, i n s h o r t , he is L o r d ,

antecedently

inaccessible, b u t i n t h e sense t h a t he is with us Risen f r o m t h e dead, he

i n t r i n s i c t o t h e d i v i n e essence, s h a r i n g i n its m i g h t , majesty, d o m i n i o n a n d

ascended i n t o heaven a n d sits at t h e F a t h e r s r i g h t h a n d i n g l o r y B u t

p o w e r A n d for t h i s reason the Son is - as rhe Te Deum Laudamus purs i r -

t h o u g h h i s presence is no longer i n b o d i l y f a s h i o n , he is nor thereby

venerandus, w o r t h y of a l l w o r s h i p , t h e f i t object of the creature's praise of

separated f r o m us: ascension a n d e n t h r o n e m e n t are n o t mere w i t h d r a w a l ,

God

because he shares i n t h e eternal g l o r y of t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e

b u t express t h e l o r d l y freedom w i t h w h i c h he enters i n t o r e l a t i o n w i t h a n d ,

T h e presence of t h i s one is h i s presence i n effulgent ?najesty I t is a

i n d e e d , b i n d s h i m s e l f t o those t o w h o m he presents h i m s e l f i n t h e power of

majestic presence, because i n h i s presence he is a n d acts as one w h o is

the H o l y S p i r i t .

i n f i n i t e l y superior, d i s p o s i n g of h i m s e l f i n u t t e r l i b e r t y A s he comes t o us,

The ' m a t t e r o f C h r i s t o l o g y is t h i s present one H o w is h i s presence t o be

he does n o t place h i m s e l f i n o u r hands, o n t ^ i o ^ i c a l i y or n o e t i c a l l y ; he

characterized? H e is present antecedently. H i s presence precedes our self-

c a n n o t be converted i n t o a f u n c t i o n of our i n t e n t i o n , t h o u g h t or a c t i o n ,

presence, and fashions i t i n t o a c o u n t e r p a r t t o itself. I h a t i s , t h e presence of

b u t comes as t h e one he i s , i n boundless majesty

C h r i s t is n o t an extension or m o d i f i c a t i o n of our presence t o ourselves; i t is

real, reliable a n d constant a n d n o t m e r e l y a s y m p t o t i c , has t h e character of

not

some presence-to-hand

ourselves as we w i l l

towards w h i c h

w e are e n r i r l e d t o dispose

I h e presence o f C h r i s t is d i v i n e self-presence, a n d as

p r o x i m i t y , of a c o m i n g t o be near rather t h a n o f t h a t w h i c h can be h e l d a n d f o r m w e cannot discern

its o w n d e t e r m i n a t i o n , b y v i r t u e of t h e a c t i o n of t h e H o l y S p i r i t , a n d n o t

(Heb

by h u m a n acts of p r o j e c t i o n or r e c o n s t r u c t i o n

resplendent

A c c o r d i n g l y , our presence

H i s presence, t h o u g h i t is

m a n i p u l a t e d ' Y e t t h i s majestic presence is n o t d a r k , s o m e t h i n g

such becomes a h u m a n present a u t o n o m o u s l y , i n spontaneous f u l f i l m e n t of

13;

2

whose

I t is r a d i a n t ; i n i t t h e d i v i n e g l o r y is m a n i f e s t

Cor. 4 4 )

G o d is i n h i m s e l f

glorious

a n d therefore

H i s g l o r y is n o t self-enclosed b u t s e l f - d i f f u s i n g , a l i g h t w h i c h ,

to ourselves is n o t a stable a n d settled d i s p o s i t i o n of ourselves b y w h i c h a l l

because i t is light, sheds i t s e l f abroad, freely a n d m a j e s t i c a l l y i m p a r t i n g a n d

other

disclosing itself

presences are measured,

summoned

t o appear

eschatological:

I

Prolegomena to Christology

as

a n d before

a further

which

object

Jesus C h r i s t m a y be

for our artention

I t is

our h u m a n self-presence is a f u n c t i o n of t h e fact t h a t as

T h e presence o f Jesus C h r i s t is t h i s d i v i n e effulgence:

r a d i a n t presence, presence w h i c h e n l i g h t e n s a n d so establishes k n o w l e d g e of i t s e l f

Jesus C h r i s t presents h i m s e l f t o us i n t h e S p i r i t s p o w e r , he creates a h u m a n

O n c e a g a i n , t h i s radiance m a y be characterized more closely. I h e l i g h t

present as the a u x i l i a r y of h i s presence, o v e r c o m i n g our p r e t e n d e d self-

w h i c h Jesus C h r i s r i s , h i s e f f u l g e n t majesty, is n o t s i m p l y a state b u t an

sufficiency, a n d m a k i n g us i n t o t h e new creatures of G o d w h o confess t h a t

a c t i o n and m o v e m e n t

he is before t h e m

passive, r e s t i n g i n a separate a n d secluded g l o r y Rather, t h e majesty of

The p a r a d i g m of h i s anrecedent presence as t h e risen one

I n h i s majesty as the eternal Son, he is n o t i n e r t a n d

is t h u s t h e effortless, u n f e t t e r e d a n d w h o l l y effective c o m i n g of Jesus

Jesus C h r i s t is k n o w n

C h r i s t : 'Jesus came a n d stood a m o n g t h e m (Jn. 20

i m p a r t s h i m s e l f H e h i m s e l f moves t o w a r d s us; he conies t o u s ; his b e i n g is a

26)

Jesus C h r i s t is present as G o d is present, a n d so present in his effulgent

being-in-coming

which

i n a n d as t h e a c t i o n or m o v e m e n t i n w h i c h he is

equiprimordially a being-in-giving

This

f majesty as 'the eternal Son of God A s the eternal Son, he is n o t Son by a d o p t i o n / or a n n e x a t i o n ,

drawn

i n t o the l i f e of the G o d h e a d

f r o m outside a n d

I

e n n o b l e d , b u t i n g r e d i e n r w i t h i n t h e i m m a n e n t l i f e of G o d N o less t h a n

':

t h e Father, he is i n t h e b e g i n n i n g ; were he n o t , t h e Father w o u l d n o t be

'

w h o he is 1

I h e Son is G o d f r o m G o d , l i g h t f r o m l i g h t , s h a r i n g i n t h e

substance o f t h e Father, a n d so f i t t i n g l y praised as G o d H e does n o t \ m e r e l y s y m b o l i z e G o d o t present a p a t t i c u l a r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h e d i v i n e

In this connection. Hans Frei s worry that talk of rhe presence of Christ — at least in its nineteenth-century idealist exposition - almost inevitably subjects Christ to the believer to whom he is present might be countered by a more dogmatically robusr articulation of the freedom of Christ's presence - something which Frei s alternative concept of identity' does not fully succeed in doing because of its formality See H Frei. The Identity of Jesus Chris: (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1975) vii-x

WEBSTER


22


23

m o v e m e n t is t h e m o v e m e n t of t h e one w h o is Lord I t is a free m o v e m e n t ,

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

n o t an action under c o n s t r a i n t ; i n h i s self-bestowal, Jesus C h r i s t does n o t

k n o w l e d g e of h i s presence is s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e k n o w e r

g i v e h i m s e l f away

I o be accosted b y t h i s m o v e m e n t of h i s presence is n o t

l u c k e d inside this strategy there is o f t e n an a s s u m p t i o n a b o u t

crearurely

to encounter s o m e t h i n g a c c i d e n t a l , a process w h o l l y w i t h i n t h e e c o n o m y of

competence i n t h e matter of k n o w l e d g e o f C h r i s t

h u m a n t e m p o r a l causality

a s s u m p t i o n (Jesus C h r i s t , l i k e e v e r y t h i n g else, is subject t o t h e dictates of

a n d sequence, b u t rather

t h a t w h i c h is t h e

I his m a y be a p r i d e f u l

I h e o r i g i n , energy a n d

universal reason), or i r m a y be a very insecure a n d anxious a s s u m p t i o n t h a t

m o b i l i t y o f t h i s m o v e m e n t a l l derive f r o m t h e d i v i n e purpose w h i c h is set

w e can rely o n n o t h i n g other t h a n o u r fragile selves B u t b o t h p r i d e a n d

f o r t h i n C h r i s t ( E p h I 9 ) , a n d so t h a t w h i c h is t o be discerned i n C h r i s t ' s

fear construe acts of k n o w l e d g e as l y i n g o u t s i d e the sphere of C h r i s t s

f u l f i l m e n t i n t i m e of t h e eternal resolve of G o d .

presence is ' t h e purpose of h i m w h o accomplishes a l l t h i n g s a c c o r d i n g t o

l o r d s h i p ; a n d i r is precisely i n t o this construal t h a t C h r i s t o l o g y m u s t a t a l l

the counsel of h i s w i l l '

costs n o t betray itself

(Eph

1 11)

Further,

this movement

is t h e

I h e l o r d s h i p of C h r i s t is h i s n o n - c o m p a r a b l e ,

self-

m o v e m e n t of one w h o is reconciler I h e p a r t i c u l a r p a t h of t h i s m o v e m e n t ,

g r o u n d e d a n d a x i o m a t i c sovereignty

t h a t i s , is one a l o n g w h i c h t h e L o r d faces a n d overcomes t h e creature s

h i m s e l f , t h e corollary of h i s l o r d s h i p is t h a t there is no access t o h i m o t h e r

opposition

A s he moves a l o n g t h i s p a t h , he directs h i m s e l f t o t h e e v i l

I n the m a t t e r of t h e k n o w l e d g e of

than t h a t w h i c h he h i m s e l f affords I f there were a n y such access, if p a r a l l e l

r e a l i t y of creaturely defiance a n d r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e h u m a n v o c a t i o n t o l i v e

t o t h e m o v e m e n t of h i s self-presence there were a creaturely

i n t h e presence of G o d - defiance and o p p o s i t i o n w h i c h t r a p t h e creature i n

w h i c h c o u l d a n t i c i p a t e , evoke or even c o m p e l C h r i s t s appearance, t h e n

ignorance a n d i d o l a t r y

I h e presence o f Jesus C h r i s t as reconciler

C h r i s t w o u l d n o longer be L o r d , for he is n o t L o r d i f he is n o t the a g e n t of

abolishes

hostility; i t outbids

this

human

i t b y i t s sheer

simply radiance,

s c a t t e r i n g t h e darkness a n d r e s t o r i n g creatures r o f e l l o w s h i p , and so t o

his o w n b e c o m i n g k n o w n

I n s u m : the m o v e m e n t o f the b e i n g o f Jesus C h r i s t is presence, radiance, r e c o n c i l i n g self-bestowal.

I n this m o v e m e n t

is t h e Sache of C h r i s t o l o g y .

I h i s is s i m p l y t h e extension o f t h e p r i n c i p l e

solus Christus t o the ordo cognoscendi I n f o r m a l t e r m s , w h a t is spoken of here is revelation

knowledge

movement

B u t t o speak of revelation is t o i n d i c a t e h o w k n o w l e d g e of

Jesus C h r i s t is rooted i n t h e teleology of his b e i n g , his t u r n i n g t o us i n w h i c h he is k n o w n , n o t because w e can d r a w h i m i n t o o u r sphere b u t

of C h r i s t a n d

because he h i m s e l f reaches o u t , a n t i c i p a t i n g us b y b e i n g already o n t h e w a y

task

is t o be

t o us as t h e risen one i n t h e S p i r i t ' s p o w e r O n l y he can d o t h i s ; only h e has

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

a u t h o r i t y a n d competence t o establish k n o w l e d g e of h i m s e l f ; and o n l y he

What

are t h e consequences of t h i s for t h e k n o w l e d g e

therefore

f o r t h e manner

i n which the Christological

by virtue of the moiwuent of his being Knowledge

of Jesus C h r i s t

has

and not otherwise

flows f r o m t h e m o v e m e n t

of his self-

presentation w h i c h w e have j u s t described i n s u m m a r y f o r m W h a t is t h e f u n d a m e n t a l g r o u n d o f t h e k n o w l e d g e of Jesus C h r i s t ? I h e j u d g m e n t of some d o m i n a n r strands of m o d e r n t h e o l o g y has been t h a t k n o w l e d g e of Jesus C h r i s t is subject t o a d y n a m i c w h i c h is i m m a n e n t t o t h e h u m a n knowet,

and which

can

be

p r i n c i p l e s of h u m a n c o g n i t i o n by

an epistemology,

formulated

i n general,

content-neuttal

of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n

or a p h e n o m e n o l o g y

k n o w i n g a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g as modes of b e i n g

of human

i n the world.

I f such a

procedure is C h r i s t o l o g i c a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c , i t is because i t entails a basic

and the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o act w i t h

such

authority and

R e v e l a t i o n is a t e r m for Jesus C h r i s t s m e r c i f u l outreach

i n w h i c h he creates f e l l o w s h i p w i t h lost sinners, a n d revealed' k n o w l e d g e is t h a t k n o w l e d g e w h i c h occurs i n t h e course o f t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of sinners t o w h o m i t has been g i v e n t o perceive t h e g l o r i o u s

self-movement

of t h e reconciler As a result of this free, gracious m o v e m e n t o f his, Jesus C h r i s t is known

C h r i s t o l o g y is therefore t o be preceded

a hermeneurics

t h e mercy

competence. M o r e o v e r , t o speak of r e v e l a t i o n is at the same t i m e t o speak

He

bestows

himself,

experiential)

between

himself

by

us

bridging

the

gulf

a n d us, a n d thereby

(historical,

moral,

g r a n t i n g a specific

p e r m i s s i o n a n d e s t a b l i s h i n g a specific p r o h i b i t i o n

of t h e character of t h e object of C h r i s t o l o g y : i t cannot be

I h e p e r m i s s i o n is p e r m i s s i o n t o k n o w h i m K n o w l e d g e of Jesus C h r i s t

s h o w n t o be f u l l y coherent w i t h t h e church's confession t h a t Jesus C h r i s t is

is possible a n d l e g i t i m a t e because o f his antecedent, g t a t u i t o u s and u t t e r l y

compromise

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

real self-presence S e t t i n g h i m s e l f f o r t h , e x p o u n d i n g h i m s e l f as the present

there w i l l become v i s i b l e t h e fact t h a t t h i s strategy regards t h e k n o w i n g or

one w h o encloses and orders a l l t h i n g s , Jesus C h r i s t makes h i m s e l f k n o w n ,

i n t e r p r e t i n g h u m a n subject as t h e fundamentum inconcussum veritatis

a n d thereby excludes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l e g i t i m a t e , w e l l - f o u n d e d ignorance

Lord

coheres i l l w i t h

i n t e l l e c t u a l deference t o t h e l o r d l y m o v e m e n t

This

of Jesus

of h i m s e l f

H e is, a n d therefore he is present, a n d therefore he is k n o w n

2,4

WEBSTER



25

I h e r e is a negative inference t o be d r a w n here, n a m e l y char this g i v e n

and therefore k n o w l e d g e of h i m cannot be d e r i v e d f r o m a n y t h i n g o t h e r

presence of C h r i s t excludes ways of a p p r o a c h i n g the task of C b r i s r o l o g y i n

t h a n his o w n b e i n g a n d action. B u t t h i s does n o t d i s q u a l i f y k n o w l e d g e of

w h i c h there l u r k s the a s s u m p t i o n that Jesus C h r i s t is n o t , or m a y n o t , or

h i m as a u t h e n t i c h u m a n k n o w l e d g e ; i t s i m p l y specifies i t as confession - as

cannot be present t o us Jesus Christ's givenness sits i l l w i t h , for e x a m p l e ,

an act of h e a r i n g , obedience a n d allegiance i n w h i c h t h e c h u r c h

those C h r i s t o l o g i e s

before the presence of the one b y w h o m i t has been f o u n d , a n d gives v o i c e

w h i c h make

historical scepticism

or p r o b a b i l i s t i c

reasoning the first p t i n c i p l e of t h e k n o w l e d g e of C h r i s t . M o r e seriously, i t

bows

to his sheer prevenience

cannot be made t o cohere w i t h ascetical o r negative C h r i s t o l o g i e s w h i c h so

To d r a w rhe threads together: i n t h e sphere o f reality whose resplendent

fear m a k i n g Jesus C h r i s t i n t o a possessed object t h a t he is pushed i n t o

centre is Jesus C h r i s t h i m s e l f , G o d rhe Father has w i l l e d a k n o w l e d g e of

extreme

transcendence

Scruples a l o n g

these lines

m a y be m o t i v a t e d

the Son of G o d w h i c h G o d t h e H o l y S p i r i t has effected

The God o f out

e t h i c a l l y (a desire t o counter rdeological abuse of a t h e o l o g y of Christ's

L o r d Jesus, t h e Father of g l o r y , has g i v e n t o his c h u r c h a s p i r i t of w i s d o m

presence)

from

a n d of revelation i n t h e k n o w l e d g e o f h i m (cf. E p h 1 1 7 ) T h i s p e r m i s s i o n

B u t t h e diagnosis is incorrect, i n t h a t i t assumes t h a t t h e

catries w i t h i t a p r o h i b i t i o n : t h a t Jesus Christ is know?/ by virtue of the

or

metaphysically

ontotheology)

C h r i s t i a n confession

(a

desire

to

extract

Christology

of Christus praesens is an instance of a degenerate

i d e o l o g y o r o n t o l o g y ; a n d t h e cute - a n assertion

of t h e elusiveness of

C h r i s t as t h e first p r i n c i p l e of C h r i s t o l o g y - k i l l s t h e p a t i e n t

movement of his being entails and not otherwise T h e fact t h a t i n the S p i t i t s p o w e r Jesus C h r i s t gives h i m s e l f t o be k n o w n i n this w a y , creating t h i s very specific r e a l i t y a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g capacity, entails a n exclusiveness

Jesus C h r i s t can be k n o w n , a n d k n o w n by us T h e k n o w l e d g e w h i c h is

of access. I h e r u l e b y w h i c h C h r i s t o l o g y m u s t be governed is: he is L o r d i n

human

the k n o w l e d g e of his l o r d s h i p , a n d can therefore be k n o w n only as he

k n o w i n g W h a t h i s risen presence creates are f o r m s of t h o u g h t a n d speech

moves t o w a r d s us O n l y as t h e one he is a n d i n t h e m o v e m e n t of his b e i n g

w h i c h are a h u m a n c o u n t e r p a r t t o his self-declaration

can he be k n o w n Because he is w h o he is, a n d because he acts as he acts i n

a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e self-presence of Jesus C h r i s t

is a g e n u i n e

The g i f r of his

presence is thus n o t s i m p l y a n u t t e r l y objective a n d self-enclosed perfectum,

his majestic self-presentation, he cannot be ' s o u g h t

b u t a m a t t e r for h u m a n k n o w i n g a n d language

apptoached

Alongside and i n strict

as i f he were an elusive

figure,

I h a t i s , he cannot be

absent f r o m us, locked i n

s u b o r d i n a t i o n t o r e v e l a t i o n ' there is revealedness , t h e h u m a n f r u i t o f t h e

transcendence or b u r i e d i n t h e past, a n d only t o be discovered t h r o u g h t h e

S p i r i t s regeneration of the w o r k o f creaturely k n o w i n g i n w h i c h C h r i s t is

exercise of h u m a n i n g e n u i t y C h r i s t o l o g y cannot creep u p o n h i m a n d

n o t o n l y g l i m p s e d f r o m afar b u t g e n u i n e l y k n o w n b y those w h o m he

carch h i m unawares

i l l u m i n a t e s w i t h his presence Because t h i s creaturely w o r k can at no p o i n t

i n d e f i n i t e o r fogged over b y the d i s t o r t i o n s a n d incapacities of his h u m a n

be considered i n abstraction f r o m the w o r k of t h e S p i r i t , i t has a p a r t i c u l a r

witnesses t h a t t h e o l o g y m u s t r u n its o w n independent checks i n order t o

N o r is i t at l i b e r t y t o decide t h a t his self-presence is so

character; b o t h the i d e n t i t y of t h e k n o w e r a n d t h e a c t i v i t i e s of k n o w i n g are

reassure itself t h a t he really is able t o present h i m s e l f A l l such strategies,

t r a n s f o r m e d as they are subject t o t h e S p i r i t ' s r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e regenerative

whether i n b i b l i c a l scholarship or p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d d o g m a t i c

w o r k of C h r i s t

are i n t h é e n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y sophisticated f o r m s of i n f i d e l i t y

T h i s k n o w i n g a n d i t s h u m a n subjects are i n C h r i s t , a n d

theology, Their

T h e i r newness is especially v i s i b l e i n t h a t

a s s u m p t i o n is that he is n o t present unless d e m o n s t r a b l y present - presenr,

the k n o w l e d g e of C h r i s t w h i c h t h e S p i r i t realizes is n o t an act ok positing

rhat is, t o u n d i s t u r b e d a n d unconverred reason B u t t o such d e m o n s t r a t i o n

b u t of confession There is c e r t a i n l y a g e n u i n e l y h u m a n k n o w i n g w h i c h can

he w i l l n o t y i e l d t h e m y s t e r y of his person

therefore they are a new creation

p r o p e r l y be characterized as a k n o w i n g by us B u t b y us' does n o t e n t a i l ' p u t f o r w a r d b y us : w e are n o t a u t h o r i z e d o r c o m p e t e n t t o m a k e any such proposal, once again because t h a t w h i c h is t h e m a t t e r of our k n o w i n g is Jesus Christ's r e a l i t y as l o r d , t h e one whose majesty a n d spontaneous freedom w h o l l y precede us The d e i t y w h i c h is his a n d i n w h i c h he presents h i m s e l f t o us is antecedent (otherwise i t w o u l d n o t be d e i t y ) A s such, i t cannot

be ascribed

t o h i m , perhaps

as rhe f r u i t

of some process of

II G o d sets a m o n g m e n a fact w h i c h speaks for itself

i

W e m a y sum u p w h a t

has been i n d i c a t e d so far b y saying that as there is a sphere of reality over w h i c h Jesus C h r i s t presides as the e n t h r o n e d L o r d w h o is before all t h i n g s

t h e o l o g i c a l d e d u c t i o n ; nor can i t be an e v a l u a t i o n of h i m reached as t h e t e r m i n u s of a consideration of his m o r a l or e x p e r i e n t i a l i m p a c t . H e is L o r d ,

K Barth Chunk Dogmatics IV/2 (Edinburgh: I & T Clark 1961)

221

z6


and i n w h o m all things

h o l d together,

k n o w l e d g e of h i m

WEBSTER

so there

is also a sphere of

H e establishes t h a t sphere i n the act

of his self-

bestowal; his r e c o n c i l i n g presence sets aside t h e e s t r a n g e m e n t a n d h o s t i l i t y of m i n d of c o r r u p t creatures, a n d b r i n g s i n t o existence a place i n w h i c h he makes h i m s e l f k n o w n T h e k n o w l e d g e w h i c h he creates is l e g i t i m a t e ; i t is n o t w h o l l y i m p e r i l l e d b y t h e v a c i l l a t i o n a n d p r i d e of a l l h u m a n projects, b u t c a l m l y , soberly a n d l a w f u l l y c o n s t i t u t e d as t r u e , reliable k n o w l e d g e of Christ

Its legitimacy, t r u t h and r e l i a b i l i t y do not derive f r o m its h u m a n

subjects (whether i n t h e f o r m of e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l

sophistication, critical

awareness, h i s t o r i c a l l e a r n i n g or e x p e r i e n t i a l finesse), b u t solely f r o m the t u r n i n g o f Jesus C h r i s t

I h a t m o v e m e n t of his b e i n g is always gracious; i t


27

e n t i t y b u t of a h i s t o r y of w i l l e d d i v i n e a c t i v i t y : o n l y i n this sense is C h r i s t o l o g y positive. M o r e o v e r , t h i s givenness determines stientia w h i c h is a p p r o p r i a t e to itself: the operations

of

the m o d e

of

Christological

science are at every p o i n t d e t e r m i n e d by the l o r d l y m o v e m e n t of C h r i s t , and C h r i s t o l o g y w i l l always i n some way s t r u g g l e against t h e confines of e x i s t i n g conceptions of science. C h r i s t o l o g y is a special science of a special object

However,

the

designation

'positive

science

can

s t i l l serve

to

i n d i c a t e h o w i n the c i r c l e o f k n o w l e d g e established by r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a n d revelation, questions

of the existence and a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i t s Sache have

already received an answer i n the c h u r c h s confession of t h e m y s t e r y of C h r i s t s presence

cannot be arrested, or considered a m o v e m e n t w h i c h is c o m p l e t e a n d can be

C h r i s t o l o g y is a joyful and reverent science. Such terms are not m e r e l y

set b e h i n d us. A s a consequence, there is always a measure of h u m a n

accidental descriptions of the subjective states o f its p r a c t i t i o n e r s ; r a t h e r ,

insecurity i n this knowledge

they i d e n t i f y S p i r i t - g e n e r a t e d dispositions w h i c h are p r o p e r l y

B u t w h a t is h u m a n l y f r a g i l e is d i v i n e l y

secure, a u t h o r i t a t i v e and l a w f u l , because o f t h e s e l f - g i v i n g of Jesus C h r i s t I n t h a t m o v e m e n t of his, h e j s s u p r e m e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o h u m a n H^morarje^

c o n f o r m i t y t o i t s g i v e n m a t t e r J o y a n d reverence are n o t s i m p l y w a y s of

u n b e l i e f a n d a n x i e t y ; he does n o t temam_at„ajdistance

t a l k i n g of t h e atmosphere of p i e t y i n w h i c h C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t is

he l i m p l y comes a n d spe~akT(ciTiit is t h e unshakeable"'blisis~oTTcnowledge (Mt

28 20)

28

orJceep,.sileace, b u t

declaring the promise w h i c h

18),

o f h i m s e l f : l a m . w k h j ^ o u always_.

Before p r o c e e d i n g t o discuss the character o f t h e sphere o f the

fitting

objective',

t h a t is,

undertaken

a n d necessary i f the w o r k of theological reason is to act i n

T h e y d e t e r m i n e the operations of theology i n a direct w a y ,

s h a p i n g its procedures b y e n a b l i n g i t t o construe its object a p p r o p r i a t e l y , t o adopt a proper p o s t u r e before t h a t object, t o pursue c e r t a i n modes of

k n o w l e d g e of C h r i s t - the sphere of the c h u r c h a n d , m o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y , of

a c t i v i t y a n d t o refrain f r o m others, t o a r t i c u l a t e goals, a n d to

the

c r i t e r i a by w h i c h j u d g m e n t s of adequacy can be made

church s hearing

of H o l y S c r i p t u r e

-

w e pause t o

consider

the

consequences of t h e c o g n i t i v e g r o u n d of C h r i s t o l o g y for t h e u n d e t s t a n d i n g

establish

C h r i s t o l o g y is a joyful science because t h o u g h t and speech about Jesus C h r i s t really are made possible by h i s presence F i n d i n g i t s e l f i n the sphere

of the C h r i s t o l o g i c a l task as p o s i t i v e science

of k n o w l e d g e w h i c h he b r i n g s i n t o b e i n g and m a i n t a i n s , C h r i s t o l o g y is n o t

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 C h r i s t o l o g y is a p o s i t i v e science, i n t h a t i t is t h e r e p e t i t i o n , e l u c i d a t i o n and e x p l i c a t i o n i n h u m a n w o r d s a n d concepts of t h e a x i o m a t i c r e a l i t y of Jesus Christ

Because o f t h i s , C h r i s t o l o g y m a y n o t proceed as an a-priori i n q u i r y

i n t o the creaturely c o n d i t i o n s for k n o w l e d g e of Jesus C h r i s t : such i n q u i r y cannot b u t subvert C h r i s t o l o g y ' s a t t e n t i o n t o its object b y t r e a t i n g i t as a possible state of affairs, so h o l d i n g at bay its l o r d l y a c t u a l i t y Rather, as a p o s i t i v e science the task o f C h r i s t o l o g y is an a-posteriori d e p i c t i o n o f t h a t w h i c h has been g i v e n

Certainly b o t h terms, 'positive

stretched w h e n d e p l o y e d i n a C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t

and

science, are

T h i s positum has its

o w n d e t e r m i n a t e character as the presence a n d a c t i o n of Jesus C h r i s t i n w h i c h by the power of the H o l y S p i r i t he sheds abroad t h e k n o w l e d g e of his r e c o n c i l i n g person a n d w o r k H i s 'givenness' is n o t t h a t of a w o r l d l y

harassed by anxious

scruple.

I t is n o t , for example,

overwhelmed

by

concerns t h a t t a l k of presence can slide i n t o a l l manner of i d o l a t r y , or t h a t m a y be t i e d t o a leaden metaphysics of substance, or t h a t i t requires s o m e f o u n d a t i o n other rhat t h a t of the sheer self-presentation of C h r i s t as L o r d C h r i s t o l o g y can be j o y f u l i n the face of these anxieties, n o t because i t fails t o register

t h a t thete are real threats t o its p u r i t y , s t i l l less because i t

considers itself a m p l y e q u i p p e d

t o overcome

them

Christology s

joy

derives instead f r o m the fact t h a t i t is u n d e r t a k e n i n the sphere of C h r i s t ' s presence and p r o m i s e O n l y i n a b s t r a c t i o n f r o m t h a t sphere does C h r i s t i a n t h o u g h t a n d speech seem a joyless task, c o n d e m n e d to an u n e n d i n g search for reassurances w h i c h can never be h a d i n t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e y are sought

Y e t t h e j o y w h i c h is to characterize p o s i t i v e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l science

is reverent j o y : n o t brash confidence

b u t the astonished

gratitude of

the

reconciled at the goodness o f the one i n t o whose presence t h e y have been called very

Joy m a y be displaced not o n l y b y a n x i e t y or i r o n y , b u t also b y a human

and

u n g o d l y assertion

(orthodox

or u n o r t h o d o x )

which


28

WEBSTER

replaces t h e s p i r i t u a l positum of t h e presence of C h r i s t

A Christology i n


29

n o t e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l t h e o r y b u t a n o n t o l o g i c a l m a t t e r : Jesus C h r i s t i s t h e

w h i c h t h i s is t h e case w i l l betray lack of reverence, because i t w i l l be

e m b o d i m e n t o f the d i v i n e o m n i p o t e n c e

f o r g e t f u l of t h e m o v e m e n r of m e r c y w h i c h is i t s f o u n d i n g c o n d i t i o n a n d

i n h i m s e l f , t h e Son w h o proceeds f r o m rhe Father; a n d t h e r e is, therefore,

constant

accompaniment

I f C h r i s t o l o g y is t o g u a r d itself at t h i s p o i n t ,

H e has n o g r o u n d o f reality except

no g r o u n d o f rhe knowdedge of h i m except his o w n spontaneous a n d

howevet, i t w i l l n o t be by a d o p t i n g m o r e strategies o f self-inspection, m o r e

effective

mechanisms t o regulate

t h i n k i n g m u s t be the l a w o f t h e o b j e c t T h e o b j e c t is l a w i n that i t is a

trust

What

is r e q u i r e d is a c e r t a i n s p i r i t u a l

v i g i l a n c e , t h a t fear of t h e L o r d w h i c h fastens o n t h e v e r y specific c a l l i n g a n d hope g i v e n t o t h e o l o g y b y t h e presence of C h r i s t , a n d w h i c h looks t o him

n o t o n l y t o j u d g e b u t also t o sanctify a n d perfect i t s w o r k

In

the l i g h t

of this

characterization

of the positive

science

C h r i s t o l o g y , w h a t is t o be said of t h e task of formal prolegomena? positive

Christology

requires

no p r o l e g o m e n a !

demonstration

of

First: of i t s

v i a b i l i t y , because w h a t such a w o r k o f d e m o n s t r a t i o n seeks t o achieve is alteady a c c o m p l i s h e d

by i t s o b j e c t , Jesus C h r i s t h i m s e l f i n h i s l o t d l y

self-demonstration

self-exposition

i n the H o l y

Spirit

P u t f o r m a l l y : the l a w of

f o r m e d a n d s e l f - c o m m u n i c a t i v e r e a l i t y , an a u t h o r i t a t i v e presence w h i c h c o m m a n d s , empowers a n d directs our acts o f r e c o g n i t i o n demonstration

subjects

that

object

Prolegomenal

t o an a l i e n l a w ( e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l ,

p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l , metaphysical). I n so d o i n g , i t has t o evade the fact t h a t the object o f C h r i s t o l o g y is, i n d e e d , in se f o r m e d ,

self-communicative,

a u t h o r i t a t i v e a n d present, and has t o operate as i f f o r m , c o m m u n i c a t i o n , authority

a n d ptesence

were

bestowed

f u n d a m e n t a l t h a n Jesus C h r i s t h i m s e l f

on

h i m by a

tealiry

more

I h i s a well-ordered Christology

w i i l not allow I n t h i s l i g h t , C h r i s t o l o g i c a l p r o l e g o m e n a has a m o r e modest, didactic

I n m o r e d e t a i l : Jesus C h r i s t is c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y L o r d a n d rherefore L o r d i n t h e k n o w l e d g e of his l o r d s h i p Because o f t h i s , C h r i s t o l o g y proceeds

task

i l l e g i t i m a t e l y i f i t a t t e m p t s t o deduce Jesus C h r i s t as a c o n c l u s i o n f r o m

a n d speech, a n d t o i n d i c a t e s o m e t h i n g of rhe r e q u i r e m e n t s under w h i c h

some premiss

C h r i s t o l o g y stands b y v i r t u e of i t s subject m a t t e r

other

than

his o w n l u m i n o u s r e a l i t y , f r o m

something

I t s a i m is t o o u t l i n e basic characteristics of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t I n an i m p o r t a n t sense, i t

Jesus

is retrospective, i n that i t seeks t o d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o that w h i c h is already

C h r i s t is o n l y a n d always t h e b e g i n n i n g , n o t the e n d , of a process of

established, n a m e l y C h r i s t i n his s e l f - d e m o n s t r a t i o n , and t o trace w h a t t h a t

supposedly a n t e r i o t t o h i m , a n d more f i t m l y established o r evident

t h o u g h t ; his r e a l i t y is a n a l y t i c , n o t s y n t h e t i c ; basic, a n d never d e r i v a t i v e

s e l f - d e m o n s t r a t i o n entails for the i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y o f C h r i s t o l o g y

Ihought

limited

a n d speech about

h i m m a y n o t be set w i t h i n

some

mote

comprehensive context or considered f r o m some h i g h e r v a n t a g e - p o i n t - a

concern

is w i t h

t h e charactet

a n d modes

o f operation

C h r i s t o l o g y i n the face of t h e g i v e n r e a l i t y under whose

Its of

tutelage i t

t h e o r y of h i s t o r y or r e l i g i o n , some sort of p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e i s m , a n ethics of

stands. I t is a l o w - l e v e l u n d e r r a k i n g , p r e s e n t i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y map o f t h e

justice

H e is n o r a conclusion t o be d r a w n f r o m some other r e a l i t y ; w e

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l terrain a n d o f f e r i n g guidance o n h o w best t o move t h r o u g h

cannot

look

behind

h i m t o discover

something

more

fundamental

it

I t orients C h r i s r o l o g y t o t h e natute of i t s o b j e c t (Jesus C h r i s t ' s majestic

C h r i s t o l o g y , therefore, does n o t labour t o w a r d s h i m , b u t moves easily a n d

self-communication);

freely i n t h e l i g h t of t h e fact t h a t he has already p o s i t e d h i m s e l f a n d

f e l l o w s h i p of the saints;

i t indicates

t h e sphere

of his ptesence

i n the

a n d i t identifies t h e i n s t r u m e n t o f his self-

c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( H o l y Scripture) a n d speaks of t h e manner i n w h i c h t h a t

established t h e sphere i n w h i c h he can be k n o w n A c c o r d i n g l y , p r o l e g o m e n a conceived as i n d e p e n d e n t demonstratio of t h e

constitutes t h e n o r m s of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t a n d speech. I n this w a y i t

r e a l i t y of Jesus C h r i s t is n o r a defence of h i m b u t a n a r r o w i n g o f the range

serves o r d e r l y i n s t r u c t i o n . B e y o n d t h i s - i n p r e f a c i n g C h r i s t o l o g y by s o m e

of his effectiveness, even, perhaps, a covert attack o n his sovereignty

pre-theological

To

discussion

of

methods,

norms

defend his majestic self-presence b y some p r o l e g o m e n a l strategies is t o risk

a r t i c u l a t i n g a better r a t i o n a l e f o r confession

s t a n d i n g against t h e free c l a r i t y , power a n d t r u t h of h i s g i v i n g of h i m s e l f ,

to the confession itself - i t w i l l be reluctant t o g o

by a c t i n g as i f we h a d competence t o tender our assistance t o c o m p l e t e his self-manifestation

a n d render i t persuasive

W h y press t h i s p o i n t ? T h e

g r o u n d for t h i s refusal of p r o l e g o m e n a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n is n o t a p r i n c i p l e d rejection of apologetics ot f o u n d a t i o n s : t h e o l o g y is u n l i k e l y t o be served b y over-interest

i n such issues o f general

episremology

What

calls i n t o

q u e s t i o n i n d e p e n d e n t d e m o n s t r a t i o n of p o s i t i v e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l science is

and

sources,

or

in

o f C h r i s t t h a n that k n o w n


30

WEBSTER

III


3i

The c h u r c h l y p o s i t i v i t y of C h r i s t o l o g y does n o t entail a c l a i m that Jesus

Christology is a positive science i n the church, the fellowship of the saints which knows Jesus Christ C h r i s t o l o g y is c h u r c h science, t h e o r d e r l y e x p l i c a t i o n of t h e k n o w l e d g e of

C h r i s t attains t o wholeness of b e i n g i n the sphere of the c h u r c h , or t h a t t h e church

bodies

Christologically inadequacy

forth

or

completes

a n d ecclesioiogically

him

Such

a

inadequate

claim

Its

is

both

Christological

is t h a t o n l y w i t h d i f f i c u l t y can i t cohere w i t h a sense t h a t

Jesus C h r i s t w h i c h is already present i n t h e c h u r c h because Jesus C h r i s t is

Jesus C h r i s t is a se, and t h a t he is an o n t o l o g i c a l perfectum I t construes his

present t o t h e church.

I t has, therefore, a t w o f o l d ' p o s i t i v i t y ' I t is a

g i v i n g o f h i m s e l f t o t h e c h u r c h as i n some w a y h i s g e n e r a t i n g of h i m s e l f

p o s i t i v e science because o f i t s object, Jesus C h r i s t , w h o presents h i m s e l f t o

H i s sufficiency, his majestic repose at t h e Father s r i g h t h a n d i n w h i c h h e is

the c h u r c h i n l o r d l y freedom

B u t i t is also a p o s i t i v e science because, as

head over a l l t h i n g s , is n o t easily coordinared w i t h any a f f i r m a t i o n o f the

Jesus C h r i s t presents h i m s e l f b y t h e power of t h e H o l y S p i r i t , he posits a

coinherence of C h r i s t a n d t h e c h u r c h C e r t a i n l y he is head over a l l t h i n g s

sphere i n w h i c h he can be and is k n o w n

A s he presents h i m s e l f , he

for t h e church ( E p h I 22); certainly t h e c h u r c h is his b o d y and '61110655

establishes a d o m a i n a n d gathers a c o m m u n i t y w h i c h he authorizes and

(Eph

empowers for k n o w l e d g e of h i m s e l f

I h e o l o g y is t h e p o s i t i v e science of

power as t h e one w h o ' f i l l s a l l i n a l l ' , w h o alone is p r o p e r l y a n d i n h i m s e l f

These t w o aspects of t h e p o s i t i v i t y of C h r i s t o l o g y - t h a t w h i c h derives

as b o d y i n g f o r t h C h r i s t is t h a t its expansiveness misconsttues the character

f r o m its object, and t h a t w h i c h derives f r o m i t s social locale - exist i n s t r i c t

of t h e c h u r c h as treatma verbi divini, f a i l i n g t o catch t h e passivity o f t h e

that fellowship

and irreversible sequence

1 23): b u t always a n d o n l y because of his i m m a n e n t a n d sovereign

'fullness

C h r i s t o l o g y is p o s i t i v e c h u r c h science because

F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e ecclesiological inadequacy of t a l k of the c h u r c h

church s existence as elect f e l l o w s h i p , called, j u s t i f i e d a n d made h o l y f o r

and o n l y because i t is p o s i t i v e science of Jesus C h r i s t ; i t s c h u r c h l y

praise,

p o s i t i v i t y is w h o l l y d e r i v a t i v e f r o m t h e p o s i t i v i t y w h i c h i t has b y v i r t u e of

p o s i t i v i t y has t o respect t h e f u n d a m e n t a l o n t o l o g i c a l l a w o f the c h u r c h ,

its object

n a m e l y t h a t as G o d s w o r k m a n s h i p , t h e c h u r c h is w h a t i t is by v i r t u e of

theology

I h i s is so for t w o reasons

( i ) The c h u r c h l y p o s i t i v i t y of

is n o t an instance o f a general

r u l e t h a t scientia is always

confession

and testimony

That

is, a n y account

the immeasurable greatness of his power i n us w h o believe

of c h u r c h l y

(Eph

1.19)

embedded w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r m s o f c o m m o n l i f e A p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s rule

W i t h t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , w e t u r n t o explicate h o w i t is t h a t C h r i s t o l o g y is

has been standard i n c r i t i c i s m of m o d e r n ideals of universal reason a n d

c h u r c h science

their p u r p o r t e d elision of t h e local or t r a d i t i o n a l character o f r a t i o n a l

F i r s t , t h e c r u n c h of Jesus C h r i s t is t h e f e l l o w s h i p of t h e saints, t h e h o l y

practices; as such, i t has o f t e n f o u n d a w e l c o m e f r o m those w h o have

church

sought t o recover the c h u r c h l y character of t h e o l o g i c a l w o r k O n e of the

p r o p e r t y w h i c h t h e c h u r c h has i n a n d of itself, b u t a r e l a t i o n i n t o w h i c h i t

weaknesses i n t o w h i c h these theologies m a y be betrayed, however, is t h a t

has been a d o p t e d , and a s u m m o n s w h i c h i t is called t o obey

of s l i p p i n g i n t o an i m m a n e n t i s t ecciesiology i n w h i c h c h u r c h l y p o s i t i v i t y

holiness is a l i e n : i t is h o l y , n o t because o f any inherent w o r t h o t d i g n i t y , or

far o u t w e i g h s C h r i s t o l o g i c a l p o s i t i v i t y A p p e a l i n g t o general p r i n c i p l e s of

on

sociality, t h e accounts o f c h u r c h l y existence w h i c h are p r o d u c e d are o f t e n

a b s o l u t i o n w h i c h i t has received f r o m the w o r k and w o r d of C h r i s t H e

o n l y secondarily t h e o l o g i c a l

F r e q u e n t l y l a c k i n g i n m u c h b y way o f d i r e c t

makes the c h u t c h h o l y , c a l l i n g i t i n t o f e l l o w s h i p w i t h h i m s e l f , cleansing i t

d e p l o y m e n t of language of Jesus C h r i s t s self-presentation, a n d f r e q u e n t l y

f r o m i t s sins b y his death a n d resurrection, a n d t h r o u g h t h e S p i r i t u n i t i n g

I h e c h u r c h s holiness is i t s election b y G o d . H o l i n e s s is n o r a

t h e basis of m o r a l

or r e l i g i o u s performance,

The c h u r c h s

b u t because of t h e

g i v i n g p r o m i n e n c e t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l v i s i b i l i t y of t h e c h u r c h , they construe

i t t o h i m s e l f so t h a t i t becomes t h e g a t h e r i n g o f those w h o are sainrs i n

t h e c h u r c h l y p o s i t i v i t y of t h e o l o g y p r i m a r i l y i n terms of i t s existence

C h r i s t Jesus ( E p h 5 . 2 b - 2 7 > I h e c h u r c h s holiness consists, therefore, i n

w i t h i n t h i s social d o m a i n I h i s is often c o u p l e d w i t h a v i e w of t h e c h u r c h

the fact t h a t i r is set apart by t h e t r i u n e G o d B y the w i l l o f G o d t h e

5

as a stable, consistent set o f ptactices w h i c h i t is the task of t h e o l o g y t o

Father, t h e c h u r c h is d e s t i n e d to live i n holiness - f r o m a l l e t e r n i t y , before

describe. B u t t h e c h u r c h is n o t s i m p l y a v i s i b l e f o r m of c o m m o n l i f e : as the

the f o u n d a t i o n of the w o r l d ,

f e l l o w s h i p of t h e saints i t is i n a very i m p o r t a n t sense i n v i s i b l e , t h a t is,

blameless' ( E p h 1 4 ) I h e Farher s w i l l is acted o u t i n t h e saving m i s s i o n

v i s i b l e a n d k n o w a b l e o n l y b y v i r t u e of t h e act of Christ's

of

eschatological

G o d t h e Son, i n w h o m

t h e church is chosen t o be the holy

chutch

has

holy and

redemption' and

self-presence i n t h e S p i r i t . O n l y as such is i t a positum, a n d o n l y as t h e

'forgiveness

science of such a c o m m u n i t y is C h r i s t o l o g y a positive c h u r c h l y science (2)

a c t i o n of G o d t h e H o l y S p i r i t , whose w o r k i t is t o bestow G o d ' s l i f e u p o n

( E p h I 7 ) A n d t h e c h u r c h is renewed i n holiness b y t h e

3


2

WEBSIER

the saints w h o are also f a i r h f u l i n C h r i s t Jesus ( E p h

I i ) H o l i n e s s is t h u s


v i c t o r y includes his v i c t o r y i n the sphere of k n o w l e d g e

33 I n h i m , t h e r e is

the g i f t of the H o l y T r i n i t y . I t is precisely t h i s that p r o h i b i t s t h e o l o g y

g i v e n t o the saints n o t an i n d e f i n i t e w o r d o v e r l a i n w i t h a l l manner

f i o m d e v e l o p i n g an account of t h e church's

accretions, b u t the W o r d of t r u t h

l i f e (and of t h e

churchly

(Eph

I 13).

of

A n d because of h i m , the

character of i t s C h r i s t o l o g y ) p r i m a r i l y i n t e r m s o f its v i s i b l e s o c i a l i t y , f o r

apostle s p r a y e r

the f e l l o w s h i p of the saints is h i s t of a l l v e r t i c a l , a n d o n l y by d e r i v a t i o n

t h a t looks towards a v e r y real p o s s i b i l i t y , one for w h i c h the saints are

h o r i z o n t a l ; the saints koinonia is defined b y its object (Jesus C h r i s t i n his

a u t h o r i z e d a n d e m p o w e r e d , a n d one under whose p r o m i s e the w o r k of

active self-presence) a n d o n l y thereafter by t h e co-presence of social actors

C h r i s t o l o g y is t o be underraken

t h a t y o u may k n o w ( E p h

Il8;cf

Col

1.10)

is a p r a y e r

Second, t h i s f e l l o w s h i p o f the saints is, inter alia, a sphere of k n o w l e d g e The acts of t h e H o l y T r i n i t y i n e l e c t i n g , r e c o n c i l i n g a n d s a n c t i f y i n g the c o m m u n i t y c o n t i n u e m the w o r k o f e n l i g h t e n i n g t h e c h u r c h a b o u t

t r u t h of i t s existence. I h e c h u r c h is therefore a f e l l o w s h i p i n w h i c h i t makes g o o d sense t o pray t h a t t h e G o d o f our L o r d Jesus C h r i s t , the Father of g l o r y , m a y g i v e y o u a s p i r i t of w i s d o m a n d o f r e v e l a t i o n i n

IV

the

the

As

an

exercise of

sanctified

reason

i n the

f e l l o w s h i p of

c h u r c h because he h i m s e l f is present to the c h u r c h

may k n o w

t o the c h u r c h as rhe W o r d of G o d

described

' (Eph

I t is (1)

T h e saints

I 17O

k n o w l e d g e may v a r i o u s l y be

a t r i u n e w o t k . I t is n o t the hesitant or b o l d self-

reflection of t h e c o m m u n i t y , b u t k n o w l e d g e t h a t m u s t be t a l k e d a b o u t b y

saints,

e x p l i c a t i o n of the k n o w l e d g e of C h r i s t w h i c h is already present i n the

k n o w l e d g e o f h i m , h a v i n g t h e eyes of y o u r hearts e n l i g h t e n e d , t h a t y o u .

the

C h r i s t o l o g y assists i n t h e S p i r i t s w o r k of e d i f y i n g the c h u r c h by o r d e r l y Jesus C h r i s t is presenr

A s the eternal d i v i n e W o r d he is i n

h i m s e l f e l o q u e n t , a n d he n o w addresses h i m s e l f to the c h u r c h , s e t t i n g h i m s e l f i n the m i d s t of t h e f e l l o w s h i p of the saints clothed w i t h his g o s p e l

speaking of rhe G o d of our L o r d Jesus C h r i s t , t h e Father of g l o r y a n d t h e

The i n s t r u m e n t s of his self-presentation as W o r d are H o l y Scripture and

Spirir

the sacraments

w h o bestows u n d e r s t a n d i n g

Such k n o w l e d g e

is, therefore,

(2)

I h r o u g h these creaturely auxiliaries he bears witness to

k n o w l e d g e b y g i f t I t is S p i r i t - d e r i v e d w i s d o m , the f r u i t of revelation a n d

h i m s e l f and so edifies the c o m m u n i t y

e n l i g h t e n m e n t i n w h i c h h u m a n f o l l y , ignorance a n d darkness are set aside

has a p a r r i c u l a r r e l a t i o n t o the canon of S c r i p t u r e , because t h r o u g h H o l y -

i n order t h a t t h e c h u r c h m a y k n o w

A n d i t is (3) k n o w l e d g e t h a t has a

g l o r i o u s inheritance i n the saints, a n d his p o w e r i n us w h o believe' ( E p h knowledge,

but

the

cognitive

m o u l d i n g the saints' t h o u g h t and speech i n t o c o n f o r m i t y w i t h h i m s e l f by

the riches o f his

r e p r o v i n g i n v e n t i o n a n d arbitrariness, and e n a b l i n g t r u t h f u l a r t i c u l a t i o n of

t h e i m m e a s u r a b l e greatness of

I l 8 f ) I t is n o t e x p l o r a t o r y or a r b i t r a r y repetition

of

the

divine work which

engenders a n d u p h o l d s the c h u r c h I n a c u l t u r e for w h i c h h i s t o r i c a l process is a x i o m a t i c , the i m m e d i a c y of the way i n w h i c h Ephesians describes the c h u r c h as a sphere of k n o w l e d g e is s t a r t l i n g . A t e we c o m m i t t e d t h e t e b y t o d e s c r i b i n g t h e saints

k n o w l e d g e of C h r i s t as somehow 'pure -

non-

c o n r i n g e n t , u n s u l l i e d by t i m e a n d the processes of l e a r n i n g , segregated f r o m other spheres a n d acts o f k n o w i n g , s i m p l y given? I h e c o m m i t m e n t of a g o o d deal of h i s t o r i c a l t h e o l o g y t o d e n y t h a t t h e c h u r c h s k n o w l e d g e of Christ

is u n c o n t a m i n a t e d

has

c e r t a i n l y s o m e t i m e s been a

wholesome

a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t creaturely k n o w l e d g e of C h r i s t is just t h a t - maturely, a n d therefore n o t i n d e p e n d e n t of creaturely

modes o f reception.

But

more

needs t o be said: the c h u r c h s k n o w l e d g e o f C h r i s t , because i t is the k n o w l e d g e of the holy c h u r c h , of the saints, is a sphere i n w h i c h h u m a n k n o w i n g is i n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

Scripture C h r i s t exercises his governance of t h e c h u r c h s i n t e l l e c t u a l acts,

I t is

definite object, n a m e l y the c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h t h e c h u r c h stands k n o w l e d g e of 'the hope t o w h i c h he has called y o u

I h e theological w o r k of the c h u r c h

I t is n o t s i m p l y c a u g h t u p i n t h e t i d e of

h u m a n process, b u t is also set under the s i g n o f C h r i s t ' s v i c t o r y

That

the gospel

Hence a

final

p r o p o s i t i o n : Ihe

norm of Christology is

Holy

Scripture, the sanctified and inspired instrument through which Christ speaks his gospel to the church and whuh, as the sufficient and clear attestation of the reality of Christ and as the subject of ever-fresh exegesis, is to direct the church's Christological thought and speech As a p o s i t i v e science, C h r i s t o l o g y is a n o r m e d science Because i t does n o t posit itself b u t is posited i n a n d w i t h Jesus C h r i s t ' s

self-presence,

C h r i s t o l o g y derives its l a w ab extra, and is l e g i t i m a t e and e d i f y i n g t o the degree to w h i c h i t does i t s w o r k i n s u b m i s s i o n t o that l a w ratio is subordinate ro lex Christi

Christological

Jesus C h r i s t is h i m s e l f t h e proper a n d

final n o r m of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l science; a l l other n o r m s (creedal,

confessional,

t r a d i t i o n a l ) ate relative t o h i m H i s d i r e c t i o n of the t h o u g h t a n d speech of rhe c h u r c h is, however, exercised t h r o u g h the creaturely a u x i l i a r y of H o l y Scripture To p u t the m a t t e r i n telegraphic f o r m : H o l y Scripture is a

fitting

servanr

of t h e self-presentation o f Jesus C h r i s t because i t is sanctified and i n s p i r e d i n o t d e t to p e r f o r m this service

I h e sanctification of S c r i p t u r e - thac by


34

WEBSTER


35

v i r t u e of w h i c h ic m a y be called h o l y - is t h e w o r k of the S p i r i t w h e r e b y

m a t t e r of Jesus C h r i s t d o n o t r e q u i r e some s u p p l e m e n t s t o Scriprure, for

t h i s c o l l e c t i o n of creaturely texts

the i n s t r u m e n t t h r o u g h w h i c h Jesus C h r i s t announces h i m s e l f is, by v i r t u e

is, w i t h o u t

f o r f e i t of its

creaturely

i n t e g r i t y , so o r d e r e d , shaped a n d preserved t h a t i t becomes capable of the task to w h i c h i t is a p p o i n t e d A s a sanctified r e a l i t y , H o l y S c r i p t u r e is n o t divinized;

rather

its

course

-

from

pre-literary

tradition

through

of

the

Spirit s work,

adequate

for

the

task

that

it

is

appointed

to

undertake Notmed

i n this way by

canon

clarity and

S c r i p t u r e is C h r i s t o l o g y s n o r m B u t respect for t h a t n o r m involves a g o o d

way o f i n d i c a t i n g the w o r k of t h e H o l y S p i r i t w i t h regard to t h e w o r d s of

deal

Scripture

normativeness

than

formal

is

not

a d e f i n i t e act

sufficiency,

m a d e sufficient for its c a l l i n g I n s p i r a t i o n is a m o r e restricted category, a

more

r e q u i r e d to m a k e

i n its

Christology

S c r i p t u r e is i n s p i r e d , n o t s i m p l y because its authors or readers

is

the

a u t h o r s h i p , r e d a c t i o n , r e c e p t i o n a n d c a n o n i z a t i o n - is overseen, and i t is

acknowledgment abstract,

but

a

o f its

concrete

of submission

Holy

authority; Scripture s directive,

namely,

a

are i l l u m i n e d , b u t because - again w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o the i n t e g r i t y of

r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t C h r i s t o l o g i c a l statements b o t h derive f r o m and p r o m o t e

creaturely o c c u r e n c e - the S p i r i t generates a text: n o t s i m p l y a message

attention

w i t h i n a t e x t , or a response f r o m its readers, b u t a

C h r i s t o l o g y takes u p its p o s i t i o n beneath the canon w i l l be shown less

fitting

l i n g u i s t i c f o r m of

to

the

biblical

arrestation

The

seriousness

with

which

the substance of the gospel i n w h i c h C h t i s t addresses h i m s e l f t o t h e saints

i n f o r m a l statements of b i b l i c a l a u t h o r i t y ( a n d s t i l l less b y efforts

The v i a b i l i t y of such an account depends, of course, o n a v a r i e t y of other

establish Scripture's v e r a c i t y t h r o u g h h i s t o r i c a l apologetics) and m o r e by

factors: a n o n - d u a l i s t , n o n - c o m p e t i t i v e u n d e t s t a n d i n g of the r e l a t i o n of

constant

d i v i n e a n d creaturely a c t i v i t y , a carefully c o n s t r u c t e d account of d i v i n e

m e r e l y s r a t u t o t y , s o m e t h i n g t h a t can be accorded r e c o g n i t i o n b u t t h e n l e f t

s e l f - m e d i a t i o n , a d i r e c t a n d operative t h e o l o g y of r e s u r r e c t i o n , ascension

t o one side, t o be i n v o k e d o n l y i n cases of transgression

and S p i r i t H e r e , h o w e v e r , these matters m u s t r e m a i n u n e x p l o r e d , a n d the

because ir is the viva vox Christi, a m o v e m e n t o f r e v e l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g n o t

exegesis

m a i n p o i n t secured, n a m e l y t h a t , so c o n s t r u e d , H o l y S c r i p t u r e is the means

merely

t h r o u g h w h i c h C h r i s t speaks his gospel t o t h e c h u r c h , so a t t e s t i n g his o w n

subordination

This is because the n o r m a t i v i t y of S c r i p t u r e is

acknowledgment

but

a

corresponding

to nor

S c r i p t u t e is n o r m

movement

of

active

H o w is t h a t s u b o r d i n a r i o n d e m o n s t r a t e d i n the w o r k of

r e a l i t y and presence T h i s c o m p l e x t h o u g h u n i f i e d c o l l e c t i o n o f texts serves

Christology?

the presence of Jesus C h r i s t b y i n d i c a t i n g or b e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y t o his

presence o f C h r i s t

address of t h e saints

characteristically i n v o l v e d the f a s h i o n i n g a n d r e f i n e m e n t o f a ( r e l a t i v e l y

T h i s event - Jesus C h r i s t s act of eloquence - t h r o u g h t h i s i n s t r u m e n t the

canon

of Scripture

-

is

the

n o r m for

the

church's

Chrisrology

Christological to

which

science

attempts

Scripture

testifies

to

explicate Ihat

the

explication

selfhas

s m a l l ) n u m b e r of concepts such as substance, person, n a t u r e and t h e i r corollaries,

mostly

borrowed

from

the

vocabulary

of

late

antique

C h n s t o l o g y is a n o r m e d science; because i t is c h u r c h science, k n o w l e d g e i n

metaphysics

accordance w i t h the i n h e r e n t l a w a n d m o v e m e n t of its o b j e c t , i t is n o t an

i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o its confessions, w h i c h act as a f u r t h e r , s u b o r d i n a t e n o r m

arbitrary

for C h r i s r o l o g y The f r u i r f u l n e s s of t h i s conceptual e q u i p m e n t , its capacity

but

a

ruled

exercise

of

the

church s

mind

Ibis

means,

Those concepts have acquired a u t h o r i t y i n t h e c h u r c h

consequently, t h a t C h n s t o l o g y has a d e f i n i t e subject m a t t e t about w h i c h

to act as a

i t is r e q u i t e d ro t h i n k a n d speak

t h a t i t demonstrates deference t o the b i b l i c a l t e s t i m o n y

I h a t subject m a t t e r is n o t s o m e t h i n g

w h i c h the c h u r c h s t h e o l o g y is free to create or m a n i p u l a t e ad pethaps i n response to the d e m a n d s or l i m i t a t i o n s of its c u l t u r e

libitum, Jesus

fitting

by

n o r m , depends u p o n its b e i n g d e p l o y e d i n such a w a y

requires a careful e m p l o y m e n t of abstraction

T h i s deference

A b s t r a c t concepts s u c h as

those created i n the d o g m a t i c t r a d i t i o n of the c h u r c h are n o t i n t e n d e d to

C h r i s t presents h i m s e l f i n t h i s d e f i n i t e f o r m , t h r o u g h the t e s t i m o n y of the

replace or i m p r o v e u p o n w h a t is set o u t i n S c r i p t u r e , b u t s i m p l y to g a t h e r

prophets and apostles; he is r a d i a n t here, i n a w a y t h a t requires C h r i s r o l o g y

together w h a t S c r i p t u r e articulates t o assist i t s orderly e x p l i c a t i o n .

t o discover i n S c r i p t u r e the c l a r i t y t h a t he already has, rather t h a n t o cast

concepts are valuable o n l y ro the e x t e n t to w h i c h they are l i g h t w e i g h t ,

a t o u n d for some o t h e t k i n d of c l a r i t y (such as t h e c l a r i t y of h i s t o r i c a l

informal

a n d transparent

evidences or p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s )

indicate

The c o n c e p t u a t i t y of C h r i s t o l o g y m u s t therefore e m e r g e f r o m and

A n d i n the l i g h t of t h i s v e r y

to the b i b l i c a l witness w h i c h

p r o m o t e a t t e n t i o n to S c r i p t u r e ;

force, C h r i s r o l o g y is subject t o very d e f i n i t e l i m i t s b e y o n d w h i c h i t is

submission t o the canon a n d so assist i n the c h u r c h s h e a r i n g and s p e a k i n g

p r o h i b i t e d to g o

of the gospel of C h r i s t

I o the clarity of the gospel of C h r i s t i n S c r i p t u r e there

its sufficiency: t h e t h o u g h t a n d speech o f t h e c h u r c h i n the

demonstrate

to

d e f i n i t e subject m a t t e r w h i c h presents itself i n H o l y S c r i p t u r e w i t h radiant

corresponds

i t s end is t o

they serve

The

exemplary

3


6

V C h r i s t o l o g y is a special science o f a special o b j e c t

Hegel's worry -

that

such a t h e o l o g y condemns i t s e l f t o become t h e last relic o f p r e - c r i t i c a l r e a l i s m , b u s i l y p o r t r a y i n g a w o r l d of timeless supersensible objects - has by n o w acquired canonical status

Chapter 2

C r i t i c a l t h e o l o g y s o u g h t t o dispose o f

the danger b y r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w t h a t there are any special-status sciences: i f coherent claims t o k n o w l e d g e o f Jesus C h r i s t are t o be advanced, they m u s t be defensible as instances of a m o r e comprehensive deconstiuctive

science M o r e recent

From Titles to Stories: A Narrative Approach to the Dynamic Christologies of the New TestamenP

t h e o l o g y has soughr t o dispose of t h e danger b y a m o r e

extreme measure, n a m e l y a b a n d o n i n g b o t h 'science a n d objects' W h a t is a t t e m p t e d here is certainly closer t o t h e t r a d i t i o n for w h i c h K a n t h a d o n l y c o n t e m p t , a n d over w h i c h H e g e l l i n g e r e d before m a k i n g a final rejection; b u t there are some i m p o r t a n t differences. divine movement

I t places m u c h emphasis o n t h e

or t u r n i n g , a n d so i t s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e f i t between

concepts a n d reality is h i s t o r i c a l , n o t static I t sees t h i s m o v e m e n t as one of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , a h i s t o r y o f repentance, r e b i r t h , j u s t i f i c a t i o n a n d sanctificat i o n , a n d n o t as abstract c o o r d i n a t i o n of m i n d s a n d objects A n d its i d i o m

Richaid A . Burridge

is t h a t of t h e petsonal presence o f Jesus C h r i s t i n the power of t h e S p i r i t a n d i n f u l f i l m e n t of t h e Father's resolve science of t h i s m o v e m e n t

Christological

science is t h e

To trace t h a t m o v e m e n t is n o t t o busy oneself

w i t h a c o m f o r t a b l e science o f b e i n g , b u t t o be b r o u g h t i n t o crisis - n o t t h e p r e t e n t i o u s crisis of dissonance f r o m c u l t u r a l n o r m s , b u t the crisis t h a t derives

from

t h e fact t h a t

t o encounter C h r i s t

in thought

is t o be

encountered b y o n e before whose feet w e f a l l as t h o u g h dead (Rev I 1 7 ) Yet

the one w h o slays also addresses us: Fear n o t ' ; a n d i n t h a t is t h e

p r o m i s e under w h i c h C h r i s t o l o g y m a y stand

I

t is c o m m o n p l a c e

w i t h i n l i t e r a r y rheory r o t a l k of texts as w i n d o w s

and m i r r o r s T o read a text as a w i n d o w is t o l o o k t h r o u g h i t t o t h a t w h i c h lies b e y o n d ' ,

b e h i n d ' or ' o n the other side o f t h e text

With

regard t o the N e w Testament, especially the gospels, t h i s approach uses the t e x t t o g a i n access back b e h i n d the p e r i o d w h e n they were w r i t t e n i n order to reconstruct the h i s t o r i c a l Jesus, or t o test o u t hypotheses about t h e early

Church

communities

I t is a m e t h o d

that

has d o m i n a t e d

tradition-

h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c a l srudy of t h e N e w Testament over t h e last c e n t u r y or mote

F r o m a d o c t r i n a l p o i n t of v i e w , such an approach can also be used to

reconstruct early N e w Testament C h r i s t o l o g i e s l y i n g b e h i n d t h e text, such as early belief i n Jesus as Son of M a n or a p r o p h e t The p r o b l e m is that w e just d o n o t k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t w h a t lies o n the other side of t h e gospels A t least w i t h St P a u l s letters, w e k n o w w h o w r o t e t h e m a n d usually those t o w h o m they were addressed - except, of course, t h a t b o t h a u t h o r s h i p a n d recipients of m a n y epistles are d i s p u t e d a n d the dates of a l l o f t h e m are open t o debate W i t h the gospels, we k n o w

Having first met Colin Gunton at the Society far tht Study of Theology in 1994 > ' gave a paper on the Christology of the gospels, I am glad to offer this paper as a tribute at rlie RIST (Research institute in Systematic Theology) conference dedicated to his memory w i i e l

37

38

BURRIDGE


Prom Titles to Storks

39

even less about the authors, m e t h o d s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d d e l i v e r y , o r i g i n a l

c u l t , o t h e r w i s e k n o w n as the early C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h

audiences and so f o r t h . T h u s , w h i l e w e may t h i n k w e are l o o k i n g through

l a i d o u t i n Bousset s m a g i s t e r i a l t r e a t m e n t , Kyrios Christos

1

Oscar C u l l m a n n stressed t h a t early C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y is C h r i s t o l o g y

the text as a w i n d o w to w h a t lies b e h i n d i t , i n fact w e m a y be c a t c h i n g a reflection in the t e x t as a m i r r o r

This is, o f course, best

G o d is i d e n t i f i e d as the Father of Jesus C h r i s r '

o f w h a t lies i n f r o n t o f i t ' - n a m e l y our

3

H e also p o i n t e d o u r t h a t

o w n p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s or prejudices. I h u s exegesis becomes eisegesis and the

t h e later C h r i s t o l o g i c a l controversies were a l l a b o u t the person of C h r i s t '

h e t m e n e u t i c a l circle collapses i n t o a v i c i o u s circle

I t is n o t s u r p r i s i n g

or his n a t u r e , i n terms o f his r e l a t i o n s h i p to G o d and w i t h i n the G o d h e a d ,

therefore t h a t m a n y l i t e r a r y theorists have g i v e n u p an a u t h o r i a l i n t e n t i o n

or i n terms o f his d i v i n e a n d h u m a n natures H o w e v e r , the N e w T e s t a m e n t

a n d m o v e d instead t o reader-response

approaches,

h a t d l y ever

c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n the

speaks of t h e person of C h r i s t w i t h o u t at the same t i m e

speaking of h i s w o r k (p 3 ) ; the concern is n o t so m u c h a b o u t the n a t u t e of

m e a n i n g f o u n d i n a t e x t by i t s audience or reader t o d a y I f t h i s is u s i n g the t e x t as a m i r r o r , at least i t is an honest a t t e m p t t o recognize t h a t t h i s is

Jesus, as a b o u t his f u n c t i o n C u l l m a n n was c a u t i o u s about t h e c o m p a r a t i v e

w h a t w e are d o i n g

have

religions

approach,

upon

conform

to

Systematic

theologians a n d d o c t r i n e specialists

always used t h e N e w I e s t a m e n t

texts t o enable t h e m t o 'reflect

the

suggesting

conceptual

that

scheme

Christology already

had

present

necessarily in

Judaism

ro or

C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e s , especially C h r i s t o l o g y - and t h i s is another example of

Hellenism' {p

such

d u r i n g Jesus' Lifetime, w i t h the q u e s t i o n i n g at Caesarea P h i l i p p i , W h o do

mirror

approaches.

people

N e i t h e r t r e a t i n g texts as w i n d o w s nor m i r r o r s really does justice t o the natute o f the N e w

Iestament

b o o k s , since they fail t o ask

about the nature of the texts themselves

that

I

am?

(Mk

t h e o l o g i c a l t i t l e s such as

questions

8.27-29)

prophet

Since the

response

includes

and 'messiah , C u l l m a n n sets o u t ro

examine a l l the various possible t i t l e s i n t u r n . H e d i v i d e s t h e m i n t o t i t l e s

W h a t k i n d of glass d o w e have

here? H o w is i t meant t o be used? I n c r e a s i n g l y , n a r r a t i v e apptoaches

say

Rarher, he saw C h r i s r o l o g i c a l debate as a r i s i n g , even

5)

t h a t tefer t o Jesus e a r t h l y w o r k ( p r o p h e t , s u f f e r i n g servant, h i g h p r i e s t ) , to

have

been a d o p t e d by b i b l i c a l crirics over the last decade or t w o , and these

his f u t u r e w o r k (messiah a n d Son o f M a n ) , a n d t o his present w o r k ( L o r d

m a y p r o v i d e a better

and Saviour ), before finally c o n s i d e r i n g those t h a t refer t o h i s pre-existence

d i r e c t i o n for rhe use o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t

C h r i s t o l o g y i n general

F u r t h e r m o r e , such n a r r a t i v e approaches

in

( W o r d and Son of G o d )

demon-

I n each case, he looks first ar t h e m e a n i n g o f the

strate t h a t there are a w i d e v a r i e t y of d i f f e r i n g C h r i s t o l o g i e s w i t h i n t h e

t i t l e w i t h i n J u d a i s m , t h e n at w h e t h e r Jesus saw h i m s e l f i n terms o f t h i s

books

t i t l e , a n d w h a t i t m i g h r have m e a n t i n his l i f e , before g o i n g on to analyse

of the N e w

theologians approaches Testament

and

Iestament doctrine

which

specialrsts

m a y be m o r e use t o than

more

usual

I h i s essay w i l l explore t r a d i t i o n a l approaches as a

w i n d o w ' t h r o u g h titles and historical

arising f r o m

rhe

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f rhe

the N e w Testament m a t e r i a l a b o u t each t i t l e

synthetic' t o the N e w

reconstructions,

f o l l o w e d by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of recent a l t e r n a t i v e approaches, those

systematic

gospels as

especially

New

Testament

Christology

did

not

arise

A s a r e s u l t , he argues that out

of

a

contemporary

m y t h o l o g y , b u t o u t of the facts a n d events a b o u t Jesus and t h r o u g h the reflection of the eatly C h u r c h u p o n Heilsgeschkhte (pp

315-28)

H a h n f o l l o w e d a s i m i l a r approach of c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n t h e titles of Jesus,

biographical

t h o u g h he l i n k e d t h e m t o the e v o l u t i o n a r y h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n s concept and

narrarive

c o n t e n d e d t h a t the h i g h e s t ideas of pre-existence and d i v i n i t y came o u t of a Hellenistic background Christology through Ihe

History

of

Religions

approach

to

Moule

Titles the

all of this

5

He

compared

the h i s t o r y o f

r e l i g i o n s approach t o an e v o l u t i o n a r y process, such as rhe e v o l u t i o n o f homo New

Iestament,

die

religiomgesibkhtlkhe Schule - f r o m i t s early G e r m a n p r o p o n e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y

Wilhelm Bousset Kyrios Christos. A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Cb'istianity to irenaeus (ET; Nashville: Abingdon 1970); German original, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1913 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament ( E I ; London: SCM Press 1959); German original, Tubingen: ) C B Möhr 1957 F Halm The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth Press ^ 6 9 ) ; German original, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1963 C F D Moule The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, T977) 1

f r o m the U n i v e r s i t y of G o t t i n g e n , t h r o u g h t o B u l t m a n n a n d others

-

t e n d e d ro see an e v o l u t i o n a r y d e v e l o p m e n t i n early C h r i s t o l o g y , b e g i n n i n g with

4

p r o t e s t e d against

Jesus as a w a n d e r i n g P a l e s t i n i a n teacher or Jewish

rabbi, going

t h r o u g h various stages such as healer a n d p r o p h e t w i t h i n the early Jewish c h u r c h ; a n d t h e n increasingly he was seen as a d i v i n e m a n or saviour f i g u r e w i t h i n a H e l l e n i s t i c c o n t e x t , u n t i l f i n a l l y he becomes the L o r d of a m y s t e r y

5

4

5

4

o

BUR RIDGE

The Penan of Christ Whatever

sapiens f r o m a l e m u r or ape ( p z ) , w i t h a r a d i c a l change b e t w e e n the early

term

or

From Titles to Stories

metaphor

is used,

we

notice

41 that

all of

these

stages of Jesus b e i n g seen as a revered master w i t h i n a Jewish

Palestinian

t r e a t m e n t s concentrate o n the t i t l e s and descriptions of Jesus w i t h i n the

setting

Hellenistic

N e w Testament; they t r y to s t u d y each one separately a n d t h e n telate t h e m

and

Christians

then

being

Rejecting

w o r s h i p p e d as

divine

lord

by

t h i s schema, M o u l e a r g u e d instead for a ' d e v e l o p -

m e n t a l approach' i n w h i c h

the later stages are c o n s t r u e d n o t as

new

a d d i t i o n s b u t rather as a d r a w i n g o u t o f w h a t is already there, analogous n o t ro the e v o l u t i o n of a new species b u t rather t o t h e u n f o l d i n g o f the 1

flower f r o m a b u d , 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 z e d as t o o clear-cut a c h r o n o l o g i c a l sequence f r o m early P a l e s t i n i a n Jewish

Christianity,

through

the

Hellenistic Gentile communities

diaspora

Nonetheless,

same basic approach by s t u d y i n g t i t l e s -

into

Pauline

and

later

M o u l e s t i l l f o l l o w s the

first Son of M a n , Son of G o d ,

C h r i s t and K y n o s - a n d other d e s c r i p t i o n s such as corporate phrases or

t o an o v e r a l l c h r o n o l o g i c a l sequence for t h e e v o l u t i o n , d e v e l o p m e n t or u n f o l d i n g o f N e w Testament C h r i s t o l o g y Thus a l l of t h e m have a concern for an o v e r a l l process of C h r i s t o l o g y w i t h i n the N e w Testament - w h e t h e r t h a t is seen against a b a c k g r o u n d o f the h i s t o r y of r e l i g i o n s , or as a t e m p o r a l sequence b e i n g traced back to Jesus, and d o w n h i s t o t y of the early C h u r c h

through

They a l l i m p l y t h a t one can t a l k o f

the New

Testament C h r i s r o l o g y as a single enterprise, a n d they use N e w I e s t a m e n t texts as a

window

o n t o i t . W h e t h e r i n fact they are m e r e l y c a t c h i n g

reflections of themselves or their p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s i n a m i r r o r remains t o be seen!

concepts l i k e the B o d y a n d the T e m p l e F u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of P a u l , the rest of the N e w Testament, t h e scope of the d e a t h of C h r i s t a n d the t h e m e o f f u l f i l m e n t , lead h i m t o conclude t h a t his d e v e l o p m e n t a l m o d e l is a

Christology f r o m Below: Historical Reconstructions

better approach, a n d he finishes b y a r g u i n g t h a t a l l t h e later C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

B o t h h i s t o r i c a l sequences and a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t i t l e s feature i n the v a r i o u s

ideas are rooted i n Jesus o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g

Quests for t h e h i s t o r i c a l Jesus: the o r i g i n a l Quest, w h i c h started

D u n n also f o l l o w s t h i s m e t h o d of s t u d y i n g t i t l e s

c

H e looks at Son of

G o d , Son o f M a n , the last A d a m , s p i r i t or a n g e l , t h e W i s d o m of G o d a n d

Reimarus

and

Schweitzer;

8

progressed

secondly

through

the so-called

rhe

w o r k s of Strauss,

N e w Quest

Weiss

beginning with

from and Kase-

the W o r d of G o d I t is p r o b a b l y the m o s t t h o r o u g h t r e a t m e n t of the t i t l e -

m a n n s l e c t u r e of Ocrober 2 0 , 1 9 5 3

based apptoach a n d i t s t r l l repays careful s t u d y , especially i n the second

and R o b i n s o n

e d i t i o n w i t h D u n n s extended response t o his c r i t i c s i n a new f o r e w o r d ( p p

M o u l e s t r e a t m e n t s ) - and n o w , w i t h w h a t is increasingly seen as the T h i r d

x i - x x x i x ) D u n n s conclusions g o against the h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n s approach

Quest, t h r o u g h the w o r k o f E P Sanders a n d T o m W r i g h t i n their debate

5

(which

and l e a d i n g i n r o B o r n k a m m , Jeremias

is the b a c k g r o u n d for C u l l m a n n ' s , H a h n s and

by a r g u i n g t h a t there was n o t h i n g i n the Jewish or H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d s t h a t

w i t h the C a l i f o t n i a n school of the Jesus Seminar, represented i n p a r t i c u l a r

w o u l d have g i v e n rise to the idea of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n ; w h i l e w e cannot c l a i m

b y R o b e r t F u n k , B u r t o n M a c k and D o m i n i c Ctossan

t h a t Jesus believed h i m s e l f to be the incarnate Son o f G o d , t h i s latet d e v e l o p m e n t was

an a p p r o p r i a t e r e f l e c t i o n o n a n d e l a b o r a t i o n of Jesus'

o w n sense o f sonship and eschatological m i s s i o n ' ( p p 2 5 3 - 5 4 )

r o

O b v i o u s l y , the a t t e m p t to p r o v i d e an h i s t o r i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e life a n d m i n i s t r y of Jesus m u s t lie at the heart o f any such quest -

but it

h was the

usually i n v o l v e s , or leads i n t o consideration of, the e x t e n t t o w h i c h Jesus

resurrection t h a t was the real catalyst, f o l l o w e d b y the g r o w i n g b a c k w a r d

saw h i m s e l f as a p r o p h e t , teacher, or Messrah a n d w h a t be considered his

extension of Son of G o d language', w i t h P a u l s use of W i s d o m language

relationship

to

God

and

his

mission

to

be

Thus

E P

Sandets s

b r i n g i n g the process to the c r u c i a l p o i n t w h e r e J o h n t h e n developed the idea of the pre-existent W o r d . I t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t D u n n does see a really s i g n i f i c a n t break a n d change w i t h t h e Johannine incarnation -

yet nonetheless views t h i s as an

d o c t r i n e of the

a p p r o p r i a t e reflection

Therefore D u n n can s t i l l refer t o t h i s as an e v o l u t i o n a r y process' (p t h o u g h i n h i s later w o r k he prefers t o t a l k of i t as u n f o l d i n g

261),

7

A Schweitzer Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Torschung (Tübingen: Mohr 1906); EI I he Quest of the HistoricalJesus (London: A & C Black. 1954) 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 HistoricalJesus' 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- The Search for the Authentic Words of Jetm (New York: Macmillan, 1993) 9

J D G Dunn Christology in the Making (London: SCM Press, 1980; 2nd edn, 1989). ) D G Dunn, rheMakingofChristology-EvoiutionorUnfblding?' in J B.GreenandM Turner (eds ) Jesus 0/Nazareth: Lord andChrist (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994), 457~5 6

7

2

42


reconstruction

of

The

Historical

Figure

BURRIDGE

of Jesus"

sets o u t

clearly

the

Perhaps

the

most


thorough

book

on

the

43

historical

Jesus

is

the

Palestinian context o f Jesus l i f e a n d m i n i s t r y , depicts h i m as a m i r a c l e -

Comprehensive Guide by G e r d Theissen and A n n e t t e M e r z

w o r k e r a n d teacher-healer, a n d calls h i m a c h a r i s m a t i c a n d

d e t a i l e d b a c k g r o u n d and s e t t i n g , t h i s too has a titles-based approach f o r its

prophet

(p

autonomous

2 3 8 ) ; i t t h e n goes o n t o discuss a l l the C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t i t l e s

such as messiah, Son o f G o d , Son o i M a n , and so o n

Sanders concludes,

After all the

l i

m a i n sections. I t offers studies of Jesus as a C h a r i s m a t i c ( p p . Prophet

(pp

240-80),

Healer

(pp

Poet

281-314),

185-239),

(pp

316-46),

however, t h a t w e d o n o t learn precisely w h a t Jesus t h o u g h t of h i m s e l f a n d

Ieacher ( p p

his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d b y s t u d y i n g t i t l e s ' (p. 2 4 8 ) . Instead he atgues t h a t

(pp

Jesus saw h i m s e l f as

4 7 4 - 5 1 1 ) a n d discussion of the b e g i n n i n g s o f C h r i s t o l o g y , again l o o k i n g

h a v i n g f u l l a u t h o r i t y t o speak a n d act o n

b e h a l f and coins the new d e s c r i p t i o n of

Gods

1 1

I n Jesus and the Victory of God,

he e n t i t l e s his

m a i n h i s t o r i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n T h e Profile of a P r o p h e t ( P a r t I I , p p . 4 7 4 ) , w h i l e Part I I I a t t e m p t s t o reconstruct

T h e b o o k concludes w i t h sections o n the R i s e n Jesus ( p p

440-73)

at t i t l e s such as Messiah, Son of M a n , Son of G o d and K y r i o s (pp

viceroy'

l o r n W r i g h t s massive t r e a t m e n t , i n three v o l u m e s so fat, f o l l o w s a s i m i l a r l i n e of a r g u m e n t

3 4 7 - 4 0 4 ) , the Founder of a C u l t ( p p 4 0 5 - 3 9 ) and M a r t y r

The

145¬

A i m s and Beliefs of

I n the e n d , however, I h e i s s e n a n d M e r z a t t e m p t

68)

a b o u t Jesus

since

narratives f o r m the basis of i d e n t i t y

a b o u t Jesus is the basis for C h r i s t i a n i d e n t i t y ' ( p

512¬

a shott narrative The

narrative

572).

F i n a l l y , w e r e t u r n f u l l circle t o Bousset and Kyrios Christos

C e n t r a l to

Jesus' ( 4 7 5 - 6 5 4 ) . W h i l e W r i g h t uses t i t l e s such as P r o p h e t a n d Messiah,

the h i s t o t y o f r e l i g i o n s approach was the d e v e l o p m e n t o f C h r i s t o l o g y f r o m

he also atgues, l i k e Sanders, t h a t Jesus' s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g is c r u c i a l ; t h a t

a Palestinian s e t t i n g f o t Jesus as a r a b b i t h r o u g h to his w o r s h i p as L o r d

w h i l e Jesus d i d see h i m s e l f as a p r o p h e t a n d i n messianic t e r m s , W r i g h t

arising

concludes t h a t we s h o u l d

w o r k i n g for m a n y years o n t h i s area of d e v o t i o n t o Jesus and w o r s h i p of

moment

f o r g e r the

I t is t h r o u g h Jesus

"titles

o f Jesus, at least for a

v o c a t i o n a n d i n t i m a c y w i t h G o d w h o m he

him

! £

from

a Gentile,

Hellenistic

context.

L a r r y H u r t a d o has

been

H i s enormous a n d detailed s t u d y , Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus

k n e w as father t h a t his ideas of sonship m a k e sense, as he enacts the r e t u r n

in Earliest Christianity has recently appeared

o f G o d t o his people, the r e t u r n i n g a n d r e d e e m i n g a c t i o n of the covenant

reappraisal of the h i s t o r y o f r e l i g i o n s approach a n d irs c l a i m s , w i t h d e t a i l e d

God

study

t h t o u g h his m i n i s t r y a n d d e a t h (p

653)

W r i g h t has p u t f o r w a r d

s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t s i n his various m o r e accessible and p o p u l a r books Markus Bockmuehl's subtitle:

Martyr,

Messiah

1 4

He

too

attempts

an

Jewish

monotheism,

the

T h e w h o l e b o o k is a c a r e f u l

earliest

forms

of

Judaean

Jewish

C h r i s t i a n i t y , Pauline g r o u p s , the w r i t i n g of the gospels a n d other Jesus

1 3

response to the Jesus debate uses t i t l e s i n its

Lord,

of

1 7

historical

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f Jesus l i f e , m i n i s t r y a n d d e a t h , a n d his messianic self-

books,

Johannine C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d o n to t h e second c e n t u r y w i t h

radical d i v e r s i t y a n d p r o t o - o r t h o d o x d e v o t i o n

its

A f t e r some 6 5 0 pages of

p a i n s t a k i n g research and a r g u m e n t , H u r t a d o concludes t h a t d e v o t i o n to

u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d relares t h i s t o later C h r i s t o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d the

Jesus as

debates

w o r s h i p of Jesus as d i v i n e e r u p t e d suddenly a n d q u i c k l y i n the earliest

of

the

early

Church

He

concludes

that

'the

emergence

of

lord

is neither a later, nor a H e l l e n i s t i c d e v e l o p m e n t ;

C h r i s t o l o g y can be seen as an a u t h e n t i c a n d consequential expression of the

Jewish C h r i s t i a n circles ( p

A p o s t o l i c f a i t h i n the risen Jesus' ( p

devotion

166)

and

belief

approaches w i t h i n

650)

within the

I t was the s t r u g g l e t o w o r k o u t t h i s

monotheism

New

rather,

Iestament

that and

led t o i n the

the

d i v e r s i t y of

f i r s t centuries

of

C h r i s t i a n h i s t o r y D e v o t i o n to Jesus was central then - a n d today the key q u e s t i o n remains: EP Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus (Harmondsworth Penguin 1993); this is the most 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); I I I The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK. 2003) leaving two more volumes still to come N . I Wright, The Original Jesus- The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary (Oxford: l i o n . 1:996); The Clyallenge ofJesus- Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (London: SPCK, 1999); and his debate with Marcus Borg in The Meaning of Jesus. Two Visions (San Francisco: Harper 1999)' Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr L ord Messiah (Edinburgh: I & I Clark, 1994) 1 1

1 3

4

Thus

the

W h o d o y o u say t h a t I am?

consideration

of

titles,

especially

(p

653) Lord ,

has

dominated

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l studies of the N e w Testament f o r over a c e n t u r y , r e t u r n i n g

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 ° I n The Incarnation of God,

Neusner

applies a t a x o n o m y of narrative to the m a t e r i a l and finds 'five species of

H e followed

the genus n a r r a t i v e ' ' The p r o b l e m w i t h t h i s is t h a t ' n a r r a t i v e is neither a

The stories

genus nor a genre i n itself a c c o r d i n g t o m o s t l i t e r a r y rheory o f genres, a n d

a b o u t sages were never c o m p i l e d i n t o b i o g r a p h i c a l narratives 01 they are 'the c o m p o s i t i o n s no one made

1984

gospels:

5

his five species are n o t clearly i d e n t i f i e d as subgenres

I n The Incarnation of God again

he stresses: W h i l e the t w o T a l m u d s present stories a b o u t sages, neither

H o w e v e r , t h e basic p o i n t

is clear,

t h a t t h e r a b b i n i c anecdotes

d i r e c t e d m o r e towards sayings t h a n actions

are

Y e t , t h i s w o u l d not p r e v e n t

t h e i r b e i n g c o m p i l e d i n t o an ancient b i o g r a p h y . l u c i a n s Demonax has a brief preface a n d account of the p h i l o s o p h e r s l i f e , f o l l o w e d by a l a r g e James H . Charles worth and Loren L Johns (eds ) Hillel and Jesus. Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997) P S. Alexander, 'Jesus and the Golden Rule in HUM and Jesus 363-88; quotation 4 0

number

of anecdotes a l l s t r u n g together,

each composed

mainly

of

d i a l o g u e l e a d i n g u p to a p r o n o u n c e m e n t or decision by the great sage - yer

4 1

from 388 See. for example. Philip S Alexander, Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament Zeitscbrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenscbaft unddie Kunde der dlteren Kirche 74 (19S3): 237-46 PhilipS 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). I 9 " 5 ° ; quotation from 42 Alexander 'Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus'.. 40 Jacob Neusner In Search of Talmudk Biography. The Problem of the Attributed Saying Brown Judaic Studies 70 (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1984) 2 Jacob Neusner Why No Gospels in Talmudk Judaism? (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 4 1

4 3

4 4 4 5

4 6

1988)

33-38

Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1988), 213 Jacob Neusner, Are There Really Tannaitk Parallels to the Gospels? A Refutation of Morton Smith (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 80; Arlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1993) A Goshen Gottstein Jesus and Hillel: Are Comparisons Possible? in Hillel and Jesus 31—55> quotations from ^4—35 Alexander, 'Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus 42 Neusner The Incarnation of God 114 4 7

4 8

4 9

5

5 1

BURRIDGE


5§


59

i t is s t i l l called a l i f e , bios. I n fact, the Demonax is m o t e loosely s t r u c t u r e d

ancient b i o g r a p h y constitutes an enormous C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c l a i m

w i t h less i n t e g r a t i o n of teaching a n d a c t i v i t y t h a n even M a r k ' s G o s p e l

b i o g t a p h y is n o t possible because n o r a b b i is t h a t u n i q u e and is o n l y

I h u s , a l t h o u g h the r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l is m o r e anecdotal gospels a n d some ancient lives, i t s t i l l contains e n o u g h

t h a n are

5 1

the

biographical

elements ( t h r o u g h sage stories, narratives, precedents a n d d e a t h scenes) t o enable an e d i t o t t o c o m p i l e a l i f e of H i l l e l

or whoever

Such an account

i m p o r t a n t as he represents the T o r a h , w h i c h h o l d s the central place

To

w r i t e a b i o g r a p h y is to replace the I o r a h by p u t t i n g a h u m a n person centre stage. T h e

l i t e r a r y genre makes a m a j o r

theological

shift

at

that

becomes an e x p l i c i t C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c l a i m - t h a t Jesus of N a z a r e t h is T o r a h

w o u l d have been recognizable as ancient b i o g r a p h y a n d have l o o k e d l i k e

embodied

the Demonax. L i t e r a r y a n d generic reasons alone are rherefore n o t sufficient

a key

t o e x p l a i n t h i s curious absence o f r a b b i n i c b i o g r a p h y - w h i c h b r i n g s us

i n d i v i d u a l t i t l e or t h e o l o g i c a l

back t o t h e o l o g i c a l reasons a r i s i n g f r o m rheir C h r i s t o l o g i c a l focus

Rabbinic

5 7

So our s t u d y o f genre p u t s Jesus at t h e centre a n d this i t s e l f is

Christological

claim which

is m u c h m o r e

i m p o r t a n t than

any

explanation

Since

b i o g r a p h y directs the audience s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l i f e a n d character of the T h e P l u r a l i t y of D y n a m i c C h r i s t o l o g i e s i n t h e N e w

subject, the decision t o w r i t e a b i o g r a p h i c a l account of Jesus has i m p o r t a n t C h r i s t o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s E q u a l l y , the f a i l u r e t o w r i t e , or even c o m p i l e f r o m the anecdotes, any biographies

of t h e rabbis also has

significant

implications

I n t h i s essay, we have concentrated o n the shift f r o m C h r i s t o l o g i c a l t i t l e s t o t h e b i o g r a p h i c a l narratives about Jesus i n the four gospels. Space does n o t p e r m i t d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n of the rest of the N e w Testament, b u t here

Neusner argues t h a t t h i s is because the i n d i v i d u a l sages ate n o t at the centre of a t t e n t i o n . 'Sage-stories turn out not to tell about sages at all;

they are

stories about the Torah personified Sage-stories cannot y i e l d a gospel because they are n o t about sages anyway. They are a b o u t t h e T o r a h makes the same p o i n t :

too there has been a m o v e away f t o m merely c o n s i d e r i n g t h e various t i t l e s a n d descriptions used a b o u t Jesus t o l o o k i n g at t h e u n d e r l y i n g n a r r a t i v e t h a t i n f o r m s the author s account or is p r e s u m e d b y w h a t he says

T h e gospel

does just the opposite, w i t h its focus o n t h e uniqueness of the hero Alexander

Testament

Lhe o b v i o u s answer is t h a t

5 i

nerther

For example, Paul s encounter w i t h the risen C h r i s t o n the Damascus t o a d was n o t j u s t a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n his l i f e , b u t also i n his theology t h e n o n , the significance

of Jesus

From

l i f e , death a n d tesurrection, and

the

Eliezer nor any other Sage h e l d i n R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m t h e central p o s i t i o n

i m p l i c a t i o n s o f new l i f e i n C h r i s t are crucial for Paul s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of

t h a t Jesus h e l d i n early C h r i s t i a n i t y

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between

The centre of R a b b i n i c J u d a i s m

was

G o d and h u m a n beings. F u r t h e r m o r e , P a u l s

Torah; rhe centre of C h r i s t i a n i t y was the person of Jesus, a n d the existence

C h r i s t o l o g y is also set i n an eschatological f r a m e w o r k

of the Gospels is, i n itself, a t e s t i m o n y t o t h i s f a c t . '

p i v o t of the ages, the means whereby the new age has b r o k e n i n t o t h e

M i c h a e l H i l t o n says: 'The

54

S i m i l a r l y , Rabbr

Gospels can t h u s be regarded as a k i n d of

present t h r o u g h the death a n d resurrection of Jesus

C h r i s t is the k e y

I h u s w h i l e Paul has

c o m m e n t a r y o n Jesus' l i f e , i n m u c h t h e same w a y as the Rabbis c o m m e n t

l i t t l e of the b i o g r a p h y of Jesus' actual earthly l i f e or m i n i s t r y , the story of

o n b i b l i c a l texts

the

stresses t h a t

5 5

S i m i l a r l y , G o t t s t e i n i n c o m p a r i n g Jesus a n d H i l l e l

'Gospel w r i t i n g w o u l d be t h e p r o d u c t of the

particular

whole

narrative

Christ-event

has

S i m i l a r l y , t h e othet

become New

his

dominating

Christological

Testament books m a y

not be

r e l i g i o u s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the messianic, a n d therefore salvific, a c t i v i t y of

narrative genres, b u t t h e y s t i l l have u n d e r l y i n g narratives w h i c h

Jesus

t h e i f various u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of the person o f Jesus

The lack of Gospels i n r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e w o u l d t h e n be a less

significant Rabbi

issue, since n o salvific c l a i m is attached t o any

particular

5fi

Thus

both

the

history

of r e l i g i o n s

e v o l u t i o n a r y approach

in

reveal

and

the

c o m m o n m e t h o d of s t u d y i n g C h r i s r o l o g i c a l t i t l e s have p r o v e d incorrect or

Thus the l i t e r a r y s h i f t f r o m unconnected anecdotes a b o u t Jesus, w h i c h

u n h e l p f u l , despite the a m o u n t of m a t e r i a l w r i t t e n o n t h e m over the last

resemble r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l , to c o m p o s i n g t h e m together i n the genre o f an

c e n t u r y I n d e e d , the t i m e has come t o m o v e away f r o m the s i n g u l a r idea of N e w Testament C h r i s t o l o g y , for t h i s essay has d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t there are

5 i

" 5 4 ; 5 5 6

See my discussion of the Demonax in What are the Gospels' 166 I7°-7 Neusner Why No Gospels in Talmudk Judaism? 52-53; his italics Alexander Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus 41 Hilton and Marshall, The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism. 13 Gottstein, Jesus and Hillel 35

T

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, (Emmanuel M 5 ; Jerusalem: Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel, 1990). 77-93 , 7

/ 2

6

The Person of Cbtist

o

lots of d i f f e r e n t Christologres w i t h i n the N e w I e s t a m e n t

I f we go back to

the image o f t e x t as stained glass, we have a w h o l e g a l l e r y o f d i f f e r e n t p o r t r a i t s , each of w h i c h needs t o be s t u d i e d i n its o w n r i g h t , n o t f o r w h a t we can see t h t o u g h i t or is reflecred b y i t , b u t for the p i c t u r e rt contains^

Chapter 3

F u r t h e r m o r e , these pictures are n o t static, b u t d y n a m i c as they m o v e a n d develop

They

should

not

be

combined

into

an

overarching

single

narrative, s t i l l less an a m a l g a m , b u t a l l o w e d t o speak each f o r themselves, bearing

i n m i n d W i t h e r i n g t o n ' s w a r n i n g t h a t an eatly date does n o t

necessarily equal a Tow C h n s t o l o g y , nor need later m e a n

h.gh

*

Christ in the Trinity: Communicatio Idiomatum

T h e use o f the N e w Testament, especially b y theologians a n d d o c t r i n e specialists m u s t

respect t h i s d i v e r s i t y o f C h n s t o l o g i c a l

portraits

This

means c o n s i d e r i n g the narrative of each b o o k , taken as a w h o l e , rather t h a n just l o o k i n g at the t i t l e s I f we d o t h i s , we w i l l be t h e n be c o n f r o n t e d by the central C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c l a i m i n a i l the N e w Testament texts, t h a t o n l y

Robert W

Jenson

topics,

Christology

i n Jesus is G o d t o be u n d e r s t o o d , a n d by his S p i r i t we are able to d o that.

T

he

collocation

of

and

dogmatically and historically appropriate inextricable

Trinity,

is

both

Fot t h e t w o loci are

I n d e e d , a first p o i n t to be made is t h a t the d o g m a t i c

locus de Christo does n o t become necessary or even possible u n t i l the decisive b i t s of t r i n i t a r i a n d o g m a are i n place - C h r i s t o p h Schwobel has repeatedly made

a related

Chrisrology Iestament

normative

point.

the

word

i n other senses: thus we may c o n v e n i e n t l y speak of

New

1

We

can

course

C h r i s t o l o g y ' or refer t o the apologists'

Nevertheless,

use

Logos-Christoiogy'

the questions that t r a d i t i o n a l l y compose the d o g m a t i c

systematic locus on C h r i s t o l o g y presuppose ilfxtpL

of

at

I n d e e d , one can say t h a t C h r i s t o l o g y is b o r n a n d continues

exegesis of a p a r t i c u l a r t e x t , the first p a r t of the second article of Nicene-Constantinopolitan proposed

Creed

We

answers we p u t together

have t h e

and

least the 6(iooiJOLOg TGJ

nest of problems

as the locus labelled

as the and

Christology,

because the Fathers at N i c e a produced the text they d i d , f r o m w h i c h the Fathers at C o n s t a n t i n o p l e d i d n o t deviate i n any way i m p o r t a n t t o

the

m a t t e r of t h i s essay A c c o r d i n g to standard r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , the N i c e n e d o g m a t i c d e f i n i t i o n s were

accomplished

by

inserting

systematic-theological

phrases i n t o a

b a p t i s m a l creed A second p o i n t to keep i n m i n d is h o w d i f f e r e n t the t e x t t h u s p r o d u c e d is f r o m w h a t one m i g h t have p r e d i c t e d , a n d t h a t i t is the

Witherington. The Many Faces of the Christ, Z2.J - see note 2.3 above

See, for example, Schwobel s essay Christology and Trinitarian thought in idem (ed ) Trinitarian Theology Today (Edinburgh: E & I Clark, 1995) 113-46

6l

6


2

JENSON

Christ in the

Trinity

63

text actually devised that so q u i c k l y a n d u r g e n t l y d e m a n d e d a n d s t i l l

f o r seventeen centuries - C o l i n G u n t o n and I k e p t up an amicable version

demands exegesis

of i t f r o m nearly out first m e e t i n g u n t i l our last

For

something

most

is

remarkably

missing

from

the

Nicene-

A t t e m p t s were early made to establish

a n d perfected by O r i g e n , t h a t is t o say, w h a t is m i s s i n g is any reference t o

Ephesus and Chalcedon. Chalcedon i t s e l f is the o r i g i n a l m o d e l of a b i l a t e r a l

the t h e o l o g i c a l system whose p r o b l e m a t i c s t r i g g e r e d a l l t h e controversy i n

ecumenical d i a l o g u e whose p a r t i c i p a n t s j u d g e t h e y can b r i n g a p o s i t i v e

the first place. U n d o u b t e d l y the N i c e n e Fathers had t h e L o g o s - t h e o l o g y i n

r e p o r t : each side renounces the e v i l o p i n i o n of w h i c h t h e other

m i n d as t h e y w o r k e d B u t the t e x t t h e y actually p r o d u c e d bears no trace of

suspects i t -

it

W h o e v e r w o u l d defend that? -

O n l y Son , G o d f r o m G o d , of one b e i n g w i r h the Father . b y w h o m

met

with

notable

success at t h e

the

argument

a l l t h i n g s were made , a n d so o n , appear as a s r r i n g o f predicates attached t o

These efforts

at least a f e w rules f o r

C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n Creed: the L o g o s - t h e o l o g y developed b y the apologists

W h o , me? I never t h o u g h t such a t h i n g

-

councils

of

side

" T w o sons"?

C h r i s t a m i x t u r e of d e i t y a n d h u m a n i t y ?

I t s six other persons w h o t h i n k rhat - and r e m a i n i n g disagreements are

a single subject; and t h a t subject is not one Logos, incarnate i n our L o r d

j u d g e d n o t l e g i t i m a t e l y c h u r c h - d i v i s i v e I n rhe decree of Chalcedon, a g a i n

Jesus C h r i s t ' - as m o s t of the c o n c i l i a r Fathers w o u l d surely have w a n t e d i f

as i n some d i a l o g u e reports, the j u d g m e n t that r e m a i n i n g disagreements i n

t h e y had foreseen w h a t was c o m i n g

t h e matter are n o t c h u r c h - d i v i s i v e appears i n t h e f o r m of a hole i n the

I t is s i m p l y 'one L o r d , Jesus C h r i s t

systematic-theological

A n d t h a t i t is, is sutely the w o r k of the S p i r i t N o w , i t is t h a t subject phrase, as the subject of the a t t r i b u t i o n s t h a t f o l l o w , w h i c h i m m e d i a t e l y seemed t o pose a p r o b l e m , a n d w h i c h became and remains the assignment of C h r i s t o l o g y m o s t p r o p e r l y so called

How

c o u l d the subject of all those b e l l i g e r e n t l y u n e q u i v o c a l God-predicates the

man

Jesus, even

if he

is

risen

as

the

Christ

of

Israel

and

be the

a c k n o w l e d g e d l o r d ' o f his followers? The

one

with

Lord,

Jesus C h r i s t

was

u n d o u b t e d l y p a r t of

the

centre o f the decree, where t h i n g s t h a t one m i g h t

t h i n k systematically necessary to be said, b u t w h i c h w o u l d p r o b a b l y re¬ starr an a r g u m e n t , are s i m p l y n o t said I f I may at t h i s p o i n t i n t r u d e a r e m a r k not i m m e d i a t e l y televant t o the a r g u m e n t of t h i s essay, observation of t h i s s t r u c t u r a l equivalence

between

Chalcedon

and

in

directions

We

limited

modern

bilateral

dialogue

could

be

salutary

two

s h o u l d receive d i a l o g u e reports w i t h the same c a r e f u l l y

expectation

we

b r i n g to

Chalcedon,

the

very

archetype

of

b a p t i s m a l confession the c o u n c i l t o o k as i t s f r a m e w o r k , a n d i n t h a t c o n t e x t

beneficent i m p r e c i s i o n . I n the other d i r e c t i o n , c o n s t r u i n g Chalcedon as a

i t f u n c t i o n e d as a r e n u n c i a t i o n of other candidates to be L o r d . B u t i n the

d i a l o g u e r e p o r t has t u r n e d o u t g r e a t l y t o f a c i l i t a t e its r e c e p t i o n by those

new context i t makes a new assertion, w h e t h e r consciously i n t e n d e d at the

w h o once rejected i t as a supposed systematic d o c u m e n t , b y , for e x a m p l e ,

councils or n o t : t h a t there is n o t a p l u r a l i t y of subjects of the f o l l o w i n g

t h e A r m e n i a n s , w h o , due t o a t i m e - o v e r l a p i n g e t t i n g the t e x t , u n d e r s t o o d

creedal statements, that there is just one

i t as a systematic statement i n r i v a l r y w i t h the Henotikon

I n its new c o n t e x t , the

one

insists t h a t i t is indeed a single u n i t a r y person w h o is Jesus the C h r i s t of Israel and w h o is just so G o d f r o m G o d , L i g h t f r o m L i g h t , a n d so on. Moreover, after the inserted t h e o l o g o u m e n a usual second-article birth from

creedal

a human

the creed reverts t o the

narrative, w h i c h narrates of its

protagonist

m o t h e t , d e a t h a n d b u r i a l , a n d does so

establishing a n e w subject

without

So n o w we have, as the second article o f t h i s

creed, one l o n g p r o p o s i t i o n w h i c h ascribes d e i t y i n the m o s t u n c o m p r o m i s i n g t e r m s , and a d e f i n i t i v e l y creaturely career of b i r t h a n d death, t o the

N o w , as i t has i n fact come a b o u t , the f o r m u l a e of Chalcedon

are

regarded i n t h e W e s t a n d i n most of the s u r v i v i n g East as t h e S p i r i t - g i v e n f r a m e w o r k of all o r t h o d o x C h r i s t o l o g y - r i g h t l y so, i n m y j u d g m e n t

But

g i v e n their character as just noted, they can be n o more t h a n t h a t : they ate ptecisely f r a m e w o r k a n d n o t h i n g m o r e ; indeed perhaps w e m i g h t better t h i n k of t h e m as s c a f f o l d i n g A c c o t d i n g to C h a l c e d o n , the one L o r d Jesus C h r i s t has ' t w o natures T h i s rs perhaps clear e n o u g h t o be g o i n g on w i t h - t h o u g h I w a n t s t r o n g l y

same singular subject, indexed b y a h u m a n p r o p e r name a n d by a t i t l e t h a t

t o u r g e that t h e notion of natures is m e r e l y a n o t i o n o f secondary r e f l e c t i o n ,

is m e a n i n g f u l o n l y w i t h i n

a n d n o t an i n i t i a l g i v e n for C h t i s t o l o g y . I f the gospels narrative is t r u e , i t s

the

p a r t i c u l a r f a i t h and

c u l t u r e of

Israel

H o w e v e r can such a p r o p o s i t i o n be true? The exegetical challenge is not

p r o t a g o n i s t m u s t indeed have the characters n a t u r a l t o G o d and

posed b y any of the predicates, o d d as some of t h e m are i n themselves, b u t

characters n a t u r a l t o a m e m b e r of t h e h u m a n race

by the u n i t y of the subject

A n d rhese natures, Chalcedon says, are rhe natures of one imoomOLC

Exegesis of one L o r d , Jesus C h r i s t was i m m e d i a t e l y seen as d e m a n d e d and i m m e d i a t e l y became conttoversial

the

The controversy has now c o n t i n u e d

A g a i n , so far so g o o d B u t i t is just here that Chalcedon falls silent, a n d so is i n d e e d o n l y a scaffold. For Chalcedon does n o t t e l l us w h a t

moaxaai^

6


4

JENSON

Christ in the

Trinity

¿5

means i n t h i s c o n t e x t , or h o w an i m o o m a L i ; - whatever i t is - can be the

subject phrase is a d i v i n e name a n d the predicate a t t r i b u t e s t o h i m w h a t

p r o t a g o n i s t of a narrative, or w h a t difference b e i n g the natures of o n l y one

o n l y m a m m a l i a n creatures suffer I f w e say - a n d t h i s of course has been t h e

hypostasis makes t o the t w o natures, or w h a t difference h a v i n g t w o natures

chief offence - Unus ex trinitate passus est pro nobis, we have a g a i n a b l u n t l y -

makes to the hypostasis -

d i v i n e name as subject a n d as predicate s u f f e r i n g and d e a t h , w h i c h a l l the

about

ot i n d e e d a n y t h i n g one m i g h t w a n t t o t h i n k

i f one were n o t t r y i n g t o q u e l l a controversy otherwise

judged

w o r l d has h e l d i m p o s s i b l e for g o d - or at least for any 1 0 0 per cent g o d l y god.

l e g i t i m a t e l y containable 'The matter for w h i c h C h a l c e d o n proposed t h i s f r a m e w o r k is o f course t h e

The gospel-narrative is a c o m p o u n d of p r o p o s i t i o n s w i t h subjects t h a t

w h o l e o f w h a t S c r i p t u r e a n d the w i d e r t t a d i t i o n of the c h u r c h s f i r s t - l e v e l

index a person we w o u l d expect to have one of those t w o natures i n C h r i s t

discourse tells a b o u t t h a t one L o r d , Jesus C h r i s t

a n d t h e n predicate of h i m a character we w o u l d otherwise expect to b e l o n g

A n d t h a t is an i m m e n s e

a n d i n m a n y ways heterogeneous c o l l e c t i o n of narrative p r o p o s i t i o n s : Jesus

to t h e other, i n d e e d i n m o s t cases t o b e l o n g o n l y to the other. D o c t r i n e s of

saves ; G o d ' s o n l y Son .

the communiai communicatio o f natures or a t t r i b u t e s are a t t e m p t s t o recognize

Pontius

Pilate;

was b o r n of the V i r g i n M a r y a n d suffered under

A n d g o i n g a l i t t l e farther, he t h r e w h i m s e l f o n

the

t h i s fact a n d sort i t o u t No

g r o u n d , a n d prayed that i f i t were possible, the h o u r m i g h t pass f r o m h i m ' ; ' A n d he t a u g h t t h e m , s a y i n g ,

Blessed are the poor '; H e was despised and

one

has

sorted

out

the

various

modes

and

combinations

so

p a i n s t a k i n g l y - nor t o say f a n a t i c a l l y - as the L u t h e r a n theologians o f the

rejected , and so on and on W e have a l l four gospels; a n d we have the O l d

late s i x t e e n t h and early seventeenth centuries A q u i c k presentation of t h e i r

Lestament, w h i c h tells of a m a n o f sorrows, a c q u a i n t e d w i t h g r i e f a n d of

p o s i t i o n s w i l l be u s e f u l , b o t h for t h e i r o r g a n i z i n g and to d i s p l a y where the

the v a r i o u s l y envisioned C o m i n g O n e ; a n d we have t h e church's

t h e o l o g i c a l choices appear

hymns

I w i l l f o l l o w the presentation o f t h e pioneer of

a n d passions a n d sermons a n d l i t u r g i e s , a l l t e l l i n g us a b o u t t h a t one L o r d ,

this t r a d i t i o n , M a r t i n C h e m n i t z , i n his De duabus naturis in Christo I w i l l

Jesus C h r i s t ' and w h a t he does 'according

note t w o p o i n t s at w h i c h his presentation presents a t h e o l o g i c a l choice to

- as the phrase has gone -

to

be made

those t w o natures The p r o b l e m posed by w h a t Chalcedon refrains f r o m saying a b o u t the one uTOaxaOLC,, the p r o b l e m posed

by t h a t hole i n t h e m i d d l e of its

t h i n k i n g , is t h a t , just so. the decree gives n o i n d i c a t i o n of h o w speak - a l l t h i s narrative fastens t o the Chalcedonian s c a f f o l d i n g

so t o I t left

A first r u b r i c is for p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t s i m p l y a t t r i b u t e one nature t o t h e o t h e r , i n d e x i n g each n a t u r e , as they said, concretely that is, as 'a m a n have,

instead of ' h u m a n i t y ' or G o d

T h i s m a n is rhe Son of G o d , or,

rather t h a n abstractly,

instead o f d e i t y ' So we

The Logos is Jesus

These are

r u b r i c i z e d as b e l o n g i n g to the c o m m u n i o n of natures

t h a t t o subsequent t h i n k i n g a n d controversy W e have, as t h e second a r t i c l e of the creed, one l o n g p r o p o s i t i o n w h i c h

I h e n p r o p o s i t i o n s m o r e p r o p e r l y r u b r i c i z e d under

c o m m u n i c a t i o n of

ascribes d e i t y i n the most u n c o m p r o m i s i n g t e t m s , a n d h u m a n b i r t h a n d

a t t r i b u t e s f a l l - a c c o r d i n g to C h e m n i t z - i n t o three classes, or genera T h e

death, t h a t is t o say, creatureliness ar i t s m o s t u n c o m p r o m i s e d , t o t h e same

first class is of p r o p o s i t i o n s that predicate w h a t is proper t o one nature to

H o w e v e r can such a p r o p o s i t i o n be true? A n d w h e n we

the person 01 hypostasis, i n d e x e d by the conctete o f either nature, t h a t is,

l o o k t o a l l t h a t mass of w h a t is said about our one L o r d i n the gospels and

either w i t h a proper name, an i d e n t i f y i n g d e s c r i p t i o n , or w i t h the sort of

the O l d lestament

expression

s i n g u l a r subject

a n d the c h u r c h , we observe t h a t t h i s p a t t e r n of the

creed is n o t i d i o s y n c r a t i c , b u t is a p a t t e r n manifested b y a l l the decisive i t e m s of t h a t

w h i c h i n E n g l i s h w o u l d begin w i t h an article.

discourse

A n d here w e encountet the first arguable m a t t e r

I f we say, 'Jesus saves , our subject is the personal n a m e of a h u m a n

This class is

labelled genus idiomatum, s i m p l y t a k e n We m i g h t think t h a t \

of course i f C h r i s t has t w o natures, whatever is proper to e i t h e r nature can

person, a n d the predicate a t t r i b u t e s t o h i m w h a t o n l y G o d can d o I f we

be

say,

c o m m u n i c a t i o n of a t t r i b u t e s between the natures B u t to those L u t h e r a n s ,

A n d g o i n g a l i t t l e f u r t h e r , he t h r e w h i m s e l f o n t h e g r o u n d and

p r a y e d , 'Father, i f i t be possible let t h i s c u p pass f r o m m e

" w e see a

such

atttibured

to

the

one

hypostasis,

but

p r o p o s i t i o n s d o state a c o m m u n i c a t i o n

that

this

constitutes

o f a t t r i b u t e s among

no the

m a n i n the throes of u n w a n t e d decision, and we see h i m addressing G o d as

natures also, for i n their analysis the hypostasis is the o n l y concrete r e a l i t y

bis personal A b b a ; we see indeed a c h r i s r o l o g i c a l crux t h a t s t u m p e d every

of b o t h natures, and f u r t h e r is itself n o t h i n g o t h e r than t h a t , so that w h a t

t h e o l o g i a n before M a x i m u s the Confessor, and continues t o s t u m p a l l w h o

is a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m is i n fact a t t r i b u t e d to b o t h natures

k n o w not M a x i m u s

I f we say, ' T h e Son of G o d was b o r n of M a r y , our


66

JENSON

Thus i n r e f e r r i n g to the one hypostasis, I j u s t said, ' h i m , a n d C h e m n i t z stipulates

concrete' reference t o the hypostasis

The tendency of W e s t e r n

Christ in the

Trinity

W e r e r u r n n o w m o r e d i r e c t l y to t h e q u e s t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n between all t h i s a n d the d o c t r i n e of T r i n i t y I t seems t o m e w e now have t w o questions

C h r i s t o l o g y i n general, however, has been t o resist b o t h modes of s p e a k i n g ,

to consider

to

h u m a n a t t r i b u t e s mean for our u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the T r i n i t y ? A n d w h a t is

take

'the

hypostatic

hypostasis

union,

and

as a sheet l i n g u i s t i c m a r k e r to

understand

the

later

fact

for as

the fact so

purely

of a

W h a t does t h e fact o f t h e m u t u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n of d i v i n e /

the t r i n i t a r i a n i m p o r t of doctrines about the fact?

metaphysical event t h a t i t has no consequences at the level of ra t^uanca

I n c o n s i d e r i n g the first o f these questions, I w i l l w o r k w i t h a m i n i m a l

The hypostasis t h u s cannot be referred t o d i r e c t l y w i t h concrete t e r m s , a n d

and

is c e r t a i n l y n o t a he

C h e m n i t z s a n d his colleagues i n v a r i a b l e a r g u m e n t

t h e one C h r i s r lives h i s l i f e as G o d a n d as a m a n , d i v i n e l y a n d h u m a n l y ,

is t h a t Since the hypostasis o f the Son is become t h e hypostasis o f a m a n , i t

and his d o i n g s and sufferings cannot be sorted o u t i n t o t w o d i f f e r i n g sets o f

follows that

doings

B u t i n the usual system o f W e s t e r n C h r i s t o l o g y , nothing

f o l l o w s d i r e c t l y f r o m the m e t a p h y s i c a l fact of h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n .

and

Iheodore

I h e second class is t h e genus apotelismaticum H e r e w e a t t e n d d i r e c t l y to the actions o f t h e one L o r d as one hypostasis

I hope generally acceptable statement of the fact of t h e communicatio:

sufferings

of

d e t e r m i n e of each event,

A l l t h a t he does as K i n g a n d

You

Mopsuestia

cannot

d i d in

d o w h a t , for e x a m p l e ,

his

commentary

on

the

John s

great

Gospel:

This he d i d as man or ' T h i s he d i d as G o d .

Thus the role p l a y e d b y Jesus i n the h u m a n s t o r y is at once a d i v i n e r o l e

Priest, he does i n a n d t h r o u g h b o t h natures a n d t h e i r characters. T h i s is,

and a h u m a n role

one may say, the u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l genus H e r e Leo s n o t o r i o u s m a x i m is i n

became incarnate' - as one cannot narrate y o u r b i r t h or m i n e

fact adopted b y the Lutherans also: each n a t u r e o f C h r i s t is active i n

way a r o u n d - and t h i s is the aspect t h a t here interests us - t h e role t h a t the

c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h the o t h e t , each c o n t r i b u t i n g t h a t w h i c h is p r o p e r to

Son plays i n the m u t u a l t r i u n e l i f e is at once a d i v i n e role a n d a h u m a n

it

Thus, t o stay o n l y w i t h creeds, h i s b i r t h is narrated -

'he

I h e other

role, a n d so i t includes, t o stay o n l y w i t h creeds, b o r n of t h e V i r g i n M a r y I h e t h i r d genus is the genus maiestaticum, a n d here w h a t is said is i n d e e d

arguable or at least has been v e h e m e n t l y a r g u e d I w i l l q u o t e C h e m n i t z :

and

suffered under P o n t i u s Pilate

I f I m a y press the d r a m a t u r g i c a l

language j u s t i n v o k e d one more srep, the part w h i c h the Son plays i n the t r i u n e drama is rhe life a n d fate of t h e m a n Jesus A n d t h i s is t r u e , b y t h e

In this third genus the petson of Christ i n his role as K i n g and H i g h Priest performs and carries our his divine mission

i n , w i t h and

through the human nature ( A n d he does this] nor only according ro and through the atrributes which belong ro the human nature in itself but also according to attributes which his natute has received and possesses above, beyond and outside its natural properties

as a

result of the hypostastk union and the pericboresis of natures w i t h i n i t

way,

i n d e p e n d e n t l y of whether

the other, each c o n t t i b u t i n g w h a t is proper t o i t and i n its o w n way w h a t is proper t o the other

Thus, to instance the m o s t n o t o t i o u s l y controversial

was a logos asarkos; for

present

The Son is ô^oovjaioç TGJ TlaTpL a n d so w i t h t h e S p i r i t is a persona o f the life t h a t is G o d

So far, so s i m p l y N i c e n e , and so far, so g o o d . B u t w h o is

t h i s Son? W e r e I the Son, G o d w o u l d be a v e t y d i f f e r e n t G o d than he i n fact is, and t h i s w o u l d be so even i f , c o n t r a r y t o p o s s i b i l i t y , t h e Father a n d t h e S p i r i t were otherwise t h e same

W e may p u t i t so: each nature of C h r i s t is active i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h

there

purposes we can w i t h g r a t i t u d e finesse t h a t q u e s t i o n

The d o c t r i n e o f rhe T r i n i t y has i n fact

no r e l i g i o u s i m p o r t unless w e can a n d do i d e n t i f y the Son The d e m a n d for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a persona can o n l y be answered, i n t h i s case as elsewhere, by narrative A n d the - m i n i m a l l y stated - fact of t h e

p r o p o s i t i o n i n t h i s class: T h e m a n Jesus, also as m a n , participates i n the

communicatio is t h a t the narrative of t h e Son is a h u m a n n a r r a t i v e , also as he

d i v i n e transcendence of t i m e a n d space

plays his role i n the d i v i n e life. T h e m o s t a l a r m i n g i t e m s o f that h u m a n

The t h i r d genus, a c c o r d i n g t o the L u t h e r a n theologians according to Luther himself -

is a s y m m e t r i c a l

t h o u g h not

I f there were a pair for

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s of d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e s to the h u m a n nature, these w o u l d be

narrative became t h e m a t i c i n C h r i s t o l o g i c a l debate very q u i c k l y , and t h e debate about t h e m has never q u i t e come to rest

A m o n g m o t e or less

o r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n s i t is o f t e n v e r b a l l y p u t t o test, b u t keeps p r o d u c i n g

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s of h u m a n a t t r i b u t e s to t h e d i v i n e n a t u r e ; there w o u l d be a

s y m p t o m s i n c h u r c h l i f e a n d various reaches of t h e o l o g y

genus tapeinotikon I t c o u l d be said:

O n e of the T r i n i t y suffered for us,

h u m a n c o n d i t i o n t h a t m o s t distressed the ancient w o r l d w e r e , of course,

a c c o r d i n g t o his h u m a n nature a n d , i n c o m m u n i o n w i t h t h a t n a t u r e ,

t h e famous p a i r i n g , the w o m b and the t o m b Can the narrative i d e n t i f y i n g

a c c o r d i n g t o his d i v i n e nature ' L u t h e r t a u g h t such c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ; the

^persona of God's l i f e i n c l u d e h a v i n g i n h a b i t e d a w o m a n ' s b e l l y ? Or h a v i n g

Lutherans exercised m o r e prudence

been executed?

I h e aspects o f t h e

68


JENSON

I t was indeed decreed at Chalcedon t h a t G o d the Son d i d indeed have a h u m a n b i r t h and so has a h u m a n m o t h e r , t h a t M a r y is r i g h t l y saluted as etOTOKOC, B u t the c h u r c h was t i p p e d apart i n the process o f decision - a n d I

find

t h a t the m o r e i l l - e d u c a t e d a m o n g Protestant

clergy continue

suppose t h a t t h i s is one o f those w e i r d and p r o b a b l y blasphemous

to

things

M o r e o v e r , i t was later decreed, at the second C o u n c i l of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e ( 5 5 3 ) , t h a t unus ex trinitate indeed suffered death for us B u t the t h e n Pope, V i g i l i u s , condemned

t h e c o u n c i l as heretical, a n d i t t o o k a

teciptocal

c o n d e m n a t i o n of the p o p e for t h a t dectee t o g e t currency i n the W e s t , w h i c h i n practice i t q u i c k l y lost a g a i n H a n s v o n Campenhausen

i n the W e s t

he

I n m y rigorosum at H e i d e l b e r g ,

asked m e w h y t h e decrees of t h i s c o u n c i l h a d so

Bornkamm

said

explanation

V o n Campenhausen

d i d not

I d i d not k n o w

know

either,

and

Aftetward, asked

Hans

Günther for

the

m a t e d o u t , '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 forgetfulness o f the m a t t e r so w e l l established, perhaps m y lapse too c o u l d be f o r g i v e n . Reluctance a b o u t such p r o p o s i t i o n s as the unus ex trinitate tesuks f r o m d e f i n i t i o n s of the supposed posited

antecedently

predications

Trinity

6

9

G o d whose o w n life is t o l d by t h a t story Here indeed is rhe b i t e o f t h e fact r h a t the m a n Jesus is one o f the

Irinity

I t seems t o me t h a t i f preachers a n d l i t u r g i o l o g i s t s a n d canonists had this fact m o r e t o the f r o n t of their m i n d s , p r e a c h i n g a n d l i t u r g y i n o u r churches w o u l d be rather d i f f e r e n t t h a n i t is

W e w o u l d at least hear a

great deal less about m a k i n g the B i b l e relevant t o the supposed t r u t h s of

t h a t Catholics teach.

l i t t l e l a s t i n g affect

Christ in the

to

t w o n a t u r e s , d e i t y and h u m a n i t y , t h a t are

the

gospel-narrative

with

all

its

cross-over

I f , for central instance, G o d s e t e r n i t y is so u n d e r s t o o d t h a t

d e i t y and d e a t h s i m p l y exclude one another

b y d e f i n i t i o n , t h e n unus ex

trinitate passus est is n o t j u s t s u r p r i s i n g , or even perhaps p a r a d o x i c a l , b u t

rhis w o r l d , a n d a great deal more a b o u t j u d g i n g the w o r l d s suppositions by the narrative o f the B i b l e . Instead of, Y o u say y o u m a k e your l i v i n g g r i n d i n g the faces of the poor? N e v e r m i n d , those b i b l i c a l precepts have, after a l l , ro be i n t e r p r e t e d i n our n e w a n d very d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t , we m i g h t hear, Y o u say y o u are baptized? R i g h t N o w let us consider h o w y o u are i n the m e a n t i m e t o make a l i v i n g

and c h i l d r e n , to live w i t h a lover w h o m he has never m a r r i e d - and thac rhe lover

is

So the fait of the (ommunuatio is t h a t t h e m u t u a l p l o t of the d i v i n e l i f e , the ensemble of the processions as they are c a l l e d , is d e t e t m i n e d by w h a t happened w i t h Jesus of N a z a t e t h b e t w e e n his c o n c e p t i o n b y the V i t g i n a n d his Ascension t o the Father

A n d the pay-off is: this l i f e is the l i f e t h a t

creates a l l t h a t is a n d t h a t w i l l f u l f i l a l l t h a t is I f w e w a n t t o k n o w h o w r e a l i t y is c o n s t i t u t e d , w e m u s t read the gospels M o r e o v e r , rhere is another aspect of the m a t t e r

I t is to the Son t h a t the

of

his

disqualifications

own

gender

is

surely

the

least

of

this

malefactor s

B u t i f w e suppose t h a t the h i s t o r y of the c h u r c h is one

piece of the h i s t o r y of c u l t u t e - instead of t h e t r u e other w a y a r o u n d those w h o oppose such a c c o m m o d a t i o n s

m u s t always

finally

-

be bereft of

argument. Now

-

finally -

w h a t such o n t o l o g i c a i l y loaded d o c t r i n e s about the

commumcatio, l i k e that of those Lutherans at some p o i n t s , f i n a l l y d e t e r m i n e , is h o w stringently the Son s i n n e t - t t i n i t a r i a n role is p l o t t e d b y w h a t happens w i t h Jesus manifest

s i m p l y nonsensical

The Episcopal C h u r c h i n m y c o u n t r y has

j u s t consecrated as b i s h o p a m a n w h o some years ago abandoned his w i f e

Does, for a central

case, the d e a t h of Jesus o n the

cross

the paradoxical power of love by w h i c h G o d rules the universe,

as i t is often p u t ; or is Jesus d y i n g s i m p l y G o d r u l i n g rhe universe? D o e s Jesus' resurrection pethaps

show

forth

G o d s transcendence of t i m e , or is

i t the w a y G o d goes a b o u t t o transcend t i m e ? I w i l l n o t conceal t h a t I t h i n k the second statement is the t r u e one i n b o t h cases, a n d w o u l d j u d g e all 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 L u t h e r a n s , and even m o r e L u t h e r h i m s e l f , g o t t h i s one t i g h t - whatever else they m a y indeed have g o t t e n badly w r o n g

Much

I n m y j u d g m e n t , any less s t r i n g e n t d o c t r i n e of the lonimunkatio, t h a t is

c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g w o u l d w a n t to adjust t h a t a b i t , a n d say t h a t the Son is

to say, any less s t r i n g e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between Jesus s t o r y a n d the Son s

Father, by an ancient

theologoumenon,

l o o k s to k n o w h i m s e l f

t h e W o r d t h a t the Father speaks t o h i m s e l f t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f E i t h e r w a y ,

role i n the t r i u n e d r a m a , leaves rhe w a y open for t h e p l o t of t r i u n e life t o be

w e may ask rhe q u e s t i o n : V e r y w e l l , b u t what does the Father hear - or see

d e t e r m i n e d b y other stoties t h a n the b i b l i c a l s t o r y - t h a t is for a p a t t e r n of

- w h e n he attends t o the Son? A n d the answer m u s t be: the n a r r a t i v e of

r e l i g i o n w h i c h the c h u r c h t r u l y can no longer s u p p o r t

Jesus-in-Israel

I h a t n a r r a t i v e is G o d s s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n as the p a r t i c u l a r

G o d he is Thus the events of salvation s h i s t o r y are n o t i n t r u s i o n s i n the h i s t o r y of t h e universe; a l m o s t vice versa, rhe h i s t o r y of t h e universe is an i n c i d e n t i n t h e story of Jesus i n Israel For the universe is the c r e a t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r

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

HOLMES

71

m a n Jesus of N a z a r e t h was never lost s i g h t of, C o l i n also s t r o n g l y a f f i r m e d A s I t h o u g h t t h r o u g h t h i s paper, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y as I read some o f t h e seventeenthReformed,

Chapter 4

and eighteenth-century

debates

between

Lutheran

C o l i n s choice of heroes s t r u c k m e as more a n d more

and right,

b u t also m o r e a n d m o r e o d d I h e reason for t h i s is as f o l l o w s : at the heart of the a r g u m e n t o f t h i s essay is a suggestion t h a t t h e novel C h r i s t o l o g y of J o h n O w e n , taken u p b y several others w i t h i n t h e A n g l o p h o n e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n , is d i s t i n c t i v e l y a n d r a d i c a l l y R e f o r m e d , i n that i t can be seen t o g r o w o u t of, i n f o r m a n d

Reformed Varieties of the Communicatio Idiomatum Stephen R

s u p p o r t p o s i t i o n s t h e R e f o r m e d were d e v e l o p i n g i n their disputes w i t h the lutherans

N o w , b o t h R e f o r m e d a n d Lutherans m a p p e d t h e i r C h r i s t o l o -

g i c a l disputes o n t o the famous p a t r i s t i c debate between A l e x a n d r i a a n d A n t i o c h , a n d t h e o p p o s i n g heresies i t gave rise t o The m a p p i n g was done d i f f e r e n t l y b y each side, w i t h the R e f o r m e d i d e n t i f y i n g themselves w i t h

Holmes

the

tradition

declared

orthodox

at Chalcedon,

and i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e

Lutherans were E u t y c h i a n s ; a n d t h e Lutherans, b y contrast, c l a i m i n g t h a t

T

the R e f o r m e d were N e s t o r i a n a n d t h a t they themselves were i n f a c t t h e here are three reasons for m y choice of t h i s , a d m i t t e d l y somewhat

heirs of Chalcedon

abstruse,

C h r i s t o l o g y was a r a d i c a l i z a t i o n of standard R e f o r m e d p o s i t i o n s ,

title

I h e first

is t h a t ,

looking

at t h e conference

p r o g r a m m e as i t was t a k i n g shape, I t h o u g h t w e needed some

t e c h n i c a l C h r i s t o l o g y somewhere, a n d I was also g l a d of a n excuse t o d o

G i v e n t h i s , i f I a m r i g h t i n s u p p o s i n g that O w e n s Colin's

heroes are C y r i l , a n d someone whose theology w o u l d have appeared t o at least some of his contemporaries as u n q u e s t i o n a b l y

Nestorian

T h e second was a desire

There is s o m e t h i n g very r i g h t a b o u t t h i s , i t seems t o m e , because we

t o carry o n a conversation, a l b e i t after a s i g n i f i c a n t gap. Four yeats ago, just

need i n C h r i s t o l o g y t o h o l d t o t h e genius of b o t h t h e ancient, and i n d e e d

before t h e conference w e h e l d o n r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , I h a d m y P h D v i v a O n e of

b o t h the early m o d e r n , schools W i t h A l e x a n d r i a and H e i d e l b e r g , we m u s t

some reading i n t h e atea o f technical C h t i s t o l o g y

the t h i n g s I had a r g u e d , m o r e or less i n passing, i n m y thesis was t h a t there

insist that i t is of decisive i m p o r t a n c e that w e confess o n e L o r d , Jesus

was a novel a n d d i s t i n c t i v e l y R e f o r m e d C h r i s t o l o g y developed w i t h i n t h e

C h r i s t , t h a t the h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n is n o f i c t i o n or figure of speech, b u t t h a t

Puritan tradition

G o d t h e Son is t r u l y bomoousios w i t h us, as he is homoousios w i t h the Father

O n e of m y examiners, R o b e r t Jenson, t o o k issue w i t h

t h i s , a r g u i n g t h a t R e f o r m e d C h r i s t o l o g y is m e r e l y a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e

W i t h A n t i o c h a n d Geneva, however, we m u s t a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t i t is just

C a t h o l i c t r a d i t i o n , a n d does n o t f i n d any d i s t i n c t i v e expression I c o n t i n u e

as decisive t h a t there is n o m i n g l i n g or a d m i x t u r e of t h e natures t o f o r m a

to believe t h a t I was r i g h t , b u t I a m also aware t h a t I d i d n o t convince m y

tettium quid, a bizarre s p i r i t u a l cockatrice w h o hovers l o s t i n t h e v o i d

examiner o n t h i s p o i n t . I tealize four years is a fair g a p , b u t I hope t h a t m y

between h u m a n i t y a n d d i v i n i t y

a t t e m p t t o p i c k t h e issue u p again i n t h i s essay w i l l g o some way t o e x p l a i n

c o n d e m n e d , a n d so t o h o l d as heroes t w o people w h o grasped these t w o

my

B o t h N e s t o r i u s a n d Eutyches m u s t be

t r u t h s w i t h p r o f u n d i t y is a p p r o p r i a t e

obstinacy T h e t h i r d reason is a desire t o f i n d a n answer t o a q u e s t i o n I never g o t t o

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

A l l w h o h a d t h e p r i v i l e g e a n d pleasure of discussing

The oddness relates t o h o w these

t h i n g s can be h e l d together: the account I have sketched already gives some reason t o fear t h a t t h e C h r i s t o l o g i e s o f C y r i l a n d O w e n m i g h t prove s i m p l y

t h e o l o g y w i t h h i m w i l l k n o w t h a t he h a d t w o heroes w h e n he t a l k e d

incoherent,

a n d g o o d reason t o suspect t h a t t h e y p u l l i n very d i f f e r e n t

Christology.

directions

I t is, I have a r g u e d , very desirable t o h o l d t h e m together, b u t

Cyril

of Alexandria,

whose

insistence

that

all that

is

predicated of Jesus C h t i s t is predicated of t h e one incarnate person of t h e D i v i n e W o r d , a n d n o t d i v i d e d u p i n t o t h i n g s predicated of t h e h u m a n

how

m i g h t i t be done?

F i r s t , however, t o t h e h i s t o r y , a n d m y a r g u m e n t w i t h R o b e t t Jenson, as

nature a n d t h i n g s predicated of t h e d i v i n e nature, was m u c h a d m i r e d b y

a i l t h e other reflections presuppose t h a t I a m r i g h t about t h a t

C o l i n ; a n d J o h n O w e n , whose d e m a n d t h a t t h e h u m a n i t y of the J e w i s h

suggest t h a t t o w a t d s t h e heart of O w e n s C h r i s t o l o g y is a peculiar w a y of

70

I w a n t to

72

The Person of Chris!

understanding indeed

the p h i l o s o p h i c a l

biblical -

communication

underpinnings

l i n g u i s t i c practice

that

of the p a t r i s t i c -

came

to

be

k n o w n as

and the

of properties — the communicatio idiomatum — idiomaton

koinonia, or antidosis ton idiomaton A t the head of the R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n , C a l v i n defines t h e connnunhatio

the essential p r o b l e m w o u l d seem t o be a c o n f l a t i o n of d i v i n e and h u m a n d i v i n e act of g e n e r a t i o n , a n d so o n I t is no surprise, therefore, that C a l v i n

C a l v i n is o f course careful t o a v o i d the error o f N e s t o r i u s

alone A n d they so earnestly express the union of the two natures that is

positively

of

in Christ as sometimes to interchange them

explicitly

On

ancient writers

I h i s figure o f speech the

communication

comprehend

of

properties Qnst I I x i v 1) the f o l l o w i n g section,

C a l v i n offers some S c r i p t u r a l examples:

g l o r y was c r u c i f i e d ( 1 Cor

God

( A c t s 2 0 2 8 , m a t g i n ) ; the L o r d o f

2 . 8 ) ; ' t h e W o r d o f l i f e was h a n d l e d ( 1 J n 1

1)

C a l v i n explains these examples t h u s : Surely G o d does nor have b l o o d B u t since C h r i s t , w h o was t r u e G o d a n d also t t u e m a n , was c r u c i f i e d a n d shed his b l o o d for us, the t h i n g s he carried o u t i n his h u m a n nature are transferred i m p r o p e r l y , a l t h o u g h n o t w i t h o u t reason, t o his d i v i n i t y ' (Inst. I I xiv 2) T h i s account of the d o c t r i n e echoes one strand of the t e a c h i n g o r t h o d o x at Chalcedon

declared

Leo, i n his Tome, had f o l l o w e d the same procedure

of d i v i d i n g u p the acts and properries of the incarnate Son i n t o those w h i c h belonged

to the d i v i n e nature a n d those w h i c h belonged

to the h u m a n

nature - C a l v i n quotes A u g u s t i n e , rather than Leo, b u t the L a t i n f a m i l y resemblance is m a r k e d (Inst

I I x i v 4 ) H o w e v e r , there was s o m e t h i n g else

g o i n g o n at the c o u n c i l : a l t h o u g h the Fathers p r o c l a i m e d t h a t spoken t h r o u g h Leo

1

Petet h a d

they d i d n o t , as the Pope had a p p a r e n t l y expected,

m e r e l y p r o m u l g a t e his Tome as t h e i r declaration o f f a i t h Instead, t h e y p u t i t alongside the letters of C y r i l , whose approach to t h i s q u e s t i o n was rather d i f f e r e n t , a n d , f a m o u s l y , w r o t e their o w n d e f i n i t i o n of w h a t was to be regarded as o r t h o d o x belief T h e i m m e d i a t e reason f o r C a l v i n s choice is not h a r d t o see Calvin

notes, a n d reburs, the ancient C b r i s t o l o g i c a l the

names of N e s t o r i u s

exposition of the hypostatic

and

Euryches,

his

u n i o n is the t e a c h i n g

Although

heresies associated main

target

in

the

his

u n i t y of

rhe

one

the

hand,

person, he

b o t h natures at once

will

and assert

condemns that

the

H e b o t h treats Nestorianism passages

that

set f o r t h { C h r i s r ' s ] t r u e substance

For one reads there neither of d e i t y nor of h u m a n i t y -

alone, b u t of b o t h at once (Inst I I x i v 3 ) C a l v i n cites a n u m b e r of passages o f the f o r m the Father

has g i v e n a l l j u d g e m e n t to the Son

(Jn 5 2 2 ) ,

a r g u i n g t h a t the possession of the t i g h t t o j u d g e - or, v a r i o u s l y , the p o w e r t o f o t g i v e s i n , t o raise t o l i f e , to bestow righteousness a n d holiness, a n d so o n - t h a t possession of a l l these t h i n g s is the p r e r o g a t i v e o n l y of G o d , b u t t h a t the Son does n o t need t o be g i v e n t h e m b y t h e Father, so the s p e a k i n g of the g i f t indicates t h e h u m a n i t y o f the s i n g l e m e d i a t o r . O n the other h a n d , w e read f a j w a y w i t h t h e error of N e s t o r i u s , w h o i n w a n t i n g t o p u l l apart rather than d i s t i n g u i s h t h e nature o f C h r i s t devised a d o u b l e C h r i s t ! Y e t w e see t h a t S c r i p t u r e cries o u t against t h i s w i t h a clear voice: there the name

Son of G o d '

is a p p l i e d t o h i m w h o is born o f the

v i r g i n , and the v i t g i n herself is called the " m o t h e r of our Lord Domini) (Inst I I x i v 4 )

(mater

I hose of us w h o w i s h t o free C a l v i n f r o m the t a i n t

of N e s t o t i a n i s m w o u l d no d o u b t be happier i f at this p o i n t he h a d said theotokos, rarhet than s o m e t h i n g s o u n d i n g u n c o m f o r t a b l y l i k e cbristotokos W h e n , however, w e consider C a l v i n s s l i g h t l y o d d account of w h a t c a l l i n g C h r i s t L o r d means, developed t h r o u g h a discussion of the d i f f e r i n g states of C h r i s t , i t is clear t h a t the phrase ' m o t h e r o f our L o r d , w h i l e a conscious d i s t a n c i n g f r o m c e r t a i n extremes o f M a r i a n d e v o t i o n , is a s t r o n g c l a i m i n C a l v i n ' s t h o u g h t C a l v i n s account of Christ's state of h u m i l i a t i o n does n o t , perhaps u n u s u a l l y for a two-states C h r i s t o l o g y , compare i t m a i n l y t o a p t o t o l o g i c a l pre-incarnate state of g l o r y , b u t t o an eschatological m o m e n t when

Christ s

state

of

humiliation will

be

over

only

because

the

of M i c h a e l Servetus, Calvin mentions Nestotianism and Eutychianism in hist. [I xiv 4, and then devotes I I xiv 5-8 to refuting Servetus His and-Served an treatise, the Dtfensio orthodoxacfideidc sacre Trinitate was written in 1554 He mentions it in i l xiv 8 It can be found in Corpus Reform atom m V I I I 457—644 1

Acts Session 2

the

m o s t clearly of all

purchased the c h u r c h w i t h h i s b l o o d

t h a t stressed

regarded t h e communicatio as m e r e l y a figure o f speech

d i v i n i t y ; and sometimes what embraces both natutes but fits neither

by the

Servetus s account

d i s t i n c t i o n of the t w o natures, rather t h a n t h e u n i t y of t h e person, a n d so

solely to his humanity, sometimes what belongs uniquely to his

(tropus) is called

1

o f the i n c a r n a t i o n was rather c o m p l e x , and i n d e e d s o m e w h a t sttange, b u t

emphasizes those aspects of the o r t h o d o x i n h e r i t a n c e

[rhe Scriptures] sometimes attribute to [Christ] what must be referred

with

against w h o m he had earlier w r i t t e n a l e n g t h y treatise

73

a c t i v i t y , so t h a t the h u m a n b e g e t t i n g by M a r y was at t h e same t i m e the

idiomatum b y f o l l o w i n g the d o c t r i n e of Pope Leo:

In

Refoitned Varieties of the C o m m u n i c a t i o I d i o m a t u m

HOLMES

74



HOIMES

75

h u m i l i a t i o n t h a t he has chosen to share i n c o m m o n w i t h a l l t h e c h i l d r e n of

fact, because C h r i s t is located at the r i g h t h a n d o f the Father , his b o d y a n d

Eve w i l l be over

blood

T h i s is discussed i n Inst I I x i v 3 , i n c o n n e c r i o n w i t h passages t h a t speak of the eschatological

not

physically

located

on

any

altar

Ihus

both

Roman

( I n passing, i t is n o t clear t o me t h a t any f o r m of the communicatio can be

h a n d i n g over o f t h e K i n g d o m t o t h e Father, w h i c h

C a l v i n fears m i g h t be used t o s u p p o r t some f o r m of s u b o r d i n a t i s t or A r i a n

are

t r a n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n a n d L u t h e r ' s c o n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n m u s t be false h e l p f u l for a n o n - C a l v i n i s t p o s i t i o n ; w h a t is w a n t e d for t h e L u t h e r a n or

p o s i t i o n C a l v i n offers an account o f t h e state of h u m i l i a t i o n t h a t insists i t

I h o m i s t account t o be t r u e is n o t a d i v i n e p r o p e r t y - omnipresence — b u t

continues u n t i l t h i s eschatological h a n d i n g over, w h e n , w i t h the c o m i n g of

the p r o p e r t y of b e i n g l o c a l l y present

the last j u d g m e n t , as pattakers i n the heavenly g l o r y w e shall see G o d as

Q u e n s t e d t argued t h a t the majesty of the omnipresence of t h e Logos was

i n several places at once

When

he is'. U n t i l that p o i n t our u n i o n w i t h G o d is m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h the

c o m m u n i c a t e d t o the h u m a n nature of C h r i s t i n the first m o m e n t o f the

heavenly session of C h r i s t , w h o presently r e i g n [ s ] , j o i n i n g us t o the Father

petsonai u n i o n , i n consequence of w h i c h , along w i t h the d i v i n e nature, i t is

as t h e measure of our weakness p e r m i t s ; at t h a t p o i n t , C h r i s t ,

having

n o w o m n i p r e s e n t , he p r o v e d far t o o m u c h , i n t h a t on t h i s account C h r i s t

discharged the office of M e d i a t o r , w i l l cease t o be the ambassador o f his

is no less present i n rhis glass of water t h a n o n t h e altar, a n d so no m o r e

Father, and w i l l be satisfied w i t h t h a t g l o r y w h i c h he enjoyed before the

present o n the altar t h a n i n t h i s glass o f water

creation of the w o r l d

support c o n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n ,

I h e r e is m u c h we c o u l d say about t h i s , somewhat i d i o s y n c r a t i c , account,

3

Such a p o s i t i o n c a n n o t

as either Luther or the F o r m u l a o f C o n c o r d

defines the t e r m I n d e e d , of a l l the d i s p u t e d R e f o r m a t i o n positions o n t h e

b u t the i m p o r t a n t p o i n t f o r m y present discussion is t h a t C a l v i n connects

Eucharist, i t looks closest t o t h a t of Z w i n g l i .

the t i t l e

t i o n , an account of m u l t i p l e p a r t i c u l a r local presences of t h e same h u m a n

L o r d w i t h the d i v i n e r e i g n , so p r e s e n t l y , because the r e i g n is

m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h C h r i s t alone, C h r i s t alone is t o be called L o r d , b u t i t

To support

consubstantia-

person m u s t be developed, n o t an account o f h u m a n omnipresence.)

remains a d i v i n e t i t l e , w h i c h w i l l be reclaimed b y the Father (and, we

I he d e v e l o p m e n t

of

the C o n t i n e n t a l

scholastic R e f o r m e d

tradition

presume, rhe S p i r i t , w h o is noticeably absent f r o m these secrions), n o t t o

retained t h i s interest i n stressing the d i s t i n c t properries of t h e t w o natures

remove

the

of C h r i s t , n o t least because i t c o n t i n u e d to f o r m an i m p o r t a n t s t r a n d of

k i n g d o m , w h e n 'we { s h a l l ] see his d i v i n e

p o l e m i c against L u t h e r a n eucharistic d o c t r i n e A t the same t i m e , there was

i t f r o m C h r i s t , b u t so that Father, Son

L o r d s h i p i n the eschatological majesty face t o face

a n d S p i r i t share

So, t o get back to the m a i n a r g u m e n t , t o call the

a m o v e t o m o r e careful statements t h a t were consciously

i n line

with

blessed v i r g i n t h e m o t h e r of o u r L o r d ' rarher t h a n theotokos is n o t t o deny

Chalcedonian orthodoxy

t h a t she is the m o t h e r o f one w h o is p r o p e r l y called G o d , b u t rarher t o

t r e a t m e n t of t h e hypostatic u n i o n , i n the f o r m o f three questions

specify m o r e exactly

of these is headed ' D i d the Son of G o d assume h u m a n nature i n t o the u n i r y

that i t is the person

of t h e

T r i n i t y w h o became

François T u r r e t i n , for example, offers a c a r e f u l 4

The first

incarnate to w h o m she is m o t h e r , n o t t h e Father or t h e S p i r i r C a l v i n is

of his person? W e a f f i r m against the Socinians

p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned t o stress the unconfused a n d u n m i n g l e d t w o natures

careful s t a t e m e n t of the q u e s t i o n , a n d a careful a n d o r t h o d o x account o f the

o f t h e m e d i a t o r , b u t , p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d , n o t h i n g he says can be taken as

hypostatic

d o w n - p l a y i n g t h e u n i t y of the person

a s s u m p t i o n of the f u l l ,

L h i s concern

for the d i s t i n c t properties of the t w o natures

spills over i n t o Eucharistic

controversy

famously

C a l v i n asserts that i t is of the

union

which

u n i o n by the Logos

relies

Iheol

X I I I v i 5)

account

the

enhypostatic

h u m a n nature

i n t o personal

I h e u n i o n is defined as

of

t h e i n t i m a t e and p e r p e t u a l

i n rhe u n i t y of person' (Inst

The next q u e s t i o n consists o f a d e n i a l of the

so I a m nor i n A l b u q u e r q u e Just so, c l a i m e d C a l v i n , i f t h e b o d y and b l o o d

associated

d e f i n i t i o n as the m i d d l e w a y , d e n y i n g b o t h .

they cannot be so i n another:

asserted t o be t h e i n v e n t i o n o f t w o persons o f t h e t w o natures of C h r i s t ; as a

[ f ] o r as we d o n o t d o u b t t h a t Christ's b o d y is

conrained i n heaven

consectated bread a n d w i n e ] or t o i m a g i n e i t to be present I V x v i i 12)

and

Eutyches,

quoting

the

Chalcedonian

I h e error o f N e s r o r i u s is

result of t h i s , according t o T u r r e t i n , he denied t h a t M a r y was theotokos; t h a t

u n t i l C h r i s t r e t u r n i n j u d g m e n t , so we deem i t

u t t e r l y u n l a w f u l t o d r a w i t back under these c o r r u p t i b l e elements (i.e (Inst

Nestorius

Eleni errors

- u n d e n i a b l y h u m a n properties - o f C h r i s t are l o c a l l y present i n one place, l i m i t e d by the general characteristics c o m m o n t o a l l h u m a n bodies, a n d is

with

an

b u t anhypostatic,

c o n j u n c t i o n of the t w o natures

essence of b e i n g h u m a n t o be locally present i n one place alone: I a m here,

on

There is a characteristically

everywhere

Thus t h e y cannot be on m a n y altars s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ; i n

Cited in Heinrich Sc timid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans Châties A Hay and Henry E Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 3rd edn. 1961), 331 Inst Elenc Theot. X I I I 6-8 4

76


Reformed Varieties of the C o m m u n i c a r i o I d i o m a t u m

HOLMES

C h r i s t was G o d , instead c a l l i n g h i m a m a n possessed by G o d ' ; and t h a t

k n o w l e d g e of h i m s e l f , was the theologia unionis -

there was no u n i o n of natures other t h a n as association and an i n h a b i t a t i o n

g r a n r e d to the enhypostatic

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , T u r r e t i n shows h i m s e l f awate of h i s t o r i c a l questions as to w h e t h e r N e s r o r i u s was a c t u a l l y g u i l t y of the error t h a t bears his n a m e , a l t h o u g h he offers some reasons to assume he was notes,

the q u e s t i o n is h i s t o r i c a l , of fact, n o t of r i g h t

Nevertheless, as he This does not h i n d e r

us f r o m r e j e c t i n g as f u n d a m e n t a l the error a t t r i b u t e d to N e s t o r i u s Elenc

X I I I vii 4)

Theo!

(Inst

T u r r e t i n s reasons for r e j e c t i n g the N e s t o t i a n

hetesy ate exegetical, based o n three sets of passages: those w h i c h teach t h a t the Son of G o d was b o r n of a v i r g i n woman

Gal

natures

(Rom

4 4 ) ; those

( G o d sent f o r t h his Son, b o r n o f a

t h a t speak o f

one person c o n s i s t i n g of t w o

1 3—4 is t o the fore, the locus classkus i n t h i s discussion);

hypostatic u n i o n

77

the k n o w l e d g e of G o d

h u m a n nature of C h r i s t by v i r t u e of

the

6

T h i s , a d m i t t e d l y s o m e w h a t abstruse, set of d i s r i n c r i o n s is i n t e r e s t i n g for m y purposes because i t demonstrates t w o i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s O n e w h i c h I shall

return

to,

concerning

the

attempt

to

petceive

two

distinct

p s y c h o l o g i c a l centres i n t h e one person of C h r i s t w i t h o u t thereby d e n y i n g the

hypostatic

union;

the

other

indicating that

the

Reformed

were

prepared to ascribe every p e r f e c t i o n possible t o h u m a n b e i n g to the h u m a n nature of C h r i s t , and t h a t i n the h i g h e s t degree possible to h u m a n b e i n g ; they were n o t , however, prepared t o b r i d g e the basic chasm

between

Creator and created, even i n the case of t h a t created n a t u r e w h i c h

was

a n d those t h a t ascribe diverse p r o p e r t i e s a n d operations t o t h e one C h r i s t '

assumed i n t o personal u n i o n w i t h t h e creative W o r d

( t h e L o r d of g l o r y was c r u c i f i e d

f o u r t h evangelist t o the effect t h a t G o d gives t h e S p i r i t w i t h o u t measure

1 Cor

2 8) (XIII vii 5-7)

H e makes

sense of t h i s by a p p e a l i n g t o t h e anhypostatia, w h i c h i f r i g h t m u s t deny

t o h i m (Jn

N e s t o r i a n i s m , and b y asserting t h e communicatio idiomatum: s u f f e r i n g a n d

w h i c h makes the p o i n t s u c c i n c t l y : as t h e h i g h e s t o f all creatures, there is n o

death

l i m i t to G o d s gracious g i f t i n g , b u t as a creature s t i l l , there is a need f o r i t

properly

and

formally

belong

to

the

human

nature,

d e n o m i n a t i v e l y t o the person a c c o r d i n g t o the other nature

but

(XIII vii 9),

3 . 3 4 ) (Inst

Elenc. Theol

X I I I viii 1;

T u r r e t i n quotes t h e

see also X I I I v i i i . 3 2 ) ,

The effects of the h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n on the person are, o n T u r r e t i n s

before d o i n g a certain a m o u n t of s q u i r m i n g a r o u n d the need t o a f f i r m t h a t

telling,

the Blessed V i r g i n s h o u l d be called M o t h e r of G o d

h o n o u r I n each case, he insists, the c o m m u n i c a t i o n m u s t be considered as

A f t e r t h i s conscious d i s p l a y of catholic o r t h o d o x y , T u r r e t i n t u r n s to the more immediate controversy:

5

W e r e c e r t a i n properties of the d i v i n e nature

t h r e e f o l d : the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of a t t r i b u t e s , o f

office, and

o n l y f r o m the natures to the person, n o t f r o m one nature to t h e other

of

Thus

T u r r e t i n s account of the communicatio idiomatum relies o n a d i s t i n c t i o n

f o r m a l l y c o m m u n i c a t e d t o the h u m a n nature of C h r i s t by the personal

between c o m m u n i c a t i o n between natures and person and c o m m u n i c a t i o n

u n i o n ? W e deny against the Lutherans

b e t w e e n the t w o natures

T u r r e t i n asserts t h a t the personal

Properties of each n a t u r e may be m e a n i n g f u l l y

u n i o n affects b o t h the h u m a n nature a n d the person (the d i v i n e n a t u r e ,

a n d r i g h t l y a p p l i e d to t h e person, b u t properties of the one n a t u r e m a y n o t

b e i n g i m m u t a b l e and impassible, is n o t changed i n any w a y )

be a p p l i e d to the other

The effects

o n the h u m a n n a t u r e are t w o f o l d : pre-eminence, and the h a b i t u a l graces

T u r r e t i n s reasons i n defence of t h i s p o s i t i o n are

n u m e r o u s , a n d n o t too i m p o r t a n t for m y purposes here, m a i n l y r e l y i n g o n

w h i c h are possessed i n the h i g h e s t m a n n e r possible for a h u m a n creature,

supposed l o g i c a l inconsistencies

b u r no h i g h e r

which

Reformed

T h i s p o i n t is perhaps best i l l u s t r a t e d b y a c o m m o n p l a c e of

prolegomena:

the

ecumenical

d i s t i n c t i o n between theologia

I

find

interesting,

convincing

howevet:

The

i n the o p p o s i n g p o s i t i o n , about h a l f of explanation

T u r r e t i n s great

point

of is

his that

p o s i t i o n is the

more

natures

are

anhetypa - G o d s o w n i n t u i t i v e , c o m p l e t e a n d s i n g l e k n o w l e d g e of h i m s e l f

d i f f e r e n t , and for there t o be a real i n c a r n a t i o n , a n d not a E u t y c h i a n m i x i n g

-

of natures l e a d i n g t o a tertium quid, t h e natures m u s t r e m a i n d i s t i n c t

and theologia ectypa -

possessed by creatures

t h e p a r t i a l , s t u d i e d and c o m p l e x

knowledge

Whereas, however, other discussions t e n d t o assert

t h a t the h i g h e r f o r m s of ectypal t h e o l o g y are the k n o w l e d g e o f G o d enjoyed by t h e saints and angels i n the beatific v i s i o n , the

Reformed

p r o l e g o m e n a asserted t h a t the m o s t perfect a n d c o m p l e t e ectypal t h e o l o g y , w h i c h s t i l l , however, was creaturely k n o w l e d g e of G o d , a n d n o t G o d s o w n

SocinLanism was an immediate controversy of coutse but I know o( little evidence that there were contemporary explosions of Nestorianism or Eutychianism chat Turretin was concerned to combat 5

A useful discussion of the distinction between theologia anhtypa and theologia ectypa, and of the place of the theologia unionis in the scheme occurs in Sebastian Rehnman Divine Discourse Ihe Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker. 2002) 57~7t Rehnman indicates that although this language for the division betwten God s own self-knowledge and all creacurtly knowledge of God is first found in Franciscus Junius, in the early years of the seventeenth century, there are hints of the concept as fat back as Aristotle and Ps -Dionysius, and he suggests that the Reformed themselves considered that it came from medieval scholasticism with Polanus pointing particularly to Scotus's commentary on lombatd

78



HOLMES

W h a t , t h e n , is i m p l i e d by t h e hypostatic union? T u r r e t i n ' s d e f i n i t i o n ,

79

O w e n does n o t pause to e x p l a i n w h y this p o i n t was seen as an adequate

already q u o t e d , is of l i t t l e h e l p : i n t i m a t e a n d p e r p e t u a l c o n j u n c t i o n of the

d i s p r o o f of T r i n i t a r i a n d o c t r i n e b y the Socinians -

natures ' i n the u n i t y o f the person

is an assertion of o r t h o d o x y , b u t offers

p o s i t i o n w h i c h C y r i l was concerned t o force u p o n N e s t o r i u s t h r o u g h t h e

l i t t l e e x p l a n a t i o n as t o w h a t i t means T h e d e p l o y m e n t of t h e a n h y p o s t a t i c -

seventh of his anathemas, a n d so is n o t o b v i o u s l y i m m e d i a t e l y destructive

enhyposratic

d i s t i n c t i o n is, as far as I can see,

i t was, after a l l , a

o n l y a way o f d e n y i n g

to o r t h o d o x t h e o l o g y - b u t I suppose t h a t the a r g u m e n t w o u l d have been

N e s t o r i a n i s m - i n s i s r i n g t h a t there is o n l y one hypostasis o f the incarnate

exegetical: Scripture speaks of w o r k s of the S p i r i t i n the l i f e of C h r i s r , so i f

Son -

a p a r t i c u l a r d o c r r i n e cannot f i n d r o o m for such w o r k s , i t is shown t o be

b u t i t offers l i t t l e or n o t h i n g i n the way of p o s i t i v e

l u t t e t i n s d o c t t i n e is damaged

content

by his d e c i s i o n to w r i t e theology i n an

false

elenctic, or controversial, m o o d : he is very clear w h a t is n o t t o be believed,

O w e n c o u l d have t u r n e d to a series of exegetical p o s i t i o n s developed

i n c l u d i n g l o n g c r i t i c i s m s of the p a t r i s t i c heresies, the Socinians, a n d the

w i t h i n L u t h e r a n i s m to h e l p h i m here, b u t instead he develops a d i s t i n c t i v e

L u t h e r a n p o s i t i o n , b u t he can offer l i t t l e i n t h e way o f p o s i t i v e C h r i s t o l o g y ,

f o r m of R e f o r m e d C h r i s t o l o g y H i s a r g u m e n t has t w o p a t t s : first he proves

othet than a r e p e t i t i o n o f the basic R e f o r m e d i n s t i n c t t h a t somehow the

h o w l i t t l e is necessatily consequent o n the hypostatic u n i o n , so s h o w i n g

hypostatic u n i o n m u s t preserve t h e i n t e g r i t y of the natures, p a r t i c u l a r l y

w h i c h w o r k s need not have been done b y the Son; and t h e n he argues w h a t

t h a t o f the h u m a n nature, w h i c h they believed L u t h e r a n t h e o l o g y was i n

works

danger o f d a m a g i n g

d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t the w o r k s he wishes ro ascribe to t h e S p i r i t are n o t

John O w e n , a n d w i t h h i m some others i n an a n g l o p h o n e

tradition,

develops the basic a n t i - L u t h e r a n C h r i s t o l o g i c a l i m p u l s e i n another

way

are

proper

to

the

Spirit

within

the

divine

economy,

necessarily those of the Son and are p r o p e r l y those of t h e S p i r i t a r g u m e n t begins w i t h the assertion

so The

[ t ] h e o n l y singular i m m e d i a t e act of

again, a n d one t h a t has, I t h i n k , considerably more to say a b o u t the nature

the petson o f the Son o n the h u m a n nature was the assumption of i t i n t o

o f the h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n . S t i l l the t h e o l o g i c a l i n s t i n c t is to p r o t e c t

subsistence w i t h h i m s e l f

the

?

The defence of t h i s p o i n t is exegetical, w i t h

assertion of the f u l l h u m a n i t y o f C h r i s t , t o p r e v e n t t h e d i v i n e nature so

references t o

o v e r w h e l m i n g t h e h u m a n t h a t the h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t becomes a mere

a r g u m e n t seems to be devoted t o assetting t h e p o s i t i v e — t h a t t h i s was

cipher, s o m e t h i n g t h a t is asserted b u t carries no m e a n i n g

i n d e e d an i m m e d i a t e act o f the Son — rather t h a n the negative - that t h e r e

I h i s becomes

l i n k e d , i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n , w i t h three other doctrines the R e f o r m e d

were

The d o c t t i n e is most carefully developed

i n O w e n , a n d i t is his account I shall f o l l o w

of O w e n ' s

commentaries

I n these references

Second,

and

again

quoting,

a s s u m p t i o n of the h u m a n nature

'the ..

only

necessary consequent of

this

is rhe personal union of Cfoist,

the m a i n p o i n t is t h a t , again, O w e n s defence is d i r e c t e d t o w a r d

of the S p i r i t i n the l i f e of the incarnate Son, w h i c h A l a n Spence discussed at

p o s i t i v e case, t h a t this is i n fact a necessary consequence

conference i n t h i s s e r i e s

the

b o t h negative cases comes i n the t h i r d p a r t of the a r g u m e n t , devoted to p r o v i n g ' [ t j h a t all other actings of G o d i n the person of the Son towatds the

S p i r i t i n respect t o the h u m a n nature of C h r i s t

relevant

chapters of

the

T h e defence of

Pmumatologiaf' O w e n sets o u t t o e x p l a i n the p a r t i c u l a r w o r k s of the H o l y

7

I n the

^

I n passing i t is w o r t h n o t i n g that t h e enhypostatia is again t o the fore, b u t

of w h a t is d i s t i n c t i v e a b o u t his C h r i s t o l o g y lies i n his discussion of t h e role earlier

or

the inseparable subsistence of the assumed nature i n the petson of the Son

O w e n , of course, says a l l the a p p r o p r i a t e o r t h o d o x t h i n g s , b u t the heart

an

the

are n o other i m m e d i a t e acts of the Son

characteristically concerned a b o u t : the d o c r r i n e of sanctificarion; t h e extra calvinistkum; a n d p n e u m a t o l o g y

some

Before e n t e r i n g i n t o the

h u m a n n a t u r e were voluntary, and d i d nor necessarily ensue on the u n i o n

e x p o s i t i o n , however, he feels the need t o deal w i t h an o b j e c t i o n w h i c h , he

mentioned

suggests, is b e i n g u t g e d by the Socinians; the o b j e c t i o n b e i n g t h a t there is

idiomatum t h a t O w e n

no need, or i n d e e d r o o m , for a w o r k of the S p i r i t i n the l i f e o f C h r i s t , as the

properties of one nature i n t o the o t h e r , nor real physical { i . e

hypostatic u n i o n w i t h the Son can s u p p l y a l l necessary d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n

f r o m nature t o n a t u t e ] c o m m u n i c a t i o n of d i v i n e essential excellencies u n t o

Alan Spence Christ s Humanity and Ours: John Owen , in Colin E Gunron and Christnph Schwobel (eds ) Pmiw Divine and Human {Edinburgh: I & I Clark, 1991) 74~97John Owen Pnettmatohgia Or a Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit in Works vol III (of XVI) (ed William Goold; Edinburgh: Bannerol Truth 1965)

"

Why

so?

holds

Because of the to:

for

there

form was

o f t h e communicatio

no transfusion of

the

phusis-cal;

7

s

9 1 0 I L

John Owen Works (ed W H Goold; London. Banner of Truth 1965) Owen Works III p 160 Owen Works I I I p r 6 r

III p

160

80


the h u m a n i t y


HOLMES

81

O w e n s a r g u m e n t for t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n is t w o f o l d : f i r s t , he

c o n f u s i o n of the t w o natures, and s u b s t a n t i a l l y rather than accidentally. A t

rehearses i n a compact f o r m one o f t h e standard R e f o r m e d a r g u m e n t s t o

t h i s p o i n t O w e n suggests t h a t the error of N e s t o r i u s had re-appeared i n his

the effecr rhat the communicatio does n o t necessarily i m p l y a c o m m u n i c a t i o n

day, and offers an analysis a n d c r i t i c i s m of i t I w i l l r e t u r n t o this

1 1

f r o m n a t u t e t o natute; second he relies o n a n exegetical p o i n t t o d o w i t h knowledge

I n M k 1 3 3 2 . t h e Son does n o t k n o w t h e day a n d t h e hour

The

various

communications

of

the

t w o natures

are

carefully

e n u m e r a t e d : t h e d i v i n e nature c o m m u n i c a t e s i n three ways t o the h u m a n :

that t h e Father has a p p o i n t e d ; m o r e s t r i k i n g l y , i n R e v r . 1 , t h e r e v e l a t i o n

subsistence, w h i c h is t o say the enhypostatic existence of t h e anhypostatic

had t o be g i v e n b y t h e Father t o t h e n o w - g l o r i f i e d Jesus - i t was n o t his

nature; b y

i n t u i t i v e l y or b y r i g h t , despite his ascension t o t h e r i g h t h a n d of t h e

however, O w e n is careful t o say is n o t a n i m m e d i a t e act, b u t [ b } y the H o l y

Father O w e n reads b o t h o f these as references t o t h e l i m i t e d k n o w l e d g e of

Spirit ;

the h u m a n nature, a n d so argues t h a t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s of k n o w l e d g e , a n d

c o n c e r n i n g the c o m m u n i o n of t h e natures w i t h i n the h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n , i n

hence of other

properties

a n d perfections,

between

t h e natures

1 5

filling

t h e h u m a n nature w i t h t h e fullness of grace, w h i c h ,

a n d t h e g i f t of w o r t h a n d d i g n i t y T h r e e further p o i n t s are m a d e

wete

e x p l i c i t o p p o s i t i o n t o L u t h e r a n accounts of t h e communicatio idiomatum:

v o l u n t a t y . O t h e r , t h e n , t h a n t h e act of u n i o n a n d t h e consequent personal

each nature preserves i t s o w n properties; each nature operates i n t h e o n e

u n i o n , t h e fact of i n c a r n a t i o n demands t h a t n o t h i n g m o r e be ascribed t o

person a c c o r d i n g t o i t s essential p r o p e r t i e s ; and y e t evety act of C h r i s t i s an

the Son

act of the person, n o t of one of t h e natures,

O t h e r t h e o l o g i c a l reasoning, c o m m o n t o a l l sttands of t h e t r a d i t i o n , demands that t h e S p i r i t is the immediate, peculiar, efficient cause ' extra d i v i n e w o r k s

3

of a l l ad

O w e n qualifies t h i s w i t h a brief discussion o f the

subsists, a n d so o n l y t h e person

can act

because o n l y the person

However,

and

finally,

the

p o s s i b i l i t y o f any p a r t i c u l a r action m i g h t be d e t e r m i n e d b y reference t o one 01 b o t h o f the natures,

of possible

predication

concerning

asserts t h a t , as the S p i r i t is t h e S p i r i t of t h e Son, a n d n o t j u s t of t h e Fathet,

a l t h o u g h n o t w i t h o u t reason, of p a r t i c u l a r actions b e l o n g i n g t o p a r t i c u l a r

i t is a p p r o p r i a t e t o insist t h a t [ w j h a t e v e r t h e Son of G o d w r o u g h t i n , b y ,

natures

or u p o n t h e h u m a n nature, he d i d i t b y t h e H o l y

reason, across the natures, so t o speak: G o d p u t c h a s i n g t h e c h u r c h w i t h his

Ghost.

I n another w o r k , t h e Christologia, m a n y of the same p o i n t s are made I n the chapter on the 'bypostatical u n i o n ' (ch X V I I I ) , four heads are treated: the a s s u m p t i o n of the h u m a n nature; the consequent u n i o n of t h e t w o

own

rhe incarnate

and so one f o r m

d o c t r i n e of a p p r o p r i a t i o n , a l t h o u g h w i t h o u t n a m i n g i t as such, a n d f u r t h e r

Son is t o f o l l o w Leo a n d speak i m p r o p e r l y ,

I t is also possible t o speak - again i m p r o p e r l y , b u t n o t w i t h o u t

blood

is the n o w - s t a n d a r d

example

This

is t h e communicatio

idiomatum The

effect of O w e n s

Christology

is p r o f o u n d

Clearly

the r a d i c a l

natures i n t h e single person; t h e ' m u t u a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f those d i s t i n c t

d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e t w o natutes denies any a t t e m p t t o defend t h e real

natures ; a n d t h e possible p r e d i c a t i o n t h a t therefore f o l l o w s T h e ineffable

presence of t h e b o d y and b l o o d of C h r i s t i n the elements o n t h e altar o n t h e

a s s u m p t i o n of t h e (anhypostatic) h u m a n nature b y rhe d i v i n e Logos is t h e

basis of a real

first and mosr basic act - i t is an act o f the T r i n i t y , i n t h a t i t is p u r p o s e d by

H o w e v e r , a n d as has been p o i n t e d o u t before,

the Father, w h o sent his Son ' i n t h e likeness of s i n f u l flesh'; i t is carried o u t

effect c o n c e r n i n g sanctification: if one believes, as O w e n d i d , that the o n l y

by t h e Son, i n the actual act o f a s s u m p t i o n ; a n d i t is b r o u g h t t o c o m p l e t i o n

d i r e c t act of the Son was the a s s u m p t i o n of the h u m a n n a t u t e , and t h a t the

by t h e S p i r i t , i n the f r a m i n g of t h e h u m a n nature i n the w o m b of the

hypostatic u n i o n was t h e o n l y necessary consequence of t h a t act, t h e n a l l

virgin - L k 1 3 5

else - and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e sanctification of C h r i s t - is a w o r k of the S p i r i t

O n c e again, however, t h e basic insistence f o l l o w s : t h e

communication

of attributes

between

t h e natures

1 6

i t also has a p a r t i c u l a r

a s s u m p t i o n was t h e o n l y immediate act of the d i v i n e n a t u t e o n t h e h u m a n

i n t h e life of a h u m a n b e i n g

person o f t h e Son '

a n d t h e ancient s p i r i t u a l advice t o engage i n t h e imitatio Christi, can have

4

The hypostatic u n i o n is t h e first consequence of rhe act of a s s u m p t i o n

I h u s , t h e c o m m a n d t o 'be h o l y as I am h o l y ,

n e w force: t h e Jewish m a n Jesus C h r i s t can be i m i t a t e d because he was T i k e

The o r t h o d o x c o n d i t i o n s ate rehearsed a n d respected: t h e u n i o n t o o k place without

any change of t h e d i v i n e nature;

without

either

d i v i s i o n or Owen Works 1 p 2.33 ' 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 the person of Christ 1 5

fi

1 1 1 3 1 4

Owen Works I I I p 16T Owen Works, I I I p 161 Owen Works I p 2.2.5


HOLMES


Sz

83

us i n every w a y , sin a p a r t , a n d so t h i s C h r i s t o l o g y leads d i r e c t l y t o a r o b u s t

predicated

account of sanctification, a t o p i c of p a r t i c u l a r interest t o the R e f o r m e d , and

N e s t o r i u s f i n a l l y refused ro give any s i g n i f i c a n t o n t o l o g i c a l d e p t h t o the

another

facet of t h e i r d i s p u t e w i t h t h e Lutherans

insistence o n t h e c o n t i n u i n g distinctiveness

F i n a l l y , the s t r o n g

of the t w o natures

, s

B e h i n d t h i s refusal to use the language lies a m o r e basic issue

u n i o n of natures i n the i n c a r n a t i o n , a r g u i n g o n l y for a u n i o n of prosopa,

leads

w h i c h i n his o n t o l o g y m o r e or less correspond t o the m e d i e v a l idea of

n a t u r a l l y t o a s t a t e m e n t of the extra calvinisticum w h i c h , w h i l e i t was a p a r t

accidents, i n t h a t they are the e m p i r i c a l qualia t h a t attach t o a t h i n g , b u t

of catholic W e s t e r n d o c t r i n e before the R e f o r m a t i o n , nonetheless became

n o t the t h i n g i t s e l f .

another

I

C h u r c h c o u l d correctly speak of the d i v i n e Son as the possessor or agent of

a distinctively

h u m a n properties or actions, nor w o u l d he accept the convetse, speaking of

f l a s h - p o i n t i n disputes between

suggest t h a t O w e n s C h r i s t o l o g y

can

Lutheran and Reformed. be

described

as

So

19

Because of t h i s , N e s t o r i u s w o u l d n o t accept t h a t t h e

R e f o r m e d C h r i s t o l o g y because i t g r o w s o u t of R e f o r m e d concerns, a n d

the Jewish m a n Jesus as the possessor or agent of d i v i n e properties

feeds a n d supports d i s p u t e d R e f o r m e d positions

actions

T h e q u e s t i o n m u s t be,

of properties a n d actions, c o u l d be spoken of i n either sense, b u t the C h r i s t ,

however: is i t o r t h o d o x ? Ihe

suspicion

Christology

for

of a

or

I h e C h r i s t , as the complex i n t e r w e a v i n g of the t w o sets of qualia,

Nestorian very

tendencies

long

time;

has

hung

Iurretin

around

is

careful

Calvin s to

avoid

as such an i n t e r w e a v i n g a n d n o t h i n g more, was not an significant being

ontologically

I h e classical c r i t i c i s m s of N e s t o r i u s i n u n d e r g r a d u a t e

the

t e x t b o o k s , t h a t he desctibed the i n c a r n a t i o n l i k e t w o stars, so close i n l i n e

nature o£ the hypostatic u n i o n at a l l ; surely w h e n we get t o O w e n , a n d a

t h a t they shine as one, a l t h o u g h one is u n i m a g i n a b l y f u r t h e r away f r o m us

m u c h more radical d i s t i n c t i o n of t h e natures, w e are faced w i t h r a m p a n t

t h a n the other, are u n f a i r , b u t they capture the essence of t h e p r o b l e m A l l

N e s t o r i a n i s m , a n d no a m o u n t of s q u i r m i n g w i l l get h i m o f f the h o o k

rhat is o n t o l o g i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t for N e s t o r i u s remains t w o , a n d so we m u s t

Ihis

be careful w h a t we say - there is no real c o m m u n i c a t i o n of properties, a n d

N e s t o r i a n i s m , b u t does so b y a v o i d i n g any p o s i t i v e t e a c h i n g a b o u t

Christology

might

s r t a i g h t f o r w a r d l y heretical

be

distinctively

Reformed,

O r so the charge w i l l go

but

it

is

also

It would, I think,

so t o speak as i f there is m u s t be i m p r o p e r . C y r i l , b y contrast,

n o t be d i f f i c u l t t o show t h a t O w e n ' s d o c t r i n e lies w i t h i n the b o u n d s of Chalcedonian o t t h o d o x y , b u t i t m i g h t also n o t be h e l p f u l : the h i s t o r y of

incarnate

the

predicates

Eastern churches,

Chalcedon Council

is eloquent

gave

particularly

too

i n its

and

p a r t i c u l a r l y the

testimony

much

to

the

Eastern monasreries,

to a widespread Nestotians

acceptance of Leo s

Tome

in

suspicion opposing

Indeed,

i n the

after

the

m a y be a p p l i e d , m u s t be of decisive o n t o l o g i c a l

significance

Eutyches,

refusal t o d i v i d e u p the actions of C h t i s t i n t o d i v i n e and h u m a n actions,

Bazaar,

instead i n s i s t i n g they a l l flow f r o m t h e one incarnate Son, a single a c t o r , grows from this starting-point Moreover, we do not allocate the statements of our Savior i n the

So instead let m e t u r n t o C y t i l h i m s e l f , w h i c h w i l l i n any case be Colin Gunton's

the f u n d a m e n t a l p o s i t i o n that

I be C h r i s t , t o w h o m b o t h d i v i n e and h u m a n

T h a r aspect of C y r i l s t h o u g h t t h a t C o l i n f o u n d so a p p e a l i n g , the flat

n o t obvious t h a t t h i s is m e r e l y a p o l i t i c a l m o v e , a l t h o u g h i t c e r t a i n l y is necessary t o m a k e the p o i n t c o n c e r n i n g

started f r o m

the

that

N e s t o r i u s h i m s e l f seems h a p p y w i t h t h e C h a l c e d o n i a n d e f i n i t i o n , a n d i t is that

Son was one

1 0

Gospels either to two bnpottaseis or indeed to two persons, for the

Christological

one and only Christ is not twofold, even if he be considered as from

i n t u i t i o n s w i t h w h i c h I began

two

Nestorius's great c o m p l a i n t against C y r i l , a n d indeed A p o l l i n a r i u s , was

entities

inseparable

and titey different, which had been made unity

Therefore,

to

one

person

must

itico an all

the

rhat for the former to say t h a t G o d the Son was b o r n , or the lattet t o say t h a t G o d t h e Son

accepted sufferings ,

I ?

was to m a k e a category

mistake;

he h e l d (as i n d e e d d i d C y t i l and A p o l l i n a r i u s ) t h a t G o d , b e i n g i m m u t a b l e and impassible, c o u l d n o t be b o t n or suffer born -

C h r i s t c o u l d suffer, a n d be

the V i r g i n c o u l d be h o n o u r e d as thiistofokos — b u t o n l y because

C h r i s t had a h u m a n nature o f w h i c h b i r t h a n d s u f f e r i n g c o u i d p r o p e r l y be

Bazaai I iii (p 99) Bazaar I i 57-68 (pp 53-63) and see also the editors comments on pp 411-18 This becomes clear in the later development of the Nestorian tradition, wherein ousia and hypostasis are not separated (as they were not at Nicaea, of course), and so the incarnation is described as a personal union of two hypostaseis. as by Babai the Great in the fitst half of the seventli century 1

I1J

2 0

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 God ihe Son being born t ?

84


HOLMES


85

statements i n the Gospels be ascribed, to the one incarnate bupostasis

w h i l e also b e i n g able t o say t h a t G o d the Son suffered, i n h i s incarnate

of the W o r d .

state

Cyril's

1 1

C h r i s t o l o g y i n v i t e s e x p l i c a t i o n t h r o u g h the

anhypostatic

and

enhypostatic elements of the h u m a n nature: the 'one incarnate subject of the W o r d

is a 'single person': C y r i l ' s usual phrase is mia phusis, b u r t h i s is

already u n h a p p y i n bis o w n w r i t i n g , i n t h a t he also uses phusis for the d i v i n e and h u m a n natures t h a t ate u n i t e d i n the incarnate Son, a n d he clearly does n o t mean the same t h i n g b y the w o r d i n b o t h cases, as he denies the o b v i o u s and i n e v i t a b l e result of such usage, t h a t the incarnate Son is neither d i v i n e nor h u m a n b u t a tertium quid

X i

I n the later conciliar

language, the one hypostasis o f t h e D i v i n e Son becomes incarnate; because the incarnate Son is one person a n d one hypostasis, his h u m a n nature is necessarily anhypostatic, has n o i n d e p e n d e n t subsistence, b u t because there is a real h u m a n existence o f t h e incarnate Son, the h u m a n nature is also enhypostatic, subsists t r u l y i n a n d r h r o u g h the p a r t i c u l a r subsistence o f the D i v i n e Son G i v e n t h i s , t h e C y r i l l i a n a n d conciliar u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the communicatio idiomatum is as f o l l o w s : a l l t h a t is said o f t h e incarnate Son is p r o p e r l y predicated o f the D i v i n e Son -

necessarily, as t h e h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t is

anhypostatic - b u t i t is said o n l y of the D i v i n e Son i n his incarnate state T h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n is decisive for C y r i l - i t is a l m o s t the e n t i r e c o n t e n t of his second letter t o N e s t o r i u s , for instance anathema f r o m the t h i r d letter:

H e n c e , a g a i n , the i n f a m o u s t w e l f t h

W h o e v e r does n o t a c k n o w l e d g e G o d s

W o r d as h a v i n g suffered in the flesh, b e i n g c r u c i f i e d in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh, and been made

first-born

f r o m t h e dead because as G o d he is

L i f e and l i f e - g i v i n g shall be anathema'

( m y emphasis).

C y r i l , l i k e the

Fathers of C h a l c e d o n , w a n t s t o a f f i r m d i v i n e i m p a s s i b i l i t y s t r o n g l y , * 1

A l t h o u g h a l l t h i s i n v o c a t i o n of the a n h y p o s t a t i c - e n h y p o s t a t i c f o r m u l a is anachronistic i n discussing C y r i l , i t seems t o m e t h a t i t is very h e l p f u l I h a t the Jewish man Jesus C h r i s t subsists o n l y i n the d i v i n e natute of t h e W o r d a n d , c o n c o m i r a n t l y , t h a t the d o i n g s and sufferings of that Jewish m a n ate the d o i n g s a n d sufferings of the W o t d , i n his incarnate state, is a l m o s t the s u m t o t a l o f C y r i l s claims G i v e n t h a t , I hope i t is now o b v i o u s f r o m m y p r e c e d i n g e x p o s i t i o n of O w e n s C h r i s t o l o g y , a n d h i s c o n t i n u a l insistence

o n the an h y p o s t a t i c - e n h y p o s t a t i c

subsistence o f the h u m a n

n a t u r e , t h a t bis C h r i s t o l o g y is not i n c o m p a r i b l e w i t h C y r i l s; indeed, t h a t i t m i g h t even be described as vety c o m p a t i b l e

1 4

A s usual, C o l i n G u n t o n s

t h e o l o g i c a l i n t u i t i o n was spot on O n e last p o i n t , however: even i f i t can be reduced to the same d o g m a t i c f o r m u l a e , there is that a b o u t O w e n ' s C h r i s t o l o g y t h a t feels N e s r o r i a n t o us; can we e x p l a i n t h i s , and t h e n e x p l a i n i t away? I t h i n k we can: O w e n s grear i n s i g h t is to investigate w h a t is necessary to hypostatic u n i o n ; a n d h i s answer, l i k e t h e answers t o the successive p a t r i s t i c versions o f the same q u e s t i o n , was cerrainly n o t h i n g t h a t involves t h e confusion or d i m i n u t i o n o f the natures

So, t o take the m o s t c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e m o m e n t o f t h e

p a t r i s t i c d e v e l o p m e n t , can there s t i l l be h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n i f there is m o t e t h a n one v o l i t i o n a l centre i n Christ? Yes, comes the o r t h o d o x answer, n o r least because t o deny t h e presence o f a h u m a n w i l l w i t h the m o n o t h e l i t e s w o u l d be t o damage the h u m a n n a t u r e i r r e p a r a b l y Owen's k e y move t u r n s n o t o n w i l l i n g , b u t o n k n o w i n g : to p u t the p o i n t i n C y r i l - l i k e rhetoric, t h e o m n i s c i e n t d i v i n e Son is, i n his h u m a n nature, s i m p l y i g n o r a n t of c e r t a i n facts, a n d needs t o have t h e m revealed t o h i m b y the Father t h r o u g h t h e Spirit The great p o i n t here, and i t is a p o i n t w h i c h I t h i n k C y r i l s o w n

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 Bindley, 7 be Oecumenical Documents ofthe Faith (rev F W Green; London: Methuen, 1950) " I his would seem to be what Nestorius understood Cyril ro mean; Cyril s denials should have been clear enough but his language did perhaps invite the confusion. '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 in his own flesh for our sake according to the Scriptures, and that he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh in his crucified body impassibly . (Ep 17 11 {p 85]); Thus we say that he also suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered in his own nature, or received blows or was pierced, or received the othet wounds, for the divine cannot suffer since i t is incorporeal But since 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 which suffered (Ep 4 5 [p 40]) Many other examples could be offtrtd 1 1

1 J

repeated e x a m p l e , of the W o r d s impassible s u f f e r i n g i n t h e h u m a n n a t u r e , also c o n f i r m s , a l r h o u g h I have no t i m e t o s h o w how here, is t h a t

the

" The ninth anathema of Cyril might appear to exclude Owen s positions but in fact does not: Lf anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, and the Lord was using the power which was through the Spirit as if i t belonged to someone else, and says the Lord received from the Spitit thi power to act against unclean spirits, and to complete among men the miracles and does noi rarher say that the Spirit is his very own through whom he has performed mirailes let him be anathema (my emphasis) As can be seen Cyril s concern is not 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 explicitly affirms this in the words I have italicized Rather, the idea that the Spirit is foreign to Christ, 'belonged to someone else and is not 'his very own' is the concern 4

86


hypostatic u n i o n does n o t require a s i n g l e p s y c h o l o g i c a l centre A d e n i a l of t h e o p a s c h i t i s m , o p p o s i t i o n t o m o n o t h e l i t i s m , a n d an a f f i r m a t i o n of O w e n s p o i n t a b o u t ignorance, a l l p o i n t i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . I n our c u l t u r e w h i c h conflates the personal and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l , t h i s is d i f f i c u l t t o grasp, b u t i t is surely also necessary t o grasp

Chapter 5

I r i n i t a r i a n d o g m a w o u l d m a k e the same

p o i n t , after a l l , albeit i n a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n - i n the G o d h e a d is one w i l l , one w o r k i n g , one a c t i v i t y , one energy, a n d so o n , as John Damascene insists, b u t there are three persons. I n the h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n there is one person of the W o r d incarnate, b u t t w o w i l l i n g s , t w o k n o w i n g s , t w o w o r k i n g s , a n d so o n A n d so the R e f o r m e d a n d catholic emphasis o n t h e transcendent

f r e e d o m of the W o r d even i n the i n c a r n a t i o n -

calvinisticum — a n d the d i s t i n c t i v e l y R e f o r m e d

emphasis

the extra

o n 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 e a r n i n g n e w t h i n g s , able t o act, a n d t o be h o l y , o n l y as e m p o w e r e d b y t h e S p i r i t , are i n s i m p l e c o n t i n u i t y n o t j u s t w i t h C h a l c e d o n , b u t w i t h Ephesus, C y r i l a n d

the

Person and Nature: A Critique of the Necessity-Freedom Dialectic in John Zizioulas

anathemas

Douglas

Farrow

W h a t prevents t h i s f r o m b e i n g N e s t o r i a n is the h y p o s t a t i c u n i o n , the single person o f t h e incarnate W o r d . I n concihar C h r i s t o l o g y t h e u n i o n is h y p o s t a t i c , n o t p s y c h o l o g i c a l , however, a n d w h a t establishes t h e person as one is n o t p s y c h o l o g y b u t o n t o l o g y . O w n e r s h i p is perhaps a h e l p f u l way of l o o k i n g at t h i s :

1 5

C y r i l ' s d e m a n d is n o t t h a t the D i v i n e W o r d suffers,

simplkiter — he k n o w s t h i s t o be i m p o s s i b l e — b u t t h a t he suffers i n h i s h u m a n nature

I h e decisive p o i n t is t h a t the sufferings are h i s , a n d n o t

J

ohn

Z i z i o u l a s s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the dialectic of necessity a n d

f r e e d o m is n o t absent i n the p a t r i s t i c sources he prizes, such as t h e Cappadocians, b u t i t is more p r o m i n e n t i n the e x i s t e n t i a l i s m t h a t

provides t h e i m m e d i a t e b a c k g r o u n d t o his t h e o l o g i c a l p r o j e c t . Z i z i o u l a s

another's. A n d w i t h O w e n , t h e o m n i s c i e n t W o r d k n o w s the t h o u g h t s of

lays h o l d of t h i s dialectic a n d extends i t t o us as t h e very b r a n c h by w h i c h

the Jewish m a n Jesus C h r i s t j u s t as he k n o w s m y t h o u g h t s a n d yours. B u t ,

we m a y escape f r o m the v o r t e x of e x i s t e n t i a l i s t t h o u g h t , a n d f r o m

u n i q u e l y and decisively, he k n o w s the t h o u g h t s of Jesus to be his o w n , i n

assorted i n t e l l e c t u a l debris w h i c h has been g a t h e r i n g a r o u n d i t ovet t h e

his h u m a n n a t u r e , and n o t another s Such an u n d e r s t a n d i n g a l l o w s the

last seventy years.

necessary concerns of b o t h A n r i o c h a n d A l e x a n d r i a , b o t h R e f o r m e d a n d

w h i c h dares t o present i t s e l f as an o n t o l o g y of personhood, an o n t o l o g y

L u t h e r a n , to be h e l d together

w h i c h has at its heart w h a t even the m o s t o p t i m i s t i c e x i s t e n t i a l i s m does

1

That is, he e m p l o y s i t i n the service o f a n

the

ecclesiology

n o t , v i z , a concept of f r e e d o m t h r o u g h love: f r e e d o m t h r o u g h being as a n act of koinonia w i t h G o d i n w h i c h a l l necessity is transcended W h e n the c h u r c h is v i e w e d i n t h i s w a y - t h a t is, as the d i v i n e answer t o t h e challenge finitude

t o h u m a n personhood posed by necessity, b y nature,

by

— i t is i m m e d i a t e l y obvious t h a t ecclesiology w i l l rescue o n t o l o g y ,

b o t h f r o m the d o l d r u m s i n t o w h i c h i t has f a l l e n i n W e s t e t n t h o u g h t a n d from

And. indeed one suggested by the quotations from Cyril in n 23 above

the

attack

of the

sceptical

existentialists

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 quite different rescue attempt that relies on a different way of reading the Cappadocians

87

FARROW


88 Zizioulas s eccksiology

t o o n t o l o g y is one of the reasons w h y W e s t e r n

89

Person and Nature

b e i n g free even f r o m oneself! A n d i f t h i s is t r u e where G o d is concerned,

theologians find i t b o t h f o r e i g n a n d f a s c i n a t i n g For t h e c h u r c h is n o t v i e w e d

t h e n creaturely b e i n g ( w h i c h depends u p o n G o d ) w i l l have also t o

m e r e l y as an i n s t r u m e n t of d i v i n e grace i n the face of h u m a n s i n , or as a s i g n

considered i n the same l i g h t

of d i v i n e sovereignty i n h u m a n h i s t o r y , or as a m o d e l f o r renewed f o r m s of

communion will

h u m a n sociality S t i l l less is i t v i e w e d m e r e l y as an i n s t i t u t i o n , however great

nature Now

or h u m b l e I t is v i e w e d rathet as an a n t b r o p i c - a n d i n d e e d a cosmic - sine

be

Persons a n d personhood a n d the event of

have conceptual

p r i o r i t y over

b e i n g or substance

or

personhood is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h Z i z i o u l a s expounds b y e m p l o y i n g

q u a n o n I n a p e t i o d of W e s t e r n u n c e r t a i n t y about the c h u r c h , a n d about its

the t e t m ekstasis alongside hypostasis. The former indicates f r e e d o m f o r t h e

place i n the m o d e r n w o r l d , Z i z i o u l a s offers us an ecclesiology t h a t is n o t h i n g

o t h e r , and indeed the i n v e s t m e n t a n d discovery of one's o w n b e i n g i n t h e

less t h a n o n t o l o g y , indispensable o n t o l o g y , b u t an o n t o l o g y a t t u n e d , for a l l

other.

its p a t r i s t i c t t a p p i n g s , t o m o d e m questions a n d d i f f i c u l t i e s

w h o l e , w h i c h is also f r e e d o m for oneself i n one s o w n p a r t i c u l a r i t y as bearer

N e i t h e r the ecclesiology, m a t i c however

3

nor t h e dialectic t h a t serves i t , is u n p r o b l e -

M e t r o p o l i t a n J o h n w i l l f o r g i v e m e , I m sure, i f I explore

The latter ( w h e n p a i r e d w i t h ekstasis) indicates f r e e d o m for

of the w h o l e

7

the

I h e t w o t e r m s thus w o r k together t o delineate a concept o f

p e r s o n h o o d , a n d of c o m m u n i o n , w h i c h posits a perichoretic capacity f o r

these t h i n g s , i n an appreciative b u t c t i t i c a l v e i n I b e g i n , as is necessaty, b y

catholicity

rehearsing w h a t is already w e l l

w h i c h m o r e w i l l have t o be said; i t is d i r e c t l y l i n k e d , o f course, t o an

rehearsed.

4

T h i s n o t i o n of the person as 'catholic

is a c o m p l e x one, a b o u t

ecclesial a n t h r o p o l o g y B u t w h y has Z i z i o u l a s t a g g e d the e n t i r e discussion of personhood t o the p r o b l e m of necessity? P e t s o n h o o d as F r e e d o m f r o m

For Z i z i o u l a s , as for m a n y existentialists, necessity is the u l t i m a t e threat or

Necessity

challenge t o personhood. The t r u l y a u t h e n t i c person is the one w h o exists i n I n the Cappadocians, claims Z i z i o u l a s , the b e i n g of G o d is i d e n t i f i e d w i t h

u n c o m p r o m i s e d f r e e d o m , w h o is d e t e r m i n e d i n h i s existence b y n o necessity

the Father, hence w i t h a h y p o s t a t i c or personal m o d e of existence

whatever

The

Z i z i o u l a s , c i t i n g G r e g o r y of N y s s a ,

8

follows t h r o u g h w i t h this

Father is the s e l f - g r o u n d i n g g r o u n d of G o d s existence and the p r i n c i p l e of

logic

d i v i n e u n i t y . G o d therefore is n o t b o u n d b y any necessity of substance, b u t

b o u n d even b y h i m s e l f ) has h i s b e i n g i n c o m m u n i o n H e is i n fact the Father,

lives i n a n d f r o m t h e f r e e d o m of the Father s s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n as Father

apart f r o m w h o m w e ourselves w o u l d have no capacity for freedom, n o

5

The t t u l y a u t h e n t i c person is uncaused a n d uncreated, a n d (not b e i n g

God's b e i n g as Father - as the one w h o readies h i m s e l f for c o m m u n i o n b y

k n o w l e d g e of p e r s o n h o o d , a n d hence n o i n t u i t i o n of the threat t o personhood

lovingly

posed by the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of our b e i n g i n i m p e r s o n a l ( i e substantialist o r

begetting

the

Son

and

breathing

the

Spirit,

without

any

c o m p u l s i o n whatever - is a transcendence of the necessity w h i c h otherwise

even mechanistic) terms

m u s t characterize t h a t b e i n g i n its sheer absoluteness I t is i n v i e w of the

t t u t h i n e x i s t e n t i a l i s m M o r e o v e r , as everyone k n o w s , creaturely freedom is

o n t o l o g i c a l p r i o r i t y of the Father, hence of hypostasis over ousia, t h a t we can

threatened by necessity, a n d n o t m e r e l y by a necessitarian w o r l d - v i e w

m a k e the o n t o l o g i c a l e q u a t i o n : b e i n g = c o m m u n i o n = f r e e d o m

b e i n g , rhat is t o say, is threatened b y n o n - b e i n g , w h i c h presents itself i n t h e

6

Authen-

tic b e i n g is personal b e i n g , w h i c h means also i n t e r - p e i s o n a l b e i n g , or

T h a t w e d o have such an i n t u i t i o n is t h e m o m e n t o f Our

f o r m of the demands of b i o l o g i c a l existence I h e s e demands are reminders o f d e a t h , i n a l l i t s i n e v i t a b i l i t y , a n d come t o us as d e b i l i t a t i n g distractions f r o m

Some might suggest that it is attuned too much to modern questions, or at least charge that Zizioulas misreads his patristic sources in such a way as to favour his own project. That may be the case (see e g Lucian Turcescu's ' Person" versus Individual", and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa' Modern Theology l 8 4 (2002): 527-39. but it does not follow that his project is the worse for it the Cappadocians may be wrong where Zizioulas is right. My task can only be performed by thinking simultaneously (as he does) theologically and Chtistologically, as well as ecclesiologically about the nature of personhood This means covering some familiar ground 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 Being as Communion (Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1985), 4°ff ^ equation is also epistemological. of course: being = communion = freedom = truth 3

4

the a u t h e n t i c a l l y personal m o d e of existence w h i c h constitutes real b e i n g Perhaps some f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n is i n order, t h o u g h w e are s t i l l o n f a m i l i a r t e r r i t o r y Because o f the Father, G o d t h e Son a n d G o d the S p i r i t are t r u e persons also

T h o u g h they are not themselves

uncaused,

they

b e l o n g to the Father's o w n b e i n g as a b e i n g - i n - c o m m u n i o n ; as such t h e y are eternal I f t h e y are caused, their cause (and its consequence) is f r e e d o m

5

6

n e

7

Hence it does double duty, indicating both freedom for and freedom from oneself Great Catechism 5 (Zizioulas. 'Human Capacity and Incapacity' 428)


90 itself

9

FARROW

The h u m a n person, however, is b o t h caused a n d created Since he

In

s u m , n a t u r e spells necessity

Person and Nature b u t d e i f i c a t i o n spells freedom f r o m

belongs t o the creaturely, w h i c h is n o t eternal, he is b o u n d b y a l l m a n n e r

necessiry, t h r o u g h the o v e r c o m i n g of nature i n a p e r s o n a l i z i n g acr w h i c h

of creaturely mechanisms of cause a n d effect. H e is b o u n d i n d e e d by his

produces t h e c h u r c h

f i n i t u d e , b y his b i o l o g i c a l n a t u r e , b y the necessities of his b o d y , a n d b y the

Z i z i o u l a s offers t o e x i s t e n t i a l i s t a n x i e t y a n d despair

self-centredness w h i c h a l l o f t h i s i n e v i t a b l y entails I f he is t o be free at a l l ,

existence For ecclesioiogy is precisely an analysis of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of

i f his personhood is to be realized, he m u s t overcome his n a t u r a l or

the stuff of necessity i n t o the stuff of f r e e d o m ; w h i c h is also t o say, i t is an

b i o l o g i c a l hypostasis, a n d a l l t h a t i t stands for. This he does by w a y of his

analysis of t h e eucharist

b a p t i s m a l or ecclesial hypostasis, w h i c h he gains t h r o u g h the l i b e r a t i n g

Great I h a n k s g i v i n g , t h e c o n d i t i o n s ate cteated for creaturely nature t o

c o m m u n i o n of the c h u r c h , t h r o u g h i t s corporate p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the

transcend i t s e l f and t o conquer every necessity — t o have i t s b e i n g i n t h e

freedom

of the

personhood ecclesial mated

d i v i n e persons.

That

is h o w he

t o o gains

authentic

For h i m p e r s o n h o o d is a v o c a t i o n , a ptocess, a d e s t i n y I t is

i n n a t u r e , l i t u r g i c a l l y accessed, a n d eschatologically

consum-

Personhood, p r o p e r l y s p e a k i n g , is t h e result of d e i f i c a t i o n

Ecclesioiogy, t h e n , is t h e ( p h i l o s o p h i c a l ) a n t i d o t e about

authentic

I n the eucharistie synaxis and koinonia, i n t h e

l i b e r t y of G o d , whose synactic p r i n c i p l e o f u n i t y is the Father, and w h o s e own

being

necessity.

as

triune

communion

is

a

joyful

transcendence

of

all

11

1 0

Z i z i o u l a s t h u s takes u p the concern of t h e existentialists - reversing the t r a d i t i o n a l association of real b e i n g w i t h necessity — b u t also takes his leave of t h e m , so t h a t he may c o n t i n u e i n t h e c o m p a n y o f t h e fathers

Catholicity and Personhood

His

o n t o l o g y of personhood m a y be t a g g e d to the p r o b l e m of necessity b u t i t is

I h e free or a u t h e n t i c person, we have said, is the catholic person: t h e

made t o rest o n t h e doctrines o f t h e I r i n i t y a n d of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n ; o n the

person w h o lives katholou, w h i c h is possible o n l y i n a n d t h t o u g h

c l a i m t h a t the incarnate Son becomes the c o n d u i t for h u m a n beings of the

c h u r c h A c a t h o l i c person is free because he has r o o m for t h e o t h e r - i n d e e d

p e r s o n a l i z i n g p o w e r of t h e Father a n d t h e l i b e r a t i n g effects of the S p i r i t .

for a l l others - i n h i m s e l f

Viewed

c o m p u l s i o n , b u t rather an o p p o r t u n i t y for c o m m u n i o n

eschatologically

as

the

c h u r c h , the

i n c a r n a t i o n is

i t s e l f the

the

The other is no l o n g e r a source o f conflict or of 1 3

The catholic

c o m p l e t e o v e r c o m i n g of n a t u r e , necessity a n d d e a t h , via the advent of free

person, as a u n i q u e a n d unrepeatable source of t h i s c o m m u n i o n , is capable

a n d a u t h e n t i c h u m a n personhood

of b e a r i n g h u m a n n a t u r e i n its e n t i r e t y , of m a k i n g i t be

I t is the p e t s o n a l i z a t i o n of the n o t yet

1 4

personal. A n d t h r o u g h the c h u r c h the cosmos as a w h o l e is d e s t i n e d t o

N o w one is n o t m i s t a k e n t o see a v a r i e t y of influences i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d

become an act of c o m m u n i o n , p a r t i c i p a t i n g t h u s w i t h m a n i n the e t e r n i t y

here. I h e R o m a n t i c s , H e g e l , H e i d e g g e r , B u b e r , et at., have c o n t r i b u t i o n s

of G o d . For the p r i e s t l y m i n i s t r y o f redeemed h u m a n i t y is such as t o

t o m a k e B u t o b v i o u s l y there are older resources i n C h r i s t i a n n e o p l a t o n i s m

enable n a t u r e t o be i n f r e e d o m

w h i c h are less l i k e l y t o lead i n a n o n - or even anti-ecclesial d i r e c t i o n . T h e

1 1

best such resources are D e n y s and M a x i m u s , to w h o m Z i z i o u l a s f r e q u e n t l y appeals

W h a t we f i n d i n M a x i m u s especially is a concept o f c a t h o l i c i t y

t h a t takes u p the mictocosm/macrocosm d i a l e c t i c of G t e e k p h i l o s o p h y , The aitea concepr obviously undergoes alteration here, since where the Irinity is concerned what is caused partakes fully in the freedom of its cause (the Father) This alteration may be worth exploring We may nevertheless have to ask whether it is possible, on this scheme to understand the Son and the Spirit as personal in the same sense as the Father. Do the Son and the Spirit require, as we do. to be personalized, and thus also to be made to be? i f so are they as authentically personal as the Father is? And are we to regard the Father's personhood as something (logically) prior to his communion with the Son and the Spirit? 9

Deification is a trinitarian event, as Irenaeus long ago taught I t rests first of all on the fact that the uncreated Son becomes a human being, linking God and man in his own person It rests also upon the work of the Spirit who reconstitutes us (in the church) as one corporate hypostasis with Christ so that we may participate in his uncreated nature and in his eternal freedom as the Father's Son Ultimately, of course, it rests upon the Father who is freedom and who gives freedom See Being as Communion. l o i f f 1 0

reinventing

i t on a Christological and l i t u r g i c a l template

Zizioulas

a t g u a b l y goes b e y o n d t h i s , however, i n d e v e l o p i n g the c a t h o l i c i t y of h u m a n p e r s o n h o o d i n t e r m s o f t h e imago Irinitatis, personhood as such

a n d i n terms

of

I have elsewhere expressed certain reservations a b o u t

Understood as act rather than object, and more particularly as an act of the Holy Spirit celebrated by the people of God together with their episcopal eikon of the Father - the eucharist constitutes the church in its true being ' The catholic person is undivided internally (for he is given his integrity from without) or externally (since in the Spirit difference does not mean division) Hence the church is reconstituted, in some quite fundamental sense with each baptism, while remaining itself 1 1

3

1 4

9Z


FARROW

M a x i m u s s m o d e l , w h i c h d o n o t a p p l y to t h a t of Z i z i o u l a s

Nevertheless

1 5

there are questions w h i c h m u s t be p u t t o the latter as w e l l

a

firm

Person and Nature

rejection

of any

93

following

requires

procedure

I f p e r s o n h o o d is p r i o r t o nature, a n d i f i t i n v o l v e s a f o t m of

Nestorian

i n c l i n a t i o n or

W e have seen t h a t t h e Father ( w i t h the Son a n d the S p i t i t ) makes d i v i n e

f r e e d o m w h i c h can o n l y have its source i n G o d , t h e n w e are n o t g o i n g t o

b e i n g be, n o t by necessity o f substance or n a t u r e , b u t i n f r e e d o m ; t h a t is,

take t w o natures as our s t a r t i n g - p o i n t and t u n t h e t i s k o f i m p l y i n g t w o

personally, by love. L i k e w i s e C h r i s t ( w i t h y o u a n d me) makes h u m a n b e i n g

persons

be, n o t b y necessity b u t b y love; n o t as a self-possessed s o m e t h i n g , 01 series

d i v i n e f r e e d o m i n his h u m a n nature

of s o m e t h i n g s , b u t as persons i n c o m m u n i o n , as c h u r c h . H e does so by

p r o g r a m m a t i c article, ' H u m a n Capacity and I n c a p a c i t y ' Z i z i o u l a s r e m a r k s

o v e r c o m i n g the F a l l : t h a t i n v e r s i o n o f our personhood w h i c h t u r n s our

t h a t he w a n t s t o a v o i d t h e d i l e m m a

difference f r o m G o d , and f r o m one another,

rhe curious c o m p o s i t i o n

which

fractures

and

de-personalizes

us,

i n t o distance or d i v i s i o n ;

reducing

us

to thinghood,

s u b j e c t i n g us t o necessity, a n d so u l t i m a t e l y t o non-being.

But how

16

W e are g o i n g t o b e g i n instead w i t h one Person, w h o invests h i s B u t w h a t of E u t y c h i a n i s m ? I n his d i v i n e or h u m a n p e r s o n

d i v i n e and h u m a n person

.

as w e l l as

T h i s can be d o n e ,

1 9

he believes, b y o b s e r v i n g chat 'one a n d the same "schesis

is c o n s t i t u t i v e of

C h r i s t s b e i n g , b o t h w i t h regard to his h u m a n i t y and w i t h tegatd t o his

does he d o so? H o w does C h r i s t generate the free, t h e c a t h o l i c , the e x i s t i n g

divinity

person?

of Father a n d Son constitutes either the b e i n g or t h e person o f Jesus C h r i s t ?

I h e answer is t w o f o l d F i r s t , he does so by t h e power of h i s o w n p r i o r

B u t is this r i g h t ? Can we say, simplicitet, t h a t t h e eternal r e l a t i o n

Unless we were w i l l i n g t o abandon t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between i m m a n e n t a n d

p e r s o n h o o d , t h a t is, b y v i r t u e o f the eternal r e l a t i o n (schesis) t o the Father

economic

w h i c h constitutes h i m as a person H i s personhood enables h i m t o cause his

event w h i c h makes t h e eternal Son t o be the Son also i n t i m e , to be the

I r i n i t y , w h a t t h i s w o u l d i m p l y is t h a t the i n c a r n a t i o n -

the

h u m a n nature t o be (viz , t o be i n c o m m u n i o n ) , even as the Father s

D a v i d i c son — has no o n t o l o g i c a ! significance, a n d no b e a r i n g on C h r i s t s

p e r s o n h o o d enables the d i v i n e nature t o be Second, he generates the free or

personhood. A n d this i n t u r n w o u l d require us after a l l t o adopt the v i e w

catholic

person by s h a r i n g w i t h

c o n s t i t u t i v e of his o w n person

1 7

h i m or her

the same schesis t h a t

is

T h i s s h a r i n g ( w h i c h requires the cross a n d

the descent i n t o h e l l ) is effected i n the S p i r i t , b y sacramental

means,

t h r o u g h the b a p t i s m a l a n d euchatistic l i t u t g i e s I t has a v i s i b l e s t t u c t u r e , b u t i t remains a m y s t e r y w h i c h is n o t f u l l y susceptible t o analysis I t is the m y s t e t y of the existence o f C h r i s t , w h o is b o t h one a n d m a n y Each p a r t of t h i s t w o f o l d answer requires cross-examination

t h a t Chrisr is a d i v i n e person w i t h a h u m a n nature b u t is not a h u m a n person, w h i c h w o u l d c e r t a i n l y tend t o E u t y c h i a n i s m , that

personhood,

regarded

i n itself,

1 0

or t o take the v i e w

is i n d i f f e r e n t t o

the distinction

between d i v i n i t y and h u m a n i t y N e i t h e r o f these o p t i o n s seems t o s u i t Z i z i o u l a s , I hasten t o add

1 1

But

w o u l d i t n o t be m o t e accurate, t h e n , t o say t h a t the Son, i n t a k i n g to

1 8

I h e first

h i m s e l f a creaturely nature so as t o be the C h r i s t , becomes also a h u m a n

raises a q u e s t i o n w e m i g h t n o t o t h e r w i s e t h i n k t o p u t t o a devoted d i s c i p l e of M a x i m u s , b u t w e m u s t e n q u i r e w h e t h e r the C h r i s t o l o g y i n play here is s u f f i c i e n t l y Chalcedonian. I t is e v i d e n t e n o u g h t h a t the l i n e Z i z i o u l a s is

Douglas Farrow Ascension and Ealesia (Edinburgh. I & T Clark. 1999), 140ft" The alternative to necessity is not construed in terms of freedom of choice (which implies division) but in tetms of love (which implies unity in difference) Zizioulas does want to speak however, of freedom of choice as a dimension of personhood which enables us to refuse personhood, that is, to deny 'the difference between person and nature' and so to reject our own existence by collapsing into individuality into thinghood (Human Capacity and Incapacity , 42ST) - in short, to fall away from God rather than to ascend to God by overcoming nature 1 5

1 6

See Human Capacity and Incapacity , 435ft When Zizioulas speaks of Christ as 'one' he means Christ as a particular, which philosophically speaking correlates with the many; when he speaks of Christ as 'many he refers to Christ as church that is, to a concept of unity or of the one The latter, whatever its philosophical colouring, is coloured also by Ziiiotilass reliance (Human Capacity and Incapacity 408 n. 3) on the notion of 'corporate personality' drawn from H W Robinson and A R Johnson 1 7

1 8

The phrase divine and human person has (for Zizioulas) Nestorian overtones See Human Capacity and Incapacity', 43 5f We must avoid the conclusion that two natures means two persons, and we can do so only by recognizing that personhood is not a product of nature but rather i t is the person which allows rhe nature to be - in this case, which allows both natures to be (In a crypric argumenr based partly on the vaguely Aristotelian premiss that there is no nature ' in the nude'" Zizioulas concludes that 'it is his petson that makes divine and human natures to be that parncular being called Christ') The phrase in question however, appears to lead from nature to petson and so tends towards the Nestorian error , v

My God is not of like nature with me! He is not an individual man, but only man by nature He does not have soma anthropou but anihropinon , insists Eutyches. Cf D Bonhocffer, Christ the Center (New York: Harper & Row. 1978), 86; J . N D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London: A & C Black 1985). 332 For Eutyches, Christ is not homoousios with us in the patristic sense; that is in Irenaeus words, as a man among men' ~* On the other hand how exactly shall we read the following statement? The natural qualities are not extrinsic to the identity but by being enhypostasized" these qualities become dependent on the hypostasis for their being; the hypostasis is not dependent on rhern ' Zizioulas 'On Being a Person , in Persons, Divine and Human (eds C Gunton and C Schwobel; Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1992). 43 Do such statements about the mystery of personhood' noi imply a certain indifference of person to nature? Cf Human Capacity and Incapacity', 440 1 0

94

ihe Person of Christ

FARROW

Person and Nature

person w i t h o u t ceasing t o be a d i v i n e person? I h a t he is i n fact a d i v i n e

i n t w o d i s t i n c t ways, as G o d to G o d and as m a n to G o d .

a n d a h u m a n person? O f course i t w o u l d n o t be more accurate unless i t

therefore t o d e n y t h a t personhood is a schesis -

95 1 4

We ought

even i f i t is necessary t o

were p o i n t e d o u t w i t h Chalcedon t h a t there is n o d o u b l i n g o f persons, as

t h i n k i n t e r m s o f p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t i t u t i v e relations i n o r d e r to t h i n k

there is of natures; t h a t the incarnate one is the d i v i n e person as a h u m a n

persons a n d personhood at a l l - for there is n o t h i r d or archetypal schesis

person.

b e h i n d these t w o , t o h o l d t h e m t o g e t h e t A n d these t w o r e a l l y are t w o , j u s t

11

Nevertheless

w e s h o u l d be clear t h a t there is here a h u m a n

of

person, one whose p e r s o n h o o d is delineated b o t h b y the eternal r e l a t i o n of

as C h r i s t s natures are t w o , w i t h o u t C h r i s t b e i n g t w o p e r s o n s .

the Father ro the Son and b y a t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n of t h e same Son t o t h e

i n Z i z i o u l a s ' s c o n s t r u c t is t h a t i t cannot f a i l t o u n d e r m i n e e i t h e r one or t h e

Father,

other of these claims

iJ

and t o us I h i s a n d ' (or rather, b o t h these and's) w i l l have t o be

taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h e n w e examine the second p a r t o f Z i z i o u l a s s t w o f o l d answer

15

The danger

N o w w i t h every sentence of such a discussion w e are i n danger of u s i n g w o r d s and concepts to mediate between G o d a n d m a n rather than l e t t i n g

Let us explore f u r t h e r the d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h e first p a r t , however, by

the m e d i a t o r m e d i a t e

I h a t is, w e are i n danger of f a i l i n g t o take i n t o

q u e r y i n g the way i n w h i c h Z i z i o u l a s undetstands p e r s o n h o o d , w h i c h he

account t h a t t e t m s such as person a n d nature a n d schesis m u s t n o t

says is a schesis. ' I h i s (as far as i t goes) may seem u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e ,

e m p l o y e d i n a p u r e l y u n i v o c a l way. I h e p e r s o n - n a t u r e r e l a t i o n is one

but

be

p l a i n l y we cannot s i m p l y equate t h e person w i t h the schesis, as Z i z i o u l a s

t h i n g for G o d a n d another for m a n ; t o be a person is one t h i n g for G o d a n d

appears t o d o Can w e say of the Father t h a t his person is c o n s t i t u t e d b y his

another for m a n ; to he at a l l , even as an act of m u t u a l c o m m u n i o n , is one

fatherly r e l a t i o n t o the Son? U n d o u b t e d l y , b u t w h e n w e g o o n t o speak of

t h i n g for G o d a n d another for m a n

h i s r e l a t i o n t o the S p i t i t w e m a k e cleat (unless w e adopt a radical f i l i o q u i s t

t o say - n o t i f w e i n t e n d t o take seriously Chalcedon's d o u b l e homoousios -

1 6

For just t h i s reason w e m u s t n o t f a i l

stance) t h a t there is m o r e t o the Father than t h i s f a t h e r l y schesis. l i k e w i s e ,

t h a t the incarnate Son is b o t h a d i v i n e and a h u m a n person, and we have

mutatis mutandis, w i t h t h e Son

already seen t h a t w e m u s t nor appeal t o a single schesis or t o t h e mystery of

I t is t h i s m o r e ' w h i c h makes possible a

r e p e t i t i o n turn a l t e t a t i o n i n schesis w i t h o u t d e s t r o y i n g t h e u n i t y o f his person

I t is t h i s ' m o r e ,

i n other

words, w h i c h

makes

possible

personhood as a way o f a v o i d i n g t h i s ~

7

his

i n c a r n a t i o n I n the i n c a r n a t i o n a d i v i n e petson a n d a h u m a n person are one a n d rhe same person; a n d yet t h i s one person is related t o t h e Father as son Persons exist in and through personal relations not as these relations though they do not exist apart from these relations Relations can therefore be altered even i f constitutional The point of Chalcedon is that, God being God, the altetation which is the incarnarion does nor undo the intra-divine or constitutional relation The eternal Son does not cease to be who he is in taking on human natute; nor does he become another person in addition to himself He does, however enter into a new and different telation to the Father in which he is constituted 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) 4

Here we may appeal to anhy postas is and en hypostasis The point of the former, as of the latter is not to deny the concreteness of the Son's humanity — hence also his human personhood - but to affirm i t , by denying that it belongs to another Rightly regarded, rhese doctrines serve to clarify that, while rhe personhood of the incarnate Son is subject to consideration from the standpoint 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 is somehow independent of these relations or these natutes. nor yet because only one set of relations (the eternal) and only one nature (rhe divine) are really his Certainly it is not because his person can be regarded as the sum of both the eternal and the temporal relations, or as the product of both the divine and the human natures; no such sum and no such product exist The incarnate Son is but one person because, as has just been said, he is the divine petson being a human petson. Cf Karl Barth Church Dogmatics I 2 I 4 7 f f . ^59^1 Aquinas Sun/ma Theologian 111 2 4. 1 1

When we ask about this temporal relation from the perspective of the Father who does not himself become temporal or creaturely ir can only be replied that i t is mediated internally by the Son Any other reply is likely to resulr in Nestorianism, and ro imply a breach between the 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 which reason it must be rejected See Gunton, The Christian Faith (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002) r o g f 1 3

Two natures does not mean two persons, but it does mean two oncologLcally distinct ways of being personal For if natures cannot be abstracted from petsons - we may agree that there is no nature in the nude' — neither can persons be abstracted from natures - there is no person 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 speak of a divine person who becomes and is a human person while noting that this statement is not reversible: the human person is. but does not become the divine petson 1 5

If God, and only God is his own nature (Aquinas Summa Theologiae 1 39 1; cf I I I 2 2), all of this follows Could we not get round the whole problem, however, by observing that from Zizioulas s point of view Christ is not so much one person in two natures as a person, whose nature is to be personal (and so to be) assuming an impersonal or individualistic nature for the very purpose of personalizing it (making it be)-' Would this not also permit us to answer Schleiermacher. who rejects the doctrine of the assiimpt'w in part because he supposes that it must Lead back to docetism since the human nature in this way can only become a person in i /

96


FARROW

B u t w h y are we p u r s u i n g this l i n e of q u e s t i o n i n g ? T h a t we cannot m a k e the e q u a t i o n , person — schesis, a n d t h a t we m u s t speak of the incarnate Son

Person and Nature

97

f r o m the ( r i g h t - m i n d e d ) c l a i m that a l l h u m a n personhood is m e d i a t e d by C h r i s t , and so involves a f o r m of d e i f i c a t i o n ot p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n G o d

as petsonaLly related t o the Father (as also t o t h e S p i r i t ) i n t w o d i s t i n c t

I h e r e is nonetheless a p r o b l e m here, w h i c h V o l f has h i g h l i g h t e d f o t us

ways, becomes s t i l l m o r e c t u c i a l w h e n we t u t n f r o m consideration of C h r i s t

b y c a r r y i n g his c r i t i c i s m t h r o u g h i n t o ecclesioiogy. A c c o r d i n g t o V o l f , t h e

as one t o a consideration of C h r i s t as m a n y ; t h a t is, w h e n w e t u r n t o the

p a r t i c u l a r i t y a n d distinctness o f the c h u r c h is threatened j u s t as that of t h e

second p a r t of Z i z i o u l a s s answer, t h e thesis t h a t C h r i s t generates the free

person is threatened

or catholic person b y sharing the same schesis t h a t is c o n s t i t u t i v e of his o w n

d i s t i n c t as t h i s or t h a t l o c a l church) is C h r i s t , a n d C h r i s t t h e church

being

as the d i s t i n c t i o n {or rather the g a p , t o use Z i z i o u l a s s o w n expression)

I h e questions

t h a t arise here a m o u n t t o an e n q u i r y about

the

3 0

I n the eucharist, the c h u r c h (however peculiar a n d And

hypostatic nature o f the c h u r c h i n its u n i t y w i t h the Son a n d , conversely,

between the t w o collapses, so does t h e u n i q u e heavenly m i n i s t r y o f C h r i s t ,

about the hypostatic nature of t h e incarnate Son i n his u n i t y w i t h

w h i l e the local church takes on a universal a u t h o r i t y and an

church

the

I hey b r i n g us to a consideration of Zizioutas's ecclesioiogy a l o n g

w e i g h t w h i c h d o not p r o p e r l y b e l o n g t o i t

1 1

eschatological

O n c e again V o l f does n o t d o

Z i z i o u l a s justice, i n m y o p i n i o n - a n d cannot, perhaps, f b t reasons t o be

w i t h his C h r i s t o l o g y W e o u g h t , I t h i n k , t o agree w i t h Z i z i o u l a s t h a t C h r i s r generates t h e free

debated elsewhere, of w h i c h V o l f ' s sacramental n o m i n a l i s m is b u t one. B u t

or catholic person b y s h a r i n g the same f i l i a l r e l a t i o n t h a t is c o n s t i t u t i v e of

the d i f f i c u l t y to w h i c h he p o i n t s can c e t t a i n l y be felt i n r e a d i n g Being as

his o w n petsonhood

Communion, i n w h i c h ( t o approach t h e p r o b l e m f r o m rhe o t h e r side) i t is

or b e i n g

1 8

But

i t is o n l y b y

not

making

the

a f o r e m e n t i o n e d e q u a t i o n t h a t we can do so w i t h o u t i m p l y i n g or asserting

often

t h a t a l l are one person i n C h r i s t . M i r o s l a v V o l f , for e x a m p l e , t h i n k s t h a t

Z i z i o u l a s has

t h i s is w h a t Z i z i o u l a s does i m p l y

consider w h e t h e r there is n o t i n fact a E u t y c h i a n i z i n g process at w o r k here,

uniqueness a n d therefore

I h e hypostasis, the ' p a r t i c u l a r i t y a n d

u l t i m a t e b e i n g , o f each and a l l cannot

be

semantically the

impossible title

'Christ

a process i n r r o d u c e d b y

to 3 1

substitute

the

name

Jesus

where

I h a t this is the case invites us

Z i z i o u l a s s failure t o

distinguish

to

adequately

c o n s t i t u t e d t h r o u g h the same f i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h constitutes C h r i s t s

between schesis a n d schesis, that is, between C h r i s t as G o d a n d C h r i s t as

being,

m a n C h r i s t as m a n means C h r i s t as c h u r c h , C h r i s t as imago Trinitatis;

as

Zizioulas

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n here

1 9

claims,

fbt

there

would

be

no

principle

I n m a k i n g t h i s charge V o l f does n o t d o

of

and

justice,

however, e i t h e r t o Z i z i o u l a s s way of r e l a t i n g nature and f r e e d o m , or t o his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c a t h o l i c i t y a n d of the corporate C h t i s t

For Z i z i o u l a s

h i m s e l f does nor really w a n t t o reduce the person t o the schesis A s there is r o o m for d i s t i n c t petsons i n G o d , so there is r o o m for d i s t i n c t persons i n C h r i s t , t h a t is, i n deified or personalized h u m a n i t y . To be petsonal is t o be d i s t i n c t , b u t t o be d i s t i n c t for the sake o f u n i t y . W h a t renders us petsonal is our p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n C h r i s t ' s sonship, i n his f i l i a l schesis, i n his b e i n g for the Father

We

become C h r i s t , n o t b y ceasing to be ourselves,

but by

r i n d i n g ourselves i n C h r i s t by b e i n g for the Father as he is for the Father As for our distinctness, i t is a f u n c t i o n b o t h of our created i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d of the d e i f i c a t i o n w h i c h overcomes i t - t h a t is, of f r e e d o m in, as w e l l as f r e e d o m f r o m , necessity

This V o l f appears t o o v e r l o o k , w h i l e s h y i n g away

Just as through baptism human beings are constituted into persons anhypostatically in Christ so also does the church exist in the Eucharist anhypostatically and acquire its entire identity from the identity of Christ This paralleling of personhood and ecclesiastical being is not fortuitous Any distance between Christ and the church would simultaneously mean the individualization of Christ, and the possibility of the deindividualization of human beings would be lost . Yet just as in the constituting of a person the particularity of that petson is lost and the individual is absorbed into Chrisr so also the church itself is thteatened with being absorbed into Christ' (Volf. After Our Likeness, 100). This formulation fails to acknowledge the enhypostatic aspect of Zizioulas's doctrine of personhood - 'the cause of being is the particulac, not the general' ( O n Being a Petson , 43) — and its ecdesiologica! implications 3 0

Cf Volf, After Our Likeness 98ft, and Zizioulas, Being as Communion, n o f f (for whom the eucharist is the Christ-event in its fullness) In such matters we may share something of Volf s concern, ir seems to me. without colluding in his non-Chtistological approach to human personhood which subverts Zizioulas's strength as well as his weakness l o offer examples from Being as Communion,: Christ Himself becomes revealed as truth not in a community but as a community' (115) Or: 'The whole Christ, the catholic Church was ptesent and incarnate in each eucharistic community' (157). It does not obviate this particular difficulty to say that the Christus totus is after all a familiar theologoumenon And the difficulty is only deepened when we hear rhar the church as eucharistic event mediates between rhe historical Jesus and the eschatological Christ' (2.06) making them one reality Should we nor say rather that the eucharisric event mediates between Jesus Christ, in his eschatological mode of existence, and the historical reality of the people of God? Or might both statements be ttue? 3 1

3 1

the sense in which this is true of a person in the Irinity (F D E Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith [EI eds H R MacKintosh and ) S Stewart; Edinburgh: V&T Clark, 1976], §97 2.; cf §96.1)? On rhe conttary, the problem would not be solved bur ar best postponed See e g , Heb 1 r o f Cf. Zizioulas, Human Capacity and Incapacity , 438. and M Volf After Our Likeness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1998) 87 l S 1 9

cj8


t h i s imago is itself u n d e r s t o o d i n d i v i n e t e r m s petichoretic reality

FARROW L i k e the G o d h e a d , i t is a

does nor i m p l y participates

3 3

N o w I d o n o t w i s h t o w i t h d r a w f r o m the t e r m ' d e i f i c a t i o n

Nor do I

divine perichoresis,

in which

99 rhe G o d - m a n

alone

O n the c o n t r a r y , i t i m p l i e s a d i s t i n c t l y h u m a n f o r m

3 8

perichoresis,

the

Person and Nature

of

a l b e i t one w h i c h rests o n the p o w e r of G o d : a perichoresis

w i s h t o argue against the n o t i o n t h a t h u m a n i t y , f u l l y achieved, is ecclesial,

w h i c h does n o t m a k e m a n G o d , b u t a l l o w s m e n t o share w i t h one another

or t h a t ecclesial h u m a n i t y is imago Trinitatis - B u t I d o t h i n k t h a t w e m u s t

t h e g i f t s of G o d

14

stop s h o r t of i d e n t i f y i n g h u m a n p e r s o n h o o d , or h u m a n c a t h o l i c i t y , or the ecclesial m o d e of b e i n g , as a f o r m of the d i v i n e perichoresis individualization S p i r i t together

The

'de-

a n d d e i f i c a t i o n o f t h e h u m a n person, as a bearer o f t h e

with

Jesus, does n o t mean

t h a t the h u m a n person

is a

What,

then,

is the

disagreement i t is? ontology

of

deification

3 9

nub

communion, It

of our

disagreement about

I t is n o t a q u e s t i o n a

is a q u e s t i o n

eucharistic

of a c c e p t i n g tealism,

or

catholicity,

if

or

rejecting

an

a

docttine

of

of a d o p t i n g a version of t h i s

ontology,

person i n the same sense or i n the same way t h a t a d i v i n e person is a

realism and d o c t r i n e w h i c h does n o t c o m p r o m i s e the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n

person. W e m u s t n o t a l l o w (as Z i z i o u l a s does) a u n i v o c a l use of the w o r d

t h e d i v i n e a n d the creaturely - e i t h e r p r o t o l o g i c a l l y or eschatologically

'person' i n reference t o b o t h G o d a n d m a n , w h e t h e r i n C h r i s t o l o g y or i n

a n d w h i c h does n o t present the c h u r c h as a k i n d of tert'tum quid between

ecclesioiogy

G o d and m a n

3 5

W i t h respect t o d i v i n e persons, i t is t r u e t o say t h a t the

4 0

-

I h i s w o u l d seem t o be w h a t Z i z i o u l a s h i m s e l f wants, for

other d i v i n e persons are c o - i n h e r e n t i n each, a n d therefore t h a t the w h o l e

theosis, he says, does nor m e a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e nature o r substance of

of G o d is i n each W i t h respect t o h u m a n persons, however, i t is not t r u e

G o d , b u t i n H i s personal

to say t h a t the others are c o - i n h e r e n t i n each, or t h a t the w h o l e o f m a n is i n

personal l i f e w h i c h is realised i n G o d s h o u l d also be realised o n the level of

each

h u m a n existence

I t is n o t t t u e t o say t h a t Jesus C h r i s t is the c h u r c h , or t h a t each

communicant m e m b e r of

is C h r i s t a n d the c h u r c h . the

church

is

i n ' Christ

d e r e r m i n a t i v e for t h a t m e m b e r , i n d e e d for C h r i s t

3 7

3 6

I t is true t o say t h a t

i n a way that

is

every

ontologically

a n d so also for the w h o l e c h u r c h ,

and

I n other w o r d s , I do n o t w i s h t o w i t h d r a w either f r o m

Z i z i o u l a s s n o t i o n t h a t each C h r i s t i a n person makes ecclesial h u m a n i t y t o be i n a new a n d u n i q u e way

4 1

existence

The goal

of s a l v a t i o n is t h a t

the

B u t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between G o d s n a t u r e or substance

a n d his petsonal l i f e ' 01

personal existence' is itself p r o b l e m a t i c ; i n d e e d i t

is n o t cleat h o w Z i z i o u l a s can m a k e such a d i s t i n c t i o n , or t h a t we s h o u l d f o l l o w h i m i n d o i n g so A n d i t becomes even m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c i f the l a t t e r is abstracted i n such a w a y as t o m a k e i t s t r i c t l y transferable

to h u m a n

beings

B u t i f t h i s i m p l i e s a f o r m of perichoresis i t We need not be embarrassed about saying the God-man alone , or about rhe fact that we cannot say how he participates (except 'enhypostatically) Nor should we imagine chat John 17 2 i f f , e g , watrants a theological extension of his unique participation to the church though 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 ' did not assume human nature in general bur 'in atomo" — that is in an individual — as Damascene says (De Fide Orrb i i i , 11)' remarks Aquinas; otherwise every man would be the Word of God, even as Christ was (Summa Theologiae I I I 2 2) And even when we have heard Zizioulas on the subject of individuality and taken into account that Christ and the Spirit are sent to liberate us from a false, self-enclosed form of the same and thought out our eschatology still we must say nothing to compromise rhe uniqueness of the God-man 3

It does appear that lot Zizioulas the term Christ has become synonymous with Church and that both terms have become analogous to God' or 'Trinity' (the former indicating Jesus. Mary John, etc . in their being as communion, just as the latter indicates Father, Son and Spirit in their being as communion). We need to be careful here, however for this claim requires us to admit that Jesus is the express image of the invisible God only in and with his church and not without it 'The perfect man is only he who is authentically a person . who possesses a mode 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 it difficult to assign oncological weight to the Jesus of history: the teal hypostasis of Jesus was proved to be not the biological one, but the eschatological or ttinitarian hypostasis (Being as Communion n 49) And rhis in turn leads to formulations which underestimate Christ's human particularity and undermine the pneumatology that Zizioulas wants to encourage 5 3

3 4

5 5

See Being as Communion, 6of With respect to God, we may say that in and with the Fathet (01 the Son or the Spirit) the Godhead is Respecting the church, however, rhings are otherwise Here we can say 'in and with Jesus Christ the church is - i f that is what Zizioulas really means — but we cannot say that 'in and with John Zizioulas or even 'in and with Bishop John , the chutch is 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 of Mary or even of Joseph 3<s

:

, 7

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 communion in the same sense that God s being is communion The difference is mediated by the Godman . not removed by the God-man Nor are we, like the God-man, ourselves mediators of this difference 3 9

Treating the uniopersonalis as something not affecting or touching the person will have such Eutychian effects On the level of human existence (Being as Communion 50) it is worth noting that rhis concern for the integriry of the human, and for rhe trinitarian — especially the pneumatologicai - underpinnings of a theology that ttuly supports the human, is what bound John Zizioulas and Colin Gunton together, notwithstanding the latter's rejection of 'deification' as a concept injurious to that of creaturely integrity 4 0

4

FARROW

The Person of Cbust

IOO

This l i n e o f c r i t i c i s m means, o f course, t h a t w e m u s t also q u e s t i o n

would

mean

Person and Nature

the elimination

of t h e creaturely

101 as

such

But the

4 4

of w h i c h can be

e l i m i n a t i o n of necessity, w e may suppose, is n o t w h a t Z i z i o u l a s has i n

m e n t i o n e d here F i r s t , does t h e eucharist, as his c o n t r o v e r s i a l m a x i m has i t ,

m i n d w h e n he talks a b o u t f r e e d o m f r o m necessity. W h a t he has i n m i n d ,

m a k e t h e church? Yes i t does I h e eucharisr, t o g e t h e r w i t h b a p t i s m , makes

as I have already said, is more precisely f r e e d o m in necessity, t h r o u g h

the c h u r c h because i t is t h r o u g h these sactaments, c o n d u c t e d i n t h e f a i t h of

creaturely c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d

C h t i s t w h i c h arises f r o m t h e g o s p e l ,

Zizioulas

Z i z i o u l a s at a n u m b e r

renders us h i s b o d y

of related p o i n t s , j u s t three

t h a t G o d joins us t o C h r i s t a n d

I t makes t h e c h u r c h because t h i s a c t i o n of G o d i n

on the matter

4 S

Agreement

o f eschatology

a n d disagreement

must

be p u r s u e d

with

elsewhere,

however, f o r i t is t i m e t o ask a f i n a l q u e s t i o n

j o i n i n g us t o C h r i s t is an eschatological action - t h e ascended C h r i s t b e i n g an

eschatological

reality

-

which

does n o t derive

from

(though it

i m p l i c a t e s ) o u r 'here a n d n o w ' , b u t derives f r o m h i s there a n d t h e n

Questioning the Necessity-Freedom

That

Dialectic

said, C h r i s t is n o t t h e c h u r c h , a n d t h e eucharist does n o t m a k e t h e c h u r c h

H a v i n g e x p o u n d e d Z i z i o u l a s by way of reference t o his n a t u r e - f r e e d o m

b y m a k i n g C h t i s t , as Z i z i o u l a s m i g h t be t a k e n t o i m p l y

d i a l e c t i c , I have also v e n t u r e d some c r i t i c a l remarks about t h e C h r i s t o l o g y

church

rather

by the S p i r i t s

overcoming

o f that

I t makes t h e

w h i c h separates o r

he uses t o c o n t r o l a n d d e p l o y t h a t dialectic

I have suggested t h a t t h i s

alienates us f r o m C h r i s t , just as C h r i s t ovetcomes t h a t w h i c h alienates us

C h r i s t o l o g y suffers f r o m a certain E u t y c h i a n tendency, w h i c h i n t u r n has a

from God

d e t r i m e n t a l effect o n h i s ecclesiology I a m h a p p y , o f course, t o be f o u n d

4 1

celebration,

w r o n g , b u t since I have i n d e e d v e n t u r e d such a n o p i n i o n i t seems r i g h t t o

Miroslav Volt's

ask h o w far t h e tendency i n q u e s t i o n m a y be a p r o d u c t of t h e necessity-

alternative - an essentially q u a n t i t a t i v e approach t o ecclesial fullness a n d

f r e e d o m d i a l e c t i c , rather t h a n m e r e l y a d i s t o t t i n g factor i n i t . Is there, i n

Second, is each local c h u i c h , i n i t s synaxis or eucharistic really t h e c h u r c h

i n i t s fullness? W i t h o u t e n d o r s i n g

u n i t y ? — w e m a y again need t o q u a l i f y Z i z i o u l a s s a f f i r m a t i v e answer T h e

other w o r d s , a danger

local c h u r c h m a y be said t o be t h e c h u r c h i n i t s fullness i n a s m u c h as i t

a t t e n t i o n ? I t h i n k there is

cannot be at a l l w i t h o u t b e i n g w i t h C h r i s t a n d so w i t h t h e w h o l e c h u r c h , past, present a n d f u t u r e

4 3

B u t i f C h r i s t is n o t h i m s e l f t h e c h u r c h , a n d i f

i n the d i a l e c t i c itself t h a t should c o m m a n d o u r

The danger does n o t so m u c h l i e (as V o l f suggests) i n t h e association of nature w i t h necessity a n d petsonhood w i r h f r e e d o m , b u t i n t h e s e t t i n g of

the c h u r c h s c o m m u n a l l i f e i n C h r i s t is n o t a f o r m of, b u t o n l y analogous

nature

t o , t h e d i v i n e perichoresis, t h e n t h e local c h u r c h - even i n i t s eucharistic

t h e o l o g i c a l l y or a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y

a n d necessity

u n i t y w i t h C h r i s t a n d w i t h t h e w h o l e c o m p a n y of heaven - is n o t as such

an even

the

generally)

universal

church

I t is rather,

i n i t s o w n w a y , a n expression

or

m a n i f e s t a t i o n , however petfect or i m p e r f e c t , of t h e u n i v e r s a l c h u r c h T h i r d , does t h e eschaton mean f b t t h e ecclesial petson (as opposed t o h i s

sttonger needs

over

against

challenge to

be

4 6

personhood

to e x i s t e n t i a l i s m

mounted

and freedom,

whether

I t is at this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n a l level t h a t than

(and to Greek

Zizioulas

attempts

thought Divine

personhood s h o u l d n o t be u n d e r s t o o d as a f r e e d o m w o n f r o m , or preserved against, necessity or sheer absoluteness of n a t u r e , t h o u g h t h e concept of

as Z i z i o u l a s suggests? Yes, i f capax

d i v i n e personhood represenrs such a v i c t o r y N o r — and here is the p o i n t of

infiniti — 01 better, aeterni - means t h e a b i l i t y t o expetience c o n j o i n t l y w h a t

c o n t e n t i o n — should h u m a n personhood be seen as a t r i u m p h over o u t

cannot be experienced

creatutely nature a n d i t s exigencies. W h i c h is t o say, h u m a n

or her h u m a n nature) capax infiniti,

separately, v i z . , u n i o n a n d c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d ,

a n d t o share i n i t s i n e x h a u s t i b l e benefits

c o n t a i n or t o become G o d , as t h e d i v i n e persons c o n t a i n one another a n d so exist as G o d , i n absolute f t e e d o m

For t h e eschatological f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e

person ( w h o cannot be absrtacted f r o m h i s o r her nature) does n o t e n t a i l e l i m i n a t i o n of a l l creaturely l i m i r a t i o n or a l l creatutely necessity, w h i c h

Pare Zizioulas Being as Communion n o ; cf Farrow Ascension and Ea/esia, 5ft" y o f f , passim. See Being as Communion 143ft"; cf Heb 12 i 8 f f 4 1

4 3

personhood

N o , i f i t means t h e a b i l i t y t o Conversely it does not entail the dissolving of the distinction between the immanent and the economic Trinity, any more than it entails the dissolving of the difference between the two natutes of Chtist 4 4

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 impoitant aspects of human freedom (cf. e.g , Oliver ODonovan Resurrection and Moral Order {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986] i o 6 f f ) which do not readily lit his theological construct and that even in emphasizing bodily resurrection he shows little interest in treating it 4 5

4 6

C f Volf, After Our Likeness 87


IOZ

FARROW

Person and

Nature

103

a n d f r e e d o m d o n o t arise i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f created n a t u r e , nor are they a

nature? A n d may we nor speak of t h i s t r i u m p h i n terms o f a n e c e s s i t y -

v i c t o r y against n o n - b e i n g

f r e e d o m d i a l e c t i c , as Z i z i o u l a s wishes t o d o , before speaking of the c h u r c h

I t is n o t as i f the creature qua creature m u s t be

i m p e r s o n a l , i n a s m u c h as i t is created ex nihilo a n d is subject (as G o d is n o t )

as the d i v i n e f o r m of h u m a n freedom? M a y w e not i n d e e d regard

the

t o c e r t a i n necessities D o w n t h i s p a t h E u t y c h i a n i s m does i n d e e d l i e , since

church

the

sucli a premiss makes i t i m p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d h u m a n personhood

as

as t h e

triumph

of G o d over

human

nature, t h a t

is, over

i n d i v i d u a l w h o seeks relief f r o m necessity and f i n d s i t , n o t i n e x i s t e n t i a l i s t courage o r c o m m i t m e n t , b u t i n the n e w ecclesial h y p o s t a s i s ?

human I t is t r u e , of course, t h a t h u m a n personhood ( u n d e r s t o o d i n t e r m s of the

to the k i n d

creation

t r i u m p h over our n a t u r e

H u m a n personhood is sui generis, a g i f t specially g i v e n w i t h a n d

of dialectic

w h i c h presents h u m a n personhood per se as

a

For i t is our nature t o be open t o the g i f t

of

for the t w i n blessings of the i n c a r n a t i o n of the Son and the c o m i n g of the

i m m o r t a l i t y , as the p t o p e r r e a l i z a t i o n of our personhood,

H o l y S p i r i t ; t h a t is, f b t c o m m u n i o n w i t h the F a t h e t , w h i c h (as its

closed t o t h a t d e s t i n y b y the Fall

cause) u l t i m a t e l y perfects our p e r s o n h o o d

final

B u t t h a t special g i f t , r e s t i n g as

creation or to our created n a t u r e

i n t e r n a l t o h u m a n personhood as such.

i t , and i t for creation

place and t i m e they enhance i t

W h e n c e arises, t h e n , t h a t d e b i l i t a r i n g

competition

and

quandaries

between

freedom

necessity

which

of w h i c h Z i z i o u l a s ( l i k e the existentialists)

generates

the

takes notice? I t

be

freedom d i a l e c t i c is n o t a nature—person d i a l e c t i c , b u t a d i a l e c t i c i n t e r n a l to h u m a n n a t u r e as o r i e n t e d t o personhood

C r e a t i o n is for

except w e

A n d this means t h a t che n e c e s s i t y -

i t does o n the m e d i a t i o n of the G o d - m a n , is n o t s o m e t h i n g contrary t o Creaturely necessities d o n o t i n h i b i t creatutely p e r s o n h o o d ; i n t h e i r proper

The answer

to a l l these q u e s t i on s , s u r e l y , is yes B u t t h i s yes' s t i l l does n o t c o m m i t us

imago de'i) cannot be e x p l a i n e d adequately b y reference t o other features of 4 7

51

This

alteration

i n perspective

W h i c h means i n t u r n t h a t i t is

removes

the

temptation

to a d o p t

a

C h r i s t o l o g y t h a t tends t o w a r d s the E u t y c h i a n , and an ecclesiology t h a t tends t o w a t d s C h r i s t o m o n i s m . For t h e f u n c t i o n o f the G o d - m a n is n o t to introduce

personhood

into

the

(the

existence

His

f u n c t i o n is rather t o perfecr, together w i t h the S p i r i t , a h u m a n analogy to

Z i z i o u l a s stresses the d o c t r i n e of the F a l l , his c o n c e p t i o n of i t requites

d i v i n e personhood; t h a t is, to secure for h u m a n personhood its essential

c l a r i f i c a t i o n A t some p o i n t s he speaks as I have j u s t s p o k e n ; at others ( l i k e

openness t o G o d and t o t h e other, a n d so to m a k e possible its p n e u m a t i c

M a x i m u s ) he appears t o conflate creation and f a l l .

a n d ecclesial f o r m , the f o r m r e q u i s i t e t o i m m o r t a l i t y

the

F a l l is s o m e h o w

implicit

i n creation

casts the

necessity-freedom

on communion

from himself

perspective

relation

between

personhood

God

necessity

Ihis

and

skews the e n t i r e debate about

freedom

in

the

realization

of

the

human

N o w immortality

I t is personal

existence

5 4

But

this same a l t e r a t i o n

O n the other h a n d , w h e n w e consider rbe t e a c h i n g of t h e Scriptures a n d the farhers t h a t h u m a n persons, i n b e i n g made after the i m a g e of G o d , ate

in

also removes the t e m p t a t i o n to regard personal existence for

h u m a n beings as an existence t h a t is G o d - l i k e i n the sense t h a t i t is a p u r e perichoretic c o m m u n i o n , or a pure freedom f r o m necessity

4 3

destined t o receive i m m o r t a l i t y -

5 3

5 i

is indeed a u t h e n t i c existence, and a u t h e n t i c existence is an existence based

t e l a t i o n i n t o an o p p o s i t i o n a l m o d e , the m o d e of f a l l e n m a n s a l i e n a t i o n and f r o m

m i g h t attain authentic

impersonal

A n d here w e m u s t n o t e t h a t , w h i l e

that

latter

reality)

and necessity is f u n d a m e n t a l l y altered

A n y suggestion

that the

divine

creaturely),

4 8

so

(a

arises n o t f r o m creation b u r f r o m t h e F a l l , i n w h i c h the r e l a t i o n of freedom

v i e w w o u l d be to concede too m u c h t o the existentialists n o t the u l t i m a t e threat t o personhood

T o take such a For necessity is

Sin is t h e u l t i m a t e threat, a n d n o t

t h a t the h u m a n person, as i m m o r t a l ,

exists b y v i r t u e of the i n v e s t m e n t i n t h a t person of G o d s o w n i m m o r r a l Spirit

5 0

- are w e n o t o b l i g e d t o speak of a t r i u m p h over our

creaturely

5 1

Kierkegaard s prorest against a lake ecclesiality notwithstanding (set Farrow. Ascension

and Ecchsia

±±jf.)

Through an extension and repetition of the hypostatic union? Personhood I have argued is the mode in which nature exists in its ekstatic movement of communion in which it is hypostasised in its catholicity. This I have also said, is what 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 ' ('Human Capacity and Incapacity 442; emphasis his) 5 1

4 7

4 8

See Zizioulas. Human Capacity and incapacity , 431 See Zizioulas, 'Human Capacity and Incapacity. 424ft

4 3 4 f , but note the word

inevitable' on 435 (n 2). and cf. Being as Communion, 4<jff 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 But 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. i n terms of liberation from necessity through communion) 4 3

5 0

Irenaeus put this most succinctly, as I have noted in Ascension and Ecclesia 59ft

7

O r is this all that Zizioulas means when he speaks of our being joined to G o d in a dialectic of difference rather than division ('Human Capacity and Incapacity'. 440)? 5 3

5 4

C f Augustine, De Trinitate 13 3 (p

12)

104


by the d e s t r u c t i o n o f o u r personhood (for the g i f t s a n d c a l l i n g of G o d are irrevocable) b u t by its perversion a n d f r u s t r a t i o n

5 S

A n d w h a t does a l l t h i s m e a n i f n o t t h a t Z i z i o u l a s s ecclesiology, w h i l e a g i f t t o t h e W e s t e r n c h u r c h a n d t o W e s t e r n t h e o l o g i a n s , requires i n its t u r n

Chapter 6

to be i n f o r m e d b y , a n d r e f o r m e d together w i t h , l a t i n i n s i g h t s ? The f u t u r e lies i n a t t e m p t i n g an ecclesial o n t o l o g y of p e r s o n h o o d w h i c h c a r e f u l l y distinguishes dialectic, perfecting

the

necessity-freedom

accommodating both grace

But

this

dialectic

within

latter

from

the sin-salvation

a m o r e expansive d o c t r i n e of

will

have

to

be

governed

by

a

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l a n d p n e u m a t o l o g i c a l p a r a d i g m t h a t has yet t o be achieved

He Came Down From Heaven: The Christology of Charles Williams Brian H o m e

I

t is a t r u t h u n i v e r s a l l y a c k n o w l e d g e d , b u t perhaps s t i l l w o r t h y of u t t e r i n g , t h a t a g e n u i n e C h r i s t o l o g y w i l l arise, n o t o u t of detached speculation about the nature o f d i v i n i r y , t h e m e a n i n g of the universe,

the purpose of l i f e o r , t o b o r r o w a phrase f r o m t h e Stoics, t o c o n t e m p l a t e the m e a n i n g , o r i g i n a n d d e s t i n y of a l l t h a t there is, b u t o u t of a t t e n t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r i t y ; f r o m the a t t e m p t t o reveal the m e a n i n g o f a specific e v e n t in history For we d i d not follow cleverly devised myths w h e n we made k n o w n to you

the p o w e r and c o m i n g of our L o r d Jesus C h r i s t , bur w e had been

eyewitnesses of his majesty

For he received honour and g l o r y from G o d

rhe F a t h e r w h e n that voice was conveyed ro h i m by the M a j e s t i c G l o r y , saying. Pet

T h i s is m y S o n m y B e l o v e d , w i t h w h o m I am w e l l pleased

(2

1 16-17)

As w i t h the a u t h o r of the second l e t t e r o f Peter, so w i t h Charles W i l l i a m s Consider t h i s : Thtie

had

appeared

i n Palestine,

Princeps A u g u s t u s a n d his successor

d u r i n g rhe

government

of

I i b e r i u s , a certain b e i n g

the Ihis

being was i n the form of a m a n , a peripatetic teacher, a t h a u m a t u r g i c a l orator

There were p l e n t y of the sort about s p r i n g i n g up i n the newly-

established peace of the E m p i r e , b u t this particular one h a d a higher potential of power, and a much more d i s r r a c t i n g method 5 5

See Zizioulas, Human Capacity and Incapacity

44r? Shall we refuse to concede then,

that it is communion "which makes beings be? Suteiy it is G o d who makes beings be, in

I t had a very

effective verbal style, notably in imprecation, together w i t h a recurrent a m b i g u i t y of statement

I t c o n t i n u a l l y seated d e b a t i n g - p o i n t s over its

whatever way it is appropriate for them to be

105


ro6 interlocutors

It

agreed

denounced e v e r y t h i n g against

the

Roman

with

on

the

everything other

occupation;

it

For urged

on

the

one

obedience to

and

To m a n y of y o u , perhaps, the name o f Charles W i l l i a m s is u n f a m i l i a r ; t o some i t w i l l be k n o w n o n l y as t h a t o f the author o f fantastic fictions. To m e

Jewish

i t is t h e name of a m a n w h o possessed one of the m o s t o r i g i n a l t h e o l o g i c a l

the

m i n d s of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y

d o u b t f u l l y holy feasts; it associated w i t h rich m e n a n d loose w o m e n ; it acerbly

encouraging disapproval,

on

everyone

the

to

pay

habits

of

their

cht

debts,

hierarchy; it

and

radiared

or at least d o u b t , of every k i n d of property

107

nothing

hand,

e x a m p l e , ir said

hierarchy; it p r o c l a i m e d holiness to the Lord. B u t it was present at commented

The Chtistology of Chatles Williams

HORNE

a

while

O n his gravestone i n a q u i e t corner o f a

cemetery i n rhe c i t y of O x f o r d there is carved a s i m p l e i n s c r i p t i o n : Charles

general

I t ralked

B u t i t is n o t as t h e o l o g i a n t h a t W i l l i a m s

h i m s e l f w i s h e d t o be remembered

W a l t e r Stansby W i l l i a m s Poet. U n d e r the M e r c y . I t was p r i m a r i l y t o t h e

of

iove i n terms of h e l l , and of h e l l in terms of perfection A n d finally it

art o f p o e t r y t h a t he gave his l i f e a n d energy b u t i t may w e l l be that h i s

talked

m o s t valuable legacy w i l l be, p r i m a r i l y , n o t his p o e t r y , b u t his t h e o l o g y

at

the

top

of

its

piercing

voice about

itself

and

its

own

unequalled i m p o r t a n c e I t said it was rhe best and w o r s t t h i n g that had

H e spent most of his l i f e w o r k i n g as an editor for the O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y

ever happened or ever could h a p p e n to m a n

I t said ir c o u l d control

Press and t h e n i n his last few years as t u t o r a n d lectuter i n the E n g l i s h

a n d yet had to s u b m i r to everything. I t said its Father i n

f a c u l t y i n the U n i v e r s i t y o f O x f o t d For the first t w e n t y - e i g h t years of his

anything

heaven w o u l d do a n y t h i n g

it w i s h e d , but that for itself it w o u l d

n o t h i n g b u t w h a t its F a t h e r in heaven w i s h e d

do

l i f e he p u b l i s h e d n o t h i n g b u t p o e t r y , b u t , after t h a t , all m a n n e r of w r i t i n g

A n d it p r o m i s e d that

p o u r e d o u t of h i m : plays a n d novels, reviews a n d b i o g r a p h i e s , history a n d

w h e n it had disappeared, it w o u l d cause some other P o w e r to i l l u m i n e ,

theology

confirm, and direct that s m a l l g r o u p of stupefied and helpless followers w h o m it d e i g n e d , w i t h the sound of the rush of a s u b l i m e tenderness, ro call its friends

A n d he d i e d at t h e r e l a t i v e l y y o u n g age of

close f r i e n d of C S

Lewis,

TS

Eliot, J R R

fifry-eight

in 1945

I o l k i e n and Dorothy

A L

Sayers, he nonetheless srands apart f r o m t h e m , d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y rhe u n i q u e

1

q u a l i t y of his rhetoric a n d t h e o r i g i n a l i t y of his C h r i s t i a n v i s i o n . T h o u g h , The passage begins q u i t e

let i t be said i m m e d i a t e l y , the c l a i m t o ' o r i g i n a l i t y was one t h a t W i l l i a m s

s i m p l y : 'There h a d appeared . . ; b u t the m o v e m e n t of the prose urges t h e

never made; i n d e e d , i t w o u l d have seemed, t o h i m , a k i n d o f arrogance t o

reader f o r w a r d - there m u s t be n o l i n g e r i n g - c r e a t i n g its effect by t h e

strive for an o r i g i n a l i t y i n the e x p o s i t i o n of t h e C h t i s t i a n f a i t h

b u i l d i n g u p of a n t i n o m i e s , paradox u p o n paradox, u n t i l i t c u l m i n a t e s i n

believed he was d o i n g n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n d t a w i n g a t t e n t i o n t o aspects of

t h a t unexpected

C h r i s t i a n o r r h o d o x y t h a t had received i n s u f f i c i e n t scrutiny or e x p l i c a t i o n

I h i s is the h i g h style of a master of rhetoric.

coda: ' s u b l i m e tenderness

l i t t l e w o t d friends

, a l i g h t i n g finally o n the

R h e t o r i c a l i t c e r t a i n l y is, b u t there is m u c h more t h a n

r h e t o r i c here, and w h a r that m o r e ' is we shall investigate presently.

This

d e s c r i p t i o n o f the event o u t of w h i c h a l l C h r i s t o l o g y arises, is f o u n d i n t h e o p e n i n g pages o f Charles W i l l i a m s s h i s t o r y o f t h e C h u r c h , The Descent of the Dove p u b l i s h e d i n 1939 own

O r t o be m o r e precise - a n d t o use t h e author 's

d e s c r i p t i o n of the book -

Church

I t is, perhaps,

his 'Short H i s t o r y of rhe S p i r i t i n the

m o r e a w o r k of t h e o l o g y

t h a n of h i s t o r y ; an

a t t e m p t , t o use W i l l i a m s ' s w o r d s w h e n d e f i n i n g t h e o l o g y , of

measuring

from

othet

interpreters

of

the

tradition

This

was

as

true

He

of

his

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s as i t was of his reflections o n the d o c t r i n e of t h e F a l l , or the C h u r c h , or t h e A t o n e m e n t . But

before we m o v e o n t o e x a m i n e that C h t i s t o l o g y ,

we must

be

prepared to recognize w h a t i t is we are d e a l i n g w i t h w h e n w e approach W i l l i a m s s w r i t i n g s There is a r e m a r k a b l e degree of i n t e l l e c t u a l coherence i n the variegated assemblage of his w o r k s ; remarkable

precisely

because

there is such a v a r i e t y of l i t e r a r y f o r m . B u t i t is a coherence t h a t is achieved

e t e r n i t y i n o p e r a t i o n , of t r a c i n g t h e course o f t h e ' b r i g h t c l o u d a n d the

n o t o n l y by t h e consistent a p p l i c a t i o n of certain t h e o l o g i c a l m o t i f s , b u t

r u s h i n g w i n d i n creation Is t h i s the b e g i n n i n g of W i l l i a m s s C h t i s t o l o g y ?

also b y the pervasive s p i r i t o f a singular s e n s i b i l i t y : that of t h e poet

I t is w i t h o u t d o u b t an arresting b e g i n n i n g b u t t h i s was n o t the first t i m e

we have a m i n d t h a t moves m o r e easily i n the w o t l d of images a n d s y m b o l s

W i l l i a m s h a d considered the person of C h r i s t ; t h i s was n o t his first w o r k of

t h a n i n the sphere o f abstract concept; a m i n d t h a t is as concerned a b o u t

theology

Here

the exact shape of a line of p o e t r y a n d the precise p l a c i n g of a w o r d or even a p u n c t u a t i o n m a r k i n a senrence t h a n i n the observation conventions

of academic

( H e was, for example, i r r i t a t i n g l y vague i n his referencing

-

strange i n a m a n w h o w r o t e often i n praise of accuracy ) A n d his w r i t i n g Charles Williams, The Detroit of the Dave (London: The Religious Book Club, 1939). 1—

has a peculiar d e n s i t y ; a density of t e x t u t e t h a t is the feature of p o e t r y rarher than the density of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l treatise Its c u s t o m a t y m e t h o d

io8


HORNE

The Chiistology of Charles Williams

109

of

the

c o n t e x t of the b o o k , w h e n w e see t h a t p a r t of h i s i n t e n t i o n is to s h o c k

rather t h a n

the

readers i n t o a t e c o g n i t i o n of the explosiveness of t h e event of Jesus C h r i s t .

discursive e x p o s i t i o n of a conceptual p o s i t i o n ; i t s m o d e is allusive rather

H e was w r i t i n g against a b a c k g r o u n d of t h e o l o g i c a l l y l i b e r a l a r t e m p t s at

is

the

method

condensation

of

contraction

not

the

method

of t h o u g h t t o a m e t a p h o r i c a l

than explanatory

None

of expansion;

expression

of h i s t h e o l o g i c a l

essays presents any

factual

h u m a n i z i n g t h e figure of Jesus; against efforts t o e m p t y o u t h i s t e r r i f y i n g

i n f b i m a t i o n or a r g u m e n t s t h a t are n o t already w e l l k n o w n , b u t W i l l i a m s

strangeness W i l l i a m s h a d , b y t h i s t i m e , read b o t h K i e r k e g a a r d and B a r t h

re-organizes these facts and a r g u m e n t s ; presents t h e m i n new r e l a t i o n s h i p s ;

- h a d indeed been responsible, i n his w o r k at the O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press,

makes unexpected connections; arranges t h e m l i k e poetic tesserae t o f o r m

for

the desired p a t t e r n of the v e r b a l mosaic

E n g l i s h , and h a d i n c l u d e d several

The c o n t e m p o r a r y t h e o l o g i a n , l i k e

the

first

translations

and

publications

of

K i e r k e g a a r d s works

excerpts f r o m

in

B a r t h s Epistle to

the

the c o n t e m p o r a r y p h i l o s o p h e r or h i s t o r i a n , leaves l i t t l e u n s a i d ; he or she

Romans i n his o w n a n t h o l o g y of readings, The New Christian Year

tends t o see his or her task as one i n w h i c h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a r g u m e n t or

says at one p o i n t i n t h i s same v o l u m e : I t is an a l i e n Power t h a t is c a u g h t

p o i n t of v i e w m u s t be presented w i t h as m u c h l o g i c , openness and lack o f

and suspended

mystery as can be achieved unsaid and o f t e n depends

W i l l i a m s s w r i t i n g deliberately leaves t h i n g s for its effectiveness o n the reader s

sensitive

i m m a t u r e and

i n our m i d s t romantic

and he h a d l i t t l e t i m e for w h a t he c a l l e d

devotions

t o the s i m p l e Jesus, t h e s p i r i t u a l

g e n i u s , the b t o a d - m i n d e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l Jewish w o r k i n g - m a n , the f a l l i n g -

awareness of w h a t is beneath the surface; o n h i s or her a b i l i t y t o m a k e

sparrow and g r a s s - o f - t h e - f i e l d Jesus

connections w i t h the w o r l d b e y o n d the confines of t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d y

not

In

He e v e n

serve

A n d s t i l l m o r e s t r i k i n g l y : They w i l l

I he C h r i s t i a n idea f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g had b e l i e v e d that h i s

short the reader is expected t o exercise a d i f f e r e n t , and sometimes m o r e

N a t u r e reconciled earth a n d heaven, a n d a l l t h i n g s m e t i n h i m , G o d a n d

diffkulr

Man

because

more

complex,

attention

to

writing

of

this

kind

A C o n f u c i a n W o r d s w o r r h does n o t help here

2

Even so, and t a k i n g

F u r t h e r m o r e we shall f i n d his C h r i s t o l o g y a p p e a r i n g n o t o n l y where we

i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n his penchant for the r h e t o r i c a l flourish, w h i c h c o u l d lead

expect to find i t - i n his t h e o l o g i c a l essays - b u t i n o d d corners of novels,

h i m i n t o d r a m a t i c overstatement, we m i g h t s t i l l feel, u n c o m f o r t a b l y , t h a t

i n g l a n c i n g references i n t h e lines of p o e t r y , i n passing

t h i s p i c t u r e stands i n an uneasy r e l a t i o n to the f o r m u l a t i o n s o f the a n c i e n t

reviews

o f books

that,

s u p e r f i c i a l l y , have n o t h i n g at

comments

all to do

in

with

Christianity Descent of the Dove

Suspicions about

Williams's orthodoxy m i g h t

i m m e d i a t e l y have been aroused as ears caught t h e phrase of t h e second sentence:

N o r can the p a r t i c u l a r passage t h a t

q u o t e d at l e n g t h be excused o n the g r o u n d s that i t is poetic w r i t i n g

A l l t h a t h a v i n g been said, let us r e t u r n b r i e f l y t o t h a t o p e n i n g passage o f The

creeds of the C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h

This b e i n g was i n the f o r m of a m a n

' O n l y t h e form of a

I

Only

bad poetry is vague and inaccurate; g o o d poetry can be the m o s t precise o f languages; a n d W i l l i a m s was as aware of t h a t as any other p o e t B u t , o f course, i r w o u l d be absurd t o evaluate W i l l i a m s ' s C h r i s t o l o g y solely o n the basis of t h i s passage A s I have said, he had already w r i t t e n a

man? N o r a real person? Those suspicions w i l l n o t have been dissipated by

s u b s t a n t i a l essay on the i n c a r n a t i o n before his h i s t o r y of t h e S p i r i t i n t h e

the strange a n d i n s i s t e n t

C h u r c h saw the l i g h t o f d a y

t h t o u g h o u t the passage

use of the

impetsonal

t h i r d person p r o n o u n

. i t was present at d o u b t f u l l y h o l y feasts; i t

associated w i t h r i c h m e n a n d loose w o m e n

a n d so on. F r o m the start

This was the book for w h i c h , as a t h e o l o g i a n ,

he is best k n o w n : He Came Down Brom Heaven ( 1 9 3 8 ) . I t is easy to approach t h i s w o r k w i t h the w r o n g presuppositions

T h e t i t l e prepares us for a n

y o u m i g h t have detected a d i s t i n c t flavour of d o c e t i s m here I n a d d i t i o n t o

essay o n the i n c a r n a t i o n -

indeed I called i t t h a t a few m o m e n t s ago

t h i s there may be the sense o f an A r l a n reading of the i n c a r n a t i o n : t h a t use

whereas its subject is a c t u a l l y r e c o n c i l i a t i o n and r e d e m p t i o n ; an essay o n

-

of the i m p e t s o n a l p r o n o u n suggests a creature rather rhan a consubstantial

the A t o n e m e n t

Son, a lesser k i n d of d i v i n i t y despite the t a l k of F a t h e r h o o d

W h a t is g o i n g

of C h r i s t o l o g y is t h a t W i l l i a m s , l i k e m a n y of t h e eatly G r e e k Fathers,

o n here? Is W i l l i a m s really t o be j u d g e d g u i l t y o n t w o counts of heresy? I f

chose t o focus his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e salvific w o r k of C h r i s t , n o t o n t h e

we were to evaluate his C h r i s t o l o g y solely o n t h e evidence of t h i s passage

cross b u t the W o r d made flesh. That h a v i n g b e i n g said, i t w i l l be observed

f r o m The Descent of the Dove, I t h i n k t h a t c o n c l u s i o n w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t t o

t h a t one of the characteristics of his t h e o l o g y is t h a t he never, even for t h e

a v o i d - even w h e n we r e m e m b e i t h a t Paul i n his famous passage f r o m the

purposes

of

B u t the teason w h y w e can also see i t as a substantial w o r k

organizational

convenience, a l l o w s

second chapter of the letter to the P h i l i p p i a n s h a d s i m i l a r l y made use of t h a t t e t m ' f o r m : f o r m of G o d , f o r m o f a slave , h u m a n f o r m . A n d I d o not t h i n k i t is easy to excuse h i m even w h e n w e r e m e m b e r the h i s t o r i c a l

Williams Ihe Descent of the Dope 53

the separation

of

the


n o

The Christology of Charles

HORNE

Williams

I I I

categories of l n c a r n a t i o n a n d A t o n e m e n t i n his t h e o l o g i c a l system. I t w i l l

Y e t h o w is t h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n to take place? I f t h e facts are inescapable i t

f u r t h e r be observed t h a t his p a t t i c u l a r way of e x p l i c a t i n g t h e dogmas o f

m u s t be accomplished f r o m t h a t place i n w h i c h t h e facts are

C h r i s t i a n i t y is d e t e t m i n e d by a m i n d a n d an i m a g i n a t i o n that are rooted i n

that is, f r o m w i t h i n the l i f e o f h u m a n i t y , and y e t i t cannot be done b y

a belief i n the supernatural a n d i t s constant p e n e t r a t i o n i n t o t h e w o t l d o f

h u m a n i t y ; our reason is i n schism a n d out l i f e is one of impotence

everyday experience. Just as i n The Descent of the Dove he describes t h e o l o g y

answet is the paradox o f t h e I n c a r n a t i o n W e m a y already be h e a r i n g echoes

as

of Cur

t h e measurement

of e t e r n i t y i n o p e r a t i o n ' , so here i n He Came Down

Prom Heaven he describes r e l i g i o n as

the d e f i n i t i o n of the

relationship

experienced, The

Deus Homo, b u t our expectations w i l l be d i s a p p o i n t e d i f we ate

l o o k i n g for a version of A n s e l m s a r g u m e n t s

T h e forensic f r a m e w o r k of

the

A n s e l m s t h e o r y is t o t a l l y absent f r o m these pages; instead of t h e language

A t o n e m e n t , we w o u l d do w e l l to approach its C h r i s t o l o g y v i a t h e theoty o f

of d e b t , W i l l i a m s e m p l o y s the language of s u b s t i t u t i o n I n G o d , as m a n ,

the A t o n e m e n t he ptoposes.

an act of s u b s t i t u t i o n can be observed — indeed, i t is the supreme act of

between

earth

and

heaven

3

A n d , as

i t is p r i m a r i l y

treatise on

The first chapters c o n t a i n an e x p o s i t i o n of the F a l l a n d its consequences for t h e h u m a n race, the p r i m e consequence of w h i c h is t o i n t r o d u c e i n t o h u m a n nature w h a t W i l l i a m s calls chapter

the actual schism

t h a t examines t h e Genesis story is e n t i t l e d :

A l t e t a t i o n of K n o w l e d g e

i n reason'

I he

The M y t h of t h e

they ( A d a m a n d Eve) k n e w g o o d ; they

w i s h e d t o k n o w g o o d as e v i l

Since there was n o t

a n y t h i n g b u t the

s u b s t i t u t i o n t o w h i c h a i l other acts of exchange are related a n d f r o m w h i c h they derive t h e i r m e a n i n g In

a

book

review

Anthropotokos

for

the

periodical

p u b l i s h e d i n the

Heaven, the s u m m a r y

Time

and

same year as He

of his p o s i t i o n on the

Tide,

entitled

Came Down From

Incarnation

stresses

the

c e n t r a l i t y of t h e concept o f exchange - a concept closely t e l a t e d to t h a t o f

g o o d t o k n o w , t h e y k n e w g o o d as a n t a g o n i s m . A l l difference consists i n

s u b s t i t u t i o n A n d he does t h i s by means o f the use o f the s y m b o l of the c i t y

the m o d e of k n o w l e d g e .

— always, for h i m , the s y m b o l of the redeemed l i f e .

4

H e is u n c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h rhe O l d Testament

language of ' c o v e r i n g ' and f o r g e t t i n g s i n o n the g r o u n d s t h a t facts cannot be erased f r o m h i s t o r y , cannot be made n o t to have been

As man

has

chosen to k n o w g o o d as e v i l thete is the inescapable fact of e v i l and rhe fact cannot s i m p l y be f o r g o t t e n A n d he remarks: i f t h e H i g h a n d H o l y O n e is prepared t o forget w h a t has been is he n o t o n l y

of any city? Exchange between

citizens

communion? A mode of exchange W h a t is the fundamental fact of men i n their natural lives? The necessity of exchange W h a t is the

felicity by losing

highest level of Christian dogma? Exchange between man and God, by

The consequences of the Fall cannot be p u t aside, u n d o n e i n a

virtue of the union of M a n and God in rhe Single Person, who is by

m i r a c u l o u s action of the restoration of Edenic innocence; t h e y can o n l y be

virrue of that Manhood, itself the City, rhe foundation and the

t r a n s f o r m e d , changed

be

enclosure

This office of substirurion d i d not need Christendom to

The Precursor

exhibit i t

Christendom declared something more; it declared that

fact ?

5

from within

finding

What is the characteristic

What is the fact common to both sterile communication and viral

h u m a n nature

itself

k n o w n as g o o d ; death k n o w n as life I n the f o u r t h chapter,

Evil must

and the I n c a r n a t i o n ' , he introduces phrases f r o m J u l i a n of N o r w i c h a n d A u g u s t i n e t o s u p p o r t his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n A l l is most well; evil is pardoned - ir is known after another manner;

this principle ot substitution was at die root of the supernatural, of universal life, as well as of natural

7

Exchange is defined as p a r t of the nature of the Godhead

I t is seen as t h e

in an interchange of love, therefore as a mums of rhe good 0 felix culpa

root p r i n c i p l e o f a l l existence, d i v i n e as w e l l as h u m a n ; and t h e operation of

-

exchange, already

pardon is no longer an oblivion but an increased knowledge, a

knowledge of all things in a perfection of joy

6

k n o w n i n the l i f e of the T r i n i t y as t h e

co-inherent

r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e three Persons, is e m b o d i e d i n an earthly c o u n t e t p a r t as t h e co-inherence of d i v i n e nature a n d h u m a n n a t u r e i n the petson of Jesus Christ

There is no d o c e t i s m i n t h i s a r t i c u l a t i o n of his C h r i s t o l o g y

Over

and ovet a g a i n W i l l i a m s adverts t o one of his favourite C h r i s t o l o g i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s - f r o m the, so-called, Athanasian creed - a d o c u m e n t rbat he Charles Williams, He Came Down From H [1938]), 12 Williams. He Came Down From Heaven zi Williams He Came Down From Heaven 39 Williams, He Came Down From Heaven, 59 3

(repr ; London: Faber & Fabcr, t 9 5 0

referred to m o r e rhan once as

t h a t gteat h u m a n i s t O d e ' :

'One n o t

by

4

5

6

Ann K-idler (ed ) I be Image of the City (London: Oxford University Press, 1958)

n z


The Christology of Charles Williams

HORNE

conversion of the G o d h e a d i n t o flesh b u t by t a k i n g of the M a n h o o d i n t o

r u b r i c s of the B o o k of C o m m o n Prayer w i l l r e m e m b e r , C h r i s t m a s D a y is

God

one of the days i n the C h u r c h s calendar on w h i c h the A t h a n a s i a n creed is

I h e r e is, s i m i l a r l y , n o A r i a n i s m here either. W h a t there is, of course,

is a s t r o n g sense of d e i f i c a t i o n , t h o u g h he n o w h e t e uses t h i s t e r m

-

a p p o i n t e d t o be sung at M o r n i n g Prayer

a l t h o u g h he does once use t h e rather o d d w o r d ' d i v i n i t i z e d ' ; of the n a t u r a l

A l l the first parr went on i n its usual way; she knew nothing about

w o r l d b e i n g super n a t u r a l i z e d by the e n t r y of t h e second person of the I t i n i t y i n t o the p a r t i c u l a r i t y of a h u m a n l i f e

musical settings of creeds, so she couldn t tell what to think o f this one

I h i s is n o t t o say t h a t

The men and the boys exchanged metaphysical confidences, they dared

W i l l i a m s d i d n o t argue p o w e r f u l l y for the r e a l i t y of the h u m a n flesh of

each other, in a kind of raprure

C h r i s t ; the s i g h t of t h a t was never t o be lost - despite w h a t he had w r i t t e n

to deny the Trinity or the Unity;

they pointed out, almost mischievously, that though they were

i n the o p e n i n g pages o f The Descent of the Dove. I n t h a t same r e v i e w article

compelled ro say one t h i n g , yet they were forbidden to say something

for lime and Tide he c o m m e n t s on the N e s t o r i a n conrroversy: Such r e m o t e

else exactly like it

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l quarrels i n t h e slums a n d boulevards of the N e a r East are

patt

n o t w i t h o u t interest today I t was the real nature o f Perfection as credible

sudden significance

and discoverable b y m e n t h a t was t h e n i n q u e s t i o n , and i t is s t i l l p e r f e c t i o n

proclaiming the nature of Christ - God and man is one in C h r i s t ; then

of A l e x a n d r i a n C h r i s t o l o g y i n the conflicts of t h e f i f t h c e n t u r y , he says: loss of ( t h e

title

of the V i r g i n )

' anthropotokos

has

damaged

Anthropotokos

should -

be

one

of

the

splendours

of

Christendom

the Godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into G o d

On

the assertion they ceased, and the boys rushed joyously i n ,

One

by confusion of substance, but by u n i t y - they rose, they danced, they

general i t has been left t o o m u c h t o the revolts against C h r i s t e n d o m t o what

sounded to her f u l l of

altogether, nor - they looked at the idea and rossed i t airily away - not

C h r i s t e n d o m ; the M i d d l e A g e s a t t e m p t e d to recover i t by fables, b u t i n demand

the words

The mingled voices of men and boys were

the boys fell silent, and the men went on. One, not by conversion of

that w e are at', and t h e n i n a remark c r i t i c a l o f w h a t he sees as t h e v i c t o r y The

A l l this Nancy haif-ignored But the second

for one verse held her

triumphed -

by unity, by unity - they were silent, all but one, and

that one fresh perfection proclaimed the full consummation, each

8

beatet o f the a n t h r o p o s , m a n ; such insistence w o u l d

syllable rounded, prolonged, cxacr -

by unity of person

y

h a r d l y indicate a C h r i s t o l o g y t h a t saw h u m a n i t y subsumed i n t o d i v i n i t y , a s u b s u m p t i o n t h a t m i g h t be h i n t e d at by t o o s t r o n g an a t t a c h m e n t to t h a t

Thus does W i l l i a m s present his Chalcedonian o r t h o d o x y Y e t , i n another

phrase f r o m the A t l i a n a s i a n creed:

area of his C h r i s t o l o g y

One

of

the

revolts

against

the t a k i n g of the M a n h o o d i n t o G o d ' .

Christendom'?

It

seems

as

if

he

has

N e s t o r i a n i s m i n m i n d a n d t h i s m o v e m e n t of his t h o u g h t , w h i c h m i g h t

he

gives

the

appearance of b e i n g d i s t i n c t l y

u n o r t h o d o x ; a n d we are n o w arrived at w h a t m a y be his m o s t o r i g i n a l c o n r i i b u r i o n t o the subject

be read as a certain s y m p a t h y w i t h w h a t was c o n d e m n e d at the C o u n c i l o f

H e d i d n o t subscribe to the t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w t h a t the I n c a r n a t i o n was

Ephesus is, at firsr, s o m e w h a t s u r p r i s i n g ; for I w o u l d suggest t h a t his

necessitated b y t h e Fall, w h a t he called the schism w i t h i n the h u m a n s v e r y

f o r m u l a t i o n of the person o f the incarnate L o r d i n t e r m s o f an exchange

b e i n g ; he was d r a w n instead first b y his intense p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h

the

berween

p u r e l y h u m a n aspect of c t e a t i o n , a n d , secondly,

the

humanity

and

divinity

would

make

Monophysitism

more

arrtactive to his v i s i o n of t h e incarnate W o t d ; b u t t h i s is n o t , a c t u a l l y ,

by his n o t i o n of

c e n t r a l i t y of the p r i n c i p l e o f exchange, i n the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n a l

the case I n fact, his rejection of b o t h N e s t o r i a n s i m and E u t y c h e a n i s m is

t h e o l o g y c o m m o n l y associated w i t h D u n s Scotus a n d the Franciscans o f t h e

spelled o u t i n a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t , a n d unexpected,

t h i r t e e n t h a n d f o u r t e e n t h centuries

p a r t of W i l l i a m s s

beloved

w r i t i n g s : i n a n o v e l , The Greater Trumps I can t h i n k of n o m o d e r n n o v e l i s t , perhaps no n o v e l i s t i n t h e h i s t o r y o f 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 s i n g i n g of

A t h a n a s i a n creed at the centre of the p l o t p u b l i s h e d i n 1932.

the

B u t so i t is w i t h t h i s novel

Three o f the characters are a t t e n d i n g M o r n i n g Prayer

i n a v i l l a g e c h u r c h o n C h r i s t m a s D a y ; a n d , as anyone f a m i l i a r w i t h

the

was

due

to

the

That is, t h a t the I n c a r n a t i o n o f t h e

primal

and

absolute

purpose

of

love

foreshadowed i n creation, a n d was i n n o way the resulr of t h e s i n o f h u m a n beings

This

unconventional,

interpretation as he

of

the

doctrine

himself temarked, b u t

C h r i s t i a n belief, nor is i t , o f couise,

may

be

i t is n o t

regarded

as

forbidden

ro

restricted t o Duns Scotus and

the

Franciscan t r a d i t i o n or t o those centuries; there are m o d e r n advocates of t h e

Charles Williams. The Greater Trumps (London: Faber & Fabet paperback edn, 1954). 109-30 ?

* Ridler (ed ), The hnagc t>f the City I I I

Son

ıi4

The P

m o n


HORNE

°f Christ

115

t h e o r y , i n a d d i t i o n t o Charles W i l l i a m s : B F W e s t c o t t i n the n i n e t e e n t h

Theology i n 1 9 4 1

c e n t u r y a n d , m o r e t e n t a t i v e l y , K a r l Rahner i n the t w e n t i e t h E v e n D u n s

Christians

Scotus's older c o n t e m p o r a r y , T h o m a s A q u i n a s , was prepared t o a d m i t t h a t

categorically t h a t he d i d h o l d the t h e o r y ; an assertion w h i c h is borne o u t

and

( N o v e m b e r ) , he speaks of i t as a p e r m i s s i b l e belief f o r clearly

leans

towatds

i t himself

Anne

Ridler

states

i t was possible t o argue t h a t the I n c a r n a t i o n was o r d a i n e d f r o m e t e r n i t y

by the sequel t o He Came Down From Heaven, t h e extended

and m i g h r have t a k e n place w h e t h e r the F a l l had o c c u r r e d or n o t , b u t was

Forgiveness of Sins

u n w i l l i n g , h i m s e l f , t o agree t h a t such a t h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n was the m o s t

c l a i m s t h a t 'the b e g i n n i n g o f a l l t h i s specific creation (the universe) was t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e ' i n the l i g h t of w h a t was t o be apprehended İn S c r i p t u r e :

assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, i t is more İn accordance w i t h 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 w o u l d not

essay

The

I n the o p e n i n g of the t h i t d chapter of t h i s later w o r k h e

w i l l of G o d t o Incarnate' (p. 1 1 9 ) is f o l l o w i n g

. since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is

1 1

an a r r a n g e m e n t

H e acknowledges i n a f o o t n o t e t h a t h e

of d o c t r i n e

w h i c h m i g h t be regarded

as

u n u s u a l b u t w h i c h he believes to be w i t h i n the b o u n d s of o r t h o d o x y . H e f o l l o w s u p the sentence w i t h an assertion

i n w h i c h a far m o r e u n u s u a l

p o s i t i o n is advanced

have been ' °

It is clear that this Incarnation, like all his other acts, mighr have been done to himself alone I t was certainly not necessary for h i m to create

B u t he is q u i c k t o a d d : A l t h o u g h the p o w e r of G o d is n o t l i m i t e d to t h i s even i f s i n had n o t existed, G o d c o u l d have become incarnate

man in order that he m i g h t himself become man. The Incarnation did

H e was

not involve the Creation Bur i t was w i t h i n his nature to w i l l to create

q u i t e prepared to see the I n c a r n a t i o n as the c u l m i n a t i o n of G o d s o r i g i n a l

joy, and he willed to create joy in this manner also.

13

creative act The l o n g essay The Gospel of C r e a t i o n of 1 8 8 6 b y B F W e s c o t t is his

To postulate t h a t the I n c a r n a t i o n h a d always been ordained b y G o d as t h e

o w n a p o l o g i a for t h e v a l i d i t y and appropriateness of such a v i e w of G o d s

goal a n d c o n s u m m a t i o n of his creative a c t i v i t y is one t h i n g ; to suggest a

a c t i o n i n the w o r l d

h y p o t h e t i c a l independence f r o m creation is q u i t e anothet

I t is possible t o

d r a w a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n , o n the one h a n d , the w i l l to i n c a r n a t e , and, o n I h e belief that the Incarnation was i n essence independent of the Fall

the o t h e r , the h i s t o r i c a l circumstances of the act, b u t the references of t h e

has been held by men of the most different schools, in different ways

scholars ro circumsrances are specifically to h u m a n i t y s f a l l e n c o n d i t i o n

and on different grounds A i l however in the main agree in this, thar they find in the belief a crowning promise of the unity of the D i v i n e

Here is W e s t c o t t

again:

Order; a fulfilment, a consummation, of the original purpose of

. i t can fairly be maintained that we ate led by Holy Scripture to

creation; a more complete and harmonious view of the relation of finite

regard the circumstances of the Incarnation as separable from the idea

being to God than can be gained otherwise

of the

1 1

W h e t h e r W i l l i a m s k n e w t h i s p a r t i c u l a r essay of W e s t c o t t , or t h a t of any of the other scholars t h a t W e s t c o t t

cites, is i m p o s s i b l e to say; he

m o r e i m a g i n a t i v e a n d , perhaps, less i n t e l l e c

t u a l l y secure, t h a n W e s t c o t t or any o f t h e others. I h e theory appears i n a n u m b e r of places, and i n a v a r i e t y of contexts, i n his w o r k

I n bis h i s t o r y o f the C h u r c h , The Descent of the Dove, i t is

and to hold that

the

circumstances of

the

due to the primal and absolute purpose of love fore-shadowed in

himself

Creation

tefers o n l y to D u n s Scotus, b u t , w h a t w e can say is t h a t he is m o r e d a r i n g perhaps m o r e f o o l h a r d y -

Incarnation,

Incarnation were due to sin, while the idea o f the Incarnation was 1 4

I t is nowhere suggested t h a t creation itself is a circumstance, made

necessary for the

W i l l i a m s ' s suggestion

d r a m a of the

a stage-set

f l e s h - t a k i n g , w h i c h is

i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r passage

precisely

Whereas W e s t c o r t sees

crearion as an a c t i o n of G o d w h i c h c u l m i n a t e s i n the u n i o n of himself a n d

discussed briefly i n a Postscript t o the text. I n his review of t w o books by

m a n i n the person of Jesus C h r i s t , W i l l i a m s postulates creation as a k i n d o f

Denis Sautat (Regeneration a n d The Christ at Chartres) for the p e r i o d i c a l Time

b y - p r o d u c t of G o d s p r i m a r y i n r e n t i o n : w h i c h is t o take m a t t e r t o H i m s e l f

and Tide ( 2 N o v e m b e r 1 9 4 0 } , as i n his essay N a t u r a l Goodness' p r i n t e d i n

s i

1 0

1 1

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Iheologka I I I I i i i trans of 191 2 (london: Burns & Oates) Westcott TheEptsties ofît ]>,hn (London. Macmillan & Co , 2nd edn, 1886) 317-18

'

3

1 4

Charles Williams, The Forgiveness of Sins (London: G Bles,

Ridler (ed ), The image of the City 119 Westcott, The Epistles of St John, 288

1942)

116

HORNE


The Cbristology of Charles Williams

i n the personal u n i o n of the Son w i t h h u m a n nature I f i t were possible t o

some of the Fathers W h i l e t h i s vocabulary of s u b s t i t u t i o n a n d exchange,

establish

e m p h a t i c a l l y used by W i l l i a m s , m i g h t suggest a m o r e i m m e d i a t e u n i o n

an order of m e t a p h y s i c a l ptecedence i n the a c t i v i t y of

the

between the natures t h a n was p r o p o u n d e d at Chalcedon, w h i c h w o u l d lead

U n c t e a t e d , I n c a r n a t i o n w o u l d rake precedence over creation. F r o m t h i s i t f o l l o w s , w i t h a k i n d o f relentless i n e v i t a b i l i t y , t h a t C h r i s t ,

i n the d i r e c t i o n of the c o n f u s i o n of natures, m o n o p h y s i r i s m is avoided b y

the Son of the Fathet, m u s t be seen as the agent of creation. The f o u r t h

the use o f the c o m p l e m e n t a r y concept of co-inherence

Gospel s assertion: ' A l l t h i n g s came i n t o b e i n g t h r o u g h h i m , a n d w i t h o u t

h u m a n natures of the incarnate L o r d d o n o t merge i n t o one another, are n o t

h i m not one t h i n g came i n t o b e i n g ' is a m p l i f i e d a n d extended b y W i l l i a m s

confused, they co-inhere

i n the f o l l o w i n g w a y :

Prestige s essay o n co-inherence that concluded h i s study God in Patristic

special order which involved the non-created

.

H e was the only

W i l l i a m s f o u n d his o w n t h e o l o g i c a l s e n s i b i l i t y c o n f i r m e d b y

that w o r k

So d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y exchange lives i n t h a t p a t t e r n of c o -

inherence,

creature (whose) flesh was i n unique relationship to rhe sublime flesh which was the unity of God w i t h matter

perichoresis ,

circumincessio', w h i c h

is the h i s t o r i c a l Jesus

H e r e i n the I n c a r n a t i o n is t h e u t m o s t j o y ; the F a l l c o u l d n e i t h e r cause n o r

The Incarnation was the

single dominating fact, and to that all flesh was rehired

very impressed by G . L

Thought; ' 1

He (Adam - humanity) had been created, of course, but according to a

W i l l i a m s h a d been

The d i v i n e a n d

prevent i t ; the

The

schism i n teason

s i m p l y became t h e circumstances of i t s

Incarnation was rhe Original from which the lesser human images

occurrence

derived

f e w other theologians w h o so consistently emphasize the significance o f t h e

1 5

So, t o p u t i t c r u d e l y , the Son is the i n s t r u m e n t of a w o r l d w h i c h is b r o u g h t i n t o b e i n g so t h a t H e H i m s e l f , i n the w o m b of t h e V i r g i n , takes flesh t o H i m s e l f W h a t the F a l l of A d a m d i d was to d e t e r m i n e the

circumstances

w i t h i n w h i c h the purpose of G o d , already present t o the G o d h e a d f r o m a l l e t e r n i t y , to u n i t e h i m s e l f w i t h m a t t e r , was achieved W h y d i d W i l l i a m s find t h i s i n t e r p r e r a t i o n of t h e person a n d w o r k of C h r i s t so a t t r a c t i v e ; w h a t made h i m so d e t e r m i n e d an advocate o f so unusual

a

reading

of

İt?

The

answer

lies

i n his

a n t h r o p o l o g y : his

apprehension of w h a t h u m a n l i f e is for; and central t o t h i s are the t w i n p r i n c i p l e s o f co-inherence and exchange. For h i m a l l g e n u i n e h u m a n l i f e operates o n the basis of exchange

B u t there is f u r t h e r teason, also a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l I can r h i n k o f

h u m a n body as does Charles W i l l i a m s ; w h o so p o w e r f u l l y argues for t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e r e v e l a t i o n of the supernatural i n a n d t h r o u g h the n a t u r a l ; w h o contends t h a t h u m a n flesh, f r a g i l e a n d weak t h o u g h t i t may be, is capable of b e i n g the vehicle of d i v i n e g l o r y A n d so he w r i t e s t h e body w a s h o l i l y created, is h o l i l y redeemed, a n d is t o be h o l i l y raised f r o m the dead I t is, i n fact, f o r a l l our d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h i t , less f a l l e n , merely i n itself, t h a n the soul.

1 7

T h i s is w h a t attracted h i m t o D a n t e s s t r i k i n g v i s i o n of t h e

Resurrection i n t h e f o u r t e e n t h canto of Paradiso: C o m e la carna g l o t i o s a e santa fia r i v e s t i t a : the h o l y and g l o r i o u s flesh

T h a t is s i m p l y a d e f i n i t i o n for h i m ; an

T h e brightness w h i c h her (i e Beatrice s) body shed directed attention

i r r e d u c i b l e fact; an a s s u m p t i o n basic t o a l l his t h e o l o g y as w e l l as his

ro rhis future

a n t h r o p o l o g y A n d i f t h i s is t r u e , t h e highest and deepest j o y f o t h u m a n

whole life thar here s i n g s , of w h i c h .

beings m u s t lie İn t h e exchange between themselves a n d their Creator

a n d means '

The

nodal p o i n t and t h e source o f a l l j o y is the person of the W o r d made flesh.

O f these lines f r o m t h e

Divine Comedy, W i l l i a m s w r i t e s :

The R e s u r r e c t i o n was held i n the w o r d

v i t a ; i t is the

. rhe flesh has been the incident

8

B u t he comes t o j u s t i f y his c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the h u m a n b o d y is capable o f

Some n o t i o n o f exchange, I w o u l d suggest, w i l l be present i n a l l o r t h o d o x

b e i n g the vehicle of d i v i n e splendour by e s t a b l i s h i n g i t , n o t u p o n s o m e

i n t e r p t e t a t i o n s of the I n c a r n a t i o n a n d the A t o n e m e n t , b u t , so fat as I a m

q u a s i - p a n t h e i s t i c theory a b o u t the nature of m a t t e r , b u t u p o n the

able

t a k i n g of the D i v i n e Son.

t o ascertain,

no

t h e o l o g i a n has

so

emphasized

its

centrality

as

W i l l i a m s does. The concepts of e x a l t a t i o n and g l o r y f o u n d i n the language I he principle of the Incarnarion had been rhe u n i t y of G o d a n d M a n in

of d e i f i c a t i o n o f the Fathers of the early C h u r c h are surely w h a t he means

rhe flesh; and the p r i n c i p l e of the creation had therefore been a u n i t y of

b y j o y , b u t h i s w o r d İs m o r e intensely h u m a n , m o r e closely l i n k e d t o the

m a n — s o u l and body — i n

q u o t i d i a n experiences o f petsonal love a n d desire t h a n either the ecstatic

flesh

W e have, except for the poets,

language of the m y s t i c s or t h e m o r e abstract, p h i l o s o p h i c a l vocabulary of

1 5

Williams hit: Came Down From Heaven 129-30

! t

G . L . Ptestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: Heinemann

1 7

Ridler (ed.), The Image of the City, 84.

1936)

1 8

Charles Williams The Figure of Beatrice (London: Faber & Faber, 1943).

2.07

flesh-

118

HORNE



119

rather lost this sense of the body; we have nor only despised it roo

jocular f o r m - t h a t as b o t h aesthetics and t h e o l o g y i t was b o t h specious

much, but we have not admired ir enough '

a n d u n t e n a b l e N o w I a m less sure; a n d I wonder, n o w , i f i t is f a n c i f u l t o

9

H e e n t i t l e d one of his last essays The I n d e x of the B o d y , an essay i n w h i c h the h u m a n b o d y is perceived t o be n o t m e r e l y one of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t vehicles

for

the

communication

of

m i c r o c o s m of the w h o l e created order

heavenly

beauty,

but

also

as

a

H u m a n beings m i g h t d i s t o r t the

structure of t h e i r o w n existence a n d c o r r u p t its forces, b u t t h e y were u l t i m a t e l y powerless to destroy a p a t t e r n t h a t h a d been decreed b y the Father and e m b o d i e d i n its p e r f e c t i o n b y H i s incarnate Son

T h e Sacred

B o d y is the p l a n u p o n w h i c h physical creation was b u i l t , for i t is the centre of physical creation Review 1 9 4 2

1 0

( I h i s essay was o r i g i n a l l y p r i n t e d i n The

Dublin

a n d suffered some censorship b y nervous e d i t o r s ; y o u m a y

t h i n k they were correct)

i n t t o d u c e a c o m p a t i s o n w i t h one of the great theologians of t h e B y z a n t i n e t r a d i t i o n : John of Damascus. W h a t is t h e basis of John's defence o f icons? I t is the fact of the I n c a r n a t i o n I f the A l m i g h t y h a d n o t u n i t e d h i m s e l f t o m a t t e r i n the f o r m of the m a n Jesus there c o u l d be no g r o u n d for t h e representation of d i v i n i t y i n the m a n n e t of images, b u t because this has occurred, because Jesus h a d appeared i n h i s t o r y , because he could

n o t be used t o represent the d i v i n e , there was a p o s i t i v e i n j u n c t i o n p l a c e d u p o n h u m a n beings to do exactly this Icons, on t h i s a r g u m e n t , become a n indispensable p a r t of the fabric o f C h r i s t i a n w o r s h i p and t h e o l o g y

I n v i e w of a l l t h i s , i t is h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t he

I n the former times, G o d , w h o is w i t h o u t form or body could never be

should respond so p o s i t i v e l y t o t h e speculations he f o u n d i n D u n s Scotus.

depicted

O f course', says W i l l i a m s , c o m i n g u p o n t h a t t e x t , i f C h r i s t i n his h u m a n

I make an i m a g e of the G o d w h o m I see

nature is predestined before a l l t h i n g s , t h a t is w h y t h e h u m a n b o d y is as i t

worship the Crearor of matter who became matter for m y sake, who

is

w i l l e d to take H i s abode i n matter; w h o w o r k e d out m y through

B u t I s h o u l d l i k e to e n d w i t h w h a t c o u l d be his m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g a n d

matrer

I do not w o r s h i p matter: 1 salvation

G o d s body is G o d because it is joined to H i s 1 3

N o w I a d m i t t h a t , on the surface, John's a r g u m e n t is presented d i f f e r -

Milton,

e n t l y f r o m W i l l i a m s s: i t is one w h i c h advances f r o m a t h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n

a n d , speaking of t h e peculiar d i f f i c u l t i e s of p o r t r a y i n g — as M i l t o n tries t o

on t h e nature of revelation t o the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of i c o n o g r a p h y . I t does n o t

do i n Paradise Lost -

seem t o say: H e r e we have images, h o w best can w e j u s t i f y them? Let us

Beauty in the Poetic Mind

1 1

The subject under discussion is J o h n

B u t now w h e n G o d is seen i n the flesh conversing w i t h m e n ,

person by a union w h i c h shall never pass a w a y .

p r o v o c a t i v e use of t h i s theory. The reference occurs, n o t i n a t h e o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t , b u t i n t h e t h i r d o f h i s books of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , Reason and

be

observed and w o r s h i p p e d , there was, n o t o n l y no reason w h y m a t t e r s h o u l d

O m n i p o t e n c e and O m n i s c i e n c e

i n a w o r k of a r t ,

W i l l i a m s says, i n an i m p u d e n t way:

w o r k o u t a t h e o r y t h a t does j u s t t h a t A n d , b e h o l d , we have a c o n v i n c i n g one to hand, n a m e l y , the I n c a r n a t i o n ' O r does ¡t say that? A

If Christianity were not true, i t would have been necessary, for the sake of letters, to invent i t I t is the only safe means by which poetry

arrive at such a c o n c l u s i o n ; or, at least, propose t h a t John's j u s t i f i c a t i o n

can compose the heavens, without leaving earth entirely out of the picture

I he

Incarnation, had

it

not

been

necessary to

sceptical

h i s t o r i a n t r y i n g t o evaluate the m o t i v e s of John s w o r k m i g h t , p o s s i b l y , was, p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d i n its m o t i v e s than t h e

man s

redemption, would have been necessary to his arr; the rituals of the

t h e o l o g i a n a n d h i s subsequent interpreters make o u t Was W i l l i a m s b e i n g

Church have omitted that importanr fact from their paeans "

as d i s i n g e n u o u s as that? H e was i n love w i t h the a t t of p o e t r y , of that there

The I n c a r n a t i o n is seen as t h e means b y w h i c h heaven and_ earth, the n a t u r a l and s u p e r n a t u r a l , are u n i t e d ; the paradoxical p o i n t at w h i c h G o d and h u m a n i t y are j o i n e d , and the A b s o l u t e presents i t s e l f i n m u t a b l e arid apprehensfble flesTi; '6Tir"flesh I used t o ' t h i n k t h a t W i l l i a m s was n o t b e i n g e n t i r e l y seriousT i n m a k i n g ' t h i s c l a i m - a n d , of course, i t is presented i n

is n o d o u b t , a n d was persuaded of his h i g h v o c a t i o n as a p o e t

Was

he

i n v o k i n g a c o n v e n i e n t f o r m u l a t o p r o v i d e a t h e o l o g i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s quasi-religious

estimare

of

that calling?

Perhaps not consciously;

c e r t a i n l y never developed his c l a i m b e y o n d this instance

he

B u t the instance

remains i n t e r e s t i n g for a n u m b e r of reasons First, h i s aesthetics is based, at least i n t h e o t y , n o t , as is usually t h e case i n t h e W e s t e r n

theological

t r a d i t i o n ( T h o m a s A q u i n a s is the great exemplar here), o n t h e d o c t r i n e o f ll> 1 0

z

'

1 1

Williams, He Came Down From Heaven 115 Ridler (ed ) The Image of the City, 86 Charles Williams, Reason and Beauty in the Poetic Mind (Oxford: Clarendon Press

Williams. Reason and Beauty in the Poetic Mind. 0 9

1933)

John of Damascus On the Divine Images trans Vladimirs Ptess 1980), 23 1 3

David Anderson (New York: St


120

creation, b u t on t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n . I h e r e have, of course, been exceptions; n o t a b l y , i n o u r t i m e , H a n s U r s v o n Balrhasar, at t h e centre of whose t h e o l o g i c a l aesthetics is t h e figure of Jesus C h r i s t , the form of t h e W o r d incarnate,

. t h e v i s i b l e i m a g e of t h e Father, t h e sensuous sign par

excellence of t h e i n v i s i b l e economy

of t h e D i v i n e Logos

M

Chapter 7

T h i s has

e x t r e m e l y i n t e r e s t i n g consequences for aesthetic theory b u t , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , we have no t i m e t o pursue t h e m here; our subject is C h r i s t o l o g y , n o t aesthetics

A n d t h e n , i t i l l u s t r a t e s a s e n s i b i l i t y t h a t was incapable

of

separating r e l i g i o n f r o m l i f e , t h e o l o g y f r o m aesthetics, C h r i s t o l o g y f r o m a r t . t h e o r y f r o m practice

( T h i s capacity t o m a k e unexpected

The Baptism of Christ

connections

a n d t h i s d r i v e t o u n i t e beliefs, theories, practice g a t h e r e d f r o m a variety of contexts i n t o a coherent w h o l e is u n c o m m o n i n professional

theologians

Murray A

Rae

b u t i t was t h e o n l y w a y Chatles W i l l i a m s c o u l d d o his w o r k a n d l i v e his l i f e ) W e c o u l d say, i n c o n c l u s i o n , t h a t , for h i m , a l i n e of w e l l - f a s h i o n e d p o e t r y was n o t o n l y an aesthetic pleasure, i t was a t h e o l o g i c a l

statement,

and a d o c t r i n e precisely a r t i c u l a t e d n o t o n l y offered t h e r e v e l a t i o n of a d i v i n e t r u t h , b u t was also an i n v i t a t i o n t o t h e e n j o y m e n t of i n t e l l e c t u a l delight

T

he q u e s t i o n I propose t o addtess i n this essay may be f o t m u f a t e d v e r y s i m p l y W h y d i d Jesus, the one w h o was w i t h o u t s i n , s u b m i t t o John s b a p t i s m o f repentance for the forgiveness

of sins? W i t h

regard t o t h e t h e m e of t h i s v o l u m e w e m a y e n q u i r e f u r t h e r , w h a t is t o b e learned f r o m t h i s s u b m i s s i o n about t h e h u m a n i t y a n d the d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t ? Thar Jesus was b a p t i z e d b y John the B a p t i s t

attested

i n the R i v e r Jordan

is

i n a l l four gospels, t h o u g h o b l i q u e l y , i t m u s t be said, i n t h e

Gospel of John T h i s f o u r - f o l d t e s t i m o n y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , t h e accounts of Jesus b a p t i s m reveal a c e t t a i n rericence among r h e evangelisrs about w h y i t is that Jesus s h o u l d have been b a p t i z e d

A l l four consider

it vital to

r e p o r t che descent of the S p i r i t u p o n Jesus a n d t h e Father s seal of blessing and c o m m i s s i o n i n g t h a t t h i s represents, b u t o n l y M a t t h e w remarks o n t h e apparent i n c o n g r u i t y i n v o l v e d i n t h e one w h o was w i t h o u t s i n r e s p o n d i n g to John s call t o repent a n d be baptized

M a r k , h a v i n g r e p o r t e d that J o h n

baptizes those w h o stand i n need of forgiveness, a n d h a v i n g described t h e ptocess w h e r e b y other b a p t i s m a l candidates were r e q u i t e d t o confess t h e i r sins, says m i n i m a l l y of Jesus o n l y t h a t he was baptized b y John i n t h e Jordan

M a r k makes no f u r t h e r c o m m e n t about t h e b a p t i s m itself b u t

presses o n t o h i g h l i g h t w h a t happened after the b a p t i s m as Jesus e m e r g e d f r o m t h e watet

L u k e t o o focuses his account o n t h e descent of the S p i r i t

a n d t h e voice f t o m heaven a n d is even more cursory t h a n M a r k about t h e baptism:

N o w w h e n a l l t h e people h a d been b a p t i z e d ' , L u k e says, a n d

w h e n Jesus also h a d been b a p t i z e d a n d was p r a y i n g , r h e heaven was opened, a n d t h e H o l y S p i r i t descended u p o n h i m i n b o d i l y f o r m

. ' (Lk

3 2 i - 2 2 a ) L u k e has earlier repeated M a r k ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of John's b a p t i s m i 4

Quoted in Aidan Nichols

Say it Is Pentecost (Edinburgh: T & I Clark 2.001)

21

as a b a p t i s m of repentance for the forgiveness o f sins, makes m u c h m o r e

IZI


12.2

RAE

than M a r k of John's c o n d e m n a t i o n of s i n , b u t again avoids c o m m e n t o n the i n c o n g r u i t y of Jesus p r e s e n t i n g h i m s e l f o n John s t e r m s t o be baptized. The reference t o t h e b a p t i s m i n John s G o s p e l i s , as I have m e n t i o n e d , o b l i q u e . I h a t John s b a p t i s m is a b a p t i s m of repentance a n d forgiveness is i m p l i e d b u t n o t stated,

t h e emphasis b e i n g p l a c e d ,

rather,

12.3

M a t t h e w ' s G o s p e l is n o t alone i n t a i s i n g a n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e prospect of Jesus s u b m i t t i n g t o J o h n s b a p t i s m .

The extra-canonical

Gospel o f the

H e b r e w s places an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e b a p t i s m o n t h e l i p s o f Jesus h i m s e l f I h e t e x t reads:

on Johns

Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to h i m : John the

b a p t i s m w i t h water i n contrast t o t h e b a p t i s m of t h e S p i r i t t h a t Jesus w i l l

Baptist baptizes unto the temission of sins Let us go and be baptized

b r i n g . W h i l e t h e b a p t i z i n g m i n i s t r y o f John is t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h is

by h i m B u t he said to them: Wherein have I sinned that I should go

reported t h e descent o f t h e S p i r i t u p o n Jesus, i t is nevet stated i n J o h n s G o s p e l t h a t Jesus h i m s e l f was b a p t i z e d


and be baptized by him? Unless what I have said is ignorance

1

W e m a y perhaps gather t h a t he I came b a p t i z i n g w i t h

C o m m e n t i n g a p p r o v i n g l y o n this t e x t , a n d a t t e m p t i n g t o reconcile i t w i t h

water f o r this reason, t h a t he [ t h e L a m b o f G o d J m i g h t be revealed t o

the canonical reports t h a t t h e b a p t i s m d i d i n d e e d g o ahead, Jerome suggests

Israel ( J n I 3 1 ) , a n d f u r t h e r , ' I saw t h e S p i r i t descending f r o m heaven l i k e

t h a t despite seeing n o need for any act of repentance, Jesus shtank f r o m

a dove, a n d i t r e m a i n e d o n h i m ( J n 1 3 2 ) , b u t w e are u n l i k e l y , I suspect,

f o l l o w i n g h i s conscience because he k n e w t h e u n i t e d t e a c h i n g

t o d r a w the inference t h a t Jesus was b a p t i z e d b y J o h n i f w e d i d n o t also

Scriptures t o t h e effect t h a t n o h u m a n b e i n g is free f r o m sin - Jerome s r a t h e r

was f t o m t h e t e s t i m o n y o f J o h n t h e B a p t i s t t h a t

of t h e

T h i s k i n d of reticence i n r e p o r t i n g t h e

c o n t r i v e d e f f o r t at h a r m o n i z a t i o n of t h e various witnesses leaves us e i t h e r

b a p t i s m is t h e k i n d of t h i n g t h a t encourages t h e Jesus Seminar t o believe

w i t h a Jesus w h o was n o t after a l l w i t h o u t s i n , thus c o n t t a v e n i n g t h e

t h a t t h i s t h i n g r e a l l y happened, a n d t o suppose f u r t h e r m o r e t h a t t h i s is a n

t e s t i m o n y of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , or else w i t h a Jesus w h o was i g n o r a n t o r at

k n o w t h e Synoptic

tradition.

i n c i d e n t t h a t reveals w h o Jesus really was O n t h i s occasion, i f f e w others, I

least u n c e r t a i n of h i s sinlessness and w h o thus s u b m i t t e d t o b a p t i s m i n t w o

agree w i t h t h e m

T h e b a p t i s m does indeed reveal t h e t r u e r e a l i t y of Jesus as

m i n d s as t o h i s o w n need of i t W e have a choice between a s i n f u l Jesus o r a

I t is M a t t h e w alone a m o n g t h e evangelists w h o pauses over t h e b a p t i s m

N e w Testament witness B e t t e r , I t h i n k , s i m p l y t o recognize a t t h i s p o i n t t h e

confused Jesus, neither p o s s i b i l i t y o f w h i c h is easily reconcilable w i t h t h e

the C h r i s t a n d addresses the p r o b l e m w i t h w h i c h I a m concerned. M a t t h e w dtaws t h e

w i s d o m of the Gospel o f t h e H e b r e w s h a v i n g been excluded f r o m the c a n o n D e s p i t e b i b l i c a l a n d d o g m a t i c objections, there are some

same contrast as J o h n between t h e b a p t i s m w i t h water offered b y John t h e

commentators

B a p t i s t a n d b a p t i s m w i t h t h e H o l y S p i r i t a n d w i t h fire t h a t w i l l be offered

u p o n t h e b a p t i s m of Jesus w h o have supposed

by one w h o is c o m i n g a f t e r ' J o h n M a t t h e w also makes clear, however, t h a t

confess his o w n sins

John s b a p t i s m w i t h w a t e r is for repentance a n d forgiveness, a n d so reports

i g n o t a n t of w h o Jesus was, J o h n t h e B a p t i s t c o u l d n o t have consented t o

John s o w n o b j e c t i o n baptized him,

w h e n t h e one w i t h o u t s i n comes t o h i m t o be

John w o u l d have p t e v e n t e d Jesus, M a t t h e w tells us, a n d said t o

I need t o be b a p t i z e d b y y o u , a n d d o y o u c o m e t o me?

B u t Jesus

(Mt 3 14-15)

resolves our p r o b l e m p r o b l e m itself

contends t h a t ,

being

The

implausibility,

in

Strauss s

mind,

of

a

baptism

u n a c c o m p a n i e d b y Jesus confession a n d repentance leads h i m t o c o n c l u d e : Ihere is then no alternative but to suppose, that as Jesus had not, up to

W e shall r e t u r n i n d u e course t o

t h i s response, for i t is n o t clear w i t h o u t f u r t h e t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

Strauss, for e x a m p l e ,

baptize h i m w i t h o u t t h e confession o f sins r e q u i r e d o f a l l other b a p t i s m a l candidates.

answered h i m , " L e t i t be so for n o w ; for i t is p r o p e r for us i n t h i s way t o f u l f i l a i l righteousness

D F

t h a t Jesus d i d need t o

the time of his baptism, thought of himself as Messiah, so w i t h regard

how i t

to the liCTtiU'OLO: (repentance), he may have justly ranked himself amongst

For t h e m o m e n t , however, I w a n t t o pause at t h e

the most excellent i n Israel, w i t h o u t excluding himself from whar is

W e have seen i n M a r k a n d L u k e a certain reticence about

predicated i n Job i v 18, xv 15 [ i e that God puts no trust even in his holy ones]

r e p o r t i n g t h e b a p t i s m of Jesus, a n d i n J o h n t h a t reticence manifests itself

3

i n t h e avoidance o f any d i r e c t c l a i m t h a t such a n i n c i d e n t t o o k place O n l y M a t t h e w pauses at t h e b a p t i s m itself and acknowledges t h e i n c o n g r u i t y o f the event t h a t occasioned t h e descent of t h e S p i r i t . J o h n baptizes those w h o repent a n d confess t h e i t sins W h a t was Jesus d o i n g t h e n , i n s u b m i t t i n g t o t h i s b a p t i s m of John?

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

239

David Friedtich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. (London: S C M Ptess,

1973)

J be Person of Christ

RAE

There is l i t t l e h i s t o r i c a l g r o u n d for c o n t r o v e r t i n g [ t h e sinfulness of Jesus] ,


125

oneself for b a p t i s m i n t h e Jordan Schleiermacher thus c o n t e n d s that J o h n s

f o r t h e w o r d s which of you convkteth me of sin > ( J o h n v i i i .

b a p t i s m is a s y m b o l i c representation o f the need for sin t o b e abandoned i f

4 6 ) c o u l d o n l y refer t o o p e n delinquencies, a n d t o a later p e r i o d i n t h e l i f e

people are t o enter t h e k i n g d o m , b u t i t does n o t itself a c c o m p l i s h t h e

o f Jesus The scene i n h i s t w e l f t h yeat, even i f h i s t o r i c a l , c o u l d n o t b y itself

forgiveness o f s i n T o be b a p t i z e d , o n this account, is a r i t u a l means of

prove a sinless d e v e l o p m e n t o f h i s powers

Jesus was t h u s b a p t i z e d , m

a p p r o v i n g J o h n s p r o c l a m a t i o n , r a t h e r l i k e s h o u t i n g H a l l e l u j a h w h e n the

Strauss s v i e w , because, l i k e alt rhe other candidates p r e s e n t i n g themselves

preacher says, g o a n d g i v e your m o n e y t o t h e p o o r , w h i l e a t t h e same t i m e

at t h e Jordan, he t o o h a d need o f t h e repentance a n d forgiveness u p o n

k e e p i n g one s w a l l e t f i r m l y closed I n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s s y m b o l i c

w h i c h t h e r i t e was focused

therefore, Jesus is m e r e l y e n d o r s i n g John s message a n d d e m o n s t r a t i n g

Sttauss continues,

That v i e w m a y be correct, o f course, b u t i t sets

aside t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d o c t r i n e of Jesus New

sinlessness w i d e l y attested i n t h e

Testament (see A c t s 3 1 4 ; Jn 8 4 6 ; 2 Cor 5 2 1 ; H e b 7 2 6 ; 1 Pet.

I 1 9 ) , and undermines shall

4

argue

t h e s o t e r i o l o g y predicared u p o n t h a t witness.

i n conttast,

below,

that

Jesus

m a y indeed

have

I

offered

confession a n d repentance o n t h e occasion of h i s b a p t i s m , n o t however

thereby t h e c o n t i n u i t y between John's m i n i s t r y a n d his o w n

one is r e q u i r e d to d o so I n g e n i o u s t h o u g h Schleiermacher s s o l u t i o n m a y be, i t comes a t t h e very considerable cost o f d i s c o u n t i n g t h e s y n o p t i c testimony

For this reason, a m o n g others, i t c a n n o t be a p p r o v e d

I f t h e t t a d i t i o n is l a r g e l y agreed t h a t Jesus d i d n o t g o t o the J o r d a n because he s t o o d i n need o f b a p t i s m h i m s e l f , w h a t reason is g i v e n for Jesus

Strauss i s , o f course, a rare dissenter f r o m t h e o r t h o d o x defence o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f Jesus

sinlessness a n d f r o m t h e consequent c l a i m , f o u n d i n

response t o J o h n s call t o repent a n d be baptized? A c o m m o n v i e w is t h a t the b a p t i s m of Jesus is a n event t h a t sanctifies b a p t i s m i t s e l f

a l m o s t every c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e b a p t i s m , t h a t Jesus h i m s e l f h a d n o need

comments

of t h e b a p t i s m o f J o h n

b a p t i s m needed t h e p o w e r o f C h r i s t

J u s t i n , i n h i s d i a l o g u e w i t h T r y p h o , offers an early

t e s t i m o n y t o the m u c h m o r e widespread c o n v i c t i o n t h a t to t h e river because he s t o o d i n need o f b a p t i s m

5

Jesus d i d n o t g o

Tertullian likewise

rhat

I n truth,

Christ

needed n o t b a p t i s m B

C h r i s t sanctifies b a p t i s m has been variously conceived that

Him'

commenting

That c l a i m is repeated as w o u l d b e expected, t h r o u g h C y r i l of Ambrose,

Chrysostom,

Augustine,

Bonaventura,

Aquinas,

t u t h e r , C a l v i n , et al I t is c o n f i r m e d t o o b y Schleiermacher w h o overcomes of sins b y p r e f e r r i n g t h e account of J o h n over against those of t h e Synoptic Gospels

Johns

mention

o f any need for repentance a n d confession

Gospel,

Schleiermacher

rightly

observes, when

but rathei

A m b r o s e considers

9

A q u i n a s approves this v i e w

t h a t a l t h o u g h water is subtle a n d p e n e t r a t i n g i n i t s o w n

n a t u r e , [ i t i s ] made y e t m o r e so b y Christ's

Christ

the apparent i n c o n g r u i t y of Jesus' b a p t i s m for repentance a n d forgiveness

Chtysostom

The Saviour w i l l e d t o be b a p t i z e d n o t t h a t H e m i g h t H i m s e l f be

cleansed, b u t t o cleanse t h e water f o r us

Jerusalem,

...

The w a y i n w h i c h the p o w e r of

c o m m e n t s t h a t , a l t h o u g h Jesus was b a p t i z e d , ' n o tepentance was d u e f r o m 6

H e does n o t

confess h i s sins and repent under J o h n s b a p t i z i n g hand because, i n fact, n o

because o f h i s o w n need, b u t because of h i s love for a h u m a n i t y t h a t h a d f a l l e n i n t o sin a n d w h i c h b u r d e n h e n o w shoulders o n our b e h a l f

7

rite,

blessing

1 0

A n d further,

sanctified the waters hy the touch of his most pure flesh

1 1

T a k i n g a different l i n e b u t h o l d i n g still t o the n o t i o n that

Christs

b a p t i s m sanctifies b a p t i s m itself, J o h n C a l v i n contends t h a t :

makes n o

For this teason (Christ] dedicated and sanctified baptism i n his own

presenting

body, that he m i g h t have i t in common w i t h us, as a most firm bond of

Sttauss, Life of Jesus 239 Strauss cites an heretical apocryphal work which offers a precedent to his own view in apparently attributing 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 C o d apocr N T s 790f): Est -

Schleiermacher s account of Jesus baptism is found jn his The Life of fesus, ed Jack C Verheyden trans S. Maclean Gilmour (Miflintown P A : Siglet Press. 1997) 136-45 (Lectures 21 and 22)

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 5 Justin Martyi. Dialogue with Trypbo L X X X V I I I , 350 Jn Ante-Nicenr fathers, I , trans

Fathers ed Philip Schaff (Peabody MA: Hendrickson 1994) first series vol X I V , 58-62: quotation on 60

4

5

and ed A Roberts and J Donaldson (Peabody. quotation on 243 6

M A : Hendrickson

1994). l 9 4 - 7 ° ; 2

Tertullian, On Baptism ch X I I O f the Necessity of Baptism to Solvation , in Ante-Nicene

Fathers, I I I trans and ed A Roberts and 1 Donaldson (Peabody, M A : Hendrickson. 1994)..

669-80; quotation on 674

7

Chrysostom Homilies on the Gospel of John. Homily X V I I

In Nicene and Post-Nicene

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 Day of the Baptism of Christ'; He was baptised and sanctified the nature of water' 9

Aquinas Catena Aurea Aquinas Summa Theologiae 3a, 38, 4 2 vol 53 trans Samuel Parsons OP and Albert Pinheiro OP (London: Blackfriars 1971), 13


126

RAE

127

the u n i o n a n d society w h i c h he has condescended to form w i t h u s ; so

For very p l a i n i t is that O n e so pure as to be able to wash a w a y sins of

that P a u l proves from i t , that w e ate the c h i l d r e n of G o d , because w e

others, does not c o m e to confess s i n s , b u t to g i v e o p p o r t u n i t y to that

have p u t o n C h r i s t i n b a p t i s m

marvellous herald ( J o h n the B a p t i s t ] to impress what he h a d said more

!

i

C a l v i n hete h i n t s at a n o t i o n t h a t we w i l l r e t u r n t o b e l o w

definitely o n those w h o had heard h i s former words, and ro add others

The b a p t i s m o f

besides

C h r i s t is i n d i c a t i v e of t h e u n i o n a n d society' t h a t C h r i s t has condescended to


f o r m w i t h us T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h a t n o t i o n w i l l take us i n t o a

consideration o f t h e nature o f h u m a n i t y itself

1

5

A c c o r d i n g t o C h r y s o s t o m , the b a p t i s m affords J o h n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o see i n t h e flesh t h e one w h o he h a d heralded as t h e L a m b o f G o d I h e

B e y o n d t h e c l a i m t h a t b a p t i s m itself is sanctified b y t h e b a p t i s m o f

theophanic aspect of t h e b a p t i s m is a t h e m e echoed i n a n u m b e r o f other

C h r i s t , a second reason for C h r i s t s b a p t i s m , o c c u r r i n g c o m m o n l y i n t h e

commentators i n c l u d i n g A q u i n a s .

t r a d i t i o n , is t h a t C h r i s t is b a p t i z e d i n order t o f u l f i l t h e Jewish l a w

believe, b u t i t is concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h w h a t f o l l o w e d t h e b a p t i s m — the

This

1 6

The b i b l i c a l basis for t h i s is s o u n d , I

reasoning draws, o b v i o u s l y , o n M a t t h e w s r e p o r t e d w o r d o f C h r i s t t h a t he

voice f r o m heaven renders t h e b a p t i s m itself i n c i d e n t a l t o some o t h e r

should

purpose, a n d rather glosses over t h e i n c o n g r u i t y i n the p r e c e d i n g scene of

be b a p t i z e d

i n order

t o fulfil

a l l righteousness

(Mt 3 15)

C h r y s o s t o m explains t h a t C h r i s t ' s p r o m i s e t o f u l f i l t h e l a w entails t h e

t h e sinless one b e i n g b a p t i z e d

observance of evety aspect o f i t C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t b a p t i s m was e n j o i n e d upon

t h e Jewish

determined

people

b y G o d , Chtysostom

to fulfil that command

as w e l l ,

even

argues

that

Christ

t h o u g h he h a d n o

I h e fourth reason for t h e b a p t i s m o f Jesus t h a t is c o m m o n l y g i v e n i n the tradition

appears, for example,

i n Augustine

w h o stresses t h a t t h e

s u b m i s s i o n o f C h r i s t t o J o h n s b a p t i s m shows f o r t h the h u m i l i t y of C h r i s t

personal need o f i t The same reasoning is f o u n d i n Jonathan E d w a r d s : For

a n d sets an e x a m p l e for those called t o h u m b l e themselves i n b a p t i s m

i t was a special c o m m a n d o f G o d t o the Jews , E d w a r d s w r i t e s , 'to g o f o r t h

t h e L o r d also was b a p t i z e d , A u g u s t i n e w r i t e s , 'so that because t h e L o t d

to John the B a p t i s t a n d be b a p t i z e d b y h i m A n d therefore C h r i s t , b e i n g a

received t h e b a p t i s m o f a servant, other servants m i g h t n o t d i s d a i n t o

Jew,

receive

was subject t o t h i s c o m m a n d

righteousness

1 3

Such a v i e w m a y also be represented i n C a l v i n ' s assertion

t h a t Jesus was b a p t i z e d so t h a t Father'.

14

H e n c e t h e need t o f u l f i l a l l

While

he m i g h t render f u l l obedience t o t h e

i t is t r u e i n general

terms

t h a t C h r i s t renders

full

the baptism

of the Lord

1 7

Ambrose

roo sees

' But

i n Jesus

condescension t o be b a p t i z e d t h e exemplary h u m i l i t y o f a wise master i n c u l c a t i n g H i s doctrines as m u c h b y H i s o w n practice, as by w o r d of mouth

1 8

G r e g o r y T h a u m a t u r g u s devotes a w h o l e h o m i l y t o this aspect of

obedience t o t h e Father, t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f M t . 3 1 5 i n terms o f a

the b a p t i s m a n d extols at great l e n g t h the h u m i l i t y of C h r i s t i n p r e s e n t i n g

p a r t i c u l a r c o m m a n d o f G o d t o t h e j e w s seems t o m e t o miss t h e larger

h i m s e l f t o be baptized:

p i c r u r e o f G o d s righteousness w h i c h is f u l f i l l e d i n t h e b a p t i s m o f Jesus

O how vast is the h u m i l i t y of the L o r d ! O h o w vast H i s condescension!

W e w i l l r e t u r n t o t h i s i n due course

The K i n g of the heavens hastened to J o h n ,

A t h i r d reason c o m m o n l y g i v e n for C h r i s t s s u b m i s s i o n t o the b a p t i s m o f

without

J o h n is t h a t offered i n J o h n s G o s p e l , namely t h a t C h r i s t m i g h t be revealed t o

setting

dispatching

in motion

t h e camps

H i s o w n forerunner,

of H i s angels,

without

befotehand the incorporeal powers as H i s precursors; b u t

Israel (Jn 1 3 1 ) Jesus consents t o be b a p t i z e d b y J o h n , i t is suggested, b o t h as

presenting Himself i n utmost simplicity,

an endorsement o f John s p r o c l a m a t i o n - a v i e w w e have already m e t i n

comes u p ro H i s o w n subaltern

1

i n soldier l i k e

form,

He

9

Schleiermacher - a n d t o g i v e J o h n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n f i r m t h e v e r a c i t y of his p r o c l a m a t i o n C h r y s o s t o m , again, sets f o r t h t h i s a r g u m e n t :

1 5

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I V , 1 5 6 , ttans John Allen (Philadelphia: Ptesbyterian Boatd of Chtistian Education, 1936) C f Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew Mark and Luke, trans "William Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society. 1845) I , 2,02 1 1

1 1

Jonathan Edwatds A History of the Work of Redemption Works of Jonathan Edwards I X

ed. John F. Wilson (New Haven: Yale University Ptess 1989), 309-10 1 4

Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, 202

'

6

Chrysostom Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily X V I I Aquinas. Summa Theologiae 3a. 38 1

' Augustine. Tractates on the Gospel of John 4 14, trans J W Rettig (Washington D C : Catholic University of America Press), t 0 5 7

Ambrose, Sermon 12 1 Cited in Aquinas Catena Aurea Gtegory Thaumaturgus The Fourth Homily: O n the Holy Iheophany or on Christ s Baptism . in Ante-Nicene Fathers, V I ttans and ed. A Roberts and J Donaldson (Peabody, M A : Hendrickson. ^ 9 4 ) , 68—71; quotation on 68 1 9


128


RAE

N o t for his o w n sake, therefore, b u t as an e x a m p l e t o his disciples, Jesus

u l t i m a t e l y t o t h e cross I h e suggestion b e i n g m a d e here b y C h r y s o s t o m is

humbles himself b y s u b m i t t i n g t o the baptism of John

t h a t t h e b a p t i s m of C h t i s t , far f r o m b e i n g m e r e l y e x e m p l a r y , o r s i m p l y an

l i k e t h e three reasons p r e v i o u s l y adduced, t h i s f o u r t h account of w h y

endorsement

o f John s m i n i s t r y , is i n fact

t o be u n d e r s t o o d

as t h e

Jesus u n d e r w e n t b a p t i s m is n o t w r o n g , b u t neither is i t w h o l l y adequate i n

o u t w o t k i n g of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n i n w h i c h Jesus takes u p o n h i m s e l f and f u l f i l s

m y v i e w . I n d e e d , none of t h e reasons surveyed so far, eithet o n t h e i r o w n o r

the w h o l e m y s t e r y o f h u m a n nature

i n c o m b i n a t i o n , adequately address t h e apparent i n c o n g r u i t y of t h e sinless

incarnation

itself

one u n d e r g o i n g b a p t i s m for repentance a n d t h e forgiveness o f sins I h e

understood

w h i l e g u a r d i n g against,

c l a i m t h a t i n d o i n g so C h r i s t sanctified b a p t i s m m a y be r i g h t b u t is n o t a

suggestion t h a t C h r i s t was h i m s e l f a sinner?

that

I t is, i n other w o r d s , proper t o t h e

Jesus s h o u l d be baptized.

H o w is this t o be

as C h r y s o s t o m

rightly

does, a n y

sufficient reason. I t is also c l a i m e d t h a t C h r i s t sanctified m a r r i a g e b y

C h r i s t i a n f a i t h holds t h a t , i n b e c o m i n g flesh, the W o r d o f G o d a n d

a t t e n d i n g t h e w e d d i n g a t Cana, b u t he d i d so w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o b e

second person o f t h e T r i n i t y assumed a h u m a n nature, n o t m e r e l y i n

m a r r i e d h i m s e l f I t is secondly suggested t h a t C h t i s t was b a p t i z e d t o f u l f i l

docetic fashion, b u t g e n u i n e l y . I h e W o r d became flesh a n d w a s , b y v i r t u e of

a p a r t i c u l a r c o m m a n d o f G o d , b u t i f t h e c o m m a n d t o t h e Jews t o be

t h a t b e c o m i n g , f u l l y a n d t t u l y h u m a n W h a t t h e W o r d became a c c o r d i n g

b a p t i z e d was i n r e p a r a t i o n of h u m a n f a u l t , w h a t o b l i g a t i o n is there t o f u l f i l

to J o h n 1 14 was flesh — sarx H e t o o k u p o n h i m s e l f , i n o t h e t words, t h a t

t h a t c o m m a n d o n one n o t g u i l t y o f t h e fault? T h a t b a p t i s m afforded J o h n

w h i c h h a d f a l l e n prey t o s i n " R o m a n s 8 3 has i t that G o d sent his o w n

the B a p t i s t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n f i r m his t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e c o m i n g

Son

one, is, again, n o t c o m p e l l i n g o n i t s o w n J o h n s Gospel accomplishes t h e

Edward I r v i n g , " Karl Barth,

same e n d w h i l e a v o i d i n g m e n t i o n o f t h e b a p t i s m itself

t o t h e proper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e b a p t i s m o f Jesus C h r i s t . A c c o r d i n g t o

A n d finally, i n

i n t h e likeness o f s i n f u l flesh 1 3

I h i s t h e m e , explicated by s u c h as

a n d recently I h o m a s W e i n a n d y

1 4

is c r u c i a l

respect of t h e d i s p l a y of e x e m p l a r y h u m i l i t y b y Jesus - i f t h a t is a l l there is

Irving,

t o i t - there m i g h t be some justice i n a charge of d i s s i m u l a t i o n against one

was n o o t h e r i n existence t o t a k e . '

I h a t C h r i s t t o o k o u r f a l l e n nature is m o s t manifest, because t h e r e

w h o w e n t t h r o u g h t h e m o t i o n s o f confession a n d repentance m e r e l y as a n

carefully so as t o a v o i d t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t fallenness is o f t h e essence o f

e x a m p l e t o others. M y c l a i m , l e t m e repeat, is n o t t h a t these accounts of

h u m a n nature, thus c a s t i n g aspersions o n the goodness o f G o d s c r e a t i o n ;

w h y Jesus s h o u l d have been b a p t i z e d are w r o n g , b u t o n l y t h a t t h e y f a i l , o n

b u t I r v i n g is r i g h t t o i n s i s t that t h e h u m a n n a t u r e and society i n t o w h i c h

15

I h i s p o i n t needs t o b e a r t i c u l a t e d

t h e i r o w n , t o g e t t o t h e heart o f t h e matter. I n w h a t remains of t h i s essay,

the Son o f G o d came was t h a t nature a n d society w h i c h was d i s t o r t e d a n d

therefore, I propose t o explore one f u r t h e r account o f t h e m a t t e r t h a t does

corrupted b y the Fall

better justice t o t h e t h e o l o g i c a l significance o f Jesus

agreement w i t h I r v i n g , K a r l B a r t h is e m b o l d e n e d t o say t h a t w h i l e s i n

baptism

I b e g i n w i t h C h r y s o s t o m whose considerations o f t h e b a p t i s m of C h t i s t are a m o n g t h e m o s t extensive i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a n d whose

deliberations

T h i s is t h e p o i n t we saw h i n t e d a t i n C a l v i n I n

c o u l d n o t find any place i n H i m , t h e h u m a n i t y C h t i s t assumed is 'our o w n familiar

humanity

o u t a n d out, namely,

n o t only w i t h

its natural

i n c l u d e a l l four reasons m e n t i o n e d so far M o s t i n t e r e s t i n g i n C h r y s o s t o m ,

p r o b l e m s , b u t w i t h the g u i l t l y i n g u p o n i t of w h i c h i t has t o repent, w i t h

however, is t h e f o l l o w i n g account o f w h y Jesus was b a p t i z e d

the j u d g e m e n t o f G o d h a n g i n g over i t , w i t h t h e death t o w h i c h i t is

Chrysostom

liable

writes:

i

6

O n B a r t h s account C h r i s t offers h i m s e l f t o be baptized n o t o n

account of h i s o w n s i n , of w h i c h he was c o m p l e t e l y free, b u t o n account o f H e [ C h r i s t ] comes to b a p t i s m ,

that H e w h o has taken

upon H i m

h u m a n nature, m a y be found t o have fulfilled the w h o l e m y s t e r y of that nature; not that H e i s H i m s e l f a sinner, b u t he has t a k e n o n H i m a nature that is s i n f u l

A n d therefore, t h o u g h he needed n o t b a p t i s m

H i m s e l f , yet the carnal nature i n others needed i t

1

0

I owe the observation to Mattin Hengel who 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^S 1 1

C h r y s o s t o m here l i n k s b a p t i s m t o i n c a r n a t i o n , t o C h r i s t s a s s u m p t i o n of h u m a n flesh, a n d opens a n avenue o f i n q u i r y , I shall argue, t h a t leads us

2 3

See for example, Karl Barch. Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: I & T Clark 1 9 5 6 - 7 5 ) 1 2 ,

1 3 ; I V I , I 3 t ; 258-59 'Thomas Weinandy In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ 1 4

(Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1993) i ;

Cited in Aquinas.. Catena Aurea

2 6

Irving, The Collected Writings, V , 115-16 Barth Church Dogmatics I 2. 40

130


RAE


131

the g u i l t t h a t l a y u p o n h u m a n i t y as a w h o l e , i n c l u d i n g , n o w , his o w n

P o s t m o d e i n i t y w h i c h drives s t i l l f u r t h e r i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f separation a n d

humanity

f r a g m e n t a t i o n t h e already i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c conceptions o f t h e h u m a n person

H o w is t h i s t o be understood?

I n e x p l o r i n g t h i s m a t t e r f u r t h e r w e are assisted b y t h e recent w o r k i n theological

anthropology o f John Zizioulas

t h a t were developed w i t h i n M o d e r n i t y .

T o be h u m a n , as C h r i s t

I t is h e l p f u l , therefore, t o consider

t h e p o i n t b y reference t o a n o n -

c e r t a i n l y was, is t o exist i n personal r e l a t i o n w i t h others. T h e person is n o t

W e s t e r n c u l t u r e t h a t t h i n k s m o r e n a t u r a l l y i n r e l a t i o n a l a n d corporate

to be conceived along i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c lines, b u t rather as one whose b e i n g is

tetms

constituted

Pacific a n d i n N e w Z e a l a n d d o n o t t h i n k o f persons as i n d i v i d u a l s I h e

i n relation.

Here

w e m a y see t h e correctness of l i v i n g ' s

T h e various Polynesian cultures i n t h e island n a t i o n s of the S o u t h

assertion t h a t i n t a k i n g f a l l e n h u m a n nature C h r i s t t o o k u p o n h i m s e l f t h e

p r i m a r y h u m a n e n t i t y is the extended

o n l y h u m a n n a t u t e there was t o take

'individuals

O n e cannot be h u m a n i n i s o l a t i o n

f a m i l y or t h e v i l l a g e so

that

are w h a t t h e y are o n l y b y v i r t u e of their b e l o n g i n g t o t h e

f r o m others; i n d e e d t h e m y r i a d ways i n w h i c h w e a t t e m p t t o d o t h a t is

f a m i l y and t h e village

itself a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of sin. T o exist, n o t for others, b u t over against t h e m ,

d e m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e Polynesian justice system, o r , t o p u t i t o t h e r w i s e , i n

i n defiant 01 even resigned independence, is a v i o l a t i o n of t h e c o m m a n d t o

the c u s t o m a i y ways i n w h i c h righteousness is f u l f i l l e d i n t h e face o f s i n

T h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s c o n c e p t i o n are t e l l i n g l y

love one another, a n d defies G o d ' s j u d g m e n t i n creation t h a t i t was n o t

Suppose t h a t a c r i m e has been c o m m i t t e d , a m u r d e r perhaps

good

relational c o n c e p t u a l l y

that m a n s h o u l d be alone

reclaimed

by theology,

I f this relational ontology,

is correct,

then

the incarnation

recently

W i t h i n the

of Polynesian c u l t u r e t h e g u i l t f o r that m u r d e r

involves t h e

rests n o t o n l y u p o n t h e p e r p e t r a t o r , b u t w i t h equal w e i g h t u p o n t h e

a s s u m p t i o n of a nature w h i c h , i n v i r t u e of i t s r e l a t i o n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n , was

perpetrator's e n t i r e f a m i l y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for penance, therefore, also rests

m a r r e d a n d d i s t o r t e d b y sin. T h a t means, as B a r t h p u t s i t , t h a t t h e Son of

w i t h t h e f a m i l y as a w h o l e

G o d t o o k u p o n h i m s e l f t h e g u i l t t h a t lies u p o n us a l l . O r w e m a y prefer

f o l l o w i n g w a y The g u i l t y f a m i l y w i l l go t o t h e house o f the v i c t i m ' s

P a u l s confession:

family

For o u t sake { G o d } made h i m t o be s i n w h o k n e w n o

Such r e s p o n s i b i l i t y is w o r k e d o u t i n t h e

T h e n , s i t t i n g o n t h e g r o u n d outside t h e house, t h e g u i l t y f a m i l y

sin, so t h a t i n h i m w e m i g h t become t h e righteousness of G o d ' (2 Cor

w i l l b e g i n a process of w e e p i n g a n d l a m e n t , of confession a n d of penance

5 2 1 ) . H e r e t o o is a clue t o w h a t m i g h t have been m e a n t b y Jesus i n

for the c r i m e t h a t has been c o m m i t t e d

c l a i m i n g t h a t his s u b m i s s i o n t o b a p t i s m w i l l f u l f i l a l l righteousness.

As

i n t h e i r m i d s t , b u t i t is t h e f a m i l y as a w h o l e w h i c h bears t h e g u i l t , a n d so

T h e r e l a t i o n a l c o n c e p t i o n of t h e h u m a n s i t u a t i o n g i v i n g rise t o t h e

process of penance w i l l c o n t i n u e , perhaps for several days, u n t i l the f a m i l y

p r o m i s e d earlier, w e w i l l treat t h i s m a t t e r m o r e f u l l y b e l o w

I h e i n d i v i d u a l p e r p e t r a t o r w i l l be

also t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for repentance a n d t h e need for forgiveness

b i b l i c a l c l a i m t h a t i n b e c o m i n g flesh - t h a t is, i n b e c o m i n g w h a t w e a r e —

of

Jesus t o o k u p o n h i m s e l f also our g u i l t , does n o t c o m e easily t o t h e W e s t e r n

perpetrator's f a m i l y a n d b e g i n t h u s a process o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n

mind

that

is

commonly

think

of

human

beings

out from

their

house,

offer

forgiveness

to the

in

T h i s e x a m p l e is n o t analogous i n every respect t o t h e b a p t i s m of C h r i s t b u t i t does d e m o n s t r a t e t h e r e l a t i o n a l l o g i c under w h i c h t h e w h o l e f a m i l y

H e b r e w t h o u g h t T h e O l d Testament tells of G o d ' s dealings w i t h a people.

or race m a y be i m p l i c a t e d b y the s i n of one o f i t s members. I t is along these

W h i l e p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s m a y be called a n d a n o i n t e d b y G o d for a

lines, I suggest, i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e b i b l i c a l v i e w , t h a t w e are t o t h i n k

special role, t h e y are never called apart f r o m t h e people b u t rather for t h e

of Jesus a s s u m p t i o n of h u m a n nature

sake of the people. T h e i r actions are actions o n behalf o f Israel as a w h o l e

to the a s s u m p t i o n of those l i m i t a t i o n s proper t o our h u m a n i t y w i t h i n t h e

a n d m a y be r e d e m p t i v e or i n d e e d catastrophic

c o n d i t i o n s o f the created order, b u t includes also h i s acceptance of t h e g u i l t

people

to

come

B u t t h e r e l a t i o n a l c o n c e p t i o n is deeply rooted i n

individualistic terms

disposed

the victim

Ihis

for t h e w h o l e of G o d s

I t is t h i s l o g i c t h a t enables P a u l t o say t h a t

just as b y t h e one

t h a t lies u p o n h u m a n i t y as a w h o l e

H i s condescension is n o t r e s t r i c t e d

I h e W o r d became flesh means t h a t

m a n s disobedience t h e m a n y were made sinners, so b y t h e one m a n s

he w h o was w i t h o u t sin became s i n a n d t o o k o u t fallenness u p o n h i m s e l f

obedience t h e m a n y w i l l be made righteous

( R o m 5 19). I h e relational

W e m a y note i n passing here that t h e process of justice i n t h e Polynesian

c o n c e p t i o n of o u r h u m a n s i t u a t i o n is at w o r k again i n Paul's reflections o n

c o n t e x t , 01 the f u l f i l m e n t of righteousness, t o p u t i t o t h e r w i s e , is d i r e c t e d

Israel i n R o m a n s 1 1 where he claims t h a t I f t h e p a r t of t h e d o u g h offered

towards

as first f r u i t s is h o l y , t h e n t h e w h o l e b a t c h is h o l y ; a n d i f t h e root is h o l y ,

another p o i n t of contrast w i t h m o s t W e s t e r n systems of justice, a n d of

t h e n t h e branches also are holy.

c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the b i b l i c a l v i e w

Western

understanding

of

Such conclusions are n o t n a t u r a l t o t h e

our human

situation,

even

less

so i n

reconciliation

rather

than

punishment,

a n d constitutes

thus

132

RAE


L e t u s r e t u r n to t h e g o s p e l n a r r a t i v e s o f t h e b a p t i s m i t s e l f a n d e n q u i r e whether

there

Commentators

are have

grounds

there

frequently

for

pressing

observed

that

this

relational

whatevet

else

view

may

w h i c h , by ttacing Jesus

13 ^

k i n s h i p b a c k t o A d a m , L u k e s h o w s J e s u s to b e l o n g

to t h e w h o l e race of h u m a n i t y . J u s t i n M a r t y r r i g h t l y notes, therefore,

be

of the descent of the S p i r i t like a dove; even as H e s u b m i t t e d to be born

m i n i s t r y , t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of h i s M e s s i a h s h i p , a n d t h e

and to be crucified, not because H e needed such things, b u t because of

a c c e p t a n c e b y J e s u s h i m s e l f o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r o l e i n r e l a t i o n t o I s r a e l as a

the h u m a n race w h i c h from A d a m had fallen under the p o w e r o f dearh

whole

and the guile of the strpent

G R

Beasley-Murray

writes that

Jesus

went

to t h e b a p t i s m

that:

[Jesus] d i d not go to the river because H e stood i n need o f b a p t i s m , ot

s i g n i f i e d i n t h e b a p t i s m o f J e s u s , t h e e p i s o d e f u n c t i o n s i n t h e g o s p e l s as t h e inauguration of Jesus


of

3

1

J o h n , n o t as a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l , b u t as o n e c o n v i n c e d o f H i s v o c a t i o n t o be t h e M e s s i a h a n d t h e r e f o r e as a representative person ' w r i t e s , i n a recently p u b l i s h e d b o o k o f essays, b a p t i s m is - a m o n g other t h i n g s -

i

J

A n d Colin Gunton

I h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of { J e s u s ' ]

t h a t i t s i g n i f i e d J e s u s ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of

h i m s e l f w i t h I s r a e l u n d e r t h e j u d g e m e n t of G o d '

l 8

T h a t representative

is r e i n f o r c e d , i t i s c o m m o n l y a r g u e d , b y the w o r d s f r o m h e a v e n ,

L i k e w i s e e m p h a s i z i n g t h e p o i n t t h a t i n s u b m i t t i n g to J o h n s b a p t i s m J e s u s humbly

aligns

preaches

that:

role

himself

with

fallen

humanity,

Gregory

Ihaumaturgus

[Jesus] approached [ J o h n the B a p t i s t ] as one of the m u l t i t u d e , a n d

I h i s is

h u m b l e d himself a m o n g the captives though H e was t h e Redeemer,

m y beloved S o n w i t h w h o m I a m w e l l pleased' w h i c h carry a l l u s i o n s to the

and ranged H i m s e l f w i t h those u n d e r j u d g e m e n t t h o u g h H e was the

c o r p o r a t e figures of t h e K i n g i n P s a l m 2 7 , a n d t h e s e r v a n t i n I s a i a h 4 2

Judge, and joined H i m s e l f w i t h the lost sheep though H e was the

1

G o o d S h e p h e r d w h o o n account o f the s t r a y i n g sheep c a m e d o w n from

I n t h e K i n g first o f a l l , a n d t h e n l a t e r i n t h e s e r v a n t M e s s i a h , t h e w h o l e o f I s r a e l is g a t h e r e d

u p a n d represented

b e h a l f o f t h e p e o p l e , so t h a t J e s u s representative

significance

1

9

that:

It is crucial to recognize Jesus

not for private reasons b u t as a m a n w i t h

be fully identified w i t h them i n their m o v e m e n t

will

R a t h e r he m u s t

be w i t h

In

only door open to them. H e m u s t be their representative

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t

before he

3 0

the corporate g u i l t

of h i s p e o p l e

a n d offering

a

humanity

The

solidarity w i t h

I h e assumption

of our fallen

human

natute

true

h i m s e l f , Jesus

assumes

H e t a k e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t a n d for u s b y p r e s e n t i n g

h i m s e l f b e f o r e G o d as o u r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n c o n f e s s i o n a n d r e p e n t a n c e . confession

and

repentance

of

Christ

h u m a n i t y is taken u p b y B a r t h i n v o l u m e I V 1 under rhe section headed, ' I h e J u d g e Judged

r e p e n t a n c e o n t h e i r b e h a l f , t h o u g h n o t , as i t t u r n s o u t , o n b e h a l f of I s r a e l alone, b u t o n behalf of the w h o l e of h u m a n i t y

by Jesus

t a k i n g t h e b u r d e n of h u m a n i t y s g u i l t u p o n

representative

I t i s to t h i s b a p t i s m t h a t J e s u s c a m e , n o t i n c o n f e s s i o n o f h i s o w n s i n , shouldering

t h a t t h e a s s u m p t i o n of fallen h u m a n n a t u r e by

for t h e s a k e o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h

us always

was ro lead t h e m into G o d s k i n g d o m , he h i m s e l f m u s t enter it by the c o u l d be their k i n g H e m u s t be numbered with the transgressors before he

but

1

i n v o l v e s , r a t h e r , n o t m e r e l y s o l i d a r i t y or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b u t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

towards G o d I f he

c o u l d see the fruit of the travail of h i s soul (Isa. 53 1 1 - 1 2 ) .

J

s i n n e r s , c r u c i a l t h o u g h t h i s a s p e c t i s i n f u l f i l m e n t of G o d s p r o m i s e t h a t h e

H e d w e l t i n the m i d s t o f a people w i t h

unclean lips a n d c o u l d not separate h i m s e l f from t h e m

is n o t m e r e l y

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e i n c a r n a t i o n is n o t e x h a u s t e d

a p u b l i c c a l l i n g J o h n h a d s u m m o n e d a l l Israel to repentance a n d w i t h Israel Jesus too m u s t go

tares t h o u g h H e was the heavenly grain that springs u n s o w n

a n o i n t i n g at the b a p t i s m signals his

G e o r g e C a i r d r i g h t l y argues therefore

Jesus went to be baptised

heaven, and yet d i d not forsake H i s heavens, a n d was m i n g l e d w i t h the

I h e K i n g a n d the M e s s i a h act on

on

behalf

of h i s Church Dogmatics

in O u r Place

[Jesus C h r i s t , B a r c h c l a i m s ] placed H i m s e l f i n the series o f m e n w h o

l u k e , especially, emphasizes

rebelled against G o d i n their d e l u s i o n that they w o u l d be as G o d , not i n

this p o i n t b y f o l l o w i n g the b a p t i s m a n d t e m p t a t i o n w i t h t h e genealogy i n

order to t r y ro refuse or conceal or deny this, b u r i n the place of a l l other m e n - w h o refuse to do s o - t o confess it, to take upon H i m s e l f this guilt of

!

?

all h u m a n beings i n order i n the n a m e of all to p u t G o d i n the t i g h t against

G R Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan & C o , 1962).

H i m I n so d o i n g he acted justly i n the place of a l l and for t h e sake of all

56. 1 8

Colin E. Gunton, Father, "son and Holy Spirit Toward a Fully Trinitarian 'Theology

(London: T & T Clark. 2003), 207 O n which, see E Earle Ellis The New Century Bible Commentary The Gospel of Luke (london: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1974) 91 G B Caird The Gospel of Saint Luke (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1963) 77 original italics 1 9

i o

' ' Justin Martyr Dialogue with Irypho chaptet I X X X V I J I " Thaumaturgus, T h e Fourth Homily 68 Barth Chtinh Dogmatics I V 1 Z59 3

3 3

This

o f all

243

3

3

H e acted j u s t l y , B a r t h c o n t i n u e s ,


RAE


134

i n t h a t he d i d n o t refuse t o d o w h a t

the waters of t h e J o r d a n is actualized at Calvary

135

Jesus bears our g u i l t , is

t h e y w o u l d n o t do. I h e one great sinner, w i t h a l l t h e consequences t h a t

made s i n , a n d endutes i t s consequences H e represents us before the Father

t h i s i n v o l v e s , p e n i t e n t l y acknowledges

for he alone a m o n g h u m a n beings can offer a t t u e repentance and a t r u e

one lost c o i n , t h e lost son ( L k 15:30 It

is

impossible

to

conceptuality o f Western

understand

t h a t H e is t h e one lost sheep, t h e

confession, u n d i s t o r t e d b y t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f a l l others of us t o disobedience

3 4

this

within

the individualistic

a n d pretence

t h o u g h t b y w h i c h i t is s i n f u l l y asserted t h a t

I n t h i s h i s t o t y of h i s , f t o m b a p t i s m t h r o u g h t o c r u c i f i x i o n , Jesus f u l f i l l e d

each of us is responsible for t h e creation a n d o t d e r i n g o f our o w n b e i n g I t

a l l righteousness; n o t , however, t h e s l i m righteousness of obedience t o the

is foolishness i n d e e d i n c o n t e m p o r a r y W e s t e r n c u l t u r e t o p t o c l a i m t h a t t h e

l a w , b u t rather the supererogatory righteousness of the G o d w h o w i l l n o t

one decisive fact of o u r existence is n o t a fact of our o w n m a k i n g b u t one

g o back o n h i s p r o m i s e t o be our G o d . Righteousness here means r i g h t

t h a t is a c c o m p l i s h e d

relationship

f o r us, even despite u s , b y Jesus

confession a n d

repentance, a n d u l t i m a t e l y b y h i s d e a t h , o n o u r behalf I t is i n t h i s m a n n e r , nevertheless, t h a t w e m a y u n d e t s t a n d t h e b a p t i s m of Jesus i n t h e R i v e r Jordan

B a p t i s m is t h e 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 o n h i s w a y as t h e Judge j u d g e d i n our place b e g i n n i n g , t h u s , of h i s passion

It

denotes

the

faithfulness

of

God to

the

r e l a t i o n a l i t y i n w h i c h H e has set h i m s e l f w i t h h i s people.

3 5

I t is t h e

Jesus no m o r e needed t o be b a p t i z e d t h a n

covenant

The f u l f i l m e n t

of a l l righteousness means t h a t once a n d for a l l h u m a n i t y i n C h r i s t comes before

t h e Father i n confession

spoken,

a n d repentance a n d hears the v e r d i c r

T h i s is m y beloved Son w i t h w h o m I a m w e l l pleased'

I n a very

i m p o r t a n t sense, therefore, there is o n l y one w h o is t r u l y b a p t i z e d , t h a t is

he needed t o be c r u c i f i e d , b u t for t h e sake o f h u m a n i t y a n d i n obedience t o

Jesus C h r i s t

the Father, he p u t h i m s e l f i n t h e place of those w h o d i d need t o confess a n d

r e l a t i o n a l i t y of love b e t w e e n t h e Father a n d h i s c h i l d r e n . T h a t is w h y , ever

w h o deserved d e a t h

after, those w h o f o l l o w h i m are t o be b a p t i z e d i n t o C h r i s t , thereby passing

I n his commentary o n Luke s Gospel, John M o o r m a n

w r i t e s , T h e B a p t i s m is

t h e first step i n t h e r e d e e m i n g w o r k of C h r i s t

O n l y h i s b a p t i s m f u l f i l s a l l righteousness a n d secures the

t h r o u g h the waters w i t h h i m , d y i n g w i t h h i m , a n d r i s i n g w i t h h i m I t is i n

I t is n o t o n l y t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e m i n i s t r y , i t is also t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e

t h i s w a y t h a t the w o r d s of d i v i n e love are spoken for us as w e l l

passion

beloved s o n , t h i s is m y beloved d a u g h t e r , w i t h w h o m I a m w e l l pleased

3 6

Joseph F i t z m y e r , b y contrast, does n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e Lucan t e x t

supports t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

3 7

b u t t h e evidence seems t o f a l l o n M o o r m a n s

The suggestion

Lhis i s m y

w e m e t earlier i n the t r a d i t i o n o f c o m m e n t a r y

upon

side L u k e h i m s e l f , at 1 2 . 5 0 , speaks of Jesus l a b o u r i n g at a b a p t i s m t h a t is

Matthew

not yet complete

obedience t o a specific d i v i n e o r d i n a n c e , n a m e l y , that t h e people of Israel

T have a b a p t i s m w i t h w h i c h t o be b a p t i z e d , Jesus says,

'and w h a t stress I a m under u n t i l i t is a c c o m p l i s h e d

T h e r e seems l i t t l e

should

3 15

that

be b a p t i z e d ,

the fulfilment deeply

of righteousness

impoverishes

denotes

the biblical

Jesus

conception

of

a l t e r n a t i v e here b u t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h i s saying as an a n t i c i p a t i o n of Jesus

righteousness w h i c h is n o t r e d u c i b l e t o the observance of any p a r t o f or

c r u c i f i x i o n , g i v i n g w a r r a n t , therefore, t o t h e v i e w t h a t t h e b a p t i s m i n t h e

even t o t h e e n t i r e t y of t h e l a w Lhose w h o c l a i m e d t o have f u l f i l l e d t h e l a w

River Jordan is t o be seen i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e passion

didn t

Beyond Luke —

a n d t h u s , a d m i t t e d l y , b e y o n d t h e p r o v i n c e of F i t z m y e r ' s c o m m e n t — t h e p o i n t is s t r e n g t h e n e d b y t h e w o r d s of Jesus i n M a r k 1 0 38 t o t h e m about h i s d e a t h , Jesus t h e n asks t h e disciples,

A f t e r speaking A t e y o u able t o

genetally

exceeding

impress

Jesus

w h o sought

instead

a

righteousness

t h a t of t h e Pharisees' ( M t . 5 2 0 ) A l t h o u g h there are legal

overtones, v a r i o u s l y stressed b y d i f f e r e n t b i b l i c a l authors, s daqah, is f u n d a m e n t a l l y a r e l a t i o n a l concept e

righteousness,

The righteousness of G o d

d r i n k t h e c u p t h a t I d r i n k , or be b a p t i z e d w i t h t h e b a p t i s m t h a t I a m

appears i n h i s G o d - l i k e dealings w i t h his people, 1 e , i n r e d e m p t i o n a n d

baptized w i t h ?

salvation (Isa 4 5 : 2 1 ;

I t seems clear a g a i n here t h a t t o be b a p t i z e d means t o

suffer and t o d i e W h a t is represented s y m b o l i c a l l y t h r o u g h i m m e r s i o n i n

51:5!!;

56:1; 62:1)

3 8

a n d refers t o the k i n d of

c o n d u c t t h a t establishes a n d m a i n t a i n s r i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p .

59

Jesus b a p t i s m ,

therefore, is n o t u n d e r t a k e n m e r e l y i n f u l f i l m e n t of the l a w , b u t t o f u l f i l a l l righteousness, Ibid See again, Batch Church Dogmatics IV r , 259 John R.H Moorman The Path to Glory: Studies in the Gospel According to Luke (London: SPCK, 1963), 39. Joseph Fitzmyer Ihe Gospel According to Luke I - I X (New York: Doubleday 1981),

t o set h u m a n i t y , i n o t h e r w o r d s , i n r i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h

3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

H Seebass Righteousness Justification . in Ihe New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology I I I (ed Colin Brown; Exetet: Paternoster Ptess 1978), 355 Seebass Righteousness Justification' 3 57 3

3 9

RAE


i 6 3

G o d , a n d to restore the covenant r e l a t i o n a l i t y w i t h G o d for w h i c h we were W h a t does a l l t h i s mean f o r the person o f C h r i s t ? The b a p t i s m discloses,

137

a n o i n t e d one, G o d s servant. T h e n the S p i r i t , f i n a l l y , descends u p o n and remains

created a n d i n t o w h i c h we have been called.


with

the Son

ptecisely

so t h a t i n his h u m a n i t y , u n d e r

the

c o n d i t i o n s , t h a t is, of l i m i t a t i o n a n d fallenness and g u i l t , he may b r i n g to

i t seems t o m e , t h a t C h r i s t does i n d e e d f u l f i l the w h o l e m y s t e r y of h u m a n

completion

nature, as C h r y s o s t o m nicely p u t i t B u t i t discloses t o us also the p r o f o u n d

thereaftet, t h e S p i r i t drives Jesus i n t o the wilderness w h e r e he is t e m p t e d

m y s t e t y of the d i v i n e Son of G o d w h o does n o t grasp at e q u a l i t y w i t h G o d

by the d e v i l

b u t makes h i m s e l f n o t h i n g a n d assumes the f o r m of a slave

the S p i r i t s e m p o w e r i n g , the Son goes t h r o u g h w i t h h i s b a p t i s m

I o take the

the

baptism

with

which

he

is

baptized

Immediately,

I h a t means that w i t h the Father s declated approval a n d by

labours t o w a r d its c o m p l e t i o n

m a k e sense of the b a p t i s m o f C h r i s t o n an i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c account of h u m a n

w i r h sin a n d e v i l a n d o n r h r o u g h t h a t real encounter i n w h i c h evil a n d sin

personhood

are

W i t h an i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c o n t o l o g y i n f o r m i n g our t h i n k i n g w e

have either t o say, w i t h Strauss a n d others, t h a t C h r i s t h i m s e l f had s i n n e d ,

finally

H e goes b e y o n d the s y m b o l i c

and

h u m a n i t y first, m y a r g u m e n t has been i n t h i s essay t h a t i t is i m p o s s i b l e t o

encounter

overcome

I began this essay b y a s k i n g w h y Jesus was b a p t i z e d

M y answer

has

or else t h a t the b a p t i s m is m e r e l y exemplary a n d serves o n l y a pedagogical

been, f o l l o w i n g C h r y s o s t o m s lead, a n d i n agreement w i t h othets a l o n g the

rather t h a n a s o t e r i o l o g i c a l purpose

w a y , t h a t i n t h i s w a y Jesus enters i n t o the f u l l m y s t e r y o f h u m a n n a t u r e ,

W i t h a r e l a t i o n a l o n t o l o g y , however,

i t becomes possible t o see t h a t i n a s s u m i n g h u m a n n a t u t e C h r i s t b i n d s

f a l l e n a n d g u i l t y as i t is, a n d reconstitutes i t i n reconciled relarion t o G o d

h i m s e l f to us H e a l l o w s his very b e i n g t o be b o u n d u p w i t h ours so t h a t ,

I h i s is the w o r k of d i v i n e love a n d so reveals the one w h o does i t as G o d s

w h i l e sinless h i m s e l f , he-shoujders_our

beloved Son

guilt^becomes

w i t h theJajienness..rj3at„affJi^ our ^/dre,..makes.„ronfession

t a j n t e d a s i t were

a n d , t h e r e f o j e ^ u i t e l i t e r a l l y in

to the Father on o u r b e h a l f

That

baptismal

a c t i o n is b r o u g h t t o completT6ri'^t''tSaivary"wlTere, a g a i n ^ I n our place, he is made sin a n d meets t h e f u l l consequence of t h a t i n death a n d descent i n t o hell

The b i t t e r c u p t h a t is

finally d r a i n e d at Calvary is first accepted b y

Jesus at his b a p t i s m and i n his t e m p t a t i o n i n the wilderness

As C o l i n

G u n t o n again p u t s i t i n t h e passage already q u o t e d , the b a p t i s m

points

f o r w a r d t o [Jesus } acceptance b y death o f the j u d g e m e n t of G o d o n h u m a n sin

4 0

I he f u l l m y s t e r y of h u m a n i t y t h u s revealed refer s t o t h e fallenness of

our h u m a n i t y ; b u t i t refers too t o t h e fact t h a t t h i s h u m a n i t y is l o v e d b y G o d , is r e c l a i m e d by G o d , a n d is r e c o n s t i t u t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o h i m t h r o u g h the b a p t i s m t h a t C h r i s t endutes o n our behalf W h a t of the d i v i n i t y o f Christ?

I have m e n t i o n e d already t h a t

the

b a p t i s m plays i t s p a r t i n r e v e a l i n g w h o G o d t r u l y is, t h a t is, the one w h o , t h r o u g h his Son, loves w i t h o u t l i m i t and makes h i m s e l f n o t h i n g for our sakes B u t t h e b a p t i s m is also t o be u n d e r s t o o d , i r r e d u c i b l y , as t h e a c t i o n of the t r i u n e G o d

T h e Son acts b y t a k i n g t o h i m s e l f the w h o l e m y s t e r y of

h u m a n nature, i n c l u d i n g i t s fallenness, i t s g u i l t , a n d i t s bondage t o death; the Father declares the Son t o be his Son, t h e one w h o m he has sent, a n d he c o n f i r m s thereby t h a t Jesus a c t i o n i n i d e n t i f y i n g h i m s e l f w i t h his people and s h o u l d e r i n g their g u i l t is indeed w h a t i t means t o be G o d s Son, G o d s

Colin E. Gunton, Father Son and Holy Spirit Essays Toward a Fully Trinitarian Theology (London: T&T Ciark 2003) Z07 4 0

1

The Confession of (be S~on

KNlGHl

m u s t be his audience t o o

139

I h e Son does n o t act alone, b u t is accompanied

and d t i v e n i n a l l he does by the S p i r i t I h e S p i r i t d i s t i n g u i s h e s the Son and t h e Father f r o m one another: he n o t o n l y holds t h e m together b u t he makes t h e m free by i n some measure h o l d i n g t h e m apatt

Chapter 8

Spirit,

is

finally

subordinately

the

petfector

and

The Father, n o t the

consummator:

the

S p i r i t is

this

T h i s C h r i s t o l o g i c a l discussion of W o r d a n d narrative w i l l

therefore take us t h r o u g h the d o c t r i n e of the S p i r i t

The Confession of the Son

I God

comes t o us

The D i v i n e Speech

G o d is a r t i c u l a t e and v o c a l , and he is generous

his speech T h e Father speaks speech of the Father

W

conversation

God

I t needs three f u r t h e r m o m e n t s of t h e o - l o g i c

hears the Father

Son a n d H o l y S p i r i t L i k e any other piece of t h e o l o g y t h i s

emptiness, b u t finds its hearer

essay

attempts

to

set

out

set o u t an account

some

of

the

logic

narrative, a n d i n a x i o m s t h a t I state b u t d o n t argue for

The

speech of the Father

I h e n e x t is that t h e Son

does n o t disappear

into

I h e Son receives the speech of the Father,

that

so i t comes t o its p r o p e t place, a n d is v i n d i c a t e d . The Son is the e v e n t of

i n passages of

t h e Father s w o r d s a r r i v a l a n d r e c e p t i o n ; i n h i m the Father s w o t d finds its

The narrative a n d

proper audience and h o m e T h e t h i r d is t h a t t h e Son does w h a t the Father

of the gospel

of

I h e Son is w h a t rhe Father says; he is the

I his is the first p a r t - s t a t e m e n t we m u s t make a b o u t

e are preceded b y a conversation, the conversation of Father,

It will

and

f o r t h c o m i n g H i s speech is n o t a f r o n t for s o m e t h i n g b e y o n d speech. H e is

Douglas K n i g h t

the a x i o m s serve one another a n d require one another. A l o n g w i t h t h i s

says; he carries o u t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f the Father

narrative t h e o l o g y , t h i s essay also a t t e m p t s t o be a t h e o l o g y o f the W o r d ,

Father - w i t h his act

w h i c h means b r o a d l y t h a t G o d speaks and makes h i m s e l f k n o w n t o us I t

the Father s w o r d , so t h a t i t is n o t j u s t w o r d b u t ait, w o r d - a c t T h e f o u r t h

does so by t r y i n g t o show t h a t a t h e o l o g y of the W o r d is also a t h e o l o g i c a l

m o m e n t is t h a t the Father receives the Son; h i s is the voice the

l o g i c of t h a t W o r d and t h a t narrative T h e l o g i c - t h a t is, p h i l o s o p h y

w a n t s to hear and the answer the Father is l o o k i n g for E v e r y t h i n g t h e Son

-

does n o t ptecede the W o r d - t h a t is, the gospel - b u t i t corresponds t o i t : W o r d a n d l o g i c are c o n s t i t u t e d together, so the t h e o l o g y a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s account of i t m u s t be k e p t together

T h i s w i l l a l l o w m e t o say t h a t

I h e Son answers

the

The Son is t h e act of obedience t h a t hears a n d does Father

says is acceptable to t h e Father The Father sends a n d the Son receives receives

back

They

do

I h e Son sends a n d the Father

this i n themselves;

it

is

their

j o i n t act

of

the W o r d is really w o r d n o t w h e n i t is spoken, b u t w h e n i t is finally heard

conversation a n d c o m m u n i o n B y one free act t h a t takes place w i t h i n this

and an event is created by its h e a r i n g

conversation they b r i n g creation i n t o b e i n g

1

T h e Father gives the Son the

The three persons of G o d have d i s t i n c t w o r k s , yet they m a k e one single

w o r l d , a n d the Son receives i t and gives thanks f o r i t I h e Son cares f o r the

w o r k Relations w i t h i n t h e T r i n i t y are n o t j u s t a b o u t o r i g i n s - s e n d i n g a n d

w o t l d a n d , h a v i n g b r o u g h t i t t o c o m p l e t i o n , he b r i n g s t h e w o r l d t o the

p r o c e e d i n g - b u t also about t h e reception of and response to these actions.

Father

T h a t is t o say t h a t e v e r y t h i n g demands an audience, a n d n o t h i n g is w h a t i t

receives the w o t l d back f r o m h i m

is u n t i l i t has been c o n f i i m e d b y the r i g h t audience

creation

For the Son

the

c o n s t i t u t i v e audience is the Father, b u t at one p o i n t i n the account w e

I h e Father approves the Son s c u s t o d i a l and p a r e n t a l w o r k , and is perfected,

conversational

being

I n t h i s r e t u r n act o f conversation,

which

means

that

Their

act

conversation

of

i t is

initiated makes

as a

living,

this

act

i n s t i t u t i o n , reception a n d finally of presentation to the Father again

of Ihe

w o r l d is the p r o d u c t of these various actions, a n d rhe s i n g l e v i n d i c a t e d act Lagos means, and requires that we articulate, all of the following: Word, the second person 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 competent audience) l 8 3

of creation is one i t e m of the conversation o f the Son w i t h the Father W e can also p u t t h i s the other w a y a t o u n d T h e Father gives the S o n to the w o r l d G o d presents the w o r l d w i t h this g i f t , of h i m s e l f , i n the person

140

The Person of Cbiist

o f che Son

Then,

KNIGHl

w h e n m a n y ages have passed, the perfected

presents the Son to t h e Father, by the S p i r i t

world

Ibe Confession, of the Son

141

The Son gives to the Father the c t e d i t for t h e Farher s speech a n d acts

The Son w i l l present

the

B y d o i n g so the Son prevents any other power or a u t h o r i t y f r o m t a k i n g

w o t l d , i n the f o r m o f us, t o t h e Father to receive his i n s p e c t i o n

and

c r e d i t for these words a n d acts themselves

a p p r o v a l B u t the Son also c o n t i n u a l l y presents the first i n s t a l m e n t s of the f u t u r e w o t l d , the perfected c r e a t i o n , t o the Father

T h e future w o r l d is

self-aggrandizement

I h e Son forestalls their act of

H e provides for t h e m the speech-act t h a t they m u s t

m a k e to the Father, b u t w h i c h t h e y first d i d n o t k n o w h o w t o make, a n d

e n t i r e l y present t o t h e Father i n the Son: i t is created b y t h a t convetsation

w h i c h they t h e n refused to make, t h e t e b y f a l l i n g i n t o r e b e l l i o n

a n d c o n t i n u o u s l y opened by the S p i r i t w h o sustains t h e i t conversation.

The

speaks t o the Father the surrender a n d apology for this delayed and refused

f u t u r e a n d c o m p l e t e d w o r l d is c o n t i n u a l l y g i v e n t o the present w o r l d by the

response t h a t a l l powers a n d a u t h o r i t i e s m u s t m a k e for themselves I n t h e

S p i r i t i n the C h u r c h , w h i c h is t h e b o d y of the Son for t h e w o r l d

The S p i r i t

Son we r e t u r n t o the Farher a l l the c r e d i t for h i s speech-acts O n l y b y t h i s

stands i n for the f u t u r e act of the w o r l d W h e r e t h e w o r l d is g o i n g t o be,

act of the Son are we p r e v e n t e d f r o m b e i n g t e m p t e d to t h i n k that these acts

one day established i n i t s o w n free and j o y f u l a c t i v i t y , there the S p i t i t is

of G o d are o u r acts T h e Son prevents us f r o m m a k i n g fools of ourselves

now,

H e pre-empts

representing

competent

i t and

world will

preparing

ir f o r t h i s

future.

take the action the S p i r i t gives

The

one-day

i t and, i n

the

I h e c o u r t of G o d is i n session

that act, the j o i n t - a c t of S p i r i t a n d w o r l d , the w o t l d w i l l become l i v i n g ,

him

active a n d free

him

The Father tells the w o r l d a b o u t his Son

H e tells the C h u r c h , t h a t

t e l l i n g t h e w o r l d a b o u t his Son the C h u r c h is b r o u g h t i n t o b e i n g

In Ihe

else, to h o l d on t o

and

a t t r i b u t e ro ourselves w h a t we have received a n d m u s t r e t u r n

c o m p a n y of the S p i r i t , i t w i l l t e t u r n i t v i a the Son, to the Father, a n d i n

p a r t i c u l a r f o r m of the w o r l d chosen for t h i s purpose, a b o u t his Son

our i m p u l s e t o say s o m e t h i n g

The Son

1

G o d s people stand a t o u n d and before

H e hears and examines those w h o come before h i m

Those a r o u n d

are s t r u c k by the expettise a n d i n s i g h t o f G o d s decisions, a n d are

relieved ro see t h a t r t u n g s ate g o i n g t o go w e l l

H i s assembly praises G o d

for the generosity a n d v i r t u o s i t y w i t h w h i c h he assesses a n d supplies w h a t is r e q u i r e d t o assemble this people and sustain

them

i n being.

3

The

C h u r c h is the result of the Father's joy i n his Son a n d the S o n s j o y i n the

assembly lives f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s conversation of Father a n d Son,

w o r l d t h a t he b r i n g s t o the Father

a n d f r o m t h e w o r k of creation a n d rule t h a t freely derives f r o m

The Son is t e l l i n g those he w a n t s t o

present t o the Fathet a b o u t bis Fathet

G o d is t e l l i n g us a b o u t h i m s e l f i n

conversation

their

This assembly that lives f r o m G o d is expansive: the speech

the t h i r d person T h i s n a r r a t i o n o f G o d is n o t s o m e t h i n g o u t s i d e G o d , b u t

a n d l i f e of G o d extends t h i s heavenly assembly o u t w a r d s t o create an

is itself a t h i r d person. I h e story a n d speech of G o d is h i m s e l f the person of

assembly o n earth

God,

rhe H o l y S p i r i t W e ate t o l d the story b y b e i n g d r a w n i n t o the story,

and b e c o m i n g

characters i n i t

G o d draws and assembles us i n t o his

I h e speech of heaven creates a speech on earth. The w o r d s that g o o u t f r o m the Father, the S p i r i t gathers u p f r o m a l l corners of creation, makes

n a r r a t i o n , so the story o f G o d s a c t i o n is b o t h the story o f our b e i n g b r o u g h r

fit,

i n t o b e i n g w i t h i n his a c t i o n , a n d the event o f our b e i n g b r o u g h t i n t o b e i n g

i n t e g t a t e d i n t o the t h a n k f u l speech of the Son I t is the speech o f the Father

w i t h i n his a c t i o n

to the Son t h a t is heard o n earth i n the r e a d i n g of S c r i p r u t e , and i t is the

I h e a c t i o n of G o d i n t e l l i n g , hearing and receiving

constitutes the w h o l e economy i n w h i c h we teceive our b e i n g

I h e call a n d

response of Father a n d Son creates a conversation, a n d t h e i r

conversation

b r i n g s i n t o b e i n g a w o r k also shared between t h e m

I I . T h e D i v i n e Service The w o r k o f the Son is the w o r k o f G o d

The w o r k of t h e Son is t o m a k e us

h o l y W e are made h o l y b y t h a t act i n w h i c h the Son states p u b l i c l y before all powers and a u t h o r i t i e s w h a t belongs t o G o d , and gives t h a n k s

I h e Son

returns f o r a l l these powers a n d a u t h o r i t i e s , a n d also for us, thanks to G o d This r e t u r n i n g t h a n k s - g i v i n g is the labour of the Son

and returns to the Father, as the t h a n k f u l speech o f the

creation

God has a company Ihe Church sendee is a court in session For who in the skies above can compare with the Lord? Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings? In the Council of the holy ones God is greatly feared: he is more awesome than all who surround him (Psalm 89 6—7) See also Patrick Miller who writes 'Ihe 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 worshipping the Lord, a part of the holy attay that gives God gloty Patrick D. Miller, 'Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as a Cosmic-Political Symbol', reprinted in Israelite Religion ami Biblical Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 425 And, The council of the Lord is the place 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 unjust and show parrialicy to che wicked' Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless (Psalm 82)


142-

KNIGHT


143

speech of the Son t o the Father, t h a t is heard i n the responses s u n g b y the

sustains, and is sustained b y , that c o m m u n i o n There is n o t h i n g more basic

eatthly congregation

W h a t w e take t o be the w o r d s o f t h e C h u r c h , a n d so

or i r r e d u c i b l e t h a n w o r d s , specifically the w o r d s spoken b y t h e Son a n d the

our w o r d s , is first the speech of G o d , a n d o n l y t h e n t h e speech o f the

Father, whose w o r d s are acts W e are b e c o m i n g parr of the conversation of

c o m p a n y made g l a d b y G o d

t h e Son a n d Father W e w i l l become the w o r d s t h e y use W e have no b e i n g

4

G o d elects, t t a n s f o r m s a n d integrates

this

o u t s i d e t h e i r conversation: w h e n t h e y cease t o e m p l o y us as t h e words w i t h

conversation o n e a r t h i n t o his o w n speech and labour I he speech o f G o d is the act of G o d

G o d s W o r d leaves n o t h i n g the

same; i t t t a n s f o r m s , perfects a n d opens e v e t y t h i n g I t is sacramental

w h i c h they respond to one another , we are gone

This

speech is t h e sacrament I t is t h e i r r u p t i o n of t h e holiness of G o d i n t o the w o r l d t h a t makes a l l t h i n g s h o l y ministties

W o r d a n d sacrament are n o t

There is rather one W o r d of G o d , w h i c h sacramentahzes us,

t h a t is, i t makes us h o l y , c o m p a t i b l e w i t h G o d

III

two

I h i s W o r d comes t o us

Speaking H u m a n i t y

T h e Father a n d the Son speak the S p i r i t

I h e S p i r i t is the language

they

speak B u t t h e S p i r i t can speak a n d be m a n y languages, w i t h o u t b e i n g any

a n d is received by G o d back f r o m us again, b r i n g i n g us i n t o b e i n g a n d

less the language of the Son and Father

m a k i n g us h o l y , b y p a r r i c i p a t i o n i n t h a t speech f i t t i n g us fbt f u r t h e r

create a new language, h u m a n i t y , w h i c h the Father and t h e Son are c o n t e n r

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h a t speech

W e are the p r o d u c t of t h a t a n t i p h o n y , are

to speak

I h e S p i r i t extends t h e i r speech t o

They speak h u m a n i t y , a n d h u m a n i t y is one of the modes i n

sustained i n l i f e b y regular r e - i n c l u s i o n w i t h i n i t . T h e i r d i v i n e service

w h i c h they speak d i v i n i t y t o each other

h o l d s i n b e i n g the C h u r c h , t h e e a r t h - b o u n d o v e r f l o w of the

s o m e t h i n g t h a t i t d i d n o t have before: i t is n o t a r e d u c t i o n o f or a d d i t i o n t o

assembly

The

heavenly

C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y exists w h e n the c o n n e c t i o n

and

their d i v i n i t y

H u m a n i t y does n o t give d i v i n i t y

The Son is the first speaker a n d the n a t i v e speaker.

He

conversation between heaven a n d earth is l i v e I n t h i s c a l l a n d tesponse

speaks h u m a n i t y perfectly and is at h o m e i n t h e flesh, a n d i n the flesh of

earth is p i c k e d u p a n d connected i n t o the speech a n d response of the Father

humanity;TC^pTr1ecrtTyat h o m e w i t h the Father H e is n o t i m p e d e d b y or

a n d the Son, and becomes p a r t o f the r e p l y t h e Son makes t o the Father,

disguised b y t h e flesh, f o r i t is b r o u g h t lhTcTexistence b y t h e speaking of

p a r t of w h a t w e m a y call t h e i r service or l i t u r g y .

the Son a n d t h e Father

5

The c o m p a n y o f heaven accompany the Son T h e y are the procession t h a t

I h e h u m a n e n t i t y a n d m o d e of b e i n g is spoken by

t h a t enfleshing w o r d a n d utterance

H a v i n g spoken us i n t o b e i n g they also

f o l l o w s h i m . H e regards this c r o w d as inseparable f r o m h i m s e l f , his o w n

speak through us: the Son replies to t h e Father i n t h e flesh. I h e n they speak

b o d y , his g l o r y , v i n d i c a t i o n a n d reward The c o m p a n y of heaven is the one

to us a n d so m a k e first hearers and t h e n speakers of us, able t o hear, receive

real a n d actual c o m m u n i o n , the a c t u a l i z a t i o n of c o m m u n i o n a n d p l u r a l i t y

a n d respond t o one another

where before there was none. I h i s c o m m u n i o n actualizes i t s e l f on e a r t h , for

speech one another as w o r d s and g i f t s f r o m G o d W e are t o learn to speak

us, as the C h u r c h

to one another a n d receive one anothet f r o m t h e m , w i t h t h a n k s g i v i n g .

I h e c o m p a n y of heaven is t h e speech-act of G o d , a n d the

C h u r c h is the speech-act of t h i s c o m p a n y , a n d therefore of G o d

The

They speak t o us one another, g i v i n g us i n t h i s

This h u m a n i t y the Son receives f r o m rhe Fathet, by t h e S p i r i t

The

C h u r c h is n o t h i n g apart f r o m G o d : the b o d y is n o t the b o d y apart f r o m the

S p i r i t takes f r o m the m a t e r i a l i t y of the Father a n d gives i t t o us, m a k i n g

head, not the w o r d t h e l i v i n g W o r d apart f r o m the s p e a k i n g voice

h i m s e l f m a t e r i a l to us ( i n c a r n a t i o n ) a n d us t o h i m (creation)

6

The

The fleshly

C h u r c h is the s p e a k i n g of the Son to the w o r l d , a n d i t is the h e a t i n g and

m a t e r i a l i t y o f Jesus of N a z a r e t h derives f r o m , and is s u p p l i e d b y ,

reception by the S p i r i t o f the S o n s w o r d to the w o r l d . E v e r y t h i n g t h a t is,

consummated

is because i t is d e t i v e d f r o m t h i s conversation, t h a t creates first an assembly

b a d l y : i t is a language a n d a life w e are scarcely acquainted w i t h , so l i k e

a n d c o m m u n i o n , the C h u t c h , a n d t h e n b r i n g s i n t o b e i n g a w o r l d t h a t

any foreigner we m a n g l e t h i s language, n o t because we ate native speakers

m a t e r i a l i t y of the S p i r i t

the

As y e t we speak h u m a n i t y v e r y

of another language, b u t just because we are a u t i s t i c , scarcely able to speak See Otfried Hofius, Gemeinscliaft mit den Engeln im Gottesdienst der Kirche , Zeitung far Théologie and Kirche 89 (1992,): 172,-96 Leitourgia = public service 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 ), On Being the Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1989), 122 4

5

6

B u t our bad performance o f flesh does not m a k e flesh p r o b l e m a t i c for G o d I h e Father a n d Son speak the language of flesh perfectly; t h i s language is sustained by their use of i t , and t h e y w i l l enable us to be at home i n i t t o them This account of h u m a n i t y and m a t e r i a l i t y has avoided a s i m p l e contrasr between

material and spiritual. I h e

S p i r i t extends t o us some o f

the


144

m a t e r i a l i t y of the r e l a t i o n of the Son to the Father

K.NIGHÏ M o r e s p i r i t u a l means


S p i t i t A l l these witnesses are held together by the S p i r i t t o serve us as the

m o r e real, m o r e s o l i d , m o r e m a t e r i a l , m o r e l a s t i n g U n d e r such t h e o l o g i c a l

single b o d y of the Son t o us

définition, s p i r i t u a l a n d m a t e r i a l are t w o t e r m s for the single c o n t i n u u m o f

w h o l e C h r i s t (totus Christus) to u s .

the c o m p l e x act o f G o d

7

I h e S p i t i t i n t e n d s t o coax us u p f r o m the b o t t o m

9

I h e S p i t i t wraps t h e m u p t o make t h e m the 1 0

A t r u l y t h e o l o g i c a l p n e u m a t o l o g y prevents us f r o m s e t t i n g s p i t i t u a l a n d

o f the g r a d i e n t to the t o p , f r o m n o m a t e r i a l i t y or r e a l i t y , t h r o u g h t h e very

material i n opposition

sketchy

creaturely

m a t e r i a l , m o r e real: w h e n the S p i r i t integtates us i n t o the w h o l e b o d y , the

a n d p r o v i s i o n a l r e a l i t y we have n o w , o n to a f u l l

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the b e i n g of the Son, w h o is R e a l i t y

S p i r i t does n o t m e a n

less m a t e r i a l b u t

more

W e m u s t n o t decide

resurrection b o d y , we w i l l be real at last B u t i f w e do n o t c o n t i n u a l l y take

therefore t h a t C h r i s t has either a s p i r i t u a l b o d y or a p h y s i c a l b o d y , or

steps against i t , these t w o concepts always settle back t o become opposites,

a t t r i b u t e some actions t o a d i v i n e natute a n d others t o a h u m a n nature

for the r e i g n i n g m e t a p h y s i c

We

m u s t say t h a t C h r i s t is f u l l y present t o the Father — f u l l y e m b o d i e d t o h i m - by the S p i r i t

The S p i r i t makes the Son e m b o d i e d a n d present to us, so

of o u r society reverts a l l such

job

of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g theology

from

the d u a l i s m o f t e n a t t t i b u t e d to

the Son always has a s p i r i t u a l b o d y and is dressed, escorted a n d presented

A u g u s t i n e b u t w h i c h i n fact dogs t h e w h o l e t r a d i t i o n

by the S p i t i t .

f o l l o w the discussion of Roberr Jenson a n d C o l i n G u n t o n

B u t we are n o t f o r m a t t e d to receive such a d i r e c t e m b o d i m e n t

Since we

theological

statement t o w h a t i t regards as the n o r m , irs d e f a u l t s e t t i n g A t stake is the I h i s m a y h e l p us to G u n t o n insists

t h a t at b o t t o m there are t w o natutes, t h a t of G o d and t h a t of e v e r y t h i n g

have as yet so l i t t l e r e a l i t y , w e have n o t h i n g t o receive the Son s r e a l i t y

else, so d u a l i t y is m o s t

w i t h . Because we are n o t s p i r i t u a l - n o t yet p r o f i c i e n t at t h e l i f e of t h e Son

m o n o p h y s i t e or even m o n i s t . Jenson replies t h a t at b o t t o m there is one

- t h i s s p i r i t u a l b o d y i n w h i c h t h e Son meets us m u s t have the specific f o r m

nature, that of G o d w h o is a l l i n a l l : there m u s t be a p n e u m a t o l o g i c a l u n i t y

t h a t we d o share I t m u s t be a b o d y i n the p a r t i a l and serial sense i n w h i c h

because u n i t y is eschatological,

we are e m b o d i e d and present to one another

8

accounrs m u s r be g i v e n , for i t is p a r t of the C h u r c h s job t o say b o t h

and

under-embodied,

be

much

more

diffidently

present,

H e m u s t dress d o w n for us, ot

serially

and

not y e t

basic, a n d t h a t any othet

t h e w o r k of G o d

1 1

account w o u l d

be

B u t of course b o t h now

That means that we m u s t not o n l y p u t u n i t y a n d d u a l i t y as

e m b o d i e d T h e Son is dressed by the S p i r i t i n a b o d y c o n s t i t u t e d by a l l the

co-fundamental, first e q u a l at t o p o f our l i s t o f categories, b u t w i t h t h e m

presences (bodies) of the people o f Israel w h o have i o o k e d f o r w a r d t o h i m

w e m u s t also p u t manyness, because for us i n t h e economia o f G o d t h e r e is

H e is present t o us as a l l the f a i t h f u l of Israel, the b o d y of witnesses t h a t

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y and a c t u a l i t y of manyness, a n d therefore l i f e and f r e e d o m

c o n s t i t u t e the O l d I e s t a m e n t

a n d surprise

The O l d T e s t a m e n t is the Son dressed d o w n

i n t h e f o r m of m a n y bodies, for us

I t is n o t the case t h a t the Son is available t o us i n t e r m s of d u a l i s m , i n

Y e t even t h a t is too m u c h for us. This host is too o v e r w h e l m i n g for us t o

j u s t one of these t w o modes, either s p i r i t u a l 01 p h y s i c a l W e m u s t m o v e the

receive So he is present as t h i s host e m b o d i e d i n a single b o d y of the m a n

discussion o u t of our n a t u r a l i s t i c d e f a u l t o n t o l o g y and find a more s u i t a b l e

f r o m Nazareth

way of c o n c e i v i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s p i r i t and m a t e r i a l

H e is present i n t h i s w a y o n l y to a single g e n e r a t i o n of

Israel by the one p h y s i c a l - a n d - s p i r i t u a l b o d y o f Jesus C h r i s t N o w because

language

I have

used

as an a l t e r n a t i v e p a r a d i g m because language is s i m u l r a n e o u s l y

this many saw the Son, a n d because we have believed t h e i r reports, we m a y also start t o receive h i m W e receive h i m first i n the f o r m o f a l l the saints w h o teach our o w n g e n e r a t i o n , a n d t h r o u g h t h e m i n the f o r m of a l l the teachers of t h e C h u r c h , themselves t a u g h t b y the apostles, a n d t h r o u g h the apostolic witness of t h e scriptures, a n d a l l t h i s t h r o u g h b a p t i s m i n the

Augustine explains Certainly we can apply the name anointed (christus) to all who have been anointed with his chrism; and yet it is the whole body with its head, which is the one Christ ' Augustine City of God, Book 17. chaptet 4 This does not entail that the Son is absorbed into the Church The Spirit has distinguished him from us, and gives h i m his particular body, by which he is one identifiable human at the right hand of God The patts must be clothed by the whole 'Fot the perishable must clothe itself with rhe imperishable and the mortal with immortality (r Cor 15 51) So we have two accounts of one act in one of which the parts are covered by the whole ( = the Head)., in the other of which rhe many parrs are integrated to make that whole ( = body) Colin Gunion writes 'In so far as Chrisr is risen he is for this reader (Jenson) risen into almost 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 Systematic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999) I , 105 and 206 9

1 0

I here may be many graduations in this act and continuum, as many degrees of differentiation as are required to move us up one at a time, one lesson after another, from level to level from bottom to top to the full measure of Christ The creature is constituted in instalments, delivered one after another and each integrated into the previous to make the whole man the new Adam First comes the natural (partial) then the spiritual (whole) 'The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual ( I Cot 1 5 47) 7

s

1 1

146

KrMiGHT



147

one and m a n y , discrete a n d o p e n ; i t is b o t h one language a n d very m a n y

ask fbt reinforcements

uttetances So n o w w e can say t h a t the Son is available t o us i n the m a n y

b e i n g ; t h e y b r i n g us i n t o the p u b l i c assembly O u r presence is our b e i n g

modes and many dosages t h a t he decides are r e q u i r e d for us t o learn to

s u r r o u n d e d a n d escorted b y these sponsors a n d supporters sent by the Son,

receive h i m

H e can g i v e h i m s e l f t o us faster, or m o r e s l o w l y and g e n t l y ,

who

H i s servants i n t r o d u c e and accompany us

are his c o m p a n y a n d his S p i r i t

into

S o m e t i m e s , for the benefit of those

a d j u s t i n g h i m s e l f t o our pace H e wears the b o d y t h a t we can catch h o l d

a r o u n d us, his c o m p a n y is v i s i b l e as the saints w h o encourage us, w h i l e at

of'

other t i m e s we have n o v i s i b l e a c c o m p a n i m e n t

H e is ptesent t o us i n the slower a n d m o r e considered w a y t h a t we

1

w o u l d use i n t a l k i n g t o a y o u n g c h i l d , w i t h those pauses for reinforcement mode

and reassurance. H e involves us i n t h i s g e n t l e ,

checking, recursive

H e can s u p p l y us w i t h , and b u i l d us u p i n t o , t h a t real m a t e r i a l i t y

I h e n for a l l the w o r l d i t

looks as r h o u g h we have been left alone B u t i t merely l o o k s that w a y t o them

I h e Son leads t h e saints L e d by h i m t h e y represent us i n heaven,

a n d sustain for us there w h a t b e i n g w e have L e d by h i m t h e y pray us i n t o

t h a t he i n t e n d s for us, w h i c h is his and w h i c h he i n r e n d s t o share w i t h us

being

l a l k about speech and language, i t s e l f d i s c i p l i n e d by a W o r d C h r i s t o l o g y ,

They ask fbt us, a n d t h e i r a s k i n g for us, and the Father s a p p r o v a l of t h e i r

helps keep p n e u m a t o l o g y

They ask G o d t h a t we be m a d e c o m p l e t e and be g i v e n to t h e m

request, is a l l the b e i n g w e have They not o n l y p t a y us i n t o existence, b u t

theological

pray us i n t o b e i n g social a n d vocal A l l the l i f e w e ate g i v e n is the l i f e t h e y teceive f r o m the Son, a n d t h a t l i f e consists i n l o o k i n g f o r w a t d t o , and IV

The

Assembly

a s k i n g for, w h a t is s t i l l l a c k i n g

The Son is f u l l y present t o t h e Father - h i l l y e m b o d i e d t o h i m - by t h e Spirit

1 3

The S p i r i t assembles us a r o u n d and w i t h i n the Son

is b o t h in the Son a n d with the Son

T h e assembly

These t w o statements w i t h

d i s t i n c t prepositions m a y n o t be f u r t h e r compressed

their

The Son is t h e i r

They w i l l m a k e us as adept at seeking

f r o m the Son as they are Unless the Son a n d the Father u t t e r us, there is no us

i n reply t o t h e Son, and i n g r a t i t u d e to the Son b e i n g as under-Iabourers

accompanied by a d e t a c h m e n t of his troops

H e is he never alone, w i t h o u t

You must

speak me i n t o being. I have no other existence t h a n as s o m e t h i n g y o u say

as t h e i r head

Jesus is accompanied b y the S p i r i t just as any c o m m a n d e r is

T h e y uttet us as

speakers w h o the S p i r i t w i l l a n i m a t e so we u t t e r one another

w h o l e d e f i n i t i o n , a n d he is also d i s t i n c t l y present t o t h e m , as w o i - t h e m , b u t 1 4

i S

of the Son

Y o u are b r o u g h t i n t o

Y o u , a l o n g w i t h a l l the rest of

c o m p a n y of heaven a n d c o m m u n i o n of saints, are the m e d i u m made and

b y his w h o l e

e m p l o y e d by the S p i r i t Y o u b r i n g m e i n t o b e i n g by b r i n g i n g me i n r o the

a t m y at once H e sends troops o u t t o b r i n g his guests to h i m H e gives the

assembly w i t h y o u M y i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o this assembly is the event i n w h i c h

saints a d e t a c h m e n t for t h e i t s u p p o t t a n d p r o t e c t i o n — a n d yet they m u s t

I a m assembled and b r o u g h t i n t o b e i n g

some p a r t of his c o m p a n y , t h o u g h n o t always accompanied

Otherwise we would be, as Gregory Nazianzen has it, like men loaded with food beyond their strength and presenting eyes yet too weak to beat even the sun's light, risk the ioss of that which was within the teach of their powers; but that by gtadual additions the light of the Iriniry might shine upon the more illuminated For this teason it was I think chat he gradually came to dwell in the disciples, measuring himself ouc ro them according to their capacity 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 P Schaff and H Wace; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1893) chapter 26 p 326. 1 1

See Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 41, in On Pentecost, X I , in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ed P SchaffandH Wace; Giand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1893), p 383:'He wrought first in the heavenly and angelic powers such as are first after God and around God For from no other source flows their perfection and their brightness, and the difficulty or impossibility of moving 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 future, having their master part moulded by the Spirit and being associated with events that were yet future as if ptesent for such is the power of the Spirit ' 1 3

1 4

him

We are in him, so not distinct from him. because he does not regard us as distinct from But he is distinct from us made distinct from us by the Holy Spirit

Synaxis The Son calls together

and assembles all the scattered elements o f

cosmos A s s e m b l y (ealesia) means c o m i n g together (synaxis) a c t i o n of t h i s g a t h e r i n g is t h a n k s g i v i n g (eucharist).

16

the

The r e s u l t i n g

The c o m m a n d of G o d

b r i n g s this assembly i n t o b e i n g , integrates i t a n d gives i t i t s d u r a t i o n a n d

See Jenson who writes I o be we have maintained, is to be spoken of by God Systematic Theology, I I , 295 And further: According to Luther the soul becomes what it hearkens to Luther. ' Do not be surprised that I said we must become the Word " Ibid., 259 The synaxis is a function of che Son s thanksgiving (euchatist) to the Father The synaxis cteates 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 chat the Church is the creature solely of the Word He charges Jenson with not giving sufficient account of the present fallenness of the Church See Gunton. Father Son and Holy Spirit, 220¬ 21 Is this perhaps because Gunton understands the euchatist as the act of the Church considered apart from its head? 1 5

1 6

Ihe Permi of Christ

148

KNIGHI


149

I h e Son n o t o n l y calls, b u t he r e m e m b e r s (anamnesis) O t h e r

i n order t o establish t h e better r e p u t a t i o n and m o r e effective and o r d e r e d

masters use t h e i r people u n t i l t h e y are a l l used u p , t h e n a b a n d o n t h e m ,

p o w e r of t h e Son T h e l i t u r g y o f S p i r i t a n d Son takes b a c k f r o m us t h e

letting

identity

t h e i r bodies disappear back i n t o t h e e a r t h w h e r e no one can

praise we ascribe t o ourselves, and r e t u r n s i t t o t h e Father w h o is its p r o p e r

r e m e m b e r t h e m or recover t h e m B u t t h e Son has n o t f o r g o t r e n t h e m ; he

source and g i v e r T h e y take i t back f r o m us: t h e y m a k e us r e t u r n praise t o

has c o m e t o f i n d t h e m and b r i n g t h e m u p f r o m w h e r e they have been

God

h i d d e n i n death

that they p r o p e r l y serve t o call G o d t o us I h e S p i r i t co-opts t h e sounds w e

1 7

The Son r e - m e m b e r s h i s people, m e m b e r t o m e m b e t

I hey take away o u r m i s d i r e c t e d speech-acts, a n d readdress r h e m so

H e assembles h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n before h i m , a n d leads us o u t t h r o u g h a

m a k e t o p u t the Son s praise of t h e Father i n o u r m o u t h s , even before we

wilderness, he t h e head o f the l i n e , w e t h e procession H e is far ahead so w e

k n o w the Son s name H e speaks for us and t h r o u g h us, t h o u g h we m a y be

do n o t see h i m , b u t w e are led b y h i s tire a n d are covered by his c l o u d W e

the last t o k n o w . I h e praise a n d r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t we grasp at is w r e s t e d

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, w e d o ; his every a c t i o n

away f r o m u s , i n order t h a t we be p r o p e r l y established as t h e creatures w h o

ripples t h r o u g h us back d o w n t h e c o l u m n

receive t h e i r praise, w i t h their b e i n g , f r o m G o d

H e is l e a d i n g us t o t h e great k i n g

1 8

C h r i s t o u r spokesman has already

g a i n e d a d m i t t a n c e t o t h e t e m p l e a n d palace of t h e great k i n g

Our

T h e Son made t h e g o o d confession

H e confessed t h e Father as L o r d

The Son refused w o r s h i p t o every other a u t h o r i t y

1 1

1 0

H e c o u l d n o t be m a d e

representative has gone i n and n o w sits i n conversation w i t h t h e k i n g T h e

t o u t t e r any other name o r enter any other plea H e w i t h h e l d what every

w h o l e d e l e g a t i o n stretches back t o t h e d o o r of t h e palace a n d o u t s i d e ,

other m a n h a d conceded

where y o u a n d I are, i n the queue. For our leader, t h i s procession is one

01 Fate, 01 t o any other f o u n d a t i o n , p r e l i m i n a r y or set of a x i o m s H e gave

w i t h h i m , even p a r t of h i m N o i n t e t l o p e r can snatch anyone away f r o m h i s

n o concession, showed no c i v i l i t y , m a d e no deference H e raised all hackles

procession, for t h e y are made i m p r e g n a b l e b y t h e p r o t e c t i o n he extends, h i s

a n d u n i t e d a l l enemies against h i m b y the insolence of h i s refusal H e

S p i r i t , w h o holds together a n d makes v i s i b l e a n d co-ptesent t h e w h o l e

w i t 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 r e b e l l i o n " H i s w o r d t o a i l the

train behind the Son.'

V

9

T h e Son Makes t h e G o o d Confession

I h e S p i r i t does n o t a l l o w the c o m m u n i o n o f the Son w i t h his w h o l e people t o be i n t e r r u p t e d

I h e S p i r i t cuts short every a l t e r n a r i v e self-aggrandize-

m e n t H e dethrones every master, t a k i n g away their r e p u t a t i o n and p o w e r ,

I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the Word of God and 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 - r o ) 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 the high 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. the processions 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 7

l B

There is, of course a gap between the one (who alone sits with the Father) and all the rest 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 it about that we are I t is the attitude of the Son that the gap is overcome and will be overcome that is determinative 1 9

H e d i d n o t defer either t o N a t u r e , or Necessity,

Christ Jesus who while testifying before Ponuus Pilate made the good confession ( I I i m 6 12-13) See also Larry Hurtado who explains The phrase "to call upon the name of the Lord is derived directly from the Old Testament usage, where it functions as a technical expression 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 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2003) 197 We have ro give two accounts Ihe Son paid no respect to inteimediary 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 was obedient to the prophets and patriarchs, learning from them how to suffer and resist the resistance of the Gentiles and the aggressors " The confession of the Lord is the disavowing and dismissal of the old lords. Now all men must be commanded to thtow over rheir old leaders and change sides This rrial ol strength continues in every public assembly where the new troops of the king are ro confront every leader in the hearing of his own people The Christian witnesses are ro read our the accusation ot God against each leader who lays hands on them and give him one chance to confess the God of Israel 'In each place you will be taken to the public assembly on account 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 and embassy of God to the authorities in each place When these authorities fail to hear them the Christians can go over their heads and direct their complaints straight to God: i f rhey have to do this the authorities are convicted of failing in their office, and it is taken away from rhem So Stephen (Acts 7 5 5 ) exercises the power of binding: the members of the court that atraigns him carry our judgment against themselves, by destroying Stephen Gods spokesman to them i a

KNIGHT


150

a u t h o r i t i e s of t h e w o r l d was N o . The Son is t h e N o of t h e Father s p o k e n

The Son Drives Out the Interlopers The Son's confession of t h e Father is s i m u l t a n e o u s l y h i s confession against all i n t e r l o p e r s a n d rivals T h e l i t u r g y is t h e sentence of G o d against a l l w h o f r o m m e , I never k n e w y o u .

1 3

The Father confesses h i s Son

1 7

H e hears and accepts a n d vindicates h i s

speech and act H e raises h i s Son f r o m t h e dead a n d sits h i m at his r i g h t

against every d i s o b e d i e n t creaturely self-assessment.

p r o m o t e , defer t o , a n d so d e i f y , any created force


T h a t sentence is G o far

h a n d , far above a l l others

H e has set h i m over a l l r u l e r s , pretenders,

authorities a n d principles

The Son confesses t h a t he is n o t the Father,

i S

a n d he does n o t a l l o w anyone else t o m a k e such a c l a i m t o d i v i n e p o w e r either

O u r l i f e is the Son s act of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g us f r o m h i m s e l f , a n d i n

h i s act G o d m e r c i f u l l y a n d generously supplies t o us a n o t - G o d - n e s s .

29

I t is the c o m m a n d of G o d w h o expels a n d

sends i n t o o b l i v i o n t h e b o a s t f u l a n d dissonant voices t h a t make u p t h i s world.

1 4

T h e voice of G o d interrogates t h e m t h e n silences t h e m . - I t 2

5

V I . T h e S o n Prays

loosens the g r i p of t h e parasites o n us and drives t h e m o f f H e has ejected those h a r d masters a n d f o r e i g n s p i r i t s w h o i m p o s e a v i c i o u s a u t h o r i t y b u t

I h e Son speaks first H e speaks w i t h t h e Father. H e leads our speech, w h i l e

themselves a c k n o w l e d g e no d i s c i p l i n e . H e has d r i v e n t h e m o u t f r o m t h e

we stand b e h i n d h i m a n d f o l l o w h i m , p i c k i n g u p h i s w o r d s a n d r e p e a t i n g

t o p o f the cosmos t o t h e b o t t o m

T h e l i t u r g y is t h e n a m i n g a n d d r i v i n g

t h e m W e l i v e o n his w o r d s O u r speech is his speech first H e speaks, a n d

o u t of those w h o exercise an influence o n us t h a t is u n d u e , unaccountable

w e breathe i n w h a t he has spoken W e breathe i n and o u t i n t h e breath o f

and t h u s d e m o n i c H i s l i t u r g y t h e Son extends t o us; so m a y we p a r t i c i p a t e

the Son, h i s utterances c r e a t i n g t h e atmosphete w e l i v e i n W e are t h e

in

species t h a t can exist o n l y i n t h e biosphere o f h i s e x p i r a t i o n

h i s confession

i

6

a n d are p r e v e n t e d

from

making

iniquitous and

The b r e a t h

unsustainable c l a i m s t h a t assault h i s p r e r o g a t i v e T h e c o m m u n i t y c a u g h t

and w o r d s of other l o r d s cannot s u p p o r t us; the e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d f o r m s o f

u p i n t o his confession need no longer pray t o t h e m a n y gods a n d v a i n l y beg

l i f e derived f r o m other sources we call death

to t h e m for the justice i t wants T h e l i t u r g y is G o d s w o r d of e x o r c i s m a n d

Creator o n l y , a n d h a v i n g been b r o u g h t i n t o existence o n h i s generosity w e

W e are t h e creatute o f o n e

act o f expulsion. A t t h e w e e k l y g a t h e t i n g of his assembly t h e people of t h e

are engineered t o i t alone a n d cannot s u b s t i t u t e t h e breath o f our Creator

Son t e l l a i l mastets t h a t they are no gods

w i t h any t h i n n e r fuel The Father tells the Son w h a t is s t i l l t o do, a n d t h e Son t e l l s the Father w h a t is r e q u i r e d o n e a r t h t o do i t H e asks t h e Father f o r wharever is missing

H e requests a n d r e q u i s i t i o n s , a n d he teaches us h o w t o do t h e

same. H e speaks first, a n d w e speak after h i m

Ihus in Matthew s Gospel we read. I tell you the truth, I do not know you (2.5 I2-), and Depart from me you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for Satan and his angels' (25 41). The people of God. Israel, have only to use the name of the God of Israel and the strong places of other gods will come tumbling down 'Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved' (Joel 2. 32; cf A c t s 2 2 i ; R o m 10 13) — from all other lords Similarly 'When the trumpet sounded the people shouted and at the sound of trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so evety man charged in and they took the city (Josh 6 20) Thus in Matk. 'Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out ' What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazateth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are — the Holy one of God" ' Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly ' Come out of him! ' The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek' (Matk 1 23—25) And further, 'He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves "Quiet be still " (Mark 4 39) And then. 'But Jesus still made no reply and Pilate was amazed (Mark 15.5) The Son took his campaign through all levels of the cosmos and returned victorious. He who descended is the vety one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe' (Eph 4 9) 2,3

1 4

1 5

2 6

3 0

H e teaches us t o speak o u t

I will rell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me. You are my son; today I have begotten you Ask of me, and I w i l l make the nations yout heritage; and the ends of the earth your possession'" (Ps 2 7) And. 'You are my Son whom I love; with you I am well pleased' (Matk I r i ) . Thus Psalm 8 4-6: What is man that you ate mindful of him, the son of man that you cate for him? You made him a little lowet than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honour You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything undet his feet' Pannenberg refers to this as the Sons self-differentiation from the Father: Ihe selfdistinction of Jesus from the Father which was the condition of the manifestation of the eternal Son in Jesus obedience to the mission he teceived from the Father to proclaim God's lordship can be described as his self-emptying and self-humbling along the lines of the early Christian hymn in Philippians 2 6-11 ' Wolfhatt Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994) I I , 375 Correct deployment of the name and power of the Son is the only knowledge of the Son We only know the Son as he animates us with his ability to deploy his power in his Father's business 2 , 7

l S

± 9

3 0

152


KNIGHI


153

for those w h o cannot speak for themselves, t o see w h a t is m i s s i n g , a n d t o

abandoned, a n d they express the j o y o f the son w h o m G o d has heard a n d

intervene a n d p r o v i d e w h a t is r e q u i r e d

p u b l i c l y v i n d i c a t e d I h e y are songs for t w o voices i n a n t i p h o n y . First t h e y

The S p i r i t speaks for the earth. W h a t the C h u r c h does n o t yet k n o w h o w to u t t e t , the S p i r i t makes the i n e r t t h i n g s o f t h e earth u t t e t for i t .

3 1

Ihe

are songs of m i s e r y

3 5

I h o s e w h o have received n o t h i n g ask h o w l o n g t h e y

m u s t w a i t before G o d w i l l rescue t h e m f r o m us I t is the f a i l u r e o f anyone

S p i r i t coaches the earth i n its proper response a n d speaks the earth i n t o t h e

on

shape and person of the one o b e d i e n t m a n , the Son

cannot speak f o r themselves,

I h e fleshly m a t e t i a l i t y

earth to hear and answer these cries and t o intercede for these w h o t h a t requires t h a t t h e Son t a k e action.

He

of Jesus is g i v e n i n t o o u r hands b y the S p i r i t v i a t h e w h o l e people of Israel,

hears t h e i r prayers a n d comes to take t h e m o u t of our p o w e r .

i n o t d e t t h a t w e raise h i m t o t h e Fathet w i t h t h a n k s g i v i n g . H e is t h e

have received n o t h i n g cry t o G o d because we have made ourselves deaf t o

creation r e p l y i n g t o G o d w i t h its o w n voice, w h i c h is the voice i t has f r o m

t h e i r voice and l e f t t h e m n o other means o f recourse T h e y c a l l o n G o d t o

him

free t h e m f r o m us w h o b y o u r u n c o n c e r n h o l d t h e m there

3 1

Jesus C h r i s t is the c o m i n g i n t o speech of the e a r t h , a n d the t h a n k f u l

3 6

Ihose w h o

T h e psalms are

t h e i r charge against us T h e y are made for t h e m b y the Son: h e sings t h e m

creaturely w o r d G o d w a n t s t o hear f r o m i t

u n t i l the p o o r m e n can s i n g t h e m for themselves

H e s i n g t h e m to us —

against us - u n t i l we hear a n d react. B u t we m u s t also s i n g these songs, f o r

The Son Leads the Assembly in Prayer

i n s i n g i n g t h e m w e w i l l be t r a n s f o r m e d f r o m t h e p r o u d a n d a u t o n o m o u s

I have said t h a t the l i t u r g y is the conversation o f the Son w i t h the Father,

man,

and t h a t there is a c i r c u l a t i o n a n d traffic of requests (prayers) a n d receipts

psalms

( t h a n k s g i v i n g ) u p w a r d , and o f p r o v i s i o n s a n d i n t e r v e n t i o n s d o w n w a r d .

are the m e n o f t h e Son w h o endure t h a t misery, w i t h h i m h e l d i n c o m p l e t e

I h e l i t u r g y is the intercession, l a m e n t a n d t h a n k s g i v i n g of the Son

d i s r e g a r d by t h e w o r l d

The

3

I h o s e w h o alteady have t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n , t h e i r praise from men,

d e s c r i p t i o n W e are t o s i n g t h i s role u n t i l i t takes us ovet, and w e

3 7

T h e saints w a r n the p e o p l e of the w o r l d nor t o g i v e themselves away t o

psalms are the pleas a n d c o m p l a i n t s the Son makes for t h e m e n w h o have no v o i c e '

too far away to hear, too busy t o r e p l y , i n t o the p o o r m a n of t h e

the passions a n d masters w h o m a n i p u l a t e t h e m a n d prey o n t h e m

Each

are n o t desperate, so no i n a r t i c u l a t e sound calls t o G o d f r o m w i t h i n t h e m

g e n e r a t i o n of the saints m u s t appeal t o t h e i t contemporaries

I h e w o u l d - b e a u t o n o m o u s m a n does n o t i n t e n d to be h e l d t o account or t o

longer passive, b u t t o t h r o w off t h e i t o l d lords W e stand i n t h e c o u r t o f

r e m a i n under a u t h o r i t y , b u t confesses no one b u t h i m s e l f or whatever name

appeal, and l o d g e p e t i t i o n s for those w h o are n o t yet a r t i c u l a t e on t h e i r

w i l l abet h i m H e corrects others, b u t he c a n n o t take c o r r e c t i o n , a n d so is

o w n account, w h o cannot o r d o n o t p r a y I t is o u r j o b to beat t h e m t o t h e

no t r u e s o n .

Father for i n s p e c t i o n a n d a p p r o v a l , j u s t as we are ourselves borne. W e bear

3 4

I h e psalms express the m i s e r y of the son w h o is crushed a n d

to be

no

t h i s f u t u r e p e o p l e i n t o b e i n g by p r e s e n t l y b e a r i n g their needs t o G o d a n d See Romans 8 11: We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of 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 We do not know what we ought to ptay for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes with the saints in accordance with God's will ' 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 on Theology and Ecology King's Theological Review iz 1-5,41-45; 13 (1990), Lecture 3. 5 In Lecture 1 Zizioulas wtites 'All ancient iitutgies seem to be centred . on the lifting up of the gifts of bread and wine to the Creator Fathet, the Anaphora, the lifting up. attaches equal centrality - i f not more — to Man s act as the priest of Creation as it does to God s act of sending down the Holy Spirit ro transform the offered gifts into the body and blood of Christ (p 4) The Son sings, for example. Give ear to my words oh Lord, consider my sighing listen to my cry for help, my king 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). If you are nor disciplined, and everyone undergoes discipline then you are illegitimate children and not true sons' (Heb 12 8) 3 1

3 3

3 4

b e i n g t h e i r voices i n his c o u r t , s t a n d i n g i n for t h e m u n t i l t h e y are t h e r e w i t h us

I t is t h e p r i e s t l y l i f e W e speak and pray for t h e m ; they are t h e

confession w e m a k e

W e are to be d e m a n d i n g o n t h e i r account, and t o

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 him from death and he was heard because of his reverent submission Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered' (Heb 5 7-8) The Son sings for instance. Psalm 10: Why 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 his face and never sees "' Atheism is the convenient belief that we have put ourselves out of God's range and live in a territory policed by no power The Son will give his voice to his Church Mark 9 25: You deaf and mute spirit, he said, 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 — by God 3 S

3

3 7

154


request f r o m G o d w h a t he is w a i t i n g t o g i v e t h e m , and t h a t he gives t h e m t o us and us t o t h e m . hospitality

1 9

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

I h e k j o b is t o pass the Son on t o us, and i n t h i s way m a k e us

ready ro receive h i m . A l l the people w h o m a k e u p the w o r l d represent the

Chapter 9

Son t o us. W e have t o take h i m f r o m t h e m . B u t they m u s t g i v e us t h e Son, and n o t w i t h h o l d h i m f r o m us. H e m u s t be t h e i r confession a n d ours.

VII,

Pneumatology

The Ascended Christ: Mediator of Our Worship

I h e S p i r i t is m a k i n g us p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the speaking a n d a n s w e r i n g of the Son

The S p i r i t erects C h r i s t ' s w o r l d a r o u n d h i m , a n d raises us t o be p a r t of

his b o d y , his very person, i n t h a t w o r l d

The S p i r i r is g i v i n g us a w o r k , the

w o r k o f presenring people, a n d t h i s w o r k w i l l m a k e us a t t i c u l a t e a n d alive G o d presents people to us, and expects us t o present t h e m back to h i m ; so,

Sandra Fach

we are made under-labourers i n G o d s o w n w o r k of m a k i n g t h e m present to h i m s e l f so t h a t they receive t h e i r l i f e and b e i n g

W e are i n d u c t e d i n t o

the Son's w o r k of confessing a n d p r e s e n t i n g t h e w o r l d t o the Father. C h r i s t is the w h o l e , a n d he is a p a r t of the w h o l e W e are in h i m , a n d we are with h i m , so t h o u g h we are p a r t of h i m , be is d i s t i n c t f r o m us, a n d we ate d i s t i n c t f r o m h i m and f r o m one another him

by the H o l y S p i r i t

W e are m a d e d i s t i n c t f r o m

I h e S p i r i t empowers us t o d i s t i n g u i s h ourselves

T

he W e s t m i n s t e r C a t e c h i s m teaches that h u m a n i t y ' s chief end is t o g l o r i f y G o d a n d t o enjoy h i m for ever. I n the early C h u r c h , t h e t r i n i t a r i a n nature of this praise was expressed i n t h e m e d i a t o r i a l

d o x o l o g y , ' G l o r y t o the Father t h r o u g h the Son a n d i n the S p i r i t

Due t o

w i l l i n g l y a n d o b e d i e n t l y f r o m t h e Son a n d one f r o m another, so we are n o t

d o c t r i n a l controversy, h o w e v e r , the m e d i a t o r i a l expression o f the church's

o n l y receivers o f an i n e r t g i f t b u t active agents w h o j o y f u l l y confess t h a t we

w o r s h i p faded i n t o the b a c k g r o u n d .

aie n o t the head, n o t t h e L o r d . Then I can concede t h a t y o u are m o r e t h a n I

circumstances, t h e d e v e l o p m e n t was d e t r i m e n t a l . W i t h t h e h e l p of Josef

can make y o u , a n d t h a t I m a y n o longer i n h i b i t your g r o w t h i n t o the f u l l

J u n g m a n n s i n f l u e n t i a l w o r k , The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer,

stature of Chcisr This b e i n g d i s t i n c t is n o t a state of affairs w i t h w h i c h we

show h o w t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t i n v o l v e d the s h a d o w i n g o f C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y

have n o t h i n g to d o , b u t i t is the act of the H o l y S p i r i t i n us by w h i c h we at

and therefore t h e loss o f r e c o g n i t i o n of his p r i e s t l y role

last are enabled t o say we are n o t h i m , and y o u are d i f f e r e n t f r o m m e

essay w i l l

b e i n g d i s t i n c t f r o m h i m is our v e r y o w n a c t i o n , S p i r i t - e n a b l e d

Our

By i t we,

be

T h o u g h understandable

t o argue for a renewed

given 1

the

I will

I h e b u r d e n of t h i s

emphasis o n C h r i s t ' s continuing

m e d i a t o r i a l r o l e , a role p e r f o r m e d i n t h e u n i t y o f his person as the G o d -

the first t i m e , freely and really act, and we act freely a n d w i l l i n g l y

h u m a n , that is, the one w h o is G o d as a human A l t h o u g h t h e fact of t h e

precisely as we are able t o say he is L o r d . W e are n o t t h e L o r d , a n d so we

ascension w i l l be i m p l i c i t t h r o u g h o u t , its i m p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be made clear

for

can t h a n k G o d

i n t h e second h a l f o f the essay There, focus on the ascension w i l l help us t o c l a r i f y w h a t t h i s c o n t i n u i n g m e d i a t o r i a l role looks l i k e , rhis side o f C h r i s t s departure f r o m us.

Imis Paul exhorts the church. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests With this in mind be alert and always keep praying for all the saints' (Eph 6.18) The Son makes the creation an image of the hospitality of the Father He is the image of the 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: all things were created by him and for him (Col I 15) 3 8

3 9

Josef A Jungmann, The Place of Chris; in Liturgical Prayer trans A Peeler (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 2nd Eng edn 1989) 1

55

1


i6 5

I

T e l l M e the O l d , O l d Story

but

helpful

commandment

The corporate expression of t h e m e d i a t o r i a l nature o f w o r s h i p was

p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t i n t h e anaphoras a n d doxologies of the c h u r c h s early

H u m a n i t y ' s chief end is to g l o r i f y G o d and enjoy h i m forever brief

a t t i c u i a t i o n of

worship

Let us use

a n d a l l o w the

g i v e n t o Israel t o i n f o r m its c o n t e n t :

great

Y o u shall love the

Eucharistie prayers. T o t h e Father through Jesus C h r i s t ' reflects the f o r m o f the c h u r c h s early d o x o l o g i e s . also one m e d i a t o r between

your m i g h t .

human

H e e d i n g the w a r n i n g s i n b o t h Testaments t h a t such love can

never be abstracted f r o m love o f one s n e i g h b o u r ,

3

7

I n i t i a l l y , t h e n , praise was g i v e n to G o d

through C h r i s t , i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the t r u t h that there is one G o d ; there is

L o r d y o u r G o d w i t h a l l y o u r heart, a n d w i t h a l l your s o u l , and w i t h a i l 1

157

I h e early l i t u r g i e s are evidence t h a t t h e c h u r c h recognized w o r s h i p as a gift.

Worship- The Story's End

this

The Ascended Christ

FACH

G o d a n d h u m a n k i n d , C h r i s t Jesus, h i m s e l f

s

and a f f i r m i n g that the

cross does n o t save h u m a n i t y from a l i f e o f o b e d i e n t , sacrificial love b u t rather to such a l i f e , let us say t h a t living for God and for others is to glorify

God and enjoy him forever Such love is the g i f t of t h e G o d w h o is love. I J o h n teaches us t h a t t o abide i n t h i s love is t o abide i n G o d

I t is, i n d e e d , t o k n o w h i m -

k n o w l e d g e g i v e n t o us t h r o u g h his Son a n d i n his S p i r i t .

4

a

Let us, t h e n ,

u n d e r s t a n d w o r s h i p as a gift. T h r o u g h his t w o hands, the Father gives us w h a t he demands

H e l i f t s us u p t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n c o m m u n i o n w i t h h i m

G o d revealed, a n d recognized forever

This

because of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , can be

life o f fellowship w i t h

c o m m u n i t y t h a t participates

God

is t o

be

declared

enjoyed by

i n i t , so t h a t others m a y be d r a w n i n -

m i g h t y g a t h e r i n g t h a t w i l l m a k e t h i s joy c o m p l e t e

5

the a

6

The Story's Pattern F r o m G o d t o G o d is the parabolic p a t t e r n of t h e story I t is expressed i n a m e d i a t o r i a l w a y : F r o m the Father through t h e Son in t h e S p i r i t ' , t o the Father through the Son in t h e S p i r i t . R e g a r d i n g the Son, t h e m e d i a t o r i a l nature of the p a t t e r n is expressed b y the w o r d , ' t h r o u g h

A l t h o u g h this

essay focuses o n the Son's m e d i a t o r i a l role i n w o r s h i p , let i t be clear at the outset t h a t the Son's role can never be f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d or carried o u t apart f r o m the S p i r i t

Deut. 6 5 NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) See, for example Isa 58 and Amos 5 In the New Iestament, the horizontal dimension of the Shema is explicit (Mt. 2 2 3 4 - 4 0 ; Mark 1228-34; T.uke 10 25-28) Paul's exhortation to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is yout spiritual worship (Rom. I 2 . I NRSV) is as the context suggests, to be worked out in mutual love (see Rom 12; cf Phil 4 18) 1

3

See r John 4 7-16 See James B Iorrance Pateinostei Press, 1996). 9 See 1 John I 1-4 4

5

6

Worship Community and the Triune God of Grace (Carlisle:

this, like later developments, is well documented in Jungmann s work, on which I am dependent in charting the path the church took See especially The Place of Christ, 127-71 I t should be noted that aspects of Jungmann's thesis have been challenged, particularly by Albert Gerhards who argues that while Jungmann's analysis of the West is generally accurate his treatment of the East tends to ovetgeneralize Specifically he argues that there was always a tradition of addressing prayers ro Christ, a tradition built on (high) Johannine Christology I t is important to note however, that Gethards does not reject Jungmann's thesis but seeks only to modify it, suggesting that the Arian controversy only provided the impetus fot giving greater weight to one existing tradition ovet another (for a summary of Gerhards s critique, see Graham Redding, Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition [London: T & T Clark.. 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 major breakthrough in liturgical theology, whose importance is not diminished by discovering that the total picture has turned out to be more nuanced than was supposed in the first flush of discovery I f anything this is proof of the value of Jungmann's thesis, a seminal wotk whose fruitfulness has been confirmed by the refinements that subsequent research has brought to i t ' (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 when considering the value of 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 i t was detrimental) Second even if the Arian controversy gave greater weight to an existing tradition, that does not necessarily mean that the nature of prayer 'to Christ' post-controversy had the same tenor as prayer 'to Christ' pre-controversy Jungmann. himself, in the context of discussing the prayer to Christ which he never denies, argues thar such prayer is essentially mediatorial (cf! note 28 below) 7

I Tim 2 5 NRSV Although the earliest forms exhibit a binitarian pattern (see, for example, Eph 5.20; Col 3 t 7 ; Rom r 8, 16 27). union to Christ was believed to be by the Spirit in whom Christians lived and moved As Jungmann states: 'What is done in Christ is done also in the Holy Spirit, since i t is he who pervades and animates the body of Christ From this it was only a short step to beginning or ending the prayer: "We praise thee through our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit', or (by taking the prayer of rhe Holy Spirit to ourselves in a more personal way and by ranging it alongside the service of the high priest) "We praise thee 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 liturgical descriptions given by Justin Martyr (Jungmann The Place of Christ 150)

158


Theology

itself

arises

from

worship

9

The Ascended Christ

FACH

b u t the gift

r e f l e c t i o n , i n t u r n , influences t h e practice o f w o r s h i p

of theological I h e mediatorial

1 0

s t r u c t u r e of ' t o t h e Father t h r o u g h Jesus C h r i s t i n t h e H o l y S p i r i t

changed

159

I I . O G o d , O u r H e l p i n Ages Past: A l e s s o n f r o m H i s t o r y

Misunderstood Mediation

w i t h d o c t r i n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e C h r i s t ' s m e d i a t i o n faded

C o l i n G u n t o n w r i t e s : C e r t a i n heresies are archetypal as a t t r a c t i v e solutions

i n t o t h e b a c k g r o u n d o r disappeared altogether

t o d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t are i n t r i n s i c t o t h e f a i t h a n d w i l l therefore c o n t i n u e t o

first

The word

1 1

I h e change was s u b t l e at

t h r o u g h ' was r e t a i n e d , b u t t h e name

Jesus C h r i s t was

appear i n every g e n e r a t i o n . '

A r i a n i s m is one such heresy. A s disastrous as

13

replaced b y Son . T h e n t h e w o r d ' t h r o u g h disappeared a n d instead o f a

the loss of t h e m e d i a t o r i a l p a t t e r n o f w o r s h i p w a s , equally b a d was t h e

mediatorial

mediatorial pattern misunderstood

doxology: Spirit

1 1

doxology,

the church

adopted

t h e so-called

G l o r y t o t h e Father with t h e Son, together

coordinated

with t h e H o l y

For c l a r i t y , t h e t w o doxologies are: t h e m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y -

G l o r y t o t h e Father t h r o u g h Jesus C h r i s t i n t h e H o l y S p i r i t ; a n d t h e coordinated doxology -

G l o r y t o t h e Father w i t h t h e Son, together

with

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n is e v e r y t h i n g . Just as

the A r i a n s used t h e same scriptures as their opponents, they also used t h e same

doxology

i n worship

s o m e t h i n g very d i f f e r e n t

B u t for them,

through

Christ

The unqualified subotdination"

4

meant

of the Arians

saw C h r i s t as a t h i r d t h i n g , a tertium quid

I h e expression

the H o l y S p i r i t . The d e v e l o p m e n t represents a s h i f t i n emphasis f r o m t h e

implied

a n d unapproachable

economic t o t h e i m m a n e n t T r i n i t y W i t h t h e loss o f recognized m e d i a t i o n ,

c o n c e p t i o n , Jesus does n o t p e r f o r m t h e w o r k o f t h e Father, b u t does h i s

the atmosphere became one o f distance between w o r s h i p p e r s a n d t h e G o d

o w n w o r k as r h e m i d d l e - p e r s o n Jesus is n o t the r e v e l a t i o n o f t h e Father s

w h o m they w o r s h i p p e d . A retained emphasis o n C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y c o u l d

love, b u t t h e closest w e can g e t t o a n u n k n o w a b l e G o d

have prevented t h i s g a p B u t before a t t e m p t i n g t o find a w a y f o r w a r d

that

t h e Father

was d i s t a n t

through Christ I n this

I n reaction, A t h a n a s i u s a n d othets argued for t h e u n i t y o f G o d ' s a c t i o n

( i n d e e d , t h e w a y back), l e t us pause t o g a i n a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h y

T h e r e is one d i v i n e a c t i v i t y i n w h i c h a l l three persons share. Those w h o d i d

a n d h o w t h e m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y disappeared.

n o t believe i n such u n i t y c o u l d n o t a f f i r m t h e consistency i n t h e use of b o t h the m e d i a t o r i a l a n d c o o r d i n a t e d doxologies

For t h e m , t h e coordinated

doxology affirmed something the mediatorial doxology d i d n o t I n u s i n g Because knowledge of God is through the gift of pattidpation theology itself arises out of worship In other words, the initial movement (the first: part of the parabola) is only recognized when the community is drawn into the second movement. That we can say anything at all of the God 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 in his systematic theology. See Doxology. The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life (New York: Oxford University Piess 1980) Cf. Geoffrey 9

the m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y , they i m p l i c i t l y argued against c o n f u s i o n (indeed o f heresy!)

to G o d t h e Father w i r h the form

together with

Ecumenism Embrace (Oxford: Oxford University Ptess, 1997)., 237-50 (246) See also Alan Torrance, 'Being of One Substance with the Father' in Christopher Seitz ( e d ) , Nicene Christianity: The future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001) 4 9 - 6 1 (56).

1 1

Wainwright, Doxology 54—57 For Jungmann's trace of the development see The Place of'Christ 172-238

O r 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 God through Christ; then, as the Atian controversies took hold, praise was directed to God (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 and the Holy Spirit' (Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God 1 Z

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 Jungmann, The Place of Christ. i 9 t - 2 0 0 T h 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 T h i s will be discussed below.

To his f r i e n d , A m p h i l o c h i o s , h e writes:

Lately w h i l e I pray w i t h t h e people, w e sometimes finish the doxology

Wainwright, 'Trinitarian Worship, in idem, Worship with One Accord. Where Liturgy and

1 0

t h e unity of

G o d s action St Basil the G r e a t , w h o used b o t h doxologies, was accused o f

the H o i y S p i r i t ,

G l o r y to the F a t h e r with t h e Son,

and a t other times w e use G l o r y to the

Colin Gunton A n d in One Lord. Jesus Christ . Begotten, Not Made . in Christopher Seitz (ed ), Nicene Christianity The Future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 1 3

2001), 35-48 (35) 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 T h i s telates to his eternal begottenness I t is the Fathet who begets and the Son who is begotten However, they are ' . together one God in the koinonia of the Spirit T h e y are one because the Son and the Spirit are in a sense though 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 G o d ' ('And in One Lotd . 46-47). See also Colin Gunton The Holy Spirit W h o with the Father and the Son Together I s Worshipped 4

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

Father through the Son in the H o l y Spirir

c h a i n of c o m m a n d t h r o u g h w h i c h tasks are a d m i n i s t e r e d or t h r o u g h w h i c h

15

B a s i l unashamedly used b o t h doxologies I n a c l i m a t e w h e r e parties were c h o o s i n g one d o x o l o g y over a n o t h e r , others were n o t so b o l d

344-58)

161

T h e key p o i n t is t h i s : i t is w r o n g t o t h i n k of m e d i a t i o n i n terms o f a

Some of those present

accused us of using strange and mutually contradictory t e t m s .

p a r t i c u l a t case, a b i s h o p ( B i s h o p L e o n t i u s ,

The Ascended Christ

FACH

I n one

m u m b l e d the

final

w o r d s of his prayer lest he o f f e n d those w h o used a d i f f e r e n t d o x o l o g y

1 6

messages are sent Yes, t h e Father s a c t i o n is m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h his Son a n d Spirit

B u t t h i s is n o t t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f d i r e c t access t o G o d , as i f G o d is

inaccessible

10

It

is

rather

the

expression

of

A c c o r d i n g l y , B a s i l s use o f w i t h a n d ' t h r o u g h

God s

one

action

1 1

is e n t i r e l y consistent

The b u r d e n of Basil s a r g u m e n t i n On the Holy Spirit is t o show w h y his use o f b o t h doxologies is n o t a r e s u l t of confusion. H e argues t h a t i t is his attackers w h o are the confused ones. Ihe

different prepositions i n t h e mediatorial doxology cannot, argued

B a s i l , be used t o prove d i f f e r e n t natures

1 7

T h e S o n s a c t i v i t y is v o l u n t a r y

Over-correction W e have seen, t h e n , t h a t there was a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m e d i a t i o n t h a t needed t o be addressed

T h e ' t h r o u g h C h r i s t of t h e m e d i a t o t i a l d o x o l o g y

and o u t o f love; i t is n o t d u e t o a l o w e r n a t u r e : ' W e m u s t n o t t h i n k t h a t

was u n d e r s t o o d b y some i n a way t h a t d i d not a f f i r m t h e u n i t y of G o d ' s

the salvation t h e Son has w o n f o r us is t h e t e s u l t of a slave s c o m p u l s o r y

action

a"nd s u b o r d i n a t e s e r v i c e , Basil says ' N o , H e v o l u n t a r i l y accomplishes H i s

c o m p l e t e s h a d o w i n g of t h e m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y lest i t be m i s u n d e r s t o o d

I n react i on, the b o l d approach of Basil e v e n t u a l l y gave w a y t o t h e

p l a n o u t o f t h e goodness a n d compassion for H i s c r e a t i o n , f u l f i l l i n g t h e

The d e v e l o p m e n t s t h a t began i n t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y are m o s t e v i d e n t i n

Fathet s w i l l

l i t u r g i c a l prayer after t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y

, l K

T o say t h a t t h e Son does t h e Father s w i l l is n o t a c o m m e n t

a b o u t i n e q u a l i t y ; i t is a n expression of u n i t y A g a i n , Basil s w o r d s h e l p us

2 1

T h e move a w a y f r o m t h e

m e d i a t o r i a l t o t h e c o o r d i n a t e d d o x o l o g y was m a d e i n order t o correct t h e

to u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g of t h e w o r d t h r o u g h ' f o u n d i n t h e m e d i a t o r i a l

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of m e d i a t i o n B u t c o r r e c t i o n came w i t h

doxology:

emphasis o n C h r i s t ' s d i v i n i t y w o u l d soon lead t o the recession of h i s

When H e says, I have not spoken on m y own authority, and As the Father has said unto me, so I speak, and the word which you hear is not mine b u t the Father s who sent me and I do as the Father has

h u m a n i t y into the background

The

A s a n example, J u n g m a n n notes t h e

t r i n i t a r i a n emphasis as i t s t o o d o u t o n M o n o p h y s i t e soil a n d i n the G a l l i c Spanish area H e w r i t e s :

commanded me, H e does not use language of this k i n d because H e is

T h i s particular c u l t i v a t i o n of die t r i n i t a r i a n t h e m e i n connexion with

incapable of H i s o w n choice, ot is lawless, or has to wait for a

the a n t i - A r i a n attitude automatically implies a closer attention to the

prearranged signal He wants to make it clear that Hit will is indissolubly united to the father

a cost

d i v i n i t y i n C h r i s t , w h i l e the p o s i t i o n of Mediator, appropriate to h i m

W e must not t h i n k that what H e calls a

commandment is an imperious order delivered by word of mouth by which the Father gives orders to H i s Son, as H e would to a subordinate, telling H i m what H e should do Instead, let us t h i n k i n terms worthy of the Godhead, and realize that there is a ttansmission o f 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 the Son, and shows H i m all that H e H i m s e l f is doing the S o n

19

Everything the Father has also belongs to

[emphasis mine]

Basil, On the Holy Spirit., trans David Andetson (New Yotk: St V l a d i m i r s Seminary Press. 1980) 1 3. 1 5

1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

Jungmann, The Place of Christ. iy^—j6 Basil On the Holy Spirit z 4-5 i z Basil, On the Holy Spirit 8 18 Basil On the Holy Spirit 8 z o

To think that Jesus takes our prayers and passes them up the ladder is to conceive of through wrongly It is to conceive of a weakness in God O n the contrary G o d sends his Son to assume our weakness I n his humanity, 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 time someone prays I n this sense John 16 z6f is probably to be understood which, to be sure, was said chiefly for the consolation of the downcast disciples: ' I n that day you will 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 h i m its full resonance before God H e 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 H e does not stand in the way., preventing a direct prayerrelationship between the creature and 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 " i n the name of Jesus ', in Christ, and when it therefore arrives before God through z o

Christ (The Place of Christ. 137) 1 1

1 1

See Gunton, The Holy Spirit See above note I I

especially 85-88


Ï6I

FACH

i n his h u m a n i t y , was i n practice allowed to fall m o t e a n d m o r e i n t o the

been cause for concern r e g a r d i n g p o p u l a r p i e t y was n o w cause f o r concern

b a c k g r o u n d , as i t was constantly m i s i n t e r p r e t e d b y the A r i a n s

i n t h e c o n t e x t o f corporate w o r s h i p

1

3

E m p h a s i z i n g t h e g r a n d e u r o f C h r i s t was n o t always i n response t o heresy; for e x a m p l e , t i t l e s f o r C h r i s t such as K i n g new

The Ascended Chi ist

T h e n e w t h i n g was their f r e q u e n t use

i

4

a n d Saviour were n o t

W h a t became p r o b l e m a t i c ,

2 9

W i t h respect t o C h r i s t ' s role as H i g h Priest o f the E u c h a r i s t , here t o o the emphasis m o v e d t o h i s d i v i n i t y C h r i s t has t h e power t o consecrate a n d accept the o f f e r i n g b y v i r t u e o f his G o d h e a d

3

0

I n the West, the movement

however, was t h e m o v e t o w a r d s isolated prayer t o C h r i s t i n corporate

t o w a r d s v e n e r a t i o n of t h e host e v e n t u a l l y resulted i n reserve i n t a k i n g t h e

worship

s a c r a m e n t ' I n t h i s c o n t e x t , C h r i s t - as t h e o b j e c t of w o r s h i p - was n o

I h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e Son with the Father ( ' G l o r y t o t h e Father

i

w i t h t h e Son ) m e a n t t h a t prayer was n o w addressed r o e i t h e r , or back a n d

longer seen as t h e advocate w h o enabled b o l d approach t o t h e t a b l e .

f o r t h t o one a n d t h e n t h e other even i n t h e same prayer I h i s l e d t o lack o f

the loss o f emphasis o n C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y a n d h i s role as advocate, i t is n o

3 2

With

c l a r i t y r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e Father a n d Son I t also

surprise t h a t t h e euchatistic atmosphere i n c r e a s i n g l y became one of fear

m e a n t t h e emphasis o n C h r i s t as M e d i a t o r was l o s t .

G r a h a m R e d d i n g s s u m m a r y of t h e l i t u r g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t I have b e e n

1 5

B a c k i n 393, i t h a d

been precisely t h i s fear t h a t h a d caused t h e C o u n c i l o f H i p p o t o react

c h a t t i n g serves as a f i t t i n g c o n c l u s i o n t o t h i s s e c t i o n H e w r i t e s ( q u o t i n g

against t h e c o n f u s i o n f o u n d at t h e p o p u l a r level

J u n g m a n n at t h e end):

I n reaction t o t h e

c o n f u s i o n o f t h e names o f C h r i s t a n d G o d , Father a n d Son, C a n o n

21

W h i l e these l i t u r g i c a l changes were perfectly understandable u n d e r the

forbade corporate prayer addressed t o C h r i s t instead o f t h e Father; a n d i n t h e

circumstances,

m e d i a t o r i a l f o r m u l a , t h e Father was n o t t o be n a m e d i n place o f C h r i s t .

J u n g m a n n p o i n t s o u t rhat, as the m e d i a t o r s h i p a n d h u m a n i t y of Christ

Ihe

'straightforward

a n d unreflective nature' of popular p i e t y

1 6

they h a d a most

unfortunate

a n d unforeseen

effect

i s , as

faded into t h e b a c k g t o u n d and C h r i s t was t h r u s t u p into the majesty

those at H i p p o n o t e d , s o m e t i m e s cause for concern For t h e m , addressing i t

a n d grandeur of the G o d h e a d , a gap emerged a n d came to y a w n large i n

m e a n t f o r b i d d i n g certain f o r m s o f prayer i n corporate w o r s h i p C o r p o r a t e

C h r i s r i a n t h i n k i n g between the eternal G o d a n d s i n f u l h u m a n i t y T h e

w o r s h i p was t o p r o v i d e a check t o p r i v a t e p i e t y

worshipper

1

8

1 7

After the fourth century,

w a s confronted

majesty of t h e triune G o d

however, t h e t i d e against heresy p r o v e d t o o s t r o n g W h a t , i n 393, h a d

immediately

with

the o v e r w h e l m i n g

Stress w a s n o w placed nor on w h a t unites

us to G o d ( C h r i s t as o n e of us i n h i s h u m a n nature, C h r i s t as our brother), b u t on what separates us f r o m G o d ( G o d s infinite m a j e s t y )

Jungmann, The Place of Christ, 220 Other particular examples of this increasing emphasis on Christ s divinity are given I n the East Syrian liturgies, 'Chrisr appears simply as second Person of the Godhead together with Father and Holy Spirit A n d at bottom, also i n most of the prayers which are directed to h i m only this his divinity is in mind' (73) I n 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

3 3

1 3

God. pure and simple (84) See 92.-95 and 98—104 for similar tendencies in the litutgies of the Gallic type 2 , 4

Jungmann, The Place of Christ 224

Jungmann, The Place of Christ, 225 For a counter-movement to this tendency, see 227 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 5

1 6

1 7

III

O u r H o p e for Years to C o m e : Recovering Lost G r o u n d

The Cross Mat à s the End The Problem of the Experiential Model James Torrance argues t h a t t h e m o s t c o m m o n a n d w i d e s p r e a d view o f w o r s h i p is t h a t i t is s o m e t h i n g t h a t w e ' , t h a t is, r e l i g i o u s p e o p l e , do. Jesus t a u g h t us and gave us an example of h o w t o do i t . G o d s grace is needed t o h e l p us i n our efforrs b u t i t i s , essentially, w h a t we d o before G o d : W e g o t o c h u t c h , we s i n g o u r psalms a n d h y m n s t o G o d , we intercede f o r t h e

Jungmann, The Place of Christ 214

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 G o d ' (171) Its tenor, however, would undoubtedly change after the Arian controversy This, I think, is an important point to keep in mind when considering recent research that seeks to refine Jungmann s thesis (see above, note 7) l K

2 , 9

3 0

C f note 25 above

Jungmann, The Place of Christ 242-44

Initially, when piayer to Christ finds its way into the Eucharist, it is not the euchariscic presence of the l o r d that is addressed; rhe eucharistie body of Christ temains a third factor between the suppliant and Christ T h efirstindication of the movement towards veneration is 3 1

the inclusion of the Agnus Dei during the fraction See Jungmann. 'The Place of Christ 25S—59 Jungmann, The Place ofChrirt 262-63. See especially 263 n 3 3 1

3 3

Redding, Prayer and the Priesthoodoj Chin

20 C f Jungmann s helpful summary

251


FACH

The Ascended Christ

165

w o r l d , w e l i s t e n t o the s e i m o n ( t o o o f t e n s i m p l y an e x h o r t a t i o n ) , w e offer

and o n t o l o g y .

our m o n e y , t i m e and talents t o G o d

a t t e m p t to h o l d b e i n g a n d act t o g e t h e t , one m u s t not collapse i n t o t h e

Such a v i e w is u n i t a r i a n , he argues,

3 4

because i t has n o d o c t r i n e of the m e d i a t i o n o f C h t i s t a n d no d o c t r i n e of the H o l y S p i r i t

proper

regarding w o r s h i p understood

i n this way

takes, i t renders w o r s h i p Pelagian

3 6

Ihis model

other. For o u r present concern, i t m u s t be said t h a t the one w h o is w h o he

Whatever

form

separation

W e d o n o t s i m p l y l o o k to a person, w e also need t o p a y

a t t e n t i o n to w h a t t h i s person is c o n t i n u i n g t o d o

The M e d i a t o r continues

to mediate

The v i e w o u t l i n e d above expresses

itself i n an e x p e r i e n t i a l m o d e l of w o r s h i p , s u m m e d u p as 3 7

W e cannot enter i n t o t h e various debates here B u t i n a n y

is continues t o act

3 5

I he p r o b l e m of separation ( a l l u d e d t o by R e d d i n g ) is also the concer n

today

4 1

G o d and me',

. . emphasizes our f a i t h , our d e c i s i o n , our response i n

It is Not Finished; The Once for All

an event t h e o l o g y w h i c h s h o r t - c i r c u i t s the vicarious h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t

T h e b o o k of H e b r e w s describes C h r i s t as a p r i e s t , l i k e M e l c h i z e d e k , w h o is

and b e l i t t l e s u n i o n w i t h C h t i s t .

a p r i e s t n o t t h r o u g h a l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t - l i k e those a c c o r d i n g to the o r d e r

3 8

I h i s v i e w requires a cross b u t - a n d t h i s

is key — no f u r t h e r w o r k is recognized. M a n y w h o advocate (at least i n

o f A a r o n - b u t t h r o u g h t h e power o f an i n d e s t r u c t i b l e life (see 7 11—17)

practice) the v i e w t h a t w o r s h i p is s o m e t h i n g t h a t w e d o , believe t h a t t h e i r

I n d e e d i t is the e t e r n a l i t y of C h r i s t s p r i e s t h o o d t h a t makes h i m m e d i a t o r

action

of a better covenant

is

indeed

grounded

in

what

Christ

Mediation

is

i m p o r t a n t , i n d e e d essential. H o w e v e t , here i t is relegated t o the past

In

has

done

H i s m o r e excellent m i n i s t r y (cf 8 6) is carried o u t at

the ' r i g h t h a n d of the t h r o n e o f the M a j e s t y i n t h e heavens' w h e r e he is

a

such a v i e w , the ascended C h t i s t is g l o r i f i e d a l o n g w i t h t h e Father a n d

m i n i s t e r i n the sanctuary a n d the t r u e t e n t ' (cf

S p i r i t , b u t there is no real sense i n w h i c h t h a t ptaise is m a d e possible b y

p i c t u r e n o t w a r r a n t a careful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e words t h a t come f r o m

the continuing a c t i o n of C h r i s t and the S p i r i t R a t h e r , the d r a w i n g u p i n t o

Jesus m o u t h as he breathes his last o n t h e cross: I t is f i n i s h e d ' ?

f e l l o w s h i p is s o m e t h i n g t h a t is made possible b y a w o r k t h a t is f i n i s h e d o n

s o m e t h i n g is accomplished, b u t i t does n o t m a r k t h e end of h i s m i n i s t r y .

the cross

5 9

I t is an e x h a u s t i n g m o d e l to i n h a b i t , I o n a n c e argues, because

8 . 1 - 2 ) Does t h i s b i b l i c a l

43

Certainly 4 4

A c c o r d i n g t o C a l v i n , resurrection completes w h a t is b e g u n o n the cross

instead of p r o c l a i m i n g a gospel of grace i t t h r o w s C h r i s t i a n s back o n

I h e g l o r y o f the r e s u r r e c t i o n does n o t d t a w us away f r o m the cross because,

themselves to m a k e an a p p r o p r i a t e response t o G o d

t h o u g h distinct, they go togethet inseparably.

4 0

I n t h i s m o d e l , the

45

The resurrection fulfils the

m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y has receded i n t o the past a l o n g w i t h C h r i s t s f i n i s h e d

purpose of the cross, r e v e a l i n g the cross as the door to life

work

C a l v i n says t h a t r e s u r r e c t i o n completes w h a t is b e g u n o n t h e cross, he also

It

can be a r g u e d t h a t

person.

41

t h i s m o d e l separates C h r i s t s w o r k f r o m

his

M a n y issues arise r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s o t e r i o l o g y

4 6

But although

speaks of the ascension as the c o m p l e t i o n of the n e w life P a u l van B u r e n argues t h a t t h i s is no c o n t r a d i c t i o n because, a c c o r d i n g t o C a l v i n ,

the

w h o l e w o r k of C h r i s t as o u r S u b s t i t u t e is one: H i s death i n o u r place, H i s

3 4

3 5

Torrance Worship. J Torrance Worship. 7

Separation has many disguises Ironically, in much contemporary worship, the fear that once characterized the atmosphere of worship has changed into a curious familiarity. 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 6

It is often this individualistic expression — 'God and me. today — that receives the brunt of much (deserved) criticism Undoubtedly, the experiential model is usually expressed in this way But even the communally minded can fall naively into a similar ttap ('God and us today) expressing themselves more as a contemporary collective father than the ekklesia 3 7

3 8

Torrance Worship. r8

Torrance Worship. 16—18 Because there is mediation at one point unitarian worship expressed in the experiential model actually fits a truncated trinitaria» wotship 3 9

4 0

4 1

Torrance Worship 7, 18 Torrance, Worship, 16

It could be argued that an overemphasis on ontology, or rather a view that conflates ontology and soteriology is problematic In other words, although it 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 Now is neithet the time to debate this nor decide how fat James Torrance s argument may rend in 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 particular way in which this is 4 1

consttued' {.Ascension and Ecclesia- On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology [Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1999] M5> 37 ' n o t e

4 3

2

John 19 30 NRSV

See Douglas Farrow s article which argues for the ascension s inclusion in the atonement: Ascension and Atonement', in Colin Gunton (ed ), The Theology of Reconciliation (London: 4 4

I & T Clark, Z003) 67-91 Paul van Buren., Christ in Our Place Ihe Substitutionary Charaaer of Calvin s Doctrine of 1

4 5

Reconciliation (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1957) 4 6

Van Buren. Christ in Our Place 84

81


166 Resurrection

for us, a n d H i s l i f e w i t h G o d as che new l i f e o f those f o r

w h o m H e d i e d a n d rose

The Ascended Christ

FACH

167

intercede for us? I n u n d e r s t a n d i n g his o f f e r i n g as b o t h

firstfruits

fot h i m

and the basis of assurance for us, h o w are w e to i n t e r p r e t w h a t is to be o u r

4 7

The ascension, t h e n , m a r k s b o r h C h r i s t s experience o f t h i s new l i f e w i t h

confident approach t o the inner sanctuary? H e r e w e g a i n a g l i m p s e o f t h e

G o d a n d his e n a b l i n g o f t h i s t e a l i t y f o r us H o w is t h i s a l l for us? The cross

m y s t e r y of the cross W e are forced t o l o o k f r o m a variety of angles N o o n e

is the door t o l i f e because, i r o n i c a l l y , resurrection means C h r i s t ' s death is

s t a t e m e n t , m o d e l or idea can c o n t a i n a l l the t r u t h t h a t is there for us t o

eternal: once for a l l . I h r o u g h resurrection, C h r i s r ' s s u b s t i t u t i o n a r y death is

grasp

eternally efficacious

m u s t be i n a r t i c u l a t i n g i t

I n his c o m m e n r a r y on H e b r e w s , C a l v i n w r i t e s :

such a l i f e

tetains its efficacy for ever, as t h o u g h (the author of H e b r e w s ) had said: Resurrection

f u l l e s t exptession o f his obedience - the f u l l e s t expression of h i s life g i v e n

the

for

I h e cross may have been t h e wages o f h u m a n i t y ' s s i n , w h i c h

C h t i s t v i c a t i o u s l y t o o k u p o n h i m s e l f f o r our sake. B u t i t was also t h e

G o d raised up H i s Son, b u t i n such a w a y that the blood H e shed once is efficacious after H i s

B u t , as stated at the outset of t h i s essay, t h e

cross does nor save us from a l i f e o f o b e d i e n t , sacrificial love. I t saves us to

C h r i s t so rose f r o m the dead that, s t i l l , H i s death was not abolished b u t

for all i n his death

I r y as we m i g h t , a penal e l e m e n t cannot be avoided - careful as w e

ratification o f the everlasting covenant and brings forth irs fruit just as

u p for others, a l i f e w e are called t o i m i t a t e

if it were always flowing

act t h a t can be a r t i c u l a t e d as the consequence of s i n B u r the o f f e t i n g itself

4 5

H e r e , i n the language of H e b r e w s , the i n t t i n s i c c o n n e c t i o n of the d i s t i n c t events o f death, resurrection a n d ascension can be seen

N e w life made

possible because o f C h r i s t ' s life l i v e d , g i v e n u p o n the cross, a n d risen f r o m the dead, is c o m p l e t e d i n the ascension to the l i g h t h a n d of G o d where C h r i s t lives nor o n l y for h i m s e l f b u t also for us Because C h r i s t

carried o u t

these events in

the flesh, they

are

truly

L e t us focus on the ascension a n d see h o w i t is for us

We

have seen, t h r o u g h C a l v i n , t h a t t h e once for a l l is a b o u t m a k i n g w h a t

was,

representative continual

4 9

I h e i e f o r e , our present c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d is based o n t h e

c o n t i n u a t i o n of C h r i s t ' s m i n i s t r y , t h a t is, his l i f e g i v e n as a c o n t i n u i n g o f f e r i n g C h r i s t , because of his perfect o f f e r i n g o f h i m s e l f , is the H e is already i n f u l l possession of t h a t for w h i c h w e hope

firstfruits.

B u t this f u l l

possession is, i n its c o n t i n u a t i o n , also the basis for our b e i n g d r a w n i n t o i t . Christ,

therefore,

does n o t

sit o u t

merely

as

an example

for

us;

as

representative he is Saviour

is g o o d

And in

recognized

as

the

such.

resurrection

Ihe

eternal

and

The o f f e r i n g was given i n an

ascension, i t is

offering, then,

is n o t

affirmed s i m p l y to

and be

u n d e r s t o o d as the eternal efficacy of C h r i s t ' s death i n terms o f the wages o f sin I t is also to be u n d e t s t o o d as the c o n t i n u a l o f f e r i n g of the obedient l i f e l i v e d I n one sense the o f f e r i n g , v i e w e d as consequence, is s o m e t h i n g we are saved f r o m

B u t t h r o u g h the resurrection and ascension, we are also d r a w n

i n t o t h e o f f e r i n g as life-giving. Therefore, w e are to l o o k at intercession i n (at least) a t w o f o l d way. F i r s t , sin does n o t m a r k the way of those w h o w a l k i n t h e l i g h t

I h e author o f 1

J o h n says: M y l i t t l e c h i l d r e n , I a m w r i t i n g these t h i n g s to y o u so that y o u m a y n o t sin ' B u t he c o n t i n u e s :

. i f anyone does s i n we have an advocate

w i t h t h e Father, Jesus C h r i s t the r i g h t e o u s

5

' Jesus sits at the r i g h t hand o f

the Father as our eternal advocate T h e o f f e r i n g t h a t was g i v e n is c o n t i n u e d as i t is '

forever h e l d u p before G o d o n our b e h a l f

5 i

B u t second, we are

d r a w n i n to share w h a t is offered C h r i s t s w h o l e l i f e of obedience (and is t h i s n o t w h a t w e have defined as w o r s h i p ? ) is rhe o f f e r i n g t h a t is b r o u g h t i n t o t h e i n n e r sanctuaty

Christ Our Intercessor

W e are t o j o i n i n this o f f e r i n g I b i s means t h a t

our w o r s h i p is really a j o i n i n g i n C h r i s t s w o r s h i p . I f we f a i l t o look f r o m

Charles W e s l e y c a p t u r e d C h r i s t s c o n t i n u i n g intercession i n t h i s w a y : Five

b o t h angles, w e r i s k seeing a d i s t o r t e d p i c t u r e W i t h o u t t h e emphasis o n

bleeding

p a t t i c i p a t i n g i n the o f f e t i n g , we are l e f t w i t h the image o f the Father

wounds

he

bears,

received

prayers; they s t r o n g l y plead for m e

4 7

4 8

, J O

o n Calvaty

They

pour

effectual

H o w is i t t h a t C h r i s t s w o u n d s

Van Buren, Christ in Our Place. 85-86 Quoted in Van Buren, Christ in Our Place 82

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! W i t h reference to Ephesians (1 20; 2 5-6, 19) and Philippians (3 20), Calvin believed that not only life but also the opening of the 4 9

heavens — for us — is in view See Van Buren, Christ in Our Place, 87—88 5 0

From the hymn. Arise, My Soul Arise which Wesley wrote in

1742

5 1

1 John 2 I NRSV

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 5

(90)


i68

a v e r t i n g his eyes away f r o m us sound -

is t h a t o f a m i g h t y

FACH

Instead t h e i m a g e - or s h o u l d w e say eucharistic

chorus: t h e m a n y , i n r h e i r

p a r t i c u l a r i t y , g a t h e r e d t o the one

The Amended Christ

169

m e d i a t i o n H e r e Torrance engages w i t h N i c o l a s Cabasilas

Torrance argues

t h a t a l t h o u g h Cabasilas, i n h i s Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, affirms t h e m e d i a t i n g , p r i e s t l y w o r k o f C h r i s t o n our behalf,

.

h e consistently

assimilates t h e p r i e s t l y a n d m e d i a t i n g a c t i v i t y o f C h r i s t t o his d i v i n e activity,

The Continuing Priestly Role:

a n d does

n o t show

evidence

of A t h a n a s i u s

or C y r i l { o f

A l e x a n d r i a ] s p o i n t t h a t as t h e incarnate Son comes t o us as man, i t is as

According to Divinity or Humanity?

man t h a t he f u l f i l s his office as M e d i a t o r '

I n an a t t e m p t t o address a m o d e r n guise of separation ( a r g u a b l y one of t h e

but i n himself

W e t u r n n o w t o I F Torrance s

4

To think that his intercession is always made

through the prayers o f the lirurgy is rank blasphemy and folly For even

essay, ' T h e M i n d o f C h r i s t i n W o r s h i p : The P r o b l e m o f A p o l l i n a r i a n i s m i n the L i t u r g y , ' i n w h i c h Torrance stresses C h r i s t ' s o n g o i n g p r i e s t l y role

Cabasilas w r i t e s :

[Chrisr] is Mediator between God and man, not by his words or prayers

costs o f ancient o v e r - c o r r e c t i o n ) , I have argued t h a t C h r i s t c o n t i n u e s t o mediate at the r i g h t h a n d o f t h e Father

5 7

if i r is true that Christ performs the sacrifice, we cannot attribute everything that is said and done throughout the liturgy to h i m He

S 5

A g a i n s t w h a t w e have seen as the e x p e r i e n t i a l m o d e l o f w o r s h i p , T h o m a s

alone accomplishes the special work and purpose of the l i t u r g y - the

Torrance stresses t h a t our w o r s h i p is a p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n heavenly w o r s h i p *

consecration of the offerings and rhe sanctification of the faithful; but

B y rhe S p i r i t w e are j o i n e d t o C h r i s t w h o , as the w r i r e r of H e b r e w s insists,

the prayers, supplications and demands which surround these rites are

5

continues t o be our Leitourgos - t h e leader of o u r w o r s h i p

the acts of the priest I h e first are the works of the Lord, the rest the

B u t w h a t is

work of servants; the latter pray, the former answers prayer Ihe

i m p o r r a n t here is n o t s i m p l y t h a t C h r i s t continues t o w o t k U n d e r s t a n d i n g the w h o ' o f t h i s w o r k is essential

Saviour gives, and the puest offers thanks for what has been given; the

The m e d i a t i n g C h r i s t w h o sits a t the

priest offers, and the Lord accepts what is offered Our Lord, i t is true,

r i g h t h a n d o f t h e 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 t o his

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

I h i s is arguably another misconstrual of mediation Although Calvin spoke of Christ averting 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 Calvin's rejection of the idea that Chrisr stands midway between us and the Father, begging for our deliverance See V a n Buren, Christ 5 3

the offering; he is as God the offerer and receiver, and as man the offering B u t as regards the bread and wine, when they are s t i l l simply gifts, i t is the priest who offers them and the Lord who receives What

in Out Place, 90-91 1 4

does he do in receiving them? He sanctifies them, and turns them into

T F Torrance, The Mind of Christ in Worship: I he Problem of Apollinarianism in the

Liturgy', in idem Theology in Reconciliation: Essayi Towards Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East

his own Body and Blood; for i t is the true nature of receiving to

and Wesi (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1975), 139-2.14 The last writing Colin Gunton prepared for press before his untimely death was a collection of essays including 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 Christ in Worship The Problem of Apollinarianism in the Lirurgy ' ('Eastern and Western Trinities: Bemg and Person I F Iorrance's Doctrine

appropriate a thing to oneself, so that ir becomes in a sense oneself, as

of God', in Colin Gunton, Father, Son and Holy Spirit Essays toward a Fully Trinitarian Theology (London: T & I Clark, 2003], 32-57 I54]) I came across Gunton 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 will count as a development he would have welcomed Torrance is also dependent on Jungmann s work, though he argues that a subtle Apollinarianism is also at the root of the loss of the mediatorial aspect in the liturgy It is not my aim to argue the case for one or the other However it would undoubtedly 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 Whatever the main root of the shift (and why not say both factors are at work?) what one says about the nature of the hypostatic union cettainly determines what can be said about the notion of Christ with us', whether pre- or post-ascension 5 5

s 6

Torrance

I h e Mind of Christ in Worship

139-40

we have said before That is how Christ celebrates this sacrifice; in this his Priesthood consists

5 S

A t the outset, Cabasilas says t h a t C h r i s t is M e d i a t o r b e t w e e n God a n d h u m a n i t y in himself united

Because he is b o t h G o d a n d h u m a n , t h e t w o a r e

Is t h i s t h e o n t o l o g i c a l k n o t t h a t prevents us f r o m

Christ's w o r k f r o m

h i s person? A n d does t h i s n o t meet

separating

a n y concern

r e g a r d i n g the loss of C h r i s t ' s cole as a h u m a n ? H e r e 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 perceptive n o t e r e g a r d i n g Cabasilas s use of I T i m o t h y 2 5 ( T h e r e is one M e d i a t o r between G o d a n d m e n , the m a n C h r i s t Jesus )

5 7

Iorrance

I h e Mind of Christ in Worship

194

Nicholas Cabasilas, Commentary on the Dirine Liturgy 49 (trans J . M Hussey and P A McNulty; London: S P C K , 1966), cited 111 T F Torrance Theology in Reconciliation (London: Geoffrey Chapman 1975) 194—95 5


FACH

The Ascended Christ

171

W h e n Cabasilas cites i t i n his e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e l i t u r g y , he o m i t s t h e

coordinated

Wotd

includes a m e d i a t o r i a l ' t h r o u g h ' a n d n o t also a m e d i a t o r i a l ' w i t h

man'

I n l i g h t o f t h i s a n d I o r r a n c e s concern over a p r i e s t h o o d

5 9

d o x o l o g y , he is wary o f a m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y

t h a t is o n l y rendered b y C h r i s t i n h i s d i v i n i t y , w h a t m i g h t Cabasilas m e a n

w e have o n l y seen t h e w o r d

w h e n he says t h a t

doxology

{ C h r i s t ] is as G o d t h e offerer a n d receiver, a n d as

man t h e o f f e r i n g ? (emphasis m i n e )

with'

W h a t , t h e n , is m e a n t

Torrance, t o use o n l y t h e w o r d

O b v i o u s l y , Cabasilas a f f i r m s a c o n r i n u i n g role I t is apparent t h a t he also

i n the context

that 6 1

only

So f a r ,

of t h e coordinated

by a mediatorial 'with ? According to t h t o u g h affirms C h r i s t s past role b u t i t

does n o t necessarily a f f i r m h i s continuing role

I o use also t h e w o r d

with'

a f f i r m s a c o n t i n u i n g h u m a n i t y . So w h a t is t h e basis f o r concern? A c c o r d i n g

ensures t h a t he is believed s t i l l t o be a m i d s t t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n , o f f e r i n g u p

to Cabasilas, C h r i s t is Offerer

prayer w i t h h i s brothers a n d sisters. I h e i n c l u s i o n o f w i t h

indeed h i m s e l f a h u m a n

a n d O f f e r i n g because he offers

himself,

B u t h o w far does t h i s o f f e r i n g o f h i m s e l f s t i l l

i n c l u d e us? I t o n l y includes us once our o f f e r i n g (whether i t be t h e bread

H e r e Torrance wants t o a d d t o J u n g m a n n s analysis H e states:

and w i n e or o u r prayers) is received b y h i m . T h e n , he appropriates i t t o

Prayer t h r o u g h the m e d i a t i o n of Jesus C h r i s t t h e H i g h P r i e s t i n the

h i m s e l f a n d , once a p p r o p r i a t e d , i t becomes p a r t o f h i s o f f e r i n g o f h i m s e l f

full sense, gives place to prayer on t h e basis of the h i g h - p r i e s t l y w o r k of

I f t h i s is a correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Cabasilas, t h e n t h e concern becomes

Chrisr

clearer W h a t Torrance w a n t s is a c o n t i n u i n g p r i e s t h o o d t h a t sees C h r i s t alongside

us, a f e l l o w

congregation

worshipper,

p r a y i n g alongside

o f f e t i n g prayer o n our b e h a l f

even

n o w i n the midst

is a n a n t i d o t e ,

if y o u w i l l , t o t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l m o d e l o f w o r s h i p

T h e reason for this, however, is to be found n o t only, as

J u n g m a n n i m p l i e s , i n t h e Cappadocian reaction to A t i a n i s m , b u r in a

of t h e

comparatively underdeveloped u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the vicarious role of

us. This qualifies t h e n o t i o n of C h r i s t

rhe incarnare Son along the line that runs from Athanasius to C y r i l ,

I t c a n n o t be an o f f e r i n g based o n a p r i o r

together w i t h a further development of the doctrine of the T r i n i t y as

hypostaseis

i n one

ousia

r e c e i v i n g ( i n t h e manner o f ' w e g i v e a n d he takes') R e m e m b e r , Cabasilas

three

says t h a t C h r i s t offers o u r g i f t s a n d prayers, b u t o n l y aftet f i r s t r e c e i v i n g

S p i r i t w i t h the Father, w h i c h resulted i n a n overshadowing of the

i n tespect of the coequaiity of the S o n and

t h e m a n d a p p r o p r i a t i n g t h e m t o himself! W e m i g h t w a n t t o q u i b b l e - i f

mediatorial aspect of prayer by the doxoiogical

6

1

C h r i s t offers our g i f t s a n d prayers a n d does so as a h u m a n , is there really a problem

with

appropriation?

t h e idea

that

he

does

so

through

receiving a n d

I h e p r o b l e m is s i m p l y t h a t i t is n o t i near n a t i o n a l , i n

w h i c h he takes w h a t we are t o o b l i n d t o see a n d incapable o f g i v i n g . T h e problem

is

that,

i n this

appropriation according

picture,

Christ

t o his d i v i n i t y

6 0

does

t h e receiving and

Is there

n o t a r i s k here o f

v i e w i n g C h r i s t s c o n t i n u a l p r i e s t h o o d i n a N e s t o r i a n way?

'Through' or 'With'-

1

The Case for a Mediatorial

Before l e a v i n g I h o m a s

Iorrance,

'With'

h i s c r i t i q u e o f Basil s h o u l d be n o t e d

I h i s b r i n g s us back t o t h e discussion of t h e t w o doxologies

A g a i n , for

c l a r i t y , t h e m e d i a t o r i a l d o x o l o g y as used b y B a s i l is ' G l o r y t o t h e Father t h r o u g h t h e Son i n t h e H o l y S p i r i t ' ; t h e c o o r d i n a t e d d o x o l o g y is ' G l o r y t o the Father w i t h t h e Son, together background

N o t only

w i t h the H o l y Spirit'. First a b i t of

is Torrance

wary

o f t h e change

to a

solely

Jungmann, The Place of Christ., 242 note 3 As Torrance states: 'Christ himself has been thrust up into the majesty of the Godhead in such a way that he is tegarded as too exalted to be associated with the prayers of the liturgy which are "couched i n language befitting servants" ' ( T h e Mind of Christ in Worship , 195) 5 9

6 0

H e looks to ways in which the mediatorial and coordinared formulae were brought together. (To avoid confusion, it should be noted that where I have followed others in distinguishing between 'mediatorial and coordinated applying them both as adjectives to 'doxology', Torrance simply contrasts mediatorial with doxoiogical' Thus what I have called coordinated' he calls 'doxoiogical' ) H e states: Athanasius' conclusion to the De incarnatione was typical of the underlying theological structure: " Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom and with whom, to the Father with the Son himself in the Holy Spirit , be honour and power and glory for ever and ever Amen " Variations upon this combination of the mediatorial and doxoiogical formulae in which care is taken to retain a mediatorial "with" alongside of a mediatorial "through ' and a doxoiogical "with"' are found thtoughout all the wotks of Cyril [of Alexandria} Sometimes they are given a more extended form, and sometimes they ate found in a more reduced or succinct form in which the "with whom" is clearly intended to be both mediatorial and doxoiogical I t is usually in a succinct form that the mediatorial and doxoiogical "with", together with a mediatorial "through"., is found in the liturgies especially those of old Alexandrian and old Roman provenance O n the othei hand, the elision of the mediatorial with" with the doxoiogical with" rended to have the effect of weakening the mediatorial through'. especially when the whole concept of praying and worshipping with Jesus Christ dropped out of sight Thus the tetention in a liturgy of an unambiguous mediatorial with whom" along with a mediatorial "through whom' may well be taken as an indication that the old classical understanding of Christian worship, at least i n its AthanasianCyrillian form remains intact Thar is surely the abiding significance of the oblatory formula of the old Ordo Romanus: Thtough him and with him and in h i m is to thee God the Father almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory" ( The M i n d of Christ in Worship , 187-88) To place this within the development charted above (cf note 12) see 6 1

Jungmann, The Place of Christ, 192-93. cf 28-30 1

Torrance, T h e Mind of Chrisr in Worship', 189-90


i7i

The Ascended Christ

FACH

T h i s is where he c r i t i q u e s Basil, saying t h a t a l t h o u g h Basil atgues for a

u n i o n t o h u m a n i t y i n t h i s sense

mediatorial ' t h r o u g h , '

preposition through

with

i n the l i t u r g y

he does n o t seem t o be aware o f a m e d i a t o r i a l

the final section of t h i s essay -

I t is the basis on w h i c h he uses t h e

Basil s p o i n t is t h a t the H o l y Spirit's r e l a t i o n t o us is

d i f f e r e n t f r o m his r e l a t i o n t o the Father a n d Son

6 1

I w a n t t o offer a m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c r e a d i n g of Basil t h a t w i l l lead us i n t o the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e ascension

The

b u r d e n of On the Holy Spirit is t o a f f i r m the d e i t y o f t h e H o l y S p i r i t

173

some sense, r e g a r d i n g t h e incarnate one

Surely we must say t h i s , i n

H i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e Father a n d

S p i r i t is d i f f e r e n t f r o m his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o us. T h a t is the m a i n p o i n t A n d here we come back t o chapter 7 where the context is n o t that of t h e

Therefore, any discussion of h o w i t is t h a t C h r i s t is one w i t h h u m a n i t y is

H o l y S p i r i t b u t the Son

incidental

g i v i n g g l o r y whereas t h r o u g h w h o m is a p p r o p r i a t e for g i v i n g thanks. B u t

There are h i n t s of i t

B u t first, Basil s use of t h e p r e p o s i t i o n

with

needs t o be u n d e r s t o o d i n context. A c c o r d i n g t o B a s i l , b o t h ' w i t h

whom

a n d t h r o u g h w h o m are a p p r o p r i a t e t o use c o n c e r n i n g the Son i n

listen: Whenever

t h e d o x o l o g y T h e first is a p p r o p r i a t e for g i v i n g h i m praise, the second for g i v i n g thanks

( H e r e , t h e n , Torrance s c r i t i q u e appears j u s t i f i e d ) Before

r e g a r d i n g the H o l y S p i r i t . I n p a t a g t a p h

63,

reflect o n

with the F a t h e r

the

m a j e s t y of

the

nature of

the

Only-

O n the other h a n d , w h e n we consider the abundant

blessings H e has g i v e n us, and h o w H e has a d m i t t e d us as c o - h e i r s into

a m o m e n t t o chapter 2 6 where the c o n t e x t is an e x p l a n a t i o n o f the use o f in

we

Begotten, a n d the excellence of H i s d i g n i t y , we ascribe g l o r y to H i m

l o o k i n g at chapter 7 where Basil makes t h i s e x p l i c i t , let us j u m p ahead for the p r e p o s i t i o n

Yes, Basil t h i n k s ' w i t h w h o m is a p p r o p r i a t e f o r

G o d s household, we acknowledge that this grace works for us

Basil

Him

and

in

Him

through

6 5

states: N o t e the last phrase - n o t o n l y through h i m b u t also in h i m C o u l d n o t t h e I h e Spirit is said to dwell in created things i n many and various ways, but as fax as His relationship to the Father and the Son is concerned, i t 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

preposition

in

reflect t h e k i n d o f d y n a m i c , c o n t i n u a l m e d i a t i o n

that

T h o m a s I o r r a n c e seeks i n his plea f o r the p r e p o s i t i o n ' w i t h ? K n o w i n g w h y Basil opts for i n instead o f ' w i t h ' , i t is at least p l a u s i b l e Basil does n o t -

i n the doxologies -

use t h e p r e p o s i t i o n

with' i n a

m e d i a t o r i a l sense Nevertheless, there is certainly a d y n a m i c feel t o w h a t he

words which suitably express such an everlasting union Truly precise

says elsewhere H e uses w o r d s t o describe Christ's place i n t h e T t i n i t y (for

co-existence can only be predicated of things which are mutually

example,

inseparable

w i t h w o r d s used t o describe his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o creation (for

Whenever the union between things is intimate,

natutal, and inseparable, i t is more appropriate to use with since this

Son , O n l y - B e g o t t e n , W i s d o m , and so on) and contrasts t h e m

Shepherd , ' K i n g ' and P h y s i c i a n ) .

example,

These latter t i t l e s refer t o h o w C h r i s t

word suggests an indivisible union O n the other hand, i n situations

satisfies the needs of creation l i s t e n t o w h a t he says i n chapter 8 and see i f

where the grace of the Spirit comes and goes, i t is more proper to say

there is n o t a sense of a d y n a m i c , c o n t i n u a l w o r k :

that the Spirit exists in someone, even in the case of well-disposed persons w i t h w h o m He abides continually

Those w h o flee to H i s

6 4

r u l i n g care for refuge, a n d t h r o u g h patient

endurance correct their e v i l ways, H e calls sheep, a n d H e acknowledges

Basil is m a k i n g a d i s t i n c t i o n between the t e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t the H o l y

H i m s e l f to be the

Shepherd

of those who hear H i s voice, refusing

to

S p i r i t has w i t h t h e Father and Son, a n d the r e l a t i o n s h i p the H o l y S p i r i t has

listen to strange teachings

w i t h us Can we deduce a n y t h i n g f r o m t h i s r e g a r d i n g the Son? One c o u l d

King of those w h o

say t h a t this very passage supports T o r r a n c e s a r g u m e n t

T h a t is, we s h o u l d

themselves to their l a w f u l ruler. Because H e leads men t h r o u g h the

r e g a r d i n g our r e l a t i o n s h i p t o C h r i s t because C h r i s t

narrow gate of H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s to the practice of good deeds, and

use the w o t d

with

u n i t e d h i m s e l f t o h u m a n i t y i n the i n c a r n a t i o n o b j e c t i o n holds

3

4

have risen

to a higher w a y

H e says

of life,

H e is

submitting

because H e securely shuts in those w h o t h r o u g h faith i n H i m

B u t I do not t h i n k the

find

shelter i n true w i s d o m , H e is the Door. Therefore H e says, I f any one

Basil w o u l d surely n o t deny the i n d i v i s i b i l i t y of C h r i s t s

Iorrance. I h e Mind of Christ in Worship , 190 Basil, On the Holy Spirit, z6 63; original italics throughout

M y sheep hear m y voice,

enters by M e , he

6 5

Basil On the Holy Spirit

w i l l go in and out and find pasture

716

Because H e is

1/4


This

The Ascended Christ

FACH

*75

a m i g h t y fortress for the faithful, an unshaken and u n b r o k e n b u l l w a r k ,

t h i s last section, i t remains t o consider m o r e carefully t h e nature o f a

H e is called Rock

mediatorial ' w i t h

6

6

passage reflects

followers

a d y n a m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between

Christ and his

That i t a f f i r m s a c o n t i n u a l m e d i a t i n g role is f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d

by Basil s w o r d s at the outset o f t h e paragraph f r o m w h i c h t h e excetpt is taken W i t h reference ro the A p o s t l e Paul's use o f t h r o u g h Jesus C h r i s t ' o r t h r o u g h w h o m (for example, R o m

I 5 , 8 ; 5 2 ) , Basil says: H e speaks

here o f t h e kindnesses w h i c h t h e Son has bestowed o n us; sometimes H e carries rhese g o o d g i f t s o f grace f r o m the Farher t o us, a n d other times H e leads us t o the Father t h r o u g h H i m s e l f (emphasis m i n e )

6 7

There is one last piece of evidence I w o u l d l i k e t o use i n s u p p o r t of B a s i l I t is f o u n d i n chapter

2 8 a n d is already e x p l i c i t i n t h e chapter s t i t l e :

A l t h o u g h S c r i p t u r e describes m e n as r e i g n i n g t o g e t h e r with C h r i s t , our opponents w i l l n o t a l l o w t h i s w o r d t o be used c o n c e r n i n g the S p i r i t

Here

Basil refers t o Colossians a n d speaks o f b e i n g a l i v e together with C h r i s t A l t h o u g h Basil is n o t hete m a k i n g an a r g u m e n t for a m e d i a t o r i a l w i t h ' , i t is nevertheless e x p l i c i t i n the c o n t e x t of, and a necessary premiss for, t h e a r g u m e n t he is a d v a n c i n g W h a t he says here serves as a suitable t r a n s i t i o n to the final section o f t h i s essay H e w t i t e s :

A t the outset o f his w o r k , Ascension and Ecclesia, D o u g l a s Farrow states: ' To g r a p p l e w i t h t h e m y s t e r y of t h e [presence a n d absence} is i n d e e d ecclesiology s constant challenge. neglected

underplayed

dissolved

Farrow

does n o t d e n y

Christ s

abstractions,

Farrow a f f i r m s a concrete context i n w h i c h t o m a k e sense o f the m y s t e r y : the Eucharist. T h e c h u r c h affirms C h r i s r s real absence t h r o u g h the c r y : Maranatha!

7

0

The a f f i r m a t i o n that 'the L o r d is here' is said w i t h i n a prayer

t h a t also p r o c l a i m s his d e a t h u n t i l he comes F a r r o w refuses t o set t h e ' W h e r e ? q u e s t i o n aside H e w r i t e s : Carelessly asked, as at S i n a i , i t already betrays a fatal lack o f interest i n i t s subject D i l i g e n t l y asked, i t helps t o e l i c i t a n answer a b o u t w h o t h a t subject i s , whether we s h o u l d s t i l l be e x p e c t i n g h i m , and w h a t we s h o u l d be d o i n g i n the m e a n t i m e

7 1

A f t e r discussing various answers t h a t t r a d i t i o n has g i v e n

to t h e W h e r e ? q u e s t i o n , Farrow offers his o w n : Ihe answer we have been advocating is a disturbing one

the Father, i t refuses ro a d m i t that 'we do not know what has happened ro h i m

I h e s e m e n confess that the saints are with C h r i s t

or Temporally or materially or spiritually, with respect to ourselves

72

body and at h o m e w i t h C h r i s t , a n d rhar his desire is t o depatt and be

[emphasis mine]

that

mine]

O n the contrary, i t is disturbing because i t states quite

categorically that we do not know; that we cannot place h i m , spatially

(since P a u l m o s t assuredly says that he w o u l d tather be away from the w i t h C h r i s t ) , yet they dare refuse the S p i r i t even the c o m m u n i o n

I t is not

disturbing because, i n maintaining that Jesus has gone in rhe flesh to

faith i n those w h o ate closely u n i t e d by nature? W h a t a boundless lack

[emphasis

a n d at w o r s t

c o n t e x t o f C h r i s t ' s real absence I n a battle against various

it is i m p i o u s t o even t h i n k such a t h i n g , is i t not reverent to confess our

C h r i s t shares with m e n

Farrow s w o r k

presence, b u t he c o n t i n u a l l y stresses t h a t we m u s t u n d e r s t a n d i t i n t h e

C h r i s t , if the life with C h r i s t has n o t h i n g to do w i t h the H o l y Spirit? I f

6 8

6 9

guides us t h r o u g h the various ways i n w h i c h t h i s tension has been at best

D i d G o d g i v e to the C h u r c h and to an entire race the gift of life with

of c o m m o n sense!

W h e r e either side o f t h a t mystery is

t h e m y s t e r y o f t h e c h u r c h itself is u n d o n e

I t is t h i s last phrase t h a t is t o be heeded

I t sums u p the case F a r r o w has set

o u t t o make, m a r k i n g t h e e n d o f a l o n g j o u r n e y that b e g a n I V . G o d is G o n e u p o n H i g h w i t h a T r i u m p h a n t N o i s e

recognition of Two Histories'

7 3

with the

I f w e are to p r o c l a i m a real presence, w e

w i l l have r o d o so i n a context t h a t recognizes t h e divergence of Jesus

hi a Manner Present and in a Mamie) Absent We

have

been

considering

Christ s mediation,

acknowledging the

i m p o r t a n c e o f exptessing i t i n a way t h a t recognizes i t s c o n t i n u a t i o n I n t 9

Farrow Ascension and Ecclesia. 3

This is the burden of Farrow's argument in Confessing Christ Coming . in Christopher Seitz (ed ). Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press 7 0

6 6 6 7

Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 8 17 Basil On the Holy Spirit 8 r 7

Basil On the Holy Spirit. 28 69 Basil is not arguing for the deity of humankind when he says that we are with Christ Rather he is in effect saying that if we — mere mortals - ate united ro Chrisr and express such communion as 'with Christ' then it is ridiculous not to allow with' to he used regarding the Spirit's relationship to Chrisr 6 8

2001), 133-48 Farrow. Ascension and Ecclesia 267 Farrow Ascension and Ecclesia 267 7 1

7 1

7 3

This is the subtitle of the second section of his first chapter Farrow, Ascension and

Ecclesia 7

176"


FACH

The Ascended Christ

177

h i s t o r y f r o m o u r o w n Jesus stands over-against us. T h e ascension, t h e n ,

reigning

has i m p l i c a t i o n s for t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n of a m e d i a t o r i a l w i t h

N e w endings were f o r m e d i n w h i c h the ' l i v i n g a n d r e i g n i n g was said

t o t h e G o d h e a d o f C h r i s t l e d t o s m a l l b u t s i g n i f i c a n t changes

s i m p l y of G o d

J u n g m a n n summarizes:

Parallel w i t h t h e decay of prayer

t h r o u g h C h r i s t , o r , w h e r e i t was already f i r m l y r o o t e d , t h e decline i n i t s

Christ Our King

esteem, t h e t h e m e o f t h e g l o r i f i e d head o f t h e C h u r c h receded

H e r e , t h e n , is w h e r e w e m i g h t w a n t t o offer a nuance t o Thomas

8 0

I have a r g u e d t h a t C h r i s t s k i n g s h i p , a l o n g w i t h h i s p r i e s t h o o d , m u s t b e

Iorrance's

plea for a m e d i a t o r i a l w i t h . T h e r e is o n l y r o o m here for b r i e f reflections

maintained

w h i c h I hope t o develop elsewhere. I n a r g u i n g t h a t t h e ascension is also

C h r i s t ' s k i n g s h i p is t o recognize t h a t he stands (indeed reigns) over against

i n any a r t i c u l a t i o n of a m e d i a t o r i a l

To

recognize

s u b s t i t u t i o n a r y - t h a t i s , also for us - C a l v i n was careful t o a r t i c u l a t e t h i s i n

us.

a w a y t h a t a f f i r m e d C h r i s t s l o r d s h i p C h r i s t is o u r s u b s t i t u t e o n l y as o u r

l i t u r g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t has once again served t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e dangers o f

L o r d . A g a i n , he is n o t j u s t e x a m p l e b u t Saviour

a r t i c u l a t i n g C h r i s t s role o u t s i d e the c o n t e x t o f h i s h u m a n i t y . A t t e n t i o n t o

Is t h i s w h e r e w e m i g h t

w a n t t o emphasize n o t o n l y C h r i s t s p r i e s t h o o d b u t also his k i n g s h i p ? Psalm

110

is h e l p f u l here, for i t emphasizes

b o t h offices

ascension is u n d e r s t o o d i n terms o f e n t h r o n e m e n t

7 5

7 6

Here the

W h e n the church

p r o c l a i m s t h a t Jesus is L o r d , i t - i n F a r r o w s w o r d s - ' . bells r i n g i n g i n t h e palaces o f Caesar .

7 4

serfs] t h e a l a r m

Such p r o c l a m a t i o n deprives a l l

other rulers of any c l a i m t o d i r e c t a u t h o r i t y

7 7

T h i s p s a l m , t h e n , presents

us w i t h an i m a g e t h a t helps us u n d e r s t a n d t h e k e y phrase h i g h l i g h t e d above:

w i t h respect t o ourselves

I n d e e d , C h r i s t stands over-against us.

T h e p s a l m i s t also p r o c l a i m s t h a t G o d has gone u p w i t h a s h o u t ' .

78

But

w h o is t h i s G o d , a n d w h a t is t h e nature of his t r i u m p h ? H e r e we l o o k one last t i m e at t h e c h u r c h s l i t u r g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . I h e s h a d o w i n g of t h e m e d i a t o r i a l p a t t e r n of w o r s h i p d i d n o t happen i n t h e

B u t t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n cannot

with

involve a denial of his h u m a n i t y .

8 1

the t h e m e of t h e g l o r i f i e d head' m u s t never recede. I t helps us t o take b o t h offices i n t o account

C h r i s t is our head i n t h e sense t h a t he lives and reigns

over against us. H e is n o t j u s t representative, he is L o r d B u t t h e head m u s t be one w i t h

its body

I n t h i s sense, t h e n , he is n o t j u s t L o r d , b u t

representative! Therefore, i n a c k n o w l e d g i n g C h r i s t ' s k i n g s h i p w e m u s t n o t see his d i v i n i t y o u t s i d e t h e context o f his h u m a n i t y - he is s t i l l G o d as a

human Paul e m p l o y s another of t h e psalmist's images: h i g h he made c a p t i v i t y itself a captive '

S l

W h e n he ascended o n

This is his t r i u m p h , a t r i u m p h

for us, i n d i c a t i v e i n Paul s t w i s t : 'he gave g i f t s t o h i s people

8 3

G i f t s can b e

g i v e n because b o o t y has been t a k e n . B u t t h e g i f t s are n o t equal t o the b o o t y ; t h a t is, t h e g i f t s are n o t b o o t y t h a t is s i m p l y r e - d i s t r i b u t e d B y taking

I h e s h i f t i n emphasis is e v i d e n t i n a

c a p t i v i t y captive, he gives us t h e f r e e d o m t o be t r u l y h u m a n . H e t r a n s f o r m s

p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e ' w h o lives a n d reigns i n t h e u n i t y of t h e

w h a t has been damaged a n d t a i n t e d , a n d gives i t back t o us anew. H i s

S p i r i t t h a t ended t h e C a n o n of t h e Mass Instead o f t h i s b e i n g i n t e r p r e t e d

g i v i n g is therefore dependent o n his oneness w i t h us b u t also his t r i u m p h

i n t e r m s of t h e t r a n s f i g u r e d G o d - h u m a n w h o lives, e x a l t e d , t o m a k e

against all o u r self-claims t h a t have m a d e us c a p t i v e .

West u n t i l about the sixth century

84

intercession for us, the phrase was i n c r e a s i n g l y t a k e n over b y those w h o used i t i n t e t m s o f h i s consubstantial u n i o n w i t h t h e Father T h e t r a n s i t i o n to u n d e r s t a n d C h r i s t ' s ' r e i g n underway"

7 4

The trinitarian

solely w i t h

respect r o his d i v i n i t y was

interpretation which

referred ' l i v i n g a n d

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 context 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 Y e t on the cross he is srill the king in exile. G o d has anothet and better throne for his Son than the one we devised!' ('Confessing Christ Coming' 236 n 15). Farrow, 'Confessing Christ Coming' 138 Farrow, Confessing Christ Coming . 139 Psalm 47 5 NRSV. 7 5

7 < i

7 7

7 8

7 9

Jungmann I be Place of Christ. 207-10 221-23

8 c

Jungmann The Place of Christ 222-23

W i t h 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 him to yield

his meaning on our terms' (Ascension and Ecclesia 267) 8 1

E p h 4 8 NRSV (cf Ps. 68 18)

E p h 4 8 NRSV (Ps. 68 18 reads: and receiving gifts from people). Here the context of 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 G o d 8 3

8 4

as a human }


i 8 7

We Are 'With'

FACH

Chtist the divergence of Jesus h i s t o r y f r o m its

o w n . t h a t is, w h e n i t refuses t o place Jesus i n any respect to itself, t h e recognizes w h a t

existence

S i

the

world

has

not:

the

p r o v i s i o n a l i t y of

its

H e t e , t h e n , is the nuance I w o u l d l i k e t o offer t o the discussion

o f a m e d i a t o r i a l w i t h . Instead o f saying t h a t ' C h r i s t is w i t h us', perhaps i t w o u l d be better t o say - t h i s side o f C h r i s t s d e p a t t u r e - t h a t we are with Yes, w e s h o u l d l o o k for m o r e t h a n

Christ

solely w i t h s o m e t h i n g i n t h e past

t h r o u g h ' if t h i s w o r d deals

B u t our a f f i i m a t i o n o f ' w i t h

needs t o

reflect divergence as w e l l Does C h r i s t pray w i t h us or d o w e pray w i t h h i m ? I t is n o t necessarily the same t h i n g

The latter seeks t o emphasize the u p w a r d s call of t h e

l i t u r g y : l i f t u p your hearts' - sursum corda' I n C a l v i n ' s w o t d s , the one w h o w o u l d t h r o w i n t o q u e s t i o n our hope of b e i n g i n a manner present w i t h Christ,

nearly drags C h r i s t d o w n '

S b

W h a t , i n d e e d , is prayer?

Graham

R e d d i n g stares: 'As the S p i r i t b r i n g [ s ] us i n t o personal u n i o n w i t h C h r i s t , so o u r lives are j o i n e d t o his and we share i n his eternal l i f e of prayer before the Father

Prayer, therefore, is n o t a f o r m of self-expression a n d w i s h f u l

t h i n k i n g . I t is n o t a chat w i t h G o d . I t is n o t h i n g other t h a n b e i n g u n i t e d t h r o u g h the a c t i v i t y of the S p i r i t w i t h the prayer of C h r i s t . '

8 7

I t is i n d e e d the S p i r i t w h o unites us t o the absent one a n d makes h i m i n a manner

ptesent

Recognition

is the g i f t of the S p i r i t . W e

recognize

C h r i s t as L o r d o n l y as w e are u n i t e d to h i m b y the S p i r i t I n b e i n g u n i t e d t o h i m we also recognize w h a t i t means to be t r u l y h u m a n and become this as we are t a u g h t C h r i s t s prayer

W e learn t h i s

d o c t r i n a l c l i m a t e i n w h i c h i t arose is considered us t o an account of the G o d whose e c o n o m y i t is

b y the G o d

who

I t was

Theology

W e have e x p l o r e d l i t u r g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t i n the early centuries, s h o w i n g t h a t i t resulted i n a g l o r i f y i n g t h a t s h i f t e d i n emphasis f r o m the economic The

shift brought w i t h

distance and the experience of separation

^

i t an atmosphere of

A s d e t r r m e n t a l as t h i s was f o r t h e

Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia. 3 cf 268 ' Quoted in Van Buren Christ in Our Place, 88. Graham Redding, T o Whom Do W e Direct Our Worship and Prayer

Matter?

is

therefore

distinct

f r o m his

creation

the

c o n v i c t i o n of b o t h Irenaeus and A t h a n a s i u s t h a t the Son is m e d i a t o r

of

r e d e m p t i o n and

is

necessary t o

creation

make

the

8 8

Against

shift,

8 9

those w h o

Colin

Gunton

do not

see

remained

that firm

it in

his

c o n v i c t i o n t h a t w e have t o m o v e f r o m t h e economic to the i m m a n e n t lest the t w o collapse a n d G o d is no longet w h o he is other t h a n i n r e l a t i o n t o his c t e a t i o n

9 0

C r e a t i o n m u s t r e m a i n t h e free act of the one w h o is w h o he

is apart f r o m t h a t w h i c h he cteates Nevertheless, the order - f r o m economic t o i m m a n e n t - is essential t h i s order is n o t m a i n t a i n e d , t h e o l o g y becomes mere speculation

9 1

If

That is

to say w e can o n l y speak truthfully of the i m m a n e n t T r i n i t y by means o f the e c o n o m i c T r i n i t y G u n t o n w r i t e s : O u r t o p i c 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 a n d Son are e t e r n a l l y , a n d w h a t t h e i r relationship

may

be

But

once the

conception

bteaks free f r o m

the

e c o n o m y , f r o m w h a t happens i n t i m e , the dangers o f a b s t r a c t i o n present themselves i n f u l l force

9 1

C e r t a i n l y sonship is n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e e c o n o m y ,

G u n t o n argues, b u t neither can i t be construed a p a r t f r o m i t That

the

mediatorial

pattern of worship moved

to

one

9 1

char

fully

recognized the u n i t y of the Godhead is, i n and o f itself, n o t a p r o b l e m .

Gunton

And in One lord , 42—45

Gunton cites LaCugna as an example ( A n d in One L o r d , 230 n 14) For his argument, see the preface to Ihe Promise of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T & I Clark. 2nd edn 1997), xi-xxxi H i 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

Shift f r o m Economy to

Hi

created a n d

8 9

Conclusion: F r o m Stoty to D o c t r i n e - The Required (but Tricky)

8 5

T h r o u g h t h e economy w e

come t o understand t h a t salvation can o n l y be accomplished

A n d we w i l l not k n o w

t h a t w e m i g h t share i t .

to the i m m a n e n t T r i n i t y

the

B u t d o c t r i n a l differences

aside, is t h i s n o t a l e g i t i m a t e and even necessary shift? I h e e c o n o m y leads

C h r i s t s prayer unless the S p i r i t guides us i n p r a y i n g i t , t h a t is, l i f t s us u p

V

179

church's w o r s h i p , we have seen t h a t the s h i f t makes sense w h e n

W h e n the c h u r c h acknowledges church

The Ascended Christ

Stimulus 9 3 (2001): 5-10

(7)

A n d Does It

12). Gunton argues that the doctrine of the immanent Irinity also serves as a foundation for the relative independence and so integrity of worldly realiry , and thus for human freedom It is because God is a communion of love prior to and in independence of the creation that he can enable the creation to be itself (The Promise xviii) 9 0

Although 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 himself to be in relationship with us is also the God who in his verybeing is relational See Wainwright Trinitarian Worship , 245-47 C f Gunton 'And in One Lord , 45-47 See also Torrance, Being of One Substance'. 50-56 9 1

9 1

9 i

Gunton A n d in One Lord' Gunton, A n d in One Lord

37 40


FACH

The Ascended Christ

181

I n d e e d t h e Son a n d , as later a f f i r m e d , t h e S p i r i t are w o r t h y of w o r s h i p . B u t

free act

the m o v e f r o m e c o n o m y t o t h e o l o g y m u s t n o t i n v o l v e a m o v e t o w a r d s

that w e come

w o r s h i p p i n g an abstract d i v i n i t y

k n o w i n g G o d a n d r e c o g n i z i n g w h o G o d is, is p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n his l i f e o f

m i g h t otherwise disagree

9 4

Phis is a concern shared b y those w h o

A s C a t h e r i n e M o w r y L a C u g n a states: Praise is

never rendered t o a n abstract u n i t y of three coequal d i v i n e persons

9 5

With

1 0 0

A n d i t is n o t a t e m p o r a r y event G o d s desire was n o t s i m p l y t o some

e p i s t e m i c awareness

Rather,

t h e content

of

love T h i s never ceases t o be t h e g i f t o f t h e Father m e d i a t e d b y h i s Son a n d S p i r i t . I h e s t o r y m u s t ever be t o l d t h i s w a y for t h i s is t h e reality o f t h e

reference t o t h e second person o f t h e I r i n i t y , G u n t o n states: ' T h e o n l y

story T h e ascension a f f i r m s t h i s story a n d ensures t h a t t h e Son s h u m a n i t y

b e g o t t e n Son is also t h e l a m b w h o takes away t h e s i n o f t h e w o r l d

is n o t lost b u t is t h e c o n t i n u i n g basis o f our c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d

T h e one

w h o is t h e object o f t h e w o r s h i p o f heaven i n R e v e l a t i o n is t h e l a m b

How,

t h e n , can w e -

along w i t h

Basil — h a p p i l y

use b o t h t h e

b e a r i n g t h e m a r k s of s l a u g h t e r u p o n h i m I t is n o t a Logos w i t h no r e l a t i o n

m e d i a t o r i a l a n d c o o r d i n a t e d doxologies? For w e w a n t t o m a i n t a i n t h a t

t o Jesus w h o m w e confess.

C h r i s t is i n d e e d one w i t h t h e Father a n d w i t h t h e S p i r i t

9 6

W e have seen t h a t l i t u r g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t

The way forward

after t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y was n o t s t t o n g i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h i s relation. A s

is surely t o a f f i r m c o n t i n u a l l y C h r i s t ' s h u m a n i t y , especially as w e move t o a

L a C u g n a summarizes: ' T h e one w h o u n i t e s us t o G o d n o w becomes

r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i s d i v i n i t y . F o r whenever a n d however w e m a k e such a

i n f i n i t e l y d i s t a n t f r o m us, t a k i n g his place

m o v e , w e are n o t r e c o g n i z i n g one w h o ceased t o be h u m a n , b u t one w h o is

at t h e r i g h t h a n d of t h e Father

n o t as exalted L o r d b u t as préexistent C h r i s t .

c o n t i n u a l l y t h e G o d - h u m a n , G o d as a human. H i s e n t h r o n e m e n t does n o t

9 7

A s stated at t h e outset of t h i s essay, t h e o l o g y arises f r o m w o r s h i p

9 8

That

m a r k t h e end o f his h u m a n i t y , c r e a t i n g a g a p b e t w e e n us a n d G o d R a t h e r ,

is j u s t another w a y o f a r g u i n g t h a t w e m o v e f r o m e c o n o m y t o t h e o l o g y

he c o n t i n u e s t o be the man

W e m u s t , as a r g u e d , be o n g u a r d against abstract t h e o l o g y B u t w e m u s t

the S p i r i t , w e are i n a m a n n e r present with him, g i v i n g g l o r y t o the Father

101

t h r o u g h w h o m w e come t o G o d . Indeed, b y

also be d i l i g e n t i n r e c o g n i z i n g abstract w o r s h i p . " For t h e l a t t e r betrays a vicious

cycle,

viz , when

theology, w h i c h

arises o u t o f w o r s h i p , is

abstracted f r o m t h e story i n w h i c h t h a t w o r s h i p coheres, w o r s h i p i t s e l f becomes abstracr

I n such a s i t u a t i o n ,

we not only fail

t o g i v e an

a p p r o p r i a t e account o f G o d , w e r i s k i d o l a t r y W o r s h i p p i n g some other G o d t h a n t h e G o d w h o has made h i m s e l f k n o w n is n o t g o s p e l - or grace-centred w o r s h i p . T h a t is t h e issue t h a t has occupied t h e heart of t h i s essay

The S o n , w h o r i g h t f u l l y comes t o be

recognized as consubstantial w i t h t h e Father a n d therefore w o r t h y of e q u a l w o r s h i p a n d g l o r i f i c a r i o n , m u s t n o t be so p r o j e c t e d i n t o t h e majesty o f t h e G o d h e a d t h a t his h u m a n i t y and all it means for him to be one of us is lost. I n other w o r d s , a l t h o u g h w e c o m e t o recognize t h a t our G o d is freely a n d n o t necessarily related t o us, i t is neverrheless a fact t h a t G o d has chosen t o create and d r a w his creation t o h i m s e l f T h e i n c a r n a t i o n is i n t r i n s i c t o t h i s

Gunton and LaCugna foi example whose disagreement lies in whether or not, given such dangets, the move should be made LaCugna, God for Us. r z o . Gunton. A n d in One Lord , 44 laCugna God for Us 126 See also Wainwright. Doxology 63 See note 9 Wainwright concurs: I h e ttinitarian name and doctrine is precisely not an abstract formula It belongs to a living context. I t must be kept firmly attached to the historical revelation through the telling and tetelling of the story recounted in Scripture' ( Trinitarian Worship 247) 9 4

9 5

9 6

9 7

9 S

9 9

I t can certainly be argued that this is so regardless of whether or not creation fell subject to sin That it did fell means that revelation entails reconciliation B u 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 P r é existence (Appendix B. 281—98) which deals with the question of the logos asarkos Whichever 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 1 0 0

I am grateful to Chtistina 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. I f we tob him of his particularity we cake away the possibility of the many — humanity in its particularity as male and female — being gatheted, in its particularity — to the one l o x

Christ for Us: A Response to I h e Person of C h r i s r

SCHWOBEL

183

Bonhoeffer s q u e s t i o n presupposes a s i t u a t i o n of co-presence between u s , t h e ones for w h o m C h r i s t is w h o he is, a n d t h e present Jesus C h r i s t I f Bonhoeffer's q u e s t i o n is u n d e r s t o o d as t h e g u i d e l i n e f o r C h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n q u i r y , as a i l o f t h e papers i n t h i s v o l u m e i m p l i c i t l y do, C h r i s t o l o g y is n o t

Chapter 1 0

the analysis o f an i n e r t , lifeless a n d d i s t a n t object t h a t remains the passive m a t e r i a l of e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o b i n g

R a t h e r , i t is t h e e n g a g e m e n t w i t h a

l i v i n g , active person w i t h a specific i d e n t i t y whose manner o f b e i n g is s u c h that

Christ for Us - Yesterday and Today: A Response to 'The Person of Christ' Christoph

determines

our

identity

a n d our b e i n g .

Ihe

urgency

of

determines o u r i d e n t i t y as C h r i s t i a n s , t h a t the b e i n g of C h r i s t shapes t h e b e i n g of G o d a n d our b e i n g as h u m a n beings created i n t h e i m a g e of G o d , a n d t h a t his presence is t h e space i n w h i c h o u t present is c o n s t i t u t e d urgency,

however,

Christology

is

echoes

built

the promise

I n undetstanding

on which Jesus

This

t h e enterprise

Chrisr

— this

of

is t h e

p r e s u p p o s i t i o n f r o m w h i c h C h r i s t o l o g y proceeds - w e learn t o u n d e r s t a n d our

Schwdbel

it

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n q u i r y lies i n the fact t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y of Jesus C h r i s t

identity,

w e can g a i n

access t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o u r being a n d ,

consequently, are enabled t o l i v e and act a c c o r d i n g t o w h o w e are b y v i r t u e o f C h r i s t O u r present is disclosed t o us as t h e present w h i c h is shaped b y the w a y Jesus C h r i s t is personally present t o us. I h e whence' of o u r I

D

' W h o i s Jesus C h r i s t f o r u s T o d a y ? '

present, where we come f r o m , a n d t h e w h i t h e r ' of our b e i n g , o u r u l t i m a t e

i e t r i c h Bonhoeffer's q u e s t i o n w h i c h has d o m i n a t e d m u c h of t h e Christological

discussions of t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y

has lost

n o t h i n g o f i t s relevance a n d urgency at t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e

twenty-first century

I t is n o r a q u e s t i o n about t h e o n g o i n g relevance of

C h r i s t s message, n o r a q u e s t i o n a b o u t ' w h a t Jesus C h r i s t m i g h t be f o r us, b u t a q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e identity of Jesus w h o is confessed b y C h t i s t i a n s as the C h r i s t i n such an exclusive sense t h a t the t i t l e - t e i m ' C h r i s t has become a proper name i n C h r i s t i a n w o r s h i p , p r o c l a m a t i o n a n d discourse.

d e s t i n a t i o n , is i n t h i s w a y shaped b y C h r i s t s present, yestetday, today a n d forever

I f Bonhoeffer s q u e s t i o n is t a k e n as t h e g u i d e l i n e of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

i n q u i r y , t h e classical doctrines of C h r i s t o l o g y , t h e doctrines o f t h e p e r s o n a n d w o r k of C h r i s t a n d t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e t w o states of C h r i s t — the state o f e x a l t a t i o n a n d of h u m i l i a t i o n - have t o be u n d e r s t o o d as s p e c i f y i n g r h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e a c t u a l i t y of w h o C h r i s t is f o t us today a n d so as d e f i n i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l discourse

Ihe

q u e s t i o n , as Bonhoeffer phrases i t , is an o n t o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n , a q u e s t i o n

II

F r o m M e t h o d to Matter: The 'Given' of Christology

a b o u t t h e being o f t h e one whose i d e n t i t y is evoked b y t h e name Jesus C h t i s t I t is n o t a q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e f u n c t i o n o f C h r i s t o r a q u e s t i o n about the o n g o i n g effects o f his w o r k b u t a q u e s t i o n t h a t raises t h e crucial issue of b e i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e b e i n g of C h r i s t is i m m e d i a t e l y i n t r o d u c e d as a r e l a t i o n a l f o r m o f b e i n g : C h r i s t is f o r us' so t h a t i n t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e b e i n g of Jesus C h t i s t w e are a u t o m a t i c a l l y affected i n our b e i n g b y his b e i n g Bonhoeffer p o i n t e d l y p u t s t h e q u e s t i o n i n t h e present tense a n d u n d e r l i n e s t h i s b y t h e t e m p o r a l i n d e x 'today

I n t h i s w a y i t is stressed t h a t t h e

q u e s t i o n about t h e i d e n t i t y of Jesus C h r i s t is n o t a h i s t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n i n the sense t h a t i t is d i t e c t e d at a person f r o m t h e past whose i d e n t i t y is doubtful

a n d has

t o be

established

182

by critical

historical

research

is t h e ' S e l f - G i v i n g ' o f C h r i s t M u c h of t h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l debate of m o d e r n i t y is taken u p b y debates about

the

method'

of C h r i s t o l o g y

What

is

the s t a r t i n g - p o i n t

C h r i s t o l o g y , t h e access t o a l l C h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n q u i r y ? I h i s question

of is

u s u a l l y phrased i n terms of alternatives: S h o u l d C h r i s t o l o g y proceed ' f r o m above

or ' f r o m b e l o w ? S h o u l d i t s focus be t h e Christus praesens o f t h e

experience of f a i t h or t h e h i s t o r i c a l Jesus? S h o u l d C h r i s t o l o g y be developed f r o m a soteriological perspective, claimed -

because -

as Paul T i l l i c h a n d others

C h r i s t o l o g y is a f u n c t i o n o f soteriology , or m u s t soteriology be

governed b y C h r i s t o l o g y so t h a t o u r experience o f w h a t C h r i s t has done f o r us is c o n t r o l l e d b y w h o C h r i s t is? These m e t h o d o l o g i c a l issues can easily b e

184


Chist for f / r A Response to T h e Person of C h r i s t

SCHWOBEL

185

seen as p a r t i a l refractions of t h e r e a l i t y of Jesus C h r i s t as t h e subject-matter

methodological guideline for Christological reconstruction

of C h r i s t o l o g y H o w e v e r , they p u t asunder w h a t t h e i n c a r n a t i o n has j o i n e d

Jesus C h r i s t as the subject-matter

T h e person o f

together. I f i t is t r u e t h a t t h e W o r d was made flesh, can w e s t i l l separate

subject of t h e process of u n d e r s t a n d i n g since t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t h a t i s ,

of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l reflection remains t h e

above a n d b e l o w ' as a l t e r n a t i v e s t a r t i n g - p o i n t s ? Is i t n o t t h e p o i n t t h a t

C h r i s t o l o g y , is a response t o the w a y C h r i s t gives h i m s e l f t o us

the f u l l reality of w h a t is above has been disclosed t o us ' b e l o w so t h a t i n

m e t h o d s of C h r i s t o l o g y are therefore prescribed b y the m a n n e r of C h r i s t ' s

Jesus C h r i s t w e have access t o G o d t h e Father t h r o u g h t h e S p i r i t - o n e a r t h

self-presentation

as i t is i n heaven? I f i t is t r u e t h a t C h r i s t is t h e same, yesterday, today a n d

Jesus a n d t h e present r e a l i t y of Jesus C h r i s t are i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t e r w o v e n a n d

forever, t h e one t o w h o m t h e Father speaks eternally a n d w h o eternally

f o r m a d y n a m i c u n i t y i n w h i c h t h e d i f f e r e n t aspects of t h e b e i n g o f C h r i s t

responds t o t h e Father i n t h e c o m m u n i o n o f t h e S p i r i t , t h e Christus praesens

are h e l d t o g e t h e r

a n d t h e Jesus of h i s t o r y are n o t a l t e r n a t i v e s t a r t i n g - p o i n t s b u t aspects of t h e comprehensive h a n d o f t h e Father

reality of t h e incarnate Son w h o n o w sits at t h e r i g h t A n d i f i t is t h e p o i n t t h a t t h e one w h o is exalted o n

for us

I n t h i s self-presentation

The

t h e h i s t o r i c a l story o f

T h e self-presentation of C h r i s t occurs t h r o u g h t h e means o f creaturely communication thtough

I h e witness of Jesus w o t d , w o r k a n d person is c o n t i n u e d

the w o r d of S c r i p t u r e

witnessing to Christ and offering t h e

h i g h has no o t h e r h i s t o r y t h a n t h a t of t h e m a n Jesus, any account of t h e

p r o m i s e of C h r i s t

I h i s p r o m i s e contains a reference back t o t h e story o f

presence o f C h r i s t m u s t refer t o t h e Jesus of h i s t o r y a n d any r e c o n s t r u c t i o n

Jesus l i f e a n d d e a t h , t h e t e b y h o l d i n g fast t o t h e i d e n t i t y of Jesus as i t is

of t h e h i s t o r y of Jesus has t o start f r o m his presence t o t h e Father a n d t h e

narrated i n t h e story o f his l i f e as t h e story of t h e constant i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h

S p i t i t a n d so f r o m o u r present as i t is shaped b y t h a t h i s t o r y . A n d i f t h e

G o d t h e Father i n t h e S p i r i t . B u t , as every other p r o m i s e , i t contains a

very b e i n g o f Jesus C h r i s t is b e i n g b y t h e Father a n d i n t h e S p i r i t , coequal

reference t o t h e f u t u r e , t o t h e w a y i n w h i c h C h r i s t w i l l h o l d fast t o h i s

w i t h t h e Father a n d t h e S p i r i t , a n d so b e i n g f o r us, i f t h e b e i n g of Jesus

promise and b r i n g about its f u l f i l m e n t

C h r i s t is disclosed as grace a n d t r u t h , is i t n o t t h e case t h a t s o t e r i o l o g y

c o n t a i n e d i n t h e belief t h a t w h a t Jesus has done a n d has suffered has once

cannot p r o v i d e another s t a r t i n g - p o i n t for C h r i s t o l o g y t h a n C h r i s t o l o g y

a n d for a l l established a n d disclosed t h e t r u e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e t r i u n e G o d

itself, because i n C h r i s t there is no graceless b e i n g a n d no grace s o m e h o w

t o his creation. I h e S p i r i t w h o authenticates t h e w o r d of S c r i p t u r e as i t is

d i s t i n c t f r o m h i s being? T h e d i s j u n c t i o n between b e i n g a n d m e a n i n g ,

c o m m u n i c a t e d i n C h r i s t i a n witness t o us a n d thereby establishes the l i n k

which

i n the

t o t h e story of Jesus w h i c h occutred a t a specific p o i n t i n t i m e a n d space is

t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y focused o n t h e e x i s t e n t i a l m e a n i n g of C h r i s t as opposed

t h e same S p i r i t w h o is t h e ' p e r f e c t i n g cause' of a l l G o d s agency i n w h o m

t o a supposedly

G o d s ways w i t h t h e w o r l d w i l l achieve their u l t i m a t e g o a l

was t h e reason

w h y some

objectivized

Christological

conceptions

account of his b e i n g

a n d w h i c h is t h e

I h i s p r o m i s e f o r t h e f u t u r e is

This g o a l is

b a c k g r o u n d for t h e thesis of t h e p r i m a c y of soteriology over C h r i s t o l o g y ,

achieved precisely b y t h e S p i r i t a u t h e n t i c a t i n g t h e w o r d of S c r i p t u r e t o us

seems t o c o n t t a d i c t a t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e b e i n g of C h r i s t a n d

a n d so e n a b l i n g our f a i t h w h i c h is a f o r m of b e i n g i n w h i c h w e are

the b e i n g of C h r i s t for us

conformed t o Christ and oriented towards the future f u l f i l m e n t i n t h e

I f C h r i s t is t h e Son o f t h e Father i n t h e

c o m m u n i o n of t h e S p i r i t , t h e m e a n i n g of his b e i n g is r o o t e d i n these

K i n g d o m of G o d C h r i s t s promise is f u l f i l l e d b y h i s presence i n t h e w o r d of

relationships, a n d i f every created b e i n g is destined for c o m m u n i o n w i t h

preaching

the t r i u n e G o d a n d thereby enabled t o find t h e m e a n i n g of i t s existence,

p r o m i s e does n o t p o i n t t o a n o u t s t a n d i n g f u l f i l m e n t b u t gives us already a

a n d i n the v i s i b l e w o r d s of t h e sactaments

Therefore

the

b e i n g can o n l y be d i v o r c e d f r o m m e a n i n g i n t h e act of c o n t r a d i c t i n g G o d s

taste of t h e f u t u r e c o n s u m m a t i o n o f G o d ' s c o m m u n i o n w i t h h i s reconciled

w i l l of c o m m u n i o n b y p o s i t i n g another

a n d perfected creation

m e a n i n g , another

destiny f o r

created b e i n g

O u r present is therefore t h e space t h a t w e i n h a b i t

between t h e c o m i n g of C h r i s t a n d C h r i s t s second c o m i n g t o b r i n g r h e of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

f u l f i l m 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 C h t i s t s c o m i n g

m e t h o d n o t as a l t e r n a t i v e routes for d o i n g C h r i s t o l o g y b u t as d i f f e r e n t b u t

i n Jesus a n d C h r i s t s second c o m i n g t o j u d g e t h e w o r l d i n o r d e r t o disclose

related aspects of t h e a c t u a l i t y of t h e person o f Jesus C h r i s t , these s t a r t i n g -

rhe u l t i m a t e t r u t h a n d offer t h e u l t i m a t e grace w h i c h is t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f

points h i g h l i g h t the way i n w h i c h the given

the K i n g d o m of G o d , o u r present is c o n s t i t u t e d b y the fact that C h t i s t

Once we understand the different

starting-points

o f C h r i s t o l o g y is t h e

d y n a m i c o f C h r i s t s s e l f - g i v i n g T h i s t u r n f r o m m e t h o d t o m a t t e r involves

h i m s e l f fills t h a t i n t e r i m b y b e c o m i n g

- as J o h n W e b s t e r demonstrates i n h i s essay - a d e s c r i p t i o n i n w h i c h w e

S c r i p t u r e i n p r o c l a m a t i o n a n d i n t h e v i s i b l e w o r d s of t h e sacraments. T h e

t r y t o trace t h e modes of C h r i s t s s e l f - g i v i n g as the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a n d

present

t o us i n t h e w o r d o f

186


'given* of C h r i s t o l o g y

is the self-presentation

Christ for Us: A Response to T h e Petson of C h r i s t

SCHWOBEl

of C h r i s t

i n order t o

c o n s t i t u t e our present.

187

d i v i n i t y a n d t h e h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t is always a n a b b r e v i a t i o n s u f f e r i n g f r o m p r e m a t u r e abstraction,

because i t obscures t h e fact t h a t d i v i n i t y is

m e d i a t e d o n l y i n t h e relationships t o the Father a n d t h e S p i r i t and t h a t humanity

I l l , Christ i n Trinitarian Context A c o m p l e t e account of t h e self-presentation of C h r i s t as t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e t

between

This n o t o n l y applies t o t h e c o m p l e x

life of Jesus i n w h i c h these

are enacted i n the s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l

events o f a b i o g r a p h y

beginning and ending w i t h God

of C h r i s t o l o g y already shows t h e open f r o n t i e r s between C h r i s t o l o g y a n d t t i n i t a r i a n reflection

refers t o the concrete h u m a n

relationships

T h e w h o l e range of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l issues treated i n t h e papers of t h i s

intetchange

v o l u m e t i m e a n d again refer t o t h e t r i n i t a r i a n f r a m e w o r k of C h r i s t o l o g y I f

C h r i s t o l o g y a n d t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e T r i n i t y i n t h e h i s t o r y of

C h t i s t s d i v i n i t y is u n d e r s t o o d i n terms o f his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e Father i n

d o c t r i n e where t h e basic tenets o f t r i n i t a r i a n d o g m a h a d t o be defined i n

the S p i r i t i t m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d concretely as Sonship t o t h e G o d of Israel

order t o enable theologians t o f o r m u l a t e t h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m w i t h

w h o m he calls Father a n d whose i d e n t i t y is accessible o n l y i n his self-

any

i n which

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as Israel s G o d w h i c h is c o n t i n u e d , v i n d i c a t e d a n d expanded

C u t t i n g t h e l i n k s t h a t b i n d t h e doctrines

by his i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e Son A n d i f C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y is t h e h u m a n i t y

precision;

it

also

applies

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l issues are cast

to

t h e conceptual

forms

of t h e I r i n i t y a n d of t h e person a n d w o t k o f C h r i s t together always seems

disclosed i n a concrete l i f e - s t o r y , t h e question of Jesus' b a p t i s m w h i c h is

d e t r i m e n t a l f o r b o t h o f t h e m T r e a t e d i n abstraction f r o m C h r i s t o l o g y , t h e

addressed i n M u r r a y Rae's essay is i n d e e d a very p e r t i n e n t one. I t shows

d o c t r i n e of t h e I r i n i t y tends t o become speculation

on the immanent

t h a t i n l i v i n g a concrete h u m a n l i f e , i n t a k i n g t h e place o f h u m a n i t y i n

relations w i t h i n t h e G o d h e a d w h i l e l o s i n g t o u c h w i t h t h e concrete h i s t o r y

estrangement f r o m G o d t h e incarnate Son, a l t h o u g h he is never a stranger

of G o d s t r i n i t a r i a n self-disclosure

t o t h e Father, is dependent o n the guidance of t h e S p i r i t ; i n d e e d receives

Similarly, Christological

reflection

tends t o g e t lost i n t h e intricacies of t h e relations of t h e t w o natures of

his m i s s i o n f r o m the Father as m e d i a t e d b y the S p i r i t and c o m p l e t e d i n t h e

C h r i s t i f t h e f r a m e w o r k of t h e relations between t h e Father, t h e Son a n d

Spirit

the S p i r i t are n o longer seen as t h a t w h i c h defines t h e h y p o s t a t i c i d e n t i t y

the S p i r i t u p o n h i m b e l o n g closely togethet

a n d c o m m u n a l essence of G o d . I t m u s t clearly be k e p t i n m i n d t h a t t h e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b y w h i c h C h r i s t s d i v i n i t y is c o n s t i t u t e d is m e d i a t e d i n t h e

p r i m a r y f o r m i n w h i c h t h e d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t has t o be u n d e r s t o o d is t h e

f o r m s t h a t are c o n s t i t u t i v e for a h u m a n l i f e I f w e press t h e m a t t e r f u r t h e r

communicative

t h e O n e he calls Father, a

we have t o say t h a t n o t o n l y the act o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e person o f

r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h is m e d i a t e d f r o m t h e Father t o the Son a n d f r o m t h e

C h r i s t , the initio persona/is, effected b y G o d t h e Fathet a n d m e d i a t e d b y t h e

relationship

he has w i t h

The d e c l a r a t i o n o f Jesus as t h e Son b y t h e Father a n d t h e descent o f a n d they t e s t i f y that t h e

Son t o t h e Father b y t h e H o l y S p i r i t . l i k e w i s e , t h e p r i m a r y f o r m i n w h i c h

S p i r i t , is a t r i n i t a r i a n act of G o d , i n v o l v i n g as the Creed

Jesus C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y m u s t

m a i n t a i n s , t h e action o f t h e S p i t i t i n otder t o establish

be u n d e r s t o o d

is n o t i n tetms

of t h e

resolutely

the relationship

possession of a h u m a n nature b u t as t h e concrete story of a h u m a n l i f e ,

between t h e incarnate Son a n d G o d t h e Father

initiated i n relationship to G o d and ending i n relationship to G o d and i n

the Son, t h e uniopersonalis, t h e o n g o i n g personal u n i o n i n w h i c h the d i v i n e

between enacted as a n o n g o i n g conversation w i t h G o d . O n l y w h e n these

a n d the h u m a n

telations ate characterized as such w h i c h express t h e c o - e q u a l i t y

t h r o u g h the relationships w i t h the Fathet and t h e Son W i t h o u t the Father

between

the persons i n r e l a t i o n , o n l y o n t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of t h e homoousios d o w e

leave

B u t once w e have a r r i v e d there i t is i m p o r t a n t n o t t o

t h e questions

and insights

of t r i n i t a r i a n t h e o l o g y

behind

A

C h r i s t o l o g y t h a t construes t h e a c t u a l i t y of t h e person o f C h t i s t o n l y i n terms of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e eternal Son a n d t h e incarnate C h r i s t or exclusively i n t e r m s of an e x p l i c a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e t w o natutes i n one person is b o u n d t o r u n i n t o d i f f i c u l t i e s . C h r i s t never comes alone

I h e c o m i n g of C h r i s t always occurs i n t h e S p i r i t a n d always relates

us i n t h e S p i r i t t h r o u g h t h e Son t o G o d t h e Fathet

T o t a l k about t h e

are b r o u g h t i n t o u n i o n is also m a i n t a i n e d i n a n d

a n d the S p i r i t Jesus C h r i s t is n o t a person

get t o t h e q u e s t i o n t o w h i c h t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e t w o natures a t t e m p t s t o p r o v i d e a n answer

nature

I h e u n i t y o f t h e person of

Even the m o s t cursory l o o k at t h e N e w I e s t a m e n t witnesses i n t h e i r variety

provide

ample

evidence

that

the

trinitarian framework

of

C h r i s t o l o g y i n modes of discourse r e l a t i n g Jesus t o t h e Father a n d t h e S p i r i t is m u c h

more i n evidence t h a n any unspecified

d i v i n i t y or h i s h u m a n i t y of

doing

Christology

t a l k about h i s

This has o n e i m p o r t a n t effect f o r t h e enterprise Developing

Christology

within

f r a m e w o r k makes i t easier t o keep t h e d e v e l o p m e n t reflection close t o t h e witnesses of Scripture

a trinitarian

of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

IV If

we l o o k

Testament

The

The Language of Christology: Modes of Response at t h e varieties

of Christological

and i n the Christian

Christological

language

i n t e r r e l a t e d levels

tradition

discourse

i n the N e w

w e can see t h a t

i n a v a r i e t y of f o r m s

A l l modes of expression

there

is

and on a number

of

have a responsive

character

They are t e n t a t i v e answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t is taised b y Jesus l i f e a n d message a n d b y h i s d e a t h a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n : W h o d o y o u say t h a t I am? Jesus l i f e is a p r o v o c a t i o n i n t h a t i t offers a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of G o d a n d of w h a t i t means t o be h u m a n w h i c h challenges received

authority

The

p r o v o c a t i o n , however, consists i n t h e fact t h a t i t is a n e w i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of w h a t people believe t h e y k n o w already

I t is n o t s i m p l y a n e w r e v e l a t i o n of

a d i f f e r e n t b u t n o v e l w a y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g e v e r y t h i n g t h a t is k n o w n a b o u t the same G o d people

already believe

i n a n d whose l a w they observe

Therefore, t h e accusation of heresy or even b l a s p h e m y is never far away B u t Jesus' message and t h e story also challenges t h e w a y people u n d e r s t a n d themselves before G o d The p r o v o c a t i o n lies i n t h e c o m b i n e d challenge t o the u n d e r s r a n d i n g of G o d a n d t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h a r i r means t o be human his

B o t h are so b o u n d u p w i t h the person o f Jesus t h a t r e s p o n d i n g t o

message means t a k i n g a stance w i t h

regard

p r o v o c a t i o n does away w i t h c o m f o r t a b l e escape toutes the eschatoiogical the

t o h i s person

The

That has t o d o w i t h

urgency o f Jesus message. I f the i m m i n e n t c o m i n g of

K i n g d o m is t h e o r g a n i z i n g centre of Jesus' message a n d i f h i s

p r o c l a m a t i o n is indeed p a r t of t h e process o f t h e c o m i n g o f the K i n g d o m w h i c h has already started, t h e n t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t a l l questions raised i n t h a t c o n n e c t i o n cannot be deferred b u t require a response A g a i n i t is clear t h a t since Jesus petson is always i n v o l v e d i n h i s message, t e s p o n d i n g t o h i s message means t a k i n g a stance w i t h regard t o h i s person. The t e s t i m o n y of Jesus l i f e a n d d e a t h therefore has t h e f o r m of a personal address t h a t cannot r e m a i n unanswered

The specific a u t h o r i t y c l a i m e d i n t h i s address is t h a t i t

claims t o be eschatologically

u l t i m a t e i n a sense i n w h i c h o n l y G o d s

addtess c o u l d c l a i m eschatoiogical u l t i m a c y

Therefore G o d is the c o n t e x t

i n w h i c h t h e t e x t of Jesus witness is t o be u n d e t s t o o d

A n d Jesus is t h e

context i n w h i c h G o d becomes t h e t e x t for h u m a n u n d e r s r a n d i n g

I f one

focuses o n rhis character of Jesus' l i f e s witness one can see h o w the specific characteristics are carried over

f r o m his proclamation

to proclamation

about h i m C o n t i n u i t y is p r o v i d e d b y t h e t w o f o l d c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n w h e r e G o d is the c o n t e x t for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e t e x t o f Jesus life a n d d e s t i n y a n d Jesus is t h e d e f i n i t i v e context i n w h i c h t o u n d e r s t a n d the t e x t of G o d s story a n d b e i n g C h r i s t o l o g y i n a l l f o r m s is such a p r o v o k e d response t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of Jesus l i f e a n d death.

Christ for Us: A Response to T h e Person o f C h r i s t

SCHWOBEL


i88

forms

of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

discourse

w h i c h we f i n d

189

i n the N e w

Testament a n d w h i c h , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the e x p o s i t i o n o f more t h a n a c e n t u t y of N e w Testament research, are comprehensively

introduced i n

R i c h a r d B u r r i d g e s essay a n d d i s p l a y a variety of forms o f a c c l a m a t i o n , predication and narrative o f different kinds

F o r a l o n g t i m e research

focused a l m o s t exclusively o n C h r i s t o l o g i c a l predications a n d the use of t i t l e - t e r m s ; n o w , a t t e n t i o n t o n a r r a t i v e w i t h special reference t o the f o r m s of

ancient

biogtaphies

petspective

plays

a significant

there need n o t be an alternative

tole

From

between

a

systematic

predications a n d

narratives since t h e y f u l f i l a d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n O n e r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e w a y to organize C h r i s t o l o g i c a l discourse is t o see i t as c o n s i s t i n g of three levels or layers w h e r e t h e h i g h e r ones do n o t s i m p l y supetsede t h e l o w e t ones b u t p r o v i d e c r i t e r i a for t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n The

first layer

guiding

is t h a t

narratives

and the foundational

Christological

I h e narratives have t h e f u n c t i o n o f i d e n t i t y - d e f i n i t i o n : T h e y

respond t o t h e q u e s t i o n t e l l i n g scenes f r o m Jesus identity

o f the basic C h r i s t o l o g i c a l p r e d i c a t i o n s , t h e

Christological metaphors,

W h o is Jesus?

They answer

t h e question b y

l i f e w h i c h have a disclosive f u n c t i o n f o r h i s

I n t e l l i n g the s t o r y the listener can grasp w h o Jesus is W h a t is

characteristic

about these stories is t h a t rhey p o r t r a y Jesus i d e n t i t y as an

open i d e n t i t y , one t h a t is n o t self-referentially closed b u t d e t e r m i n e d b y a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o another w h o is o f t e n addressed as Father'

The i d e n t i t y -

d e f i n i n g narratives of Jesus always c o n t a i n a G o d - c o m p o n e n t ' : they t e l l a s t o t y about Jesus, b u t i n t h i s story Jesus i n t e r p r e t s G o d , obeys the w i l l of God,

addresses G o d i n f i l i a l i n t i m a c y or abject d e r e l i c t i o n w h i c h displays a

s i m i l a r f a m i l i a r i t y , does t h i n g s o n l y G o d can d o , t h a t is, f o r g i v e sins, b u t does t h i s n o t i n c o m p e t i t i o n t o G o d b u t as a f u l f i l m e n t o f G o d ' s w i l l f o r h i s creation

W h o is Jesus? Jesus is t h e one w h o stands i n a u n i q u e r e l a t i o n s h i p

to G o d so t h a t t h t o u g h h i m G o d becomes actual i n the stoties that are t o l d of Jesus

T h e i d e n t i t y - d e f i n i n g stories f i x t h e referent of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

ptedications O f t h i s referent, Jesus, various predications are made: he is the M e s s i a h , the Son of M a n , t h e Son of G o d , t h e Son of D a v i d , the Saviour, the K y r i o s , and

so on

These predications

can have t h e f o r m

a c c l a m a t i o n or a t h i r d - p e r s o n p r e d i c a t i o n

of a second-person

I h e y answer t h e q u e s t i o n : W h a t

is Jesus? B u t just l i k e t h e i d e n t i t y - d e f i n i n g narratives t h e y c o n t a i n an i m p o t t a n t t e l a t i o n a l e l e m e n t i n s a y i n g w h a t Jesus is i n r e l a t i o n to G o d ' s people of Israel, i n r e l a t i o n t o those w h o are i n bondage a n d i n need of l i b e r a t i o n , those w h o a w a i t t h e c o m i n g of t h e Son o f m a n , a n d so o n . I n t h i s w a y C h r i s t o l o g i c a l predications are always o b l i q u e self-predications of those w h o u t t e r a C h r i s t o l o g i c a l p r e d i c a t i o n . A l l these predications have

eschatologicai uLtimacy

Christ for Us: A Response to The Petson o f Christ

SCHWOBEl

The Person of Christ After. Jesus there w i l l n o t come another w h o is

natura are

employed

Ihey

seek t o clarify t h e

ontological

import

191 of

also a Messiah, a n d there w i l l n o t be anothet saviout; t h e t e w i l l be no need

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l discourse o n the first t w o levels I n d o i n g so these concepts

for another sacrifice I f he is the eschatologicai sacrifice, t h e n he can also be

are e m p l o y e d t o d e t e r m i n e the o n t o l o g i c a l status of C h r i s t i n r e l a t i o n t o

the p r o t o l o g i c a l sacrifice, because w h a t is u l t i m a t e is also w h a t is f i r s t ,

G o d and i n r e l a t i o n t o h u m a n i t y . I h e r e b y t h e y are p l a c i n g C h r i s t i n a

before the sequence of t e m p o r a l events takes i t s course

comprehensive

The eschatologicai

framework

for

the

interpretation of reality

Now,

İn

u l t i m a c y carries w i t h i t t h e c l a i m of the sufficiency of w h a t Jesus is a n d

C h r i s t o l o g y i t has s e l d o m , i f evet, w o r k e d w e l l t o find a l o c a t i o n for t h e

does. I f he is the eschatologically u l t i m a t e Saviour, t h e n salvation i n h i m is

r e a l i t y of C h r i s t i n an e x i s t i n g o n t o l o g i c a l scheme R a t h e t , the t e a l i t y of

sufficient;

The

C h r i s t demands sttategies o f conceptual r e - f o r m a t i o n w h i c h , i n the case of

eschatologicai u l t i m a c y a n d soteriological sufficiency have a curious effect

C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y , has l e d to decisive m o d i f i c a t i o n s of t h e v i e w of r e a l i t y

on

w h i c h are nevertheless expressed b y u s i n g e x i s t i n g concepts b u t e m p l o y i n g

there

is

no

other

ground

t h e language t h a t is b e i n g used

of

salvation

than

Jesus

Jesus is t h e Kyrios clearly

sounds

m e t a p h o r i c a l , a w o r k i n g w i t h t h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n of t w o realms of m e a n i n g .

t h e m i n n o v e l ways

H o w e v e r , i f Jesus a n d no other

speculative

is the Kyrios,

then this

character is l i t e r a l i z e d b y its realistic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

metaphorical

T h e r e is no

other

Kyrios a n d a l l the o t h e t kyrioi are at best kyrioi m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ,

to

be

I h i s is not m e t e l y the p l a y g r o u n d for those w i t h a

interest

R a t h e r , i t is i n the

İn

technical

field

philosophico-theological

questions

o f these concepts t h a t the r e a l i t y of C h r i s t is

i n t e r p r e t e d as c o n s t i t u t i v e for w h a t is really real

I h e question o f the

measured against t h e one t h r o u g h whose s t o r y t h e m e a n i n g of Kyrios is

communicatio idiomatum is a t y p i c a l question for t h i s level

l i t e t a l l y fixed. These t w o basic f o t m s of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l discourse, i d e n t i t y -

technical character of these questions they are n o t merely subject to c r i t e r i a

d e f i n i n g nairarives

of semantic coherence a n d l o g i c a l consistency

complementary

and predications

and

so the

e m p l o y i n g t i t l e - t e t m s , are

Christological

predications

often

clearly

occur

in

second layer of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

predications

and

Rather, t h e y have t o

be

tested over against the r e a l i t y that is first expressed i n the predications a n d stories of the first level a n d t h e n t h e o r d e r i n g master m o d e l s and master

narrative i d e n t i t y d e f i n i t i o n s Ihe

I n spite o f the

discourse organizes the

i d e n t i t y - d e f i n i n g narratives

s u b s u m i n g t h e m under a 'master m o d e l

by

retaining

different

them

a n d a master s t o r y '

Ihe

and most

stories of the second level. I h i s is h o w t e c h n i c a l discussions r e m a i n i n t o u c h w i t h the reality t h e y are t r y i n g t o capture conceptually

p o p u l a r master models i n early d o c t r i n a l d e v e l o p m e n t are t h e Son of G o d '

presentation

a n d the W o r d of G o d whose r e l a t i o n s h i p is a c o m p l e x s t o r y

'nature,

I h e 'master

story is the story of the i n c a r n a t i o n w h i c h can be t o l d i n a v a r i e t y of ways T h e master m o d e l specifies the correct use of t h e p r i m a r y C h r i s t o l o g i c a l

Conceptual

r e - f b r m a t i o n is therefore the reflective echo o f the reality o f Christ s selfDouglas

Farrow s reflections

freedom' and

necessity

o n the r e l a t i o n s h i p

are a t y p i c a l exercise o f

between

conceptual

re-formation I h e homoousios İs a g o o d example of this W h e n i t was f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d İt

predications a n d makes i t possible t o r e t a i n t h e m i n t h i s way. I h e master

h a d a devastating

story provides

incarnate Son, is of one essence w i t h the Father and of one essence w i t h us,

the o v e r a r c h i n g

narrative w h i c h brackets a l l the

othet

d e m y t h o l o g i z i n g effect

By

stating t h a t Christ,

the

i d e n t i t y - d e f i n i n g narratives. I t is characteristic for t h i s second layer t h a t i t

İt excluded any account of C h r i s t as a superman, d i v i n i z e d h u m a n i t y , or as

can b o t h be used i n a C h r i s t o l o g i c a l sense, t h a t is, i n t a l k i n g about the Son

a demi-god, humanized

of G o d , a n d i n a t h e o l o g i c a l sense, as i n discourse about G o d the Son.

d e m a n d e d b y t h i s act o f conceptual r e - f o r m a t i o n i t d e p o p u l a t e d the w o r l d

same applies t o the master story

The

The story o f t h e i n c a r n a t i o n can b o t h be

of ancient m y t h o l o g i e s

divinity

And with

the

ontological

precision

D i v i n i t y does not come i n lesser degrees t h a n the

t o l d as a story a b o u t t h e Logos b e i n g made m a n a n d as a story a b o u t G o d

f u l l possession of the d i v i n e essence, and h u m a n i t y is n o t capable of a

whose Logos w h o was w i t h G o d a n d is G o d becomes incarnate

g r a d u a l o n t o l o g i c a l i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n i n the d i r e c t i o n of the D i v i n e

O n this

second level the c r u c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n between t r i n i t a r i a n a n d C h r i s t o l o g i c a l discourse is located replace the

I t is i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t t h i s second level does n o t

first-level

predications

a n d stories

Rather, by p r o v i d i n g a

However,

the

question

must

be

raised

whether

the

conceptual r e - f o r m a t i o n w e n t fat e n o u g h i n C h r i s t o l o g y

entetprise

of

I h e Chalcedo-

nian d e f i n i t i o n p r o v i d e d the f u n d a m e n t a l rules for discourse about t h e t w o

f r a m e w o r k for t h e i r use w h i c h has a c r i t e t i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n , i t helps t o

natures a r t e m p t i n g t o d e p i c t the r e a l i t y of the one person of the incarnate

retain them.

L o r d , b u t m a n y a t t e m p t s to give these tules m a t e r i a l c o n t e n t seemed to

I h e t h i r d level is the level of technical terms i n C h r i s t o l o g y where the homoousios is located and concepts such as ousia, hypostasis, physis, persona a n d

lead

again

along

the

road

of

heresy

Is

the

process

of

conceptual

r e - f o r m a t i o n s t i l l an u n f i n i s h e d task w h e n i t comes to C h r i s t o l o g y ?

V

Communkatio

The Attributes of a C o m m u n i c a t i n g

idiomatum:

r e - f o r m a t i o n has gone far-

e n o u g h is p a r t i c u l a r l y p e r t i n e n t i n one area o f C h r i s t o l o g i c a l reflection: t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e communkatio idiomatum For a l o n g t i m e t h i s d o c t r i n e was seen as a veritable t h e o l o g i c a l a n t i q u e , o n d i s p l a y f o t those w i t h an interest i n t h e q u a i n t w o r l d of L u t h e r a n - C a l v i n i s t p o l e m i c s i n the s i x t e e n t h a n d seventeenth centuries i n T h e O l d e C u r i o s i t y Shoppe of d o c t r i n a l h i s t o r y The t w o t r e a t m e n t s i n t h i s v o l u m e b y R o b e r t Jenson a n d Stephen H o l m e s n o t o n l y demonstrate

t h a t there are s t i l l flames t o be k i n d l e d f r o m o l d

d o c t r i n a l disputes b u t t h a t t h e p r o b l e m of t h e communkatio idiomatum is b o t h at t h e heart of t h e q u e s t i o n , w h i c h c o n s t r u c t i v e m a t e r i a l statements i n C h t i s t o l o g y f o l l o w f r o m the C h a l c e d o n i a n D e f i n i t i o n , a n d at the centre of t h e q u e s t i o n

of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p

between

Christology

and the

doctrine o f G o d Classical C h r i s t o l o g y starts f r o m t w o major premisses c o n v i c t i o n t h a t o n l y G o d can save

T h e l i f t between h u m a n i t y a n d G o d ,

the estrangement t h a t m a d e h u m a n s overcome b y G o d h i m s e l f

T h e first is t h e

the enemies of G o d , can o n l y be

I f h u m a n s h a d t h e p o w e r t o b r i d g e t h e abyss

between G o d a n d h i s f a l l e n h u m a n creatures t h e creatures themselves c o u l d c l a i m t o be G o d - l i k e or d i v i n e n a r t a t i v e of Genesis 3,

T h e p r o m i s e of t h e serpent f r o m t h e

the c o u n t e r - p r o m i s e

of t h e g o s p e l , w o u l d have

become t r u e I f salvation consists i n c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d o n l y G o d can graciously g r a n t t h a t c o m m u n i o n

Salvation is therefore a g r a t u i t o u s g i f t

T h e sole a u t h o r s h i p of G o d i n a l l m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o s a l v a t i o n a n d t h e sovereignty of G o d s grace b e l o n g together of sole d i v i n e a u t h o r s h i p i n salvation the

lift

between

W e can c a l l t h i s t h e p r i n c i p l e

T h e second is t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t i f

G o d a n d h u m a n i t y concerns h u m a n b e i n g s i n t h e i r

e n t i t e t y , t h e w h o l e r e l a t i o n a l s t r u c t u t e of w h a t makes h u m a n s

human,

t h e n every d i m e n s i o n of h u m a n i t y m u s t be healed b y b e i n g r e u n i t e d t o God

I f the a l i e n a t i o n f r o m G o d leaves n o p a r t or aspect of b e i n g h u m a n

unaffected,

then

communion with

the whole

of f a l l e n

humanity

must

be t a k e n

into

G o d . T h i s second m a x i m was f a m o u s l y phrased b y

G r e g o r y N a z i a n z e n i n t h e slogan,

The unassumed

can call this t h e p r i n c i p l e of c o m p l e t e

assumption.

is t h e u n h e a l e d '

We

I f the contradiction

against G o d pervades a l l aspects o f b e i n g h u m a n , t h e n salvation f r o m t h e state of c o n t r a d i c t i o n m u s t embrace every aspect of w h a t i t means t o be human

I h e Saviour m u s t be vere Deus,

t r u l y G o d a n d no other t h a n G o d O n t h e other h a n d , salvation comprehend

must

t h e w h o l e r e a l i t y of w h a t i t means t o be h u m a n . A n y t h i n g

o t h e r t h a n c o m p l e t e a s s u m p t i o n w o u l d leave a r e m a i n d e r t h a t is n o t saved I h e r e f o r e t h e Saviour m u s t be vere homo, t r u l y h u m a n a n d n o t h i n g other than h u m a n The t w o p r i n c i p l e s , however, are m e r e l y abstractions f r o m w h a t t h e gospel narratives t e l l us W h e n t h e y relate t h e r e a l i t y of salvation i n Jesus t h e y t e l l t h e story of o n e w h o speaks G o d s w o r d i n g r a n t i n g

forgiveness,

w h o does G o d s w o r k i n h e a l i n g t h e w o u n d s of c r e a t i o n a n d w h o also shares e v e r y t h i n g t h a t makes h u m a n s h u m a n — apart f r o m s i n -

thereby

d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t b e i n g i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h G o d does n o t b e l o n g t o human

nature

stantiated

so t h a t

into

humans

something

that

can be saved w i t h o u t

being

is n o t h u m a n

is a consistent

emphasis o n t h e u n b r o k e n d i v i n e agency i n Jesus

Ihere

transub-

story a n d a respective

stress o n t h e u n b r o k e n c o n t i n u i t y o f a l i f e l i v e d i n the c o n d i t i o n s of h u m a n existence A r e these t w o emphases, represented i n the gospels i n u n b r o k e n relation, t r u l y compatible

or w i l l t h e y always t e n d t o produce

contra-

d i c t o r y reconstructions o f t h e p e t s o n of C h r i s t so t h a t t h e emphasis o n h i s d i v i n i t y calls t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of h i s h u m a n i t y i n t o q u e s t i o n or t h a t t h e stress o n h i s 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 c t r i n e

of t h e communkatio idiomatum addresses this q u e s t i o n w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t u a l i t y t h a t h a d developed b y t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y a n d t h a t has r e m a i n e d n o r m a t i v e t h r o u g h o u t t h e l o n g h i s t o r y of C h r i s t i a n t h o u g h t . I t i s , however, i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t s t a t i n g t h e p r o b l e m o f the communkatio

idiomatum

i n terms

of

the

conceptuality

C h r i s t o l o g y already presents us w i t h a p r o b l e m

of

classical'

I h e w a y i n w h i c h the

communkatio idiomatum is c o n v e n t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d sees i t as the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of a t t r i b u t e s of one of t h e t w o 'natures' of C h r i s t , t h e d i v i n e and t h e h u m a n , i n t h e u n i t y of t h e one person

of C h r i s t

Ihis,

however,

presupposes t h a t we k n o w w h a t t h e d i v i n e nature a n d w h a t the h u m a n nature are so t h a t w e can specify

w h i c h a t t r i b u t e s can l e g i t i m a t e l y be

c o m m u n i c a t e d f r o m o n e t o the other unproblematical

This p r e s u p p o s i t i o n is b y no means

Can w e k n o w w h a t the d i v i n e nature is remoto Christo,

apart f r o m C h r i s t ? Is n o t C h r i s t t h e d e f i n i t i v e disclosure of G o d so t h a t speaking o f w h a t makes G o d G o d , t h a t is, G o d ' s nature , cannot r e l y on pre-established

n o t i o n s of d i v i n i t y b u t m u s t a t t e m p t t o reconstruct the

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f G o d s nature a n d i t s a t t r i b u t e s f r o m G o d s self-disclosute

I f b o t h p r i n c i p l e s are a p p l i e d t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of C h r i s t , t w o p o i n t s m u s t be made s i m u l t a n e o u s l y

193

t h a n G o d o t h e r w i s e w e w o u l d n o t be saved A n y n o t i o n o f a s e m i - d i v i n e m e d i a t o r is i n t h i s way effectively excluded

G o d a n d o f Responsive H u m a n i t y I h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e task o f conceptual

Christ for Us' A Response to I h e Person of C h r i s t

SCHWOBEL


192

O n t h e one h a n d , the Saviour cannot be less

i n Christ? A n d can w e k n o w w h a t i t means t o be h u m a n remoto Christo, apatt f r o m Christ? Is n o t C h r i s t t h e d e f i n i t i v e disclosure of the h u m a n


194

SCHWOBEL

Christ for Us: A Response to I h e Petson o f C h r i s t

195

destiny because i t is i n t h e i m a g e of C h r i s t t h a t w e recognize w h a t i t means

sense d e n y i n g his f u l l d i v i n i t y

t o be created i n t h e i m a g e of G o d so t h a t w e cannot rely o n pre-established

classical contrast between t h e A l e x a n d r i a n a n d t h e A n t i o c h e n e schools of

n o t i o n s o f h u m a n i t y b u t m u s t t t y t o reconstruct t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of

Christology

h u m a n n a t u t e a n d i t s a t t r i b u t e s f r o m t h e disclosure of t r u e h u m a n i t y i n

natures i n t h e one person of C h r i s t t o the extent o f t a l k i n g about o n e nature

Christ?

I h e emphases of b o t h essays repeat t h e

W h e r e A l e x a n d r i a i n s i s t e d o n t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of the t w o

d u r i n g t h e i n c a r n a t i o n i n t h e sense of one u n d i v i d e d concrete

W h e n w e l o o k a l i t t l e m o r e closely at t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t w e already

r e a l i t y of C h r i s t s l i f e , A n t i o c h stressed t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e t w o natures. I n

k n o w w h a t a d i v i n e nature a n d a h u m a n nature are i n reflection o n h o w a n d

the t w o essays t h e o l d controversy flares u p a g a i n : Can t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of

t o w h a t extent t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s can be c o m m u n i c a t e d , w e discover t h a t i t

t h e person of C h r i s t be stated w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y o f h i s

contains even m o t e tacit assumptions. T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f t h e m is t h e

humanity and divinity?

a s s u m p t i o n t h a t d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y m u s t be construed i n t e r m s of contrast

D i v i n e n a t u r e m u s t surely have t h e character of b e i n g impassible

B o t h essays w o r k w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of a t r i n i t a r i a n t h e o l o g y f o r C h r i s t o l o g y For Jenson, d o i n g justice t o t h e G o s p e l stoty requires t h a t w e

by

u n h e s i t a t i n g l y see t h e s t o r y o f Jesus as t h e life of t h e Son so t h a t we have t o

p a s s i b i l i t y H u m a n nature whenever i t is e x e m p l i f i e d is surely defined b y

see t h e statement unus ex trinitate passus est I h e communicatio idiomatum is

b e i n g resrricted t o one l o c a t i o n i n space whereas d i v i n e nature is n o t

therefore n o t a strategy for r e s o l v i n g a p r o b l e m raised b y t h e Gospel s t o r y

restricted t o any one l o c a t i o n i n t h e created cosmos b u t stands i n equal

a n d i t s insistence that t h i s story has o n l y one referent w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o

whereas h u m a n n a t u r e is, as w e k n o w o n l y t o o w e l l , characterized

r e l a t i o n t o a l l o f t h e m , w h i c h w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e omnipresence. ingly,

h u m a n nature

is clearly

characterized

Correspond-

b y f i n i t u d e , a restricted

tevise our n o t i o n s of d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y I t is the fact t h a t requires t o govern

all our Christological

and trinitarian

reconstructions

Jenson

possession of t h e extension o f t i m e , whereas d i v i n e nature m u s t be capable

summarizes h i s p o i n t i n t h i s way: 'So the fact o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o is t h a t

of t r a n s c e n d i n g rhe t e m p o r a l restrictions of created existence Once these

the m u t u a l p l o t of the d i v i n e l i f e , t h e ensemble o f the

t a c i t presuppositions are spelt o u t i t becomes clear t h a t i f t h e q u e s t i o n of

are called, is d e t e t m i n e d b y w h a t happened w i t h Jesus of N a z a r e t h b e t w e e n

the communicatio idiomatum is d e f i n e d i n t e r m s of preconceived n o t i o n s of

his c o n c e p t i o n b y t h e V i r g i n and his Ascension t o t h e Father A n d t h e p a y -

d i v i n i t y a n d pre-established v i e w s of w h a t i t means t o be h u m a n i t is i n

off is: this l i f e is t h e l i f e t h a t creates a l l that is a n d that w i l l f u l f i l all t h a t is

danger of f a i l i n g t o d o justice t o t h e p o i n t of t h e Gospel story, n a m e l y , t h a t

I f we w a n t t o k n o w h o w r e a l i t y is c o n s t i t u t e d , w e m u s t read t h e Gospels

i t is t h e story of one w h o does t h e w o r k of G o d a n d does so i n l i v i n g a

For H o l m e s , f o l l o w i n g O w e n ' s v i e w t h a t t h e o n l y singular i m m e d i a t e act

h u m a n l i f e O n c e w e a p p l y concepts of d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y t h a t ate

of t h e person of t h e Son o n t h e h u m a n nature was the a s s u m p t i o n of i t i n t o

d e r i v e d renioto Christo t o t h e r e a l i t y of C h r i s t w e are i n danger of m i s s i n g

subsistence w i t h h i m s e l f w h i c h has t h e personal u n i o n o f C h r i s t as ' t h e

t h a t very reality I n d o i n g so w e q u e s t i o n t h e t w o p r i n c i p l e s t h a t c o n t r o l

o n l y necessary consequent of this a s s u m p t i o n , m a i n t a i n i n g the r a d i c a l

the

d i s t i n c t i o n of t h e t w o natures opens u p the way of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the s t o r y

reflections

of classical

Christology,

the p r i n c i p l e of sole d i v i n e

processions' as t h e y

a u t h o r s h i p i n a l l matters p e r t a i n i n g t o salvation a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e of

of Jesus as 'a w o r k of t h e H o l y S p i r i t i n t h e l i f e of a h u m a n being

c o m p l e t e a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s of h u m a n existence

p o i n t s are C h r i s t o l o g i c a l and t r i n i t a r i a n : For Jenson, t h e s t o r y of Jesus is

B o t h approaches t o t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e communuatio idiomatum i n t h i s volume t r y to avoid this p i t f a l l

They take t h e i r s t a r t i n g - p o i n t f r o m

opposite sides of t h e confessional d i v i d e i n discussing the q u e s t i o n of t h e communuatio idiomatum. position

i n t h e debates

Jenson

resolutely

of t h e s i x t e e n t h

holds

fast

to the Lutheran

a n d seventeenth

centuries,

Both

the s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of G o d t h e Son w h o has n o other h i s t o r y than t h a t of Jesus so that t h e narrative of Jesus-in-Israel is G o d s s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t h e p a r t i c u l a r G o d he is

For H o l m e s , h o l d i n g fast t o a r a d i c a l d i s r i n c t i o n

of t h e t w o natures a n d r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i m m e d i a t e w o t k of t h e Son o n Jesus t o t h e a s s u m p t i o n of a h u m a n nature i n t o subsistence w i t h t h e Son a n d t o

m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t i n a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e communicatio idiomatum t h e

its i m m e d i a t e consequent, t h e personal u n i o n , opens u p a w a y of r e s t o r i n g

u n i t y of t h e person of C h t i s t , t h e sole referent of t h e Gospel story, m u s t

the significance of t h e H o l y S p i r i t t o t h e d o c t r i n e of the person of C h r i s t

g o v e r n w h a t can be said a b o u t G o d a n d about h u m a n i t y H o l m e s , o n t h e

I h i s , i n t u r n , p o i n t s t o t h e c o n t i n u i t y between C h r i s t s h u m a n i t y and ours

other h a n d , a t t e m p t s t o show t h a t i t is t h e specifically n e w c o n t r i b u t i o n of

since b e i n g i n c o m m u n i o n w i t h G o d the Father depends f o r Jesus as m u c h

R e f o r m e d C h r i s t o l o g y as presented i n t h e t h e o l o g y of John O w e n w h i c h

as for us o n t h e w o r k of the S p i r i t

enables us t o h o l d fast t o t h e a u t h e n t i c h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t w i t h o u t i n any

Both

p o i n t s are t r i n i r a r i a n a n d

196


C h r i s t o i o g i c a l a n d b o t h presuppose

Christ for Us: A Response to T h e Person o f C h r i s t

SCHWOBEL

a v e r s i o n of t h e enhypostasia of t h e

h u m a n i t y of C h r i s t i n t h e person of t h e Son

Christology

comes

from

replacing

197

t h e s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of G o d f o r

h u m a n i t y a n d t h e d e f i n i t i o n of h u m a n i t y d e s t i n e d for c o m m u n i o n w i t h

L e t us t t y t o rephrase these emphases a l i t t l e I n t h e story of t h e Gospels

G o d i n t h e s t o r y of the Gospels w i t h t h e strategy o f negative t h e o l o g y of

the w a y i n w h i c h Jesus relates t o t h e G o d he calls Bather are t r u l y h u m a n

speaking

of

relations and they are t r u l y d i v i n e relations because i t is i n these a n d n o

existence

T h e o l d debate whether t h e f i n i t e is capable of c o m p r e h e n d i n g

other relations i n w h i c h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e Son a n d t h e Father is

t h e d i v i n e or w h e t h e r i t is n o t m i r r o r s t h e l o g i c of speaking of the i n f i n i t e

exetcised

G o d b y negations

This leads t o t h e d i a l e c t i c a l statements: ( 1 ) T h e ways i n w h i c h

G o d by

denying

everything

that

characterizes

created

W h a t t h e story of t h e Gospels tells us neither c o n f i r m s

G o d t h e Son relates t o G o d t h e Father are t r u l y h u m a n r e l a t i o n s , a n d ( 2 )

the slogan finitum capax znfiniti nor the slogan finitum non capax infiniti

The

Rather, i t t e l l s t h a t a n d h o w infinitum est capax finiti

ways i n w h i c h

Jesus relates t o G o d t h e Father are t r u l y d i v i n e

relations. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e Father a n d t h e Son, h o w e v e r , are always m e d i a t e d b y t h e S p i r i t

A n d t h i s applies t o b o t h sides of t h e

B u t w h a t a b o u t t h e c o m p l e m e n t a r y d o c t r i n e s of anhypostasia a n d of enhypostasia t o w h i c h b o t h essays b y Jenson a n d H o l m e s refer? Here a g a i n

r e l a t i o n s h i p : t h e Father relates t o t h e Son i n t h e S p i r i t a n d t h e Son relates

the

t o t h e Father i n t h e S p i r i t B y r e p h r a s i n g t h e C h r i s t o i o g i c a l statements i n

statement

this r e l a t i o n a l w a y w e can see t h a t w h a t t h e story of t h e Gospel requires is

t h a t of G o d t h e Son a n d , convetsely, t h a t t h e h u m a n n a t u r e of C h r i s t has

to

h y p o s t a t i c i d e n t i t y o n l y i n t h e hypostasis of t h e Son b y u s i n g the l a n g u a g e

understand

the divinity

of Jesus i n t e r m s

of h i s u n b r o k e n

r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d t h e Father w h i c h is m e d i a t e d i n t h e S p i r i t

filial Jesus'

need

for conceptual

r e - f o r m a r i o n arises

Jenson

reformulates

the

t h a t t h e h u m a n nature o f C h r i s t has n o other hypostasis t h a n

of t h e theatre:

the part w h i c h t h e Son plays i n the t r i u n e d r a m a is t h e

d i v i n i t y is h i s Sonship a n d n o t a n y t h i n g i n a d d i t i o n t o or apart f r o m h i s

l i f e a n d the fate of t h e m a n Jesus

Sonship.

be i t i n t h e w a y t h e Father

none other t h a n the role he plays as t h e Son o f G o d i n t h e d r a m a o f t h e

relates t o Jesus as he is conceived b y t h e H o l y S p i r i t a n d is b o r n of M a r y , as

t r i u n e life W e can also express t h a t i n t h e language of n a r r a t i v e I h e p o i n t

he suffers and dies a n d is raised o n t h e t h i r d day a n d ascended t o heaven; be

of t h e story of Jesus is t h e p o i n t of h i s story i n t h e t r i n i t a r i a n life

i t i n t h e w a y Jesus relates t o G o d t h e Father b y p r a y i n g t o h i m , b y o f f e r i n g

s t o t y has n o o t h e t p o i n t , for e x a m p l e an i n d e p e n d e n t p o i n t i n h u m a n

his forgiveness, b y s u b m i t t i n g t o h i s w i l l i n free obedience - there is t h e

h i s t o t y , apart f r o m

d i v i n i t y of C h r i s t

statement m u s t at once be reversed i n r o the enhyposratic f o r m : the p o i n t of

W h e r e t h i s Sonship

is exercised,

I h e w a y t h i s Sonship is exercised i n b e i n g b o r n l i k e any

other h u m a n b e i n g , i n e x p e r i e n c i n g a l l t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h u m a n i t y , i n s u f f e r i n g a n d i n d e a t h a n d i n b e i n g dependent o n t h e a c t i o n of t h e Father

Jesus role i n h i s t o r y i s , c o n s e q u e n t l y ,

t h i s p o i n t i n t h e d i v i n e story

Ihis

Jesus

anhypostatic

the h u m a n story of Jesus is i t s p o i n t i n t h e d i v i n e story F o l l o w i n g these reflections we can take u p t h e question o f the idiomata

i n t h e power of t h e S p i r i t t o be raised t o eternal l i f e - there is t h e h u m a n i t y

W h a t does t h e communicatio idiomatum say a b o u t the a t t r i b u t e s of G o d ?

of C h r i s t B o t h p r i n c i p l e s of classical C h r i s t o l o g y , t h e sole a u t h o r s h i p i n a l l

S i m p l y t h a t they ate c o m m u n i c a t e d a n d hence have t o be u n d e r s r o o d i n a

m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o s a l v a t i o n , a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e of c o m p l e t e a s s u m p t i o n

precise C h r i s t o i o g i c a l sense, propter Christum, as c o m m u n i c a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s

can be satisfied b y such an account

L u t h e r s famous discovery i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the m e a n i n g of j u s t i c e

Ihe

difficulty

for C h r i s t o l o g y arises

where

the divine

nature

is

of G o d , as he describes i t i n the preface t o t h e first v o l u m e of the Opera.

u n d e r s t o o d as s o m e t h i n g other a n d i n d e p e n d e n t o f the relationships of t h e

Latina,

t r i u n e d i v i n e l i f e B u t w h a t s h o u l d d i v i n i t y be apart f r o m t h e c o m m u n i o n

actively

of t h e Father, the Son a n d t h e S p i r i t ? W h a t d i v i n i t y is, is c o n s t i t u t e d i n

u n d e r s t o o d as t h e passive justice t h r o u g h w h i c h G o d makes us j u s t b y

these relationships a n d i n no other w a y This also applies t o h u m a n i t y I h e

f a i t h L u t h e r u n d e r s t o o d t h i s as t h e k e y t o language about G o d s a t t t i b u t e s

was t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t be u n d e r s t o o d as the j u s t i c e we a c q u i r e and which

G o d then

acknowledges,

b u t that

i t should

be

d i f f i c u l t y o n l y arises where w e i n t r o d u c e a n o n - t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g

in the biblical writings

of w h a t i t means t o be h u m a n B u t w h a t are h u m a n s apart f r o m t h e i r G o d -

p o w e r of G o d means o u r e m p o w e r m e n t b y G o d , G o d s w i s d o m the w a y i n

g i v e n d e s t i n y t o be created i n t h e i m a g e of G o d a n d of f u l f i l l i n g t h i s

w h i c h G o d makes us wise a n d so o n I h e l o g i c of t h e d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e s is a

d e s t i n y as G o d s d a u g h t e r s a n d sons b y t h e p o w e r of t h e H o l y S p i r i t i n

l o g i c of c o m m u n i c a t i o n I f one asks w h a t is t h e t h e o l o g i c a l basis for s u c h a

c o m m u n i o n w i t h t h e t r i u n e G o d ? For h u m a n s t o a t t e m p t t h e task o f self-

v i e w , one is i n e v i t a b l y d i r e c t e d t o C h r i s t o l o g y . I h e logic o f c o m m u n i c a -

d e f i n i t i o n apart f r o m t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i r creator is t h e d e f i n i t i o n of

tion

sin O n e c o u l d w e l l speculate w h e t h e r t h e i n t r a c t a b i l i t y of t h e p r o b l e m s o f

i d e n t i f i e s as t h e core o f Charles W i l l i a m s s C h r i s t o l o g y i n h i s essay T h e

I h e w o r k of G o d is w h a t G o d w o r k s i n us; the

presupposes a l o g i c

of exchange w h i c h

Brian H o m e

so e l e g a n t l y


SCHWOBEL

unto hypostatics- o f d i v i n i t y a n d h u m a n i t y i n t h e person of C h r i s t is t h e

priestly

presupposition

significance

for t h e mirabile

commercium, t h e w o n d e r o u s

exchange,

role

Christ for Us A Response to T h e Person of Christ

199

:

Against

this

backdrop

she argues

for

regaining

of C h r i s t s c o n t i n u i n g m e d i a t o r i a l role a n d w i r h

the

i t the

between C h r i s t a n d t h e sinner i n j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n w h i c h C h r i s t takes our

significance o f his h u m a n i t y i n t h e u n i t y o f his person

place as sinners a n d w e are i n v i t e d t o take his place as t h e one w h o is j u s t ,

o n l y be achieved i f t h e f u l l y r e l a t i o n a l character o f w o r s h i p is retained o r , i f

so t h a t propter Christum, because of t h e Son, w e as j u s t i f i e d sinners are called

it

t o be G o d ' s daughters a n d sons. T h e communicatio id'tomatum i n C h r i s t o l o g y

abstracted f r o m t h e G o s p e l stoty

i n t h i s w a y becomes t h e k e y t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f a

of t h e i m m a n e n t T r i n i t y is offered at t h e expense of the w a y t h e I r i n i t y is

c o m m u n i c a t i n g G o d a n d of t h e a t t r i b u t e s of a responsive h u m a n i t y

disclosed i n t h e d i v i n e economy. T h i s i n e v i t a b l y means t h a t t h e l i t u r g i c a l

is necessary, recovered

i n a s i t u a t i o n where

T h i s , however, can

w o r s h i p has become

I h i s is apparent where t h e g l o r i f i c a t i o n

practice of t h e C h u r c h is separated f r o m the b i b l i c a l witness t o G o d s selfVI

Patterns of W o r s h i p a n d Patterns of Being i n C o m m u n i c a t i o n

Ihe

concerns of t e c h n i c a l

C h r i s t o l o g y as they come t o t h e fore i n a

identification and self-interpretation good example

of t h i s

I h e place of C h r i s t i n w o r s h i p is a

I f the d i v i n i t y of C h t i s t is exalted

above his

h u m a n i t y , t h e m e d i a t o r i a l role of C h r i s t tends t o be f o r g o t t e n

Christ's

discussion o n the communicatio idiomatum a n d of C h r i s t o l o g i c a l concepts

d i v i n i t y is consequently u n d e r s t o o d o n l y i n t e r m s of t h e possession o f t h e

such as nature

coequal d i v i n e nature a n d n o t i n t e r m s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f G o d t h e Son

a n d hypostasis

are never i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m t h e w a y i n

w h i c h w o r s h i p is celebrated i n t h e name of t h e t r i u n e G o d . I h i s occurs i n

t o t h e Fathet w h o i n b i s m e d i a t o r i a l role relates t o us i n such a way t h a t w e

the expectation t h a t i n w o r s h i p t h e t r i n i t a t i a n G o d addresses us f r o m t h e

can dare t o address t h e i n f i n i t e G o d as Father, C h r i s t s Father a n d o u r

Father, t h r o u g h t h e Son i n t h e S p i r i t so t h a t w e can d i r e c t our praise, our

Father, i n t h e power of t h e S p i r i t .

t h a n k s g i v i n g , our p e t i t i o n s a n d our laments t o t h e Father t h r o u g h t h e Son

Fach s reflections

a n d i n t h e S p i r i t This i n t e t r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i t u r g i c a l ptactice a n d t h e

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l l y central

practice of t h e o l o g i c a l reflection is p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h regard t o

G o d h e a d has disclosed h i m s e l f t o us i n such a w a y i n t h e d i v i n e economy

the person of C h r i s t

t h a t t h i s constitutes

I n t h e eatly C h u r c h some of t h e m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t

i l l u s t r a t e a p o i n t of t r i n i t a r i a n

theology

that

is

G o d as G o d is i n t h e i m m a n e n t relations o f t h e

a t r u e self-disclosure

of t h e t r i u n e G o d C h r i s t as

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n s came f t o m t h e w a y C h r i s t was addressed i n

C h r i s t is i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e Father a n d S p i r i t m u s t thetefore i n c l u d e t h e w a y

w o r s h i p a n d raised questions

w h i c h Christological theory attempted t o

i n w h i c h C h r i s t is for us A n y C h r i s t o l o g i c a l o n t o l o g y o f f e r i n g an a c c o u n t

Conversely, one o f the m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t tasks of t h e agreed f o r m u l a e

of t h e b e i n g o f C h r i s t m u s t therefore include b o t h the relations o f C h r i s t t o

answer

of d o c t r i n a l decisions was t o regulate t h e ptactice of w o r s h i p

Iechnical

G o d , the Father a n d t h e S p i r i t , a n d the relations of G o d , t h e Father a n d

C h r i s t o l o g y is i n m a n y cases o n l y an a t t e m p t t o c l a r i f y w h a t C h r i s t i a n s d o

S p i r i t i n C h r i s t for us. Because C h r i s t s b e i n g f o r us is p a r t of his b e i n g ,

w h e n t h e y address C h r i s t i n prayer a n d l i t u r g i c a l acclamation a n d t o spell

C h r i s t s s e l f - g i v i n g is a p a r t of the eternal life o f G o d . O n l y i n this w a y can

o u t t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e practice of w o r s h i p Technical C h r i s t o l o g y is a

we be certain that i n e n c o u n t e t i n g C h r i s t for us we relate t o the eternal

test-case for t h e practice o f w o r s h i p a n d , perhaps m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e

I r i n i t y I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e i n c a r n a t i o n is n o t a n episode i n t h e story o f the

ptactice of w o r s h i p is t h e test-case of our C h r i s t o l o g y .

t r i n i t a r i a n G o d b u t a c o n t i n u i n g r e a l i t y i n t h a t t h e h u m a n i t y of Jesus i n

O f f e r i n g a conceptual r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of w h a t happens i n w o r s h i p s h o u l d

the u n i t y of h i s person is n o w forever p a r t of t h e eternal l i f e o f G o d I f i t is

never be reduced t o g i v i n g an account of a m e r e l y h u m a n a c t i v i t y O n e o f

forever p a r t o f t h e eternal l i f e of G o d i t cannot be a n accident i n the h i s t o r y

t h e great p o i n t s of consensus i n t h e t h e o l o g y of the R e f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e b y

o f the t r i n i t a r i a n l i f e of G o d , occasioned b y t h e fact of h u m a n s i n , b u t m u s t

r e c a p t u r i n g s o m e t h i n g t h a t i n f o r m e d t h e practice of w o r s h i p i n t h e early

be p a r t of G o d s story f r o m the b e g i n n i n g - a p o i n t t h a t is also p o w e r f u l l y

C h u r c h , is that w o r s h i p is, first a n d foremost, a service t h a t G o d p e r f o r m s

expressed i n Charles W i l l i a m s s C h r i s t o l o g y as B r i a n H o m e depicts i t W e

for us, a g i f t t h a t is g i v e n t o us i n order t o enable us t o relate t o G o d a n d t o

can therefore offer g l o r y t o the Fathet with t h e Son, together with the H o l y

one another i n t h e w a y a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e w a y G o d relates t o us

S p i r i t because we can offer g l o r y t o t h e Father through Jesus Christ in the

I n her paper ' T h e Ascended C h r i s t : M e d i a t o r of our W o r s h i p , Sandra

H o l y S p i t i t because G o d s s e l f - g i v i n g from t h e Father through Jesus C h r i s t

Fach retraces t h e steps b y w h i c h t h e place o f C h r i s t i n l i t u r g y was

in t h e H o l y S p i r i t enables us t o relate t o G o d as he is i n h i m s e l f for us i n

conceived i n such a way t h a t h i s h u m a n i t y seemed t o lose i t s significance

worship and i n theological t h o u g h t

T h i s , i n t u r n , l e d t o t h e loss of t h e l i t u t g i c a l significance

of Christ s


200

SCHWOBEL

T h i s a r g u m e n t tests o n t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t w o r s h i p is o n t o l o g i c a l l y signiticant

I t relates t o t h e t r i u n e G o d o n t h e basis of t h e w a y t h e t r i u n e

G o d relates t o us a n d i n this way i t defines t h e b e i n g of t h e c o m m u n i o n of the Church

t h r o u g h i t s acts o f w o r s h i p

T h e ontological

continuities

significance

conceptual

re-formation

must

occur

within

of t h i s

coherence These reflections

o n the ontological

i m p o r t of Trinitarian

worship

i l l u s t r a t e t h a t the language of t h e l i t u r g y is m i s u n d e r s t o o d i f i t is seen as a l i n g u i s t i c expression b e i n g spoken realms;

they

a b o u t states o f affairs w h i c h also exist apart f r o m

As t h e l i t u r g y shows, w o r d a n d b e i n g are n o t separate are i n t r i c a t e l y connected

I he b i b l i c a l witnesses

with

Chtistologies,

o l d a n d n e w , he

There is c o n t i n u i t y of approach, m e t h o d a n d above a l l o f objecr, for true subject and t h e true object of C h r i s t o l o g y : t h e one w h o makes i t

T h e patterns o f

the bounds

Yesterday and Today ' A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g a

Jesus C h r i s t , the same yesterday a n d today a n d for ever, is at once the possible, t h r o u g h h i s S p i r i t , a n d r h e one whose reality as t r u l y G o d and

w o r s h i p a n d t h e patterns of b e i n g i n c o m m u n i o n f o r m a coherent w h o l e . All

conversation

201

concludes:

W o r s h i p enacts w h o w e are:

before t h e t r i u n e G o d a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o one another.

i n Christology:

thorough-going

therefore n o t o n l y refers t o t h e b e i n g of t h e t r i u n e G o d a n d , i n our c o n t e x t , to t h e b e i n g of C h r i s t , b u t also t o our b e i n g

Christ for Us- A Response to I h e Petson of C h t i s t

ttuly m a n our h u m a n concepts strain to r e p r e s e n t

B y the eschatological

1

h o r i z o n i n w h i c h C h r i s t o l o g i e s yesterday and t o d a y

ate placed w e are r e m i n d e d t h a t t h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l efforts of yesterday a n d of today are o n l y stages o n the w a y t o t h e K i n g d o m o f G o d w h e n the i d e n t i t y of C h r i s t for us w i l l be folly disclosed a n d w h e n o u r C h r i s t o l o g y , we m a y hope, w i l l be one of praise

present

themselves as t h e record o f a d i v i n e - h u m a n conversation w h i c h begins w h e n t h e w o r l d is spoken i n t o b e i n g b y a G o d w h o is t h e W o r d he speaks, and b y the S p i r i t w h o makes t h i s W o r d u n d e r s t o o d

T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y

s i g n i f i c a n t i n C h r i s t o l o g y because C h r i s t is G o d s w o r d t o creation, t h e W o r d incarnate

A n d C h r i s t is G o d s w o r d as t h e W o r d t h a t G o d is M a n y

of t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n C h r i s t o l o g y , as i n t r i n i t a r i a n t h e o l o g y , result f r o m t r e a t i n g b e i n g a n d w o r d i n sharp c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n A n y w a y f o r w a r d m u s t u n d e r s t a n d G o d s b e i n g as c o m m u n i c a t i v e b e i n g a n d G o d ' s w o r d as t h a t w h i c h posits b e i n g a n d so precedes b e i n g I n his essay, D o u g l a s K n i g h t offers a sketch of a c o m p l e t e r e - f o r m a t i o n of C h r i s t o l o g y i n the p a r a d i g m of d i v i n e speech

I n the framework o f a

t r i n i t a r i a n theology that proceeds f r o m t h e a x i o m ' G o d is his speech', K n i g h t reformulares t h e i n n e r - t r i n i t a r i a n relations, t h e conversation w h i c h the t r i u n e G o d is, a n d t h e conversation w h i c h t h e t r i n i t a r i a n G o d has w i t h his creation t h e b e i n g o f w h i c h subsists i n b e i n g spoken b y G o d and w h i c h is t h u s enabled t o respond t o G o d i n w o r d a n d deed

This programmatic

sketch i n v i t e s b e i n g tested against t h e strands of t h e b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n s i n w h i c h the response t o G o d s speech is t h e o n l y a p p r o p r i a t e access t o t h e G o d w h o is as he speaks a n d w h a t he speaks I t d o c u m e n t s t h a t C h r i s t o l o g y is w e l l advised t o seek i t s o r i e n t a t i o n f r o m t h e p r i m a r y strata of w i t n e s s i n g to the t r i u n e G o d a n d o f confessing C h r i s t

VII

The E n d of Christology: T h e C o m i n g K i n g d o m

I h e r i c h d i v e r s i t y of approaches represented b y t h e essays i n this v o l u m e confirms

the m a i n

thesis

Colin

Gunton

defended

i n his s t u d y

of

' Colin E Gunton. Yesterday and Today, A Study of Continuities in Christology (london: Darton, Longman & Todd) 1

Ibid 209

Index A l e x a n d e r , P h i l i p 56, 57, 58 A m b r o s e , S t 12.4, 125, A n s e l m , St i

Cappadocian Fathers 8 7 - 9 see also: B a s i l of Caesarea; Gregory of

127

Nazianzus

n

C h a l c e d o n , C o u n c i l of 8, 46, 63, 68,

A p o l l i n a r i u s 82, 168 A q u i n a s , S t T h o m a s 114,

119,

71-2, 84. 86, 92, 94, 95, 117, 191-2 C h e m n i t z , M a r r i n 65—6

124,

125, 127 A r i u s , A r i a n i s m 2, 3, 74, 108,

112.,

C h r y s o s t o m , St J o h n see John

159

Chrysostom, St

A t h a n a s i u s , S t 3, 159, 169, 179

2-3, 29-35, 87-104 passim, 140, 146, 152-4 Communicatio idiomatum 6—8, 61—9 passim, 70-86 passim, 19i—8 Church

A t h a n a s i a n C r e e d 111—12 A u g u s t i n e of H i p p o , St 72, 110,

124,

12.7 B a b a i the G t e a t 83

Constantinople, C o u n c i l of 61

B a p t i s m o f J e s u s 10, 121-37

Constantinople, Second C o u n c i l of 1,

68

B a r t h , K a r l 10, 18, 25, 9 4 , 109, Basil

129-30, 133-4 o f Caesarea, St 11, 159-61, 170-4, 181

Creation 9, 32, 64, 77, I 0 2 , 139-40 C u l l m a n , Oscat 3, 9, 4 1 C y r i l of A l e x a n d r i a , S t 70-2, 79,

82-6, 169

132

Beasiey-Mutiay, G R

B i o g r a p h y , G o s p e l s as 5—6, 47—51

C y r i l o f Jerusalem, S r 124

B o c k m u e h l , M a r k u s 42 B o n a v e n t u r a , S t 124 Bonhoeffer, D i e t r i c h

Dante A l i g h i e r i 182-3

117

Deification 8, 1 0 0 - 1 ,

112

B o r n k a m m , G ü n t h e r 4 1 , 68

D i o n y s i u s the A r e o p a g i t e 91

Bousset, W i l h e l m 39, 43, 44

Docetism

Brown, R E

45-6,48

Dogma

Buber, Martin 91

108 16, 3 5

D u n n , J D G 40

B u l t m a n n , R u d o l f 6, 38, 4 8 , 49, 56 B u n i d g e , R i c h a r d 5-6, 189

E c c i e s i o l o g y see C h u r c h E d w a r d s , Jonathan Election

C a b a s i l a s , N i c o l a s I I , 169-70 Caird, GB

132

126

31

E p h e s u s , C o u n c i l of 63, 86, 112 Epistemology

C a l v i n , J o h n 7, 11, 72-5, I I I , 124,

125-6, 129, 165-6

22-5, 2 8 - 9

Eschatoiogy 40, 59, 7 3 - 4 , I O I E u c h a r i s t 74-5, 8 1 ; see also Sacrament

C a m p e n h a u s e n , H a n s v o n 68

203

Index

104 E u t y c h e s ; E u t y c h i a n i s m 7.. 71-2

75,

7 7 - 8, 82, 93, 97, 101, 103, III

Existentialism 87-104 passim extra Calvinisticum 8, 8 1 , 86

Index N i c a e a , C o u n c i l o f 1, 4 5 - 6 , 61-3,

M i n i s t r y 45

Presence of 4, 19-25, 182-6 Priesthood of l65ff 21-2

Radiance

N i c e n e - C o n s t a n t inopoli tan C r e e d

61-3

R e s u r r e c t i o n 20, 40

Ibeosis see

Origen

E a c h , Sandra 11, 198-9

Sinlessness 124

F a l l , the 102, 110, 113-14 F a r r o w , D o u g l a s 8. I I , 175-6, 191

Sonship 2 0 - 1 , 39-40, 138-54 Titles of 38-40, 44-5, 59-60

O w e n , J o h n 8, 7 0 - 2 , 78-82, 8 5 - 6 ,

F i t z m e y e r , Joseph 134

W o r d of G o d 33-5, 39-40, 68, 70, I5 "S4 Jesus S e m i n a r 2, 122 J o h n C h r y s o s t o m , S t I O , 124-9, 8

G r e g o r y o f N a z i a n z u s , S t 192-3 G r e g o r y T h a u m a t u r g u s 127,

137

133

G u n t o n , C o l i n E . I I - I 2 , 13-18, 37,

63, 7 0 - 1 , 82, 94, 99, 132, 136, 145, 159, 179, 200-1

Joy

2

110

Torrance, A l a n 99

Person (hupostasii) 35, 39, 63-4,

Torrance, J a m e s I I , 163-4

6 5 - : 73-8, 87-104 6

Polynesian c u l t u r e

131

177

H e b r e w s , G o s p e l of 123

11, 168-74, 7 é 2, 7, I O . 14, 61-9 passim, 8 7 - 1 0 4 passim. 136, 138-54 passim, 155-8, 1 8 6 - 7

Torrance, T F .

I

Trinity

117

Prolegomena 4, 19-36

I u c k e t t , C h r i s t o p h e r 46 T u r r e t i n , F r a n ç o i s 7, 7 5 - 8 , 82

Q 57

Iytrell, George 5

J u n g m a n , Josef 11, 155, 161-2, 171, H a h n , F 39, 4 1

55-9

Iorah

P e l a g i a n i s m 164

4, 9, 27-8, 116

Julian o f N o r w i c h

deification

T h o m a s , G o s p e l of 57 T i l l i c h , P a u l 183

194-5

Prestige, G L

John o f D a m a s c u s , St S6, 119

T e r t u l i i a n 124 T h e i s s e n , G e r d 43 Theodore o f M o p s u e s t i a 67

Second C o m i n g 45

G o t t s t e i n , A G o s h e n 57, 58

Substance 3 5

83

R a b b i n i c literature 55-9

J u s t i n M a r t y r 124, 133

H e g e l , G W F 36, 9 1

Rae,

M u r r a y I O , 187

Rahner, Karl

V o l f M i r o s l a v 96-7, 100, l o i Von

114

Balthasar, H a n s U r s v o n 120

K a n t . I m m a n u e l 2, 16, 36

R e d d i n g , G r a h a m 163, 164, 178

H e r m e n e u t i c s 22, 38, 48

Kasemann, Ernst 41

R e i m a r u s , H S 2, 4 1

Webster, John B 4 , 1 8 4 - 5

H i i i e l , R a b b i 55-7

K e c k , Leander 4 4 - 5

R e n a n , Ernesr 48

W e e d e n , T J . 52

H i l t o n , M i c h a e l 58

K i e r k e g a a r d , S0ren 103, 109

R e v e l a t i o n 22-5

W e i n a n d y , T h o m a s 129

H i s t o r i c a l Jesus 37, 41-4, 183-4

K n i g h t , D o u g l a s 2, 10-11. 200

Ridler, Anne

Heidegger, Martin 91

Leo the G r e a t , Pope 72

H o l y Scripture 26, 29, 33-5, 144,

lessing, G E 2

185, 189

L u t h e r , M a r t i n 66, 75, 124, 197

7 8 - 82, 103, I 2 i , 143-6, 154 H o m e . B r i a n 9, 197-8 H u r t a r d o , L a r r y 43 Hypostatic U n i o n

71,75,78-82, 85-6

M a r y , Blessed V i r g i n 64, 98

is tbeolokos/Moihtr o f G o d 68, 73-4,

76 M a x i m u s the Confessor, S t 64, 9 1 , 92,

102 Itenaeus, St 179 E d w a r d 10, 129 14, 53, 62, 68

Milton, John

118

M o n o t h e l i t i s m 85

Moule, C D F

134

39-40, 4 1

145, 192, 194-7 Jeremias, J o a c h i m 4 1

N a r r a t i v e 37-8, 51-5, 67-8

Jerome, S t 123

Nature

Jesus C h r i s t

Ascension S o , 155-81 K n o w l e d g e o f 22-9, 32, 34

L o t d s h i p of 28, 39-40, 43, 62

35, 39, 6 3 - 4 , 65-6, 68, 70,

73-7, 83, 85, 87-104 N e s r o r i u s , N e s t o r i a n i s m 7, 8, 71-83,

93.

1

1

2

N e u s n e r , Jacob 56-7, 58

Westminster Catechism Williams, Charles

155

9, 105-20, 197-8

Sanders, E P 41-2

W i t h e r i n g t o n , B e n I I I 4 6 , 60

Schleiermacher, F D E. 124-5, 126

W o r k o f C h r i s t 3, 39, 4 4 , 64,

S c h m i d t , K a r l L u d w i g 48

109-10,140-1 11, 155-81, 19S-200

Schweitzer, A l b e r t 5, 4 1

Worship

S c h w ö b e l , C h r i s t o p h 11, 61

W r i g h t , N T 4 1 , 42

Scorus, J o h n D u n s

9, 113—14, 118

Servetus. M i c h a e l 72-3

M e r z , A n n e t t e 43

Moorman, John J e n s o n , R o b e r t W 6-7, 14, 70, 7 1 ,

Sacrament, Sacraments 33, 92, 100 see also B a p t i s t ; E u c h a r i s t

H o l y S p i r i t 20, 25, 27, 60, 62,

Israel

Wesley, Charles I I , 166-7

L a C u g n a , C a t h e r i n e M o w r y 180

H o l m e s , Stephen R 7-8, 192, 194-7

Irving

W e s c o t t , B F 9, 114

Robinson, J M. 41

H i s t o r y o f R e l i g i o n s School 38—9, 4 3 ,

59

W e i s s . D B e r n h a r d 41

115

Soteriology see W o r k o f C h r i s r

Strauss, D F 4 1 , 123-4, 136

Z i z i o u l a s , John D

8,

IO,

130 Z w i n g l i , H u l d r y c h 75

87-104,

The person of Christ

The Person of Christ

Person to Person Ministry: Soul Care in the Body of Christ

The Claims of Christ

Relics of the Christ

The Mind Of Christ

Relics of the Christ

The Names of Jesus: Discovering the Person of Christ through Scripture

Phenomenology of the Human Person

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Passion of Jesus Christ

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Way of Jesus Christ

On the Church of Christ

Christ of the 21st Century

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Last Temptation of Christ

The Unwritten Sayings of Christ

A Person of Interest

Person of Interest

Begegnung von Person zu Person

A Person of Interest

Knights of Christ

Offences Against the Person

the highly sensitive person

The Third Person

The person of Christ