CHRISTOLOGY
Dr. D. John Romus
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
01. What is Christology?
Christology is a compound word: Christos
+ Logos = Christ +Talk, i.e.,
talking about Christ.
Christology (Christ talk)
is a discourse on Jesus of Nazareth
Working Definition: In the light of Christian faith,
practice, and worship, Christology is a systematic faith-reflection on the
mystery of the person of Jesus Christ as seen in the divine plan of salvation
to humankind. Hence, it studies the person, being and the work of Jesus of
Nazareth who lived around 5 BC – AD 30; and who has been proclaimed by his
followers as the Christ of God. So, Jesus Christ event is the starting point of
all Christological reflection.
Christology tries to answer the question who/what is he? What is his
mission?
Is he both human and divine? How is it possible for a being both
finite and infinite? Is it not a contradiction? What has been the impact he
created on his believers as well as non-believers? What does it mean to call
him Christ, Son of God? How is it possible for God to be born a human being?
What is the universal significance of his saving mission to all humanity and
creation?
All these questions call for a historical, philosophical and
linguistic inquiry.
1.1. The name “JESUS
CHRIST” contains the basic structure of Christology.
How? Jesus Christ is not a proper name like John Ekka,
But a confessional name = experience + witness + proclamation.
Therefore, it is a Kerygmatic name = faith proclamation of a religious
experience.
This means the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah
(Christ), the one who fulfilments the hope of Israel
EG: Acts 2:36 “God has made him as Lord and Christ” and we are witness of this
event.
Rom 1:3-4 “The gospel of his Son, designated as the Son of God by
resurrection”
Jesus Christ is not an Idea, because this confession refers to a
definite historical person of Nazareth
1.2. Jesus Christ as a
confessional title contains history + faith.
Hence, Christology without history is a mythology or an ideology. Similarly,
Jesus without Christ is Jesuology = a biography of Jesus of Nazareth, but not
Christology; and therefore, not theology.
1.3. Why Christ-talk
arose?
People talk about him not because of historical interest only, but
mainly theological interest – that he is the Christ of God. Why people called
Jesus of Nazareth as Christ of God? Perhaps, Jesus of Nazareth was such a
historical person that he was able to provoke that feeling of the expectation
of Messiah (Christ) in them.
1.4. Logic of Christology:
- A systematic Christology must point out the following:
- How Jesus of Nazareth in his messianic character is unique in his relation to God;
- How he is at the same time related to our common humanity, his universality;
- And, therefore, how Jesus Christ is normative – that he is the decisive referent –to us to know what God is for us; who we are in our common humanity; and what we are for God. Therefore, Jesus Christ is unique and universal in his relation to God and to us.
Hence, Christology must
define: Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What is he? What
is God? How can God be divine and human? What is the meaning of God becoming human?
Mystery of incarnation! What is the meaning and the destiny of humankind and
creation? What is the saving significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection to
humankind and to creation?
01.5. Consequently,
Christology must point out:
What is the meaning of the Church, claimed to be Christ’s spiritual
body? What is the place of religions in the saving mystery of Jesus Christ
event? How Jesus Christ event is related to plurality of human histories and
civilizations? And how Christianity as a spiritual community ought to relate
itself to world community?
0 2. Hermeneutic Problems
in Christology
This is about problem between text and context, faith and history,
regarding Christ event.
Christ event, also known as “paschal mystery”, means God’s self
revelation in and through the person, mission, ministry, death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ.
0 2.1. Christ event is
historically located
It means that it takes
place in a specific person and in a particular historical context. That it
takes place in no one else but in Jesus of Nazareth who was a Jew of the first
century AD, culturally part of that civilization. Early Christians were also
Jews. Their encounter of Jesus Christ event was historically conditioned. And
in that cultural location, they proclaimed him as Christ, Lord, Son of God, Son
of Man, etc. This means he is the one who fulfils the hope of Israel
2.2. Trans-historical
significance of Jesus Christ event
However, in his unique and universal character Jesus has
trans-historical significance. If so, how to understand him today? What is the
relevance of the faith contained in the text to the present context? Therefore,
Kerygma is to be re-contextualized. What are the variant and non-variant
factors of the kerygma? / Uniqueness and universality of the Christ-event
today? How to see God’s saving action
operative through Christ-event in our time? We must pose, time and again, the
fundamental question: Mk 8:27 – 29: Who do people say I am; and what do you say
that I am?
03. Problem of historical
Jesus and Christ of faith
03.1. History and kerygma: This problem arose with 18th century research. History is
contingent. So, how can faith be based on history? If so, what is the universal
relevance of Christian faith to world community in a pluralistic world of today?
H.S. Reimarus (1694
–1768): The first work in this line was that of
Reimarus, a German theologian and philosopher of the 18th century.
He attempted to write a biography of Jesus. He claimed Jesus was a political
messiah; he represented the hope of Israel
to establish the kingdom
of God
Quest for Historical Jesus: (D.S.Strauss, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann):
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884
– 1976), is German Protestant theologian and Biblical
scholar. His classic book is Kerygma and
Myth (1953). He maintained that form criticism showed that it was
impossible to access to historical Jesus, because Gospels are kerygmatic
proclamations. Therefore, historical Jesus of Nazareth – his words, deeds and
ministry – is mythisized for theological purpose. He introduced the process of
demythologization. But his claim is that the Christ of faith proclaimed by
apostolic community is present in the kerygma. Therefore, Jesus of history is
not necessary for faith because faith cannot be founded on contingent facts.
New Quest for Historical
Jesus
(E. Kaesmann, J.M. Robinson, J. Jeremias)
What did Jesus want? What was his claim? What do we know about him?
Did he claim divine sonship?
Answer:
- Early Church did not make difference between historical Jesus and Christ of faith.
They connected – his words, deeds, mission and ministry, etc – to
the extended they were needed to explain their experience of the Risen Lord who
was alive in their consciousness and community.
- History and faith: historical events of Jesus were integrated with their faith concern.
- For this, the gospels followed a process of retrospection (back-dating) beginning from Easter experience→ death → public ministry and various mighty deeds and words associated with his public life → birth and→ finally pre-existence.
But Christ-mystery goes beyond cultural categories in which he has
been interpreted such as Christ, Son of God, Lord, Son of man, etc.
03.2. Hence, one has to be
aware of Christological reductionism.
It means reducing Christ mystery to a particular aspect or
encapsulating (limiting) it under some intellectual, cultural and religious modules.
For example, Metaphysical reductionism:
already began with Greek Fathers, portraying and modelling Christ under Greek
philosophy (e.g., Christ as perfect God and perfect man) Marxist reductionism (socio-political reductionism): modelling
Christ as class-war revolutionary and political reformer; or cultural reductionism in that seeing
him as guru/yogi; or anthropological
reductionism as medalling Christ as the perfect enlightened one like the
Buddha, etc.
04. Unity in diversity of
Christological thought:
Right from the beginning we encounter plurality of Christologies; NT
itself is an example. Unity in Christological thought does not mean uniformity.
The following points to be remembered:
- Right from the start the church was trying to spell out and interpret to themselves and to others who Jesus was.
- To do this they were using the thought forms – religious and non-religious – models and paradigms available in their local surrounding.
- Their interpretation took a back-dating process from Easter to birth, etc.
- This process was intensive and extensive; intensive as responding to perennial questions of human life (definition about God, human person and world); extensive as responding to questions arising from various cultures, etc.
- This led them to highlight some aspects of Christ mystery discarded in the past.
05. Criteriology of
Christology:
- Accept the apostolic witness to Christ mystery who is risen and present in the Church (SS & TR[content] = source of unity)
- Experience of the presence of the Risen Lord today who is present in the Church and the world (context = source of diversity)
- Make no ideological compromise in doing Christology
- Make sure christological responsibility to the Church (articulating the authentic faith of the believing community), society (relevant to society) and academy (intelligible to contemporary thought forms).
JR/MSC/DTH/2010-11/CHRISTOLOGY /CL/ INTRO
Chapter II
Classical
Christology
(Development of Christology: 2nd – 7th
century)
1. Faith Dialoguing with
Culture:
As Christianity began to spread beyond its original home of Judaism
into Hellenistic world of the Roman Empire , it
was confronted by the challenge of finding a way to express its faith in Jesus
Christ in the thought categories of the Greco-Roman world. Hellenistic
philosophy was to prove helpful, but it also represented a threat, because it
was a language of a different culture and religious world order. The challenge
faced by the Church was that of adopting (rather interculturating) the
philosophical language of a new culture without simply “hellenizing” its faith.
It was evident to many by the end of the first Christian generation
that God’s salvation in Jesus Christ was good news, not just for Jews, but for
non-Jews as well. Paul’s Letters are charged with this conviction. He saw his
own ministry to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16; 2:9) as a “ministry of reconciliation”
(2 Cor 5:18). Thus the universal significance of the Christ-event was
recognized very early in the Church, even if the definitive and painful
separation from Judaism was to come considerably later.
The citizens of the Roman Empire, which became the new home of
Christianity, did not believe in Jewish messianic thought forms under whose
imagination, the early Jewish Christians saw Jesus of Nazareth as the
fulfilment of the expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and consequently
ascribed to him Christological titles of honour calling him Lord, Christ, Son
of God, Son of Man, etc. The educated people of the Empire had a different
worldview, formed by Hellenistic culture and thought. Further, many of the
Hellenistic Christian apologists were converts themselves whose intellectual
and religious background was Hellenistic religion, philosophy and spirituality,
not the Hebrew Scriptures. It was these new Christians who brought Christianity
into a healthy dialogue with the surrounding culture, defending Christian faith
against its critics, and at the same time, showing appreciation for philosophical
insights of the Hellenistic world.
2. Three Challenges to
Classical Christology:
During the
classical phase (2nd to 7th century) Church was
confronted by three challenges in the development of Christology: (i) the translation into a new
language, from biblical terms and thought patterns to the Hellenistic world.
This problem is, to some extent, already felt in biblical Christology. Paul
mostly writes to people coming from Judaic background, but also has to face
Gnostic trends and generally moves in the Hellenistic milieu. While remaining
totally faithful to Jesus’ message, John definitely drops much of the
Palestinian cultural draping and presents the mystery of the person of Jesus
Christ in response to the challenges arising from Gnosticism. Change is not in
the message, but every term adopted by him (metaphors of light-darkness, of
life, truth) were given a new meaning. This process must go on even with the
inherent danger, as too often occurred, that the new language modifies, and
even destroys the real message (e.g. Arius).
(ii) No concept found in the prevailing
philosophy, no religious thought form of the time adequately expresses the Christian message. Even in the biblical world,
with a language coming from the O.T., no term was found to express fully the
meaning of the Christ event. Even Jesus was not comfortable with the titles as
they were open to misunderstanding, but offered no alternatives. He lives his
mission and expresses it in language and culture available – that is, Judaism –
to him. Hence various Christologies developed even before writing the N.T.,
each one attempting to give expression to the mystery of Christ in a given
historical context.
The dilemma is greater in the following centuries where the
Christian faith has to be expressed and presented in a Hellenistic culture (and
later in other cultures), very different from the original context of Christian
message. Therefore, right from the beginning, the Christian theological language
must be creative and transformative. This necessarily leads to possible
misunderstanding, conflicts and heresies which mark the history of the
classical Christology.
(iii) Every fixation of truth controlled
by prevalent philosophical thought form/s limits Christological content. The
concept is narrower than the truth of one’s faith-experience, and the term
again is narrower than the concept. The fixation of Christological language,
though absolutely necessary, implies the danger of simplifying the complex
reality of the Christ event, depriving it of its challenging dynamism and
transforming impact. Thus it will be necessary to measure every Christological
formula/ thought against the reality of Christ himself as presented in the
Bible, which is the norma normans of all Christological thought as we
encounter different pastoral contexts.
3. Challenges of Greek
Philosophy to Christology:
Dualistic Philosophy: Basically the Greek Philosophy was dualistic, privileging the
spirit over matter, soul over body, immutable over the changing world, and
eternal over temporal. Highest reality was impersonal universal nature such as
Plato’s world of ideas. The divine was understood as unbegotten, immutable,
ineffable, free from passion, and utterly transcendent. Human soul was believed
to be imprisoned in material body and salvation meant to free the soul from the
clutches of the body. Imagine how different it was from Hebrew idea of a God
who was active in human history! And creation is something good and beautiful
(see Genesis 1)!
Gnosticism: Gnosticism (from the Greek word “gnosis”, “wisdom/ knowledge”) was
a syncretic religious movement. It was a philosophical religion, which predated
Christianity, very much prevalent in the Roman Empire .
Eventually, it drew religious sources from Hellenism, Judaism and Christianity
as well. There were some Christians who followed Gnostic spiritual tradition.
The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic work. Like Greek Philosophy,
Gnosticism was dualistic. Its concern was salvation, not in this world, but by
escaping the world’s entanglements; it longed for soul’s liberation bodily and
material existence. There were two kinds of Gnosticism: (i) redeemer Gnosticism
which believed in a heavenly person descending on earth in human disguise and
imparting saving secret knowledge (gnosis)
to a select few; and (ii) non-redeemer Gnosticism which believed in an
enlightened person who imparts saving knowledge (gnosis) to a select few. Regarding Christology, redeemer Gnosticism
denied Christ’s true humanity in that he seemingly appeared in a human body;
while non-redeemer Gnosticism denied his divinity in that Jesus was considered
as an enlightened human person by the spirit / power (pneuma) of God.
4. Three Christological
Heresies:
While engaging with Judaism and Hellenism, in the second century,
Christianity was challenged by three heterodox interpretations (heretical
interpretations) regarding the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ. These are
Ebionism and Adoptionism which denied Christ’s divinity, while the third one, Docetism,
denied his true humanity.
4.1. Ebionism: The sentencing of Jesus to death demonstrated how extremely
difficult it was for the Jews, imbued with strict unipersonal monotheism (belief
in one personal God only), to accept that a human person could really be the
begotten Son of God. This problem surfaced in Ebionism, a heterodox Christological
doctrine, which was prevalent among some Judaeo-Christian communities of the 2nd
century A.D. Ebionites (coming from Hebrew word “ebion”, meaning “poor men”. They were apparently ascetic and
rigorously followed Jewish Law) believed Jesus Christ was the expected Messiah
but only a human person who was filled with God’s Spirit (rua = pneuma) at baptism,
but denied his divine sonship.
4.2. Adoptionism: Its protagonist, Theodotus the Elder (2nd Century), followed the
Christology of Ebionism. Based on the strict monotheism of a unipersonal God, adoptionism
believed that Jesus Christ was “only a man”, although he was chosen or adopted
by God as the bearer of an exceptional divine grace. Adoptonists held that at
the most, Jesus was a privileged person among all humankind. On account of
Christ’s privileged Spirit-filled position, at the time of baptism he was
raised to some level of divinity, but never equal to God, and that he was not the
begotten Son of God. Adoptionism in any form is anti-incarnational, because
biblical revelation informs us that Jesus is God who became human by
incarnation while being God, but never raised to divine status.
4.3. Docetism: Docetism (from Greek, dokein,
meaning “seem to be”) was a Gnostic Christology. It affirmed Christ’s divinity,
but denied his true humanity. Docetism was prevalent in the 2nd
century. While the Docetists saw Christ as a mediator of salvation, they denied
that the Divine Word became flesh (i.e., became really human) with all its
earthly connotations; they believed Jesus only “seemed” or “appeared” to have a
human body. Marican, the protagonist
of Docetism, claimed Jesus had only an apparent body; Valentine, another proponent, taught Jesus had a spiritual or
pneumatic body, but never a real human body. Jesus’ pneumatic body (that is,
his spiritualised body which appeared to be a human body) merely passed through
Mary but was not born of her. For Basilides,
another proponent of Docetism, Christ’s passion was only apparent, because
Christ really did not die. He foiled his enemies by putting Simon of Cyrene in
his place on the Cross!
5. First outline for a
Systematic Christology:
As against the above referred to heterodox Chrstologies, the early
Fathers of the Church, especially Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons and
Tertullian worked on the theology of incarnation, mystery of the person of
Jesus Christ in his divine-human natures, and laid the foundation for an ontological Christology (that is, the position of Jesus Christ in the order of
Being) and also brought out its soteriolgical meaning.
5.1. Ignatius of Antioch (35–107): Ignatius of
Antioch brought out the most sticking expression of unity in duality of
Christ’s nature as found in St Paul
|
There is only one physician who is at once
|
||
|
In the flesh (sarkikos)
|
yet
|
Spiritual (pneumatikos)
|
|
Born (gennetos)
|
yet
|
without becoming (agenetos)
|
|
Made into man
|
yet
|
God
|
|
Subject to death
|
yet
|
True life
|
|
From Mary as well
|
as
|
from God
|
|
Become passable
|
while
|
Remaining impassable
|
|
Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
||
In Ignatius’ text, the divinity of Christ is expressed by the term “pneumatikos”, that Christ’s life was a
Spirit-filled existence and, therefore, in him the divine life has in-broken
into the world as given in 2 Cor 3:17
that the Lord is Spirit.
5.2. Justin, the
philosopher and Martyr (100–165): With Justin, Christological
reflection enters into the vast world of Hellenistic culture of the Roman Empire . He discusses the Christian faith with the
Jews in the dialogue with Trypho, and enters into dialogue with Greek thought.
The link with the Greek world is the concept of Logos, which is taken
from John, and has roots both in the Sapiental literature and in Platonism and
Stoa. For Justin the Logos means (i)
in its cosmological aspect the creative word, (ii) in its noetic (wisdom)
aspect the basis of knowledge and truth, (iii) in the moral sphere the basis
and embodiment of moral law (nemos),
(iv) in salvation history it is the Word of Revelation and the mediator of
salvation (Grillmeier, loc.cit 129). Thus all creatures share in the Logos, in whom they are created, and who
illumes all humankind. All who listen to him before or after Jesus Christ are
saved; those who refuse to listen perish:
“Those who have lived by the word are
Christians, even though they have been considered atheists: such as, among the
Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and others like them, and among the foreigners
Abraham, Elias . . . so also they who lived before Christ and did not live the
Word were useless men, enemies of Christ and murderers of those who live by the
Word. But those who have lived by the word and still do are Christians, and are
fearless and untroubled” (1.Apol 46.1-4; this and the following quotations are
taken from Dupuis. Jesus Christ and His Spirit, p.7f).
This
participation in the Logos by philosophers and righteous persons was only
partial and, therefore, implied also contradictions:
“The teachings of Plato; are not foreign to those of Christ, but
they are not in every way similar; neither are those of other writers, the
Stoics; the poets and historians; for each one of them, seeing partially what
is related to the divine word and shown by him spoke well; but contradicting
themselves in important matters they show that they did not posses a higher
wisdom and an indisputable knowledge” (2.Apol.13, 2-3).
However, in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Logos is
revealed to us:
“Our teachings are more noble than all human
teachings because in Christ we have the entire Logos who has appeared for our sakes, body, logos, and soul. Everything that the philosophers and legislators,
discovered and expressed well, they accomplished through the contemplation of
some part of the Logos. But since
they did not know the entire Logos who is Christ, they often contradicted
themselves” (2.Apol.10.1-3).
Hence the
Christian claims as his own wherever
truth and righteousness is found in the world, not in a sense of
superiority, but in obedience to, and worship of, the eternal Logos:
“Whatever all men have uttered aright is the property of us all
Christians, for we worship and love next to God the Logos which is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since it was
even for us that he became man, that he might be a partaker of our sufferings
and bring us healing” (22.Apol.13.4-6).
Thus, Justin
comes to a comprehensive understanding of the religious traditions of humankind
and philosophies, all centred in Christ. “All share in the ‘seeds’ of true Logos, taken up by them according to
their capacity, but Jesus Christ is the full reality, which surpasses the seed”
(ibid.).
This powerful breakthrough from the biblical world into the
contemporary horizon is exemplary for all ages. Yet it also implied its dangers which were seen later: (i)
Justin’s conception of the Logos as
“second God” led to subordinationistic
trends which finally climaxed in Arius, who denied the divinity of the Logos;
(ii) his logos-centred conception of Christ prepares the way to the Alexandrine
Christological position which underplayed the full humanity of Jesus Christ.
But Justin must not be blamed for later aberrations.
5.3. Irenaeus of Lyons
“The Father revealed himself to everybody, as
he made his word visible to all. And inversely, the word showed to everybody
Father and the Son. Since he was seen by all…for, indeed, through the work of
creation the word reveals God, the Creator, and through the orderly
universe…The Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son is the visible of
the Father…The word had begun to manifest the Father (not only) when he was
born of Mary, but equally at all times; for from the beginning is the Son with
his creatures as reveals the Father to all those the Father wills, and when he
wills and how he wills” (Adv.Hare.IV.6, 5-7; quoted from Dupuis loc.cit.11f).
The
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, then, consists not simply in the revelation, which
takes place through out the history of humankind in creation and in prophets
and theophanies of the O.T., but in his actual entry into our human history to recapitulate in himself the human
history and the human race. This means (i) to lead humankind back to its
origin, and to loose the knot that was tied by Adam’s disobedience, (ii) to
unite and bring into harmony all creation. Irenaeus explains the incarnation in
analogy to Adam’s creation, yet not as a new and second world apart from the
first, but in continuation and renewal of that which was lost in Adam.
Irenaeus affirmed Christ was “true man and true God” (JG, 220) for
which he gave soteriological argument: Christ is true God because only God can
efficaciously obtain salvation and restore union with humankind. Christ is also
true man because it is man’s duty to make reparation for his misdeeds. To
reconcile God and humankind, a mediator was needed who was akin [of the same
kind] to both (ibid).
He claimed that soteriology (Christian understanding of salvation)
demands a clear understanding of the ontology of Christ (that is, who and what
is Christ in the order of Being). Christ was born of the Virgin Mary; he
received his flesh from her. Christ was born of a Virgin so as to
“recapitulate” – that is to say, reassume and renew from its origin – the
formation of Adam. So, Christ was truly incorporated into the generations of
humankind.
While insisting on the true divinity and true humanity of Christ,
Irenaeus forcefully affirmed the unity of his person. Against Gnosticism, he
declared that “Jesus Christ is one and
the same” (heis kai ho autos).
This expression was later on adopted in the Chalcedonian (AD 451) profession of
faith. The most remarkable doctrinal contribution of Irenaeus’ Christology is
his idea of “recapitulation” which
locates the mystery of Incarnation at the centre of God’s saving plan. To
recapitulate means in Irenaean terms to recreate the past in a new way, to sum
up the destiny of humankind in one’s person, to command the unfolding of
history in the role of a leader( ibid, 222).
Christ recapitulates creation because the Incarnation reproduces the
formation of Adam in a new way. This is the consummation of the work of
creation. Irenaeus says that the Word “through whom everything has been made,
who has always been present to mankind, united himself in the last days, at the
moment decreed by the Father, to the work he had fashioned and became a
possible man”( ibid). By the virtue of this creative power, the Word Incarnate
recapitulates the history of humankind, sums it up and concentrates it in
himself, achieving God’s saving plan in his human nature. Thus Jesus Christ
refashioned the destiny of all humankind. In this way, Iranaean Incarnational
Christology takes a cosmic significance. However, it is noted that his
Christology lacks refined philosophical terms to provide a comprehensive
Christological cosmic vision.
5.4. Tertullian (160–220): Against Docetism and Gnosticism, Tertullian affirmed that
Christ was really human possessing a human body and a human soul because human
nature requires body-soul composition. He states, “ In Christ, we find soul and
flesh, according to a simple and clear expression, that is to say, a soul that
is a soul and flesh that is flesh”(ibid, 223). Tertullian approached the
mystery of the person of Jesus Christ from the point of view of God who is
Trinity. So, the Word is distinct from the Father as a person, while being one
with him in the unity of their substance (substance here stands for essential
nature). Having introduced the distinction between substance (nature) and
person in Trinitarian theology, Tertullian expressed it likewise in
Christology. This was a significant contribution.
His formulation is clear and apt: “We see a twofold state [that is,
Christ’s divine and human state of life], not confused but united in a single
person, Jesus, God and man” (ibid). In this twofold state, “the uniqueness of
each of the two substances[1]
is guarded”, together with the distinction of the operations. He stood opposed
to any notion of a mixing of the divinity with the humanity to avoid the
possibility of a third reality.
The most impressive contribution of Tertullian’s Christology is
about the oneness of the person of Jesus Christ in two natures. He clearly
articulated the distinction between nature and person. Where nature is
concerned he sees a permanent duality in Christ; but this duality exists “in a
single person”. This person is the Eternal Word of God, distinct from the
person of the Father. Hence, Christ’s unity can stem only from his person in as
much as the natures remain two, united but not commingled (not mixed up).
Tertullian, thus, succeeded in expressing the fundamental ontology
of Christ, using the formula “one person in two natures”, which were later
adopted by the Council of Chalcedon. Further, his contribution stood against
the later heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism / Apollinarianism (see
below). However, it is to be noted that his conceptual precision is achieved at
the expense of believers’ personal relationship to Christ’s saving mission. One
may be led astray into an ever more refined metaphysical language, while losing
significance of Christ’s saving significance.
6. Alexandrian and
Antiochian Christologies:
From third century onwards, Christian Fathers and Saints developed
two different kinds of theories on the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ
under Alexandrian and Antiochian theological schools of the Eastern
Roman Empire . Their different theories depended on the kind of
Greek philosophy they followed as shown blow:
|
Alexandrian School
|
|
|
This
|
This
|
|
1. Relayed on the philosophies of Plato, Stoics and Plotinus.
According to them, the empirical world is not real but only a phenomenal
world (a world of appearance only).
|
1. Relayed on Aristotle’s philosophy that the empirical world of
our sense experience is something real and finite.
|
|
2. Gave rather allegorical (metaphorical) interpretation to
Scripture.
|
2. Gave rather literal interpretation to Scripture.
|
|
3. Developed a descending model of Christology, stressing on
Christ’s divinity; and underplayed on Christ’s humanity. Some Alexandrian
School theologians also denied Christ’s real humanity.
|
3. Developed an ascending model of Christology (Christology from
below, stressing the reality of the Jesus of Nazareth, who was human in every
way as we are).
|
|
4. Inclined to propose a physical union of Christ’s two natures,
and developed a model of Logos-sarx
Christology (Word-became-flesh Christology).
|
4. Inclined to propose a moral or mystical union of Christ’s two
natures, as if two beings or persons united in one personality. It highlighted
that Logos became really human; and developed a model of Christology known as
Logos-Anthropos Christology (Word-became-human
Christology).
|
|
5. The divine Logos uses the human nature as an instrument and
Logos is the deciding agent in Christ
|
5. Christ’s humanity, his thinking, willing, feeling pain and joy,
etc were stressed, highlighting human nature implying human autonomy and free
will.
|
|
6. It led some to the heresy of Monophysitism in various forms.
|
6. It led some into the heresies of Adoptionism and dyadic theory of two persons in Christ as the
case with Nestorianism.
|
It should be noted that the rivalry between these two schools of
thought was strong, often driven by political interest. Their conflict,
however, was the outcome of a theological struggle over correct application of
current philosophical language, which had its own limitations, to explain the
mystery of the person of Jesus Christ. In this process of constructing a
philosophical Christology, they ran into some sort of denial of his full
humanity or his full divinity or even the oneness of the person of Jesus Christ.
How could Christians speak about the person of Christ in a way that respected
both his humanity and his divinity? How to explain the unity of Jesus with God
and with us and that he is truly God and fully human? In this struggle, Alexandria stressed on the union of the divine Logos with Jesus, whereas Antioch
|
Philosophical Terms
|
Basic meaning
|
Usage/ Philosophical application
|
|
Hypostasis (Gk)
Substantia (Lat)
|
Gk. From hupo + istemi “to stand under”
Lat. from sub + stare, “ to stand under”
|
That which
stands under or gives support to an object; to a concrete being that supports
the various qualities or appearances of a thing. Thus, hypostasis meaning “subsistent being (an individual being), a reality existing by itself. It
means substance as opposed to
accidence.
|
|
ousia
|
Gk. from
substantive verb “eninai, “to be” which means “being”
|
“Being” refers
to a distinct entity (reality). It also means, as used then, “nature”;So, the
Cappadocian formula for the Triune God was “one nature(ousia) and three hypostases( three substances)
|
|
homoousios
|
Gk. homo (same) ousios (being)
|
One in being or
consubstantial
|
|
homoiousios
|
Gk. homoi =
“like” being
|
of like/similar
being
|
|
phusis
|
Gk. = “nature”
|
Refers to nature
/ essence
|
|
prosōpon
persona
(Latin)
|
Gk.=
face/countenance/mask
Refers to
mask/character/individual
|
Concrete
appearance; particular individual\
person;
“persona” was
defined by Boethius (6th century) as “individual substance of a
rational nature”
|
|
Theotokos
|
Gk. = God -
bearer
|
Refers to Mary,
the Mother of God
|
|
Christotokos
|
Gk. = Christ-
bearer
|
Refers to Mary,
the Mother of Christ
|
6. Some important thinkers of Alexandrian School:
6.1. Clement of Alexandria
“Before the advent of the Lord philosophy was
necessary to the Greeks for righteousness…And now it becomes conducive to
piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith
through demonstration…For God is the cause of all good things; but of some
primarily, as of the Old and New Testament; and of others by consequence, as
philosophy. Perchance too philosophy was given to Greeks directly and
primarily, until the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster (epaidagogei) to bring the “Hellenic
mind”, as the Law of the Hebrews, to Christ. Philosophy, therefore, was a
preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ…The way of truth
is therefore one. But into it, as into a perennial river, steams flow from all
sides (Strom.1, 5, 1-3; ANF 2: 305)[2]
For Clement the authentic guides of humankind are the ancient
philosophers (men and women of wisdom) who, truly inspired by God and acted
upon by the Logos, have taught the nations divine truths. He thinks not only of
Greeks, but also of Indian sages and philosophers: “The Indian gymnosophists
are also in the number, and the other non-Greek philosophers. And of these
there are two classes, some of them called sarmanae, and others Brahmins…Some,
too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha; whom, on account of his
extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honour”(Strom.1,15; ANF
2:316).[3]
For Clement
Jesus Christ is the descent of the Logos in the human world with the intention
to reveal to the human eye the divine mystery: “The Logos became man that
through a man you should learn to become God” (Protr. 1.8.4). He believed in
the reality of the incarnation against Docetism, yet the entire life of Jesus
is dominated by the Logos. Jesus did suffer physically, but the ‘pathe’, (passions) of the mind, did not
occur in him because they are unworthy of the Logos. Jesus’ human mind is
totally dominated by the Logos (Logos hegemony). Consequently, according to Clement, The human soul of Jesus,
with its human experience and freedom, loses its significance.
6.2. Origen (185–254): He is an independent thinker.
His Christology cannot be pressed into a scheme. For Origen the person of Jesus
comprises divine and human qualities: “He is God, Son of God, Logos, but also
Saviour, physician, and firstborn from the dead.” In Origen’s thought the
following points are important: He insists on Jesus’ full humanity. Man with
all three parts of his nature: Body-soul-spirit is united to the Logos. He is
the first to formulate the classical principle that nothing is redeemed that is
not assumed: “The whole man would not have been saved had not whole man been
assumed” (Dial. Heracl.7).
On the other hand, Origen proposed that mystical union (union by
contemplation) is the way through which Jesus’ humanity is united with his
divinity. This mystical union of perfect devotion is that through which the
entire life of Jesus is transformed by the Logos. The Christological title “God-man” (theanthropos) was first found in the writings of Origen. This title
expresses Jesus’ divine and human natures, but falls short of explaining the
real union of Christ’s humanity with his divine person. This mystical union is
different in degree but not essentially (substantially) in kind, compared with
our union with God through contemplation.
6.3. ARIUS (250–336) & Arianism:
Arius was a priest and theologian from Libya
Arianism spread most parts of Egypt ,
Syria and Asia
Minor . In AD 325, the Council of Nicaea I condemned Arianism; and
declared “Son is the same being (homoosuios = consubstantial with)
of the Father. Against Arianism, the
Nicaean Creed declared “We believe in one God…And in Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, the only begotten generated from the Father, that is, from the being (ousia = nature or substance) of the Father…begotten not
made, one in being (homoousios) with
the Father…For us human beings and for our salvation he came down, and became
flesh, was made man” (ND 7).
In the 4th century, the great defender of Nicaean
Christology, which came to be known as Homoousios
Christology, was St Athanasius (+AD
373), a great Greek theologian and Patriarch of Alexandria. He followed the
Alexandrian school; he proposed that the Logos is the divine principle
operative in Jesus: “As he [Logos] contained by none, and only in his Father
totally exists, so he exists also in the human body, gives life to it, and
movement in Jesus Christ, and through Christ in all beings.” Therefore, Christ’s
body is the instrument (organon) of the life-giving action of
the Logos; Christ’s body was permeated by the Word” [logistheises tes sarkos] (MG 26.377 f) and so became the
medium of revelation and salvation for all.
The great value of St Athanasius’ Christological vision is its
soteriological significance: Jesus Christ is the revelation and salvation for humankind, but neglected Jesus’
humanity. At this stage, it cannot be seen that he accepted a human soul in
Christ. When speaking about Christ’s agony in the garden, Athanasius mentions
only bodily sufferings, “the body that suffered and shed tears, but he himself
did not have a nature capable of suffering. The Evangelists give us account as
if he suffered” (MG 26.377f). However, Athanasius changed his position after
the condemnation of Apollinaris[4],
bishop of Laodicaea, in the Synod of Alexandria (362).
6.4. Apollinaris of Laodicaea (310 – 390): Apollinaris of Laodicaea held an
extreme form of Alexandrine Christology, known as Monophysitism or Apollinarianism,
which claimed that Jesus Christ is truly God but not truly human. To explain his position, Apollinaris
followed Plato’s anthropology, according to which human person is made-up
of the material body (sarx), the life
principle (psyche) and the guiding
spiritual principle / rational soul (pneuma).
Apollinaris proposed that at incarnation, Christ’s pneuma was replaced by the divine Logos;
thus he is totally divinized, and has “one nature” (mia physis), a divine nature
only. To Apollinaris this seemed necessary to ensure the unity of the person of
Christ and his absolute freedom from sin. In AD 362, a Synod in Alexandria
It should be noted that the
one-sidedness of the Alexandrine position was not simply a philosophical
problem. It could not be corrected by condemning excess of Monophysitism. Its defect
is inherent in its one-sided understanding of the person of Jesus Christ
himself. For, Jesus Christ is not merely the medium or the instrument through
which the Logos (Son of God) revealed the divine mystery. On the contrary, He
is God who became human while being God; revelation takes place in and through
the full humanity and freedom of the historical person of Jesus Christ. To
rectify the Alexandrian defect, the Antiochian
School
7. Some important Antiochian Thinkers:
7.1. Eustathius of Antioch (+337): Eustathius was a great
theologian of the Antiochian School
and bishop of Antioch
7.2. Diodor, Bishop of Tarsus (+394):
Diodore was a philosopher and theologian, and bishop of Tarsus Athens
7.3. Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350 – 428): Theodore was born in Antioch , specialised in rhetoric, and made bishop of
Mopsuestia in Cilicia . He was the disciple of
Diodor and companion of St John Chrysostom. He was the most prominent representative of Antiochian
Christology. St Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, called him the “father of Nestorianism”.
Theodore insisted on Christ’s two natures, his human freedom and knowledge. He imaged
Christ as the “Word and assumed Man” – referring to Christ’s true divinity and
true humanity – and insisted that these natures form “one Son” and “one Lord”
because he holds that these are united in one divine person (NCE, vol.14, pp.18
– 19).
His Christology is dominated by the idea of two natures,
clearly distinguishing what belongs to God and what to man, with the intention
of keeping all human weaknesses out of God. He rejects, therefore, the
Alexandrine conception of a natural union of Logos and humanity for the
following reasons: (i) it would make Jesus’ body immortal, the Logos being the
only determining principle. (ii) The human soul is to be saved, not only the
body; hence also the soul must be assumed. (iii) The goal of salvation is
firmness, immutability, obviously a goal that concerns the soul, not the body.
(vi) It is through human acts that man must be saved, hence a true humanity’s
needed in Christ.(v) These human acts must be carried out in obedience under
human conditions; Jesus must be tempted, so only he will enter his glory
(A.Grillmeir, 146).
Hence Jesus is both, God and man: “He was not only God and not only
man but by nature belongs to both, God and man: he is God-Logos, the one who
assumed, and man who is assumed; the one who assumed is not the one who was
assumed… He who assumed is God; he who was assumed is man.” Similarly, through
the participation in the Sonship of the Logos, Jesus’ humanity shared in his
glory and power, and even becomes with him one ‘person” (prosopon).
What is this ‘one prosopon’ according to Theodore? In
Trinitarian language, as used at that time, prosopon
was synonym with ‘hypostasis’, which means an individual being. However,
in Christology, as used at that time, prosopon
stood for Jesus’ empirical personality constituted by his divine and human
natures. So, it seems that Theodore does not admit that the ‘Son of God’ is one
and the same as ‘Mary’s son’. This hardening of the position was due to the
Alexandrian polemical rejection of the Christological formula of the Nicaean
Creed: that “one and the same” person of Jesus Christ is truly God and fully
human. Thus the stage is set for the great conflict. Perhaps the conflict is
ultimately due to too static conception of Christ’s divine and human natures.
7.4. Nestorius (+ 451) & Nestorianism: Nestorius – a disciple of Theodore, was a Syrian
monk and a great scholar – was made patriarch of Constantinople
in 428. He stood for doctrinal reform in Constantinople ;
closed down Arian churched and expelled heretics from there. As an ardent
follower of Antiochian Christology, Nestorius applied Aristotelian philosophy for
Christological reflection. According to Aristotle, an individual being is one
that is undivided in itself and divided from others in such a way that it
subsists in itself as an individual subject. Every perfect nature is a
subsisting individual, i.e., an individual person. Moreover, in Aristotle’s
philosophy, “essential nature” and “subsistence” (individual being) are
interchangeable. Consequently, a human being with a human nature necessarily
subsists as an individual human being, i.e., as an individual person.
Nesstorianism is an extreme form of Antiochian Christology which is based on the Aristotelian
philosophy as propounded by Nestorius. It means that a complete human nature in
Christ necessarily implies a complete human person. Christ, therefore, was a
human person to whom the divine person of the Logos was united, forming a
unique personality (prosopon) of Christ. Though this union was sublime, it was,
nevertheless, a moral union between two persons – that is, a
union between the divine person of the Logos and a human person, born of Mary. In
short, Nestorianism holds that Jesus Christ is the union of two persons – a divine
person (Son of God) and a human person (Son of Mary) – which forms a unique
empirical personality called Christ. It means that God did not really become human,
while being God!
The Christological heresy of Nestorianism led into a Mariological heresy: In a series of sermons, Nestorius discussed whether Mary
should be called theotokos (Mother of God), as this title was already in usage,
or Anthropotokos
(Mother of man Jesus). He
personally preferred to call her ‘Christotokos (Mother of Christ)’ because Christ is the name of the
mediator, to whom the divine person of the Logos had united himself. Once again, this amounted to affirming in
Christ two persons, one divine and one human. Nestorius argued, No creature has
given birth to God, but she has given birth to the man who became God’s
instrument.” His refusal to accord theotokos
title to Mary was also conditioned by the danger of comparing Mary with the mother
goddess, a cult prevalent in Greek, especially the cult of goddess Arthemis of
Ephesus.
A great commotion followed. Extracts of Nestorius’ sermon were sent
to Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. Cyril wrote to Nestorius exhorting him to
accept the title “theotokos”, and at
the same time, plotted with monks in Constantinople
to revolt against Nestorius. Both parties write to Pope Celestine, who sided
with Cyril and demanded Nestorius’ full doctrinal submission to Cyril’s
position. Nestorius was presented with a stern letter from Cyril, containing an
Christological Creed, and an appendix of 12 Anathemas, and was asked to sign.
The situation was impossible for reconciliation, given the age-old rivalry between
the sees of Antioch and Alexandria
8. Council at Ephesus
All the deeper theological problems, however, remained unresolved as
the Christological problem was settled in a single day amidst political
turmoil. The real work remained to be done. A few days later, the Antiochians arrived
and excommunicated Cyril, and vice-versa. In the meantime, the Pope’s Roman
delegation approved the condemnation of Nestorius. To end the confusion, the
emperor closed the Council and imprisoned both Cyril and Nestorius; but after a
few months, Cyril returned to Alexandria , while Nestorius
went into exile in his monastery in Antioch
Today, Nestorius’ personal
Orthodoxy has been to a great extent acknowledged, on the ground that he
explicitly rejected a merely moral union
between Jesus the man and the Logos, and insisted on a union in being. Today, it has also been acknowledged by scholars that
Cyril failed to spell out clearly the real difference between human and divine natures
that ought to co-exist in the One Person of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God.
Post-Ephesus I Crisis: The following years were marked by theological and political attempts for reconciliation between Alexandria and Antioch Ephesus
This precarious reconciliation, however, was broken by Eutyches, an extreme Alexandrine monk
of Constantinople , who rejected the Antiochian
reconciliation formula as Nestorian (ND, 607). Instead, Eutyches proposed that
there were two natures in Christ before his Incarnation, but after the
Incarnation, Christ had only divine nature, which is known as Eutychanism. Eutyches was condemned by Flavian,
the patriarch of Constantinople, but backed by Dioscorus, the Alexandrine
patriarch, and using their influence at the imperial court of emperor
Theodosius, succeeded to call a synod in Ephesus Constantinople ,
and other Antiochian bishops. Pope Leo the Great condemned it, calling it the synod of robbers.
9. The Great Council of Chalcedon Chalcedon
The Council of Chalcedon opposed those who attempted to split the
personal identity of the Incarnate Son of God into two persons (prosopon) or two sons as proposed by
Nestorianism. The Council withstood against those who mixed or confused
Christ’s two natures (phusis) and to
make it into one divine nature only as claimed by Monophysite sects; it condemned
those who advocated that at the time of Incarnation Christ assumed a nature
which was different to our nature as proposed by Arianism; and rejected the
myth that Christ had two natures before Incarnation, and one divine nature only
after the Incarnation (Eutychenism).
9.1. Chalcedonian
Definition:
Following therefore the holy Fathers, we
unanimously teach to confess one and the
same[5]
(heis
kai ho autos)[6]
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same
perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man composed of rational soul and
body, the same one in being (homoousios) with the Father as to the
divinity and one in being (homoousios)
with us as to the humanity, like unto us in all things but sin. The same was begotten from the Father
before all ages as to the divinity and in the latter days for us and our
salvation was born as to his humanity from Mary the Virgin Mother of God. (ND,
614)
We confess that one and the
same Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, must be acknowledged in two
natures, without confusion or change, without division or separation. The
distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union but rather
the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they come
together in one person (prosopon) and
one hypostasis (subsistence =
individual subject).[7]
He is not split or divided into two persons, but he is one and the same Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus
Christ, as formerly the prophets and later Jesus Christ himself have taught us
about him and as has been handed down to us by the Symbol of the Fathers. (ND,
615)
In concise form the Chalcedonian doctrinal definition means that Jesus Christ is
true God and true man, and that his divine and human natures are united in one
divine person, without confusion, change, division, or separation.
In preparing this definition, the Council Fathers based themselves
on the Creeds of Nicaea (ND, 7, 8) and Constantinople
(ND, 12) which they acknowledged as sufficient for the full knowledge of the
apostolic faith. The reason for composing the new doctrinal definition was not
to replace the previous Creeds with better ones but, in view of heresies, to clarify
the Christological, Trinitarian and Soteriological meaning of one article of
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: “He became flesh…and was made man” ( ND, 12).
9.2. Synthesis of thoughts: The Chalcedonian definition
integrated the positive Christological thoughts of Alexandrian and
Antiochian schools. The Council took the Alexandrian insistence on the oneness of the personal identity of the
incarnate Son of God. For this, Council Fathers treated the Antiochian
Christological concept “prosopon” and Alexandrian
Christological concept “hypostasis” synonyms, and held that both
denote a personal ontological subject to whom the human and divine natures,
human divine qualities, are attributed.[8]
In this manner, the Council brought out one personal identity of Jesus Christ
by using the phrase “one and the same”
(heis kai ho autos). So, One and the same
Son of God is God and man in that he is truly God and truly a human being.
The Council retrained from Antiochian thought its emphasis on Christ’s
dual nature. The duality of natures arises due to the mystery of the Incarnation:
As Son of God (that is, as eternal Logos), he is begotten of the Father from
all eternity (that is, his nature is divine; therefore, he is truly God); by Incarnation,
he is born of the Virgin Mary in time to assume a human nature (that is, he has
a true human nature; therefore, he is fully human). This means that Jesus
Christ is “one in being” (homoousios) with the Father in his
divinity (that he is truly divine) and “one in being” (homoousios) with us in
his humanity (that is, he is truly human).
The reality of the two natures is never suppressed. Prior to the
Council of Chalcedon, Eutyches had proposed that Christ was from two natures
before the Incarnation, but these got blended into one in the Incarnation,
which was rejected by the Council. Thus, the Council declared that his two
natures are “without confusion or change”
(against Monophysitism and Eutychanism); but also affirmed that these natures
are “without division or separation”
(against extreme Antiochian positions like that of Nestorianism).
The Chalcedonian teaching on the personal identity of the incarnate
Son of God as one divine person (one
individual subject) in two natures (divine
and human) has remained normative
for mainstream Christianity. With it, the Council made its most important
contribution: an official and standard terminology about the personal identity
of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. Accordingly, Jesus Christ is only one individual subject but has two
natures, divine and human. He has one “who” (that is, Jesus Christ is the
incarnate Son of God), but has two “what” (that is, he is God and man = divine
and human). Hence, the incarnate Son of God is a complete human being, because
he has (assumed) all the essential qualities (defining qualities) of a human
being, but did not become a human person. His loving “descent” into our
humanity “altered” him by adding a human nature through which he became one
among us in all things but sin.
If the Son of God, so to speak, were to “unite himself” at the time
of incarnation with another human person born of Virgin Mary, he would not have
truly “become flesh” (Jn 1: 14). In that case, he would have neither become truly
human nor assumed our full human condition in all its possibilities and
limitations (Phil 2: 7 – 8). Moreover, if that were the case, then, what would
have resulted is a ‘unique relationship’ or a ‘union’ between two persons: a
union between a divine subject (eternal Son of God) and a human subject (the person
of the Son of Mary), but that would not amount to Incarnation of the Son of God
at all as given in John 1:14! In that case, the eternal Son of God would not strictly
be identical with Mary’s Son. Any such “two-son” theory excludes true Incarnation
as given in the biblical revelation. At the most, it would image Christ as a
kind of temple of the divine Son (Logos) or as a person filled with the divine
Spirit, a sort of Nestorianism.
9.3. Hypostatic union: Chalcedon
Hypostatic union refers to a divine act of incarnational becoming,
which necessitates an ontological act of uniting a human nature to the person
of the Son of God so that the Son of God comes to exist personally (hypostatically) as a human being. In other words, in
the act of Incarnation, the Second Person of the Triune God, the Son (eternal
Logos), has assumed as his own a human nature so that he began to exist as a
human being in time. However, his human nature does not subsist (that is, does
not exist as a distinct ontological subject) in itself as we are, but in and by
the Divine person of the eternal Son. In addition to his divine nature that he
possessed from eternity, the Son of God acquired / took on all the essential
characteristics of a human being and became one among us, but not become
identical to us.
Hypostatic union is different in kind (species) from a moral union
or a spiritual union that takes place between two persons. It is also different
in kind from an organic union that arises from commingling of two natures
producing a sort of hybrid nature – something like a hybrid fruit arising from
a genetically modified plant or water molecules arising from a chemical
combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. On the contrary, what is implied in
the Incarnation is a personal union of a
Divine Person with a human nature. Therefore, it is the Son of God (the
Second person of the Triune God) in whom the human nature of Jesus subsists (that
is, exists in its distinct essential character) as his own; and this Divine
Person, because of the assumed human nature, truly becomes a human being in
time in history, while remaining truly God.
Jesus’ humanity is therefore personally / hypostatically united with
the Son of God (eternal Logos) in time (around BC 5), in a human way; and this
means in a way which includes human freedom and human consciousness, and other
essential human attributes. Precisely because Jesus is none other than the Son
of God and in whom his human nature is personally united, in him and through
him, he is also fully human. This is how, God in his unfathomable mystery,
shows himself in a human way as a God for us, a God who radically (fully) gives
himself in Jesus Christ to human beings. Hence, in Jesus Christ, we understand
who God is? He is a God of the humanity, a God fully and truly in communion
with us.
9.4. Exchange of
Properties (Communicatio Idiomatorum):
The exchange (Communicatio) of properties (Idiomatorum)
is the direct consequence of the hypostatic union as formulated by the Council
of Chalcedon I. Nevertheless, prior to Chalcedon, and even beginning with the New
Testament writings, in liturgy and Patristic theology, there developed a form
of Christological discourse in which the exchange of properties/ qualities/
actions of both divine and human natures are predicated (applied) to Jesus Christ,
because “one and the same” subject is truly God and truly
human, possessing the properties (idiomatorum)
of both natures. Thus, for instance, one may rightly say: Son of God suffered
and died on the Cross; God the Son / God the Word was a small child; Jesus of
Nazareth is God’s own Son; this prophet of Nazareth is God himself; eternal Son
of God has Mary for his mother; Mary is Mother of God (theotokos); the child Jesus and God the Son is one and the same. In
this way, the acknowledgement of Mary’s divine motherhood (theotokos) has become the criterion of Christological orthodoxy.
10. The Council of Constantinople
II (553):
In spite of
incorporating the best insights of Antioch and Alexandria , Chalcedon Chalcedon
Hence, to
settle these post-Chalcedon crises, Emperor Justinian, who sided with
Monophysists, in AD 553 called for the Council of Constantinople II. This
Council restated the condemnation levelled against Nestrorianism. Though the
Council’s deliberations were sympathetic towards Monophysite tendency against
the wishes of the Pope, its condemnations was confirmed by Pope Vigilius’
second Constitutum (a solemn document) written after the conclusion of the
Council in the year 554 (ND, 620, Cannons 4 –10).
11. The Council of Constantinople III (681):
In defining the full humanity of Jesus Christ, The Council of Chalcedon
I (451) implicitly asserted also the Jesus’ human will and action but did not
sufficiently bring out Jesus’ freedom and his free self-gift unto death for the
saving mission of God, his Father. Meanwhile, heresies of Monotheletism and
Mono-energism were threatening to negate Christ’s human freedom as a human
being and, therefore, his free will and freely chosen actions. Thus it was
necessary that precisely this aspect of his human nature had to be clearly
defined. This was done in the Third Council of Constantinople which was
convoked by Emperor Constantine IV with the full consent of Pope Agato. The
Council approved a profession of faith in Christ, interspersed with anathema
against Monotheletism and Mono-energism. The following are the essential parts
of the profession:
“We likewise proclaim in him, according to the teaching of the holy
fathers, two natural volitions or wills and two natural actions, without
division, without change, without separation, without confusion. The two
natural wills are not – by no means – opposed to each other as the impious
heretics assert; but his human will is compliant, it does not resist or oppose
but rather submits to his divine and almighty will…”( ND, 635)
“In the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, we glory in
proclaiming two natural actions, without division, without change, without
separation, without confusion, namely a divine action and a human action, as
Leo, the master in matters related to God, asserts with utmost clarity: “for
each of the two natures performs the function proper to it in communion with
the other…” (ND, 637).
The essential qualities that characterise the relationship between
Christ’s divine and human natures as decreed in the Chalcedonian definition,
were applied here to describe the relationship between his divine and human wills
and actions. But the result of this affirmation is not a ‘split personality of
Christ.’ Not only the moral submission of Christ’s human will to the divine
will is emphasised, but also that his human will is God the Son’s very won. The
belonging of the human will to the one divine subject excludes any dichotomy in
Christ, a sort of split personality in Christ.
With this teaching, the Council explicated what is most essential to
the human nature of Jesus Christ to contemporary men and women, our human
freedom. Without human freedom, Jesus Christ would have lacked what makes us
truly human, the struggle to choose freely what is right, and the gradual
self-realisation of the person by a series of free decisions. Moreover, by
expounding on the free human will of Christ, the Third Council of
Constantinople provided the ontological foundation for the soteriological
teaching that, even though our salvation is God’s undeserved free gift, the
human race is saved by a human being, and more precisely, by the freely chosen
acts of the man Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God.
With the decree of the Third Council of Constantinople, the most
important Christological truths have received classic doctrinal formulation and
become the common heritage of the mainstream Christianity. They are the
guideposts to warn against Christological reductions and heresies, and to mark
the right direction for further deepening and articulating the Church’s
faith-understanding of the mystery of Christ.
12. General summing up:
With the mystery of Incarnation event, God has become a human being.
A qualitatively new stage has begun in God’s progressive solidarity with
humankind when in Jesus of Nazareth the eternal Son of God (the eternal Logos)
became flesh. The doctrine of Incarnation tells us that Jesus of Nazareth is
not simply a man of God, nor is God just present in him.
The logic of complete solidarity of God with humankind requires as a
necessary condition that there be only one ontological subject (only one
person) in Jesus who is truly God and truly human. God would not be in full
solidarity with humankind if he had not assumed all that we have and are. On
the other hand, if Jesus were not truly and fully God, we would not receive the
fullness of God in the self-giving sacrifice of Jesus for us. This is what
precisely underlined by the Council of Chalcedon through the doctrine of
hypostatic union that the human nature of Christ is personally assumed by the
eternal Son of God and made it his own.
Hypostatic union is the necessary condition of redemption because without
this union, God would not have accepted full solidarity with us or a complete
exchange between God and humankind could not have occurred.[9]
Therefore, Jesus is God’s perfect self-communication to us in a most perfect
human way.[10] Hypostatic
union also implies that God assumes full solidarity with humankind only if the
crucified Jesus is God himself because no one but God alone can communicate God
to humankind in fullness. Thus, Jesus must be God, but at the same time a true
human being.[11]
This then is the meaning of
the mystery of Christ event: The one person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son
of God, is truly God and truly human in that he is God’s presence for us in a
most human way. As the eternal Word (Logos) of God, he is the Self-reflection
of God the Father. As eternal Word, by his very nature, he never rests in
himself, but comes from the Father and is meant to be heard. Jesus Christ is meant
for others – to entire creation. In a human-centred creation, he mirrors
(reflects) the fulfilment of human longings and through humanity to entire
creation. This is what Vatican II acclaims: “For God’s Word, by whom all things
were made, was Himself made flesh so that as perfect man He might save all men
and sum up all things in Himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the
focal point of the longings of history and of civilisation, the centre of human
race, the joy of every heart, and the answer to all its yearnings” (GS, 45).
Chapter III
Jesus the Man:
His consciousness and knowledge
1. The Approach
We have so far reflected on the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ,
the incarnate Son of God: first, in Chapter one, from a biblical point of view,
as Christ event has been experienced and reflected upon by the early Christians
as recorded in the New Testament. In Chapter two, we studied how this mystery
has been interpreted from an ontological point of view by applying metaphysical
principles as developed in the Patristic tradition and conciliar teaching,
especially the Council of Chalcedon I (AD 451), which has been the turning
point in Christological thought, and further clarified and reiterated by the
Council of Constantinople III (AD 681).
In Chapter III, we study Jesus’ human activities, especially his
human consciousness, knowledge and will. This is needed because in the modern
age, person is defined in terms of consciousness, freedom, and will.[12]
Consciousness is a quality of the person, rather than of nature or faculty of
the person. Neither a human faculty, such as intellect and will, nor human
nature can be conscious.[13]
Only the acting person is conscious. Self-consciousness is basically a
spiritual (non-empirical) experience and, therefore, it is the defining quality
of a spiritual self.
1. Jesus’ human
consciousness & Knowledge:
(A historical review)
1.1. Classical position: Doctrinally, the starting point of our reflection is the
Chalcedonian definition: that the one divine person of Jesus Christ subsists in
two natures. That is, by Incarnation, the Son of God assumed a human nature as
his own and became a human being in time and history, while being God.
Therefore, “one and the same” Jesus Christ is truly God and fully human. Consequently,
he also acquired (assumed) human consciousness, and human way of thinking and
willing as his own. Hence, in Christology we deal with Jesus’ human knowledge
and will as these are connected with his human consciousness. Our approach to
this inner life of Jesus will be philosophical but in as much as sustainable by
biblical insights.
Classical Christology took it for granted that as Jesus had two
natures, so also he had divine and human will, consciousness, knowledge and
action, etc., but his human activities were perfectly ordained to divine will.
1.2. Scholastic thought: In the middle ages
the thought of Thomas Aquinas prevailed. He and many others held that as Jesus’ human
nature was personally united with his divine person (that is, hypostatic union),
from the moment of his Incarnation Jesus was equipped with the most perfect
knowledge of beatific vision entailing total knowledge of everything.[14]
These unchecked thoughts became part of the official teaching of the Church (ND,
660 –661).[15] Such
conclusions are not warranted by the Gospel narratives, especially Jesus’
temptations and trails (e.g. Mk 1:12–13; 14:32– 42; Lk 22:8; also Heb 2:18;
4:15). However, Pius XII’s Encyclical Sempiternus
Rex (1951), written on the occasion
of the 1,500th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon (451),
approved the study of the humanity of Jesus Christ, his human consciousness,
knowledge, etc (ND, 663). From a speculative point of view, this openness to
investigation was first responded by P. Parente and P. Galtier. Both dealt on
the question of “the psychological centre of Jesus’ life”.[16]
1.3. Parente’s position: For Parente the centre of Christ’s personality is the Divine Logos.
He images Jesus’ person according to Alexandrine tradition: Jesus’ life and
actions are determined by the Logos as their internal principle. The Ego in
Jesus means the divine person not only as the ontological subject to which they
refer, but as the psychological centre of his consciousness, thinking and
willing. There is no human ego in Jesus, no human centre of consciousness. Thus
he easily explains Jesus’ relation to the Father and his mission to reveal God.
However, Parente holds that Jesus’ human actions become somehow unreal; they
are the means to be in touch with our world, but he himself is of a different
sphere.
Critically we remark: Jesus’ relation to his Father, though rooted
in his divine sonship, still takes place within his human consciousness. We
cannot agree to the position that Jesus’ divine nature (that is, his divine
consciousness) as the psychologically determining principle in Jesus life. On
the contrary, the Gospels report that he lived and worked as man and his
decisions were human. Finally, if Jesus is truly human he must have a human
consciousness, which is to be conscious of being human, because consciousness
is the self-transparency of human existence, which is constitutive of human
nature.
1.4. P. Galtier’s position: He thinks in terms of Antiochian Christology with the emphasis on
the full humanity of Jesus Christ. Being truly human, Jesus has a human
psychological ego, which realises itself as a free and psychologically
autonomous centre of thinking, willing and action. The hypostatic union with
the eternal Son (eternal Logos) does not enter into the human consciousness of
Jesus; his divine nature does not directly influence and control his actions. Therefore,
to explain Jesus’ knowledge of his divine sonship and of his mission, Galtier
assumed (with most theologians) the beatific vision in Jesus: in the blessed vision
of God Jesus also sees his own divinity and mission.
We appreciate Galtier’s view regarding Christ’s human consciousness with
its own empirical autonomy. Regarding Jesus relation to his Father and his
awareness of his divine sonship, contemporary theological position, however, is
different: it is not part of an objective vision of God (that is, a beatific
vision), but belongs to Jesus’ knowledge of his inner subjectivity in which he
realises himself as united to his Father in a unique way.
1.5. Our position: we claim for Jesus a genuine human consciousness and a human
psychological centre as it belongs to human beings according to the stages of
psycho-physical development; this is implied in the biblical account and
demanded by a sound theology, which takes the doctrine of Jesus’ true humanity
seriously. As fully human, while being God, Jesus has human consciousness, knowledge
and freedom; he stands also before God in freedom, obedience and adoration. Before
going into a detailed study of Jesus’ human consciousness and knowledge, we
clarify three ways in which we acquire knowledge: first is objective knowledge.
This is the knowledge we acquire from outside by means of sense-experience and
reasoning process. Second is our self-knowledge
(also known as knowledge of inner-subjectivity) deriving from our self-consciousness
of who and what we are? According to Karl Rahner,[17]
it is the “a-priori” condition for the possibility of all human knowledge. It
is the basic condition of the spiritual subject and remains in itself unobjectivated
and becomes objectivated by self-reflection.[18]
Third is that all human knowledge is progressive.
We grow in knowledge. Growth in our self-awareness takes place by way of deep
self-reflection and introspection. These factors of human knowledge also apply
to Jesus.
2. Jesus’ knowledge of
himself:
In view of the hypostatic union, Christian tradition has developed
the notion that human person is an ontological subject[19]
in distinction to nature; and that self-consciousness is an essential quality
of the subject. Neither human faculty, such as intellect and will, nor human
nature can be conscious. Only an acting subject is self-conscious, because in
every act of consciousness, the subject is in someway involved. When I am
thinking, willing, or feeling, I am aware of thinking, willing, or feeling, and
I am also aware of myself as thinking, willing or feeling. This direct
awareness of acting and of the self as acting is a primordial experience of
personal life which points to the fact that person is an ontological subject.
Through self-consciousness, even such non-spiritual activities like breathing,
eating, etc., are appropriated (made personal) by us as we become aware of
them. Consciousness or self-awareness is prior to and different from
self-knowledge.[20]
The latter (that is, self-knowledge) results from the reflective operation of
the subject: the conscious subject reflects on his/her self-awareness, treats
it as object to be analysed and understood
by means of concepts and judgements. The person tries to understand
himself/herself by becoming aware of who he/she is.
The doctrine of Incarnation implies that the ontological subject of
Jesus Christ is the eternal Son himself who has full divine and human nature.
Consequently, by becoming incarnate, he also acquired a full human
consciousness as his own, while being God. Therefore, his divine consciousness
and knowledge did not interfere in any way with his human consciousness and
knowledge, because Chalcedon
How this is possible remains the very mystery of the incarnation,
when viewed from the mental activities (psychology) of Jesus. Yet our
conclusion is based on the ontological structure of Jesus Christ as it is
formulated in the Chalcedonian definition of the mystery of Incarnation: God
himself has become a human being. God would not have become truly incarnate if
he had not experienced himself as a human being in a human way.
Moreover, Jesus had to be aware of himself as the incarnate Son from
the very beginning of his life just as every human person becomes aware of
one’s individuality. Closely related to the development of his self-consciousness
is the growth of his self-knowledge. Jesus was growing in wisdom (Lk 2:52). Through
his growth in self-knowledge, Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, objectivates –
just as any other human being – his self-awareness by means of concepts and
judgements and expresses his self-understanding to himself and to others.
This self-knowledge of Jesus is completely and truly human,
expressing in human images and concepts the human self-awareness of the
incarnate Son. We can only infer about the content of his self-knowledge from
what we know of the sayings of Jesus as given in the New Testament: He
understands himself to be a truly human being whose whole life is dedicated to
the worship and service of God. He speaks and acts as God’s beloved Son, whom
he calls his beloved abba Father. He
sees his mission is absolutely unique. He is sent to bring about God’s Kingdom
on earth. He knows that God’s almighty love is at work in and through him, in
his words and in his acts of forgiving, healing, and reconciling the world to
the Father.
The awareness of being charged with this mission seems to be the
centre of his self-knowledge. This mission determines his whole life, and
through this mission he knows who he is. In this connection R. Brown’s
observation is relevant: “He claimed to be the unique agent in the process of
establishing God’s kingship over men was making itself felt. From the beginning
of Jesus’ ministry to the end he exhibited unshakable confidence that he could
authoritatively interpret the demands that God’s kingship puts on men… He could
and did declare sins forgiven and modify the Law of Moses, violate the Sabbath
ordinances… All of this certainly implies a consciousness of a unique ministry
to men… From the beginning of his ministry he proclaimed the kingdom of God
3. Jesus’ knowledge of God:
Both the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel affirm Jesus’ unique
knowledge of God (E.G: Mt 11:25 –27; Lk 10:21 – 22; Mk 13:32; Jn 18: 18, 5:20,
10:15; 14:7). According to Mt 11: 25 – 27 and Lk 10: 21 – 22, this mutual knowledge
of Father and Son is of comparable breadth and depth; consequently, the Son’s
knowledge of his Father is unique and surpasses that of all creatures. Mk 13:32
also implies the Son’s transcendent knowledge[24]
of the Father except in the case of the time of Parousia.[25]
We can also deduce Jesus’ transcendent knowledge of God from the
hypostatic union: the human nature of Jesus is God the Son’s own human nature;
consequently, it is appropriate for this assumed human nature to share, but in
a human way, the divine knowledge of the eternal Son.
We must remember that through his human consciousness, it is the
eternal Son who experiences himself in a human way. This knowledge of his
self-awareness must also include the awareness of his relationship to the Father
since his self-awareness as Son of God is constituted precisely by his being
from the Father. Hence, we conclude that Jesus’ knowledge of God and of himself
is not by means of beatific vision as claimed by Aquinas and Scholastic
theology, but rather from his immediate self-awareness which includes his awareness
of being the Son of the Father.
Human self-awareness is always immediate, intuitive, comprehensive,
and luminous. It is part of one’s disclosure experience by which one
experiences about one’s self in relation to God, other human persons and world.
This experience requires clarification and a gradual conceptual articulation,
producing growth in one’s reflective self-knowledge. In the case of Jesus, his
growing reflective self-knowledge of God depends on the Father’s constant
revealing, guiding and inspiring activity. Father and Jesus communicate in the
Holy Spirit and Jesus reveals only what he hears from his Father in the Spirit (see
Lk 3: 22; 10:21; Jn 3:22; 8:26, 40;
15:15). In this way, we can better explain why Jesus in his earthy life did not
know the date of the end of human history (Mk 13:32) because it was not part of
revelation that he received from his Father.[26]
4. Jesus’ knowledge of his
mission:
Mark sums up content of Jesus’ ministry: “The time is fulfilled, and
the kingdom of God kingdom
of God
The Jews expected the establishing of God’s kingdom by the Messiah
as spoken by God’s holy prophets from of old (Lk 24: 21 ff; Acts 3. 21). It was
therefore the title Messiah was attached most closely to Jesus’ name after his
resurrection. Yet we find on the part of Jesus a marked reluctance to accept
this title (see in Chapter I). He did not want the title to be exposed to the
public (Mk 8. 30); he even avoided a straight forward answer in the decisive
interrogation before the High Priest (Mt 26.24). R. Brown comments: “Jesus
answers in a qualified manner ‘you have said so’… This probably means that,
while Jesus will not refuse the title and thus deny his unique role before the
High Priest, nevertheless, the phraseology is not what he would spontaneously
choose and he is not happy about its implications.”[27]
Thus Jesus’ consciousness of his mission is not based on his title: people
called him Rabbi, Prophet, Messiah, but Jesus does not fit adequately into any
of these categories.
What is the source of his knowledge of the mission? We would agree
that Jesus’ awareness of his mission on the one hand comes from his union with
the Father (from his self-knowledge of God), and at the same time, it is
related to his actual experience in the world. Through his union with God,
Jesus sees all things related to his Father and so also finds in the movements
of his time the inner call to his mission. Thus his mission is given to him
from within, from his self-knowledge. It is derived from God’s intimate
presence to him, and guided by the Spirit (LK 4: 1–14). Exterior circumstances
do not cause the call to mission but occasion to realise it. So Jesus in his
intimate union with God realises with growing precision the meaning of his life
and mission. The question up to what degree he articulates this mission may be
left open.
The central content of Jesus’ message is God’s saving grace given to
people in Jesus’ own coming. In the prophetic message of the past, God’s mercy
and the threat of punishment were always mixed. Jesus’ predecessor, John the
Baptist, also preached with a call to repentance with threat of punishment, etc
(Lk 3:1 –18). In apocalyptic texts the cry for mercy is always connected with
the prayer for the punishment of sinners. Jesus’ proclamation has nothing of
revenge; it is simply God’s grace and mercy, a call to accept salvation (Mk
1:15; Lk 4: 18–19). Therefore everybody is welcome, including the sinners if
only they repent, and Jesus takes the full blame on himself for accepting them
(Mk 2: 15–17; Lk 7. 36-50 etc.).
Jesus is equally clear and definite in distancing himself from other
interpretations of the kingdom: he rejects the political interpretation because
he never wanted to be a king (Jn 6:
15); for the highly political event of Pilate slaughtering some Galileans who worshiped
in Jerusalem he only has the spiritual comment to repent, less they also perish
(Lk 13. 1-3). His reluctance towards the title Messiah has the same reason.
Jesus is clear in his rejection of the pharisaic conception of God’s kingdom:
They idolised the Law and privileged the chosen people, so that ultimately,
observance of the law became self-glory of human beings (cf. Paul’s
Christology). For Jesus the law is the means to order people’s relationship to
God and neighbour. Hence his firm and clear-sighted struggle against their
conception of the Sabbath, and his own acts of healing on the day of the rest
(Mk 1, 21; 2.27; 3.1-6; Mt 12.1-13; Lk 14.1-6). Finally, Jesus challenges the
entire law-centred holiness of the Pharisees (Mt 23). His approach to God’s
kingdom is also against the Zealots who stood for fanatic nationalism of Israel and their reliance on violence against
enemies of Israel
Though Jesus message is good news, one’s genuine response is
demanded. Jesus speaks of the narrow gate, while the wide road leads to hell
(Mt 7: 13); those who call him Lord
without doing God’s will, will be rejected (Mt 7: 21–23); those who build the
house not on the rock of God’s Word but on sand, will be washed away (Mt 7: 24
– 27); the fig tree that bears no fruit must be cut off, though a time of grace
is still given (Lk 13: 6-9); the merciless servant who is forgiven, but does
not forgive his fellow-servants will be thrown out (Mt 18: 21-35). All the
sinners who are forgiven are also renewed as given in the parable of the
prodigal Son (Lk 15: 11–32); the story of the penitent women (Lk 7: 36 –50);
Zachaeus (Lk 19: 1–10), and the Publican (Lk 16: 10 –14).
5. Jesus’ secular and
religious knowledge:
Scholastic theology attributed to Jesus perfect knowledge. St Thomas
The background of this conception is the Greek idea of human person
whose ideal is ‘theoria’ (perfect
knowledge); all ignorance is deficiency. Today’s concrete understanding of human
persons as free beings, determining themselves in freedom and struggle towards
his destiny would conceive also ignorance in a more positive way.[29]
Thus we approach the question of Jesus’ knowledge and its limitations without
prejudice, on the basis of scriptural evidence.
No theologian today questions that Jesus had the same kind of experiential
knowledge of the world, things and events of his time as all human beings. In
secular and religious knowledge he shared the thoughts of his time. Whatever
Jesus learns about this world becomes for him a parable or symbol of God’s
world. His parables reveal him as a keen observer of nature and people, both of
which he describes with vital detail, humour, and sympathy. The budding seed of
grain first produces the blade, the blade the ear, and the ear is filled with
grain (Mk 4:28). He observes not only the process of nature but also the life
of people: the business venture of the merchant who risks all his wealth for
one single precious pearl, the crafty dealings of the sacked manager, the
anxious waiting of the father who refuses to give up on his son, are portrayed
with the realism and imagination of an unusually sensitive observer. As it
happens to all people, his secular knowledge is limited but constantly growing.
On religious ideas, Jesus shares the religious conceptions of his
time. His contemporaries saw the world as a battlefield of innumerable good and
evil spirits, and attributed diseases and natural calamities to the influence
of demons. Jesus speaks the same language, the threatening storm he commands,
“be still”, and the waves “be quite” (Mk 4.39). Some of the cases of possessions
as treated by Jesus would appear to modern diagnosis as diseases: e.g. the demoniac
raving among the graves a “dangerous insanity” (Mk 5.12ff); and the possessed
boy of Mk 9. 17ff is an epileptic. Also the idea of driving out the demons into
a herd of swine (Mk 5. 12ff); and the idea of demons deprived of their places
wandering about and look far a new abode, etc (Mt 1243ff; Lk 11.24) are part of
the popular belief of his time.[30]
Regarding belief in the life after death, Jesus does correct its
material conceptions (Mk 12: 25); but for the rest he speaks the language of his time, such as unquenchable
fire, worms, grinding of teeth, insatiable thirst, and separated by a vast
chasm, the banquet in the presence of God and the Patriarchs (Mk 8: 11). It is
hardly possible to distinguish Jesus’ real ideas from the symbolic language. However,
Jesus had clear knowledge regarding immortality, when he speaks of those who
kill the body but not the soul (Mk 10: 28), of gaining or losing one’s life (Mk
8: 38), and promising the thief on the cross that “today you will be with me in
paradise” (Lk 23: 43).[31]
Regarding apocalyptic expectation, Jesus uses the accepted stereotyped
vocabulary of his time: of earthquake, famine, wars, stars falling from the
sky, the sun darkened, etc., (Mk 13.7f; 24f). R. Brown sums up, “In the three
areas of demonology, life after death and apocalyptic, Jesus seems to draw on
the imperfect religious concepts of his time without indicating a superior
knowledge and without substantially correcting the concepts.”[32]
6. Jesus’ Freedom,
Sinlessness:
The New Testament presents Jesus’ freedom and that his life is a series of freely chosen decisions in
fulfilling the mission of the Father entrusted to him. Jesus’ freedom is of
greatest importance for a true understanding of his person and mission because
it makes him a member of human family in human condition. Only through his free
acceptance of the Father’s will, he could redeem us and be the model of new
humanity. The temptation story of Jesus (Mt 4: 1- 11), and his sayings like, “I
seek not my will but the will of the one who sent me” (Jn 5:30); his prayer in
the garden while faced with death, “abba,
Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what
I want, but what you want” (Mk 14:36) clearly testify his freedom.[33]
Further, New Testament presents Jesus’ freedom as well as his
sinlessness. Jesus’ sinlessness is approached in two ways: (i) as a matter of
fact (de facto), he did not sin.
Jesus lived a sinless life of perfect obedience to his Father’s will. (ii) In
principle (de jure), he could not
sin which means that he is intrinsically impeccable (that is, his nature is
such that he can not sin). De jure
sinlessness of Jesus posits philosophical and theological problems because
freedom implies defectibility (that is, the possibility of committing sin). This
would place him set apart from the rest of humankind. Consequently, he cannot
be a model to follow by the rest of humankind.
In our attempt to solve this dilemma, first we see the scriptural
evidence. The theophany texts point to the direction of Jesus’ de jure sinlessness: “You are my
beloved son in whom I am well pleased” (Mk 1: 11).[34]
John reports Jesus’ challenge to his adversaries: “Which of you convicts me of
sin?” (Jn 8: 48). The text may have special weight as it is found close to the
story of the adulterous woman where Jesus challenges the Jews: “Let him who is
without sin among you be the first to throw a stone to her” (Jn 14: 30). Paul
asserts Jesus’ personal sinlessness in contrast to the condition of our race to
which he belongs: “For our sake he made him to be sin, who knew no sin, so that
in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5: 21). Peter, applying
to Jesus the text of the suffering servant, writes: “He committed no sin, no
guile was found on his lips” (1 Pet 2: 22; cf. Is 53: 9). Most explicit text is
in the Letter to the Hebrews. Jesus is our High Priest who is totally on our
side, and yet fully with God through his sinlessness: “We have not a High
Priest who is unable to sympathies with our weakness, but one who in every
respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning” (Heb 4: 15); and “It
was fitting that we should have such a high Priest, holy, blameless, unstained,
separated from sinners, exalted above the havens” (Heb 7: 26). The above texts
assert the de facto sinlessness of
Jesus, yet they point further. Paul refers to the soteriological implication
that through Jesus’ sinlessness we should become righteous which seems to point
to something in Jesus that is not merely a fact but in principle(de jure) belongs
to his nature and mission(2 Cor 5: 21). Similarly John’s assertion that Jesus
is not under sinful powers indicates that his very presence is a challenge to the
world of sin (Jn 8: 48; 14: 30). The Hebrew text (Heb 4: 15; 7: 26) point to
the inner coherence of Jesus’ person and mission to his de jure sinlessless. These were the foundational texts for
theological reflection on Jesus’ de jure sinlesssness.
Various answers have been put forward to settle this theological
dilemma. The Church Fathers relayed on Jesus’ divinity. Jesus is sinless
because he alone is divine while being human. The Scholastic solution based on
Thomas Aquinas’ position seems to be attractive. According to Aquinas, freedom
does not primarily mean choosing but self-determination to do what is good, because
the object of free will is what is truly good. Hence, the more one determines oneself
from within, instead of being determined by outside forces, the more one is
free. The classic example is the saints who enjoy the beatific vision of God.
In the vision of God they are perfectly absorbed by divine goodness so that
they cannot sin. Choosing good is something connatural to them (something part
of their nature). This impossibility, however, is not imposed from outside, but
consists in the most perfect self-determination. The total absorption with the
Ultimate Good (i.e., God) does not diminish their freedom, but makes it
perfect. Could not Jesus’ union with his Father be conceived in a similar way,
as totally absorbing him so that he could not turn against God’s will? On
account of the personal union (hypostatic union) of the human will with the
eternal Son, his human will remained faithful to divine will. Therefore,
impeccability is connatural to Jesus. This did not destroy or diminish his
freedom to God but perfected it as the most perfect self-determination.
We admit that in this solution the idealist (metaphysical) concept
of freedom is preserved and reconciled with sinlessness but do not go with a
person who struggles in life, and places Jesus in to a position totally
different from ours. Thus we do not favour this solution because we are not
concerned with solving a metaphysical puzzle, but to understand Jesus in his
earthly life as depicted in the gospels who struggled as we are yet without sin.[35]
Reflecting more concretely on what we said about Jesus’ union with his Father,
his personal subjective awareness of belonging to God does not interfere in any
way with his actual human freedom.
We explain De jure
sinlessness as protection by divine assurance.[36]
We attempt for an answer by reflecting on human life at two levels: Take an
ordinary human life in a critical situation, e.g. a person who is seriously
tempted to turn away from a vocation which he/she had accepted as his/her won.
The struggle is real, the alternatives are clear, either to be faithful or to
give up. The struggle has to be fought in the darkness of the limited human
world, with a painful choice. However the same struggle can be seen in the
context of God’s plan for this person: God wants him/her in his/her vocation
and mission. Thus God gives him the exterior assistance and the inner grace
(without in any way interfering with his freedom) which are bound to lead
through the crisis. So the final victory is assured. Thus on the human level
this person is struggling with no knowledge of the outcome; the temptation is
real, he/she has to make his/her own choice; yet on the level of God’s
providence the outcome is assured. Can this twofold level be applied to Jesus?
If he is truly a human being as we are, in the sense of “Tempted as we are”
(cf. Heb 4:15), it would seem that Jesus has to fight the same battles, face
the same alternatives which very person has to face. Yet on the side of God the
outcome is assured. The person in struggle has an absolute destiny, which
cannot fail. This absolute destiny which cannot fail his mission implies his
loyalty to God’s will.
Thus we prefer to speak not Jesus’ impossibility to sin (which would
imply a decisive difference of his human condition from ours), but rather of God’s
absolute assurance for Jesus’ mission. That is to say that Jesus wills always
be the “Beloved Son” in obedience to his Father. This divine assurance does not
interfere with his freedom and yet it singles out Jesus in his unique mission.
It is in this light that we can understand also the temptation story
(Mt 4; 1-11). The narration is clothed in mythological language but it does not
take away anything of the reality which is to be expressed. The narration does
not intend to give us an account of a single event in Jesus’ life, but rather
the persistent temptation of his mission. This is indicated also by Luke’s
remark that the devil “left him for a while” (Lk 4: 13). The narration shows
the alternative which from the onset of his mission was placed before Jesus: to
fulfil a messianic mission according to the expectations of the people: to be
“Son of God” in accord with the popular conception as a man of miraculous
power, who will never suffer want, who will have dominion over the people, and
can use divine assistance for his own desires. Jesus however, understands that
“Son of God” is one who lives in total obedience to God’s word – never tempting
God, demanding God’s assistance for his own purpose – and not to rule but to
serve. To this free choice he remains faithful throughout his life in fulfilling
his mission, obedient even unto death (cf. Phil 2: 6 – 8). Therefore, in
principle (de jure) he is sinless.
7. Jesus’ Holiness: In the light of our foregoing reflection, we may also try to
understand Jesus’ holiness. First of all what do we understand by holiness? It
is a wholistic life, an integrated life, a God centred life. Jesus holiness is
centred on the holiness of God his abba,
his beloved Father. For Jesus, God is his absolute norm and assurance of all
that he does. His holiness is centred on his free choice in total faithfulness
to his abba Father and his Kingdom.
We ought not to think of Jesus as a ‘model boy’. To be truly human
implies also the stages of growth; with the necessary periods of stubbornness,
with his temperamental impulses. We have such outbreaks indicated, e.g., when
they bring the possessed boy to him: “How unbelieving you people are, How long
must I stay with you? (Mk 9: 19). Further his prophetic rage against pharisaic
hypocrisy is well recorded in the gospel narratives (e.g. Mt 23: 1–36; Mk 12:
38– 0; Lk 20: 45–47). His sinlessness and holiness rather consist in his total
faithfulness to the fundamental option, his total belonging to his Father, and
the unconditional commitment to his mission. Consequently, his consecration and
commitment to the cause of God’s kingdom in tune with God’s will are radical,
integrating of his entire personality. Thus Jesus also in his sinlessness and
sanctity are not placed on a different order separate from us but totally with
us to lead us in our call and commitment to God’s kingdom.
8. General Conclusion:
We conclude that there is no evidence in the New Testament to credit
Jesus with a beatific vision. Jesus’ God-consciousness is expressed only in
terms of his relation to his experience of God as his abba Father. However, Jesus had an immediate knowledge of God, not
in the sense of an objective vision, but of a personal awareness deriving from his
self-knowledge (that is, from the knowledge of his inner-subjectivity). This is
expressed in terms of his intimate closeness to God whom he called abba, the
beloved Father. Therefore, the title Son of God bestowed on him by the early
Church is not a novelty but rather the final articulation of Jesus’
self-identity.
There is no reason to deny in Jesus the normal development of a
child. His knowledge of God and his intimate union with God grew in the same
measure in which human consciousness developed. Hence, the words of boy Jesus
in the temple ( Lk 2: 49) – leaving aside all questions of historicity – would express his intimate consciousness of his
belonging not to his biological mother Mary and legal father Joseph, but to his
God the Father.
In secular and religious matters, Jesus is a child of his time, a
member of his Jewish community. He is not set apart by extra-ordinary
privileges but lives his life like all people conditioned by birth. He even
shares with his people the thoughts of his time, both secular and religious but
with one exception: the final coming of God’s kingdom inseparably linked up
with his own person and mission.
Jesus had deep knowledge about events and natural phenomena, people,
friends and enemies. He saw through their intensions, weakness and schemes. It
is natural that the evangelists use this trait of his personality to emphasise
his messianic mission, and attributed to him occasionally extra-ordinary
knowledge of distant things as it had been attributed also to prophets of the
past.
This is the way in which Jesus Christ, the eternal Son incarnate,
lived a life truly human in communion with God and in solidarity with us, God’s
children. Hence, in his earthly, he set before us a new way of leading a
sinless life, utterly holy living, which anticipates the final sinless and
lasting holiness of life to which we are called which will be revealed to us as
the goal of our redemption on the last Day. However, my real reason fro
acknowledging Jesus’ sinlessness is his personal identity – his ontological
subject is God the Son in whom a human nature is personally united (hypostatic
union) by the mystery of Incarnation. Therefore, it is in the nature of Jesus
Christ not to sin because God cannot sin against God, a sheer contradiction in
deed!
In Jesus’ personality we find two poles: He is much more human than
generally conceived by people who tend to divinise his earthly life: He is
subject to human conditions and limitations in his knowledge, sharing also the
inadequacy of the religious concepts of his time. At the same time he is
uniquely related to his Father; he translates this union into concrete
consciousness of his mission, totally independent of his surroundings, in
fateful contrast and conflict with the ideas and expectations of his time.
These two poles do not mark a split in his personality, he is fully one, at the
same time human, member of his people; tempted and struggling, and yet
embodying in himself God’s saving revelation and mission, God’s kingdom.
Chapter – IV
JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR
1. Salvation through Jesus Christ:
What is salvation through Jesus Christ? Salvation means the wholeness of human person
and of human society. The actual content of this salvation (wholeness) has been
spelt out according to the changing perspectives of human experience. If the
Christian message is meant to have an impact on contemporary society, it is
imperative to restate the meaning of salvation in the full human context of
today. It is a pastoral task to be realized in catechetics and in the
proclamation of the gospel. It involves the vast spheres of sociology,
psychology, and spirituality. It is, in fact, a challenge to theology to
recapture and update the full meaning of the Good News of Jesus Christ by
making it really a Good News which is proactive to our times.
In traditional idea of salvation has often been narrowed down: it
has been too other worldly and individualistic, reducing it to salvation of
one’s soul while ignoring all other aspects of human person. Salvation meant
something that takes place after death, neglecting the actual life here on
earth. It disregards human existence in relation to human society – social,
economic, cultural aspects by which life is maintained here on earth. On the
other hand, the contemporary concept of salvation tends to be in brazen secular
perspective, concerned with human well-being limited to this world alone,
reducing it to economic, political and social well being and liberation.
Theology must beware of both extremes and faithfully develop the biblical idea
of God’s concern for human person and human society based on the kingdom values
of Jesus and his paschal mystery. It must concern the whole person, individuals
and communities, the present and the life yet to come.
1.1. Exodus, the archetype
of salvation: The biblical archetype of salvation
is Exodus. Through the
liberation of the tribes Israel from Egyptian slavery God formed a people as
his own. As the Book of Deuteronomy recounts, “He [God] is your father, your Creator;
he made you into a nation” (Duet 32. 6). By a covenantal relationship, Yahweh guarantees
them his lasting support, protecting them from hostile powers; provides them
with food and water, leading them to the Promised Land. Hence, Yahweh’s
salvation is holistic and total, affecting the individual believer and society.
In time of crisis, the prophets exhorted the grief stricken people,
reminding them of Yahweh’s great deed of Exodus. During the Babylonian captivity, for instance, Isaiah
repeated to people, “do not cling to events of the past…. Watch for the
new things what I am going to do…. I will make a road through the wildness and
give you streams of living water there” (Is 43: 18f). Again God renews his
people: “Be strong and don’t be afraid, God is coming to your rescue” (Is 35:
4). Firstly, this new exodus is characterised by universalism. God is Saviour not only of Israel, but of all the
nations, as told in the Servant Song (ebed Yahweh song): “Not only will you
restore to greatness the people of Israel who have survived, but I will also
make you a light to the nations so that all the world may be saved” (Is 49: 6).
Secondly, it is conceived not primarily as a political liberation, but as an
inner renewal. Jeremiah and Ezekiel underline the character of the new covenant
as acknowledging Yahweh’s sovereign power over his people: “I will put my law
within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be
my people” (Jer 31: 33; Ez 36: 24-29). It would be wrong to limit this inner renewal
to one’s spiritual realm. These texts point to a new ethical and spiritual
renewal out of which would grow a new society, a new nation. The some
outstanding characteristics of salvation are as follows:
1.2. God alone is Saviour: It is the
persistent refrain of the Exodus accounts: “I will sing to the Lord, he has
triumphed gloriously” (Ex 15: 1). Psalms narrates, “The Lord is my rock, and my
fortress, and my deliverer” (Ps 18. 2, read the whole psalm). The new exodus as
imaged by the prophets stresses: “I am the Lord, and besides me there is no
Saviour… there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder
it?” (Is 43: 11-13). Even when Israel Israel
1.3. Israel ’s loyalty needed: Israel
1.4. Personal and
universal: The biblical idea of salvation is both
personal and universal. The
first Exodus event, by which God liberated (saved) Israel
1.5. Salvation through
mediators: The Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) has
no corresponding word to mediator, as God is the one and absolute. To Job Yahweh
says: “There is no arbiter between us” (Job 9: 33).[39]
Yet there are the persons entrusted with God’s plan: Moses stood between Yahweh
and his people to declare to them Yahweh’s words (Deut 5.5). The Judges and
kings also mediate God’s saving mission (Jug 2: 16). The idea of mediation
eventually deepened and the servant of Yahweh (ebed Yahweh) was seen as mediator (Is 42 to 53).
2. The Servant of Yahweh
The term “Servant of Yahweh” comes from court language. As officials
and soldiers directly dependent on the king, paid by him and remained loyal
only to him, they were called servants of the king. In the ancient Middle Eastern
world the servant (ebed) did not mean
king’s salve but a solider/commander who was close to the king (king’s
confident) for the protection of his life. This immediate relationship and
loyalty even at the cost of death was needed to sustain the power of the
sovereign against the factions and tribal loyalties of his subjects.
In the Old Testament, the concept of servant as a title is applied
first to Israel as a nation because Yahweh has taken possession of the
people through the covenant to him alone they owe loyalty; he is their Saviour.
Thus Deuteron-Isaiah says: “But you, Israel Israel
The servant title is also applied to individuals: to the Patriarchs
and to Moses 40 times, and then
mainly to Kings and prophets. Among kings, in a special way David is
Yahweh’s servant, in remembrance of Yahweh’s promise: “By the hand of my
servant David I will save my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and
from the hand of all their enemies”
(2 Sam 3: 18). Based namely in Nathan’s prophecy that God will establish
his house for ever (2 Sam 7), Israel
First Servant Song (Is 42, 1-7) speaks about the servant’s mission. Yahweh introduces
his servant as one who is endowed with his Spirit to bringing justice (mishpath) not only to Israel
Second Servant Song (Is 49, 1-6) narrates servant’s mission as well as his
frustrations. In this song, the Servant speaks that he is chosen by Yahweh and
sent with a challenging mission, which is guaranteed by God (vv.1-3). He
expresses his sense of frustration, yet trusts in God (v. 4). His mission is
universal; he is sent not only for Israel
Third Servant Song (Is 50. 4-9) narrates that amid Servant’s suffering, Yahweh
supports him. The Servant is endowed with a tongue to speak; he is bold in
telling what he wants to say; he is tuned to listen to God’s voice (vv. 4-5); but
he has to accept the suffering for his mission. God makes him strong and
vindicates him against all adversaries (vv. 7-9).
Fourth Servant Song (Is 52: 13-53: 1 – 12) connects the paradox of the Servant as well
as Yahweh’s vindication of his mission. This song consists of five stanzas: (i)
Yahweh introduces the Servant and vindicates his mission, yet he will be a
puzzle to the nations (52: 13-15). (ii) Isaiah (the author) describes the
servant that he is weak, uncomely, despised, a man of sorrow (53: 1-3). (iii) Isaiah
interprets the Servant’s image. He is not rejected by God but he bears our
offences; we are healed through his wounds. We have turned from God, and the
Lord has laid on him our offence (53: 4-5). (iv) The author tells the Servant’s
innocent death: he is put to death without opening his mouth, cast out, buried
among the wicked in spite of his innocence (53: 7-9). (v) Isaiah finally
reminds us that Yahweh proclaims his Servant’s victory. Servant’s ignominious
suffering and death are doing of God for our salvation. The Servant suffered as
a sacrifice, but he shall reap the fruit of his suffering, and make many
righteousness. Yahweh promises that the servant will be counted among the
great, because he gave his life and made intercession for us, sinners (53:
10-12).
3. The Suffering Messiah: The messianic reflection
of this Isaiahian text must begin with identifying the Servant of Yahweh. He is
not the collective personality of Israel
as a nation because he has got a mission for Israel Israel
In the pre-exilic period, Yahweh’s salvation / liberation was
promised by mighty deeds as long as Israel remained faithful to covenant. But Isaiahian
Servant song narrative images that Yahweh brings unbound justice through
humility and powerlessness of his Servant, and most of all, through his
innocent suffering and death to save a sinful world. This seems to be the new
way in which God’s salvation is enacted.[42]
Thus the songs portray a new conception of salvation. The suffering Servant of
Yahweh is the revelation of both
Yahweh’s justice and grace.
He makes the lost cause of the sinner his own. So he realises God’s own design
for the salvation of Israel
The Jewish Palestinian Hebrew tradition
persistently maintained the messianic
meaning of the songs. It
also accepted the idea that the suffering Servant of Yahweh was to be the
Messiah who was to undergo suffering before his glorious messianic revelation.
Jeremias’ comment is pertinent here: “Without exception right up to the
Talmudic period the suffering of the Messiah is regarded as coming before the
establishment or enforcement of his rule. When the meaning of the Messiah’s
passion is discussed, the answer is that he suffers vicariously to expiate the
sins of Israel
|
Isaiah-Hebrew
|
Isaiah-Aramaic (Targum)
|
|
53. 2b: He had no formed
of comeliness we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
|
His
appearance is not like that of a propane thing, and the fear that he inspires
is not an ordinary fear but his radiance will be a holy radiance so that
whoever sees him will gaze (fascinated) upon him.
|
|
5. but he was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the
chastisement that made and with his stripes we are healed.
|
But he will build up the
sanctuary which was desecrated because of our transgressions and us whole,
Delivered up because of our sins and through his teaching his peace will be
richly upon us; and when we gather around his words transgressions will be
forgiven.
|
|
7. He was oppressed and
he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to
slaughter and like a sheep that before its sharers is dumb, so he opened not
his mouth.
|
When we pray he receives
an answer and he hardly opens his mouth before he finds a hearing. He will
hand over the strong of the peoples to be slaughtered like a lamb, and as a
ewe that is dumb before its shearers, and so one will (dare to) open his
mouth and put in a word.[45]
|
This radical change of meaning in the Targum “translation” is
remarkable because otherwise the translation is faithful. It indicates that the
text was firmly established as messianic, but did not fit into the image of the
Messiah as expected by the Jews. Moreover, it was embarrassingly used by
Christians to interpret Jesus’ passion and death. This resulted in the radical
reinterpretation of the text.
4. Jesus, the Suffering
Messiah: The earliest Palestinian Christian
proclamation applied the title Servant to Jesus Christ but its usage is rare.
Mt 12: 18 refer to Isaiah 42: 1 f. In
fact, in this Matthean passage, the whole Song of Isaiah 42 is applied to
Jesus. Similarly, Acts 3: 13, 26; 4: 27, 30, which is part of the first
apostolic preaching about Jesus in Jerusalem immediately after the Easter
experience, apply Servant title to Jesus. In some other texts the Christological
title “Servant” is replaced by “Son.” For instance, “This is my beloved Son” (Mk 1:11). It is the same case
with the transfiguration story where the voice from heaven is heard, “This is
my beloved Son” (Mk 9: 7). Here also the title Son is given to Jesus with the
clear meaning of Servant as given in
Isaiah 42: 1. This transition from Servant
to Son is understandable, because
the Greek word “pais” can mean Servant or Son. Hence the title Servant was
replaced by Son. However, it is important to recall that the messianic title
Servant belongs to the oldest strata of the New Testament tradition, pointing
to the original theological interpretation of Jesus’ saving death in the light
of Isaiahian Suffering Servant song.
Further, many New
Testament passages also quote Isaiahian Servant songs to Jesus, showing the
messianic meaning of his prophetic mission, passion, suffering and death on the
Cross. See, for example: “Here is my servant, whom I have chosen…” (Mt 12: 18-21 = Is 42: 1-4); “He took our infirmities and bore our
diseases” (Mt 8: 17 = Is 53: 4); “He was reckoned with the transgressors” (Lk
22: 37 = Is 53: 12); “Lord, who has believed our report” (Jn 12: 38 = Is 53:
1); Philip with the Ethiopian, “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter…”
(Acts 8: 32 f = Is 53: 7); “Those who have never been told of him shall see,
and those who have never heard of him shall understand” (Rom 15: 21 = Is 52.
15); “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth…” (1 Pet 2:
22-25=Is 53: 9).
New Testament writers also make many more indirect quotes or allusions to Servant Songs. Those in Pauline
writing are mostly pre-Pauline pointing to their roots in the early Church’s
understanding of Christ’s saving suffering and death. For example, in 1Cor 15:
3-5 Paul refers to the tradition that “Christ died for our sins in accordance
with the scriptures,” where “scriptures” refers to Isaiahian texts
regarding the Suffering Servant of Yahweh. The Eucharistic saying of 1Cor 11: 24,
“This is my body that is for you” and the phrase “emptied [or poured out] himself” as given in the pre-Pauline
Christological hymn of Phil 2: 6-11, are references / allusions to “He poured out his soul for many” as
given in Isaiah 53:12, indicating the sacrificial death of Jesus for the
salvation of humankind.[46]
Moreover, early Christians coined many words from Isaiahian Servant Songs and
applied them to Jesus to show that he was the Servant of Yahweh. Some examples
are “Servant,” the “Righteous [Just] One” (Acts 3: 13 – 14); “Lamb of God” (Jn
1: 29); “Chosen One” (Lk 9: 35); “Expiation” (1 Jn 2: 2; 4:10), etc. There wasn’t
an area of the early Christian life of faith that was not touched and stamped
by the Servant Christology. The Servant of Yahweh texts enabled Christians to
present the theological significance of Jesus’ mission, ministry, death and
resurrection to their Jewish compatriots who delivered him to death. Thus, in
what follows we shall study the historical, Christological, theological and
soteriological meaning of Jesus death on the Cross so that we may gain a
comprehensive significance of Jesus passion and death on the Cross.
5. Jesus’ Death on the Cross
The Historical setting of
Jesus’ Crucifixion: The execution of Jesus Christ
on a Cross is among the most securely established facts of his life. His
execution is attested to by extra-biblical sources, which contain information
independent of the New Testament documents. The Babylonian Talmud, for
instance, in the treatise on the Sanhedrin says about Jesus: “On the eve of the
Passover Jesus was hanged.”[47]
Likewise, Josephus Flavius, the renowned Jewish historian mentions Jesus’
crucifixion in his Antiquittates Judaicae.[48]
The fact that Jesus was condemned to death by the highest religious tribunal of
the Jewish nation, the Sanhedrin, and by the highest Roman authority in Judea
did not put the Church in a favourable light either among the mainstream of the
Jewish society, or among the loyal Gentile citizens of the Roman Empire; but
the New Testament traditions preserved this fact in spite of the embarrassment
it caused for the Church, simply because it was true.[49]
Even the Soviet Communist historians, who in the past treated Jesus as a
mythological figure, eventually conceded that Jesus was a historical person
executed under Roman law.[50]
The precise date of the crucifixion is more difficult to establish.
All the evangelists agree that it was the Friday of the Jewish Passover week.
However, there is a dispute over whether the date was the 14th or
the 15th of the Jewish month of Nisan that falls around March to
April. According to the Synoptics, Jesus’ farewell meal before his death seems
to have been a Passover meal, in which case he would have died on the Cross on
the 15th Nisan. In John the details are different. According to him,
Jesus died on the day of preparation for the Passover (Jn 19: 14), while the
Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple
Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. It was used chiefly for slaves, as
in the Spartacus revolt. It was forbidden to crucify Roman citizens; they were
beheaded. Crucifixion was a particularly cruel and especially degrading
punishment. When the Romans used this death penalty for slaves against
political rebels (freedom fighters) it was regarded as a cruel mockery. Cicero Palestine Rome
More difficult than why Jesus was condemned by Pilot is the question
of what led to the condemnation by the Sanhedrin. In the trial before the
Council (Mk 14: 53-65 = Mt 26: 57 – 68; Lk 22: 66 – 71; Jn 18: 12 –14, 19 – 24),
two elements seem to have been important: first the Messiah issue, which was
important to the accusation before Pilot – with its presumed political
implication of claiming to be a king, opposing Roman imperialism over Palestine
and Judea – and Jesus’ saying about the destruction of the Temple. The second
was designed to secure the conviction of Jesus as a failed prophet and
blasphemer, for which, according to the Jewish law, the penalty was death (cf.
Lev 24: 16; Dt 13: 5 – 6; 18: 20; Jer 14: 14 – 15; 28: 15 – 17). The two scenes
of mockery support this view. The ridiculing of the offender – as the custom
was in the Roman form of death sentence – was intended in each case to
caricature the crime for which he was condemned. Accordingly, the Roman
soldiers dressed Jesus in a purple cloak and a crown of thrones, and mocked him
as King of the Jews (Mk 15: 16–20 = Mt 27: 27–31). Before the Council he was
ridiculed as a false prophet. They played a sort of blind man’s bluff with him:
“Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who it is that stuck you?” (Mk 14: 64–65 = Mt 26:
67–68; Lk 22: 63–65). The condemnation as false prophet and blasphemer had to
do with Jesus’ behaviour: his breaches of the Sabbath commandment and the
Jewish ritual purity regulations; his association with sinners and the ritually
impure; and his attack on the Law. All these were a challenge to the
fundamentals of Judaism. Jesus was caught between millstones of power,
misunderstanding, cowardice, hatred, lies and intrigues brought him to
destruction.
5.1. Charge-sheet against
Jesus before Pilot:
At the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin could not itself carry out a
death sentence. Hence, a deceitful collaboration took place between the Jewish
authorities and the usually hated Roman occupying imperial power and led them
Jesus to be tried before Pilot (Mk 15: 1–15; Mt 27: 1–2, 11–26; Lk 23: 1–5; Jn
18; 28–19: 16). In the trail that followed before Pilot, Jews charged against
Jesus that he was a evil-doer (Jn 18:30); that he was subverting the nation
forbidding to pay tax to Caesar (Lk 23:2); that he was stirring up the people
and claiming to be Christ, King, and claimed himself Son of God (Mk 14:62 para;
Jn 19: 7); and that he challenged to destroy the temple (Mk 14:58 para). Pilot
found that these charges were false, or of religious nature and insufficient to
crucify Jesus (Mk15: 9, 12; Mt 27: 18, 23, 24; Lk 23: 4, 13–16, 22; Jn 18: 38–39;
19: 4, 6). Pilot, however, passed death sentence by crucifixion to Jesus to
avoid mob violence and to maintain political peace in the empire (Mk
15:15; Mt 27: 24; Lk 23: 23).
Why was Jesus accused falsely? It may be fitting here to highlight
some of the reasons why Jesus was chare-sheeted falsely: The new vision of
human person, religion and society based on the kingdom values that Jesus
preached was stirring up people’s conscience. His interpretation of law, cult
violation of the Torah and the Sabbath so as to affirm the centrality of human
persons as God’s children was a threat and a challenge to the prevailing
political and religious power structures of the Jewish society. The new society
that Jesus was preaching based on the kingdom vision was against national fanaticism
of the Zealots and puritan racialism of the Pharisees. So, no wonder, he was
called a Samaritan, that is, a common enemy of the Jewish land (Jn 8: 48)!
For early Christians, all these were superficial! The Christian
community, right from the time of the apostles, sees Jesus’ death profoundly.
It is insufficient to stress the political misunderstanding and the political
aspects of his death, or to regard Jesus as a free man, breaker of the Law and
an awkward non-conformist eliminated by his opponents. For New Testament
community Jesus’ death is not just the doing of the Jews and Romans, but the
saving act of God and Jesus’ voluntary self-sacrifice for the salvation of
humankind. The question for us is to see how Jesus himself understood his death?
Before going into Jesus’ understanding of his death, we see below scholar’s
opinion on this matter.
6. Opinion of Scholars:
Most Bible scholars to a considerable agree that the Passion
tradition is clearly an old and self-contained tradition of the New Testament.
There can be no doubt that it is close to the historical events, even if many
details of the events remain uncertain. However, many point out that Passion
tradition clearly reveals theological influence and interests. These may be
apologetic, dogmatic or devotional, and show that the narratives were intended for
preaching; they are seen in the light of the Resurrection. Passion narratives
are presented as the sufferings of the Messiah, the suffering of the Just One,
fulfilment of the Old Testament sayings as will of God. The Suffering servant
songs has impacted in working out the Passion narratives.
According to William Wrede (+1906), a German Lutheran theologian,
Jesus did not think his suffering messianic because his earthly life was unmessianic.
On that assumption, it is impossible to explain why Jesus was crucified as
“King of the Jews” or would be “Messiah”. King of the Jews” (INRI, Iesus Nazarean Rex Iudayorum) written
on the Cross is a reduction. Rudolf Bultmann (+ 1976), a German Lutheran Bible
Scholar and an Existentialist theologian, claimed that Jesus’ death on the
Cross was a political misunderstanding. He also opioned that possibly Jesus
broke down at the end. In Willi Marxsen (+1993), a Protestant New Testament
theologian of Munster, Germany, opined
Jesus did not think that his death was eschatological (that is, the final
messianic act of God) because, he claimed that Jesus believed that eschaton
(the end time) has already come in his announcement of God’s kingdom. Modern
rationalists hold that Jesus’ died a martyr’s death but did not think that his
death was eschatological or saving; saving meaning of Jesus death as given in
the New testament is Pauline interpretation(reduction). Some others modern
thinkers view that Jesus understood his death that of the suffering of the
Just, as hold by some Jewish tradition, which had the power of expiating the
sin of the Jewish nation (cf. 2 Macc 7: 18, 37 ff; Ps 22; 69).[51]
7. Jesus’ understanding of his death:
The most notable contribution to the solution to the understanding
of Jesus’ death on the Cross has been proposed by Albert Schweitzer.[52]
He argued that the coming of the Kingdom
of God kingdom
of God Kingdom of God
The gospel narratives show that suffering is central to Jesus’
preaching: Take the case of Beatitudes (Mt 5: 3–12 = Lk 6: 20–23); the prayer
of Jesus, “Our Father” (Mt 6: 13 = Lk 11: 4), and sayings of discipleship (Mt
8: 21; Lk 9: 59–60): all this are coloured by suffering. Thus, the accusations
and plot levelled against Jesus by his opponents were part of the praxis of
inaugurating God’s kingdom. Jesus, therefore, asked his disciples readiness to
give up everything and be prepared to face everything for the cause of the
kingdom. Opting for Jesus is not for peace but to face trails and tribulations,
even loosing one’s life. Jesus was preaching the end of the old time (aeon) and the beginning of the new age (kairos) of the arrival of the kingdom.
Therefore, the conflict between Jesus and his enemies/opponents takes place in
an eschatological context which is marked out by eschatological trails. This
conflict caused Jesus’ own life, his death, for the cause of God’s kingdom
which is, in fact, the cause of new humanity as designed by God himself.
This line of interpretation fits well with the factual details of
Jesus’ life. We must assume that Jesus had to and did take into account a
violent death. Anyone who acted as he did had to be prepared for extreme
consequences. Early on he faced the charge of blasphemy (Mk 2: 7; Mt 12: 24
para), and the accusation of infringing the law of the Sabbath (Mk 2:23–24; Lk 13: 14– 5), and it is clear that they tried
to trap him with tricky-questions (Mk 12: 13 ff, 18 ff, 28 ff). Naturally,
Jesus had to contend with the deadly hostility and real threat of death which
came from the Pharisees combined with their traditional enemies Herodians, and
later with the Romans. Surely, with good reason, Jesus demanded complete
adherence, and break with family obligations, from his disciples (Mt 8: 21–22;
Lk 9: 59–60). The fate of John the Baptist (Mk 6: 14–29; 9: 13) must also have
kept Jesus in mind of the possibility of his own violent death.
This eschatological perspective of messianic trails is very evident
in the Last Supper passes (Mk 14: 17–25; Mt 26: 20– 7; Lk 22: 14–18; 1 Cor 11:
23–25). In their present form these texts are definitely coloured by liturgical
stylisation. However, what is certain is that they contain at least one saying
which did not become part of the later liturgy and must therefore be regarded
as a genuine saying of the Jesus where he declares, “truly, I say to you, I
shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it
new in the kingdom of God” (Mk 14: 25; Lk 22: 16, 18).[53]
This saying indicates that the Last Supper Jesus had with his disciples,
whatever else it is, is a symbolic eschatological action by which Jesus gives
his followers, in the present, a share in the eschatological blessings (marcharios). At the Last Supper Jesus is
looking forward not only to his approaching death, but also, in the death, to
the coming of the kingdom
of God
A final piece of evidence to the eschatological aspect of his
suffering and death has been attested by his last saying on the Cross: “My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Mk 15: 34 = Mt 27:46). Even before the
biblical tradition had become fixed, this saying of Jesus seemed to have been
scandalous to many that Jesus should die abandoned by God. Hence Luke and John restored
to different versions: In Lukan narrative Jesus dies with the words “Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46) – the saying seems to be uttered
by a holy and just person. In Johannine narrative, Jesus seems to end his life
with a note of victory: “It is finished [accomplished]” (Jn 19:30; cf. Ps 22: 1)!
While summarising the opinions of many exegetes, Walter Kasper
points to the fact that Jesus’ loud cry, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
as given in Markan and Matthean narratives, is a quotation from the psalm 22.
According to the practice of the time, saying the opening verse of a psalm
implied the whole psalm. And psalm 22 is a lament which turns into a song of
thanksgiving by a righteous person[54]
who faces the suffering as an apparent abandonment by God; but even in that
abandonment of death’s agony, the righteous person/religious person believes
that God has been the sovereign Lord all along, and that he saves his ‘abandoned
one’ and brings him/her into a new life. Consequently, even if Jesus lamented
on the Cross as given in Markan and Matthean depiction, it is not a cry of despair,
but a prayer of hope of the coming of God’s kingdom. This line of thought is
consistent with Jesus’ general intension as seen in the Last farewell Supper
(Mk 14: 25; Lk 22: 16, 18). Hence, Jesus in the darkness and distress of death,
which he experienced more deeply than any other man or woman, Jesus cried out
in deep trust to God whom he uniquely encountered as abba, the beloved Father.
“Jesus experienced the unfathomable mystery of God and his will, but endured this
darkness in faith. This extremity of emptiness [helplessness] enabled him to
become the vessel of God’s fullness. His death became the source of life. It
became the other side of the coming of the kingdom of God
8. Jesus' descent to Sheol:
In many religious traditions, the descent into the other world – the
realm of the dead – is a mythological motive (imaging) to explain the meaning
of death itself. For instance, Indian mythology has the story of Bhrigu and
king Vipashit fighting against Eyama, the lord of the dead; the Hellenistic
mythology has the story of Hercules fighting in the world of the dead. These
mythologies describe the descent into the realm of death as an occasion to
display the velour of the hero in his battle against darkness and no one wins
the battle, pointing to the fact that death is invincible; death is a universal
fact of life.
The biblical reference of Jesus’ descent into the Sheol is given in
1 Pet 3: 19, on the basis of which Christian tradition has integrated it in the
Apostles’ Creed: “He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and
was buried, He descended to the dead.”
This saying regarding Jesus' descent to Sheol is given in rabbinic mythological
language which portrays a three tier cosmology, namely the upper layer (heaven),
the middle layer (earth), and the bottom layer (Sheol), the realm of the dead. Hence,
“he descended to the dead [Sheol]” means that he really died and finally won over
the forces of evil, including death.
This Patrine narrative has got Christological, theological and
soteriological meaning: Its Christological meaning is that Jesus is fully human
as we are, not only till his self gift into death but even in the state of
being dead, which is the ultimate condition of mortal humanity. At the same
time, from the theological point of view, the dark background of the realm of
the dead sets the stage for the mighty divine act of God the Father who raised
up Jesus to the glory of the resurrection.
The soteriological significance of the descent is described by Peter
through the word “keryssein” (proclamation); i.e. the preaching of the good new
of salvation to those who are in the realm of the dead. Whatever the
implications of this obscure text “1 Pet 3: 19”, it clearly states that Jesus
proclaims to the Fathers in Sheol (that is, the Old Testament patriarchs and
all who waited for his coming) the same message that constitutes the gospel on
earth: the victorious manifestation of God's saving love. There is no corner in
the universe where Christ is not Lord (cf.
Phil 12: 10) and where his saving love is not victoriously present.[56]
Thus the “descent of Jesus into Sheol”
expresses the universality of his saving mission. The entire creation is saved
through him, must be in contact with him, also those who died in the past. In
this descent to the dead, Jesus is also revealed as Lord of all realms of
creation, including the realm of death.
Summing up: Jesus’ message of the coming of God’s kingdom as the coming of the
new age (kairos) includes eschatological
(messianic) trails. His message, therefore, calls for a total break with the
present age (aeon), total break with
all reliance on human power. His commitment to the cause of God’s kingdom led
him even to accept death which is the red thread running through his life. In
this sense, his death on the Cross is not just the ultimate consequence of his
courageous ministry, but the summary of his mission and ministry, the coming of
God’s kingdom. Under the present condition of this age, it is in human
powerlessness, poverty, despair and death that the blessings of God’s kingdom,
namely divine love and life comes in abundance.
9. Soteriological meaning
of Jesus’ death:
Right from the earliest layers of the New Testament tradition
onwards, Jesus’ death has been interpreted as a saving/redeeming and expiratory
death “for us” and “for many.” It was explained especially in terms of 4th
Servant song (Is 53: 1 – 12). This Servant song had impacted the early creed (1
Cor 15: 3 – 5), and definitely coloured the early tradition of the Last Supper
(1 Cor 11: 24; Mk 14: 24 & parallels). Subsequently, the idea of Jesus’
saving and expiatory death became fundamental to the Christian theology of the
Redemption in general and the Eucharist in particular.
However, historical criticism has challenged the historicity of
these sayings to Jesus. Similarly, the historical authenticity of the saying in
Mark 10: 45 has been questioned, where Jesus’ sacrifice of his life is called
“a ransom (lytron) for many”,[57]
because some scholars point out that these words do not occur in the Lucan
parallel (Lk 22: 27).[58]
On the other hand, if Jesus’ death
cannot be explained – that is, substantiating it by Jesus’ life and his
self-understanding of his death – as an expiatory surrender to God for the
redemption of the world, then the core of Christian faith could be dangerously
placed as mythology or a false ideology.
Hence, the statement of the question is: Did Jesus think that his
death was saving? Consequently, did he think that his death was an expiatory
surrender to God? Many scholars point out that these questions can be answered
not by resorting to individual sayings of Jesus but applying a ‘method of
convergence’ of individual sayings to general intention of Jesus pointing to
Jesus’ soteriological understanding of his death. This can be shown in two
ways: First, we connect his death with the cause of God’s kingdom; second, we
look at Jesus’ ministry to God’s kingdom as his service to humanity. In brief,
we connect God’s kingdom and Jesus’ death; and God’s kingdom and Jesus’
service.
9.1. God’s kingdom and
Jesus’ death: Jesus thought of his death in
relation to his ministry to the coming of God’s kingdom. “Kingdom of God
9.2. Kingdom of God and
Jesus’ service: The Kingdom of God is embodied in
Jesus in the form of service. Jesus was among his disciples as one who serves
(Lk 22: 27). This service of Jesus to his friends should not be limited to acts
of kindness. Certainly Jesus’ association with the sinners, outcastes, sick,
marginalised and misfits of his time brought them to some measure of human
liberation and dignity, but it went further. Jesus’ healing of human alienation
went to its deepest roots. The real liberation Jesus brought consisted in the
remission of guilt towards God. The new community that he brought and
established was community with God. This redemptive service won him from the
very beginning the hostility of his opponents (Mk 2: 1-1 n 12; Lk 15), who
regarded it as blasphemy and condemned him to death for it.[61]
Following Jesus means following him in his service: “If anyone would
be first, he must be the last of all and servant of all” (Mk 9: 35 & parallel).
Loving service to others includes also one’s enemies – in short, living for
others – is the new way of living that Jesus inaugurated and made it possible.
A life of this sort involves being prepared for anything, leaving everything
(Mk 10: 28 parallel), even risking one’s life (Mk 8: 34–35 & parallel). The
late Jewish theology of expiatory death of the Just as the representative of
the nation also points in the same direction (cf. 2Macc 7: 16, 37 ff). The fact
that Jesus did not directly claim the title ‘Servant of God’ any more than
those of ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ did not mean that he did not know himself
the Servant of God who served and suffered for many. In other words, Jesus saw
his death as a representative expiatory death and saving service to humankind. In
this way, in his life and death, Jesus is the “man-for-others”. Existing for
others is his essence. Hence, we may state that in Jesus see we that God in his
otherness is Jesus the man-for-others, so that others (the entire humankind)
may have life in fullness in the wholly Other – that is, God himself. It is this
defining character that makes him the personified love of God for us.
Seeing Jesus’ ministry to God’s kingdom in terms of service gives sufficient
reason for historicity to a number of disputed sayings. It enables us to show,
for example, that the second of the three Passion predictions definitely has a
historical core: “The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men” (Mk
9:31 & parallel). Likewise, the ransom sayings as given in Mark 10: 45
clearly acquire a historical basis in the life of Jesus. Further, the Last
Supper sayings regarding Jesus’ laying down his life for many (Mk 14: 24) acquires
greater historical probability than is often assumed.[62]
Jesus’ death on the Cross that summarises his entire life of service also makes
clearly exposed the hidden character of his mission, namely the helplessness,
poverty and insignificance with which God’s kingdom – that is, God acting
savingly in human history in a human way – appeared in the person, mission and ministry
of Jesus. The meaning of this manner of God’s saving action in history can only
be finally answered by God himself! That is what meant by the belief that Jesus
was raised from the dead!
10. Biblical Patterns of Salvation through Jesus Christ:
We proceed to investigate in this section how Jesus’ work as saving has
been portrayed in the New Testament. There is no homogeneous terminology, not
even a common pattern, yet the same fact underlies each expression: that
through Christ event, through his life, death and resurrection God has acted
savingly in our history and has renewed humankind and the world. In what
follows we bring out some key concepts through which the New Testament authors
have tried to describe it.
10. 1. Saviour (soter):
Saviour is
the most general term given to Jesus to signify his saving mission. Jesus tells
the healed leper “Your faith has saved you” (Lk 17: 19). Salvation here means
something holistic affecting the entire person as an embodied spirit. The very
name of Jesus means Saviour (cf. Mt 1: 21). Jesus is proclaimed with this title
both in the Hellenistic world where the etymological meaning of the name,
Jesus, was not understood, but in Palestine as well where the title “saviour’
is applied only to Yahweh.
The biblical concept of salvation is something which begins here on
earth and continues in stages to life eternal. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to
be aware of the decisive hour of salvation: “Behold now is the acceptable time,
behold now is the time of salvation” (2 Cor 6: 2). The actual completion of
salvation takes place life after death. Paul exhorts, “When the goodness and
loving kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us… so that we might be
justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Tit 2: 4–7).
Hence the present renewal is a guarantee of final salvation: “Since we are now
justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God”
(Rom 5: 9), and so we are saved in hope (Rom 8: 22–24). Further, while
commenting on the eschatological aspect of Christian hope Paul says, “Our
commonwealth is in heaven, from it we await a Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ who
will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Phil 3: 20f). In this
process of salvation, we are actively and responsibly involved. Paul exhorts
the Philippians: “Work out your own salvation with fear, and trembling, for God
is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:
12f). In brief, through Jesus Christ, through his death, we are justified. Our
renewal, however, does not consist in a miraculous change of the present
condition; we are taken into a dynamic movement that will lead us to the full
participation in Christ’s glory.
10. 2. Ransom (lytron):
Ransom (lytron) and its
derivatives redemption (lytrosis) and
redeeming (lytrousthai) are another group of concepts applied
to Jesus Christ to stress on his saving mission. In their secular usage, these
words refer to the prince paid to the salve-owner in the salve market to free a
slave from slavery to freedom. In the Old Testament (LXX) these terms are used
for Yahweh’s act of liberation on behalf of his people to set them free from
Egyptian bondage. “I will deliver you from bondage and redeem you (lytrosomai) with an outstretched arm”
(Ex 6: 6). On account of this liberating action, Israel Israel ’s
salvation, mainly in the Psalms: e.g. “Redeem Israel
The New Testament presents that God’s redemptive work has been fulfilled
in Jesus. In the infancy narrative, Luke interprets that with the birth of
Jesus Christ, “He [God] has “visited his people and redeemed them” (Lk 1: 68).
God himself is the subject of our redemption. In the classical text to the
Romans, Paul speaks of the sin of all against God, but “they are justified
through God’s grace through the “redemption” which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:
24). Again to the Colossians, “[God] has delivered us from the dominion of
darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have “redemption”,
the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1: 13f), and in Ephesians Paul explains, “Redemption
through his blood” (Eph 1: 7). The act of redeeming us from the slavery of sin
is, therefore, God’s own sovereign act of love through his Son Jesus Christ.
Likewise, Peter reminds us that there is a price involved in God’s act of redemption in Jesus Christ:
“You were ransomed from the futile ways… not with perishable things such as
silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without
blemish or spot” (1Pet 1: 18f). Jesus himself speaks of the price: “the son of
man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom (lytron) for many” (Mk 10: 45). How can
this price be understood, and to whom was it paid? Some of the early Church
Fathers thought that as we were under Satan’s slavery, the price had to be paid
to him. Surely, this cannot be maintained; it has no bases in the Scripture. In
the Old Testament narratives, when Yahweh God redeems, he never pays any price.
The term “price” stands clearly for Yahweh’s sovereign action by which he makes
Israel
10. 3. Buying (agorazo):
Buying, which is a commercial concept, is used to interpret Christ’s
saving action. In secular usage ‘agorazo’
stands for buying a slave from bondage to liberty. Like ransoming, it implies a
price; but in the OT the term is used for God’s action in liberating Israel,
not paying a price, but with sovereign power and gratuitous love (Ex 19: 5; Dt
26: 18; Ps 74: 2).
The New Testament takes up this meaning to explain the fact that the
Christian is no longer under the power of Satan, or under the Law, but belongs
to Christ. But nothing is mentioned from whom he bought us: “You were bought
with a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor 7.23). “Christ redeemed (exegorasen) us from the curse of the
Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 2: 1); and the Book of Revelation has
the hymn to Christ, the victorious Lamb: “You were slaughtered and by your
blood you ransomed (egorasas) for God
saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them
to be a kingdom and priests serving our God” (Rev 5: 9 –10). Thus, in using the
metaphor of liberating a slave by way of buying him from the salve market, the New
Testament excludes the idea of a bargain (as in ransoming) and stresses the
absolute right of Jesus Christ over those whom he has bought with his blood.
10. 4. Expiation (hilasterion):
Expiation (hilasterion) and its derivative mercy seat (hilasmos) are cultic concepts used for
Christ’s saving death on the Cross. In extra biblical usage, this concept is
widely used for the cult of pacifying an angry God through sacrifices and
gifts, even for bribery. In fact, the verb “hilasko”
is used for an act of bribery. Thus it conveys an anthropomorphic conception of
God and his relation to humankind. However, even in these religions, it is
believed that such cultic means are necessary to win back the divine favour.[64]
However, in the Old Testament the meaning of expiation (hilasterion) is reversed. It is the very
essence of biblical revelation that God alone expiates sin. Hence, the rites of expiation are done not to
placate God, but to remove sin by God. Expiatory rite is a sacramental means by
which God purifies the temple and the people. This is done in every sin offering
(Lev 9: 7), mostly in the yearly feast of expiation: “And Aaron shall offer the
bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for
his house” (Lev 16: 6). This rite is carried out by the sprinkling of the blood
of the animal over the ‘Mercy Seat’ – which is the cover of the Ark of the
Covenant, known as ‘kapuret’ in Hebrew and ‘hilasmos’
in Greek, which is believed to be the meeting
place of God and his people, where the sins of the people are forgiven.
Leviticus further explains: “Thus he [Aaron] will make atonement [expiation]
for the holy place, because of the unclearness of the people of Israel and
because of their transgressions, all their sins” (Lev 16: 16). In
non-sacrificial ritual contexts, it is even clearer that Yahweh alone expiates.
For instance, in Isaiah 6: 7 the angle cleanses the lips of the prophet;
Ezekiel describes the persistent faithlessness of the people, and yet God pardons
and renews the covenant “that you may remember and be confounded and never open
your mouth again because of your shame when I atone [expiate] you all that you
have done” (Ez 16. 63).
In later Judaism,
we find an increasing stress on the expiating power of good works, also mostly
the expiating meaning of suffering and death.[65]
A contrite heart is more
important. Also the idea of vicarious
expiation develops through the
sufferings of the Patriarchs, such as Moses and David. It is said about the
Maccabees that “They become like a compensation for the sins of the people, and
through the blood of those pious men and the expiation of their death the
divine providence saved Israel
In the New Testament expiation is the exclusive act of God through
Jesus Christ. It occurs in the prayer of the Publican: “God, be merciful (hilastheti)
to me a sinner” (Lk 18: 13). This is brought out profoundly in John’s First
Letter where the author says that expiation is God’s spontaneous act of love
for us in Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ is our ‘hilasmos’, expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also
for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1
Jn 2: 2). John further explains that the
context of divine love shows that expiation is not our achievement, but God’s
own deed in Jesus Christ for us: “In
this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son for
to be the expiation (hilasmos) for
our sins” (1 Jn 4: 10). Paul in
his letter to Romans (Rom 3: 25) gives another profound portrayal of divine
expiation where he presents Jesus Christ is our “Hisaterion.” in this
text, Paul says that expiation is God’s own action by which he makes Jesus the
expiation for our sins. Thus, Jesus’ death is the means by which God destroys
sin. However, though sin is overcome through Jesus, humans must appropriate for
themselves Christ’s saving death through faith. Similar insights are also found
in Hebrews 2: 17.
10. 5. Reconciliation (Katallazo):
Reconciliation (Katallazo),
which is an interpersonal concept, is another rich term used in the New
Testament to bring out the saving mission of Jesus. In the Old Testament, return
of Israel to God and the act of re-acceptance in love is a frequent theme
running through the prophetic literature (Hos 2: 16 – 22; Ez. 18: 31 ff).The New Testament
explains that this history of reconciliation is fulfilled in Jesus Christ the
“one Mediator” (1Tim 2: 5). Paul describes this divine work: It is God, who
“showed his love for us” while we still were sinners: “For while we were
enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5: 10). Still
more explicit are the words to the Corinthians: “If anyone is in Christ, he is
a new creation… all this is from God who through Christ reconciled us to
himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself…” (2 Cor 5: 17f). This “through Christ” is
spelled out in v. 21: “For our sake (God) made him to be sin, who knew no sin,
so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. In Jesus Christ God
takes upon himself our lost cause. Thus Jesus becomes member of our fallen
race, becomes “sin”, not in
contrast but in obedience to God. So he is righteous in solidarity with us, and
we in him become righteous.
10. 6. Justification (dikaioo, dikaiosyne):
Justification, which is a legal concept,[67]
is a key concept in Pauline theology. It has been also a central theological theme
of Reformers. How human person is just before God? The Old Testament theology
viewed that humans are unworthy on their own right to stand before the goodness
of God: “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord who could stand?” (Ps
130.3). In Rabbinic theology, and mostly pharisaic theology, justification is
sought in the observation of the Law. Deuteronomy taught: “This commandment
which I command you this day is not too hard for you” (Dt 30.11). However, the
error of Rabbinism did not consist in the demand to observe the law – Jesus
himself came not to abolish, but to fulfil it (cf. Mt 5: 17) – but in the claim
to be able to do it on their own strength and thus to stand before God in their
own right with lawful claims, and so could boast of their righteousness (cf.
Rom 2: 17; 3: 27).
It is Paul’s central teaching that all righteousness is rooted
in God alone because humans’ worthiness to have right relationship with God is
not rooted in human capacity but on God’s generosity as revealed in Jesus
Christ. Hence, Paul claims, “The righteousness of God has been manifested apart
from the law… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all
who believe” (Rom 3: 21f). This divine goodness towards humans comes to us as a
gift, through Jesus’ redemptive work as Paul says again, “They are justified by
his grace as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24).
In short, Jesus’ righteousness becomes ours through faith, which involves on
our part giving up all self-righteousness and cling to him, allowing ourselves
to be transformed by his Spirit.
10. 7. Covenant (diatheke):
In its secular usage covenant is
basically a political concept, but it had become the defining feature of Israel
By applying the concept of covenant
to Jesus’ saving mission, the New Testament places Jesus’ work, especially his
saving death, in the context of Old Testament salvation history centred on
covenant theology. The Synoptics speak of the covenant in the
Eucharistic texts: Mark and Mathew locate Jesus’ covenant
of the new era in parallel to that concluded on the Sinai: “This is my blood of
the covenant which is poured out for many” (Mk 14: 24). And Mathew adds “for
the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26: 28).[68]
Moses offered the blood of animals in the sacrifice at the Sinai: “Behold the
blood of he covenant which the Lord has made with you” (Ex 24: 8). Luke’s
version, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”
(Lk 22: 20); and Paul’s version, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”
(1Cor 11: 25) seem to give an allusion to the prophecy of the new covenant depicted
in Jeremiah 31: 31. Thus through Jesus’ death the new and final covenant with
God has been sealed.
Paul stresses not so much the continuity, but the contrast of the
new covenant in Jesus Christ. It consists first in the more perfect revelation. In 2 Cor 3.6-18 he compares the
transitory splendour of the Law shining on Moses’ face when he came down from
the Sinai, with the surpassing and permanent splendour of Jesus which shines in
the heart of those who believe and changes them into his likeness (v.17 f).
Old and new covenants are, therefore, contrasted as Mosaic Law that kills, and the
Spirit of the Risen Lord that gives life. The old covenant is one of condemnation
by the wait of the Law (v. 6) while the new covenant based on sheer goodness of
God, gives life (v. 9).
Further, the superiority of the new covenant consists in freedom from the Law. Paul condemns the Pharisaic
prescription, such as circumcision, diet, etc., imposed on Mosaic Law as a condition
for justification. On the contrary, Paul makes it a central theme of his
preaching that no such exterior prescriptions are demanded, but only faith in
the righteousness of God as shown in the saving mission of Jesus Christ. He
contrasts in Gal 4: 21-31 the new life of freedom from the law brought by Jesus
Christ with a life of bondage under Mosaic Law. Finally, the new covenant is universal because Paul teaches in Ephesians 2: 12-18 that there is no more
exclusion of the gentiles from salvation.
The chapters 7 to 12 of the Letter to the Hebrews describe the new covenant through Jesus Christ as the
fulfilment of the Old covenant as well as its abolishment. These chapters give
a coherent exposition of the way in which the prophecy of the ‘new covenant’ in
Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled; and Jesus Christ is the mediator of he new covenant
(8: 6; 12: 24) who gives us real forgiveness (10: 11-18) and sanctifies us (10:
10, 29). Therefore, we have true access to God in Jesus Christ (7: 25; 10: 19-23).
This new covenant of grace and sanctification demands a new life
style and commitment to life as the final blessing of the Letter to the Hebrews
concludes: “Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord
Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among
us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the
glory forever and ever. Amen” (13: 20 – 21).
10. 8. Salvation through sacrifice and satisfaction:
The practice of sacrifice and the related idea of satisfaction are
found universally in most religions.[69]
Ritual sacrifice and prayer are the most common and deepest expression of
humans’ relation to God, the Absolute Other. In its most general meaning, sacrifice
may be described as a symbolic action expressive of humans’ consciousness of a
superior power of divine nature and action – in whatever manner it may be
conceived – through which they enter into contact with God. Often this action
consists in the offering of a gift of various sort, which, however, does not
simply mean the disposing of some object, but which means as van der Leeuw describes “to place oneself in relation to, and then to participate in, a
second person by means of an object, which, however, is not an ‘object’ at all
but part of one’s own self. To give, then, is to convey something of oneself to
the strange being so that a strong bond may be forged”[70]
Sacrificial rite consists in the transfer of the gift from the
natural to the divine realm. Destruction of the gift offered to God is not
essential. However, when the destruction of the gift involved in some
sacrificial rites, its aim to liberate the life and power inherent in the victim
in order to offer it to the divine or to impart it to the people who take part
in the ritual. Thus sacrifice frequently includes the sacrament. Both express
the union with the divine: sacrifice as movement from humans to God, sacrament as
a movement from God to humans. The aim of this two way movement is to
participate in the divine life.
In many religious traditions, the sacrifice turns into magic, that
is, a means to gain control over gods for one’s own ends. Classical examples
are found in the later Vedic religion where the rituals were treated as the
technical procedure to achieve certain benefits. The Gita describes and
condemns the attitude of those who “prescribe many and various ceremonies for
the attainment of pleasure and lordship” (Gita II: 43). The attempt to gain
control over the divine invariably recurs in most of the ritualistic religions.
The prophets of the Old
Testament time and again warmed and condemned the reliance of the people on
ritual offering: “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices,” instead God
demands simply “cease to do evil and learn to do good” (Is1: 11–17). The sacrificial
ritual is a symbol of real life. The visible gift is not a substitute for human
beings and their self-gift, but it is the exterior expression of their own
attitude and self-gift to God. It is the characteristic of ritualism to
concentrate on the sign, on the exterior gift and the ceremonial, secluded from
real life. This sort of sacrifice ritual is sterile and irrelevant. The Old
Testament knows no well defined ritual in the beginning. In its early ritual
practice, an altar was erected where God appeared (Gen 12: 7; 28: 18). However,
various forms of ritual sacrifices multiplied, mostly adopted from the ancient
Middle Eastern religious practices. These were explained in the Book of Leviticus
chapters one to seven. Among these, Moses’ sacrifice performed at Mount Sinai for
the conclusion of the covenant (Exodus, 24) and the sacrifice of the day of
expiation (Leviticus, 16) were the most important ones.[71]
Sacrifice and Jesus’ death: Jesus sees his death as sacrifice. He gives his life as a ransom
for many (Mk 10:45). The words over the chalice recall Moses’ sacrifice at the
Sinai: “This is my blood which is poured out for many”, which sealed the
covenant” (Mk 14: 24). His priestly prayer contains the sacrificial self-gift:
“For their sake I consecrate myself that they too may be consecrated in truth”
(Jn 17: 19). The New Testament authors refer
frequently to Jesus’ death on the Cross in sacrificial terms: “You were
ransomed… with the precious blood of Christ that of a lamb without blemish or
spot” (1 Pet 1: 18). Paul addresses the elders of Ephesus with regard their
responsibility for the community, “The Church of the Lord which he obtained
with his blood” (Acts 20: 28). To the Romans he writes about Jesus Christ “whom
God put forward as an expiation by his blood” (Rom 3: 25); he writes to the
Colossians: “Makes peace by the blood of his Cross” (Col 1: 20); the Book of Revelation
contains the hymn to Jesus Christ, the victorious Lamb” (Rev 5.9f). Likewise, most explicit is the Letter to the Hebrews, especially given in 8: 13; 9:
12, 15; 10: 5 ff, to bring out the belief that Jesus’ death is the final
sacrifice through which the rituals of the old law are fulfilled and superseded.
Hence our salvation
is not granted through exterior rituals but consists in the communion with the
sacrifice of Jesus Christ which is expressed through the new life of the
Christian, in praise, and in good works. Paul conceives the whole of the
Christian life as sacrifice: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice holy
and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12: 1). Works of
charity are a “fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God”
(Phil 4: 18). The Apostle conceives his own death as “a libation upon the
sacrificial offering of your faith” (Phil 2: 17). The Letter to the Hebrews
knows of the new sacrifice of the faithful: “Through [Jesus] let us continually
offer up a sacrifice of praise to God,
the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name: do not neglect to do good and so
share what you have for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb 13: 15f).
In short, Jesus’ death is conceived, in the New Testament, in terms of a
sacrifice, not ritual but personal; the entire Christian life is seen as the
participation and actualization of Jesus’ sacrifice in the Spirit to God the
Father. However, this most familiar concept of sacrifice is a metaphor which
expresses the meaning and the effects of Jesus’ death, but does not explain how
his death can become our
salvation! It may be also good to remember that in modern thought the idea of
sacrifice has lost much of its ritual meaning, because it is associated with
ritual performances of institutionalized religions whose functional capacity to
connect the worshiper with God has been lost. Nevertheless, what stands out in
the conception of sacrifice is the spirit of sacrifice: one’s readiness to offer
(pour out) one’s potentials for the service of the other follow humans!
Satisfaction: When ritual sacrifice is used almost with magical intent, it turns
out to be an act to please or placate gods to obtain some benefits, almost
bribing the divines! But satisfaction is
another metaphor through which salvation in Jesus Christ is presented in
Christian theology. Classical theology has developed it into a coherent system
which, however, remains one-sided and presents considerable difficulties to the
modern mind.
In Christian theology, Jesus’ death is interpreted as satisfaction
for the violation of the divine honour through sin. The first systematic
exposition of this theory was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (+1109) in his
work “Cur Deus Homo.” His theological
position is that God’s honour has been violated through sin. Since by sin God
is offended / divine plan is violated, therefore, the offence is infinite. God
cannot forego the satisfaction for this violation; this would be against the
right order, which has to be restored. However, no human being can offer God
worthy satisfaction – that is, worthy restoration of the right order – because
satisfaction is valued by the dignity of the one who offers it, and human being
is only finite. What is needed is an infinite satisfaction to set right the
divine order. A satisfaction of sort can be offered only by God himself, yet it
must be offered by a human being because man is the offender. Only a God-made-man
can offer an infinite satisfaction for humankind’s transgression. Thus Jesus
Christ, the God-man dies for our sins and, therefore, offered the needed
satisfaction which is infinite in character!
Anselm is
deeply aware that humankind’s salvation is due to God’s own initiative; it
springs from his love for humankind. Yet the theory as it stands lends itself
to misinterpretations of God, of Jesus’ role, and of the entire meaning of
redemption. The language of satisfaction is taken from the medieval European feudal
system. It contains strong anthropomorphic
elements. We cannot conceive our relation to God in such terms. The glory of
God, which must be restored, is conceived in too juridical language. It evokes
the idea of a God who is angry and must be placated through the cruel
sufferings of his Son!
Moreover, Anselm’s theology of satisfaction does not clearly bring
out the centrality of Jesus’ saving death. He cannot be conceived simply as a
substitute for the humankind that remains transgressed and estranged from God
on account of sin.[72]
This would be unjust because the innocent cannot be burdened with the debt of
the transgressor, and it would be useless because the sinner himself must be
restored to the right relation to God. Thus Jesus’ solidarity with sinful humanity
needs further elucidation.
This theory of Anselm has been complemented, clarified, and deepened
by Scholastic theology, especially
Thomas Aquinas.[73]
His reflection goes beyond Jesus’ death to the resurrection as essential for
our salvation. He also considers Jesus’ passion not merely as satisfaction
(reparation) but more positively as merit. Still, the theology of redemption
through satisfaction remains very much juridical, and focused on Jesus’ work
rather than his person. Christology and Soteriology remains separated.
Moreover, for Anselm, Jesus’ divinity is important only because it gives
infinite value to his work; once the work is fulfilled and humankind’s relation
to God is restored, it has no further significance! The rethinking of Jesus’
saving mission must go beyond the theology of redemption through satisfaction
and turn to his person. His entire work and mission, his death and resurrection
are only the unfolding of who is he; and what is he really to human race and
its destiny and to creation itself.[74]
11. General conclusion:
We may have to bear in mind that there are no adequate categories in
any human language by which the mystery of Jesus Christ himself, the incarnate
Son of God, and his saving work (his ministry in word and deed) could be
expressed. When speaking about it, we have to fall on terms and symbols which
are taken from elsewhere, from general religious language or in particular form
from Judaism. It is of importance to note that these terms, either used in the
Bible or developed in the later Patristic thought, receive a deeper, and
actually their full meaning only through Christ event. So, our understanding of
Jesus Christ should not be limited to these terms, but rather fathom their
meaning in the light of the mystery of Jesus Christ and so to avoid the danger
of reduction, distorting the image of Jesus and his work by using ritualistic
(sacrifice, etc), social/political (covenant, freedom and liberation, etc),
juridical (justification and satisfaction), and even philosophical (truth,
eternal Word, etc) concepts. However, these are needed to spell out the mystery
of salvation enacted by Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God for us. Even the
Bible uses these terms or their equivalent, and each of them opens a special
perspective of the mystery of our salvation as encountered in the Christ event.
In the biblical understanding of salvation, it is God who is love, through his own
initiative saves humankind. In the New Testament narratives, God saves us through Jesus Christ, through his
mission, ministry, suffering and death. On account of the mystery of the
Incarnation of the Son of God, who suffered and died for us, God’s salvation
comes to us not from outside, but from within human history and in continuity
of our history, making in Jesus Christ our “last cause” his own.
The saving work of Jesus consists in accepting God’s plan to become
one of us, similar in all things, even to accept our death. What God does for
our salvation is a free initiative, but it becomes in Jesus Christ a free act
of obedience for our sakes. Death is the
price paid by Jesus for our salvation; he does not pay it to anyone, but
it is the cost of saving us in the present order of human existence, which he
takes on himself in obedience to God and in love of all humankind. To
experience God’s salvation, we on our part, have to believe in Jesus Christ and so to make his obedience to God
our own. This union with Christ must be lived out in the concreteness of the
Christian life, not falling back into the slavery to sin or reducing it into
ritualism.
JR/MSC/DTH/2010-11/CHRISTOLOGY/ /CL/ CH IV
CHAPTER – V
JESUS CHRIST:
RISEN AND TRANSCENDENT
1. Resurrection, the core
of Easter kerygma:
Right from the beginning of Christian history, resurrection of Jesus
is the core of the Christian kerygma, thought and cult. Christology, as a
theological reflection of the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ, begins specifically
from the Easter experience of the Risen Lord. Peter’s first public speech has
it: “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts
2:36). The one-sided presentation of the saving work of Christ, centring it on
his death as satisfaction for our sins as held in the traditional Christology,
has obscured the Easter event and relegated the discussion of the resurrection
to fundamental theology. As Durrwell suggested “the principle of our salvation
is Christ glorified at God’s right hand after his death at the hands of the
Jews.”[75]
The Incarnation has as its ultimate goal the revelation of God’s glory in the
Risen Lord. Consequently, the resurrection is the completion of Jesus’ saving
mission.
Two basic facts seem to me the rock bottom foundation for
Christology: Jesus’ death on the Cross and the Easter kerygma of the disciples
that he has been raised from the dead. This proclamation marks the beginning of
the ecclesial life of Christians. Without belief in Jesus’ resurrection, the
disciples could have organised some sort of ‘Jesus movement’ similar to the
Baptist movement organised by the disciples of John the Baptist after his
murder. Perhaps, Jesus’ disciples could even have started a religion like
Buddhism, based on the original teaching of Jesus. But it is difficult to make
sense without belief in Jesus’ resurrection that they would have been able to
establish a rapidly expanding worldwide community of believers whose centre was
not doctrines or moral precepts and not even cult, but the person of the
crucified and Risen Jesus who was believed to live and act in their community.
In fact, there is no proof that there has been a Christian community without
faith in the resurrection. All this amounts, on our part, to make a scientific
study of the ‘Easter tradition’ as we have it in the New Testament, so that our
Christoloical discourse of this mystery may make sense to men and women of our
time.
2. The Findings of Easter
Tradition:
2.1. The Scandal of the
Cross:
The violence and scandal of Jesus’ death on the Cross seemed the end
of everything. Even Jesus’ disciples apparently saw his death as the end of
their hopes. They returned, disappointed and resigned, to their families (Lk
24:13 ff). Jesus’ message of the coming of God’s Kingdom at hand seemed to be
discredited by his dishonourable death. There were theological reasons in
Judaism to justify the death of ‘just person’ who faced a shameful end. This
could not stand for the justification of Jesus’ death on account of the
Deuteronomy provision that a crucified person is treated as a cured one by God
(cf. Dt 21; 22 –23). Moreover, Jesus related the coming of God’s kingdom with
his very own person and mission which was discredited by his death on the
Cross.
In spite of all this, there was continuity after Good Friday. It was
then that a “Jesus movement,”[76]
a movement in his name, began. The meeting of the scattered group of disciples
took place; meeting of the communities of Jesus’ disciples (the churches) were
formed. A worldwide mission was undertaken, first to the Jews in Palestine
The answer given by the New Testament to the question of ‘Jesus
movement’ and the Church’s foundation (that is, formation of communities in
Jesus’ name) and belief is quite unambiguous: all the books of the New
testament claim that soon after his death Jesus’ disciples proclaimed that God
had raised him from the dead; that he who was crucified had proved to be
living; and that he had sent them (his disciples) to proclaim that message to
the world. In making this extraordinary announcement, all the New Testament
writings speak in one voice, “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and
so you believe” (1 Cor 15: 11): “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are
witnesses”(Acts 2:23). This unanimous and unambiguous evidence of the whole New
Testament forms the basis and the core of the New Testament message. As a
consequence, Paul writes, within 15 years after the Easter experience, to the
Church of Corinth: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in
vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor 14:14, 17, and 19).
Such clear and unambiguous message was not easy at first for the
disciples to accept. The gospels and Acts of the apostles report their initial
disbelief and stubbornness (Mk 16: 4), their despair (Mt 28:17), their scoffing
(Lk 24:11; cf. 24:24), their resignation (Lk 24:21), and their fear and dismay(Lk24:27;
cf. Jn 20:24 – 29).These reactions of the disciples indicate that the Easter
message of the Risen Lord is sober and experience-centred and there wasn’t
anything of an extraordinary enthusiasm of a psychogenic type of fanatic or militant nature. On the contrary, one
can notice the truthfulness of the disciples’ Easter message. It has a high
decree of reliability, because they were ready to lay down their lives for the
message.
3. Different theories
against Jesus’ resurrection:
Different theories were put forward by sceptics against the biblical
stories of Jesus’ resurrection. Some of them are in order: The oldest one is
known as the ‘substitution theory’. It is given in the gospel of Mathew 28:
11–15. This theory means that the disciples stole the body of Jesus and
proclaimed that he has been raised form the dead. In its modern form it has
been put forward in the 18th century as ‘deception hypothesis’ by
H.S. Reimarus.[77] His
arguments against Jesus’ resurrection, which is held by many still today, are
that the Easter stories in the gospels present an impenetrable web of contradictions
which cannot be knit together into a unified account of events. Therefore, they
are pure fiction and the invention of believers. For Reimarus, Easter stories
are a deception practised by the disciples. The hopes of Jesus’ disciples were
completely dashed by the arrest and crucifixion of their master. So they
emptied the tomb and invented the appearances and message of the Risen Lord.
The deception hypothesis was later abandoned because it was
considered by many scholars as too rough and rude theory. In its place, ‘evolution and vision hypothesis’ have been proposed by some scholars. The evolution hypothesis assumes that the resurrection faith is a “fabrication”
(invention) made up of religious ideas and expectations current at the time,
especially in neo-Judaism. In support of this view, the following current
beliefs are sited: the Old Testament promises and hopes of the “resurrection of
the dead” as developed in the Book of Maccabees; the Greek myths and mysteries
about the death and resurrection of gods and goddesses as held by
mystery-cults; and the neo-Judaic apocalyptic with its ideas of resurrection
and ecstasy, a glimpse of which is referred to in Mathew 27: 45, 51 – 54, are
cited. Evolution hypothesis cannot be accepted because there wasn’t sufficient
time and intellectual preparation for the evolution of the thought. On the
contrary, Easter experience happened all in a sudden and also immediately after
Jesus’ death – just in three days time –
that also contrary to disciples’ initial reaction to Jesus’ death.
The vision hypothesis, first put forward in the 19th
century by D. F. Strauss,[78]
seems to be the most widespread and still influential hypothesis. It attributes
the Easter belief not to objective appearances of the Risen Lord, but to subjective
visions of psychogenic type like hallucination experienced by the disciples,
which spread like a contagious “epidemic of visions of Christ.” Some scholars
also classify Easter experience as mystical experience. However, the differences
between Easter experience and that of hallucination or mystical experience are
that the latter cases involve previous expectation of seeing the person (hallucination
case) or preparation for the experience (mystical case). These elements are
missing in the former case. Moreover, the Easter experience is characterised by
a process of slow and sober recognition of or slowly being absorbed/attracted towards
a reality out there, the appearance of the Risen Lord, in which some sort of
robust psychogenic outburst is absent.
For Rudolf Bultmann the resurrection is not an event distinct from
that of the Cross. The historical event verifiable by the historian is the
crucifixion of Jesus. The resurrection is merely the meaning of his death; it
is faith “in the saving efficacy of the
cross.” We come to believe in the saving efficacy of the cross through the
kerygma of the Church in which God’s word addresses us. This word calls us to
die with Christ to our existence in the world (which is characterised by our
clinging to earthly securities) and to rise with him into a new life here and
now (which is a new existential self-understanding, a radical openness and
freedom for God’s future). In Bultmann’s words, “The real Easter faith is faith
in the word of preaching which brings illumination. If the event of Easter Day
is in any sense an historical event additional to the event of the Cross, it is
nothing else than the rise of faith in the risen Lord, since it was this faith
that led to the apostolic preaching.”[79]
These objections and challenges call us for a critical look at the Easter
tradition.
4. Easter Tradition:
By “Easter tradition” we mean the written tradition about the
disciples’ encounter with the Risen Jesus as gives in the New Testament
writings.[80] When
we examine the details of the evidence of Jesus’ Resurrection as given in these
writings, we encounter a variety of problems. Firstly, there is the textual problem. In contrast to the Passion tradition, where all four
gospels give a relatively unified account and follow the same order of events,
in spite of a few differences of detail, the accounts of Easter experience of
the disciples show substantial differences regarding witnesses, place of Risen
Lord’s appearances, witnesses to the empty tomb, etc. Secondly, there are philosophical and historical problems pertaining
to hermeneutics. The Easter narratives talk about an event which is
meta-empirical in character because it transcends the sphere of what is historically
verifiable. In this context, how a theologically responsible discussion is
possible depends upon fundamental hermeneutical decision: to what extend a
meta-historical dimension of an experience is recognised and how it is harmonised
/ synchronised with what is historically verifiable. Thirdly, the language of the Easter tradition –
especially regarding the appearances of the Risen Lord – is conditioned by some
stereotyped forms, sourced from Jewish belief system. All this calls for a
critical investigation of the Easter tradition before going into its
theological and Christological aspects.
The biblical evidence of the experience of the Risen Lord (that is,
the Easter experience) is spread all over the New Testament writings. The
longer versions are found at the end of four gospels (Mk 16: 1 – 19; Mt 28: 1 –
16; Lk 24: 1 – 50; Jn 20: 1 – 21: 1 –25); a shorter version is given in 1 Cor
15: 3 – 8; and Paul’s experience is accounted in Acts 9: 3 –8 which is repeated
in Acts 22: 6 –11; 26: 12 –18. Among these the earliest Easter tradition is
recounted in 1 Cor 15; 3 –8. It is a well composed credel formula which Paul
seemed to have received from Jerusalem
5. Different Strands of
Easter Tradition:
The biblical evidence of the Easter tradition is classified into two
basic forms, namely Easter Kerygma and Easter Stories, within which there are
many sub-divisions and variations occur. These are studied in what follows in
the proceeding pages.
5.1. Easter Kerygma
tradition:
The Easter Kerygma tradition is given in kerygmatic form (i.e., in
the form of public proclamation). It is known by its firm and brief style. In
them we find the credel statement of the New Testament community. These are formulated
in many literary styles conditioned by context. Some of these formulations are
given below.
(i) Easter kerygma with
witness: “The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon” (Lk 24: 34);
“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, he was buried, he
was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and he appeared
to Cepas then to the twelve…”( 1 Cor 3-5).
(ii) Easter kerygma with
revelation and appearances in which witnesses are not directly cited but
given in the form of revelation or manifestation: “But God raised him on the
third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people but to us who were
chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from
the dead” (Acts 10: 40 – 41). Paul writes to Timothy, “ Without any doubt, the
mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in
spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the
world, taken up in glory”(1 Tim 3: 16).
(iii) Easter kerygma in
hymnal form: This is seen in
Paul’s writings: “ [T]he gospel
concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was
declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by
resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…”(Rom 1: 3 – 4); “ Let the
same mind be in you that was in Christ, who, though he was in the form of God…”
( Phil 2: 6 – 11).
(iv) Easter kerygma in catechetical formula: “If you confess with your
lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the
dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10: 9).
(v) Easter kerygma in belief form: “This man God handed over to you
according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God…This Jesus God raised
up, and of that all of us are witnesses” ( Acts 2: 23 – 32).[81]
5.2. Easter Story
tradition:
It is given in long and colourful narrative form about the
appearances of the Risen Lord in various places, occasions and to various
people, his mission command, the demonstration of his resurrection to his
disciples like being touched by the disciples and his meal with them; the
stories of the empty tomb; and Paul’s experience of the Risen Lord on the way
to Damascus. These are found at the end of four gospels: Mk 16: 1 – 8 (the rest addition); Mt 28; Lk
24; Jn 20 (Jn 21 addition); and Acts 9: 3 – 8 (Acts 22:6 – 11; 26:12 – 18 are
repetitions). Easter stories are classified as appearance stories and empty
tomb stories.
5.3. Appearance story:[82]
There are eight appearance stories: Mathew has two: (i) to the women
at the tomb (Mt 28: 9 –10); (ii) to the eleven disciples on the mount in Galilee . Luke has two: (i) to the two disciples on the
way to Emmaus (Lk 24: 13 –35); (ii) to the eleven at the upper room in Jerusalem Jerusalem ;
(iii) to the eleven with Thomas at the upper room in Jerusalem
The Easter stories of the appearance of the Risen Lord are focused
on the “fact of appearance” rather than giving details of the appearances. In
addition, these stories do not intend to pay attention to the empty tomb. One
may also differentiate between private and official appearances. A private
appearance is marked out by the fact that it is given to one or more disciples,
such as to Mary Magdalene and Mary on the way (Mt 28: 9 – 10); to two disciples
on the way to Emmaus (Lk 24: 13 – 31); to Mary Magdalene in the garden (Jn 20:
14 – 17); and to Paul (Acts 9: 3 – 9). The official appearance is one in which
all apostles are present,[84]
such as to “the eleven disciples” in Galilee (Mt 28: 16 – 20); to “the eleven
and their companions” in the upper room in Jerusalem (Lk 24: 33 – 53); to
“disciples” in Jerusalem (Jn 20: 19 –
29). Here the emphasis on “Peter” and other apostles
The appearance stories are classified into Galilean type (Mt 28: 16
– 20), and Jerusalem
On the contrary, the Jerusalem Jerusalem
5.4. Easter stories of the
Empty Tomb Tradition:
The gospels contain several stories about the empty tomb of Jesus.
These are of three kinds. (i) All four gospels describe the discovery of the
empty tomb by one or more of the women followers of Jesus (Mt 28: 1 – 10; Mk
16:1 – 8; Lk 24: 1 – 11; Jn 20: 1, 11 – 15). (ii) The Johannine and Lukan stories
describe the finding of the empty tomb by giving eye-witness to the fact that
the tomb of Jesus was empty (Jn 20: 3 – 10; Lk 24: 3 & 12). Lukan story has
the eye-witness of women: “But when they went in, they did not find the body”
(Lk 24: 4). Luke and John also describe an official-
eye-witness to the empty tomb given by Peter as the head of the apostles: “But
Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen
cloths by themselves” (Lk 24: 12); “Then Peter and the other disciple set out
and went toward the tomb…but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the
tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there,
but he did not go in. The Simon Peter came…and went into the tomb. He saw the
linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not
lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. The other
disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed”
(Jn 20: 3 –8). (iii) Mathew alone has the story about the guards set at the
tomb of Jesus, who see the resurrection and counter it by spreading the rumour
that the disciples of Jesus have stolen his body away ( Mt 27: 62 – 66; 28: 11
– 15).[88]
All these stories assume that the tomb of Jesus was indeed empty.
The question about the empty tomb must be decided by a study of the relevant
texts. The texts about “the women at the
tomb” are the most promising because they contain the earliest form of the
tomb story tradition. The story of the disciples (Peter and John) at the tomb
is considered, probably a secondary development; or perhaps, the later development
of joining together two originally independent traditions, namely the discovery
of the empty tomb by the women in Jerusalem and
the appearance to disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem
5.6. Easter Tomb Story (Mk
16: 1– 8):
An analysis of the Marcan story reveals that in its present form, it
is in no way a historical account.[90]
The introduction begins with a definite improbability: the women’s wish to
anoint a dead body, which has already been put in its shroud in the tomb, three
days later. That also in the hot Palestinian climatic condition – the body
would begin to decompose! No explanation is given why anointing is need after
three days, such as being the custom of the time, etc. It seems an
unintelligible act. The fact that the women did not realise until they were
already on the way that they would need help to roll back the stone and enter
the tomb, betrays a degree of thoughtlessness for an important act. This is not
easy to explain!
We must assume, therefore, that we are faced not with historical
details but with literary devices of a story intended to attract attention and
raise excitement in the minds of those listening. Everything is skilfully
constructed to lead to the climax of angelophany and angel’s announcement: “Do
not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He
has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him” (Mk
16: 6). Angel’s intervention makes it that it is a religious story, a legend
for a religious purpose that this story is meant for an anniversary cult
purpose at the tomb of Jesus to announce the Easter message. Moreover, it is
remarkable that although the women are given the task of telling his disciples
that Jesus is risen and that he is going before them to Galilee and that they
will see him there, they were silent (
Mk16: 8).They said nothing to anyone of their great experience! This so called
women’s “silence” is typically Marcan motif of messianic secret which runs through
Mark’s gospel. This could be the only Marcan addition to a pre-Markan Easter
tomb story.
If we leave out Mark’s reduction, what remains is a very old
pre-Marcan Easter tradition to which the later composition as we have in Mark,
Mathew, Luke and John’s gospel, added further literary embellishments. This
went on right up to the apocryphal gospel of Peter (a non-canonical gospel)
written very late in time which is filled with many legendary features and
apocalyptic visions. In contrast, the literary reserve with which Mark presents
this tradition as given in Mk 16: 1 – 8 is the proof of its authenticity to the
pre-Marcan tradition, perhaps the oral tradition going around among the
Christian communities of the Jerusalem circle.
5.7. Marcan story, a Cult
Legend:
The important thing in the Marcan story (Mk 16: 1 – 8) is not the
emptiness of the tomb, but rather the proclamation of the resurrection of
Jesus. The reference to the tomb is intended as a sign of this Easter faith of
the Church. In conclusion, this ancient pre-Marcan Easter tradition is not an
historical account of the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus, but an evidence
of the faith that he is raised from the dead. In terms of Form Criticism, this
tradition can be comfortably categorised as a cult legend because it deals with
a narrative intended for a cultic ceremony. It is known from other Palestinian
sources that in the Jewish Society of Jesus’ time, it was normal to honour the
tombs of distinguished persons. So, the early Jerusalem Christian community of
the New Testament time may well have honoured Jesus’ tomb and have assembled at
the empty tomb of Jesus to celebrate the anniversary of his resurrection.
During this cultic ceremony, the joyful message of the resurrection would be
proclaimed for which the empty tomb was the sign. The classification of Mk 16:1
– 8 as cult legend does not in any way imply any judgment on the historicity of
the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus. It means that the remembered facts on
the empty tomb discovery by women/woman have been re-worked and altered in the
pre-Marcan account for cult purpose.
5.8. The women at the Tomb
tradition:
Our analysis of Marcan story (Mk 16: 1–8) suggests that the gospel
narratives of the women at the tomb of
Jesus have developed in the following manner: (i) The earliest tradition on which the
narrative rests probably spoke of some women followers of Jesus who visited his
tomb on Easter Sunday morning and found it open and empty (vv. 2, 4, 5a).[91]
This tradition is clearly focussed on the discovery of the empty tomb.
(ii) This early report of the women was worked up into a cult legend
which served to legitimise and explain the Easter celebration of the early
Jerusalem Christian community, whatever its form, location and frequency. This
was done in the pre-Marcan time through the insertion of a theophany (vv 5 – 6,
8a). In fact, it is an angelophany in which an angel explained the significance
of the empty tomb of Jesus by the glorious proclamation of the Resurrection of
Jesus of Nazareth. It is this proclamation of the resurrection and not the
discovery of the empty tomb that is now the high point
(iii) This cult legend was taken up by Mark and fitted into his
gospel version and makes the story part of his Galilee-oriented theology by
expanding the angel’s message that he would appear in Galilee (v. 7), which is
for Mark, the expected land of the eschatological fulfilment of the messianic
mission of Jesus. This is underscored by “Women’s silence” (v. 8) that goes
with the messianic secret of Marcan theology.
(iv) “The women at the tomb tradition” has been taken over by other
evangelists, each of whom developed it in his own way. Mathew, for instance,
inserts an apocalyptic theophany/angelophany (Mt 28: 2–4) – with its characteristic “heavenly light”( cf.
Mt 17: 2) and earthquake (cf. Mt 27:52 f) motifs – which identify the first Easter Morning as the
eschatological “Day of the Lord” (cf. Hag 2:6; Zech 14:4f; Mk 13:8; Rev 6:12,
etc), in order to make sure that the resurrection of Jesus is an eschatological
event in the background mainstream thought of neo-Judaism. Luke, on the other
hand, harmonises the theophany/angelophany scene (Lk 24: 4 – 9) with that of
his Ascension story of Acts 1: 10 –12). Similarly, John does in his own way.
5.9. The historicity of
the Empty Tomb:
The most important argument, however, for an historical core of the
story is that any such ancient tradition – in this case, the pre-Marcan
tradition – stemming as it did from Jerusalem itself, would not have lasted
there for a single day, had not the tomb of Jesus been empty. Moreover, it is incredible
that in all Jewish polemic against the Christian message of Jesus’ resurrection
no one questioned the fact of the empty tomb of Jesus. Further, the fact that
the tradition shows women discovering the empty tomb again gives it historical
credibility because women were not regarded as reliable witnesses in the legal
system of Judaism of the New Testament time. If the empty tomb story is
fabrication, then it is hard to see why it is centred on women’s discovery
(women’s testimony) and not the Twelve (i.e., the apostles) or any other
prominent person. This is in contrast with the mention of Joseph of Arimathea
at the burial story of Jesus (Mk
15: 43; Jn 19: 38) which links Jesus’ burial to a historically attested person
and guarantees that the tomb of Jesus is known. But if Jesus’ tomb was known,
then it would have been impossible to have proclaimed his resurrection in
Jerusalem – given the Jewish understanding of resurrection as a reanimation of
the body – unless the tomb of Jesus was
really empty.
Finally, suffice for our investigation to refer to the position of
Campenhausen on the story of the empty tomb: “Any one, who wishes to take into account
possible substitution, confusion or other accident, may naturally allow his
imagination full play – anything is possible and nothing provable here. But
this has then no longer anything to do with critical research. If anyone
examines what there is to examine, one cannot avoid accepting as fact the news
of the empty tomb itself and of its early discovery. There is a great deal that
is convincing and definite to be said for it and little to be said against it;
it is, therefore, in all probability, historical.”[92]
It is, of course, impossible from an historical point of view to go any further
than the statement that it is definitely a very ancient tradition, which must
very probably be described as historical; but then it is impossible to go
further than this in regard to historicity in the case of other traditions too!
5.10. Empty Tomb, an
ambiguous phenomenon:
To establish the fact that there is a historical core to the empty
tomb story tradition is not the same as providing proof of the resurrection as
a fact. Historically it can only be put forward as probable that the tomb of
Jesus was found empty; but how it got emptied cannot be established. Hence,
empty tomb is an ambiguous phenomenon. Different interpretations of it existed
even in the New Testament (cf Mt 28: 11 –15; Jn 20: 15). The empty tomb
phenomenon only becomes sensible and unambiguous through the proclamation (i.e.,
Easter kerygma tradition) which has its source in the experience of the
appearances of the Risen Lord (i.e., Easter appearance tradition). For the
believers empty tomb is not a proof but a sign. Thus, for the early Church of
the New Testament time, it was the conviction of the witnesses of the
post-resurrection appearances, which were given in karygmatic proclamation,
have played a central role in their belief in Jesus’ resurrection and not the
empty tomb stories as such. Hence, in view of the facts of Easter tradition, we
must start from the kerygma tradition and then the appearance tradition leading
to the empty tomb tradition.
6. The Significance of
Jesus’ Resurrection and Appearances:
6.1. Resurrection of
Jesus:
The historical research of the Resurrection tradition of the New
Testament leads us to the conviction that the tomb of Jesus was empty/probably
empty and the Twelve (apostles), Paul and some followers/disciples of Jesus
enjoyed objective post-crucifixion experience of the presence of Jesus. This
convinced them that he was alive. Research based on historical criticism does
not go further. It does not reach the resurrection event itself, which no one
claimed to have seen and which no one could have seen. For, the resurrection of
Jesus is a divine act/ a meta-empirical act by which he enters into God’s
glory. This has been precisely given in the passive voice: that ‘he has been
raised’ or as ‘God raised him from the dead’, etc. Hence, resurrection is a
trans-historical event, in the sense that it is real but not subject to
empirical laws and, therefore not historical – that is, something which has
indeed happened but not as an observable and locatable event which can be
studied by historical methods. It means that resurrection breaks through the
limits of the empirical world and, from an empirical point of view, has no analogies
whatsoever in history. Therefore, it cannot be analysed by empirical tools.[93]
But the fact of /reality of the
resurrection is shown by the historicity of the two markings that this
trans-historical event (i.e., meta-empirical phenomenon) has left in history.
These are the fact of the ‘empty tomb’ and the ‘appearances’ of the Risen Lord. Both have been shown
to be historical, though with varying degrees of probability. In all probability
the tomb of Jesus was empty, but this does not of itself prove the fact of
resurrection, the reasons for which we have put forward elsewhere. On the other
hand, the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus were certainly historical –
historical in the sense that the experience of the Risen Lord takes place in
history and, therefore, created impact on those who experienced the appearance event
– which forms the basis for the believers’ Easter faith.
As seen elsewhere,[94]
historical investigation leads to a very qualified certitude, but it is always
vulnerable to further evidence and interpretation, and remains inconclusive. However,
historical research points positively to the resurrection as a probable and
even an appropriate explanation of the empty tomb phenomenon and of the
objectivity of Jesus’ appearances. Hence, belief in the resurrection of Jesus
is ultimately a matter of faith – and this applies for us and for its first
witnesses as given in the Easter tradition – implying that it is an assent based on historical evidence but
goes beyond it, as it is the case in any act of faith. This has been
precisely commented by John in the case of Thomas’ doubt: “Blessed are those
who have not seen and yet have come to believe” (Jn 20:29). Thomas’ episode implies that faith
in the resurrection arises only when the historical evidence (that is, the
result of the historical research) interacts dialectically with our present
experience of the Risen Christ alive and active in our lives. This has been
underscored by Thomas Merton who said, “The resurrection is not a doctrine we
try to prove or a problem we argue about: it is the life and action of Christ
himself in us by his Holy Spirit.”[95]
6.2. Appearances of Jesus:
In the appearances we are not dealing with empirically tangible phenomena
/ events. The observer from a neutral distance will find no point of contact.
We have before us a total state of being possessed by Jesus, a state of impact
and absorption, leading to awakening of faith. In the appearances, Jesus
finally achieves validity and recognition in the belief of his disciples. To disciples it was an experience in faith.
But although they were an experience in faith, the appearances were not simply
the expression of a belief. They are actual objective encounters with Christ
present in the Spirit. Faith did not establish the reality of the resurrection,
but the reality of the Risen Christ impacting in his transformed existence upon
the disciples established faith. So, the foundation of the Easter faith is the
experience of the Risen Jesus in his appearances.
These encounters are described in the New Testament as meeting God
and knowing God. The disciples become aware of the reality of the kingdom of God
7. Theological meaning of Resurrection:[96]
The New Testament presents the resurrection of Jesus as an act of
God by which Jesus’ mission and ministry of God’s kingdom and his ultimate
saving service to humankind on the Cross are endorsed /sealed by God. The
Easter stories present this as Jesus’ effort to interpret the Scriptures (Lk
24: 25 –27, 44 f). This is corroborated by the use of the Greek verbal term “egegertai,”
meaning “has been raised,” as
applied to Jesus’ resurrection.[97]
Eegegertai is the passive theological
construction of the transitive verb egeirein,
which means to raise, to make arise, to awaken from the sleep/dead.
Likewise, for the “appearance” of the Risen Jesus, the term “ophthe”
is used. Ophthe is the aorist passive
of the Greek verb “horao”, meaning
“to see.” For the appearance of the Risen Jesus, ophthe is used with dative case (ophthe Kepha, meaning
“appeared to Kephas,” to Peter).[98]
As a passive with dative, it could be translated: (a) as a passive, he was seen
by Peter; (b) as a dependent verb, he showed himself to Peter; (c) and as a theological passive, God showed him to
Peter. Of these three translations, ‘(a)’ is excluded by the fact that the ophthe construction is followed by a
dative case and not by a genitive case as usually done in Greek “ophthe hupo Kephas”, meaning
that “he has been seen by Peter”; ‘(b)’ is also excluded because ophthe is in the passive voice; ‘(c)’
seems to be the author’s intended meaning
because it is supported by the fact that its parallel egegertai (has been raised) is also
given in the theological passive which is intended to convey the message that
God raised him up from the dead.
It has been, furthermore, pointed out by scholars that in the Septuagint
ophthe is the term used to translate
the Hebrew reflective verb nr’h and Aramaic verb ythmy,
both refer to “to see.” These two terms (nr’h and ythmy) are used to describe
theophanies in which Yahweh or his heavenly messenger “appears” (literally
“shows himself to”) to his chosen ones.[99]
This evidently shows that the New Testament writers deliberately followed the
Septuagintal language to describe the appearances of the Risen Jesus, by which
they mean that Jesus in his risen state of existence appears the same way as
Yahweh used to appear to his chosen ones.[100]
Further, it also means, as Paul explains, that “God was pleased to reveal his
Son to me” (Gal 1:16). In other words, the appearance of the Risen Jesus is the
deed of God in his good pleasure by which he demonstrates to the world that
Jesus of Nazareth, in whom the divine design of God’s kingdom to humankind was
executed and for which he offered his life as a saving sacrifice for the
redemption of the world is the true beloved Son of God.[101]
8. Christological meaning
of Resurrection:
Resurrection is the fulfilment of Jesus’ incarnational life and
redemptive work. The incarnation has its ultimate goal the revelation of God’s
glory in the Risen Lord. To be truly human, he has first to live the
limitations and the anguish of a truly human existence unto the final
abandonment of his human life into the inscrutable mystery of God in death. But
after this last word of abandonment, it must be revealed that he is truly God
and truly human; divine power and glory must be manifested in him. This is what
is all about his resurrection. It must also be revealed that he is the saviour
of all humankind and draws all to himself. This demands of him his self-gift
unto death, the grain of wheat must die to become fruitful (cf. Jn 12: 24). But
the effectiveness of his universal love is revealed only in the resurrection.
The glory of the Risen Lord is not something different from his saving love,
but its full revelation. As the Risen Lord, Christ is meta-empirical. He is
present everywhere beyond barriers of time and space and reveals himself to
whom he chooses to reveal.
Through his appearances Risen Jesus gains legitimacy of his
messianic claims among his disciples. The gospels make it clear that the Risen Christ
is not a “re-animated body” (resuscitated body), returning once again into biological
life, like Lazarus, which has been brought to an end on the Cross and sealed
with death. Yet he is, in spite of his meta-biological and meta-historical
life, the same person as the crucified Jesus of Nazareth. This recognition of
the Risen Christ has especially been depicted by John and Luke in their
versions of Easter stories, displaying the signs of his wounds and meal-taking,
etc. His appearances convince the disciples that he is not only the
Messiah and the reality of his
transcendent existence in glory, but also his new permanent presence in them
and among them (Mt 28:49; Mk 16: 20; Lk 24: 49; Jn 20: 22; cf. Jn 14: 18 – 26;
15: 1 – 8).[102] Further,
through the appearances, Jesus empowers his disciples to continue his mission
till the end of time. Hence, to be a disciple of Christ means to share in the
messianic joy of the Church imparted by the Risen Messiah who is ever present
in the Church which is constituted by him. It is around the Risen Lord that the
Church gathers, and in the Memorial of his death and glorious resurrection the
Church is constantly constituted as the community of believers around the alter
(cf. LG, 26).[103]
Through the resurrection, Jesus’ Lordship/ his dominion are finally
established. It is as the ‘Risen One’ that he receives the Christological title
“Kyrios,”
a title reserved to Yahweh in the LXX. To this end, Christ died and lives again
that he might be Lord both of the dead and f the living (cf. Rom 14: 9). On
this basis, Paul quoting Psalm 8 says that every thing is subject to Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, and in the end the Son will lay his kingdom before God
so that God may be everything to everyone( cf. 1 Cor 15: 26 – 28).
9. Eschatological meaning of
Resurrection:[104]
The New Testament uses two words to describe Jesus’ resurrection: egeirein (to awaken from the dead) and anastanai (to arise, to make arise). In
both cases, it is a metaphorical way of speaking as awakening or arising from
sleep. Both words were in usage in neo-Judaism connoting awakening of the dead
and retuning to earthly life, or the general eschatological resurrection of the
dead which neo-Judaism expected. When, therefore, the resurrection of Jesus is
referred to in the New Testament by these two words, it is intended to convey
that with Jesus’ resurrection the eschatological event has already begun to
take place. Jesus is the first to rise from the dead (cf. Acts 26: 23; 1 Cor
15: 20 f; Col
Resurrection of Jesus is God’s eschatological assurance of life,
because the neo-Judaic hope in the general resurrection of the dead at the end
of time is based on Judaism’s fundamental faith in Yahweh as Lord of life and
death, who holds all in his hand, to whom everything belongs and in whom there
can be complete confidence, even beyond death itself: “The Lord kills and
brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up” (1 sam 2: 6; cf. Dt 32:
39). Hence, Job can say in the darkest moment of his affliction: “For I know
that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my
skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19: 25
f). Therefore, by applying the words egeirein
and anastanai to Jesus’ resurrection,
the New Testament authors intended to say that in the resurrection of Jesus,
God assures to the world that as the creator of the universe, he is the
guarantee of life beyond destruction.
Resurrection of Jesus is also God’s eschatological assurance of
reconciliation because resurrection is the decisive conclusion of the Christ-event
whose purpose is the establishment of God’s kingdom. Precisely, God’s kingdom
consists in a life of reconciliation between God and humankind, and humankind
among one another. By raising Jesus from the dead, God tells the world that the
end of the world, the ultimate meaning of the world is not alienation and
self-destruction or disintegration, but reconciliation with God. The divine
design and purpose of creation is to be in God (entheos), and share the divine glory and joy of creation. This
ultimate state of being with God, the source of life and love, is guaranteed in
Jesus’ resurrection as the grand conclusion of his messianic mission which he
inaugurated (cf Mk 1:15).
10. Soteriological meaning
of Resurrection:
The resurrection of the crucified Messiah and his exaltation to divine
authority and power is not an isolated event for the New Testament, but the
beginning and anticipation of the general resurrection of the dead. As Paul
nuances, Risen Jesus is the “first fruits [Gk, aparxie = Heb, aroobon]
of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:20).[105]
The resurrection of Jesus is God’s answer to the universal horizon of ‘hope and
freedom’ arising in the heart of every human person for a better future to live
in a brotherly and sisterly society where pain and tears are wiped away and
forgotten. This has been shown, from an existential philosophical and
theological point of view, by Karl Rahner, and following him, Ladislaus Boros
and H. Ebert that the phenomena of human hope and freedom tend essentially
towards an absolute and definitive salvation and, therefore, finds fulfilment
in eternity. These theologians propound that salvation understood as eternal life
is God’s definitive and gratuitous answer to human hope and freedom.[106]
Joseph Ratzinger makes similar points using the phenomenology of
love, which is stronger than death;[107]
Gabriel Marcel, the Existential philosopher,[108]
in his writings underlines that to love another human being is to say, you will
not die. Likewise, R. Bultmann and Jürgen Moltmann,[109]
taking the path of Max Horkheimer – that murderer does not triumph over the
Victim – connect salvation with humanity’s universal longing for justice in a
world dreadfully marked by evil and injustice. These contemporary theologians
and philosophers see a definitive answer to the problem of evil in the world in
Jesus’ resurrection given by a loving God who remains ever just and faithful to
his own creation. In this universal human horizon of hope and freedom, Jesus’
resurrection implies a new humanity and a new creation. It is pre-figuration
and fore-glimpsing of the reign of freedom, justice and love towards which the
whole creation looks forward, sighing and groaning in eager longing (cf. Rom 8:
19 ff). Jesus’ resurrection is a guarantee of our salvation and wellbeing. For,
in this world order of violence, self-centredness and inhumanity, Jesus’
resurrection assures that there is meaning in self-effacing love, suffering in
hope, acceptance in forgiveness and love amid hate.
11. Pneumatological
meaning of Resurrection:[110]
In the Old Testament the Spirit of Yahweh is the divine power by
which God works in creation, in living beings, and mainly in the events of the
history of his people giving them strength beyond all natural resources. The
outpouring of the Spirit in fullness is foretold as the gift of the messianic
age (Is 32:15; 44:3; Jer 31; Ez 26:27; 37:14; 39;29; Joel 3;3 – 5). This
promise of the Spirit is taken up in the New Testament in the events of Jesus
the Messiah: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mk 1:8). Incarnation
takes place by the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35) and Jesus ministry begins
led by the Holy Spirit (Lk 4: 14–15 = Mt 4:17= Mk 1: 14 –15; Lk 4:18 –19). However,
the New Testament writers saw that this outpouring of the Holy Spirit takes
place only after the resurrection of Jesus. Luke – Acts circle testifies that
the disciples have to wait for the empowerment by the Holy Spirit to continue
Christ’s mission (Lk 24: 49 =Acts 1:4 – 5, 8; 2: 1 ff).
John, in particular, insists that
only after the resurrection the Holy Spirit can be sent (Jn 7:39). In his last discourses in the
Johannine gospel, Jesus speaks of the advantage that he goes: “If I do not go
away the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go I will send him to you” (Jn
17:7). Thus, the fullness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit over all people
comes only with the resurrection. This has been particularly referred to by
Peter in his speech on the Pentecost day where he sees the empowerment of the
Holy Spirit that took place on that day as the fulfilment of the Old Testament
prophecy of Joel (Acts 2 = Joel 2:28 ff).
Jesus himself is transformed by the
Spirit in the resurrection. He lives now in a Spirit-filled life. His body is
no longer of the physical nature (psychikon)
but of the Spirit (pheumatikon) and,
therefore, he imparts his Spirit to his brothers and sisters (1 Cor 15: 45; Rom
8: 9 –11). Through the Spirit that the Risen Lord bestows on us, we share in
the life of divine filiation in the Son. Paul writes: “You have received the
Spirit of sonship. When we cry Abba, Father, it is the Spirit Himself bearing
witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children then
heirs”(Rom 8: 15; Gal 4: 5f). Paul also reminds the Church of Rome that one
must have this Spirit of Christ, because “anyone who does not have Christ’s
Spirit, does not belong to him” (Rom 8:9); without the Spirit of Christ, his
Cross remains a folly (1 Cor 2:14). Further, the Holy Sprit inspires the
community of believers through his gifts and gives richness and unity to ecclesial
life (1 Cor 12 – 14; Eph 4:4).Consequently, what Jesus was for his disciples
while he was alive, the Holy Spirit is for the Church after his resurrection.
In summing up one may say that Pentecost
completes the Paschal mystery because the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the
Day of Pentecost is the implantation of the Paschal mystery into the hearts of
believers and into the life of the Church. This is the necessary continuation
and completion of the mystery of Incarnation – that is, God dwelling with his
people in Jesus Christ that he is our Immanuel. It is, therefore, significant to
see the presence of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in the community of the
disciples of Jesus on the Pentecost Day to make this community into the Church
of Jesus Christ and in and through it the Risen Lord is present in the world
for all ages.
12. The Ascension:
Good Friday, Easter, Ascension and Pentecost form a single
indivisible Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ, the one transition of Jesus
through biological death to life eternal, by which he opened up new life for us
in the Holy Spirit. Ascension stands for the divine act of exaltation of the
crucified Jesus to divine status, that he is co-equal to God. This unity, which
almost all New Testament writers show between Resurrection and Ascension, seems
to eclipse in the case of Luke’s Easter story as given in Acts 1:3 ff. Luke
inserts a period of forty days between resurrection and
Ascension. Ascension should be treated not as a mystery distinct from the
resurrection, but as the full manifestation of Easter.
The Lucan story (Acts 1:3 ff) is to be seen in the context of the
Easter tradition as given in the four gospels. As we have analysed earlier,
Mark 16: 1 – 8 has only the message of the resurrection, appearance of the
Risen Lord is only promised and there is no ascension story; according to
Mathew 28: 16 – 20, resurrection and appearance take place on the same day;
Mathew also has no ascension story; according to John 20: 1 – 29, after the
resurrection, the appearances continues for 8 days, but John also has no ascension
story; as given in Luke 24: 1 –53, resurrection, appearances and ascension take
place on the same day: “While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was
carried up into heaven”(Lk 24: 51). In contrast to the rest of the New
Testament, Luke’s report in Acts 1:3 tells us that during 40 days after the
resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples; on the 40th day after
resurrection “as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out
of their sight” (Acts 1:9), meaning that he ascended into heaven (cf. Acts 1:
10–11).
Luke intends to describe ascension as Jesus’ apparent visible
disappearance (Acts 1: 9 f) from the sight of his disciples. It has admittedly
to be taken into account that Luke’s 40
days are not intended as an exact
historical period of time, but as a round figure. Forty is in fact a sacred
number (the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness; Jesus’ sojourn in the wilderness).
“Forty” is the symbolic number available to denote a fairly long period of
time. What is at issue is a holy period of a considerable length, especially
marked out as significant time, during which the Risen Lord appeared to his
disciples.
In keeping with Lucan gospel report of ascension (Lk 24: 51 f), Acts
1:3 also explicitly mentions a vision, an angelophany / theophany. Here too as
in the story of the tomb (Lk 24:4), two angels intervene in the scene to
interpret Jesus’ ascension. These parallels prove that Luke’s Ascension story
is a continuation of the Easter story. Elsewhere in Luke there is mention of Christ
appearing from heaven (Acts 10:40; 13:30). According to Luke, Jesus has already
entered into his glory after the resurrection (Lk 24: 26; cf. 23:42 f). In his
account of the ascension, Luke depicts it vividly, using the symbol of the
“cloud”. The cloud which carries Jesus away from the sight of the astonished
disciples need not be a meteorological phenomenon, but rather a theological
symbol, denoting an Old Testament form of theophany. In the Old Testament the
cloud is God’s medium and the sign of his all-powerful presence (Ex 13:21;
40:34 – 38; Num 9: 15 –23). Therefore, Lucan account of cloud means that Jesus
is taken up into the sphere of divine glory and life – that he is exalted to divine status by God – and that he is with
his people in a new way sent from God. So, the Ascension story emerges as the finale
of the Easter story. The number “forty days” connects the Risen Jesus with his
Church. Ascension is the last Easter story as well as the beginning of the
Church, led by his Spirit. Here the presence of the Risen Lord and the presence
of the Holy Spirit overlap, merging together in the Church which is his
spiritual body.
In fact, today the idea of ascension is rather strange for us to
understand. But that was not the case in the neo-Judaism of the time. E. Schweitzer
has shown the theological importance of the suffering and exalted figure of a
‘Just man’ as prevalent in neo-Judaism. Elijah, Enoch and other Just men were “taken
up into heaven” (ascended into heaven), to be kept there as witnesses for the
last judgement; similarly, the return of Elijah on the last day was awaited (cf.
Mt 11:14; 16:14; 17:10). In neo-Judaism, exaltation or ascension was the only
category available to express the fact that a human being on earth would still
play a part in the eschatological events of the last day. Exaltation was,
therefore, a current category in neo-Judaism at the time of Jesus, which was
used in an attempt to express a just person’s eschatological importance on the messianic
day of judgement. This is why the earliest statements on the exaltation of
Jesus are given in an explicitly eschatological context. Jesus is exalted for a
certain time, so that he can then appear from heaven as the eschatological Messiah
and as such come again (1 Thess 1:10; Acts 3: 20f).
Sum up: Resurrection means God’s vindication or endorsement to the world
that Jesus, the crucified Messiah, is the true Son of God who faithfully
executed the divine plan of salvation to humankind, the kingdom of God. In the
appearances, Jesus is recognised by his disciples that he is the Messiah; and ascension
means that as true Son of God, Jesus now enjoys the glory of God, that God
exalted Jesus to divine glory by raising him from the dead. That is why the
earliest kerygma refers to Jesus’ glorification as “he was raised up” or “he
was exalted” (Acts 2: 32f; 5:30 f). “Forty days” could mean that Jesus’
appearances continued for many days and ascension on the “fortieth day” could
also mean that last day of Jesus’ appearance to his disciples. In this sense,
ascension means the acceptance of Jesus and his work of salvation by God and
that he shares in God’s Lordship “Kyrios”;
that he communicates the same glory to those who are his own, that he assures
his communion with them; and as the fulfiller of the redemptive history, he
will return as the judge of the living and the dead.
13. The “Third Day” and
Resurrection:
An old Christological credel formula given in 1 Cor 15: 3–5 claims
that Jesus’ resurrection is on the third day after his death. This credel
formula consists of two verses:
“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
That he was buried, (1st verse)
That he was raised on the third day in accordance with the
Scriptures
And that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”(2nd
verse)
The first line of the first verse, gives a statement on an historical
event: “Christ died”, then a soteriological meaning is adduced for the
historical event: “for our sins,” which is explained as the fulfilment of the
OT promises by adding the phrase “according to the Scriptures”. The second line
of the first verse “that he was buried” serves as a confirmation of the first line.
According to the Jewish understanding, burial is the final historical sealing
of a death. Likewise, the first line of the second verse carries a message of
historical importance: “that he was raised” (Jesus’ resurrection), and its
soteriological meaning is given with the support from the Scriptures, “on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”; the second line of the
second verse, “that he appeared to Peter and the Twelve” serves as a
confirmation of this historical event of salvation enacted by Jesus Christ.
The question is to what extent is a more soterological meaning is to
be given to the phrase “the third day” than its historical significance? It is to be borne in mind that behind the phrase,
“on the third day,” there was originally an historical date. This date could be
either the date on which the empty tomb was discovered by Jesus’ disciples or
the date on which the first appearance of the Risen Lord took place. In the
Easter stories of the gospels this phrase is replaced by many other phrases,
such as “When the Sabbath was over” (Mk 16:1),[111]
or “the first day of the week was dawning” (Mt 28: 1), or “on the first day of
the week” (Lk 24: 1; Jn 20: 1). However, all this refer to the third day after
his burial. This takes us to the Old Testament where the phrase, “the third
day,” has a theological and soteriological meaning. For instance, Hosea 6:2
has, “After two days he [Yahweh] will revive us, on the third day he will raise
us up, that we may live before him.” Prophet Hosea is speaking here about the
metaphorical raising up of Israel
With regard to Jesus’ resurrection, “on the third day” means that
Yahweh had definitely intervened with Jesus’ resurrection to set his Just One,
his Messiah, free. Resurrection of Jesus is an act of God in which God shows to
the world, the truth of Jesus Christ and the cause of God’s kingdom for which he
sacrificed his life. The Old Testament stereotyped theological phrase “the
third day” could have caught the attention of Jesus’ disciples, only if, in
their mind, it pointed to a significant date on which they encountered the
appearance of the Risen Lord and probably also discovered his empty tomb on
that day.[112] Third
day is not only a symbolic phrase but also an historical date: that on a
definite day God has effectively/savingly intervened in human history in and
through his Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, salvation in Jesus Christ is
something historical; it takes place in and through our secular history. Secular history (the temporal order or our everyday
life) is the medium and means through which God effectively executes his saving
plan for us, his immanent redemptive action as seen in the Paschal mystery of
Jesus, the Messiah of God, who has been raised from the dead on the third day –
on a definite day in human history.
JR/MSC/DTH/2010-11/CHRISTOLOGY/ /CL/ CH V
CHAPTER: VI
JESUS CHRIST
AND THE HISTORY OF
SALVATION
1. The Purpose of Incarnation
The
Christological reflection of the early Church was limited to the person and the
mission of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. On the other hand, the
Medieval Church reflected on his universal significance in the one divine plan
of salvation for the world. This search was not an idle speculation without
foundation but rooted in the biblical revelation. The medieval theologians
attempted to grasp the universal significance of Incarnation to humankind and
creation in general. In this connection, three classical positions, namely that
of Anselm, Thomas Aquinas and John Dons Scotus, stand out for our
consideration.
St Anslem,
bishop of Canterbury (1033 – 1109), was a renowned theologian and philosopher
of the time. In his classic, Cur Deus Homo
(Why God became man), Anselm
first proposed that the reason for Incarnation of the Son of God was to
counteract Adam’s disobedience with the obedience of the God-man. He put forward
the following arguments for his position based on the principles of sin and
satisfaction [rectification] of sin: (i) God could not allow his most precious
work of creation, human beings, to perish after the fall (after the
transgression of Adam) that destroyed the divine plan intended for humankind
and alienated the human race from God. Thus he had to redeem humankind after
the fall. (ii) God could not simply forgive sin: pardon without punishment or
satisfaction would be ‘inordinate [undue] forgiveness’.[113] If humankind is not punished, then there must
be satisfaction [that is, rectification of sin]. (iii) Satisfaction could not
be offered to God by any creature because no creature was in a position to
rectify the disorder created by sin which destroyed the divine order. It is
only “God-made-man” who can restore humankind to the dignity of divine sonship,
by restoring the divine order that has been damaged by sin.[114]
Anselm’s
position implies that Incarnation is a second act (thought) of God after Adam’s
sin. Anselm’s position cannot be accepted for the following reasons: firstly, it
implies limitation in divine plan. Secondly, there is one divine plan of
creation and salvation which implies imperfection in God. Thirdly, the
scriptural doctrine is that the whole of God’s saving work is God’s own
spontaneous gift of love for humankind (Rom5: 10), and in particular, the Incarnation
is a deed of free divine love as John says, “God so loved the world that he
gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may
have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn
the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:
16-17; see also 1Jn 4:10). We have to keep in mind that the very essence of
love is a free act for the sake of the other. Fourthly, Anselm’s position was
based on the medieval idea of penal justice of the feudal world which is outmoded
today.
St Thomas Aquinas
(1225 – 1274) almost follows Anselm’s position. He formulated the question:
“Would God have become man if Adam had not sinned?”[115]
Thomas also holds that Incarnation is subsequent to Adam’s sin because
Scripture holds that the reason for Incarnation is sin, humankind’s
estrangement from God (cf. Rom 5:20). So, if there were no sin, there would
have been no Incarnation. Commenting on Rom 5:20, Thomas held that God allowed
evil be done in order to manifest divine super-abundance of grace. However,
Thomas believes that it would not mean a limitation of God’s power. God could
have come in the flesh also if there was no sin.[116]
Thomas’ position is founded on Scripture (Rom 5:20, etc) and Creed [“who for us
men and for our salvation can down from heaven”, see Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed] (ND, 12) where Christ is presented as saviour of humankind from sin.
Blessed John Dons Scotus
(1265-3108), a renowned Franciscan theologian and philosopher of
the High Middle Ages, and his Scottish School of
Theology, held that Jesus Christ as the Eternal Word-made-human was the centre
of creation. As the alpha and omega of creation, Jesus Christ was first in
God’s plan and Incarnation is the climax of creation. His position is also
biblical, based on Col 1:15ff; Eph 1:3-10; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2; and John’s prologue
(Jn 1:1-18). Among these texts, the most
inspiring one for Scotus was Col 1:15-20 that reads, “[Christ was] the first
born of all creation; for in him all things were created in heaven and on
earth. All things were created through him and for him…. In him all things hold
together”. These texts say that all things were created and predestined in
Christ. Scotus, however, held that the mode of Incarnation changed after Adam’s
sin. Originally Incarnation was to be the perfecting goal of creation, but
after Adam’s sin he became the saviour as well. Consequently, Scotus’ thought
also implies a second thought in divine plan of creation and redemption, which
goes against divine perfection.
Modern theological approach:
It synthesizes the Thomist and Scotist approaches and maintains that Jesus
Christ is both redeemer (Rom 5:20) and centre of creation (Col 1:14 – 20; Eph
1:3 –10). But it does not admit a second thought in God. Human freedom and the
possibility of sin are included in the one divine plan of creation and
salvation. Therefore, we conclude that there is only one plan of God from all
eternity in which humans with freedom, implying the possibility of sin, is
included. Therefore, in so far as creation is a divine act of superabundant love,
in love God intends to redeem his creation as well. Hence, Incarnation is integral to creation
itself. By becoming part of his creation (by way of divine immanence), God
redeems the world in a most possible human way by becoming a human being.
Hence, Jesus Christ is not only the centre of creation through whom everything
is created but also the destiny and the pattern in which human race find its
destiny. Therefore, created in the divine image to live in communion with God,
this humans’ communion with God and with one another has been reestablished by
the mystery of immanent redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God.
The
problem is more acute today, where it is not merely an academic question of
what God could have done, but where we are aware of God’s saving work in other
religions. If people are saved in their religions, was it then necessary for
the Son to be born a human being and to carry out his work of salvation? The
Second Vatican Council in its document on Ad
Gentes takes up this problem. It
admits the possibility that God could have saved humankind individually,
through the influence of his grace. But God’s design goes further. He saves humankind
collectively; he calls for communion between “sinful human beings and himself”
and “communion among themselves.” Christ is the new Adam, made head of a
renewed human community. If this is God’s plan, it is not enough that “the
salvation of the human race is carried out individualistically. It is also not
achieved merely by the “multiple endeavors… by which men search for Go.” But
“God determined to intervene in human history in a way both new and definite” (AG,
3).
2. The Centrality of Jesus Christ
in Creation
If
Jesus Christ is first in God’s plan of creation (see Jn 1:1 – 18; Col 1:14 –
20; Eph 1:3 –10), then the Paschal mystery is not an addition to the created
order but found in its very root. In the words of Irenaeus, “Every creature is
signed with the sign of the Cross.” Not only is everything a Christophany
(manifestation of Christ’s presence) but also everything is redeemed by his
death and assured of their communion in the glory of God by his resurrection.
Jesus’ saying, “One who loses his life if he tries to keep it, and finds it if
he loses it”, is the underlying principle of nature, history and human life.
The parable of the grain of wheat tell us that only through dying the wheat bears much fruit, expresses the very pattern
of both creation and salvation. The guidance of the Old Testament as given in
the servant song that it is through suffering and purification one attains the
fullness of life, throws light to life-process.
Hence,
Jesus Christ is not a stranger to human race. He came to his own, to human race,
to share with us the ultimate meaning and the pattern of human life. So, he is
also related to the religions of the world. In many and various ways the
religions of the world express the mystery of human existence as the birth of
humans from darkness, death and bondage to real freedom and fullness of living.
Hence, Gaudium et Spes includes in the ambit of Christ’s paschal
mystery the entire human race:
“In
reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of
man truly becomes clear. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to
come. Christ the Lord, Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the
mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings
to light his most high calling. It is no wonder, then, that all the truths
mentioned so far should find in him their source and their most perfect
embodiment”.
He
who is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), is himself the perfect man
who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which has been
disfigured ever since the first sin. Human nature, by that very fact that it
was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity
beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain
way united himself with each man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a
human mind. He acted with a human will [cf. Constantinople III], and with a
human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he was truly been made one of
us, like to us in all things except sin…By suffering for us he not only gave us
an example so that we might follow in his footsteps, but he also opened up a
way. If we follow his path, life and death are made holy and acquire a new
meaning…
All
this holds true not for Christians only but also for all men of good will in
whose hearts grace is active invisibly [cf. LG, 164]. For since Christ died for
all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is
divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of made
partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery.”(Gs, 22)
3. Jesus Christ the Head of the Church
The
centrality of Jesus Christ in the divine plan of creation and salvation is
realized first in the Church. But as long as the Church was primarily
considered an institution, the stress was laid on its foundation through Jesus
Christ. This approach, however, must necessarily be supplemented by the
consideration of his actual presence in the Church: “I shall be with you” (Mt
28: 20), and of his effective influence on those who are his own. This has been
brought in Lumen Gentium which defines that Church is a communion and fellowship of
all those who believe in Christ, and through baptism incorporated in his spiritual
body, the Church (LG, 1). The Church is considered here not as ‘instituted’ by
Christ, but as ‘constituted’, maintained and guided by his abiding presence
because Christ is spiritually present in the Church and, therefore, it is
called the mystical body of Christ. This renewed ecclesiology has already been
introduced by Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici
Corporis (1943). This has found its
mature expression in Lumen Gentium. We outline the doctrine of
Jesus Christ, the head of his body, the Church.
The Biblical Doctrine: From the beginning, the Church realizes
herself as the community of the believers gathered, called, guided and sent by
the Risen Lord, most of all in the celebration of Eucharist. The Risen Lord is
with them, and yet they wait for his final and glorious coming, Christ’s Parousia,
to share in his fulfillment, in his glory. The most precise expression of
Christ’s pre-eminence, his abiding presence, and continued influence is contained
in the metaphor of head and body.
The
Greek word ‘Kephale’ (head) is
used in the extra-biblical Greek for the “first”, “supreme”, consequently for “pre-eminent”,
“outstanding and determining”. It also stands for the whole person. This usage had been taken over by the LXX,
which extends the meaning of kephale
to ‘ruling the society’. This usage of kephale
occurs also in apocalyptic literature.[117]
In
Gnostic usage, Kephale receives a
cosmic and spiritual meaning. It is the principle by which all things come into
being and in which, after their disintegration, are re-united and
re-established as the cosmos.[118]
The head is therefore, on the one hand, part of the body, i.e. of the created
world; it is at the same time, above the body as its renewing and unifying
principle. It appears, according to Schlier, that this Gnostic usage has
greatly influenced the texts of Ephesians and Colossians while describing Christ
as the head of the Church.
In
Pauline language, the Church is called the body of Christ (1Cor12: 27; Eph 1:
23; 4: 12; 5: 30; Rom 7: 4; Col 2: 17; Heb 10: 10). Body in the Bible means not
only physical existence, but more generally the visible manifestation and
realization of an invisible reality. When this biblical anthropology is applied
to the Church, it means that the Christian community is the visible, historical
and social existence of the Christ’s spiritual presence who in and through the
Church lives on and continues his saving mission in the world.
Conformity and unity of Christ and the Church:
By blending the metaphor of Christ as
the bridegroom and head of the Church, Paul says: “No man ever hates his own
flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we
are members of his body” (Eph 5.29f). Thus Christ’s relation to us is based on
his sharing in our human nature. Further, the Letter to the Hebrews insists on
the true humanity of Christ who is in full solidarity with us. “He [Jesus
Christ] is concerned not with angels, but with the descendants of Abraham,
therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect…” (Heb 2: 16f).
This unity of Christ with us is something dynamic as it tends to raise our
humanity to the life of Christ as shown in Paul’s Letter to Galatians: “[Christ was] born of a woman, born under the
law, to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption
of sons” (Gal. 4.4f).
Christ one with us in our humanity,
but distinct: though intimately one with us in our
humanity, Christ is the renewing and unifying power of the new creation, a new
world order. He is, at the same time, distinct from us because his authority
and influence are based on the fullness of divinity that dwells in him. Paul
writes to Colossians: “in him the whole fullness (pleroma) of deity dwells bodily and you have come to fullness of
life in him who is the “head of all rule and authority” [Kephale pasees arches kai exousias]” (Col. 2.10; cf. 2.19). The
whole fullness of deity (Godhead) and power dwelling in Christ means that, as
exalted Lord of creation, the divine fullness of power and love acts and rules
in all perfection through Christ. Unity between
the work of God the Father and Christ the Son and distinction of persons of the
Triune God are preserved, and yet monotheism is not imperiled.” [119]
Thus
the metaphor of Christ ‘the head of the Church’ means two things: firstly, Jesus
Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who has been glorified by resurrection and
who constitutes and guides the Church is the source from which all life flows.
The same theological insight is presented by John as “from his fullness have we
all received grace upon grace” (Jn 1: 16). Secondly, it stands for authority. Christ
is the only Lord in the Church (1 Cor 11.3; Eph. 5.23f).
Encyclical
Mystici
Corporis
(1943): This encyclical of Pius XII unfolds systematically the scriptural
conception of Christ as the head of the Church. Speaking about the relation of Christ
to the Church, it first describes his work of founding the Church (MC, 24-32)
and then his actual relation to it as its head (MC, 33-49). The following
elements are developed in this encyclical: Christ is the head on account of his
pre-eminence (MC, 35). None holds a higher place than Christ. As God who became
human and being the mediator between God and humans, Christ admirably unites all
things in himself. As he rules the Church, he is
the only Lord in the Church who “wields the supreme power and government over
the whole commonwealth of Christians” (MC, 36). He does so through his
invisible influence by which “he reigns in the mind and hearts of men”; he also
“watches over the whole Church, guiding shepherds and raising the saints,
protecting the Church in perils (MC, 37); and through the visible government of
the Church, through pope and bishops (MC, 38-41).
Christ and the Church are mutually
united: Mystici Corporis states further that Christ
needs the Church because “our saviour wants to be helped by the members of his
mystical body in carrying out the work of redemption” (MC, 42). By reason of
his fullness and the fullness of the in-dwelling Spirit, all treasure of wisdom
and knowledge, an exhaustible fullness of truth and grace we all receive from
him (cf. MC, 46). On account of the likeness between head and body, not only
did Christ take our nature, he became our kinsman with a body frail and subject
to suffering and death. This he did also in order that his brethren according
to the flesh might be partakers of the divine nature, both during this earthly
life by sanctifying grace, and in their heavenly home by possession of eternal
beatitude (MC, 44).
The
encyclical goes on explaining the way in which Christ influences his body the Church:
Christ is present and acts on the faithful and the Church through his spirit:
“Christ is in us through his Spirit whom he imparts to us and through whom he
so acts within us (MC, 76). Thus the encyclical offers a coherent doctrine of
the permanent relation of Jesus Christ with his Church, of his supremacy,
fullness and authority, and of his saving, renewing and unifying influence in
terms of the traditional metaphor of head and body.
The doctrine of Lumen Gentium, 7: While the Church emerged as the
central theme of the Council, the renewed ecclesiology itself became totally
centered on Jesus Christ. The Council does not offer a systematic Christology. It
sees the Christ-event as God’s revelation and action for renewing humankind
whose pattern is found in Jesus Christ (AG, 8). The relationship between Christ and Church is presented with
‘head-body’ metaphor taken from Mystici
Corporis with special emphasis on the
personal and dynamic character of this union between Christ and the faithful. The
Second Vatican Council says that (i) Christ as the head is the origin of
creation and salvation. “By his all surpassing perfection, Christ fills the
whole body with the riches of his glory”. (ii)
The members must conform to the head, in death and resurrection, through
trials of the pilgrimage to the participation in his glory. (iii) As the head
of the Church, Christ “distributes the gifts of ministries through which we
serve one another until salvation. (iv) It is his Spirit that “verifies,
unifies and moves” the members of the body.
4. Jesus Christ, the Mystery of
Love
As
long as we contemplate the place and role of Jesus Christ in the Church and
cosmos we still remain on the surface. St Paul, however, sees the place of
Jesus Christ in a deeper level. He calls God’s plan of salvation a ‘mysterium’ i.e. the hidden plan of God
from all eternity, which has been made visible in history (cf. 1Cor 2.9). This mystery, which is the
Eternal Word of God itself, in which everything is created and held together,
is enshrined in the Church. It is God’s
love revealed in Jesus Christ calling for our response, so that “Christ may
dwell in your hearts through faith and you be rooted and grounded in love” (Eph
3: 17-19). Christianity is Christ, his person, conceived not primarily in metaphysical
terms but as the abiding centre of all that exists, in whom God is with humankind
and humankind is with God, and in whom the entire creation is united and moves
towards its fulfillment. Gaudium et Spes
underscores that Christ, the mystery of God’s love for us in the alpha and
omega and expresses it in a poetic style:
“The
Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh so that as a
perfect man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord is
the goal of human history, the focal point of the desires of history and
civilization, the centre of mankind, the joy of all hearts, and the fulfillment
of all aspirations. It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and
placed at his right hand, constituting him Judge of the living and the dead.
Animated and drawn together in his Spirit we press onwards on our journey
towards the consummation of history which fully corresponds to the plan of his
love: “to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (GS,
45).
As
seen in this text, the Council projects a holistic approach towards nature and
grace, creation and redemption, secular history and salvation history.
Dichotomy between natural and supernatural orders has been ironed out while
distinction is maintained. Christ is sent into the midst of human history as a
new ontological principle by which the creation achieves its ultimate meaning
and so attains fulfillment. The entire function of the Church as the universal
sacrament of salvation of Christ is nothing
but to serve this saving plan of God which is hidden in the heart of God
for eternity but made known to us in the person of Jesus Christ, God’s Son who
became human for our sakes. The text also suggests that evangelization is a
comprehensive ecclesial service to the world.[120]
Tradition
has expressed this centre of our faith with the symbol of the ‘heart’. A glance at any biblical
commentary reveals that in the Bible heart represents the totality of oneself –
one’s personality – as compared to one’s exterior appearance.[121]
In concrete the heart is the centre of stirring emotions. For example, when
Joseph in Egypt meets his brothers “his heart yearned for his brothers and he sought
a place to weep” (Gen 43: 30); and Hannah expresses her joy over the birth of
Samuel: “my heart exults in the Lord” (1Sam 2: 1). In a special way, the heart
is related to the understanding, mainly in religious matters, “Take heed lest
your heart be deceived and you turn aside and serve other gods.” (Dt 11: 16).
“The fool says in his heart: there is no God” (Ps 14: 1). Solomon prays at the
consecration of the temple: “render to each whose heart thou knowest according
to all the children of men” (1kg 8: 39). So, Jeremiah speaks also of the heart
of God: God’s care for the people is expressed through the term turning my
heart to them” (cf. Jer 15: 1), and he promises: “I will give you shepherds
after my heart” (Jer 3: 15).
The
N.T shows the same meaning for heart: it is the centre of affection and pain.
For instance, Jesus says, because he leaves them: “sorrow has filled your
heart…” (Jn 16: 5). But he will come again: “I will see you again and your
heart will rejoice and no one will take your joy from you” (Jn 16: 22). True
understanding also takes place in the heart: “Mary kept all those things
pondering them in her heart” (Lk 2: 19, cf. 2: 51). The fruit of the word of
God is decided in one’s heart: either “the devil comes and take away the word
from their hearts that they may not believe” or they “hold it fast in an honest
and good heart” (Lk 8: 12, 15). Paul’s prayer is that “having the eyes of your
heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to what God has called you”
(Eph 1: 18). Karl Rahner’s commentary is
precise: “Heart denotes the core of the
human person which is original and inmost with respect to everything in the
human persons… at which therefore man is originally and wholly related to other
persons and above all also to God, who is interested in the person as a whole,
and whose action.”[122]
5. The Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ:
The heart of Jesus means the centre of his personality, of what he really is,
and for what he comes. It comprises the whole of Christology and Soteriology,
because he is the revelation of God’s saving and life-giving love incarnate for
humankind. As Jesus is the revelation of God’s saving and perfecting love,
Jesus’ heart means the divine-human mystery of saving love. Rahner further
explains: “Because heart signifies the centre of the human person as a whole,
the love which is meant as a the form of giving unity of this, heart is… not
merely the human love of Christ … but the divine-human love, that is the divine
love of the eternal Word himself which… is incarnate in the human love of
Christ, as it brings about its historical presence … and so provides us with
the pledge that it… is the first and ultimate Word of God to the world.”[123]
Devotion to the Sacred Heart:
As the heart comprises the totality of Jesus’ Person, it includes also the
human response to this divine love. Thus the devotion to the sacred heart is a
cult of the love with which God through Christ loves us, and at the same time,
an exercise of the love by which we are drawn to God and to humans. The
devotion to Jesus’ heart, therefore, expresses these two main aspects: the adoration
of the divine love revealed in Christ, and the human response to this live,
frequently expressed under the form of reparation. These two aspects, however,
should not become a narrow limitation of the mystery of Christ, surely not lead
to subjectivestic and superficial spirituality, but should express the
universal breadth and depth of the mystery of Christ.
The Heart of Jesus, the Centre of the Cosmos:
The full understanding of the heart of Jesus can be gathered only from the full
understanding of Jesus Christ himself, the centre of the cosmos because “all
things were created through him and for him” (Col 1: 15f). Paul sees the entire
mystery of creation and salvation centered on the person Jesus Christ. This
vision is resumed by Teilhard de Chardin, who envisioned the heart of Jesus as
the centre of cosmogenesis, (that is, the birth of a dynamic universe). He saw
how the entire development of the universe is being animated by this heart of
Christ, the divine love. He muses: “the entire universe was vibrant: and yet,
when I directed my gaze to particular objects, one by one, I found them still
as clearly defined as even in their undiminished individuality. All this
movement seemed to emanate from Christ and above all from his heart.”[124]
Thus
de Chardin proposed that contemplation of as well as involvement in the world
is being in contact with its heart, the Jesus Christ. He wrote, “you are the
cosmic being who envelops us and fulfill us in the perfection of his unity…
every presence makes me feel that you are near me: every touch is a touch of
your hand; every necessity transmits to me the pulsation of your will… I am
unable to express the treasures of strength, light and peace which this basic
vision of Christ on all things brings me.”[125] This
realization of Jesus’ presence is not a glorification of the cosmos, but the
perception of Jesus’ transcendence. However real the world and powerful its
movement, it has its being only from its centre: “God is the heart of
everything so much so that the vast setting of the universe might be engulfed
or without my joy being diminished. Were creation’s dust, which is vitalized by
a hail of energy and glory, to be swept away, the substantial reality wherein
every perfection is incorruptibly contained and possessed would remain intact:
the rays would be drawn back to their sources, and there I should still hold
them all in a clean embrace.”[126]
Thus, in the thought of Teilhard de Chardin, “the sacred heart is the centre of
the cosmos”, “centre of the converging universe.” The devotion to Jesus
consists in the understanding of and the commitment to him, in whom creation
has its origin, meaning and fulfillment. It implies that the world – i.e.
cosmos and history, human society and culture – is the realm of the unfolding of
the mystery of divine love. Humans are called to penetrate below the surface of
empirical data and to find the living Christ who animates, unifies, and directs
the created world towards its destinity!
JR/MSC/DTH/2010-11/CHRISTOLOGY/ /CL/ CH VI
CHRISTOLOGY
SELECTED BIBILIOGRAPHY
BIBLICAL STUDIES
Bornkamm G., Jesus of
Nazareth (1965)
*Brown
Raymond E., An Introduction to New Testament Christology
(Paulist Press, New York, 1994)
Bultmann Rudolf, The Theology of he New Testament, 2 vols
(SCM Press, London, 1955)
----------------------,
Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate (New York, Harper & Row, 1961)
Cerfaux L., Christ in the Theology of St Paul
(Nelson, Edinburg, 1959)
*Cullmann Otto, The Christology of the New Testament (SCM Press, London, 1971)
Fuller, Reginald H., The Foundations of N.T. Christology (Collins/Fontana,
London, 1969)
Jeremias, J., The Central
Message of the New Testament (1965)
Leon –Dufour, F X., Dictionary of
Biblical Theology (ITP, Bangalore, 1973)
( See for key
works like: Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Lamb of God; Mediator; Messiah;
Expiation; Redemption; Salvation; Resurrection; Son of God; Son of Man; etc.)
*Nolan Albert, Jesus before Christianity (Orbis Books/New York, St Paul’s, Bandra,
2010)
*Schnackenburg Rudolf, Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology
((Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky, 1995)
SOURCES
*Brown Raymond E., The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, (New
York, Paulist, 1973).
Carmody James M., & Clarke,
T.E., (Ed) Sources of Christian Theology,
vol III: Christ and his Mission (Newman Press, Westminster, 1966).
-----------------------------------------------,Word and Redeemer: Christology in the Fathers
(Paulist Press, Glen Rock, New York, 1966).
Davis Stephen, Kendall David, and O' Collins Gerald, eds. The
Resurrection, (Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1997).
*Hengel Martin, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia,
Fortress, 1977).
-------------------, Victory over Violence, Jesus and the
Revolutionists (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1973).
France R.T., and Wenham
David, Sheffield, ed. "The Empty Tomb of Jesus" Gospel Perspectives II: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four
Gospels, (England, JSOT Press, 1981).
Zamota R. J., The Theology of Christ: Sources, Classical
Texts from early till recent times
(Bruce, Milwaukee, 1967).
Tapia R.J., The Theology of Christ: Commentary, Reading
in Christology (Bruce, New York, 1971).
HISTRICAL CHRISTOLOGY
*Grillmeier A., Christ in the Christian Tradition, From Apostolic Age to Chalcedon
(Mowbray, London, 2nd ed. 1975)
Meyendroff, John, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought
(Corpus Books, Washington, 1969)
Danielou J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity
(Darton Longmans, London, 1964)
Pelican Jaroslav, The Light of the World: A Basic Image in
Early Christian Thought (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1962).
SYSTEMATIC CHRISTOLOGY
*Athappilly Sebastian, Christology Today, Mystery and History of
Jesus Christ (Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 2008).
Cobb John, B., Christ in a Pluralistic Age
(Philadelphia, 1975).
Congar Y., Jesus Christ (Herder, New York, 1966).
Durrwell F.X., The Resurrection
(Stage Books, 1976).
Dupuis J., Jesus
Christ and His Spirit (TPI, Bangalore, 1977).
*Francis B. Joseph, Jesus Christ Our Lord, God, Brother and Saviour (St Peter’s
Pontifical Publications, Bangalore, 2000).
Greeley A.M., The Jesus Myth, New Insights into the Person
and Message of Jesus (Doubleday, Image Books, New York, 1973).
Guardini R., The Humanity of Christ (Bo, London,
1963).
Guillet J., Jesus Christ Yesterday and Today (Chapman,
London, 1965).
------------, The Consciousness of Jesus (Newman
Brothers, New York, 1972).
Gutierrez Gustavo, Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, Orbis
Books 8, 1974).
*Kasper Walter, Jesus the Christ (Bo, London, 1976).
*Kereszty
A. Roch, Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology
[Paperback] (Alba House, Indiana, 2002)
Küeng Hans, On Being a Christian (Doubleday, New
York, 1976).
Rausch Thomas, Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology
(Liturgical press, Minnesota, 2003).
*O’
Collins, Gerald Interpreting the Resurrection (New York,
Paulist, 1988).
*-----------------------, Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus,
2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2009)
Pannikkar, Raimon, The Fullness of Man: A Christophany (New
York, Orbis/Delhi,ISPCK, 2006).
Rahner Karl, “Current
Problems in Christology” in Theological
Investigation, vol. I, pp. 149 – 200.
----------------, “The
Eternal Significance of the Humanity of Jesus for our Relation to God in Theological Investigation, vol. III, pp. 35 – 46.
----------------,
“Theology of Incarnation” in Theological
Investigation, vol. IV, pp. 105 – 120.
----------------,
“Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World” in Theological Investigation,
vol. V, pp. 157 – 192.
----------------,
“Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self-consciousness of Christ” in Theological Investigation, vol. V, pp. 193 – 215.
----------------,
“The Theological Meaning of the Veneration of the Sacred Heart” in Theological Investigation, vol. VIII, pp. 217 – 228.
----------------,
“I believe in Jesus Christ, interpreting an article of faith” in Theological Investigation, vol. IX, pp. 165 – 168.
----------------,
“Christology in the Setting of Modern Man’s Understanding of Himself and of His
world” in Theological Investigation, vol. XI, pp. 215 – 229.
----------------,
“The Quest for Approaches Leading to an Understanding of the Mystery of the
God-Man Jesus,” in Theological Investigation, vol. XIII, pp. 195 – 200.
----------------,
“The Two Basic Types of Christology,” in Theological
Investigation, vol. XIII, pp. 213 –
223.
Schellebeeckx Edward, Jesus: an Experiment in Christology (Collins,
London, 1979).
Serrelti, S. Massimo, Ed.,
The Uniqueness and Universality of Jesus
Christ: In Dialogue with Religions (
Zanzing Thomas, Jesus the Christ (Christian Brothers
Publications, Minnesota, 2000).
INDIAN & ASIAN CHRISTOLOGIES
*Amaladoss Michael, The Asian Jesus (IDCR, Chennai /ISPCK, Delhi, 2005).
Braybrook M., The Undiscovered Christ (CLS, Madras,
1973).
Boyd R., Kristadvaita:
A Theology of India (CLS, Madras, 1969).
Grifiths B., Christ in India (Charles Scribner’s Son,
New York, 1966).
--------------, A New Creation Christ (Collins, London,
1992).
Pannikar R., The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (Darton,
London, 1970).
*Parrinder G., Avatar and Incarnation (Faber & Faber, London, 1970).
Samartha S.J., The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ
(IRS, Bangalore, 1974).
Staffner Hans, Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community (Gujarat
Sahiya Prakash, Anand, 1988).
Thomas M.M., The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian
Renaissance (CLS, Madras, 1970).
___________________________
Books with *
sign are worth reading in addition to class-text to expand your knowledge.
JR/MSC/DTH/2011 –
2012/CHRISTOLOGY/CL/BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] . At the time of Tertullian, “substance” was
understood as essential nature.
[2] . Quoted from J. Dupuis, Toward A Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (New York,
Maryknoll, 1997), p. 67
[3] .Ibid.
[4] Also spelt as Apollinarius
[5] . Words bolded
by the author.
[6] . The words in
bracket are added by the author.
[7] . The words in bracket are added by the author.
[8] . In this way, while
respond to the faith-experience of Jesus Christ, the Council created a new
concept “person” with a new meaning – person means an individual ontological
subject – which was unknown in the Greek philosophy.
[9] . R.A. Kereszty, Jesus
Christ(2010), p.345.
[10] . See similar thought in E. Schellebeackx, Jesus, An Experiment in Christology,
pp.636-674; H. Kung, Jesus is the “ visage or face of God”, in On Being a
Christian (1976), p. 444; J. Macquarrie calls Jesus the “focus of Being”,
because “He sums up and makes clear a presence that is obscurely communicated
throughout the cosmos”, in Jesus Christ
in Modern Thought, p. 381;
[11] . R.A. Kereszty, Jesus
Christ (2010), p.346.
[12] . When I am
thinking, willing, feeling and acting, I become aware of myself as an
individual and unique person. The distinct awareness of the self as acting is a
primordial personal experience, which is irreducible to some other category; we
can not define it but only describe it as a “presence of the person to himself
/ herself, or as his/her “being lit through.” By being conscious of myself, I
intuitively experience myself as qualitatively unique and unconfusable with any
other thing.
[13] . see for detail B. Lonergan, Insight, A Study of Human understanding(New York, Longmans, 1958) 2nd
ed., pp. 320 -328
[14] . Summa Theologica, III. Qu 9’ also IIIa.3.10.ad
2.
[15] . Pope Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis (1943).
[16] . For detail see K. Rahner, Theological Investigation, vol. V.
p.196f.
[17] . Rahner, Theological
Investigation, vol. V, p.200 ff.
[18] . We know many things about ourselves without being able
to spell them out. What Augustine said confirms it: “What is life? If you don’t
ask me I know it; if you ask me I don’t know”.
[19] .
Note that “subject” refers to a spiritual being.
[20] .
“Self-knowledge” is also known as “knowledge of inner subjectivity”.
[21] . Note that this conclusion is not a doctrine of
faith, not even directly taught by the ordinary Magisterium. It is only an
important theological opinion. The Encyclical Sempiternus Rex, written
for the 1500th anniversary of Chalcedon
[23] . H.U. von Balthasar defines “person”… as someone who
is fully aware of his unique existence through being aware of his unique
mission. In this case…only Jesus is a person in the full sense of the word and
we, ordinary humans, only by participating in him and receiving a unique
mission from him” (H.U. van Balthasar, Die
Personen in Christus, pp. 191-209), quoted in R.A. Kereszty, Jesus Christ, pp.367-68.
[24] . “Transcendent
knowledge” meant here the deep intimate knowledge of Jesus about God which is
superior to all human knowledge that we possess.
[25] . Mk 13: 32 “But of that day or hour, no one knows,
neither the angles in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” – the order
“angles”, “Son”, “Father” is an ascending one, going from the lower to the
higher. This implies that the Son is above the highest creatures. Mover, the
statement about Son’s ignorance about the time of Parousia makes sense only if
the disciples and the early Church would otherwise have assumed that the Son
knew this date. In other words, the Son’s ignorance is presented by the Gospel
traditions as an exception to the assumed general sharing of knowledge between
Father and the Son (see O. Cullmann, The
Christology of the New Testament, pp. 286 – 288).
[26] . St Bonaventure has already explained Jesus’ vision
of God along similar lines (see in Sent III,
D 14, a.2, qq.1-3), quoted in quoted in R.A. Kereszty, Jesus Christ, pp.392.
[27] . R. Brown, 83
[29] . It is pertinent to refer here to Karl Rahner: “A philosophy of
the person and of the freedom of a finite being, a philosophy of history and of
decisions could undoubtedly show with comparative ease that the fact of
challenge, of going into the open, of confiding oneself to the incalculable, of
the obscurity of origin and the veiled nature of the end-in short of a certain
kind of ignorance are all necessary factors in the very nature of the
self-realization of the finite person in the historical decision of freedom”
(Theol. Investigation. V. 202).
[31] . Ibid,56.
[32] . Ibid, 59, 70 – 79.
[33] . See also Jn 10:17 f; Rom 5: 19; Phil 2: 6 – 8.
[34] . See also Mt 3:17; 17: 1-8; Mk 9: 2-13; Lk 9:28-36.
[35] . See the temptation story of Jesus(Mt
4:1-11; Mk 1: 2 -8; Lk 3:1-20); his agony in the garden; and especially as summarized by the author of
the Letter to the Hebrews: “We have a high priest who in every respect has been
tempted as we are yet without sin”(Heb 4: 15). These passages show that Jesus
feels the full burden of his task, the agony of impending death, the temptation
of taking the easy path to popularity. He lives the conflict of his life in
freedom.
[36] . See Karl Rahner, “Current Problems in Christology”,
in Theol. Investigation, I, pp. 162 –
165.
[38] . See the entire chapter of Isaiah 60
[40] . See
Dictionary of the New Testament, V,
p. 665.
[42] . McKenzie, in Anchor Bible, Second Isaiah, LIII and LIV.
[44] . The Targum was probably composed orally around 1st
century BCE, when the Torah was read aloud in the synagogues, since most Jews
of the time understood Aramaic rather than Hebrew, but then written in the
rabbinic period (Cf.Rosemary Goring, ed., Dictionary
of Beliefs and Religions, Wordsworth Editions, Hertfordshire, 1995, p.516.
[46] . “ empted [poured out] himself” is the rendering of
the Greek phrase ‘ekenosen’, which is a
sacrificial concept, implying the blood poured out as a libation in the
sacrificial rituals as used in the non-Jewish and Jewish sacrificial ritual
traditions. This traditional formula “he
gave himself up” (edoken heauton) occur also in
Gal 1: 4; 2: 20. Eph 5: 2, 25; 1Tim 2: 6; Tit 2: 14 pointing out to the
Christian belief that God gave up his Son for us. For additional information
see J. Jeremias, Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, V. p. 707 –
710ff.
[47] . B. Sanh 43a quoted in D.R. Catchpole, The Trail of Jesus, Leiden
[48] . Cf. Ibid. Josephus lived from 38 to 100 CE.
[49] . See for details Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Message of the Cross, Philadelphia
[50] . R.A. Kereszty, Jesus Christ, p. 34.
[51] . Quoted from Walter Kasper, Jesus The Christ,
Paulist Pres , New York
[52] . A.
Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, Quest for Historical Jesus;
Schweitzer was a multitasker: ( a Franco-German born and lived in
Stasbourg,1875 – 1965; Nobel laureate (1952); a theologian, Bible Scholar,
Philosopher, doctor of medicine & surgeon, pastoral and an accomplished
musician.
[53] . G. Bornkamm, Jesus
of Nazareth, pp.160-161.
[54] . W. Kasper, p. 118.
[55] . Ibid, pp. 118 – 119.
[56]. See Concilium,
1966, p. 75ff; Sacramentum Mundi, III,
7f.
[57] . Mk
10:45: “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his
life a ransom for many.”
[58] .
Compare and see Mk 10: 35 – 45 = Lk 22: 24 – 27.
[59] . W. Kasper, p. 120.
[62] . J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, Part I, pp.
281 – 286.
[64] . Buchsel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, 311.
[67] . The word ‘justification’ has become today part of
computer science too.
[68] . Mt 26:28: “for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”
[69] . O. Semmelroth, “Sacrifice”, Encyclopedia of Theology, The Concise Sarcamentum Mundi, New York,
Seabury, 1975, pp. 1488 – 1491; M. Eliade, The
Sacred and the Profane , New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1959, pp.
99 – 104.
[70] . van der Leeuw, Religion
in Essence and Manifestation, p. 351.
[72] . Recall in early Protestantism Jesus’ death was often
interpreted as the punishment inflicted on him on our behalf; on he cross he
suffers the agony of being abandoned by God, of hell.
[73] . Summa Theologica, III.q.48 & 56.
[74] . For a detailed study see below Chapter VI.
[75] . Durrwell, The
Resurrection, Stage books, 1976, 13.
[76] . Walter Kasper, Jesus
The Christ, p. 124.
[77] . Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694 – 1769) was a Germany
Enlightenment philosopher, Deist believer, and Bible scholar. Two fragments of
his work “The Resurrection story” and “The purpose of Jesus and his disciples”
were published by Lessing in 1774 – 1780; cf. W. Kasper ,
p. 130.
[78] . David Friedrich Strauss (1808 – 1874), a German
theologian, Bible scholar and writer. See his classical work, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined,
new revised edition, London
[79] . R. Bultmann, Kerygma
and Myth: A Theological Debate, New
York
[80] . For a detailed study see S. Davis, D. Kendall, G. O’
Collins, eds., The Resurrection, New
York , Oxford Press, 1997; G. O’ Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection, New York Jesus , New
York
[82] . For expansive study of the Appearances of the Risen
Lord see D. Kendall ,
G.O’ Collins, “The Uniqueness of the Easter Appearances”, CBQ 54 (1992), 287 – 307. R. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus , New
York
[83] . John 21: 1 – 25 where the story of Risen Christ’s
appearance to the seven, including Peter, at the shore of Tiberias Galilee . Mk 16: 9 – 20 is generally
treated as Markan addition in which all gospel appearance stories seems to have
been complied together and presented.
[84] . This generally implied that Peter and other
disciples.
[85] . Risen Christ’s appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus
[86] . Cf. God’s appearance to Abraham (Gen 12: 1 – 3; 17:
1 ff); God’s appearance to Isaac (Gen 26:2 ff); God’s appearance to Jacob (Gen
35:9 ff); God’s appearance to Moses (Ex 3: 4 ff).
[87] . Cf. Maccabees 7:14, 23, 29; 12:32 – 45; Daniel 12:
2 – 3.
[88] . For a detailed study see Gerald O’ Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection, New York,
Paulist, 1988: This book provides a balanced study, informative of contemporary
opinions; R. Brown, The Virginal
Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, New York, Paulist, 1973: Even
to day the parts of this book dealing with resurrection and the empty tomb
remain one of the best studies on the subject.
[89] . Pannenberg, 118.
[90] . For an expansive study on Jesus’ Resurrection and
Empty Tomb See R.T. France and Stephen David
Wenham, Sheffield, ed. "The Bodily Resurrection" Gospel Perspectives I,
England, JSOT Press, 1980, 47-74;
R.T. France and David Wenham, Sheffield, ed. "The Empty Tomb of
Jesus" Gospel Perspectives II:
Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, England, JSOT Press, 1981, 173-200; "The
Guard at the Tomb," New Testament Studies 30 (1984), 273-281;
"The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus" New Testament Studies 31 (1985), 39-67; Stephen Davis,
David Kendall, and Gerald O' Collins, eds.
The Resurrection, Oxford
[91] . John 20: 1 – 2, if it is independent of John 20: 11
– 13, might represent a variant version of this earliest tomb tradition.
[92] . H. von Campenhausen, Der Ablauf der Osterereignisse und das leere Grab, 2nd
edition, Heidelberg , 1958, 42: sited in W. Kasper , 126.
[93] . Pannenburg
and Moltmann have propounded resurrection as an historical event, but they have
stretched the concept of history beyond the limits of history as held by
historians. They have identified the ‘historical’ (i.e., that which is
accessible to historical method) with the ‘real’ (i.e., that which truly
exists, which has in fact occurred/happened. See Pannenburg, God and Man, 98 f;
R.Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 172 – 182.
[94] . See above “Women at the tomb”
[95] . T. Merton, He
is Risen, 10.
[96] . This section is to be studied in connection with
lectures on the Christian theology of Triune God.
[97] . 1 Thess 1;10; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:15; Acts 3:15;
4;10; 5: 30; 10:40)
[98] . Normally in Greek classic, ophthe is followed by genitive case proposition “hupo” which would be written ophthe hupo Kephas. Through this
unclassical usage of the verbal term the New Testament writers intended to
covey a theological meaning.
[99] . Cf. Gen12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26: 2; 35:9; Ex 3: 2,16;
4;1; 6:3; etc.
[100] . Cf. J. Schmitt, “Resurrection de Jésus”, SDB, fasc.56, cols. 508 – 9, 543: sited in R.
A. Kereszty, Jesus
Christ, 38 – 40.
[101] . For most part the New testament speaks about the
resurrection of Jesus passively, i.e.,
as an action on the part of God raising Jesus from the dead: cf. Mk 16:6
parallel; Lk 24:34; Jn 21: 14; Rom 4:25; 6:4, 9; 7;4; 8: 38; 1 Cor 15: 4; 12 f,
16 f, 20; 2 Tim 2:8.
[102] . In Luke and John, Christ’s post-Easter presence
among his disciple is assured in terms of his Holy Spirit.
[103] . This part is to be seen in connection with lectures
on Ecclesiology and Eucharist.
[104] . This section is to be studied in connection with
lectures on Eschatology.
[105] . Cf.
Col
[106] . Rahner, Theological
Investigation, vol. 4, 38 – 40, 429 – 437; L. Boros, Mystery of Truth, London
[107] . J. Ratzinger, Introduction
to Christianity, London
[108] . G. Marcel, The
Mystery of Being, 2 vols, London-Chicago, 1950-51.
[109] . J. Moltmann, The
Crucified God, London
[110] . This section is to be seen in connection with
lectures on Pneumatology.
[111] . Mark 16:9 uses the phrase “early on the first day
of the week”, while Luke 24:21, 46 has the phrase “the third day.” In Luke
24:46 this phrase is used where a soteriological interpretation to Jesus’
resurrection occurs with the support from the Scriptures.
[112] .
R. A. Kereszty, Jesus Christ, 37 – 38.
[120] . John Romus, Human Dignity in Indian Secularism and in Christianity
(Claretian Publicans, Bangalore, 2007), pp, 360 ff.
Depositum fide
ReplyDeletea deep and beautiful presentation of the study of God-made-man!!!
ReplyDeleteI like it.
ReplyDeleteCould l get this file for further reading pls? thanks