Thesis

                                                                     THESIS NO.11

            The Christian encounter with God is in and through the person of Jesus Christ.  Christianity claims to possess the fullness of divine revelation (DV 2, 7) in Jesus Christ the Word become flesh (Cf.Jn.1:14).  It confesses and proclaims that Jesus Christ is "truly God and truly man" (ND 614-15) and in him is salvation as he is the only mediator and saviour of humankind (Mk.16:16; Acts 4:12, 1Tim. 2:5; ND 646) through his life, death and resurrection.  How do you meaningfully understand the historical development of these faith-affirmations?  In the Indian religious context would it be appropriate to speak of Jesus as an avatar?

The Christian Encounter with God is in and through the person of Jesus Christ

            The history witnesses to the ceaseless search of the human beings for the Ultimate Reality/God or to the innate desire of them to have an encounter/experience with the same.  For centuries, people have conceived the Ultimate Reality/God as the transcendent Being or as the Incomprehensible Mystery.  The stress given to the transcendence or to the incomprehensible nature of the Ultimate Reality/God obstructed the encounter with the same for many years.  Down the centuries, "God had spoken many times and in various ways to our forefathers through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb.1:1-2).  As we read in the Letter to the Ephesians: "God has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth" (1:9-10). Yes, in the fullness of time, God unveiled Himself and incarnated to our midst.  The God became man and dwelt among us [Immanuel = God is with us (Mt.1:23)] in the person of Jesus.  The promise of redemption given by God to the first parents and their heirs have realized in Jesus.  In him, the transcendent God or the Incomprehensible Mystery became tangible and the seekers of God became able to encounter and experience Him more intimately than before.  Jesus said: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn.14:9b), "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn.4:6b) and "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me" (Jn. 14:11a).  Furthermore, Jesus has repeatedly attested that he and the Father is one (Jn.17:11,21-23).

            It is the quest to comprehend the reality of God revealing Himself in Jesus Christ, and believers' response of faith to the God who reveals Himself constitute the Christian theological reflection [Rosario Rocha, "A Study in Revelation Dei Filius to Dei Verbum, JDV Notes, p.1].  Moreover, it is the encounter with God in and through Christ makes the believers typically Christians.  As far as the Christians are concerned, there is no God experience without Christ.  Whatever we speak of God as Christians is revealed by Jesus Christ.  Therefore, we can rightly say that the Christian encounter with God is in and through the person of Jesus Christ.

Christianity claims to possess the fullness of divine revelation

            Fullness: Though, generally the term "fullness" signifies quantity, in this context, it connotes the realm of experience.  Hence, "fullness" cannot be compared and measured here.

            Revelation: The term "revelation" is derived from the Latin term "revelare" which means "to remove the veil" or "to uncover" [The New Dictionary of Theology, p.884].  The revelation is conceived as an unveiling of what was already true, whether as enduring reality, as past event, or as foreordained future.  It is also understood as the unveiling of whatever is being revealed was true all along, it was previously concealed or unknown [Harper's Biblical Dictionary, p.867].

            Revelation is a dominant theme in biblically based religious traditions.  However, today it is also one of the most controversial idea in theological discussion [The New Dictionary of Theology, p.884].  The principal modes by which human beings receive revelations in the biblical documents are visions (e.g., Jer. 1:11-13) and auditions (e.g., Isa. 22:14).  These may come while one is awake or in dreams.  God may speak directly to a human being or through an angelic intermediary, and sometimes the two modes are difficult to distinguish, as in Moses' encounter with the burning bush (Ex. 3:2-4) or Abraham's meeting with the three travelers (Gen. 18:1-19:1).  Revelation may also be made available in created order itself (Rom. 1:18-23).  Revelation is not limited to extraordinary experiences; some texts seem to treat it more as a matter of inner conviction (e.g., Ps. 16:7) or the interpretation of historical events (Ps. 111:6) [Harper's Biblical Dictionary, pp.867-868].

            In the history of Christian theology "revelation" has often been understood as an inner "illumination" or as divine teaching and instruction.  Revelation is now understood fundamentally as God's self-revelation.  It is first of all the gift of God's own being, and only  secondly is it the illuminative or propositional unfolding of the foundational event of a divine self-giving.  According to Karl Rahner, revelation is fundamentally the communication of the mystery of God to the world [The New Dictionary of Theology, p.884].  In short, revelation came to mean something very close to "the distinctive content of Christian faith" in today's Christian theology [Harper's Biblical Dictionary, p.868].  The Roman Church has articulated her teaching on revelation in two Conciliar Constitutions, namely, Dei Filius (First Vatican Council) and Dei Verbum (Second Vatican Council).  She has also pronounced non-Conciliar documents (e.g., Encyclical Letter Pascendi in 1907 of Pope Pius X) on revelation [Rosario Rocha, "A Study in Revelation Dei Filius to Dei Verbum, JDV Notes, p.1].

            Explanation: The claim of the Christianity on the possession of the fullness of divine revelation can stand only in relation to Jesus Christ, its founder, who is the fullness of divine revelation.  Therefore, firstly we shall deal with the Christian faith affirmation "Jesus Is The Fullness Of Revelation".

            Jesus is the Fullness of Revelation: As the Letter to the Colossians testifies, in Jesus all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Col. 1:19).  According to Dei Verbum, No.2, Christ is "the sum total of revelation", Dei Verbum, No.4, Jesus Christ "completed and perfected Revelation and confirmed it with divine guarantees and Dei Verbum, No.7, in Christ, "the entire revelation of the most high God is summed up".  In short, Jesus Christ is the fullness of divine revelation.

            How to understand the Christian faith-affirmation "Jesus is the Fullness of Divine Revelation"?: When the Christianity affirms that Jesus is the fullness of divine revelation, it does not make comparisons with other revelations and subdue other revelations.  In other words, the claim that Jesus is the fullness of revelation does not mean that Jesus Christ exhausts the mystery of God.  But whatever God wants to reveal to mankind, God has revealed fully in Jesus Christ. The process of Revelation has not ended in Jesus Christ. Christ has not made divine revelation a finished product because God continues to reveal himself, but all other revelations have to be weighed against Jesus Christ because in Jesus Christ God has communicated himself as much as he desired to communicate. In that sense in Christ God has revealed himself definitely, totally and entirely.

            This complete revelation implies objective totality, but the process of subjective appropriation continues. And for this process, whatever aid we get through different revelations through different cultures and religions must be availed of, but in reference to Jesus, the perfect norm of the dialogical process of self giving of God and human response.  In this sense the claim of Christianity with regard to the fullness of divine revelation makes sense.

            Jesus is the Fullness of Divine Revelation; Then, Why Christianity claims to possess the Fullness of Divine Revelation?: The person, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are so central to the Christian mystery and sometimes it has been said that "Christianity is Christ".  This is said not in the mistaken sense that would identify the religion with the founder or the Christian Church with the one who established it, or to whom she is entirely related and subservient.  It is said in the sense that the person and work of Jesus Christ is the source, the centre and the end - the alpha and omega of what Christianity stands for and announce to the world [Jacques Dupis, Who Do You Say I Am?, New York, Orbis Books, 1994, p.2].

            As it is obvious, the Christianity continues the mission of Jesus Christ and administers his sacrifice to the people.  He guides it through his Spirit.  As St.Paul says, "Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior" (Eph. 5:23).  Above all, Jesus Christ, the fullness of divine revelation always dwells in the Christianity (= community of those who believe in Jesus Christ) and he is inseparably united to it.  What is true for Christ the Head is true for His members [New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.416].  It might be thanks to these assumptions, the Christianity claims to possess the fullness of divine revelation.

            How to understand the Christianity's claim to possess the fullness of divine revelation?: The Christianity's claim to possess the fullness of divine revelation means that it sees anything and everything only within the framework of the originary/foundational experience of its founder, who is the fullness of divine revelation.

            A Critique to the notion of a "special" or "unique" revelation: The notion of a "special" or "unique" revelation is today the source of much controversy.  To some, the idea of a unique God to a specific people on a limited historical setting seems arbitrary and unreasonable.  Revelation in its fundamental meaning is universal.  If we still continue to speak of a special historical revelation we do not mean that it is special in the sense that the people to whom it is communicated are thereby superior to other human beings.  Nor we do mean that they are any more valued by God.  Even though it inevitably bears the mark of particularity, a feature that is inseparable from the Christian Doctrine of the incarnation, the idea of God's revelation in history means something much deeper and more universal [The New Dictionary of Theology, p.885].  According to Raimundo Panikkar, the whole idea of belonging to a chosen people, of practicing the true religion, of a privileged creature is highly discriminative.  To do so would be ill to God as well as man; one has to live a religious faith to the full without being cut off from men either quantitatively or qualitatively [Raimundo Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue, New York, Paulist Press, 1978, Chapter One].  Therefore, the talk about "unique revelation" does not sound well in today's pluralistic/broad religious context.

            A Critique to the notion of a "special" or "unique" revelation in relation to our context: The religions of Asia are vibrantly alive.  These religious traditions have very beautiful scriptures.  They have nurtured mystics of highest order.  They have been the inspiration for monastic communities.  They have produced men of great sanctity.  Great nations have found in these religions the guidelines they needed for their moral life and aesthetic expression [Subhash Anand, "Universally Unique and Uniquely Universal", VJTR, 1991, p.403].  Having been in the midst of such rich religious traditions of Asia, it would not be fair from our part to say that the Christianity possesses the "unique" divine revelation.

In Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh (Cf.Jn. 1:14)

            The decisive revelation of God in human history in the person of Jesus is best expressed in the phrase "Word became flesh" (Jn 1:14).  It means that God has assumed the human nature (flesh) in order to reveal himself to the human beings. This initiative of God is realized in history through the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth.

            In Jesus Christ, the Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14).  This verse explains the theology of incarnation.  God has become man and human beings have the capacity to receive God.  This is the God's revelation to entire humanity.  The word comes from God and the purpose is for God.  The key ego emi text is,`the word became flesh and dwelt among us' ( John 1/14). The identity of Jesus Christ is rooted in this text. This clearly speaks of the role the Son (Jesus) in salvation history more concretely as it took place in the incarnate word.

            Exegesis: "The Word became flesh": - stresses the fact of incarnation. Flesh (sarx) is not used here in the Pauline sense of the sinful flesh but humanity in its weakness. Also 'dwelt among us'- dwelt (skenoun) means `to pitch a tent'.  Probably the use of 'skenoun' indicates the presence of God among the people in and through the incarnate word. Word - Jesus' role is to reveal the Father. John emphasizes the revealing role when he uses WORD. John is influenced by OT understanding here (dabar Yahweh), and not by Greek Logos. Word through which God speaks to prophets. Word through which God is active in history. God's word is operative in history, progressively revealing the power and presence of God.  By becoming flesh, the word has not lost its nature.  In Jesus God's active presence is present in history.  Thus the identity of Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world is rooted in this text - Jn.1:14.

It confesses and proclaims that Jesus is "truly God and truly man" (ND 614-15) and in him is salvation as he is the only mediator and saviour of humankind (Mk. 16:16; Acts 4:12, 1Tim 2:5; ND 646) through his life, death and resurrection.

            Jesus is "truly God and truly man": This faith-affirmation is the key expression of the christological formula pronounced by the General Council of Chalcedon (451).  It reads as follows:

            .... one and the same 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 with us as to the humanity, like unto us in all things but sin.  .... 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 two natures was never abolished by their union but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.  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. 614-615).

            Among the seven "Christological" councils, Chalcedon adorns the central place.  Furthermore, the understanding of the faith-affirmation Jesus is "truly God and truly man" will help us to see the unity of the Christian faith intact and is essential for presenting Christological faith to the people of our time [See Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, p.109].  Hence, the above cited statement or affirmation must be dealt with due importance.

            The analysis of the early history of the Christianity will show that the affirmation Jesus is "truly God and truly man" was not made all on sudden, but it was the result of a gradual development of the understanding of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.  Therefore an inquiry to the history of the Christological reflection is necessary to conceive the above cited faith-affirmation.

            Explicit Christology began  with Easter.  The Christology passed through a process of development as the early Christians deepened their faith reflection in Jesus who is Christ.  According to Jacques Dupis, between the earliest Christian kerygmatic preaching and the last stage of apostolic writing, we could see the emergence of a movement of reflection on the mystery of Christ, that began with a Christology "from below" and progressively passed over to a Christology "from above" [Jacques Dupis, Who Do You Say I Am?, p.57].  Thus the study of Jesus' person took two directions, the Alexandrian and the Antiochean.  The Christology "from below" or the "descending Christology" is propagated by the Alexandrian School of Thought and the Christology "from above" or the "ascending Christology" is propagated by the Antiochean School of Thought.

            The Two Directions: (1) Alexandrian School: It stressed the divinity of Jesus. `Word Became Flesh' (Jn.1:14), `Jesus and Father are one'(Jn.10:30), and `He reflects the glory' (Heb.1:3).  Taking these quotations from the New Testament, the Alexandrian school developed the descending Christology.  They considered Jesus as God and taught that our attitudes God should be that of adoring, fear, majesty, solemnity, perfection, etc.  (2) Antiochean School: It stressed the humanity of Jesus. `He has shared with us'(Heb.4;15), Jesus' obedience (Heb.5:7; Phil.2:6ff, etc.) account for the humanity of Jesus. Thus the Antiochean school developed ascending Christology.  Therefore our attitudes towards Jesus must be that of personal, loving, sharing, caring, etc.

            It must be observed that the apostles and followers of Jesus did not grasp the divinity of him fully during his earthly life, though they had seen something very special or extraordinary in him.  The Gospels do not say clearly that Jesus is God. The basic claim of Jesus in the NT is that the Kingdom of God and its values are expressed in his person (Lk.4). We can't say for sure whether Jesus was conscious that He was God but surely Jesus was conscious of mission and intimate, exclusive, personal relationship with the Father. Jesus had constant communion and communication with God. He spoke with the authority which was different from the other prophets and the religious leaders of his time.  He proclaimed unconditional love.  He claimed authority to forgive and took personal responsibility for what he said.  He also claimed intimate relationship with the Father.  It was only after the resurrection of Jesus, the community of the believers began to assert the divinity of him.  The early Christian communities experienced Jesus as alive.  The most important evidence of this is that they became transformed.  They experienced the Abba.  They experienced Jesus as the Lord.  They experienced the power of the Holy Spirit.  And yet they had no problems, because they saw everything in the light of the resurrection.  Only the later reflections gave rise to various heresies.

            Christological Heresies: Let us see the main Christological heresies and the responses to them by the Fathers of the Church and the General Councils of the Church.

(1) Ebionism: It held that Jesus was a normal human being. It denied the divinity of Jesus and the Virgin birth of Jesus.

(2) Docetism: Docetism rejected the humanity of Christ. Christ who is divine cannot be human, but appears to be human.

(3) Heresy of Marcion: He did not accept the Yahweh of OT. For him, the Yahweh of Old Testament is a cruel God, whereas the New Testament God is a loving God. Jesus is the Son and the messenger of real God, but incarnation is not real. In short, for him, Jesus appears to be human.

(4) Gnosticism: It denied the humanity of Christ. It held that the heavenly Christ merely assumed the bodily form to communicate true knowledge to his brothers trapped in this world. (Salvation only through knowledge).

(5) Arianism: Arianism  held the view that the logos has a beginning.  Before God could create anything he created logos. He is neither God nor human being, but a kind of composite intermediary being.

(6) Nestorianism: It is an extreme position of the Antiochean school of thought which defended the humanity of Jesus. Jesus is real human person.  He is human with body and soul. Logos indwells in him. Logos united with human being by Jesus. This union is conjecture. Nestorius makes distinction between the divine and human qualities. Both these qualities remain separate in the person of Jesus. Mary is called not as theotokos meaning mother of God, but Christotokos meaning mother of Christ. Nestorius was condemned in the council of Ephesus (431).

(7) Monophysitism: It is the extreme point of the Alexandrian school which defends Christ's divinity and exaggerates the unity of Christ to the point of understanding the human nature. It holds that the human nature in Jesus is absorbed into divine nature and there is no separate identity of human nature in Jesus. it stresses on the oneness of Jesus Christ. It was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon (451).

(8) Adoptionism: According to adoptionism Jesus was an ordinary man.  At baptism he received Holy Spirit and became divine.

Responses to these Heresies

            By the Fathers of the Church: They made commendable contribution in defending the orthodoxy of the Christological reflection of the early Church.  The Christological explanations of some of them are stated below.

(1) Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD): Taking Pauline understanding Ignatius says that Jesus is both human and divine or flesh and spirit. He is both Son of God and Son of Man. If this was not true, for him, his martyrdom would not have been a meaningful one. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus affects all of us.

(2) Iranaeus of Lyons (202 AD): He speaks of two hands of God Docetism and Gnosticism had said that this world is evil.  As against this Iranaeus says that God created this world out of his two hands namely, Spirit and flesh. He says that Christ is present in the world as logos and this logos became flesh (incarnated).

(3) Tertullian (160-220 AD):  There is only one Christ, appears himself as one being, reveals two natures namely, human and divine. He and the Father are of divine essence or substance. This is because they existed from eternity. Jesus became human being because salvation could be accomplished only by his being and becoming a human person.

(4) Origen (254 AD): He was more interested in soteriology than Christology. He says that salvation is human's union with God. It is in Jesus, total union of God and man takes place. Therefore, prototype of salvation.

            By the General Councils: Though, the Fathers of the Church had responded to these heresies, finally it was the task of the great Christological Councils of the time to express in unequivocal terms the mysterious union of the two natures in one person (Jesus Christ).  Before the Council of Chalcedon to which the Christological formula in question belong to, we have two other important Councils that spoke of the Christology.

(1) Council of Nicea (325): Arius claimed that Christ was neither God nor a human being. Rather, he was less than God but more than a human being. He was a kind of composite intermediary being. Condemning this stand of Arius the Council of Nicea solemnly proclaimed the oneness in being (Consubstantiality) of the Son with the Father. He is `God from God, light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, one in being with the Father. For us men and for our salvation He came down and became flesh, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day'.

(2) Council of Ephesus (431): On the one side there were those who regarded the unity of the Word and the human in Christ rather loosely and who were intent upon defending his full humanity. This was the Antiochian School, Nestorianism was its extreme expression.

            On the other side, there were those who tended to exaggerate the unity of Christ to the point where the human soul was entirely supplanted. They were intent upon defending Christ's divinity. This was the Alexandrian school, and monophysitism was its extreme expression. This resulted in the Council of Ephesus.

            Council of Ephesus affirms the duality of natures, that there are two natures in Christ namely, divine and human. There is distinction between these two, but no separation. There is true unity between word and flesh. Mary is truly the Mother of God.

            Council of Chalcedon (451): The council unanimously teaches us to confess one and the same 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 with the Father to the divinity and one in being with us to the humanity, like unto us in all things but sin. (Heb.4:15), (ND 614).

            Thus there was much discussion on the mystery of Christ's person (Christ as he is in himself) but there was little discussion on the work of Jesus (or Christ, for others). However, the Church always believed in the salvific significance of the totality of the Christ Event : Life, Death and Resurrection.

            But the Church was faced with a problem in the Middle Ages. The objective efficacy of Christ's redeeming death had been questioned. The doctrine needs even today to be harmoniously combined with the salvific meaning of the incarnation of the Word of God on the one hand, and the saving power of his resurrection on the other. Christ's work is also not be reduced to redeeming function because the word Incarnation is (through His deeds and words) too fullness of God's revelation to the world.

            In short, Chalcedon Council advocated that Jesus is one person. He is logos. He is the second person of the Trinity. He is divine and human. He is one like any of us who experiences temptations, struggles, etc. but never gives into them. This is because of his Abba relationship with the Father.

How do we read the Chalcedonian Christological Formula

            "True God": Jesus Christ is "true God", because in him God is with us, the only source of all salvation.

            "True Man": Jesus Christ is "true man", because in him our existence is realized.

            "One and the same, God and man": Jesus Christ is "one and the same, God and man", because in this union (recapitulation) of the entire creation with its origin and end is rooted.  It is wrong to search for the relation of divinity and humanity within Jesus.  The whole person is God's Son, God's gift to the world, the whole person is fully man, the beginning of the new humanity [Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.102].

            The mysteries of Christ's person and of his work are in separable. If the man Jesus contains the fullness of God's revelation to the world, if his human actions have saving power for the entire human race, the reason is that in the Son incarnate, God and man have been united in the unity of one person.  Precisely because he is divine he has that power and authority over life, which redeems us from our drudgery and  because he is human his redemptive work has bearing on us humans.

How do we understand today Jesus as true God and true man?

            We follow the basic Christian principle: God cannot be encountered over and above, beyond and beneath created realities. We can experience God only in created realities. The highest created reality is the human being. So when we say Jesus is "true man", (as man should be), we mean his humanity becomes revelation of God. It is not 50% God and 50% man. Jesus is fully man and fully God. God is fully involved in human life. The complete involvement is dynamic, living and qualitative-God unites with man, man unites with God. The Chalcedon formula says : one person in two natures-divine and human. Human person means ultimate subject , bearer of human and divine natures. Man and divine should not be understood as metaphysical but as dynamic realities.

In him is salvation as he is the only mediator and saviour of humankind

            Salvation: This session is mostly extracted from Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, pp. 180-185.

            Since the definition/understanding of salvation is coined according to the changing patterns of human experience in history and society, we do not find a once-and-for-all definition or understanding of salvation.  Therefore to get a comprehensive understanding of salvation, adequate knowledge on the biblical, traditional and modern presentations of the same is necessary.

            Biblical Presentation of the Idea of Salvation: The biblical archetype of salvation is Exodus, the liberation of the tribes of Israel from Egypt.  Through the exodus, the Israelites experienced Yahweh's lasting assistance, protection and providence.  Exodus is repeated in the liberation from the exile in Babylon.  This new exodus paved way to the universal understanding of salvation (God is saviour not only of Israel, but of all the nations) and to the inner renewal (It is not spiritualization but it points out that the source of all renewal consists not in exterior events, but in the change of heart from which a new human society must grow).  The New Testament presents Jesus as the final liberator and he proclaimed liberty to all sorts of people (Lk.4:18f).  The kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus means the liberation of all.

            The Characteristic features of "Salvation" in the Bible: (i) God alone is saviour: God saves the Israel from all the hardships, calamities, etc.  Besides Yahweh there is no saviour (Is.43:11: "I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior").  God is the root and goal salvation.  Israel is not allowed to put its trust in other resources.  (ii) Loyal Obedient Response: Human beings must respond in loyal obedience (Deu.30:15-20; Phil.2:12).  Through loyal and obedient response to God, man's freedom and responsibility became liberated.  (iii) The simultaneous growth of universalism and of personalism: The first exodus (liberation from Egypt) was concerned with the nation of Israel only.  But the second exodus (liberation from Babylon) opened the horizon to all nations (universalism) and finds its climax in the New Testament.  However, this universalism is matched by a growing awareness of the personal commitment of the individual.  To illustrate: the liberation of exodus concerns the people as a whole with no evidence of personal decisions of individuals.  During the journey through the desert those who are faithless were punished (Ex.32:25-27).  The new covenant will be marked by a new personal knowledge of God (Jer.31:31ff).  In the New Testament, salvation is for those who believe in Jesus Christ (Mk.16:16).  Salvation comes from accepting Jesus christ, that is, having faith in Jesus, that is, surrendering oneself to Jesus and his values.  (iv) God saves his people through mediators: The Old Testament has no corresponding word to mediator as God is absolute.  Moses is the only person in the Bible, apart from Jesus, who is called mediator (Gal.3:19) on account of his unique position in exodus.  Yet there are the men entrusted with God's plan e.g., the Judges and the Kings.  Mediation is deepened in the figure of the Servant of Yahweh and ultimately in Jesus Christ "the one mediator between God and man" (1Tim.2:5).

            Traditional Presentation of the idea of Salvation: The traditional presentation the idea of salvation seems to be narrow, spiritual, individualistic and otherworldly.  It is narrow, because it confines itself within a limited scope.  It is spiritual, because it reduces itself to the salvation of the soul without regard to the total human person, body and soul, and of man's actual condition in the world.  It is individualistic, because it concerns with the single person who searches for fulfillment, disregarding human society, man's social, economic, cultural condition by which his life is determined.  It is otherworldly, because it is always looking out for the life hereafter and neglecting the actual human life on earth, the living people to whom the good news was actually proclaimed.

            Modern Presentation of the idea of Salvation: The modern presentation of the idea of salvation seems to be in secular perspective.  It concerns with the well being of man, or in political and social liberation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Might be useful!

            Existential and transcendental Approaches to salvation

From Inauthenticity to Faith (Rudolf Bultmann)

From Estrangement to Centeredness (Paul Tillich)

From Guilt to Freedom (Karl Rahner)

Restoration of vision (H.Richard Niebur)

From Passivity to Self-affirmation (Feminist Theologians)

Reconciliation and Redemption (Karl Barth)

Redemption in Political and Liberation theology (modern theologians)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Comments: Being aware of the dangers of traditional and modern presentations of the idea of salvation, we have to develop an integral idea of salvation from the biblical idea of God's concern for man and human society, culminating in Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God and the paschal mystery that concerns the whole man and human society, the earthly life to be fulfilled hereafter, with God as its root and centre.  When we look from those perspective salvation means the wholeness of man and of human society.  Wholeness is harmony with oneself and others; the world and nature.  The actual content of this wholeness has been conceived and spelled out according to the changing patterns of human experience.  It must be noted that salvation is not static but a dynamic movement that leads to fulfillment.

            In him (Jesus) is salvation: God's saving work/salvation is in and through Jesus Christ.  There is no other saviour except Jesus Christ and there is no salvation in anyone else (Acts 4:12:- "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved").  It is Jesus Christ who mediated God and the human beings and it is him the wholeness of man and of human society is realized.  That is why Christianity proclaims that in him (Jesus) is salvation.

            Salvation is inaugurated in Jesus Christ, but yet to be fulfilled i.e., salvation is to be achieved (Remember famous phrase "eschatological tension between the already and not yet").

            Mediator: The person functioning as a go-between or intermediary between two peoples or parties in order to initiate a relationship promote mutual understanding or activity or effect a reconciliation after a dispute [Harper's Biblical Dictionary, p.619].

            In the Bible and the Christian theology the term "mediator" is used to refer Jesus Christ, "the one mediator between God and man" (1Tim.2:5; ND 646) in whom the full union between God and man is achieved in himself and, through his redemptive work, between God and the sinful human race [The New Dictionary of Theology, p.643].

            Why Jesus is called "mediator"?: In order to unveil the message of salvation to the full human context, salvation has to become a historical and societal reality, realized not merely in individuals but in communities.  For this mediation is necessary i.e., the message of salvation is to be mediated by someone to the real level of human life situation [Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.185].  And as the economy of salvation history testifies, through the redemptive work of Jesus this mediation is done.  Henceforth, Jesus is called "mediator".

            Saviour: The term positively means one who reveals the meaning of life and offers human persons a higher destiny, here on earth and hereafter.  It negatively refers to the one who liberates the people form the present and future sin, evil and all dangers.

            The main terms used in the New Testament to describe Jesus's work as saviour: (i) Saving (sozein, soter): It is used in relation to the whole man, also the body.  (ii) Ransom, redemption, redeeming and buying (lytron, lytrosis, lytrousthai, agorazo): These terms refer to the liberation from slavery.  (iii) Expiation (hilasmos, hilasterion): It means taking away human guilt or placating the divine wrath.  (iv) Reconciliation (Katallazo): It means bringing together, making someone reacceptable or re-establishment of a broken relationship.  (v) Justification (diakaioo, diakaiosyne): It refers to an act on the part of God.  As early Christians confessed Jesus raised "for our Justification" (Rom.4:25).  (vi) Covenant (diatheke): Through this term Jesus' work is placed into the covenant of biblical salvation history [For more details on the main terms used in the New Testament to describe Jesus's work as saviour, please see J.Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, pp.196-208].

            Why Jesus is called "saviour"?: The finite human beings are not capable of saving themselves.  But, by revealing the meaning of life, offering higher destiny to the people here on earth and thereafter, liberating from misery, clutches os sin, evil and all dangers Jesus saved the humanity.  Therefore Jesus is called "saviour".  The very name of Jesus is saviour (Mt.1:21).

            The ONLY mediator and Saviour of humankind: Drawing references from the Bible (Mk.16:16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned"; Acts 4:12: "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."; 1Tim. 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".), Christianity professes that Jesus Christ is the only mediator and saviour of humankind (ND 646).

            For centuries we had the "only mediator" and "only saviour of all humankind" formulas in their literal and strict sense.  But this formula appears to be problematic especially in our context where several men and women belonging to various religious traditions claim to have profound experience of the Absolute and consider these religious traditions as ways of salvation.  Therefore, it is one of the decisive problems that Christianity/Christology must tackle.

            The faith affirmation in question refers to the uniqueness (the only) and universality (mediator and saviour of humankind) of Jesus Christ.  Here we shall see the traditional understanding of both the aspects.

            The Traditional Understanding of the Uniqueness of Jesus: By and in Jesus Christ, God effected a self-manifestation in a manner that is decisive and can never be surpassed nor repeated [Jacques Dupis, Who Do You Say I Am, p.141].

            The Traditional Understanding of the Universality of Jesus Christ: The influence of Jesus and his work are necessary for the salvation of women and men in every time and place.  Jesus is at the centre of God's design for the world and of the process by which this design is developed in history [Jacques Dupis, Who Do You Say I Am, p.141].

            As Jacques Dupis says: "True, the uniqueness and universal meaning of Jesus the Christ create inescapable theological problems".  Yet Christology must answer to this decisive problem [Jacques Dupis, Who Do You Say I Am, pp.141-142].  Hence, let us now try to understand the uniqueness and universal meaning of Jesus Christ in relation our present context.

            Uniqueness: A person is unique by (a) difference and (b) self identity.  Self identity can be understood in two ways => (i) one is oneself: It means that each human being is unique. (ii) Self identity by significance => A person is unique when he becomes meaning to my life and others lives (Schillebeckx).

            Uniqueness of Jesus Christ: The uniqueness of Jesus Christ can be understood as follows.

            (1) He is unique in his person and message.  In Jesus God reveals himself totally to man.  The personal fatherhood of God is revealed through the intimate relationship of Jesus to his ABBA.  In Jesus' person people could experience a God who is concerned about them.  When Jesus takes the hand of the little girl, life flows into her body and thus he restores the family.  Also in Jesus, God acts in history and social life of his people (speciality of all biblical religions) and take them to their fullness.  When Jesus teaches, he does not teach doctrines but opens a new world to them e.g., his teaching `blessed are you poor, yours is the Kingdom of God' gives a new dignity to the poor and made them joyful and proud that God is with  them.

            (2) Jesus is unique in the way he brings salvation.  The Christ event as a whole has the saving significance.  We are saved not just by a deed but through the person Jesus Christ, who lived his sonship in a human situation.

            (3) He is unique in the resurrection.  Resurrection is the `Yes' to all that Jesus stood for and fulfillment of his earthly mission. He is made the Lord, God raises Jesus as an assurance of hope for our resurrection. It is also the final revelation of God's glory.

            In Short the UNIQUENESS OF JESUS --- stands out in; (1) The radical following of the disciples and Jesus' asking them to follow him'.  (2) He is the one who forgives sin. (3) Jesus claims a unique relationship with God which is expressed in his Abba relationship (Mk 14:36). (4) Jesus was totally aware that he is the agent to establish the Kingdom of God.

            Uniqueness of Jesus Christ in relation to our present context:  A person is unique by (a) difference and (b) self identity.  Self identity can be understood in two ways => (i) one is oneself: It means that each human being is unique.  Life, death and resurrection of Jesus gives him his self identity.  (ii) Self identity by significance => A person is unique when he becomes meaning to my life and others lives (Schillebeckx).  Jesus is becoming and became a meaning to me and to others (for most of the people).  So he is the unique person and a divine being. Uniqueness means Universal meaningfulness.

            Universality: It refers to the applicability of someone or something in everywhere and every time.

            Universality of Jesus Christ in relation to our present context: Since Jesus Christ gave and is giving meaning to large number of people and he has and is experienced as the only (unique) mediator and saviour, his mediation saving work have universal relevance.

            However Christianity' profession "Jesus is the only mediator and saviour of humankind" is not to meant to understate any other religious beliefs and professions.  Instead, this Christian faith-affirmation is intended to show that to the Christians "Jesus is the only mediator and saviour" since they found meaning in him and the universal relevance of Jesus's salvific mission.

            Through his life, death and resurrection: This typical phrase shows how Jesus Christ, the "truly God and truly man" became the mediator and saviour of humankind.  In other words, the foundation of the faith-affirmation in question is in the so-called Christ-event (= Jesus' life, death and resurrection).  It is our Christian faith that God brings about the renewal of human beings and the world through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  During his earthly life through the divine acts of teaching with authority, forgiving sin, bringing back the dead to life, etc., Jesus revealed his mediating and saving work.  God saves us through Jesus Christ, through his death.  Death is the price paid by Jesus for our salvation.  Resurrection was the culmination of Jesus' saving act through which the people really understood him as God and the mediator and saviour of humankind.

How do you meaningfully understand the historical development of these faith-affirmations?

            Christianity came to existence not with stipulated Christological formulas or affirmations, but with the dynamic and living experience of the Risen Lord.  But, as the time passed, the Christian communities of the different parts of the world felt the need to articulate their faith in Jesus Christ in clear and distinct terms.  They did so through the titles of dignity.  And then, gradually faith-affirmations/formulas developed.

            Just like each person is the product of his/her own time, each of these affirmation/formula is shaped in the given space and time.  All the above cited faith-affirmations are the results of either the faith experience or the challenges confronted by the community of the believers.  In other words the faith-affirmations are the expressions of what the community of believers found meaningful.  Hence the development of the faith-affirmation show the growth of the Christian communities.

            In order to meaningfully understand the historical development of the above mentioned faith-affirmations, we have to know the sitz im leben against which these faith-affirmations are made or developed.  Since they are made to meet the needs of particular places and times, perhaps we might not see them fully correct and relevant to this era of ours.  Still, those faith-affirmations do not lose their significance and thereby we cannot disvalue them.  In this context, to meaningfully understand the historical development of these faith-affirmations, what is required of us is the hermeneutical reading of the same.

In the Indian religious context would it be appropriate to speak of Jesus as an avat_r?

            The Indian religious context: The majority of the Indians are Hindus.  Henceforth, the Indian religious context is by and large is Hindu.  As we know, avat_r/avat_ra is a Hindu philosophical concept, we shall begin our discussion on the above cited question with an attempt to understand the Hindu concept of the same.

            The Hindu Concept of Avat_r/Avat_ra: The term avat_r/avat_ra is derived from ava (=above) and the root is t (= to cross over, to come down, to descend).  Thus, etymologically the term avat_r/avat_ra means the crossing over form above, the coming down from above, the descending from above [J.Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.169; J.Parappally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, Bangalore, IIS Publications, 1995, p.71].

            The idea of avat_r/avat_ra is central in Hindu mythology, religion and philosophy [The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.2, p.14].  It is the most popular expression of God's closeness to man in Hindu religious tradition of Vaishnavism [Parappally, Emerging ....,p.73].  According to Neuner we should acknowledge the Hindu tradition of the avat_ras as the profoundest expression of man's desire and destiny to meet God not only in transcendence but in the closeness of human contacts [Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.173]. However, the origin of the concept of avat_r/avat_ra is under discussion.  Though the term avat_r/avat_ra appears only in later Vaishnavism, relying on the human tendency to personify the invisible in human form from the very ancient time, J. Neuner opines that perhaps the idea of avat_ras has roots in Buddhism, where the historical Gautama is conceived as the manifestation of the eternal Buddha [Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.170].

            The idea of avat_ra in Hinduism seems to mean the descending or the appearing of a deity in an embodied form from time to time for either to restore or to maintain the cosmic order or to bless the devotees with the presence of the divine, to rescue devotees from peril, or to reward them for heroic devotion or service [Parappally, Emerging ..., p.71; The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.2, p.15].

            Among the Hindu philosophers there is no unanimity about the interpretation of the concept of avat_ra [Parappally, Emerging ..., p.73].  Anyhow, avat_ras usually are understood to be only partial manifestations of the deity who assumes them.  The avat_ra idea in Hinduism is associated with the god Vi__u.  One of the earliest references to the idea of avat_ra is found in the Bhagavadg_t_ (c.200 BCE), where we find a concise statement concerning Vi__u's primary intention in assuming different forms:

            Whenever righteousness wanes and unrighteousness increases, I send myself forth

            In order to protect the good and punish the wicked

            In order to make a firm foundation for righteousness, I come into being age after age (4/7-8).

            Although the number of Vi__u's avat_ras varies at different periods in the Hindu tradition and in different scriptures, the tradition usually affirms ten avat_ras, namely, fish, tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf, Rama the Ax Wielder, Rama of the Ramayana, Krishna, the Buddha, and Kalki.  Traditionally, each avat_ra, appears in order to perform a specific cosmic duty that is necessary to maintain or to restore cosmic order.  Having performed that task, the avat_ra then disappears or merges back to Vi__u.

            The avat_ra idea also came to applied to other Hindu deities.  Siva and Durga, for example, are said in some later scriptures to assume appropriate forms in order to preserve the world ot to bless their devotees.  Especially in devotional contexts, avat_ras no longer function primarily to restore cosmic order.  Rather, their raison d'etre is to bless devotees with the presence of the divine, to rescue devotees from peril, or to reward them for heroic devotion or service [The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.2, pp.14-15].

            Would it be appropriate to speak of Jesus as an avat_r?: As per the Hindu traditions and scriptures, the concept of avat_ra speaks of god's coming to the earth.  But in Christian philosophico-theologico circles, the coming of God to the earth is articulated through the doctrine of incarnation.  Therefore dealing with the appropriateness of speaking of Jesus as an avat_r without knowing the basic tenets of the doctrine of incarnation would be inadequate.  Moreover often a parallelism is made between avat_ra and incarnation.  Keeping these factors in mind, let us try to understand the Christian doctrine of incarnation.

            The Christian Doctrine of Incarnation: The term "incarnation" is derived from the Latin word "caro" which means flesh.  "Incarnation", therefore literally means "putting/ taking on of flesh" or "enfleshment" or "embodiment in flesh" or "to enter into or become flesh".  It must be noted that the term "incarnation" could quite properly used for any embodiment in any flesh.  But in Christian Doctrine of "Incarnation", the term is used only to signify the embodiment in human flesh [New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.413; The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.3; pp.397-398; Harper's Bible Dictionary, p.420].

            The doctrine of "incarnation" is central to Christianity.  It means that the eternal Word of God (Logos - Jn.1/14), the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity became man in Jesus Christ, who was truly God and truly man.  In other words, the pre-existent Son of God became man in Jesus.  It may also refer to the resultant union; thus it would mean the wondrous, singular and eternally permanent union of divine nature and the human nature in the one Person of the Word  [The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.3; p.397; Harper's Bible Dictionary, p.420; New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.413].

            The term "incarnation" or the concept of "incarnation" in a developed sense or as it is now understood in the Christian Thought does not seem to appear in the New Testament beyond doubt.  It is difficult to draw a sharp line between a before and after in the emergence of the concept of "incarnation".  All we can say with some confidence is that before Christians began to express the significance of Jesus, the concept of "incarnation" as such is not yet attested; whereas at the end of the first century the concept has been deliberately and provocatively put forward.  Arguably, the thought is implicit already in formulations used by Paul.  But whatever we make of these formulations, it does not look rather as though the concept of incarnation was the outcome of what seems with hindsight to have been inevitable and logical evolution, as the first Christians found that previous ways of speaking of the revelation of God were inadequate to express the full significance of the divine revelation which was Jesus.  It is only with the Fathers of the Church in the third and fourth centuries; that a full-fledged theory of the "incarnation" develops [The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.3; pp.397, 404; Harper's Bible Dictionary, p.420].

            The purpose of "incarnation" is the redemption or the salvation of the world.  At the same time it must be noted that with in the New Testament there is no evidence of a concept of "incarnation" as itself the decisive act of salvation.  The moment of salvation remains decisively centered on the cross [The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.3; p.404].

            Comparison between avat_ra and incarnation: As it is evident from the preceding discussion, though there are some similarities between avat_ra and incarnation, they are not one and the same.  At this juncture it is good to know the similarities and dissimilarities between these two concepts.

Similarities

*          In both the freedom and initiative of `coming over from above' is absolutely God's own.

*          Both traditions maintain the transcendence of God even he is on earth.

*          Both these doctrines maintain that the coming over of God from above is a gratuitous self-communication of God through which he offers salvation to man.

*          Both stress the loving compassionate nature of God.

*          Both demand response by self surrendering love.

*          Both speak of salvation as blissful union with God.

Dissimilarities

*          An avat_ra is the manifestation of the Absolute whereas Incarnation is the revelation of the Trinitarian mystery.

*          An incarnation is the fulfillment of the hopes of the people and the prophetic call, but the coming of an avat_ra is not the fulfillment of the hopes of the people and the prophetic call.

*          An avat_ra offers salvation to the individual follower.  But the world itself is not saved and therefore there is no resurrection of the body.  Hence the coming of an avat_ra does not change the world radically or change its orientation as Christ did through incarnation.

*          Incarnation is one, historical and definite, whereas in the doctrine of avat_ra there is no decisive once-and-for-all intervention of God as avat_ras come again and again. Avat_ras are only partial manifestations of the Absolute.

*          In contrast to incarnation, avat_ra is docetic and therefore it cannot be eschatological like incarnation.

*          Avat_ra can never become really human because God cannot assume the weakness of the human nature, for e.g., an avat_ra cannot suffer.  An avat_ra is not real man, but appears to be.  But in incarnation God becomes really human and assumes the weakness of the human nature and suffers like any other human being.

            In the Indian religious context would it be appropriate to speak of Jesus as an avat_r?: Having seen the concepts of avat_ra and incarnation that explain the understanding of the coming of the Invisible to the earth in two different religious traditions, now let us consider the given question.

            There is no unanimous opinion on this question among the theologians.  However, according to Neuner the question implies both linguistic and pastoral problems [Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.173].

            There are Hindu thinkers like Swami Akilananda who apply the patterns of the avat_ra doctrine to Jesus and hold the view that Jesus is an avat_r [Parappally, Emerging ...., pp.174-175].  Protestant theologians, like V. Chakkarai and P. Chenchiah hold the view that the doctrine of avat_ra can be correctly interpreted to explain the Christian doctrine of incarnation [Ibid., p.71].

            The Catholic theologians are of different opinions with regard to the use of the term avat_ra to mean incarnation in the Christian understanding though in the regional languages of India the Christian theological and devotional literature use this term for incarnation of the Word.  J. Neuner who made an indepth study of the doctrine of avat_ra is of opinion that it can help to interpret the Christian mystery of incarnation if the parallels and incompatible differences are taken into consideration [Ibid.].  At the same time he warns against the danger of docetism and monophysitism if the term is used in Christological reflection considering the superficial parallelism between avat_ra and incarnation [Ibid., pp.74-75].

            Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya (1861-1907), with whom a serious Christological reflection using the Indian categories and thought patterns began, totally opposed the idea of considering Jesus as an avat_ra.  He was convinced that there is fundamental difference between the doctrines of incarnation and avat_ra, which lies in the basic Christian belief that God became man to redeem mankind from sin, and there is nothing like this in the doctrine of avat_ra [Ibid., pp.17, 32-33].  According to Raimundo Panikkar, the doctrine of avat_ra is not helpful in the interpretation of Christ [Ibid., p.71].  In his opinion, utilization (= usage of some thought-patterns from an external source or religion by persons who know one religion to expound their own religion) and Interpretation (= explanation of the texts and statements of other religious traditions in the light of one's own religion's intuition) do not do justice to dialogue among religions towards which we are today impelled [Raymundo Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue, New York, Paulist Press, 1978, Chapter Four].

            Comments: In many Indian languages the Christian literature uses the term avat_ra referring to the incarnation of the Logos, although this term is burdened with Hindu understanding of the same.  So it cannot be completely dismissed as useless for the interpretation of Jesus Christ in the Indian context [Parappally, Emerging ...., p.75].  Therefore it might be advisable to go along with position of Neuner on this question.  In his opinion we need not alienate the doctrine of avat_ra or the term avat_ra from our Christological reflection, but if the term is used, it must be explained in its Christian meaning.  According to him from theological point of view we keep in mind that no term of whatever language expresses the full reality of the Christian mystery; still, current terms have to be used, but must be then be qualified as it has been done in the struggle for classical Christology with Greek terms of physis, prospon, hypostatis, etc. [Neuner, JDV Lecture Notes, p.173].  To sum up, in any case it would not be appropriate to speak of Jesus as avat_r by applying the patterns of Hindu perspective of the doctrine of avat_ra.