Christology Notes PART I, Fr. John Galvin, CUA, Transcribed by TPD, Spring, 1991

 Christology Notes, Fr. John Galvin, Catholic University of America

Transcribed by Timothy P. Dore, OFM Conv., Spring, 1991

 

                                                                              Five Models of Avery Dulles

 

Are there any initial reactions to the Avery Dulles article?  His style in many instances is to set up "models."  Usually there are five.  Always there are five in number.  That is not an accident.  Tracy also uses models.  With Dulles the typical style is to lay out advantages and disadvantages to the different models.  He usually has something good to say and some reservations with regard to each model and tends to guard against the impression that one perspective is sufficient to exhausting the material--even if there is one he tends to prefer.  This article^[1] on Christology [is suitable in] that is considered introductory material for this course.

Obviously one of the purposes I have in using this article as an introductory essay is to give an overview of what you will see later on and secondly to raise a few questions--in the sense of pointing out advantages to different perspectives but also possible liabilities to those perspectives and to offer a certain set of questions which you might bring to different authors or different themes as the semester comes about.  It would be a mistake to paint Dulles' approach and Dulles' critique as the canon (where anything that falls short of that is sufficient and anything that goes beyond it is exaggeration).  Dulles' essay provides an initial set of questions which will serve a purpose.

Let me ask a couple of questions about Dulles' article.  First of all, what are the five approaches?  They are: (1) Dogmatic  (2) Historical  (3) Kerygmatic  (4) Liturgical/ Sacramental  (5) Secular/Dialogical. 

When people split things up in whatever fashion they have different purposes in doing that.  One purpose can be to say that we are going to look at a particular field or particular reality from an historical perspective and distinguish different stages that were prominent or dominant in different ages.  Another way of looking at it is to extract from question of time and to say that there are various perspectives that might be taken on a subject. 

We spoke the other day about Christologies from above and Christologies from below.  In principle you could say that those options are available to people who think about Christ in any period.  You might also want to say that in one or another period one of those approaches predominated. 

What is Dulles doing here?  If you have an historical approach in five stages one of the hallmarks of that is that you have little choice about the sequence.  If you have five stages abstracting from an issue of time [???] the sequence does not make too much difference.  Can you change the sequence of Dulles' models?  For example can you go from the Liturgical/Sacramental to the Dogmatic?  (Or place the Kerygmatic stage first?)  The question that comes up for example--if you say the church is sacramental does he have in mind the ancient church with the principle lex orandi, lex credendi and a movement from liturgy to dogma, or does he have in mind a modern theological movement which has that Christ is the sacrament of the encounter with God and that sacrament in that sense categories of worship are in the forefront.  That would be one illustration.  Similarly the in the Kerygmatic does he have in mind a twentieth century movement which says lets go back to the early church's proclamation of the risen Lord or does he have in mind Paul.  Now if you are thinking in terms of a historical stage of course it makes a difference.  If you are not thinking in terms of it is less severe [???]. 

I think that Dulles is about both.  Although he has a couple of items on his agenda, one way of looking at it is who exemplifies the dogmatic approach?  Let us say that it is the Neo-Scholastics.  Dulles makes the observation with regard to that approach that it is a useful and indispensable guideline (you should not forget what they are talking about) but at the same time you must interpret them carefully, you must have recourse to the Bible and so on.  There are possible qualifications.  Do those at the early Councils represent the Dogmatic?  The dogmas themselves do not lead completely onto one approach and Dulles does not claim that they do, but the approaches that come into question for them are the secular (in the sense of dialogue with the world--including the heretical world at that time).  Then you can certainly make a case with the Liturgical/Sacramental as a point of orientation and I think you can make a case for the Kerygmatic with recourse to the Biblical proclamation.  You could not push the Historical too much into that kind of critical historical scholarship that would be associated with that and at least at Chalcedon there had already been a doctrine to appeal to.  As far as later Councils are concerned they would appeal back to Nicea but they also say that Nicea does not exactly address their particular issue and so they must develop things further in that way.  So that is the first thing--in the dogmatic approach, if you put things chronologically is late 19th and early 20th century Catholicism.  If you go back into an earlier period you can find a certain amount of that in Protestantism as well.  You can still find representatives of this thought in the present time.  One of the reasons I think that the Dogmatic approach goes first here is that (first of all) Dulles is not talking about the whole history of Christology (the historical issue is a modern issue).  The historical approach is characteristic in Protestant circles in the 19th century and this is one reason why Dulles must offer a couple of qualifications (he distinguishes two stages to this approach--not just chronological distinctions but content distinctions as well.)  There is enough similarity between the two stages to justify including them under one heading, but there is enough difference that that must be taken into account as well. 

Historically in Protestant circles we see the movement from Neo-scholasticism (and a type of Protestant orthodoxy that focuses in that direction) to a historical approach (i.e. the search for the historical Jesus in the 19th century).  In Catholic circles at this point you still have prevailing dogmatic approach.  Then, still in Protestant circles (between the 20s and 50s) there was a reaction away from the historical approach (in the sense of the original search for the historical Jesus).  This was the period of Barth and Bultmann.  At this time there was an Scriptural orientation, especially on Paul.  Biblical categories of Lord and Risen Christ became focal points of attention (we will come back to this).  This was a reaction against the Historical. 

This reaction was the third stage (Kerygmatic).  It is not the same as the first stage (Dogmatic) but comparatively speaking it is much closer to the first stage than the second stage because the trajectory from these [???] affirmations and the affirmations from the early Councils is a comparatively small one.  So up to this point, at least from this perspective, there is something of a fixed order here because stage two is a reaction to stage one and stage three is a reaction to stage two.  To explain your position here you must say something about your understanding of the focus of the development. 

In Catholic circles, it is basically important to [???] at an earlier stage.  I'll say 1920 to 1950 but these dates are very rough--in some ways it is more to the end of that period but it goes hand in hand with the liturgical and sacramental revival that began after the first world war.  You can see what is at issue here.  That when you look for an alternative approach the Protestant instinct is to go to the Bible (it may be very critical going to the Bible for the historical Jesus--it may be more receptive going to the Bible with Paul and with the early Church's proclamation with Christ but the instinct is still to go to the Bible).  The Catholic instinct is to go to the liturgy.  This is not exclusive in any case but you are not going to find Protestant theologians looking for sacramental categories to speak about Christologies.  You might find and you do find Protestant theologians who will pick it up from Catholics (saying this is a reasonable way to express things) but it is not something that will thrive in Protestant circles itself initially.  If you ask a Protestant who Jesus is you will not find the word sacrament in their response--you are more likely to find a Biblical profession.  In other words, stages three and four are roughly parallel in time and in some respects very similar in content--despite the differences in initial orientation.  I think what could stand here as one figure for this would be Edward Schillebeeckx book published in the early 1960's Christ, the Sacrament of the Encounter with God.  You may have heard of the book in the context of sacramental theology.  Most of the book is concerned with sacramental theology but before getting into his theology of the individual sacraments, Schillebeeckx makes the point that the original or more basic sense of the word sacrament is one in which Christ is the sacrament of God and the Church is the sacrament of God which then leads to discussion of the other individual sacraments in that Christological and Ecclesiological context.  Schillebeekcx work in particular was not the only one to use the language at that time [which] contributed greatly to the popularization to that use of the word sacrament in Catholicism. 

It is at this point that you get a revival in interest in the historical Jesus.  [This occurred in] the mid 1950s in Protestantism and about a decade later in Catholicism.  The motivation is [Biblically extent???] that both the charismatic and liturgical/sacramental as the case may be requires some historical underpinning.  It is fine to be charismatic, but the Church did not start with Paul--so you must be able to look back a little further (and similarly with the other perspectives).  Now this is an exaggeration to call this movement a rejection in the sense that some of the others will be called a rejection but an original quest spoke about a dogmatic picture of Christ.  They did not say that they were going to provide [???].  One of the great differences with the later revival of the quest is that it is not intended a as a demolition at least in its major representatives but in its historical investigation which we in part flesh out and provide support for, otherwise [???]. 

Now that brings us to the Secular/Dialogical stage which is both Protestant and Catholic.  Dulles' article was written in 1976 and is fifteen years old now--we are now in a new period in which the critical theology is a liberation theology which is at the focus of attention.  Something of a suggestion that other approaches to Christology is too self-contained--not wrong in what they say but lacking in dimension of relationship to the world.  And so the Secular/Dialogical approach may well be combined with one or the other of the earlier approaches.  It will give a more sociological focus in the broad sense than is the case with the others.  It is not coincidental that the Secular/Dialogical stage is the last considered by Dulles because that is the one that he sees as most representative of recent theological work.  This is not to say that this is the best of the categories.

I would like to make just one comment on Dulles' categories here.  Have you ever tried to divide things up into groups?  The tendency in a lot of people [is to mix into the last group whatever is left over.]  Dulles brings into his last category evolutionary conceptions, personalist conceptions and political conceptions.  The catch on this is that representatives of political conceptions (theologies of liberation etc.) usually spend a great deal of time denouncing evolutionary and personalist perspectives.  The evolutionary perspective is far more less justified than whatever happens to be the most recent [???] the political perspectives want to criticize that.  The personalist perspective is seen as individualistic (I/thou) rather than anything to do with the public/social dimension.  So you do have within Dulles' fifth group a rather mixed bag of people that you can justly include under the broad heading of Secular/Dialogical as long as you recognize that that heading is a broader one than the four other stages. 

Let me raise just one more question.  Any Christology is going to say something about Jesus.  But typically some things get emphasized more than others.  In a very loose sense, Incarnation, Public Life, Death and Resurrection are the four possible focal points for Christology.  It is difficult to place all of these on the same level.  The Dogmatic approach is basically focused on the incarnation.  The Historical approach is basically focused on the public life.  The modern revival of the historical approach may also include a reference to the death.  The Kerygmatic approach is basically focused on the resurrection (and to a certain extent the death).  The Liturgical/Sacramental approach may basically be focused on the resurrection but certainly not the public life.  This is why there may be an affinity between the Kerygmatic and Liturgical/Sacramental approach to Christology.  In the Secular/Dialogical approach it depends on "what the problem is" when focusing on a particular issue within Christology.  This may be an example of why the Secular/Dialogical approach is less unified itself than the others because you can think of an evolutionary approach which is very oriented on the incarnation, you can think of political approaches that might focus on Jesus' life or may focus on his death, and personalistic approaches could well be resurrection oriented (in the sense of individual encounter with Christ alive today--resurrection here including ascension and so on).  So under the Secular/Dialogical heading we find something of a mixture of approaches--but not necessarily a mixture of individual authors under that heading.  I would suggest that in addition to keeping in mind these categories throughout the semester and using them as an initial way of perhaps different people that we will encounter that also keep in mind the other four categories as reference points as far as Jesus is concerned and ask which one of these predominates and then secondly, what does the author do with the others.  Are they somehow integrated into the picture--even if subordinated to one or another reference point.  An example:  Someone may develop a Christology that focuses on the resurrection and say that it is the main point and everything else must be seen from that perspective. 

I would think that in general the better christological approaches will be ones that have the greater richness of this perspective.

 

                                                                The Historical Jesus And The Christ Of Faith

 

Adequate Christologies must deal with both the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith.  Very few people will reject that.  Some will--some of the extreme practitioners from the historical school would brush aside the Christ of faith; some people from the charismatic school would brush aside the historical Jesus.  Dulles' principles serve effectively as a way of posing and indicating recent opposition to those positions.  The difficulty remains in describing what is the relationship between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith.  That is the question that must be investigated.  You have the term Christ of faith and the term Jesus of history but not in the sense that you have two different people and so the question is what is the basis for a distinction (and how is it justifies and to what extent not justified). 

If you say initially that you want to deal with all four reference points when investigating Jesus (incarnation, public life, death and resurrection) that is a good orthodox position.  But is still remains to investigate the relationship between them.

 

                                                      A Framework For Understanding The Very Early Period

 

To begin this class with classical Christology and soteriology I would like to just sketch a framework for understanding the very early period that has to do with an article by Helmut Koester.

Koester is interested in the development of Christology before the writing of the New Testament (and the text as we now have it).  Inevitably there is something quite tentative about doing construction and yet you can argue that roughly twenty years between the time of Jesus' death and the time in which the New Testament books began to be written (and even more time before the later New Testament books were written and the whole thing was collected into what we call the New Testament).  That earlier period is the subject of a lot of significant Christian thought about Jesus.  Koester's analysis of it may serve as an original framework for focusing some what follows.  Koester says that there are four types of Christology.  The are: (a) Parousia Christology which focused on the idea of Jesus as the Son of Man, the judge who come at the end of the world.  As far as the New Testament is concerned you can think of the apocalyptic discourses especially in the synoptic gospels.  (b)  Divine Man Christology which focuses on an individual with superhuman powers especially those associated with miracle working--this category is not limited to biblical material but there are examples of this in Hellenistic literature of the period.  Divine Man is not the same thing as divinity in the later sense of the word.  (c) Wisdom Christology which focuses on Jesus as teacher.  A major example of this can be found in the gospels particularly in the Sermon on the Mount or the discourses of Luke or the Parables.  These present Jesus as a person with wisdom who conveys that wisdom to others through his preaching and his teaching.  This includes as a kind of sub-division the idea of Jesus as wisdom incarnate--not simply a teacher of wisdom--the chief example of this is found in the logos Christology of the fourth gospel ("The Word became flesh").  (d) Easter/Paschal Christology which focuses back to Jesus' resurrection.  This is common in Pauline material but in a different form you find this in the Passion/resurrection narratives of the gospels.

Koester is of the opinion that the New Testament as a whole represents a bringing together of these four types--and that to a certain extent this is true even in individual books of the New Testament.  This is true in Mark especially but we see that almost any of the gospels combines elements from each of these traditions.  But precisely through combining them relativizes them to a certain extent in comparison to each other.  Koester's judgement is that the Christology that stands out as the unifying force is this Easter Christology.  This is not the only Christology in the New Testament but it is the one that made possible the integration of the different trajectories.  Otherwise the different Christologies had a tendency to spin off in their own directions and eventually either did or would have disintegrated if they did not have this greater force holding them together.  Then when we get to the canon of the New Testament if anything that is enhanced because the portions of the New Testament in which Easter Christology is particularly to be noted in the Gospels or in Paul are so prominent (although Koester is not committed to the notion of canon as an historical relic). 

My purpose of mentioning this Koester article is twofold.  (1) The initial purpose is just to suggest something that I think {NOT SURE WHAT HE SAID} {your already familiar with--the complexity of early . . .} at least some aspects of that complexity.  But the main point, the second point (2) is to classify the historical development what we place under the heading of classical Christology.  The focus initially here is going to be on the person of Christ--not so much on the work of Christ.  It is possible to see this development in the third and fourth centuries as the pursuit of this particular aspect of New Testament Christology--a focus on the Wisdom Christology especially in the form reflected in the fourth gospel statement "the Word became flesh" (which becomes at least in certain periods a leading Biblical reference point within discussions--who is the Word, what is the relationship with the Word and God [in the sense of God the Father], what does it mean to say "the Word became flesh?"--does it mean that there is no human spirit (only a human body).  These are the type of questions that were asked.  It is important to keep this in mind to indicate on the one hand that this is a set of questions with good biblical foundation and it is not surprising that those questions arose, on the other hand there is a concentration on one aspect of the biblical material rather than others.  And so it is a line of questioning which involves a certain narrowing of focus in some points rather than others--a narrowing that may have been inevitable in a biblical-historical period. 

 

                                                                           Arianism As A Prelude To Nicea

 

What I would like to do is to begin with Arianism as the first major factor in the development [of this]. 

 

The classical period in the development of Christology ranges clearly from the Council of Nicea in 325 and it basically comes to an end with the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (although there was still a period of reception after Chalcedon).  The two official texts are the credal statements from these councils.

We use liturgically the Nicean Creed on Sundays.  It is universally used all over the United States.  The creed that we use is a modification of what was adopted at the Council of Nicea--we use the word Nicean in the sense that that is where it came from  but not in the sense that we use it in precisely the same way that they used it at that time.  In saying that I do not mean only the addition of the filioque--which is a controversial point which we got into about the precession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son--but even abstracting from that medieval addition there are much earlier additions which are present in the creed.  In the form that was given out in class (see handout) was adopted at the Nicean Council.  You will notice in particular that the end of it is much shorter than what we are accustomed to and even rather abrupt--you do not expect it to end at that point.  The reason for the abrupt ending is that the Holy Spirit was not an issue (we will come back to this). 

Let me begin with just a sketch of the issues that Nicea is talking about before we get to the Council's text itself.

The key figure before Nicea was Arius.  Arius was a priest in Alexandria.  Alexandria was a center of early Christianity (as well as Jewish thought).  Alexandria was a major intellectual center of the ancient world.  About the year 315 Arius began to advance a position that eventually was named after him--that the Logos (the Word) was not equal to the Father, that the Logos is not God.  Keep in mind John 1:14 which is the formulation of this but it would not hurt to look back over the whole prologue of John's gospel. 

 

                                                                                  Basic Positions Of Arius

 

Arius believed that the Logos was not God but rather the "first creature."  This first creature was created out of nothing by the Father--the highest creature and the only creature made directly by God.  There is a one person God who created the Logos--not from all eternity but still a very long time ago (long before anything else came about).  The Logos then serves as the instrument of creation.  God is one step removed from the rest of creation.  We are not speaking here of the Incarnation--that issue comes later.  This is a doctrine of God that is at issue here before we come to the Incarnation problem.  The Logos creates everything else.  The Logos is not of the same substance as the Father but because of the unique relationship between God and the Logos it is possible to call the Logos "Son."  Arius holds that the Logos is not on the same level with God, but also not on the same level as the rest of creation (the Logos is in between--much closer to God than anything else and yet not equal to God.  It is that distinctive, intermediate status which makes possible the use of the vocabularies [???] titles which are found quite extensively in the New Testament.  Now in the course of time the Word became flesh--the theology of the Incarnation.  The Logos was united with a human body but there is not human soul present (there is no need for a human soul--and I think you could also say there is no room for a human soul).  This is Arius' theology of the Incarnation.  The result is that Christ is not God.  He is also not a human being.  In a sense you might say that Christ is part human and part super human but not divine.  In the strict sense Christ is neither God nor human in certain aspects of humanity.  That is the framework of Arius' theology--a non-Trinitarian doctrine of God.

Arius was a religious personality.  He attracted followers very quickly.  It is important to remember here that as a matter of historical [???] that Arius himself and his adherents and those who listened to him were not people who had been reciting the Nicean Creed every Sunday throughout their lives.  These are [???] with legitimate questions for Christians, but they are in a context in which what we have been accustomed to has formulated answers to these questions.  People at the time of Arius were not yet there.  Questions can still be raised about these formulations but it is important to rule out any kind of automatic presumption that Arius is deviating from a clearly articulated Christian position on these matters.  In some respects he is deviating from an established Christian position because recognition of the divinity of Christ is there prior to this time.  [???].  [Arius'] doctrine in some ways enabled the Church to pursue [questions] in more thorough ways [than] otherwise may have been possible.

 

                                                                                     Leading Up To Nicea

 

Arius was excommunicated by a local synod at Alexandria but his following was already too large for that excommunication to prove successful.  Because of this a general synod (what we call the first ecumenical council) was called.  This matter had proved to be too serious and to wide-spread to be settled on a regional basis and so they moved to the next step which was a universal synod (at least in principle).  The general synod was convened by the Emperor Constantine to meet at his summer residence at Nicea.  Nicea is a short distance from Constantinople (present day Istanbul).  The general synod met in the year 325 A.D.  The council was well attended with two to three hundred bishops present.  A traditional figure (for number in attendance) associated with this council is 318 which is taken from the book of Genesis (14:14--which said that Abraham had 318 servants).

 

 

                                                             Christology  January 17, 1991

 

                                                                                     Other Issues at Nicea

 

Nicea was also concerned with other issues in addition to the Arian controversy.  Those issues are not of particular issue to us here but there are two that have bearing on other aspects of Church history.  One of these issues is the date of Easter--a problem that had certain theological implications.  The second issue was one of ecclesiastical structure and order of authority among various dioceses.

 

                                                                                     Arius Vs. Athanasius

 

As far as Arius was concerned there were very long and bitter discussion about the relevant issues.  Arius was present and defended his teaching and was supported by several bishops.  Eventually the anti-arian party was successful.  The council seems to have met for about two months. 

The chief figure in the anti-Arian [camp] was Athanasius who was a deacon from Alexandria.  Three years after the council Athanasius became the bishop of Alexandria.  He eventually became a very well know theological figure of this period.  It may seem a bit odd that a deacon would chief spokesman at a council but there were different ecclesiastical circumstances and different job qualifications for the selection of deacons at that time.  It was not unusual for a deacon to be close associate of a bishop--a kind of chief of staff.  It was not at all unusual for a deacon to proceed as Athanasius eventually did to the episcopacy. 

Chiefly under the influence of Athanasius, Arianism was rejected.  There are some historical disputes, but the groups at the council of Nicea can basically be divided into two--the Arians and the anti-Arians (led by Athanasius).  There was something of a middle group opposed to Arius but not with as much fervent opposition as Athanasius (although it is difficult to pin-point this group).  An anti-Arian creed was adopted.

 

                                                                                    The Anti-Arian Creed

 

The background of the creed adopted was that it appeared to take an existing creed and rework it into the form that was then adopted at the council.  The background of the earlier creed is not completely clear.  The creed rejects all types of subordinationism. 

The central part (in this study) is the second article.  The first article is a profession of faith in God, the second is Christological and the third refers to the Holy Spirit.  There is something of a Trinitarian structure of the creed but the focus is almost completely on the second article because that was what was controversial at this stage. 

In the typed form that you have (see handout) in two paragraphs the chief elements of the anti-Arian statement are in the first of those paragraphs.  The insistence that Christ is born only begotten of the Father--that is the substance of the Father (in other words not created out of nothing by the Father) then true God of true God--a reinforcement of what has already preceded it.  The reason for the emphasis here is that there is a looser sense in which the Arians were prepared to use the word God--after all the prologue to fourth gospel says the Word was God without the definite article . . . [???].  The purpose of this was to exclude that looser notion of being exalted or somewhat semi-divine figure if you insist on the true divinity of the second person.  This is repeated then in effect with the born not made (that is, not made as the rest of creation).  Then the introduction of what became the famous word homoousios--one substance, or constubstantial, with the Father.  We tend to say liturgically "one in being with the Father."  This word has a certain history of its own and it became the touchstone of fidelity with Nicea (whether or not one accepted this term or tried to substitute it with related but not identical terms became a measure of loyalty to Nicea). 

 

                                                                                        An Earlier Heresy

 

There is one other item in the background (just to mention it briefly).  There was another earlier heretical figure Paul of Samosata (c.260).  He was the bishop of Antioch.  His trinitarian or anti-trinitarian views were rejected as heretical at various local synods.  He appeared to have held that only the Father is divine, but the precise description of his position is controversial.  Because he was held as a heretic his writings were destroyed.  Paul of Samosata seems to have used the word homoousios in his own position--but not with the same sense that Nicea uses the word (in fact almost the opposite).  So we see that the word homoousios had a bad history theologically because of its association with this earlier figure.

In choosing the word homoousios for use in the creed, Nicea is not only bringing in a non-biblical term but also bringing a term that had unsavory history to it as far as Christian theology was concerned.  None the less homoousios became the key word at the Council of Nicea.

[The word] Homoousios [was] not used [by Nicea] in any type of precise philosophical sense.  It is not adopting one or another particular philosophical understanding of being.  It is expressing that whatever is said of the Father is also to be said of the Son (except the distinction between the Father and the Son).  The Father and the Son are of one being. 

                                                                                  The Humanity Of Christ

 

[There are] two other points--one in regard to the creed directly and then something about [???] the next of the Christological paragraphs.  He became flesh and he became Man.  These too are anti-Arian in effect because the Arian position is that he became flesh but not that he became man.  The Arian position is that the Logos takes the place of the human soul and so the humanity of Christ (and I am speaking with terminology that was not particularly in vogue at that time) is also compromised by the Arian position.  The thrust of the debates at Nicea do not lie on that level.  The immediate concerns at that time had to do with the divinity of the Logos.  But there is objective reference to anti-Arian elements in this reference to the humanity of Christ.  This issue of the humanity of Christ becomes an issue in later centuries.

 

                                                                                    Arians Anathamatized

 

After the creed, the council also adopted a brief paragraph that is an anathematization of the Arians.  This brief paragraph establishes a pattern that is typical of most ecumenical councils that after an initial statement of faith there is frequently a briefer rejection of contrary positions.  The paragraph reads as follows:

"But those who say there was a time when he was not and before he was born he was not or he came to be out of what was not or who claim that he is of a different hypostasis or substance (different from the Father) or that the Son of God is created or subject to change, these the Catholic Church anathematizes."  (See DS 126)

So this is the rejection of Arianism at Nicea and the condemnation of his main tenets.

 

                                                                      Arianism After The Council Of Nicea

 

[Let me offer] a couple of words about the aftermath and the [???] of this.  First of all, Arianism did not disappear after the council ended--it persisted and even flourished in some places for long periods (sometimes with variance and with modifications).  Arianism influenced [Christians] through the fourth century and was rather strong in the West as well as the East.  An example of that was that the chief opponent of Arianism (Athanasius--who was not only the chief opponent at Nicea but also in the years that followed) was exiled several times from Alexandria for a total of seventeen years.  In other words, as Arians came into power he was forced out and when they lost power he would return. 

 

                                                                           On Regulation Of The Language

 

Before I say anything about the arguments used against the Arians, I would like to say a word about the terminology that was adopted at Nicea--not as far as the content was concerned but rather a word about the procedures and the issues that are at stake here.  This is based in large part on some observations of Karl Rahner who has made them in regards to dogmatic statements in general (not just on the dogmatic statement of Nicea). 

Rahner says that in any dogmatic statement there is an element of regulation of language^[2] involved (and by dogmatic statement here he means some sort of official and perhaps definitive Church teaching on the subject--not simply one you or I might say in discussing a theological question).  What does Rahner mean by "regulation of language?"  Most of the time when we use words in every day speech there is a certain fuzziness to the possible meanings of words but we understand each other because we have the words in a certain context. 

An example of this (fuzziness of meaning) is as follows:  Think simply of something like the weather--if there is a storm and we are talking about the weather we use words like hurricane, gale and/or blizzard; we know what we mean by these words--we do not use the word hurricane when there is a shower or we do not use the word blizzard after the first flake of snow falls to the ground.  On the other hand we also do not use the kind of technical understanding of those terms that is used by the weather service--we do not speak of a blizzard unless the snow accumulates a certain amount by a certain time.  There is no doubt that there are certain snow storms which people will classify as blizzards which do not meet the technical definition of such a storm.  This type of word use is typical in other areas as well.  We usually do not need a precise scientific or formal definition of things.  But there are some occasions when you do--you do not need a scientific definition of the weather when you are chatting with the neighbor but you may need such a definition when you are doing a formal study of the weather.

 

                                                      Technical Meaning Of Language In Church Documents

 

Part of what happens in official Church documents is that words which in principle could be used more widely are given more technical meaning and at least as far as the Church is concerned, these words are going to be used in one way and not in another.  Even though rather abstractly [???] analysis of the etymology of the language the word could have other meanings (they have been used with other meanings in the past and can even be used in other contexts at the present time).  Those decisions on the part of the Church are not saying that there has always been one right meaning and [for example] four wrong reasons.  It is saying that we are establishing this as the way we are going to talk--a suitable way in a sentence but maybe not with the only possible meaning of the word. 

Because at times the Church needs one language to profess its faith a particular word or a particular phrase is regulated so that for ecclesial purposes it is to be used with this meaning in the future and not with other meanings.  When this happens it can be a kind of tricky thing--it is not that two hundred and fifty people sat down at Nicea and said this afternoon we are going to devote the session to regulating the language.  The council fathers did not think about regulating the language--they simply did it.  They did it mixed in with debate about Christological issues.  If you asked them if anyone ever used a particular word in different fashion many would agree that others had (e.g., homoousios).  They established that this is the language that the Church would use in discussing a certain question and that it would be used in this particular way.

Rahner thinks that this "regulation of language" is an important element that sometimes people neglect [in interpreting Church dogmatic statements].  This explains in part why a group like an ecumenical council can address an issue in a way that an individual can not.  If an ecumenical council says that the word homoousios will be the reference point for discussing this issue and it will be used in the fashion implied in this creed that is something to which the Church is always committed.  If you come out this evening with a better formulation on a Christological issue which is quite conceivable there is no particular reason to think that the Church would knock that--at least I hope not.  There is almost an element of Church law in this regulation of language so it is something that can not simply be done by a theological reflection of the subject.

I have two other observations for you.  Notice that in the case of Nicea the word homoousios is an unusual word--it is not a biblical word.  It is not a word that is used very often in the context of every day language and I think that as part of the Christological disputes it was probably not used very much as part of every day conversation in Constantinople at the time either.  It is easier to regulate a word like that than it is to regulate every day words.  If someone tells you how to use an everyday word [and it is different than what you are used to] there may be a problem.  The Church's ability in effect to regulate language is limited and it may be in more respects in some ways than in others.  The regulation is pretty much limited to the ecclesial sphere.  But that is alright as long as the word does not have much of a life of its own elsewhere.  It is more difficult to regulate the language within ecclesial use if people [???] of the church argue in the same language also in other contexts.  That is something we will come back to.

At this point we have been talking about regulation of the language by ecumenical council--adoption of a use of a term.  I think that also a broader notion of the regulation of language is something that is not done at one particular moment by one particular authority but rather in a more complex process over a longer period of time and [???].  And there I think the best example of a word whose meaning is thus regulated is the word "Christ."  Over a much longer process the adaptation of that word to fit Jesus, picking up on some messianic notions and shedding others.  So that is the notion of regulation of language.

 

                                                                            What Are The Issues At Nicea?

 

What are the issues at Nicea?  Let us look at this as seen chiefly from the perspective of Athanasius.  First of all, as I mentioned, the Arian position of the Logos (of the Incarnation) is denying both the divinity of Christ and the humanity of Christ.  The Arians say that the Logos is not divine and the human soul is not present.  But the debates of the time focused chiefly on the divinity.  That Arianism also denied the humanity of Christ seems not to have been perceived as at least not as much as a problem. 

 

                                                                               Athanasius' Chief Argument

 

Athanasius' chief argument is a soteriological argument.  The salvation is seen as participation in Divine life.  This is a very strong theme in Greek patristic understanding of salvation.  The argument is that unless the Logos is divine the incarnation does not bring about salvation.  For example, Athanasius' writing on the Incarnation (the key to the reference here is to the Logos) "he became man that we might be divinized."  That we might share in the Divine life. 

 

                                                                                The Rejection Of Arianism

 

The debates continued through the fourth century.  Eventually the rejection of Arianism won general acceptance.  The theological climate becomes and adequate anti-Arian with great stress on the divinity of Christ both in theology and in general piety.  The Arianism debate had persisted from the second to the fourth centuries.  The aftermath with emphasis on the divinity of Christ continued for centuries after that.  We will see that even when we get to the fifth century debates about Christology there is always the suspicion that the other side is Arian.

 

                                                                   Questions About The Humanity Of Christ

 

Before we go to the fifth century debates [allow me to say] a couple of words on the humanity of Christ in this earlier period.  There are even from the beginning positions which reject the reality of the body of Christ--in effect which reject the reality of the Incarnation.  These positions hold that matter is evil and therefore hold a Docetic position with regard to Christology--that is, Jesus appears to have a body but he really does not have one.  From this perspective the body is a costume which hides Christ's true reality.  Among other things this would eliminate the reality of the crucifixion.  The Logos is not effected by what happens to this costume. 

There is a more specifically Christological denial of the completeness of Christ's humanity in the fourth century (in the period after Arianism).  This is the position known as Apollinarianism.  The name here is after Apollinarius who was a fourth century bishop.  He held that what he called the nous, the active principle of Christ with a human soul was not present with Christ.  Instead the place of that principle was taken by the Logos (the nous is an active element of the soul--in Christ, that is not there because the Logos is there).  Of course you can see what lies behind that--if you have an active principle to the human soul, why not conflict?  What happens if the Logos wants to go in one direction and the active principle of the human soul wants to go in another direction?  Then if you rule that out, then how active is the human principle?  So there are issues here and you can definitely think in terms of human freedom as a part of the issue--the relationship of freedom to freedom of choice and then the question of sin.  If the active principle is resisting the divine element then the issue of sin will come into the picture.  So there are a number of questions that lie behind this formulation.  Apollinarius' way of getting at it is to say that the active human element is not there--the Logos takes its place.  There is a similarity to Arianism in that the Logos is substituted by what would otherwise be part of the human being.  The difference though here is that Apollinarius' position is that the Logos is divine.  He is not Arian in his understanding of the nature of the Logos. 

The position of Apollinarius was also rejected.  The basic argument against it is similar to the basic argument that Athanasius used against Arianism.  The rejection of Apollinarianism held that if something is lacking now on the human side then the human nature of Christ is not complete--then human redemption is not complete either.  If there is something lacking in either the divinity of Christ or the humanity of Christ then salvation is incomplete.  Salvation that is incomplete is not salvation at all.  There is also of course another way of pushing the issue more specifically where it is not just a question of the integrity of the human nature (the completeness of the human nature in general) but it is rather if you do not have specifically a human will (active principle of human knowing or human willing) then you have a robot of some sort here.  If there is not human will then there is no freedom.

Apollinarianism did not cause as much agitation as Arianism did, but it is not insignificant in its historical impact.  It is rejected at the Council of Constantinople (c.381) but it does not appear to have been the focal point of that council.  The council rejected various other heretical positions.

Behind these various Christologies (Arianism, Apollinarianism, the orthodox opposition, etc.) there arose a particular Christological framework.  This framework has been called the Logos-Sarx Christology (John 11:14--"the Word became flesh).  This Christology is very typical of Alexandria and the chief orthodox representative here is Athanasius. 

The issue in most of what we have seen so far has been the question: "who is the Logos?"  And more specifically: "what is the relationship between the Logos and the Father?" 

What comes in the late fourth century is a greater emphasis on the humanity of Christ, especially at Antioch.  The Logos-Anthropos Christology begins to develop there.  This is not completely alien but what has developed here is that "with flesh" is susceptible to different interpretations.  At least by itself it does not serve to convey the completeness of Christ's human nature.  It may well, in the framework of the prologue of the fourth gospel, convey that, but the question is what it does in other uses--if you for example hold that in the Incarnation the Logos takes the place of the soul there is nothing in the word "flesh" terminology that is going to prevent you from saying [???].  A theology which works to accent the completeness of the human nature of Christ develops a Logos-Anthropos model.

If you want a terminology that expresses the completeness of the human and particularly if you want a terminology that expresses that when there are other people denying it then you may well think that the word sarx, in spite of the biblical precedence, is not calculated to express that as clearly and forcefully as you would want.  And so the Antiochenes have developed what has been called a Logos-anthropos model.  That movement is in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

The central early figures in this movement were Diodot of Tarsus (c.394) and Theodore of Mopsuesta (+428).  These theologians placed an emphasis on the humanity of Christ and the distinction of the two natures.  The risk here is that the unity of Christ may not come across clearly.  These men came out of Antioch which was a theological and catechetical center.

On the Alexandrian side the Alexandrian tradition of Logos-Sarx Christology was perpetuated into the fifth century.  The chief figure here was Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444).  The emphasis here is on the unity of Christ and on the divinity of Christ.  In its orthodox form (e.g., with Cyril) this is not a denial of Christ's humanity but it is also not an accent of his humanity. 

 

                                                                   Alexandrian Vs. Antiochene Perspectives

 

There is one particular comparison that is popular in the Alexandrian perspective but questionable to the Antiochene perspective.  The Alexandrians tend to compare the unity of divinity and humanity of Christ with the unity of the soul and body.  From one angle we can see that that is simply an emphasis on unity, from another angle you can see that the heresies of the previous centuries have revived because at least to outsiders one might think that divinity is taking the place of the soul.  This is a situation that has considerable possibility of misunderstanding.  But we should allow here for the fact that when we speak of different schools of thought we can only do that from a distance--some of the issues have been clarified over the passing of time.  But during that period there was a great deal of misunderstanding of this period and a considerable amount of suspicion of [???].

A good part of what follows is that both of these schools of thought (not just theological but also in terms of ecclesiological questions) bump into each other in Constantinople.  You are not going to find too many Alexandrians in Antioch or vice-versa.  Constantinople is a melting pot and it does not really have an indigenous theological school of its own.  It is a place where both of the conflicting parties meet each other and see each other first hand.  It is a place where each of the various parties would like to exercise influence.

Basically the controversy begins in Constantinople in 428 A.D..  It begins here with the rise of Nestorianism (an example of another heresy named after an individual who was prominent).  In 431 A.D. there is the Council of Ephesus which deals with that issue.  There was a certain period after Ephesus of relative calm which then leads to the development of Monophysitism--the root of that comes from the Greek word meaning one nature.  Monophysitism is the doctrine of one nature in Christ.  In 449 A.D. there is an unsuccessful attempt to address matters again at Ephesus.  In 451 A.D. the resolution (more or less) at the Council of Chalcedon.  We will take this up in the nest class.

 

 

 

                                                                             Christology  January 22, 1991

 

                                                                       The Alexandrian/Antiochene Rivalry

 

[Missed the first five minutes of class]

 

There were also monks in Constantinople who were Alexandrian in their theology.  They were influential so that there was a potential for conflict and difficulty there.  When Nestorius became Patriarch he initially took action against a few Arians that were still in the city (that is a rather minor point at this stage--a century before it had been a hot issue).

 

                                                                                          The Theotokos

 

In 428 A.D. another controversy arose.  This controversy centered first around a priest named Anastasius.  Anastasius preached against the use of the title Theotokos which means "Bearer of God" or "Mother of God" and is used in regard to the Virgin Mary.  This was a title that was in popular use at that time.  Anastasius preached against the use of this title and the dispute ensued.  Nestorius, as the patriarch, was drawn into the dispute and he also rejected the title Theotokos.  He recommended instead that Mary be referred to as the "Bearer of Christ" or "Mother of Christ."  No one objected to the title "Mother of Christ" but the question was whether it is also appropriate to refer to Mary as the "Mother of God." 

Before we go on with the historical development I think it [serves us to mention that it] is clear why the Antiochene theology might at least have some reservation about the title Theotokos.  The Antiochenes accented very strongly the human nature of Christ and the completeness of his human nature.  A title like this with regard to the Virgin Mary does not necessarily compromise Christ's human nature but it also does not say anything about it--it seems to brush it aside [???].  In any case Theotokos is a title that Alexandrian theology with its focus on the unity of the person of Christ would certainly be quicker to welcome and to accept.  You notice that the while the title is a Marian title the issues that it is involved with are also christological issues.  The christological dimension of the issue is then fought out in the years that come after that.  It is also true that the struggles over this issue led to an increase emphasis on Marian devotion. 

 

                                                                                          The Issues Here

 

The christological question is whether the unity of Christ is such that his mother can be called the "Bearer of God" or the "Mother of God."  Nestorianism is typically [???] which does not articulate the unity of Christ clearly.  Because of that failure to at least articulate the unity of Christ it is unable to come to grips with a term like Theotokos and accept it in an orthodox sense. 

I just add parenthetically that there are historical disputes as to whether or not Nestorius was a Nestorian.  Because as in so many of these instances there are questions as to whether one side accurately understood the other or whether there are completely differences in content or simply differences in terminology that were not resolved at that point.  Remember again that the terminology that we consider standard for discussing these matters is a terminology which developed within that century--it was not available in 428 A.D. nor was it available by 451 A.D.. 

In any case the word Theotokos itself, like most such words, is ambiguous--at least when taken out of context.  To call Mary Theotokos is certainly incompatible with Nestorianism.  [This is true] in the standard definition because Nestorianism did not so accent the unity of Christ.  It is also incompatible with Arianism--if you do not consider the Logos divine you will certainly will not say this with regard to the Virgin Mary.  But it is always necessary to keep in mind that Mary herself is not divine and that she is not source or principle of Christ's divinity. 

 

                                                                                Chalcedonian Terminology

 

If I put this in Chalcedonian terminology for a moment just for the sake of clarifying the issues:  The justification for this in Chalcedonian terms we think that person and two natures is that motherhood is a personal reality and that Mary is the mother of one who is truly God and truly man.  It is because of this that it is possible to use the term Theotokos with regard to Mary.  However it is also true that Mary is the mother of Christ because of his human birth and that in that sense there is you might say more direct connection with the human nature than to the divine.  That it drawing a little bit on at least on the Chalcedonian terminology--saying it is one person who is still divine and that motherhood relates to the person.  But that is precisely using vocabulary that was not agreed to in 428 A.D..

 

                                                                                         The Controversy

 

And so when the dispute arose over Theotokos the word itself immediately became the center of controversy and stayed at the center of controversy for the next several years--particularly the next three years.

What happened?  Nestorius had sided with Anastasius in not using Theotokos and in preferring to speak of Mary as the "Bearer of Christ."  The Alexandrian monks in Constantinople opposed Nestorius.  The monks defended Theotokos which was in popular use and had a certain popular following (there was a certain devotion to this in prayer).  The monks who opposed Nestorius took excerpts from his writings on christological questions and sent them to Alexandria and to Rome.  This brought Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444) into the dispute.  Cyril had been a major theological figure in the history of the Alexandrian school (this implies a certain political focus and style in operation in theological matters).  Cyril then exchanged letters with Nestorius about christological letters.  In these letters Cyril provided a commentary on the Council of Nicea and urged Nestorius to change his views.  Part of what happened here was that Nicea had become a reference point (but inevitably there will be a recognition that Nicea did not have all the answers for the fifth century).  Cyril's commentary was done from the perspective of Alexandrian theology and Alexandrian terminology.  Nestorius received the letters and wrote back that Cyril misunderstood Nicea. 

 

                                                                               Condemnation Of Nestorius

 

Both Cyril and Nestorius wrote to Rome (to Celestine I). In 430 A.D. a local synod in Rome took Cyril's part and condemned Nestorius' teaching and then (perhaps unwisely) authorized Cyril to obtain from Nestorius a repudiation of his position.  Notice that at this time Rome functions as a sort of "court of appeals."  Rome had a considerable amount of prestige (at least theologically) and also had the advantage that it is not part of the dispute--it is away in the West and is not the source of either of the conflicting theological terminologies and in that sense is a bit of a neutral party to which each side can appeal in a matter of this sort.

 

                                                                                   A Synod At Alexandria

 

Nestorius refused to comply with Cyril's request for repudiation (which was not surprising) and so at that point Cyril decided to conduct a synod of his own in Alexandria.  This synod produced a christological confession and it also produced a list of twelve anathemas (see DS 252-263) which they then sent to Constantinople for Nestorius to sign (which of course he did not do).

Allow me to mention a couple of major elements in the confession and anathemas that came from the synod.  The text referred to Mary as Theotokos.  It speaks of a natural union in Christ and compares the union of his divinity and humanity to the union of soul and body in all human beings.  In any case this Alexandrian synod and sending off to Constantinople did not produce the desired results. 

 

                                                                                  The Council At Ephesus

 

As a result of this Emperor Theodosius II convened a council to meet in Ephesus on the seventh of June, 431 A.D..  Now this gets a little complicated at this point.  On the seventh of June over two hundred bishops were present including both Cyril and Nestorius, but a great number of the Anthiochene bishops had not yet arrived.  They waited two weeks and then Cyril insisted that they begin without them.  So on the twenty-second of June the council opened despite the protests of at least sixty bishops and the representatives of the emperor.  The council on its first day listened to a reading of the Nicene Creed, listened to Cyril's second letter to Nestorius and to a reading from Nestorius' reply to Cyril.  They then approved of Cyril's letter and rejected Nestorius' response as contrary to Nicea.  They also received favorably the twelve anathemas that had been previously adopted by the Alexandrian synod.  Then they deposed Nestorius.  Four days later the Antiochene bishops arrived.  When they found out what happened they immediately met and condemned Cyril on two grounds--the first was for going ahead without them and the second was for favoring Arianism and Apollinarianism.  In a way of course they were condemning Cyril for being against Nicea--really the same objection that had been raised against Nestorius.  In the early part of July the Roman legates arrived (they of course were already committed to Cyril's position because of prior Roman actions).  The Roman legates confirmed the condemnation of Nestorius.  Then Cyril's party excommunicated the bishop of Antioch.  At this point the emperor's representatives ended the council.  Eventually the emperor Theodosius took Cyril's part and exiled Nestorius from Constantinople (he was sent to Egypt).  Cyril was in this sense completely successful with Ephesus.

 

                                                                    The Results Of The Council Of Ephesus

 

What happened at Ephesus?  Keep Nicea in the back of your mind.  Ephesus did not produce a new creed or a new christological statement (in the sense of homoousious).  Ephesus had basically three accomplishments.  (1) It affirmed the legitimacy of the title Theotokos.  (2) It condemned Nestorianism.  (3) In accepting Cyril's second letter to Nestorius as an interpretation of Nicea.  Again think of Nicea as a reference point--Ephesus is almost like Nicea in that it condemned a particular heresy and its advocates and it is unlike Nicea in that it did not produce a creed.  Given the division of the two groups at Ephesus it would have been almost an impossibility to produce a creed--if they had tried to probably each group would have produced its own which would have been unacceptable to the other.  The climate at Ephesus was not such that a joint articulation of the creed could have been worked out.  The council of Ephesus was a complete victory for the Alexandrian school but that means that it was not an basis of reconciliation.  That takes us up to 441 A.D..

I include Nestorianism under Antioch as a representative school although the actual start of it was in Constantinople rather than Antioch itself.  It is possible to see Nestorianism as an extreme tendency within the Antiochene school.  It would not be accurate to think that every Antiochene is a Nestorian.  But it is accurate to see Nestorianism that something that would arise in that context and that it would not have arisen in other contexts.

Ephesus in 431 A.D. is a victory for the Alexandrian school but at least at this point what Ephesus did is not only unacceptable to the Nestorians it is also not acceptable to the moderate Antiochenes. 

 

                                                                                      The Creed of Union

 

What happens after the Council of Ephesus?  As you might expect there are efforts at reconciliation.  The leading Antiochene figures and Cyril were both anxious to restore unity  (here John of Antioch should be mentioned).  In 433 A.D. Thedoret of Cyrrhus, who is the leading Antiochene theologian of this period proposed a Creed of Union (see DS 271-273) and an explanation of christological category.  This creed was drawn up by an Antiochene theologian and was intended to be something that would be acceptable to an Alexandrian as well.  The creed was in fact acceptable to Cyril.  The creed speaks of two natures in Christ (this accents the constant Antiochene concern for the full humanity of Christ).  The creed also says that there is one Christ, one Son, one Lord (so the Alexandrian concern for the unity of Christ is emphasized).  The creed accepts the title Theotokos as a title for Mary.  The creed also goes back to the council of Nicea and takes the key word homoousios and uses it twice.  Nicea has spoken of Christ as being homoousios with the Father.  This Creed of Union teaches that Christ is homoousios with the Father according to his divinity and homoousios with us according to his humanity.  So it is taking what had become a decisive theological linguistic reference point and now uses it for a new issue as well as continuing its use for the older issue.  This Creed of Union was widely accepted but not universally adopted.  Some Alexandrians thought that reference to two natures introduced [???] that was unacceptable (although that was not Cyril's position).  None-the-less if Cyril said that the creed was acceptable in Alexandria it was acceptable.

 

                                                              The Death Of Cyril And The Rise Of Dioscoros

 

There was a relatively peaceful period until 444 A.D. when Cyril died.  Just as the problems had arisen in 428 A.D. with one group of Antiochenes so to now in the years after Cyril's death problems arise with one group--this time with a group of Alexandrians.  Cyril was succeeded in Alexandria by a man named Dioscoros.  Dioscoros had been an arch-deacon but he was a foe of the two natures terminology.  He thought that Cyril had been too conciliatory with the Creed of Union. 

 

                                                                          Eutyches And The Monophysites

 

At first nothing happened, but then in 448 A.D. problems broke out again in Constantinople.  This time around a man named Eutyches.  Eutyches was the leader of a group of monks who like monks in the earlier period were oriented toward Alexandria in their theology.  At this point Eutyches rejected the formula of union and said that those who accepted it were guilty of Nestorianism (of course Cyril is dead by this time but it is odd to think that something that he accepted would be suspect of Nestorianism).  Eutyches taught instead the presence of one nature in Christ and that anything else introduced division within Christ.  His position is known as Monophysitism (sometimes in older manuals you find it called Eutycheism but that in no longer common). 

Eutyches took his position and promoted it in Constantinople which of course was a focal point of controversy (if he had done this in Alexandria perhaps not much attention would have been given to it--but in Constantinople it would not just slide through).  The local patriarch Flavian conducted a synod which condemned Eutyches and supported the Creed of Union that had been established.  But Eutyches found the support of the emperor and also from Alexandria.  Dioscoros and Eutyches were now working together against the Creed of Union.  The emperor Theodosius called a council (a new general council) and designated Ephesus as the sight and appointed Dioscoros to preside.  There was also some Roman involvement with Leo the Great (440-461) who was opposed to the convening of a council but who did send legates once it was convened.

 

                                                                A Failed Attempt For A Council At Ephesus

 

On the eighth of August in 449 A.D. the assembly convened.  The Roman legates were there from the beginning and brought with them a letter from Leo (the Dogmatic Letter On Christology, also know as "The Tome of Leo"--see DS 290-295).  The letter stresses the unity of Christ but also speaks of the presence of the two natures.  In its own way the letter is along the line of the Creed of Union in that respect.  The legates were not permitted to have the letter read.  Instead, Eutyches defended his teaching and was declared orthodox by about eighty percent of the bishops in attendance (there were only about 130 or 140 bishops presents unlike Nicea where there were about 300 present).  Then an effort was made to have Flavian deposed as patriarch of Constantinople.  The minority of bishops protested against this.  Dioscoros then brought in the imperial soldiers and a crowd of monks to break up the assembly.  Later another meeting was held which the Roman legates refused to attend.  This later meeting condemned all the major Antiochene theologians.  This was a complete Alexandrian triumph, but much more extreme that what had been done before--and it marked the end of the union that had been established in 433 A.D.  However the meeting won no general acceptance.  Flavian and the Papal legates protested to Rome and Leo responded by saying that the assembly had been a gathering of robbers rather than a council and Leo insisted that a new council be held.  Leo came to the conclusion that only an ecumenical council would be sufficient to address the issues (a shift in his tactics because you will remember that earlier he did not want the council at Ephesus convened).

 

                                                                                   The Anti-Monophysites

 

In July of 450 A.D. the emperor Theodosius died.  This important because consistently Theodosius took the Alexandrian side in these matters.  Theodosius had a sister by the name of Pulcheria who was anti-Monophysite.  She quickly married a man by the name of Marcian (not to be confused with the earlier heretic by the same name).  Marcian was a former military commander and Pulcheria aided his assent to the imperial throne.  The new emperor Marcian exiled Eutyches from Constantinople and agreed to convene a new council originally intended for Nicea (a deliberate imitation of what had gone on before--this is the new Constantine calling the new Nicea).  The council however was eventually held at Chalcedon, a town in the vicinity of Constantinople.  The council met there in October of 451 A.D..  From the very beginning this contrasts greatly what had gone on at Ephesus (not only what had happened in 449 A.D. but also what had happened in 431 A.D.).

 

                                                                                The Council Of Chalcedon

 

Chalcedon was the biggest of the ancient councils.  There were approximately three hundred bishops in attendance.  All but seven of the bishops were from the East.  Of course it was in the East that this issues were being disputed--so the number of bishops from the East is not surprising.  The Roman legates and imperial representatives were influential at Chalcedon.  The early sessions of the council reaffirmed the Nicean creed and heard and approved Leo's letter (the Dogmatic Letter On Christology of 449 A.D.).    Dioscoros was then put on trial and deposed as patriarch of Alexandria.  What we have basically up to this point can be compared with Ephesus, which had rejected the extreme position of the Antiochene school--now Chalcedon is rejecting the extreme position of the Alexandrian school (opposing Dioscoros and the Monophysitism).

A problem arose however in the fifth session.  The imperial representatives insisted that the council adopt a new creed.  Basically they took the position that Nicea had eventually proved successful because it had a creed--they feared that if they did not have a creed their work would disintegrate.  They had both Alexandrian and Antiochene representatives present for the council who had rejected the extremes on both side.  It was the emperor's position that it was now the time to work out a commonly accepted statement of christological thought.  I should note also of course that unity in a manner of this sort has a considerable political utility--as an element of unity within an empire in general.  In addition to the religious motivation there is also a great political value to preventing half of the provinces of the empire of being at odds with the other half.

The first draft of the new creed was found unacceptable and ambiguous.  Then a commission of bishops drew up an acceptable text which became a classical formulation of christological doctrine (see handout).  The purpose of this is to profess both the unity of Christ and the completeness of his divinity and humanity.  It is the first time in this time in history that a council has made an effort to take into account the concerns of both schools.  In that sense it stood very clearly in the tradition of the Creed of Union of 433 A.D..  The difference however between the Creed of Union and the Chalcedonian creed is that because there was an assembly at Chalcedon there is a more formal adoption of the creed which gives it a force that the earlier effort at union did not have.

 

                                                            Important Points Within The Chalcedonian Creed

 

I would like to refer to a couple of points in the Chalcedonian creed (see DS 301-302).  Some of the creed is put in very simple, non-technical language.  You will note first of all that they did not simply pick up the Nicean Creed and make additions to it (the nature of what they tried to do did not make that possible).  What they produced was not a creed for liturgical use.  It does not have the same Trinitarian structure usually found in a liturgical creed, it simply has a christological focus to it (as far as I know this creed has never been used liturgically).

The creed teaches first of all that the Lord, Jesus Christ is one and the same Son.  That represents a theme that is repeated several times in the text--the unity of Christ (they keep going back and saying "one in the same" or "the same" at different points throughout the text).  This is drawing on the Creed of Union, but is non-technical as far as the vocabulary is concerned--it does not use words like nature or person at this stage.  That is the reception of the Alexandrian concern but the text also reflects the Antiochene concern about the completeness of the humanity of Christ. 

The creed uses the term homoousios twice--once with regard to the divine nature and once with regard to the human nature.  You will note in the English translation (given in the handout) there are certain words that they do not translate--precisely because they are the disputed terminological issues.  Do not allow the use of the word homoousios twice confuse you because they are not used in the same sense in the two instances.  When homoousios is used with regard to the divinity of Christ there is a notion of numerical identity--there is only one God (it is not saying that there are two Gods).  On the other hand, when it is used with regard to the human nature of Christ there is a recognition that there are many human beings--the point here that the human nature is present in each instance (not that there is only one instance of a human nature in the same way that there is only one divine nature).  That is a beginning of a somewhat more technical explanation, but that point must go a bit further.

You notice that the word Theotokos is used with reference to Mary.  Then there is an explicit choice of a two nature vocabulary--Christ exist in two natures not out of two natures (as if the two somehow coalesce into a third or into one).  Then there is a listing of what in Greek are four adverbs--each beginning with the letter Alpha which is not simply for rhetorical reasons (it is the same idea that we also have in English that "A" sometimes at the beginning of the word has a negative primitive connotation--e.g., ahistorical, etc.).  It is difficult to put these four adverbs into English and so the translation here uses "without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation."  This listing has acquired a certain classical quality as a vehicle for expressing the balance of the Chalcedonian formulations.  The first two of these adverbs, "without confusion" and "without change" are directed against Monophysitism--in other words, against a position which merges the two natures into one.

 

 

 

 

                                                                             Christology  January 24, 1991

 

                                                                                  The Chalcedonian Creed

 

In the Chalcedonian creed the first two references about Christ's two natures "without confusion" and "without change" are directed against the Monophysite position.  The second two references "without division" and "without separation" are directed against the Nestorian position.  So once again in this section the Chalcedonian definition is more balanced than some of the material that has been seen in earlier stages--that which reflected the extremes of each of the schools.  What follows is a slight explanation of this--explanation at least in the a verbal sense of the affirmation (it does not claim to be an explanation of how this takes place).  The difference of the natures is not removed by the unique properties of each preserved.  The natures concur into one person--one hypostasis (we will come back to this).  They are not parted or divided into two persons--this is another re-affirmation of the unity of the natures.  There is a repetition of the reference of one and the same Son. 

The concluding section of the Chalcedonian creed refers back to the prophets of old, to Christ's own teaching and as Symbol of the Fathers--the reference here is to the Nicene creed.  In one sense the council of Chalcedon is insisting that its teaching stands in continuity with those other texts (earlier creedal statements).  The creedal statement obviously does not claim that the formulation of Chalcedon itself can be found in Isaiah, or in one of the gospels or complete within the Nicene creed either (if that had been true they would not have had to come up with another formulation)--but they are pointing back to other reference points and are saying that this is the context and these are the sources according to which this compressed document is to be interpreted.

 

                                                      The Use Of Prosopon And The Regulation Of Language

 

I would like to draw attention here to the more technical use of the word "one person" (prosopon) and "one hypostasis."  We speak in English on one hand of the one person and two natures which is a picking up of the prosopon through the Latin personae.  We also speak in English of hypostatic union which is a picking up of the word hypostasis.  You will notice that both of those terms are used with regard to the unity of Christ--that with which there is one (they are different words getting at the same reality). 

The problem that must be kept in mind that again has bearing on what we said earlier about the regulation of language.  The difficulty is more present in the text (and in that sense, more present in the fifth century) than it is to us fifteen centuries later.  There are different problems present now.  The difficulty is that the word prosopon has its own background and its own meaning.  One part of that background is that prosopon can be used as a mask--the mask that an actor uses to play a part.  We speak of a person in a play (playing a part) and we know that the actor is not really Hamlet but speaks in the person of Hamlet.  The point with the use of prosopon in the creed is not at all that Christ "seems" to be one but really "is not."  It is not that there is an appearance of oneness but in reality a duality.

The word prosopon left by itself was not considered quite sufficient for the creedal formulation.  That is why they introduced the word hypostasis as well--it indicated that there is a reality to the oneness as well as a reality on a different level to the two natures.  To a certain extent, what happens in the reception of this language (first into Latin and then into various modern languages) is that the content that is suggested by both prosopon and hypostasis were floe into the word person.  When we speak of one person in Christ, by itself that does not suggest a notion of mask.  It does not suggest the idea that this is the reality and this is the appearance.  So in English we really do not have to ward off that misunderstanding (in the way that is was necessary to ward it off in the fifth century).

 

[Question from the class: "Does the term prosopon (person) also come from Nicea with regard to questions about the Trinity?"  Answer: It is a term that is used in Trinitarian theology--of course there with a different numerical sense (the sense of one nature, three persons).  Question:  "Does the sense of person conjecture that there are three (i.e., what is the correlation between the three persons in the Trinity and the one person in Christ)?"  Answer:  First of all it should be said that there is development in the form of a more explicit attention to Trinitarian theology--particularly as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned (that has taken place between Nicea in 325 A.D. and Chalcedon in 451 A.D.).  What we have been talking about in class has simply focused on the Christological dimension of theological discussion in that period.  But also in particularly in the late fourth century, especially in the East (but you can also think of Augustine in the West) there is a lot of attention to the development of Trinitarian theology.  Part of the reason for that is simply that the Arian dispute with its direction of attention to the relationship of the Father to the Son (or to use the word person, the relationship of the First Person to the Second Person) almost inheritably leads into the further question, what about the Holy Spirit.  So that line of thought has also been pursued [???].  But we have been focusing here on the Christological, and in that sense the Incarnational aspect of the doctrine.  The idea here is that the Second Person of the Trinity has become Incarnate and so the person here is the same as the Second Person of the Trinity--and in here you can think of all the references to "without change" ("without change" here in the sense of without diminution of divinity or anything of that sort).  The difference is of course is that you would not be able to use vocabulary like "our Lord Jesus Christ" unless you were speaking specifically with reference to the Incarnation.  [???] to the presence of the true nature rather than simply the divine nature.  Does that answer your question? . . . So the point of it is that this is the Second Person of the Trinity but in getting at their Christological point did not introduce him in specifically Trinitarian vocabulary right here because the Holy Spirit is not at the vocal point of tension.  Nor were they only concerned with the relationship to the Father--I say only concerned because they repeat material from Nicea (they repeat the homoousios and other contents of that sort) but they do so in the consciousness that this is something that they are repeating.  This is not the issue that was being debated at that particular time because rather than participants in the fifth century debates dispute the divinity of Christ--their question is how can one affirm, or how can one find a terminology for affirming, the unity and the completeness of Christ.]

 

                                                                                           Nicea Recalled

 

That is the focus of the text.  Let me say a couple of further words about it before we go on with the history of it all.  I repeat here what was said earlier about Nicea with regard to the element of regulation of language as present in the conciliar texts.  It was thought at Nicea, especially with regard to the word homoousios and the decision that this was to become the key reference point for discussing the issues.  We see to a slightly reduced extent here (again with the word homoousios) that that is repeated from Nicea and applied also to the humanity of Christ.  But the places where we particularly see regulation of language in Chalcedon are with the terms person and nature.  You can put [???] together with person in that context.  Person is the term used for articulating the unity.  Natures is the term used for articulating the completeness of divinity of Christ in the completeness of the humanity of Christ.  One of the dangers with any of the vocabulary is that there is going to be that an audience will take one of these affirmations to be only on the surface level (only on the level of appearance--e.g., really God looks like a human being or really human but only superhuman or looks to be one reality but is really two realities in a kind of schizophrenic sense).

 

                                                             The Problem Of Words And Associated Schools

 

There are certain words or combination of words that are associated with one or the other Christological school.  Two natures, for example, is associated with the Antiochene school.  Different types of one nature terminology is associated with the Alexandrian school.  The problem for a council like Chalcedon is what to do with the words that are associated with one school more than the other or with one school rather than the other.  Theotokos, for example, is not a problem with the Alexandrians--in fact it is a bit of a slogan for them.  But it was a term about which, historically for a period of about thirty years, the Antiochenes had had their doubts--even though there had been points like the Creed of Union where the Antiochenes have found this acceptable. 

One of the potential problems with the word Theotokos is that it may seem to some to undercut the humanity of Christ.  It might also seem to some to suggest the divinity of the Virgin Mary.  I am not suggesting that that was the intent of those who used the word, but if you say "Bearer of God" why should one who bears God be God?  What in the word "Bearer of God" suggests the humanity of Christ?  There is always the concern of the Antiochene side that the Alexandrians do not really take the humanity of Christ seriously.  I think that one of the reasons for putting this word (Theotokos) in here is to balance it off with the previous reference to "begotten of the Father before ages as to his Godhead" with "in the last days . . . [born] of Mary the Virgin [now] as to his manhood."  The point then is to say that you can speak of an eternity as far as the one person is concerned, but also as far as the divine nature is concerned, but not with regard to the human nature. 

 

                                                                            The Words Person And Nature

 

Let me go back to the words nature and person.  Just for a minute I would like to jump out of the fifth century context to a later context.  The implication of the council in speaking of the two natures is that one nature is divine and the other nature is human.  Obviously one must make allowances for the difficulties of including the divine nature and the human nature in one breath.  Those complexities must be allowed for in this type of [???].  The implication with regard to the one person is that the person is divine.  That is the divine person who has become Incarnate.  In a sense that points back to the Trinitarian issues about which we spoke earlier.  From the perspective of Chalcedon, person is a word associated with the unity of Christ and with the divinity of Christ.  Nature is the chosen term for speaking in reference to both the divinity and humanity of Christ. 

Now here we come to an issue that is not a fifth century problem but what has become a problem for twentieth century authors.  If you go out on the street and say to someone that Christ is not a human person it is very likely that person to whom you speak will take that and [???] Christ is not a human nature.  In other words, the terms person and nature are used a Chalcedon in a technical sense--not that they give a precise dictionary definition to them but they used them in a way that defines them in context.  Our words do not have the same connotations in modern usage that the council sought to give them.  To say the least that means that great care must be used with this type of terminology in twentieth century usage. 

There is another concern that also comes into the picture here [these days] because another common formulation of Chalcedonian teaching is to quote the earlier part of the document and to say that for Chalcedon Christ is truly God and truly man (see first few lines of the text).  At the present time many people prefer not to use the term man in the generic sense and therefore look for some alternative formulation of this.  I just want to note the problem with one alternative formulation that some like to use--some say "truly God, truly a person."  My point is not the purpose behind the change, but rather the linguistic problem with the change.  If the word person is used instead of "human being" then it is no longer available for use in the same way it was used at the time of Chalcedon.  It may be that the only solution for that is to avoid the use of the word person altogether in this context (and I do not mean to avoid its historical usage). 

We need to be conscious of the fact that some of the words that are quite central to the historical discussion are not readily understood at the present time but are readily misunderstood--perhaps in whole variety of ways by one and the same audience and that care should be taken in that regard.  There are a few theologians who are prepared to say that Christ is a human person in a sense that differs from the use of the word person by Chalcedon.  Those theologians who do that typically explain their reasons and intentions in the process of saying it.  That in context may be legitimate but it seems to me that cannot be done either unless the explanations are always repeated (which is a bit cumbersome) because otherwise almost inevitably and audience is going to take that as a denial of the divinity of Christ (even if that is not the intention).  Because the word person is not used to express the unity and divinity of Christ (it is not quite clear what word is being used as a substitute).  I think of the example of a homily I heard recently where the homilist said that Christ became a person at the time of the Incarnation--I knew what he meant but such a use may confuse Trinitarian theology.

 

                                                        Problems of Language--"Personal" And/Or Non-sexist

 

There are two problems with this language question--they are the question of not being specifically personal and the opposition of feminist who believe such language may be sexist.  On the question of not being specifically personal is not with reference with the word "man" as much as with the word "nature."  The word nature sometimes does not have personal connotations--sometimes when people hear "one person, two natures" they tend to suppose that the human nature lacks freedom or lacks an intellect or does not really need one and so one.  There can be a tendency to think that the word nature is sub-personal (in the modern sense) or lacks a personality or lacks human characteristics.  This is not likely to be spelled out in so many words but there is a bit of a presumption that human nature is somehow abbreviated by all this. 

The question with regard to feminists authors is an English concern--it is not a concern within other languages such as Greek or with regard to various other modern languages.  These feminists believe that the word "man" suggests "male" and they desire a more generic term.  The creed does not intend to focus on the maleness of Jesus (although he was a male) but rather it intends to focus on the completeness of the human nature.  I personally believe that in a lot of cases, even apart from this context, people who do not want to say "X" sometimes spend more attention to avoiding "X" than to deciding what is critical. 

I give one concrete example of this: Karl Rahner did an article in which he refers to Jesus as a Mensch (a human being--that is generic in German, it is not a masculine term).  If you read Rahner's writings in the older volumes (and I am referring specifically to Christological writings--such as the older volumes of Theological Investigations) you find the word Mensch translated consistently as "man."  If you refer to later volumes of Theological Investigations you will find the same word translated as "human person."  A reader of the English, without recourse to the original language, is very likely to conclude that at a certain point Rahner began to speak of Christ as a human person probably to accent the completeness of Christ's humanity--which is a concern that Rahner long had.  I checked many of those references and I have never found a place where "human person" is used in the original texts.  There are other modern theologians who do use the term "human person" but to the best of my knowledge Rahner never did, despite translations to the contrary.  I think Rahner's reason for not using the term "human person" (and this is something that I cannot establish) despite his interest in accenting the fullness of Christ's humanity is precisely this notion of "regulation of language".  Rahner considers himself ecclesially bound not to violate this regulation of language.  I put it negatively "not to violate" because he does not consider himself bound to use only this vocabulary--he sees no reason why you could not speak Christologically in different vocabulary.  He does seem to think that it is not proper (and you might even say "canonically proper") to use the ecclesially regulated terminology in a contrary way.  It need not be heretical to say Jesus is a "human person" (this does not have to be meant as a denial of the divinity) but it is somewhat schismatic--because it departs from the ecclesially recognized language.

 

                                              Support Of The Chalcedonian Position And Further Clarification

 

At this point I would like to do two things--first to say a word about argumentation that has often been used in support of the Chalcedonian position and then secondly to give a further clarification of what sort of issues this material is coming to bear.  The term that is often used here is communication of idioms or exchange of attributes.  The idea presupposes that biblical language about Christ is legitimate and argues that both divine and human attributes are predicated in one Christ.  The argument is basically that for that to be true you must have both divine nature and human nature present in the one person. 

I will give a couple of examples of biblical texts that are sometimes appealed to in this regard (although I am not at this point [???] with regard to the historical origins of this texts--whether they can be traced back precisely to those who speak the words presented in the scripture--the issue is rather the content itself).  The first example is from Acts 3:15: "You have killed the author of life"--this is one of the early sermons (that is perhaps a little less ecumenical in its expression that one might desire at the present time).  Notice here the "the author of life" does suggest divinity.  The reference to "death" of the author of life is possible only if the divine and human characteristics are present in one figure.  The second example is taken from the gospels John 17:5: "Father glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was made."  So it is Christ speaking of himself yet at the same time is speaking of something pre-Incarnational (although I would not be willing to defend this passage as historical--but that is a separate issue).  It is the combination of the divine and human attributes in the one text that is a stake in this type of identification.  Those are only illustrations of the types of passages that are referred to in this respect.

Next I would like to read a short passage from Bernard Lonergan.  What I am getting at here is an effort to clarify the sort of question that Chalcedon was concerned with--the sort of questions that Chalcedonian terminology is useful for getting at (when I say "useful for getting at" I do not mean to suggest that it resolves all questions but that it does provide a good vocabulary for at least clarifying to a certain extent).  The background in Lonergan's case is that he wrote a work on Christ as subject.  An article which was originally published in Gregorianum has to do with speculative questions concerning Christ's knowledge and related material.  He published a small book on this subject (An Ontological and Psychological Constitution of Christ) which was then subjected to criticism by another Jesuit theologian named A. Perego.  Lonergan decided to reply to that priest. 

I would like to read one section of that reply found in Longergan's collected essays under the title Collection.^[3]  I am interested in this not precisely as a defense of Lonergan's views of this particular speculative question nor as a criticism of Perego--this just sets the context for our discussion.  Lonergan writes:  (See Photocopied section of reading).  I think that you can see what he is getting at there and why at a certain point in this explication of the Apostles creed he finds it helpful to point to the terminological distinctions of Chalcedon and to say with regard to the question "Who?" (in this case "Who suffered?") meant the answer to the "Who?" question is the one person and that the answer to the "What?" question have to do with the two natures which are united in the one person but the human nature is not identical to the one person.

 

[Question from the class:  "Under Chalcedonian terminology we can say that there is one person and it is a divine person and that divine person suffered but not in the divinity but only in the humanity--but when we say that a divine person suffered, what happened to the divinity?  (i.e., the divinity is part of the constitution of the person taken as a whole and also he suffered and he was divine)"  Answer:  I guess I would say this, and I do not think that you can get into the psychological [???].  I am speaking here specifically to the traditional understandings of God.  I think the first thing to say is that the main thing that is being said here [is?] with regard to the Incarnation.  This is unusual for human beings but it is also unusual for God.  This is a unique situation.  [???]  How can you say that one of the Trinity suffered?  How can you say that God died?  Now it becomes a further complexity when you try to ask the question in almost a psychological sense--the problem there would be the danger of taking the one divine person as somehow detracting from the human nature of Christ.  I think what Chalcedon has done and what Lonergan keeps here is a kind of terminological clarification, but not a psychological explanation.  It is certainly not right to think that the suffering has taken place and somehow the divine person steps back [???].  At the same time I think there is a validity to not locating the suffering within the divine nature (or a danger of saying something like that too quickly).  What is at issue here is the effort to define the terminology for getting at certain questions.  If you therefore also want to get at other questions--including questions of how did Jesus approach death or more concrete questions about his suffering in death--then I do not think that this perspective is a helpful one for getting at those questions.  I think there you must look for more specific historical information--some of which  we may have but much of which we simply do not have and refer not to the creedal framework but rather whatever you might be able to get out of the Passion accounts.  When you do that, this terminology may be useful to have in the background but it is not [???] that is at issue in the text.]

 

                                                           The Fifteen-Hundredth Anniversary Of Chalcedon

 

In 1951 the Church observed the fifteen-hundredth anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon (this was a mile-stone).  This anniversary led to a number of observances (e.g., Pope Pius XII issued a Christological encyclical and the publication of a very important three volume work entitled The Council of Chalcedon).

The three volume work The Council of Chalcedon comprised mostly the work of French and German theologians (published between 1951 and 1954).  Two of the long essays in that project have attracted particular attention.  One is an essay by Karl Rahner under the title "Current Problems in Christology"^[4] (the original title of this essay was "Chalcedon: End or Beginning?")  The second major contribution to this work is a long historical study by Aloys Grillmeier entitled Christ In Christian Tradition.^[5]  One of the underlying points in Rahner's contribution is relevant to our topic at the moment.  Rahner says that he detects in Christianity a kind of hidden Monophysitism.  He detects this (Monophysitism) in the sense that it tends to absorb the humanity of Christ into the divinity and that it tends then to abbreviate his humanity in some way.  It is a hidden Monophysitism because the people who do this do not stand up and say "I am a Monophysite," and they do not explicitly disavow the humanity of Christ--they simply can undercut it even without realizing that that is what is being done.  One element of Rahner's theological program is to seek to overcome that hidden Monophysitism.  Rahner is not the only one to speak in terms of the need for accenting the humanity of Christ (although the reference to it in terms of a "hidden Monophysitism" is characteristic of Rahner).  We will come back to this discussion, but I want to alert you to the possibility that one can [claim to] be brutally orthodox in adherence to Chalcedon and yet not follow through on it).

 

                                                                                         After Chalcedon

 

What happens after Chalcedon?  (For an in depth study see Grillmeier's work Christ in Christian Tradition (Vol 2)--he was a major historian of Christology of that period).  The teaching of Chalcedon was not at first universally accepted.  This should be not surprise as this seems typical of every council up to this point.  Some of the Egyptian bishops the two nature terminology a betrayal of Ephesus.  Nestorians found Theotokos unacceptable.  However Chalcedon did eventually become widely acceptable.  It received very strong support from the emperor and received, as far as its Christology was concerned, very strong support of Pope Leo (a qualification is made because Chalcedon also has an ecclesiological decree--Canon 28--with regard to the standing of various churches which Rome did not accept).  The following is a brief paragraph from one of the imperial documents (from 452 A.D.) which is directed against Eutyches and his Monophysite followers after the council:

". . . the possibility of teaching this unfortunate heresy, as has been stated in previous edicts issued by our highness, anyone seeking to teach illicit doctrines shall be punished with the supreme punishment [i.e., executed].  Those, however, who listen to such criminal teachers with the intention of emulating them, shall be penalized with a fine of ten thousand [coins?].  Thus all forms of sustenance are taken away from error and [???]."^[6]

For those who wrote against Chalcedon (as Monophysites), their works were to be burned and the authors of the works were to be [put to death].  There is some good literature of monks who protested (recall that the monks were Alexandrian in focus).  They were told by the emperor that this was none of their business and that it had been decided by the bishops.

 

                                                                    Groups That Did Not Accept Chalcedon

 

There remained, however, groups that did not accept Chalcedon.  That is true on both the Monophysite and Nestorian side of the theological debate.^[7]  The Monophysite churches are found today mostly in Egypt and Ethiopia.  The Nestorian churches are found today mostly in Iraq, Syria and India.  In recent years there has been a great deal of ecumenical discussion with these churches on the part of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  The ecumenical discussions have tended in the direction of saying that Christologically the differences are matters of terminology but they have also found that ecclesiologically there are substantive problems that cannot be readily addressed (an important point here is the development of the Papacy in the West).  These are groups that were cut of from the mainstream of Christianity of both the East and West a long time ago and have continued in what today are mostly non-Christian environments of the Middle East.  

 

 

 

 

                                                                             Christology  January 29, 1991

 

                                                     The Aftermath of Chalcedon/Contemporary Approaches

 

Today we will continue with a study of the historical development of the early centuries.  We reach something of a peak of development with Chalcedon, and that still serves as a basic reference point for official Church teaching at the present time.

 

                                                                    Efforts To Reconcile The Monophysites

 

There is one issue in the aftermath of Chalcedon that deserves a little bit more attention.  This is the development of an effort to reconcile the Monophysites who were not prepared to accept the two natures terminology of Chalcedon.  I am sure you can see the pattern here that mirrors that of other councils--that no matter how much of a union has been established, there are groups on one side or another which do not find the conciliar decisions acceptable.  While there may be a period of great controversy [after a council] there is also usually an effort at reconciliation somewhere down the line.  In these particular circumstances there are political for wanting reconciliation (think of later centuries of the growth of Islam and the threats to the empire).  There is effort made to reconcile the Monophysites.  One of these efforts acquired considerable significance--that is an effort that was associated with Sergius of Constantinople (Patriarch 610-638 A.D.).  Sergius desired to reconcile the Monophysites.

 

                                                                   Two Natures, One Operation Of The Will

 

Remember that the great concern behind Monophysitism is the unity of Christ--that is the doctrinal point of the Monophysites see endangered by references to two natures.  This issue of the unity of Christ comes to bear particularly when one raises questions about Christ's freedom and thus about the will of Christ.  [Questions such as:]  Although it is true that in the Agony in the Garden Jesus says "Your will, not mine," but do you then get competing wills within the one Christ?  Is there a possibility of misuse of human freedom and therefore resulting division in Christ?  Is it a possibility that something will happen to fracture the unity?  Sergius took the position that while there are two natures in Christ, there is only one operation of the will--and that operation of the will is both divine and human.  Many of the Monophysites found this acceptable.  You can see how this was intended to appeal to them and in fact does appeal to them, but at the same time the two natures terminology of Chalcedon is preserved.  This brought about reconciliation with Egypt and the provinces of Egypt and that in turn brought the support of the emperor Heraclius (610-641 A.D.).  There is always a problem with any kind of empire that the border areas are not firmly grasped--the adherence of Egypt to Constantinople is less firm that say the adherence of Turkey (although that eventually collapses)--religious reconciliation of these provinces with Constantinople is desirable from a political point of view.

 

                                                                                          Monotheletism

 

In 638 A.D. the emperor issued a decree referring to one will of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  The movement that this generated was called Monotheletism.  The terminology of Monotheletism parallels that of Monophysitism with the words "one" and "will."  There is a certain ambiguity to that vocabulary.  One way of taking it is to say that "whatever Christ did is the act of one person--that in fact there is not a division or a going off internally of cross purposes."  Another way of taking it is saying that there is no human will present (or I suppose you could say that there is no divine will present, but that is not a direction that they take).  When they are thinking of one will they are either thinking of a divine will or some type of fusion of the divine and human will.  If you think of it in terms of fusion then you are back in the direction of Monophysitism (at least as far as the will is concerned).  If you think of it as simply being the divine will then you do not have a true human nature--you may verbally still be asserting two natures but you are still taking something significant out of the human nature.  That is the first step in this.

 

                                                           Monotheletism: An Abandonment Of Chalcedon?

 

The matter was brought to the attention of Rome where Pope Honorius (625-638 A.D.) had no particular objection to the teaching (see DS 487-488--this becomes a rather famous historical reference for later discussions of Papal infallibility).  Honorius, however, was not the only one concerned with the problem.  There were various other theological leaders who did object [to Monotheletism] and saw in this development a betrayal of Chalcedon.  Sophronius of Jerusalem and the most important of these leaders, Maximus the Confessor, were two such theological leaders.  Maximus insisted that Monotheletism was an abandonment of Chalcedon (in his eighties at the time (c. 640), he was brought to Constantinople where his right hand and his tongue were cut off in order to prevent him from opposing the officially approved doctrine--and he died shortly thereafter).  Sergius and Honorius died and they actually drift out of the picture, but the position of Monotheletism is maintained initially--at least as the imperial policy.

 

                                                                                      Two Wills In Christ

 

In 649 A.D., however, a local Roman synod (a Lateran synod--not an ecumenical council) condemns Monotheletism (see DS 510).  This synod teaches the existence of two wills in Christ--one divine, one human--but the synod also states that these two wills are harmoniously united. 

 

                                                                           A Question Of Christ's Freedom

 

There is a further underlying theological issue here which is a question of Christ's freedom--and perhaps even beyond that the question of what is meant by freedom in the first place.  That is one way of getting at the question, the other way of getting at the question is in more abstract terms--simply in terms of the integrity of Christ's human nature.  All these factors play a role.  One background element that we will see in what follows is that in many conceptions of salvation (the salvific significance of Christ) the human freedom of Christ sometimes does not play a significant role (it does in some and does not in others).  If you have a conception of salvation in which the human freedom of Christ is not in the foreground, then you are not going to be as intensely engaged in an issue of this sort as you would otherwise.

 

                                                                            The Council of Constantinople

 

By 649 A.D. there is a rejection of Monotheletism which is then picked up again at the end of the century.  Toward the end of the century there is an ecumenical council at Constantinople (The Council of Constantinople 680-681 A.D.--see DS 553-559).  This council cites the Council of Chalcedon as a reference point and that is significant as reflecting what is happening here (just as Chalcedon pointed back to Nicea but developed various additional points, so too now Constantinople cites Chalcedon but then develops one point further).  Constantinople teaches the existence of two wills and two operation of the wills in Jesus.  The council then discusses the submission of the human will to the divine will (the sinlessness of Christ as being the underlying issue). 

That is the last of the historical developments in the Patristic period--although this council is not of the same historical importance as earlier developments.  To some extent Constantinople was simply a working out of one particular detail of the Chalcedonian teaching, but it was an example of how at various times specific questions have come into the forefront.  This particular council has not received an enormous amount of attention, but what it did really was to indicate that the path that had been taken in effort to bring about reconciliation had been a false path (a path that had been a betrayal of Chalcedon).  Constantinople, however, does not really have another way of reconciling the Monophysites--all that it does is to say that the human will and the divine will are not at cross purposes (that the division that the Monophysites feared has not occurred in Christ).  There may have been a gesture toward the Monophysite concerns at Constantinople but it is not a position that the Monophysites find acceptable.  The Monophysite churches in fact have not been reconciled.

 

                                                                                 A Soteriological Problem

 

The Council of Constantinople said that there are two wills and that the human will is subordinate to the divine will.  If you put this into Biblical terminology we could say that "Christ is obedient to the Father."  The soteriological problem is that if you cannot speak in some sense of free act on Christ's part, then there is no human significance to what he is doing--then Christ is something of a puppet.  In fact, the defense of the human will is very closely linked to this defense of human acts on the part of Christ.  It was not always argued out from that basis--it was argued out more philosophically as to the completeness of the human nature (that is the issue that is at present).  You cannot take the divine will because [???].

 

                                                                                      Mysterium Filii Dei

 

That takes us basically through the developments as far as the person of Christ is concerned.  Since that time, there is no significant advance in official Church teaching on the subject.  Mysterium Filii Dei^[8] is a more recent document that reflects this.  In 1972 the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued this declaration.  It is presented as a defence of traditional Christological teaching against contemporary errors.  I mention it here not so much because of that context but if you read the text you will notice that the thrust of this document is simply to repeat the teaching of the early councils and to insist on their continued validity.  This is not a text which advances matters further.  This is an indication of the fact that Christological development in this sense (official teaching about the person of Christ) is basically concluded by the end of the seventh century.  But even to say that is to obscure the fact that it reaches a peak in the middle of the fifth century and then basically trails off after that point.

 

                                                                                      Modern Assessment

 

There are two other types of comments to make with regard to the Christology of the person of Christ.  The first is just to sketch different ways in which modern authors have assessed this development ((the second point can be found beginning on page eight of these transcribed notes)).  One way of looking at the development is the perspective that Avery Dulles termed the Dogmatic^[9] approach to Christology (the first of his five models).  The development is valid.  It is a movement from the New Testament Christology to greater precision and perhaps even greater depth in the articulation of Christology. 

One specific way of thinking about this (still within this same model) is to say that in the New Testament we have a kind of Functional Christology which talks about Christ in his significance for us.  And so you typically have in the New Testament a very close linking of Christology and soteriology--you do not find a kind of stepping back to look simply at the person of Christ, but you find it interwoven with the treatment of Christ's significance. 

The people within this Dogmatic framework often see that [New Testament Christology] as a first level of Christological statement and then see the development in the Patristic period as a movement to a more ontological Christology (the thinking of Christ in himself).  Obviously that is not intended to deny that Christ is significant for us--that would not be the purpose at all.  But it is saying that instead of looking at things from our point of view, take a step back and take a look at Christ in himself which is what makes it possible for him to accomplish the various things that he has accomplished. 

When we look at it in those terms, those people are not only saying that this change has taken place, but they are also saying that this is legitimate movement and that there is a sense in which this type of movement is inherent in the nature of the case (that there would be such a step at some time).  They will always say that the specific stages (Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon) are closely linked to the development of one heresy or another.  They know that this is due to certain historical circumstances and various developments that ought not to have occurred.  Still, they tend to take the position that there is a certain logic to [such developments].  These questions would have risen even though the specific circumstances in which they arose are coincidental historical events. 

That often can lead to the position that when we do Christology today we should start where the councils left off--because a major step has already been taken.  A good bit of clarification has been achieved and the point would now be to go further in seeking to understand what the councils said and what the implication of their teaching is.  The key point there would be the reference to the implication of their teaching as the material that Christology should concern itself in the future.

 

                                                                      Going Back To The New Testament?

 

Should you go back to the New Testament?  You are not going to find Christian theologians saying do not go back to the New Testament--that is not part of the vocabulary that one uses.  But you go back to the New Testament within this framework--partly to see what the roots of the later teaching are (to show that there is continuity), and partly because the New Testament has a certain concreteness and richness to it that is recognized, but to go back to the New Testament with the sense that this is a fuzzier, less developed and less clarified way of speaking about Christ.  And so the real point of theological reference for people within this [Dogmatic] mentality is the conciliar vocabulary.  That is one perspective (the Dogmatic framework)--and it is one that is not particularly in favor at the present time, but you will find occasional examples of it.

 

                                                                                    Liberal Prostestantism

 

The second perspective that is diametrically opposed to that [the Dogmatic framework] is the perspective of Liberal Protestantism (which is not restricted to liberal protestants but is classically identified with that movement of the nineteenth century).  One major figure within this movement is Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930), a German historian of dogma.  He was very strongly opposed to dogma (although that did not prevent him from tracing its history).  Harnack's position is that a development of this sort did indeed occur--a move from the approach of the New Testament (and particularly the approach reflected in the Synoptics) and into the world of the early church (the world of the early councils).  [Harnack saw this as] a movement from a Semitic world to a Greek world--a movement from a very concrete way of speaking to a more abstract, speculative way of speaking.  For Harnack that was a false step.  [He saw it as] a movement away from Gospel to dogma--and what happens after that is a false preoccupation with doctrine for its own sake.  That is, a movement from a Gospel which proclaims the coming of God's Kingdom (which appeals to personal conversion and faith) to a movement that eventually is simply concerned with orthodoxy in the sense of the reciting of the appropriate creedal formulas).  [This perspective may also be found in the following books: Leslie Dewart's, The Future of Belief and Hans Kung's, One Being A Christian.]

 

                                                                             A Third Intermediate Position

 

There is a third intermediate position which is probably more fair to the historical development and certainly more widespread among major theologians at the present time.  Which is to say that this development is a gain in some respects and a loss in others.  In that it is a more complex, a more nuanced, perspective.  This third position considers the Patristic-Conciliar development legitimate in its Christological teaching and also in its efforts to produce a common vocabulary for Christian use.  But the third position also holds that this development reflects a certain narrowing of Christological questions.  It is effective in addressing questions of the divinity and humanity of Christ but precisely in order to address those questions it found it necessary to abstract from other Christological questions of great significance.  So this third position would have in common with Dulles' Dogmatic approach a recognition of the validity of the conciliar teaching but it would not be prepared to say that that teaching is the starting point future Christological thought.  It is one piece of the picture among many that when you go back behind it into the Biblical material you do not have simply a more rudimentary expression of the same things but you have an immensely rich development in Christology which is not exhausted by the development of certain strands in later centuries.  That is what you will find reflected by just about all prominent theologians at the present time. 

 

                                                               The Jesus Of History And The Christ Of Faith

 

We will see some of the examples of that later but let me give just one particular illustration.  You are familiar from exegetical and other courses with the question of the historical Jesus.  The people who fall into the dogmatic category in this typology tend not to be interested in question about the historical Jesus--they are not opposed to the historical Jesus but they do not think that they need to worry about it too much because [???] with the Chalcedonian teaching and its vocabulary.  People who fall into the category with Harnack are quite interested in the historical Jesus but see the historical Jesus as opponent of the Christ of Faith--there is an opposition between the Jesus of history and the teaching of the early councils.  [There is a recent encyclical of Pope John Paul II on the theme of missionaries entitled Redemtoris Missio (December 7, 1990).  There is a statement in the early part of the encyclical arguing against the separation of the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.  It reads:

"Jesus is the incarnate Word--a single and indivisible person.  One cannot separate Jesus from the Christ or speak of a 'Jesus of history' who would differ from the 'Christ of faith.' . . . Thus, although it is legitimate and helpful to consider the various aspects of the mystery of Christ, we must never lose sight of its unity."^[10]] 

The third category, the broader category, will be interested in the historical Jesus--not as an opponent of the dogmatic picture of Christ, but partly as foundation, partly as reference point of understanding what the conciliar teaching means. 

 

                                                                The Question Of Christ's Human Knowledge

 

The second issue that I would like to put in here ((the first point is discussed beginning on page five of these transcribed notes)) is a little bit out of place--but it would be a little out of place at any point in the course (and is less out of place here than in other contexts).  This is the question of Christ's human knowledge.  I would like to say something first about the Scholastic understanding of this and then of the contemporary understanding. 

 

                                                                The Scholastic Approach/The Beatific Vision

 

The Scholastic position developed over the course of various centuries parts of which have roots in the Patristic period.  There are variations on this position from one Scholastic author to another.  In its fully developed form, a Scholastic theology attributed to Jesus three types of human knowledge.  This is knowledge in his human intellect (the existence of which is already guaranteed by Chalcedon).  The question here is what does Jesus know in his human intellect.  Secondly this is largely abstracting from the question of time (I say largely because obviously there is a starting point with reference to Incarnation--and there is an ending point with the Crucifixion as far as this goes--we are not really focus on knowledge after death).  But this is not primarily a conception which is talking about what he knew at one stage as distinguished from other stages in his life.  We will see with regard to at least much of this that what he knew as a two year old he knew as a twenty-eight year old (although that is not entirely the case).  The three types of knowledge are Beatific Vision, Infused Knowledge and Acquired Knowledge.

 

                                                                                      1 Corinthians 13:12

 

The first type of knowledge has to do with Beatific Vision.  This type of terminology is mainly used in association with eschatology.  The origin comes from 1 Corinthians 13:12 (on love).  In this particular line Paul says "we see now as through a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face."  What Paul has in mind is the difference between what we see in our present life and what we will see in the future after death (face to face with God).  This particular imagery of face to face vision of God is one that particularly attracted the Scholastic and so the vocabulary of the Beatific Vision becomes the chief vehicle for articulating the joys of eternal happiness.  Strictly speaking, the passage in Paul says "then we shall see face to face."  The Beatific part of it is another story but clearly Paul has in mind eternal fulfillment and eternal glory.  So this is not a falsification of the passage. 

The Scholastic understanding of the Beatific Vision is that when we see God face to face we will also participate through that in God's knowledge.  It is not that our knowledge will become infinite because there is always some sort of limitation [???] because we are finite, but our knowledge will be far expanded beyond what it is now.  The Scholastic understanding of that is that it will include knowledge of all past, present and future realities.  The idea is that only God knows not only all past, present and future knowledge but also what could have been.  Our participation in divine knowledge is restricted to reality (we are always finite).  Notice that it is in a sense a kind of indirect type knowledge--because it is through knowing God that we know what God knows.

As far as we are concerned the Beatific Vision is something that it hoped for (looked forward to after death).  The Scholastic position is that Jesus' human intellect enjoys this face to face vision of God from the time of the Incarnation onward.  You can appeal here (and the Scholastics do appeal here) to the Biblical passages, especially in the John's Gospel in which Jesus speaks of his intimate knowledge of the Father.  There is a claiming on Jesus' part to a knowledge of God that goes beyond general human knowledge of God.  You can also think of Biblical passages in which Jesus makes statements with regard to the future.  Obviously we do not find places in the Gospels in which Jesus makes reference to the Beatific Vision but the Scholastic position is that the type of face to face knowledge that Jesus is speaking about with regard to himself is a kind of advance occurrence of the Beatific Vision.  There is no reason why it should not (they think) take place during his life time.  There is every reason why it should in keeping with his dignity, his mission, etc.  With the Beatific Vision goes this type of knowledge of all created reality. 

 

                                                                                   Mystici Corporis Christi

 

I will come to the second of those points in just a minute but before I do so I would like to read a fairly recent reference to the Scholastic understanding of the Beatific Vision.  There is no formal point at which one could say that a council taught this (so it is not enshrined in that type of dogmatic sense).  This citation is taken from Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (June 29, 1943).  This is an encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, it is not an ecclesial document, but given its focus it is not surprising that something is said about Christology in it, however this is not a document that is setting out to address Christological questions and that must be kept in mind.  Secondly, this reference is from the section of the encyclical that speaks of the union of the faithful with Christ, and the purpose is simply to make the Christological reference while underlying a different type of ecclesiological point.  The passage reads as follows:

"The only begotten Son of God embraced us in his infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began [this is a Trinitarian reference] that he might give a visible and expediently beautiful expression of this love he assumed our nature in hypostatic union, hence Maximus of Turin remarks: 'In Christ our whole flesh loves us' [so far, this is perfectly good Chalcedonian Christology], but the knowledge and love of our divine redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of the Incarnation, exceed all that the human intellect can hope to grasp.  But hardly was he conceived in the womb of the Mother of God than he began to enjoy Beatific Vision, and in that Vision all the members of his Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to him and he embraced them with his redeeming love.  For marvelous condescension of Divine love for us.  For inestimable dispensation of boundless charity--in the crib, on the cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ and all the members of the Church present before him and united to him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or that with which a man knows and loves himself."^[11]

 

This text immediately trying to get at Christ's knowledge.  It does not mean that general knowledge of the Church it means that individual knowledge [that Christ has] of each one of us.  It is said here directly, given the focus of the encyclical, only with regard to future Roman Catholics--the members of the Church.  [It is from this perspective] because the earlier part of the encyclical has insisted on Church membership in the strict sense (meaning being related to Catholics), however it is not meant to exclude others.  It is not meant to say that that knowledge is not present (it simply focuses on Christ's love for the future members of the Church).  That's the first part (through the Beatific Vision, even prior to birth, the human intellect of Christ knew . . . ). 

 

                                                                                       Infused Knowledge

 

The second type is Infused Knowledge.  Infused Knowledge is placed directly into the intellect by God.  One must think here of the epistemology that underlies that--normally we come into contact with something through mental processes of abstraction and these things come into our intellect.  Through infused knowledge, what would usually come about through standard human intellectual activity is simply received into the intellect directly from God.  This is a conception that has direct relationship to the Scholastic understanding of prophecy--this is how prophets know what is going to happen in the future (after all they cannot see it directly because it has not happened yet).  The prophets are "told" in a sense by God about it through the placing of these things into their mind.  Infused knowledge is not limited to Christ in this respect but given in various degrees to different people at different times.  This infused knowledge of the prophets is supernatural rather than preternatural.  Infused knowledge can also be attributed to Christ.  Medieval Franciscan authors particularly promoted this.  The Franciscans promoted this perspective about Christ did so with the idea that since it is possible for God to do this [for the prophets] that it is appropriate that it be done here [for Christ] so that Christ is not in any way lacking in comparison to the prophets. 

There are two observations I would like to make at this point.  This does not add anything as far as content is concerned because everything that is made known in this way is already known through the Beatific Vision--however it rounds things out a bit.  It rounds it of in the sense that the idea that underlies it is not only that Christ should know everything but that he should know everything in every possible way (not adding to the content but introducing an additional way of knowing something).  The last reference that I will point out in an official document in reference to this is from Haurietis aquas (May 15, 1956), an encyclical by Pope Pius XII on devotion to the Sacred Heart.  We will continue with this point in the next class.

 

 

 

 

                                                                             Christology  January 31, 1991

 

                                                                          On The Questions Of Knowledge

 

                                                       Types Of Knowledge Attributed To Christ (Continued)

 

I would like to continue taking a look at the types of knowledge attributed to Christ.  I mentioned in the last class that the second type of knowledge is infused knowledge implanted directly into Christ's human intellect.  I mentioned that there was a reference to this subject in Pope Pius XII's Haurietis Aquas (May 15, 1956).  In the following passage, the encyclical is really talking about Christ's human intellect in the context of devotion to the Sacred Heart (but it makes remarks about knowledge in connection with willing).  The encyclical reads:

"It is moreover the symbol of that most ardent love which, infused into His soul, sanctifies the human will of Christ and whose action is enlightened and directed by a twofold most perfect knowledge, namely the beatific and infused."^[12]

This thought is not developed further in the encyclical but there is a reference to Thomas Aquinas' Summa theologiae in which there is a treatment of Christ's knowledge and where this type of material is developed.^[13]  So that is the second type of knowledge.

 

                                                                                     Acquired Knowledge

 

The third type of knowledge is what is known as Acquired Knowledge.  This is the type of knowledge that we are more familiar with in personal experience.  The idea here is that in addition to the two type of knowledge [???] that are present from the start, Christ also acquired knowledge during the course of his lifetime.  What is known in this way is not all unlimited--it is certain things and not others.  If you think of it in personal terms you will notice that in the Beatific Vision [???] Christ knows all people in all times and places.  Similarly, infused knowledge can also be extended to the same scope.  Acquired knowledge is more limited [than the other two type of knowledge].  The acquired knowledge is going to be a knowledge of the disciples or various other people in [Christ's] own time and place, but no one would say that Christ has acquired knowledge of us [or people in generations after his earthly life].

 

                                                                                               Luke 2:52

 

There are two answers as to why theologians attribute acquired knowledge to Christ.  One is a Biblical reference in Luke's infancy narrative.  Luke 2:52 reads: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man" (RSV).  For the major theological questions from this particular perspective, the growth in stature (age) is not a problem; growth in wisdom and favor (grace) is trickier (not trickier in the estimation of human nature, but it is tricky in reference to God).  [Growth in wisdom] is taken to mean knowledge.  Since you cannot have growth with respect to the first two types of knowledge, the position that is generally taken is that this acquired knowledge is the only way that growth is still possible.  So this must be the type of knowledge that the Biblical text has in mind.  You can perhaps also think here of the various places in the Gospels where Jesus asks questions and he gets an answer.  On the one hand he could have been doing that as a pedagogical technique on his part (i.e., he really does not need to know the answer) but if you take it in another sense you could say that he is now learning with through acquired knowledge things that [he already knew without form??].  That is a Biblical argument for acquired knowledge.

 

                                                                           Jesus Fall Behind The Prophets?

 

The other argument [in favor of acquired knowledge] is parallel to the argument for infused knowledge.  The basic point of this second argument for the existence of acquired knowledge is the appeal to the general principle that Christ is supposed to know everything in every possible way.  That just as there was the idea that if he did not have infused knowledge that he would somehow fall behind the prophets (which is inconceivable), so too there is the idea that if he did not have acquired knowledge he would fall behind human beings in general.  And so since acquiring knowledge is a good thing, it is attributed to Christ.

Let me give you a concrete example of this third type of knowledge.  Although Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic (and perhaps Hebrew), there is a question about whether he also knew Greek.  Without claiming to be able to settle the issue, there a many exegetes who take the position that Jesus probably did know some Greek (people in that type of situation had certain dealings with the Roman authorities who spoke the public language of commerce).  Contemporary scholars would hold that Jesus had to learn whatever Greek he knew.  Those coming from the Scholastic perspective would say that Jesus definitely knew Greek (but he did not "learn" it--in fact he also knew English and Ukrainian, and all languages, as well).  For the Scholastics, for someone to even question if Jesus knew Greek borders almost on blasphemy--they would see such a question as a rejection of the threefold knowledge as well as a rejection of Christ's divinity.

 

                                                                 Raymond Brown And Modern Approaches

 

Those are the three types of knowledge.  Allow me to give you a few Biblical passages that have a bearing on this material (and at the same time raise questions with regard to it).  First of all, there is obviously a tension between this view and the view particularly held by contemporary theologians (who are also exegetes of Biblical material).  Raymond Brown in an article that we will come to later in the semester, observes that all modern Christology is based on the theory that the human knowledge of Jesus was limited.^[14]  You can always find exceptions to this, but in substance Brown's comment is correct--certainly this is true of typically modern approaches.  Modern (or rather contemporary) approaches to Christology may disagree on the precise scope of Jesus' human knowledge, yet [they do agree that] there is some type of limitation that is much more significant than the what was conceived by a Scholastic understanding of Jesus' knowledge.

We will now examine a few of the items in the Gospels that give rise to the questions about the knowledge of Jesus.  Bear in mind that from the perspective of the past authors of this subject [that] the Gospels are seen as a rather direct record of what Jesus said--that is not realistic or reasonable to expect Patristic or Medieval theologians to say this is [???] redactional material.  Those theologians were aware of differences from one Gospel to another but they did not think in terms of modern redactionary methods.  However, even when you take the Gospels as a direct record, you still run into opposing tendencies.  On the one hand, there is New Testament material which attributes to Jesus extraordinary knowledge.

 

                                                                                Some Scriptural Examples

 

Allow me to give you a couple of examples [of this] which are taken somewhat at random.  According to Mark 2:8,^[15] Jesus knows the secret thoughts of the Scribes.  In Mark 3:29,^[16] Jesus knows what sin will never be forgiven.  There are countless passages in the Gospels that attribute to Jesus an extraordinary knowledge of God and a familiarity with God.  You can think here not only of John but of lots of places in the Synoptics--anytime that Jesus steps forward as a teacher he is presented as someone who has something to say that is not commonly known.

 

                                                                                Predictions Of The Passion

 

Then there are two specific types of material that should be mentioned explicitly.  The first type of knowledge are predictions of the Passion.  In other words, Jesus had a kind of advance knowledge of his own personal fate.  See Mark 8:31,^[17] 9:31,^[18] and 10:33-34^[19]. These passages are located as Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem and they mark certain stages of development, in each case, during that journey.  There are parallels of these passages in the other Synoptic Gospels (the instinct in contemporary Biblical scholarship is to look to the Markan text--the Scholastic approach was to look to Matthew).  Mark 10:45^[20] is also a prediction of the passion.  So that is one type [of knowledge] on the part of Jesus--his advance knowledge of his own fate.  We should be a little more precise on this point.  These are generally referred to as the Gospel Passion predictions, and they are that, but most of them are also predictions of the resurrection (not necessarily of the word "resurrection" but of some type of indication of it).  So the first type is that of Jesus' advance knowledge of his own fate.

 

                                                                                Eschatological Statements

 

The second type of knowledge are found in the eschatological statements.  See Mark 13 and Matthew 25 (although this type of example is not restricted to those places in the Gospels).  Mark 13 is the Apocalyptic Discourse and Matthew 25 is the account of the King coming on the clouds to separate the sheep from the goats.  Mark 13 also contains the statement "even the Son does not know" (see verse 32) but bracket that.  Abstracting from that, there is in all of this material revelation about the end time--even if no specific dates are given.  There is in this material a type of prediction about what lies ahead in the future.

 

                                                                                             The Church

 

There is one final example (a third example, but not as significant as the two examples just cited above) that also has to do with the future, but not the distant future.  There are very few references that are explicit with regard to the Church.  One example of such a reference is found in Matthew 16:17-19^[21].  This passage is a prophecy in a sense, but implies on Jesus' part extraordinary knowledge of what lies ahead.  The aspect in this passage that is important is that "the powers of death shall not prevail against it."  This statement presupposes extraordinary knowledge on the part of Jesus (a prediction of what is going to happen).  The segment that reads "you are Peter and on this rock . . ." is a statement of future intention (we all make statements like that--"I'm going to do such and such") and does not presuppose any extraordinary knowledge in itself.

With a lot of this (examination of the knowledge of Jesus portrayed in the Scriptures) you can raise various historical questions with regard to the individual texts, but this body of material as has been mentioned so far (examples of extraordinary knowledge on Jesus' part) would have to be accounted for in some way. 

 

                                                                              A Limitation Of Knowledge?

 

The other side of the coin is represented by Biblical texts which suggest a limitation of knowledge [on the part of Jesus].  The best examples here can be found in the apocalyptic discourse of Mark 13:30-32^[22] where there is really a juxtaposition of extraordinary knowledge about the future and certain limitations in knowledge about the future.  This passage has a combination of different things in it.  [Abstract here for a moment from a modern critique of the passage] 

Jesus says in verse thirty that "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."  Although this statement perhaps did not pose problems at that time, it does nineteen-hundred years later.  You can evade this problem in two ways.  The first avenue of escape is to say that "this generation" refers to the whole human race in all of human history (although it is doubtful that you could sustain such a theory in light of the rest of the chapter).  The second avenue of escape is to relate verse thirty simply to more immediate events such as the destruction of Jerusalem and not the end of the world (but when taken in context of chapter thirteen it is difficult to propose this theory).  The difficulty that we face with verse thirty is what at least appears to be an error on Jesus' part.

When you get to verse thirty-two, Jesus says "not even. . .the Son."  This verse is a self reference clearly present in this verse.  The sense that not even the Son knows the day or the hour clashes somewhat with verse thirty where it seems that Jesus does know the day and the hour.  But even taking verse thirty-two by itself [we find] an assertion of a lack of knowledge on Jesus' part.  The way that has sometimes [been suggested] as a way out of this [lack of knowledge] is to propose that this is some type of "mental reservation" on the part of Jesus.  I would note that in verse thirty-two, the way in which the formulation is put, "no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," implies that the Son knows more than the angels in heaven--though still not this.  So even in this statement of not knowing, there is an extraordinary claim to knowledge in general.

Modern exegetes are likely to say that in this passage we have some influences of the early Church and that we may have a bringing together of different strands of eschatological material.  [We can see one example of this] in verse thirty, which is oriented on the immediate end of the world.  The second [example of this] in verse thirty-two, an uncertainty about the time of the end of the world.  This is one place where these types of tensions might come together rather [???].

 

                                                                                  John And The Synoptics

 

John attributes more knowledge to Jesus than the Synoptics do.  We can see this when the Evangelist reminds the reader from time to time that Jesus does not really need to ask the questions because he already knows the answers.

If the reader goes through the Synoptics comparing parallel passages, he will often find that the later texts modify this material--so that the overall picture of Jesus' knowledge is more enhances in Matthew and Luke than it is in Mark.

So far we have raised the question [about knowledge of Jesus] in terms of specific Biblical texts.  We see that some texts point to extraordinary knowledge and some texts point to a certain limitation of knowledge.

 

                                                                                        Jesus As Revealer

 

What meaning does all this have theologically?  There are a couple of ways of getting at this, but I think that the simplest way is to think of the basic Christian idea of Jesus as one who reveals God (one cannot very well drop this from Christian understanding of who Jesus is).  A revealer who does not know what he is talking about is not much of a revealer and if Jesus' knowledge of God is no different from what you or I would know about God apart from Jesus, then Jesus really is not of that much significance.  Some sort of a sense in which Jesus is aware of God, and a sense in which Jesus has a message to convey, seems to be essential to Christian understanding of who Jesus is. 

In connection with what we have discussed above I would like to specify four particular areas of question (although this is not an exhaustive list) about Jesus' knowledge.

 

                                             The Question Of Jesus' Self Knowledge/Messianic Consciousness

 

First of all, the question of Jesus' self knowledge.  What did Jesus think of himself?  The term that is often used for this (and it is perfectly legitimate) is Messianic Consciousness.  When we speak of Messianic Consciousness we are considering if Jesus was aware of himself as Messiah.  Very often you find literature on this subject formulated in terms of the question of the self knowledge and consciousness of Jesus (consciousness in the sense here of Messianic Consciousness). 

Do not take Messianic Consciousness as restricted to the word in itself--that would be the danger of limiting it too much.  But the question is rather, did Jesus think of himself as the decisive salvific figure?  How did Jesus see his own position with respect to salvation? 

There are a handful of places in the Gospels where the question of the Messiah comes up explicitly.  The classic reference to this is in Matthew 16:13 and Mark 8:27 where Jesus asks the disciples in varying language "Who do people say that I am?"  Jesus gets varying answers to this before Peter gives the confession, "you are the Messiah!"  Jesus does not like the way that Peter understands that but in principle he accepts the terminology. 

There is a whole body of exegetical literature which questions whether Jesus really thought of himself in Messianic terms, or if the early Church attributed the title Messiah to Jesus and then read back into his lifetime in passages of this sort.  It is because of that type of issue that the terminology, Messianic Consciousness is what is used in a good bit of this discussion. 

 

                                                                      Jesus As The Decisive Salvific Figure

 

My caution is to say that it is not just this title that is at stake [i.e., when we question whether Jesus thought of himself in Messianic terms].  Suppose, for example, that Jesus never used the word "Messiah" but thought of himself as "the Son of man" as the decisive, final prophet like Moses, or Lamb of God, etc., (even without specific titles being invoked).  In the sense that one would think of those titles (etc.) theologically, they would all fall under [the category of] the Messianic Consciousness (which is a consciousness of being the decisive salvific figure).  I think it is perfectly legitimate to think of this [???] consciousness, but do not just focus on the word.  The problem with using terminology like "decisive salvific figure" is that you are not using Biblical language, but the advantage to it is that you are not tying yourself so closely to one particular term among many. 

The other side of the coin is that there were many different conceptions about what the Messiah would be like.  There are ways of understanding [the concept of] Messiah, particularly political senses of that term, which are not appropriate to Jesus.  Jesus certainly did not think of himself as Messiah in those senses.  So to have a Messianic Consciousness, in some respects would again go on a false [???]--would be something that you would rather not have Jesus have (at least from a Christian point of view).  It is no coincidence that when we speak of someone having a "messiah complex" that that is not a compliment.  This is the danger with this type of terminology. 

The key issue (I think) is did Jesus sees himself as a definitive figure in God's relationship with at least Israel, (if not the whole human race) or did Jesus see himself in some much lesser category?  This is an historical question and I would offer the first of those formulations (as definitive figure) [as an answer].

 

                                                                            Did Jesus Know He Was God?

 

Another way of asking the question "what did Jesus think of himself" is "did Jesus know he was God?"  This question pops up popularly.  This is taking the same basic question and putting it not in the Messianic category but in specific reference to the Divinity.  Biblically, this is definitely not the best way to raise the question, because it does not use the terminology that is appropriate for discussing the issues.  Also it seems to me that when the question is put in that form, that there may be some Monophysitism floating around in the presupposition of the question (how did he think of himself?).  There is there a historical problem.  There is no reason why [???] use Chalcedonian terminology but there is also no reason to think that Jesus used Chalcedonian terminology to think of himself.  In a way here we are back at the root problem.  Someone coming at this from the perspective that is summarized by Raymond Brown, (but not limited to Brown) that Jesus' human knowledge is limited, is not likely to put the Chalcedonian formulation in the content of Jesus' knowledge but a Scholastic would.  If you hold, as Brown does, that Jesus' human knowledge is limited, then you would agree that Jesus did not know in advance what Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon would teach (in this case, it would be difficult to proclaim that Jesus knew that Mary was the Mother of God).  If you take this from the perspective of the Scholastic position, you would say that of course Jesus knew all of this because it is all true (Jesus did not speak in these terms, but there is no reason why he could not have done so).  But the question "did Jesus know he was God" does not let you get at the issue accurately.           

 

                                                                Jesus' Knowledge Of His Own Personal Fate

 

The second area (after the first area of Jesus' self knowledge) but closely related, is what of Jesus' knowledge of his own personal fate? (i.e., his death and resurrection).  You can think here concretely of the passion predictions.  You can also think here in more general terms--did Jesus start out his public activity knowing what the end would be like?  Should we think of Jesus saying "the Kingdom of God is at hand" [meaning that it will happen after he is crucified and rises from the dead] and that the Kingdom will not come until after those things have happened?  Did Jesus mean "repent and believe in the Gospel, and if you all do repent I will not be crucified?"  Are there conditions to the to coming of the Kingdom that Jesus does not mention (if indeed he has such things in the "back of his mind")?  Most people do have a certain amount of foreknowledge about self--we have a sense of what we will be doing later this day or even about a big expectation that will occur about a year from now, etc., but at this moment we probably do not know what we will be doing on, say, January 31, 1998 (the further away the date the fuzzier the foreknowledge).  Was this also true of Jesus or was it the case that Jesus knew precisely what was going to happen right up to the end?  The Scholastic position is the latter (Jesus knew precisely what would happen right up to the end).  The position typically taken by contemporary theologians is that Jesus did not know what would happen (but this does not mean that he was ignorant of what must happen--his sense was comparable to my knowledge of what must happen).  Jesus knew that what he was doing was dangerous, but that is not the same thing as saying that he knew he would be arrested at such and such a place on such and such a day.  From a modern point of view, you might not want to say that Jesus' advance knowledge is constant throughout his life because it is quite possible that his knowledge of his own fate grew as time went on and as he developed.  This is a second area where the question of Jesus' advance knowledge has theological significance.

 

                                                                                  Jesus And The Eschaton

 

The third area (the one from which most of the illustrations so far have been taken) is taken from eschatology.  Here the question is: "What did Jesus think about the end of the world?"  Or "what did Jesus think about the Kingdom of God with is various [???] dimensions?"

The fourth area asks the question: "What did Jesus know about the Church?"  This question is not asked in the sense of Jesus' gathering of followers during his life (he certainly did that) but rather, did Jesus think in terms of a society of some sort that would continue after his death?  Was this question within his frame of reference?  This question about the Church is closely tied to Jesus' possible questions about death (on the one hand) and the end of the world (on the other hand).

 

                                                         Karl Rahner And The Question Of Jesus' Knowledge

 

To address the questions above concretely would require looking at individual texts (this is something that we will come back to later in the course).  At this stage I would simply like to sketch a general framework.  In the following section we will take a look a contemporary framework taken basically from Karl Rahner^[23].

Before I get to the specifics of Rahner's position I want to point out a commonplace issue in Rahner that tends to be overlooked sometimes.  It is important to remember on this issue that we are not faced with the alternative of saying that Jesus knew everything that the Scholastics attributed to him, or of saying that Jesus knew nothing more than what the average person knew in Jerusalem in the first century.  There is a rather large middle ground and that is what is significant in this discussion.  Sometimes, particularly at a popular level, when people come to the conviction that the ideas that they have had (perhaps even since childhood) are not accurate they tend to jump to the opposite extreme and think (for example) that Jesus was a rather dumb person who knew nothing and that words were attributed to him with no real basis in his life.  That tendency to jump from one extreme to another should certainly be avoided.  There is a large middle ground.

What does Karl Rahner have to say about the subject Jesus' knowledge?  First of all, he has some remarks on knowledge in general.  This is not an exhaustive epistemology, it is just a reference to three points that Rahner makes.

 

                                                                       Rahner's Critique Of The Scholastics

 

The first point that I would like to mention is Rahner's critique of one aspect of the typical Scholastic understanding of knowledge.  He says that the presumption in much of this discussion is that one speaks best of knowledge by thinking of knowledge of individual things or individual persons.  This is done in such a way that you either have knowledge or you do not--it is a yes or no situation (Rahner criticizes this view--which says that you either know the answer to the question or you do not know the answer to the question).  When thought of in those terms, Rahner says that the tendency is to think of knowledge in a rather quantitative fashion.  When one who holds such a view makes the shift to Christological questions he will attribute to Jesus the complete range of such quantitative knowledge.

 

                                                                                   Degrees Of Knowledge

 

Rahner's general point is that knowledge is more complex than this type of view suggests.  He would say that there are degrees of knowledge and that it is not always a yes or no situation.  He holds that you can have a general sense of something.  Rahner holds that there is even a sense that something can be known and unknown at the same time. 

Let me give you two examples of this.  The first example is something that we run into all the time--think of a situation in which you are trying to express something but are finding it hard to say exactly what you want to say (you cannot find the right words)--not just that the person with whom you are speaking is having difficultly understanding, but you are having trouble articulating what you want to say.  Rahner's position is that in a situation like that you have the knowledge of something, but you also do not have a fully clarified knowledge of it--you struggle to find a way to formulate your knowledge.  In this example the effort to formulate is also not just a matter of communication but also a matter of clarifying things in your own mind.  You can see this sometimes when you try to write something down and you cannot do it--if you eventually manage to struggle through and get it on paper you will have a much clearer picture of things in your mind as a result.  That is one example, that there can be degrees of knowledge and that you can have a general sense of something about which you do not yet have explicit knowledge.  Very often Rahner will speak of an explicit or thematic knowledge--that latter is distinguished between un-thematic or more global awareness.  That is the first example.

The second example is one that Rahner seemed to always use.  Although it is not entirely clear why, he would use the following example whenever he spoke about our knowledge of God.  Rahner always spoke about learning something about God on the one hand and the opposite example was of a school child who learned something about Australia.  In the instance of Australia, it was Rahner's position that at first the child simply did not know of the existence of Australia at all, then he learned it and from then on knows it.  That is a transition from lack of explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge.  In the instance of knowledge of God, Rahner's position is that that is not the same thing (as learning about Australia).  It is not that you learn about another item of information that you never had anything to do with before, but rather there is introduced a greater clarity and a greater explicit knowledge than was had in the past.  In the instance of knowledge of God, one does not move from complete ignorance to a new item of information, but rather are coming to a greater degree of knowledge (or a greater degree of clarity).  A similar point might be made with regard to knowledge of self.  From time to time we may learn things about ourselves that we did not know before hand (e.g., items of information from childhood or more personal information about how I react in certain situations such as crises).  Unless you imagine a very unusual psychological condition, it is not that at some point at the age of twenty-five I suddenly learn that I exist.  This is not a movement from complete ignorance to thematic knowledge--even with regard to the more personal things.  That is another example of the fact that the explicit thematic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge that there is and that in at least some instances, the opposite of explicit knowledge is something other than total ignorance.

 

                                                                               Self Knowledge Is Complex

 

The second point which really goes with the first is that personal knowledge of the self is also quite complex.  There is an awareness or consciousness of self that goes along with knowing and doing things.  This is not the same as introspection or trying to make myself the explicit object of knowledge.  From time to time, we may have the occasion to make ourselves the explicit topic of our attention, and there is nothing wrong with that (as long as it is not a preoccupation), but that is not the only or most basic form of self knowledge.  This knowledge of self as subject (knowledge of self as knower--as the agent) is always greater than what we can say about ourselves.  There is always a consciousness there that we cannot put into words--either to ourselves or to others.  Some people are more adept at putting this into words than others are but no-one can completely convey one's self knowledge in explicit, thematic statements.  This is probably true with regards to knowledge about other people.  In a sense, the more important thing is the basic self-awareness.  Putting this into words can be very important in certain situations (such a thing is not to be dismissed) but efforts to put this into words always draws on self consciousness that is deeper and greater than what can be put into words.  You always know more about yourself than you can say to another person.  You certainly know more about yourself than you ought to try to say to another person (and the degree to which you would want to speak about this to another depends enormously on who the person is, what the setting is and etc.).  Transfer this to the person of Jesus.  There would have to be a sense of self-knowledge on his part that cannot be put forward in words and certainly cannot be reduced to the words that might be used to express it.

We will pick this up from here in the next class.

 

 

 

 

                                                                              Christology February 5, 1991

 

                                                     Rahner's Treatment Of The Human Knowledge Of Christ

 

Let us look at the human knowledge of Christ from Karl Rahner's perspective.  I have mentioned certain aspects of Rahner's theory--the last one is that we have a certain knowledge of ourselves as subject, as knower and as self awareness that is not restricted to our explicit knowledge about ourselves.  We can and do try to express that in explicit form, but there is always a greater depth to what we know about ourselves than what we can put into words.  That difference between what we know and what we put into words, is the difference between a kind of unthematic knowledge and an explicit knowledge.  It is not really a difference between ignorance and knowledge.  The explicit, thematic knowledge is something that can grow or decline over the course of a lifetime.  It is influenced by events in life which may facilitate or impede such expression.  It is dependent on the vocabulary and language that is available (this is a bit tricky because it is always possible to modify the vocabulary and language and use it in new and creative ways--but even when one does that he is dependent on what is culturally available).  You can take a certain step with it (even a significant step with it), but a person does not start off with a blank slate.  That is true of all of us and would also be true with regard Jesus.  Another way of saying this, specifically with regard to Jesus, is that the Biblical heritage and the broader cultural picture of the day was very influential.  These influences did not determine exactly how he thought about himself but they provided a storehouse of ideas and concepts which could be used creatively both in his self understanding and his [???] about himself to others.  We will come back to this point.

 

                                                                         Limitations Are Not Imperfections

 

The last of the preliminary points (the third and final point) that Rahner makes is the idea that limitations of explicit knowledge are not necessarily an imperfection.  What Rahner is getting at here is the principle underlying much of the Scholastic argumentation (that this sort of thing is good, therefore more of it is better and since Jesus is perfect, he must have had all of it).  Rahner's point is that lack of knowledge about some things, including lack of knowledge about what lies ahead in our own lives, can be a factor in creating meaning for the exercise of freedom.  Allow me to flesh this out a bit in a way that Rahner does not develop here but that he does develop in some of his other essays in more general (i.e., Rahner's reflections on freedom). 

Rahner makes the point that whenever we exercise our freedom in the sense of making some specific choice, we always do more than what we foresee--that the effects of our acts always have repercussions that are beyond our vision and beyond our control.  We see some effects, particularly the immediate effects, but a lot of the long-term effects we simply do not know and can never foresee completely.  From Rahner's point of view this is a limitation that is inherent in being human, but it is not an imperfection as far as being a human being is concerned--it is not wrong, or it is not a deficiency that we as individuals do not know precisely when we are going to die.  In the same way, it is not a deficiency that we do not pin down the day or the hour of the end of the world.  If you ever had a situation where you could pin it down precisely, then the sense of expectation (the sense of always watching or of always being prepared) vanishes.  The nature of human living, the nature of the human being's individual history would be altered.  You may get some circumstance where an individual [is effected because he is] aware that he is going to die in the very near future because of health or some other threatening situation (this was true even of Jesus when he neared the end of his life).  A person aware of an imminent death is not the same as a three year old who knows that "eighty two" years from now he will die in Florida etc.[--such a three year old would not live out a normal human life if he had such knowledge].

 

                                                               Rahner's Challenge To The Scholastic Theory

 

Rahner challenges here one of the philosophical presuppositions of the Scholastic theory which led them to attribute to Jesus something that they considered good, but which Rahner thinks would cut at other human values (in the sense human [???]). 

 

                                                           God's Foreknowledge Vs. Human Foreknowledge

 

The difference between God and the human person with regard to God's foreknowledge is precisely that--it is God's (not yours and mine).  If I already know in advance what I am going to choose, then I would get to a point where I do not choose anymore (because it is all laid out).  This is so because my foreknowledge of myself has an effect on my choice.  My choices would become more like playing a part in a play.  In a play, an actor chooses to recite the lines appropriately--in such a case, not only does he know what he is supposed to say, but also what he actually will say.  The actor, in such a case, does not have the ability to depart from his predetermined lines. 

The Gospels remind us that we know not the day nor the hour (i.e., the end of the world)?  The fact that God knows the day and the hour does not undercut the situation of eschatological tension.  If we know the day and the hour, then history loses its meaning (and I think something of the same sort would apply to individual knowledge). 

 

                                                                   The Less You Know, The Freer You Are!

 

Rahner does not take the position that the less you know, the more free you are.  If you do not have a certain degree of knowledge, then you are not really in the position to exercise your freedom.  On the other hand, suppose that you knew (not in a general sense, but very explicitly) what you are going to do and what will happen at every single moment in your life.  It seems to me that such a situation borders on the definition of "hell" (if such were the case, then there would never be any element of surprise, and probably there would never be any sense of humor because humor is so linked with surprise and there would never be anything that would catch you unexpectedly). 

It seems that there is a certain element of moving into the unknown which is part of the exercise of human freedom--not into a blank void, but rather of stepping into something with trust--there is an element of faith involved in this which is left in a vacuum if everything is known in advance.  I think that, in general terms, is what is at the root of this. 

I think that you can go at this from a couple of different angles--I think Rahner is rather certain that Jesus did not know all of this stuff and so he wants to come to terms with that theologically and argue that this is not a contradiction to the idea of Jesus' perfection--if you understand perfection correctly. 

 

                                                                       Jesus Developed Like Other Humans

 

[Allow me to] put it in more abstract terms.  Basically the people about whom we have spoken from the Patristic period (the orthodox theologians) made the point that there is nothing lacking in Jesus' divinity or humanity.  [Lets stick to the humanity question here]  The traditional emphasis has been that Jesus is not lacking any of the items that go together to constitute a human nature (he is not lacking a human body or even portions of anything human--such as the will, etc.) because in the Incarnation the Word of God assumes a human nature and from then on remains united with the human nature.  Rahner generally holds that that is true, but he says that we should also think of the historical dimension of a human being.  He says that not only about scope of human history from beginning to end but also about the present also.  We should take into account the fact that human beings are not born as adults.  There is in every human life (provided it is not cut short) a process of growth and development.  There are very significant differences between a child and an adult, between a young adult and a senior citizen.  What would be viewed as an appropriate situation (as even a perfection) at one stage of life is not a perfection at another stage of life.  We do not expect someone seventy-five years old to behave like a teenager, and if that would happen we would say that something is wrong (i.e., a failure to mature).  Conversely we do not expect a teenager to behave like someone seventy-five years old.  Rahner says that the Scholastic perspective lacks the sense that Jesus developed like other humans (and not just physically but also in a sense spiritually). 

One piece of the picture for Rahner, when we talk about this question of knowledge, is that explicit knowledge ought to be something that grows--not something that is already in place from the beginning.  A five year old should have a self-awareness, but should not have the same self-awareness that a forty-five year old should have (or a seventy-five year old should have).  When we put this in Christological terms, that is Rahner's concern with regard to explicit knowledge as far as self is concerned.

 

                                                           The Vision Of God/The Immediate Vision Of God

 

Those are the general principles.  What does Rahner say on that basis?  First of all, he does something terminologically which may confuse us somewhat (because he uses terminology in a slightly different way than most people).  He sticks with the word vision (or visio) and says that there is a sense that we can attribute the vision of God to Jesus throughout his life.  I think what he Rahner tries to do is stay as close as he can to the traditional vocabulary (although he does not have much interest in infused knowledge).  Rahner makes the point that immediate vision of God need not be Beatific.  If you think, for example, of the crucifixion or as Jesus approached death (e.g., the Agony in the Garden) that immediacy to the Father under these circumstances (knowing what lies ahead and knowing that, at least in some sense, this is a doing of the Father's will) can be quite a terrifying situation.  And so, Rahner prefers to speak of immediate vision rather than Beatific vision leaving open the question of just what the effects of this vision are in particular circumstances. 

 

                                                        A Consciousness Of Unsurpassable Proximity To God

 

Secondly, he says that you can mistake the Beatific vision as a kind of "face to face looking" (in a too objectivized sense of looking at another object).  Rahner is not talking about vision here in the same sense that the Scholastic theologians talked about vision.  What he means rather is a basic consciousness on Jesus' part of immediacy to God.  He means this in the sense of consciousness of unsurpassable proximity to God.  In this sense, God wants Jesus persist in what he is doing despite the consequences.  This, however, as Rahner understands it, does not provide explicit knowledge of individual events.  It is a context in which individual events are understood.  It certainly can effect the understanding of individual events in various ways (e.g., it can be a source of confidence on Jesus' part despite what is happening).  It does not give a piece by piece account of what lies ahead.  And so it leaves room for growth in explicit understanding and articulation of these things.  It leaves room for growth and knowledge about self and growth in knowledge in what lies in store for him.  That is another instance of another situation with regards to self in which one is not going from ignorance to explicit knowledge but rather developing some more explicit knowledge within a context of a basic self awareness.

 

                                                                  Does Jesus Think Of Himself As Messiah?

 

We can back to some specific Christological questions that this leaves open.  Rahner takes the position that Jesus has this consciousness of his relationship to God.  Does Jesus therefore think of himself as the Messiah?  Rahner's position is that we must go to the texts and see if there is historical information to sustain such a view (maybe he did or maybe he did not, maybe he came to that type of understanding, maybe he gradually found the title Messiah suitable with various modifications, maybe because of the [???] of such modifications he did not).  One way or the other, this question can only be resolved by an historical investigation of the Scriptures and not by a kind of deduction from Jesus' relationship with God.  I should add that in a lot of instances we are not in the position to trace this type of development because the nature of our sources are such that that is not possible--we do not have the kind of historical information we need to trace all of this out.  But the reference point for Rahner is this immediacy of God rather than individual Biblical terms or titles.

 

                                                              Vision As An Aspect Of The Hypostatic Union

 

Let me add in one further comment here that relates it more directly to some of the things about which we have been talking.  We talked earlier about the hypostatic union and we also talked about the vision.  To most Scholastic theologians, these are two distinct things.  There is the hypostatic union and then in view of who Jesus is (in view of his unsurpassable dignity as the Incarnate Word) Jesus also receives you might say as a king of grace the advanced Beatific Vision during his life.  Rahner's position is against that.  Rahner's position is that the vision, understood in the sense of consciousness of immediacy with God, is simply an aspect of the hypostatic union.  His argument is that you cannot conceive of the hypostatic union and yet say that the human nature is the completely ignorant of that (this would reduce it out of the personal level inappropriately).  Instead of asking what is appropriately added on (but still as a kind of extra), Rahner's question is rather what is entailed in this?  And so he has a different kind of reference point for his argumentation (rather than the principle that this is a good thing and so therefore Jesus ought to have it).  It is rather that this is part of the unusual situation that is created by the hypostatic union.

 

                                                            Contemporary Theologians Accept Rahner's View

 

If you read contemporary theologians on this subject, you will find that most Roman Catholic theologians take a position very similar to Rahner's point.  They do not necessarily use his distinctive terminology.  They quite possibly do not speak of vision and they may not say something like immediacy to God, but they do speak of some sort of distinct consciousness on Jesus' part of a relationship to God.  Some, to a greater extent than Rahner, prefer to put this in Trinitarian terms (they speak of relationship to the Father) and Rahner tends not to do that and that has been criticized with regard to his point.  The basic point about Jesus' awareness of immediacy to God (without solving all questions of individual items of knowledge) is why many theologians accept Rahner's view. 

 

                                                                  Schillebeeckx And Jesus' Abba Experience

 

As an example of a similar position, but with quite distinct terminology, we can study Edward Schillebeeckx's idea of Jesus' Abba experience.  There are three places in the New Testament where the word Abba appears (in Greek letters but an Aramaic word) which is an intimate word for "Father."  There are countless places in the New Testament where Jesus uses the word Father for God (which becomes Christian vocabulary for the first person of the Trinity).  Many scholars have argued that Jesus' use of this word is something very significant and perhaps even distinctive about Jesus to use this form of reference with regards to God.  There are a few places in the New Testament, where the Aramaic is used, and this has led some authors (Schillebeeckx in particular) to adopt that as a way of characterizing Jesus' specific understanding of his relationship to God.  Schillebeeckx has his own way of fleshing this out--and it must be remembered that his argument on this point is not an appeal to a handful of texts (particularly since there are only a few of them).  Schillebeeckx effort is to try to say that this is a shorthand way of expressing something that is reflected throughout the whole of Jesus' life--that he has an awareness of who God is and how God contrasts with the evil of the present situation.  The focus on evil that is reflected in Schillebeeckx is not as strong in Rahner, but the first half of that--Jesus awareness of who God is, in a kind of pre-thematic sense that is then articulated in various ways fragmentarily throughout Jesus' life--is something that is common in the perceptions of both theologians.^[24] 

 

                                                             Biblical Language Vs. More Abstract Language

 

Allow me to note something here with regard to Schillebeeckx and Rahner.  Notice how with the issue raised above Schillebeeckx opts for more concrete Biblical language than that used by Rahner to express his point.  We will see this again in other places.  There is an advantage to Schillebeeckx's choice.  His choice sounds more appealing [or more down to earth] (at least if you can by the use of the Aramaic).  Schillebeeckx is not likely to use a Rahnerian phrase like "Jesus had a consciousness of unsurpassable proximity to the whole mystery who he called Father" (to many, such a phrase seems distant and unspiritual).  On the other hand there is also an advantage to Rahner's use of language.  Rahner language is less closely tied to one specific Biblical term and less likely to suggest reliance on an individual passage or individual line of interpretation.  Schillebeeckx, in the issue raised above, was not necessarily doing that, but the danger of being concrete on matters of that sort is that the concrete terms favored by exegetes today may not be the concrete terms favored years later.  [The language that] is operative in a particular exegetical context now is likely to sound dated more quickly than the more abstract language.  In any case, in the example cited above, we can see that there is basic agreement on the question of the scope and nature of Jesus' knowledge. 

 

                                                                     Criterion For Testing Various Positions

 

How do we choose [between the] positions like Rahner's or Schillebeeckx's and the positions traditionally upheld by the Scholastics?  If you give a fair hearing to both, sometimes it is not that easy to choose.  The criteria that one would want to test are the following.  The first would be faithfulness to Chalcedon and the second would be the ability to account for the Biblical data.  It is tricky to account for the Biblical data because different people interpret that in different ways.  You can ask which of these alternative positions (although I am not distinguishing here between the relatively slight differences between Rahner and Schillebeeckx) do justice to the whole of Jesus' life.  Can you, on the basis [of the particular approach], produce a reasonable account of what went on?  The test would be in the exercise of trying to do that.  I think that it is largely on the basis of the second criterion that most contemporary authors opt toward some variant of this modern position--often with explanations that this is not contrary to the Chalcedonian teaching. 

On the specific question of Christ's human knowledge most authors at the present time (including Rahner and Schillebeeckx) would be inclined to say that the traditional position (the Scholastic position) is not faithful to Chalcedon (though it claimed to be) because it produced an unauthentic picture of the humanity of Jesus (i.e., a kind of false divinization of his humanity).  The question to be asked of the Scholastic position is also can they make sense of the Biblical material on that basis.  Is it, for example, sufficient to speak of a mental reservation on Jesus' part [with regards to his knowledge].^[25]  For the Scholastics, much of the Biblical material is seen as an obstacle to be gotten around.

[In response to a question from the class] In speaking of two natures in one person (divine nature and human nature) we must avoid thinking in terms of what Paul Tillich has called "the two blocks of granite."  I think that this is a first step (i.e., not to think of divine knowledge as a somewhat large human knowledge).  Secondly, I think that this particular question with regard to limitation of knowledge is parallel with other questions with regard to Jesus (e.g., how can he really die, how can God become flesh in the first place, etc.?).  In some ways, I do not say that you start initially with the assertion [???], but you have reasons to say that this is so, but in the process of saying it you do not forget other things that you have learned about Jesus.  I am saying that you start with this figure who has a certain history and you confess with Chalcedon that this person is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and so on.  But when you say that, you do not forget what you know already--what you know in other ways about him.  We speak in our own sense about relationship to God and through grace a certain participation in God's life.  Through revelation we speak of a certain sharing in God's knowledge but without using a sense of limitation--it is not quite the same thing with regard to Jesus.  There is always the danger of seeing the human nature and divine nature as competitive--and then somehow the divine nature with supercede the human nature rather than unite it together.      Let us leave this question for now--we may in some respects come back to it later with some very concrete questions such as Jesus approach to death.

 

                                                                        An Initial Discussion Of Soteriology

 

Let us move on here to at least start with our discussion of soteriology.  There are a couple of differences here between the situation in soteriology and the situation in Christology.  First of all, we do not have here in soteriology anything comparable to the official teachings of Nicea and Chalcedon.  It is certainly possible to find affirmations that Christ's work was salvific and so on, but we do not have kind of canonization or dogmatization of an individual understanding of soteriology.  As a result, historically there has been a greater variety here than with regard to the person of Christ.  That may certainly be due to the nature of the situation [???].

There are developments in the Patristic period, but also developments in the Middle Ages with regards to soteriology. During the Medieval period, the development with regard to the person of Christ the was less significant (than with soteriology) for representation of the Patristic thought.

 

                                                                           Patristic Soteriological Thought

 

Let us take a look at the Patristic period.  What follows is somewhat unsystematic because there is no single systematic position.  Much of the Patristic thought on this subject is developed in homilies that are related to particular occasions and it is possible that the same author draws on different themes and different imagery at different times (a great deal of the imagery is taken from the Bible). 

 

                                                                             Rejection Of Gnostic Dualism

 

The first point here is a common theme against Gnostic thought.  It is an objection of Dualism so that there is the insistence that creation, in principle, is good.  [Although this stance is against the Gnostics], we can see the idea that there is a struggle between God and the devil which results in a Divine victory.  In this sense, there are themes of conflict and opposition (thematic themes), but not the idea that the world itself is evil in principle.  So there is not a metaphysical dualism (not that the spirit is good and matter is evil). 

 

                                                                 Salvation Of, Not Escape From, The World

 

The Patristic theologians did speak in terms of a struggle, but in speaking of the struggle [they noted] that it is not a struggle between a good god and an evil god (they held that the world is not the creation of an evil force).  The implication, then, for redemption or salvation, is seen in terms of salvation of the world, not escape from the world (not release from some sort of imprisonment in the world).  [The Patristic theologians believed that] there may be opposing forces, but they held that they are not equal forces or anything approximating equal forces.

These theologians had a sense that through sin the devil has achieved some sort of false dominion in the world, but only in the sense that (in the Johanine terms) "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not."^[26]  In this sense we see that although there is opposition and conflict, when the Word became flesh he came into his own and not into the sphere of a hostile divine or supernatural force.  [We see then, that the Patristic theologians] held an underlying anti-dualist position. 

[The discussion above focuses on] one of the various ways in which one of the issues in soteriology is the relationship of creation and redemption.  [In the argument presented above], redemption is typically seen as an improvement--so it is better in some ways than things were or would have been otherwise.  But the difference between the two is not the difference between evil and good, it is between good and better.  That is why God, and particularly the Father, is spoken of as the Creator of Heaven.

 

                                                    The Relationship Between The Old And New Testaments

 

The second illustration [under this argument against the Gnostic position] is the Patristic concern with the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  The Patristics held that the New Testament is a fulfillment and is superior in a variety of ways than the Old Testament, but they reject the idea that the Old Testament is the work of another, different God.  Many of the Fathers struggled to try to express the unity of the two Testaments. 

So that is the first point--an anti-dualist position that states that while there is a struggle, the struggle always takes place on the level of conviction that creation is God's work and therefore good.

Allow me to give a couple of more specific examples of soteriological positions.  These are listed in arbitrary sequence and different modern interpreters place different degrees of emphasis on one or the other.

 

                                                                             The Notion Of Recapitulation

 

Let us look at the notion of Recapitulation.  One important individual and key Patristic author here is Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 A.D.).  There is also Biblical foundation here in Paul.

 

                                                                       The Pauline Sense Of Recapitulation

 

Paul sees Christ as the New Adam (see Romans 15 and 1 Corinthians 15).  In Galatians 4:4 we read: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son. . ."^[27]  This in a sense sums up the whole of creation.  The central Biblical text for this is in Ephesians (note that several contemporary exegetes tend not to attribute Ephesians to Paul).  In Ephesians 1:9b-10 we read: ". . .according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."^[28]  This speaks of God's plan to sum up or unite all things in heaven and earth in Christ.  The Greek word that is used here is Recapitulation which means to give a new head to something.  The other place in the New Testament where the same theme is used is in Romans where love of neighbor is said to sum up the law.^[29]  The passage from Ephesians is a different type of reference but you can see something of the same idea behind it--that the large body of material is recapitulated (summed up) in one.  This type of approach to Soteriology [and Christology?] places great stress on the Incarnation, but there is also emphasis upon the Resurrection (Christ is the first born of the dead and restores the life that was lost in Adam).  We can see how a number of these Pauline themes can readily be combined.

 

                                                                           Reference Points For Soteriology

 

Allow me to offer a couple of comments with regard to this.  Let us think first of possible reference points for soteriology--they are: Incarnation, Public Life, Crucifixion and Resurrection.  The general thrust of this first area, in the loose sense, is reference to Incarnation and Resurrection with a bit more stress on the theme of Incarnation.  You can see a link between this theory and the principle mentioned earlier, "what has not been assumed is not redeemed."  The full human nature that is assumed in the Incarnation is redeemed through that association of Christ, the New Adam.  Notice that the terminology is not juridical here (I do not mean to suggest that juridical terminology is necessarily bad, I am just noting that it is a kind of ontological transformation that is envisioned).  Notice also the understanding of salvation that is present.  We can describe this understanding of salvation as divinization or participation in divine life.  In this sense, overcoming death and conferral of new life in the sense of participation in God's life is the focus--it is not a focus primarily on forgiveness of sin.  You can link it with sin, in the sense of overcoming the consequence of sin, but the vocabulary in the foreground is one of participation in God's life rather than forgiveness of sin and guilt.

 

 

 

 

                                                                              Christology February 7, 1991

 

                                                     The Theology Of Salvation/Why Did God Become Man?

 

We were talking the other day about different themes in Patristic soteriology.  We saw that Patristic soteriology was not really incorporated into a strict theory at that stage.

 

                                                                                   The Notion Of Ransom

 

The third theme to mention with regard to Patristic soteriology is the idea of Divine triumph over the devil as a particular development of the notion of ransom.  This notion is found in the Gospels.  The theory then developed that this was a ransom offered to the devil.  The idea behind that was that the devil had acquired a type of dominion over the human race through sin and that the devil was willing to exchange that for Christ.  In this sense, the devil seemed to be victorious at the time of the crucifixion (that is the point where the ransom is offered) but then was surprised to find Christ rise from the dead on Easter Sunday.  According to this theory the devil is completely overcome by the Resurrection.  This theory is perhaps a little tricky, but it is never-the-less a popular explanation of salvation.  Although a good number of the Fathers of the Church accepted this view, it was not universally accepted.  Gregory of Nazianzen (329-390 A.D.) in particular, thought that it was blasphemous to think of God as engaged in this type of deception.  One more concrete way of putting that is the imagery of Christ as the bait in which the devil swallows and is caught.  In that context, I would like to read a bit from a homily that is contained in the literature attributed to John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) but is not one of his homilies (the author in fact is not known).  In the homily the author envisions Christ speaking to himself planning out what he is going to do.  The texts reads:

"The devil saw me perform many signs, how I healed illnesses with a mere gesture, how I expelled legions of demons with a word.  From such deeds he must have known that I am God's Son and must realize that my death on the cross would mean his destruction.  What shall I do?  Like a skillful fisherman, I will present myself as cowardly, pretend to be afraid of death, and say `Father if it be possible, let this cup pass by.'  If a fisherman casts his line into the sea, but does not bait the hook and from time to time cause the worm to wiggle by moving his hands fish will not strike.  I will conceal the hook of my divinity with the worm of my body.  I must behave like a worm and say `I am a worm and no man.'  He will swallow me as a man and in his stomach he will find in me the power of God."^[30]

You can take this passage in one sense as a kind of popular presentation of a certain theme, but if you start pushing those themes more strictly, the Incarnation becomes basically the vehicle of concealment--the humanity's way of allowing the divinity to be present surreptitiously.  In such a case, the Agony in the Garden can be viewed as role playing between Jesus and the Father (the whole thing being that someone who is not supposed to be overhearing [the devil?] will in fact overhear it).  According to this theory, Divine action in Christ, and Christ's own action, is basically designed to deceive.  It stops short of an outright lie (because you cannot have that) but it is an effective deception.  It is only through the effective deception that salvation is brought about.  Although popular, this is a questionable line of thought.  Later this particular theory will be criticized very strongly.  The criticism of this theory does not question the ransom notion itself, but rather the conception that the devil has a just claim, and that ransom is rightly offered to the devil in a deceptive way to overcome the devil. 

 

                                                                                              Deception?

 

Explanations that use this type of vocabulary are not necessarily deceptive but those that are deceptive typically do not see the ransom or expiation as offered to the devil.  It is when the offer to the devil comes into the picture that somehow then the deception becomes part of the picture.  In such a case, there is deception because the devil takes the bargain but does not get that for which he bargained (or he seems to get it at the Crucifixion but then that is undone by the Resurrection).  It seems to me that there must be some element of deception here as long as the reference point is the devil.

 

                                                                    Divine Education In And Through Christ

 

The fourth point is from a rather different perspective.  This point is the idea of Divine education of the human race in and through Christ.  Now here the orientation is more on the public life of Christ--his teaching, his example.  Let me give two illustrations, both taken from Against Heresies, a work of Irenaeus of Lyons.^[31]  Irenaeus writes that Christ wanted to become our teacher so that through imitation of his works and performance of his words we might have communion with him.  The second reference is somewhat similar.  Had the truth already been known, then the coming of the redeemer into the world would have been superfluous.  Notice in that second passage how closely salvation and revelation are linked.  The revelation of the truth is salvific.  The revelation of the truth is identified here as so decisive of what Christ does that if it were not for that there would be put into this text something more [awful?]. 

I must emphasize again that this fourth theme is not an isolated theory by itself.  The same people who talk in terms of Divine education through Christ, also speak in terms of recapitulation and perhaps also in terms of the ransom.  They do not raise the question, how often can these three things be tied together into one unified conception.  The important contribution of this fourth point is that it can help prevent the idea of recapitulation from seeming to be an automatic process--because if there is a need to act on the basis of what Christ has revealed (i.e., on the basis of what he has taught).

 

                                                   A Diversity Of Approaches To The Theology Of Salvation

 

There are differences of judgement among different historians of soteriology as to just how much emphasis should be given to one or another of these themes of the Patristic period.  At this point, we are not particularly interested in trying to adjust those competing assessments.  We are simply discussing the diversity of approach to the question here.  [We have observed] a lack of one comprehensive theory, and the fact that different approaches to the theology of salvation accent different aspects of Christ's life in their perceptions.

 

                                                                                   Anselm Of Canterbury

 

We turn then to the Middle ages.  We come to one major figure in the history of soteriology in the person of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 A.D.).  Anselm has become the dominant figure in the history of Western soteriology.  Anselm was a Benedictine who later became the Bishop of Canterbury.  His chief work on this subject is Cur Deus homo (Why God Became Man).^[32]  Cur Deus homo is written in the form of a dialogue and develops the notion of satisfaction.  Cur Deus homo is not a homily--it is a more technical and argued theological book.  Anselm is interested in the theme of ransom which was popular at the time in the West.  He picks up the idea of satisfaction (taking this terminology from penitential practice and from theology of the sacrament of penance).  Anselm rejects any notion of ransom being offered to the devil.  He emphasizes the importance of Christ's human freedom and the importance of Christ's work as man--to an extent, such an emphasis was not typical, at least in general, prior to that time.  Anselm, like the major Patristic authors, also affirms the divinity of Christ (this is not disputed and in fact is essential to his argumentation).  In his work, Anselm places an emphasis on what Christ does, whereas the emphasis in at least many of the Patristic themes of thought is on God's presence (i.e., God's presence is what is salvific).  For Anselm, it is important that God be present, but it is still also important that the human freedom of Christ be engaged.

 

                                                                            Gustaf Aulen/Gisbert Greshake

 

Before I sketch the argument that Anselm presents, let me note that this shift is fairly widely recognized but not always assessed from the same perspectives.  A Swedish Lutheran theologian, Gustaf Aulen, the author of an [???] history of soteriology in which he distinguishes various periods in the history of soteriology.^[33]  Aulen is very favorable to the Patristic conceptions.  He [believes that] the Patristics accent the theme that salvation is God's work.  Aulen seeks to revive that for contemporary use.  From his perspective, Anselm represents a decline--a movement away from what ought to be.  On the other hand, Gisbert Greshake,^[34] a contemporary German Catholic theologian, finds great value in Anselm (Gisbert has treated questions similar to those of Aulen).  Greshake thinks precisely that Anselm's emphasis on the human freedom of Christ is an important contribution to the history of soteriology.  [Greshake believes that this emphasis on the human freedom of Christ] has sometimes been underestimated because people in later periods get lost in the specific [???] form of Anselm's argumentation.

 

                                                    Anselm's Desire To Answer Post-Chalcedonian Questions

 

What does Anselm have to say for himself?  The form of the question in which he raises in his reflection is entitled "Why did God become Man?" (Cur Deus homo?).  So the question has to do with the reason for the Incarnation.  Now you notice in a formulation like that, that Anselm very much stands in the tradition of Nicea and Chalcedon--that line of reflection is assumed as valid.  But Anselm is also aware of objections (by non Christians) to Chalcedon--that this doctrine is unworthy of God, that it improperly brings God down to our level.  Anselm is aware that further questions remain (post Chalcedon) that need to be answered.  He says, for example, that he wishes to consider the objection of infidels who despise the Christian faith because they believe it to be contrary to reason (the infidels, i.e., the Muslims, think that the idea of birth, of suffering, of death, is unsuitable to God).  So what does Anselm do?  He seeks to argue that far from being contrary to God's dignity, the Incarnation is the only appropriate thing for God to do.

Anselm divides Cur Deus homo into two books.  The first book deals with the argument that without the Incarnation salvation is impossible.  Secondly, in book two, he makes the point that salvation is God's intention for the human race (and so it is quite appropriate that God do what is necessary to bring about the desired goal).  Let me sketch through the basic points of the argument.  Anselm tends to go into certain side issue from time to time, which are interesting but which do not concern us here (e.g., he has a section on whether the number of human beings who will be saved will be equal to or exceed the number of fallen angels).

 

                                               At First, Anselm Desires To Leave Christ Out Of His Argument

 

The starting point for Anselm is in some ways difficult to specify.  He says, first of all, that he is going to proceed in the first book leaving Christ out of view (as if nothing had ever been known of him).  The first book then proves the impossibility of salvation without Christ.  The second book, likewise as if nothing were known of Christ, proceeds to argue the Divine plan of salvation and the fact that this can only be brought about through Christ.  The catch to this is that, while he is leaving Christ out of view, he also knows what he has left out of view (i.e., he knows what he is looking for in the long run).  Anselm does not hesitate to draw upon certain Christian doctrines (particularly the doctrine of sin).  So leaving Christology out of view is one thing, but it is not the same as stepping completely out of a Christian framework--though he does think that others might also be brought to accept other parts of his [diagram?]. 

 

                                                                         A Disrupted Order In The Universe

 

Concretely, Anselm advances the position that human nature is fallen and must be restored if salvation is to come about.  He says that there is something wrong with the order of the universe.  This problem has come through sin which disrupts the order of the universe and which places on the human race an infinite debt.  If this situation is not rectified, then there is no possibility of salvation.  On the other hand, the human race, left to itself, is unable to restore this situation--it is unable to repay the debt.  This is the negative side of the argument which is basically the argument of book one of Cur Deus homo.

 

                                                                                       The Quality Of Sin

 

What is at issue here for Anselm, and is thrashed out in question and answer form in his presentation, is that the way to measure the debt is to ask who has been offended, who is owed something?  There are two ways of looking at sin.  One is to look at the material content of the misdeed.  When sin is looked at from this perspective, then in many cases the issue might be something trivial (e.g., eating just a small piece of fruit in the Garden).  So if you look at it from a material, and almost quantitative point of view, the real gravity of sin does not come into the foreground.  But if you look at sin from a more formal qualitative perspective (a different perspective than simply focusing on the content), and see that sin is an offense against God, then the enormity of the misdeed becomes clear.  Anselm keeps repeating throughout this stage of the presentation that if you do not see what he is getting at, then you have not yet grasped how serious sin is.  Because of the reference to God, sin and the consequent death and the disruption of public order are infinite.  Anselm draws in part here from leading conceptions available during his own time in history (e.g., to offend the king or ruler was a greater offense than to do the same thing to someone else--and those who were not of the same public standing, were not in the position to make good what had been done wrong and had caused offense).  These same concepts are taken here and applied to God but then with the usual higher and more complex level [of understanding].

 

                                                                           Who Can Restore The Situation?

 

The question posed is, "why can't the person who caused the problem restore the situation?"  The answer here is that while the misdeed is judged by reference to the one offended, any effort at restoring the situation must be done by reference to the one who authors restoration.  And so, in the personal, qualitative terms, no one who is simply a member of the human race (who is simply a human being) is able to make the appropriate restoration.  You need to add to that in this case, that we do not really have anything that we do not owe to God anyway (so what could we possibly do?). 

As long as the debt stays unpaid, the public order of the universe is disrupted and salvation is impossible.  Here it is important to note that salvation is impossible in that situation not simply in a sense of an extrinsic legal situation, but rather because as long as this disorder exists, salvation simply cannot be present--it would be a contradiction in terms.  The contradiction is to speak of salvation outside of restoration of order.

What are the possibilities at this stage?  Below are a number of the questions that Anselm raises.

 

                                                                             Can God's Plan Be Frustrated?

 

What about God letting things go?  (e.g., things did not work out too well with a lot of the angels nor did they work out well here).  The problem with that for Anselm is that that would mean that God's intention in creating the universe would be frustrated.  The purpose in creating human beings has been to bring them to what Anselm calls "a happy immortality."  It is not conceivable for Anselm that God would set up to do something that does not work out.

 

                                                                                Can God Forget The Debt?

 

What about the possibility that God would simply forget about the debt?  In this case, God would leave aside the question of justice and simply forgive.  That, according to Anselm, does not work either, because God's mercy is always a just mercy.  A mercy that does not actually restore the situation is not of much value.  So the question of justice cannot be pushed aside. 

We are left then with either punishment or satisfaction.  Punishment is not going to be able to restore the situation anyway, but there does not seem to be anyone who could provide satisfaction. 

How can you bring about a situation in which order can be restored?  Anselm's answer is that it can only be done through the Incarnation.  God must become man in order to repay the debt.  It is here that, having become man, there is a certain solidarity with the human race in which Christ participates.  And so Christ is able to act on behalf of others.  [Because of this] the incarnation takes place.

 

                                                                 What Is To Be Offered As The Satisfaction

 

Then the question comes up, "what is then going to be the satisfaction?" or "what act of Christ will be offered as satisfaction for sin?"  Here we come to the idea that death is a consequence of sin (Paul speaks in such terms).  And so since Christ is sinless, in principle he is not forced to die, however he is still a human being who is able to die.  Because of this, Christ can and does offer himself in death to Father freely as satisfaction for sin.  The principle that has been offered from the beginning is that whatever is offered in satisfaction for a debt is measured in quality by reference to the person who does the offering.  Here the only time that you have someone who is active in behalf of the human race, but who none-the-less is of infinite value because the person is Divine.  And so, the death of Christ brings about the necessary satisfaction.

Let us go back to the original question: "Is the Incarnation, and more specifically the crucifixion, unworthy of God?"  Anselm's answer is (on the contrary) that this is precisely the Divine thing to do under these circumstances.  This is God's way of bringing about the original plan for the human race.  That is basically Anselm's theory.

 

                                                                           Anselm's Influence In The West

 

Anselm's theory has been extremely influential in the West.  It is not something that he had come up with all on his own--obviously there are antecedents to that [in earlier stages of Biblical and Patristic thought].  [What is distinctive about Anselm's approach is his way of] working out in this form and with this rigorous development of an argument.  His theory caught on in the West and has been the chief reference point for understanding soteriology since that time.  There have been some criticisms and some modifications and some in modern times who reject the whole theory.  We will come to the modern criticisms later.  Perhaps it did not catch on the East because of the lack of communication during that time (e.g., it was written in Latin).  Also, salvation as forgiveness of sin and restoration of disturbed order is not the typical Eastern perspective.

 

                                                                         An Objection To Anselm's Theory

 

One objection that has often been raised about Anselm's theory is that it isolates Jesus' death from everything else.  It seems that although Anselm links Jesus' death clearly to the Incarnation, it does not link Jesus' death clearly to his public life.  This raises the questions, "what is the point of Jesus' life and why did he not simply come and die?"  According to this critique, the rest of Jesus' life does not seem to be intrinsic to the argumentation.  We will come back to this later.

 

                                                                               Development After Anselm

 

A word or two about the developments after Anselm.  Thomas' position is important--he is in general a supporter of Anselm.  That, in turn, was a factor in the propagating of Anselm's theory.  But Thomas held that this is only one way to argue why God became man--it was [an] appropriate way, but it was not the most appropriate way (although we should be careful here with our use of superlatives).  Thomas' position is that if God insists on full satisfaction, then you do need the Incarnation (because there is no other way of gaining full satisfaction).  But Thomas says, why God does require full satisfaction--it is precisely through Christ's death (that is left as a mystery of Divine freedom).  The emphasis upon freedom is carried even further in the thought of John Duns Scotus (1266-1308 A.D.)--this is a concept characteristic of Scotus' thought in general. 

 

                                                                                  Thomists Vs Anselmians

 

[Response to question from the class]  Anselm's position is that the only way to [acquire restoration of a disturbed order] is through the Incarnation--there is a certain necessity to all that.  There are some conditions to that assessment because there is nothing that compels God to create in the first place (it is not a necessity from the start).  Once things get going, and once sin comes into the picture, then it is necessary that the situation be restored.  Thomas does not think that Anselm's position sufficiently safeguard's Divine freedom (and Scotus is even more convinced of this).  Thomas' position is that if God requires full satisfaction, then the Incarnation and death of Christ are needed to accomplish that, but the Thomists' say that that is only if God requires full satisfaction--as is in fact the case, but there is nothing in the nature of the situation that makes that necessary.  Anselm, however, was of the opinion [and I will put this anthropomorphically] that God must require full satisfaction, because otherwise, the order is never restored and God would be closing his eyes to something and that is not acceptable.  Thomas does not think that God can be pinned down to one particular way of operating--we cannot say that this is the way that God must operate.

Allow me to give a couple of examples of things that are considered questionable as far as later developments are concerned.  There has been a tendency, in some modern (i.e., neo-scholastic or popular) Catholic thought on the subject, to focus on the one hand very exclusively on the crucifixion (and seeing that in isolation) and then paradoxically on the other hand to say that because of the dignity of Christ's person anything he did (any human act of his) could have been the decisive redemptive act had God so willed it.

 

                                                          The Significance Of The Crucifixion In Soteriology

 

The first example, that I would like to give, is an illustration of the focus on the crucifixion taken I think in a [???] way.  The example that follows is from twentieth century theologian, and popular author, Karl Adam.  In The Son of God, Adam's popular work on Christology, he writes:

"His ultimate object in coming was not to heal the sick, nor to work miracles, nor to preach the Kingdom of God.  These were all only the externals of his Messianic activities.  The true essence of his redeemership lay in the purchase of our life by his death."^[35]

There is a thrust behind this that wants to say that it is not all the public life of Jesus--this is a critique of liberal conceptions which brush aside the crucifixion.  To the extent that this is that type of critique, I think that Adam's point is valid.  But it is still a mistake to play two up against each other that way, and to devalue everything that goes before the crucifixion as nothing but a prelude to the Messianic act.

The second example, in more technical Scholastic terminology, is taken from the Pohle-Preuss textbook on Soteriology from the early 1900's.  The textbook reads:

"The sole cause of our redemption is the Saviors' death on the Cross.  Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ is not the chief cause, or even a contributing cause of our redemption."^[36]

Just as the passage from Karl Adam has separated the Crucifixion from the public life of Jesus, in the Pohle-Preuss textbook (from roughly the same period but in a different style of language) the Resurrection is brushed aside (at least from this perspective).  Pohle-Preuss go on to say:

"Each and every one of Christ's actions, even the most insignificant, would have been sufficient for purposes of the atonement.  Each and every action is by its very nature infinitely meritorious."^[37]

That is the odd situation.  On the one hand, there is an exaltation of the Crucifixion in isolation as the salvific event.  On the other hand, they are saying that the Crucifixion, in principle, could have been replaced by even the most insignificant act of Christ's life.  Because of the extreme abstraction, focusing on all of this as deeds of Christ, the content is lost.  You do not find conceptions like these much in the present time.  A contemporary publication by Daniel Helminiak entitled The Same Jesus, is one book which has something of a tendency in this direction.  Helminiak takes a very clearly Thomistic rather than the Anselmian approach on the questions of the need for satisfaction, etc..^[38]

 

                                                                           The Motive For The Incarnation

 

I would like to touch on one final issue just very briefly--the later Scholastic discussion on the motive for Incarnation.  In a sense, this has already been Anselm's question, but it is a question that comes into the picture more explicitly in the later Scholastic period.  There are two answers to this question (about which the Scholastics never reach complete agreement).  The way of phrasing the question is "would the Incarnation have taken place apart from sin or would the Word have become flesh had it been not so?"  This is a contrary to the fact raising of the question--the Scholastics know this but they do it as a vehicle for getting at the question.

 

                                                                                     The Thomist Position

 

The Thomist position on this (based on what St. Thomas himself held) is a negative answer:  The Incarnation would not have taken place apart from sin.  It is recognized that this precise question is not raised or answered in the New Testament, but the Thomists appeal to the fact that the work of Christ is closely linked to the overcoming of sin.  The clearest liturgical position is in the Exultet of Holy Saturday--which speaks of Adam's sin as happy fault (the necessary sin of Adam).  Sin is not necessary in the sense that Adam is compelled to do it, but rather the idea is that because of the sin it has worked out so much to the advantage (i.e., where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more).  In this sense, we could say that in the long run, it is fortunate that it occurred because it led to the Incarnation (otherwise it may not have happened).

 

                                                                                     The Scotists' Position

 

The opposite position is the Scotists' position--that the Incarnation would have taken place anyway because the motive of the Incarnation was the perfection of creation.  Very often, the Scotists' appeal to the Hymn of Colossians which says that "Christ is the first-born of all creation. . . all things were created through him and for him".^[39]  A part of what is at issue here is how closely Christology is going to be connected to the overcoming of sin as distinguished from how closely Christology will be connected to themes of creation. 

 

 

 

 

                                                                            Christology February 12, 1991

 

                                                              The Thomists' Position About The Incarnation

 

Notice that the effect of the Thomists' position is that the Incarnation is God's response to something that God foresees, but does not will.  So obviously God freely wills that the Incarnation take place but to put it very anthropomorphically, he wishes that it had not been necessary or that it had not come about.  In one sense then, it is not part of God's original plan but obviously you cannot think of an afterthought with reference to God--but it is thought from the beginning as condition of something that ought not to have been.  The intention on the part of God was creation, and then when sin and The Fall intervened, the Incarnation then comes into the picture later.  The point is not simply that the Incarnation takes place later--that is clear.  It is only given this interruption, that the Incarnation is freely willed by God. 

 

                                                     The Tendency Of Recent Theology--A Scotists Position?

 

There is general tendency in recent theology (particularly among Roman Catholic theologians) to take in effect the Scotist position on this matter.  This is not necessarily done with Scholastic terminology, but to link creation very closely to the perfection of creation rather than focusing on the overcoming of sin.  One example associated with this is Karl Rahner.  Rahner is explicit from time to time and prefers this position.  A position more closely linked to the traditional Thomists position is the Christology of Edward Schillebeeckx (O.P.).  Schillebeeckx is not as explicit about this in terms of a [heated dispute?] but Schillebeeckx does persistently discuss Christology with reference to overcoming evil.  Again, I do not wish to suggest that you can put either Rahner or Schillebeeckx completely into these Medieval categories (there are enough differences in their theologies that requires us to avoid that).  Basically they are along those lines of thought and these lines of thought are divergent but respectable lines of thought.

 

                                           A Distinction Between The Grace Of God And The Grace Of Christ

 

A second comment I must mention with regard to those contemporary names, has to do with a little oddity of Thomistic terminology which is a result of this dispute.  When Thomistic theologians talk about a theology of grace (I think that you can see clearly that the theology of grace is closely linked to the idea discussed above) they distinguish between the grace of God and the grace of Christ.  This is not a denial of the divinity of Christ--and it is certainly their position that anything that is called the grace of Christ is also divine grace.  What is at issue here is the issue of the offer of grace before The Fall (i.e., the offer of grace to Adam and Eve).  And while historically that offer before The Fall may seem insignificant, because it was a very brief period of time, still it is important for raising questions about the theology of grace and the relationship of grace and nature.  The Thomist position that is reflected in this terminology is that prior to The Fall, one can speak of the grace of God but not of the grace of Christ--because there is no reference to the Incarnation.  Whereas after The Fall, one can speak of the grace of Christ--even prior to the actual occurrence of the Incarnation (you could do that with reference to the Old Testament) as restoring what has been damaged by sin.  That is the Thomistic position.  A Scotist will not make that distinction--he will say that all grace is the grace of Christ.

[Question from the class: When they that there is a grace of God and a grace of Christ, are they talking about two different types of grace?  Answer: Sometimes it is difficult [to know].  Probably they did not imply that [there are two different types of grace].  One difference is the question of effect--that there is an effect here of overcoming sin that is not present in the other case.  The most immediate reason is a category that we may not use as much now as they did then--the category of death.  But this raises the grace of Christ because it is merited by Christ (through his life and especially through his death.  The grace of God which is pre-Fall is not merited by Christ, and therefore cannot be called the grace of Christ.  You see this in much of their terminology.]

 

                                                                 The Connection Between Christ And Grace

 

I have one last comment on this with an advance apology that this might be complicated (we will also come back to this later in the course).  The issue is the connection between Christ and grace.  The question that is raised presumes that when speaking about grace here that we are not talking about Christ's relationship to the Father, but instead are speaking about the offer of grace to others.  I would also like to abstract for the moment from the question, "how many others?" (whether it is just some or all, etc.).  It would be typically held, I think by all theologians, that the Incarnation (the presence of Christ in humanity) implies the offer of grace to others (at least to some extent).  In other words, if you have a world in which the Incarnation comes about, through God's free choice, then that must be a world in which the offer of grace is made.

 

                                              Does The Offer Of Grace Necessarily Lead To The Incarnation?

 

[In light of the above paragraph] the question that must be raised is, "can that be reversed?"  [Can it be understood that] the offer of grace necessarily leads to or entails Incarnation?  The general position of theologians, with regard to this question is no.  The general position is that both the offer of grace and the Incarnation are pre-decisions on God's part.  If I can put this anthropomorphically, they are separate, distinct decisions.  The traditional general position has been that while you could not have the Incarnation without the offer of grace, you could very well have the offer of grace without the Incarnation.

 

                                                                                    The Thomists' Position

 

The Thomist must say no to idea that the offer of grace necessarily leads to the Incarnation.  The Thomist takes the position that the Incarnation is the remedy for sin, and that you not only could have offer of grace without any intent of the Incarnation but you actually did have from the very beginning.

 

                                                                                     The Scotists' Position

 

The Scotist is, in principle, free to answer yes or no to the idea that the offer of grace necessarily leads to the Incarnation.  The Scotist position is that in fact the offer of grace has always been tied to the Incarnation, but that does not commit the Scotist to say that there is a sense that one is entailed in the other.  The general answer usually given by the Scotist, however, has also been no because of their very strong emphasis on Divine freedom.

 

                                                                                    Karl Rahner's Position

 

I mention this at this stage simply as something to think about--because Karl Rahner's position is that the offer of grace and the Incarnation are inseparably linked together.  That position, that grace entails Incarnation, is a key element in Rahner's Christology.  If you take that element out of Rahner's Christology, then you do not have his Christology anymore--this is not just a side point.  Notice that even in the position that Rahner takes, the Incarnation is still free, because the offer of grace is free--but this is not a kind of second freedom over and above the offer of grace.  The effort to link grace and the Incarnation (or the effort to see the link between the two) is a key element in Rahner's position.

 

                                                              A Discussion Of An Article By Thomas Marsh

 

A discussion of Thomas Marsh's article. . .^[40]  Allow me to read a criticism of Marsh's article by Laurence O'Connor--which appeared in a previous issue of The Irish Theological Quarterly!  O'Connor states:

"The paper was a fine explanation of one strand of Christian soteriology which has its basis in the New Testament (Jn. 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:9).  What the paper and subsequent discussion lacked was any serious evaluation of the main tradition of Catholic soteriology which can be summed up in the words "Christ died for our sins."^[41]

O'Connor is obviously critical of Marsh's paper.  O'Connor's answer says that he has gone too far in the other direction--that he has underemphasized the suffering and death of Jesus.

I think Marsh overstated his criticism of subjective and objective redemption.  I think that as a result of that, he was not as able to deal with the question of participation [???] to the extent that he might have been able.

 

That marks the completion of our look at classical Christology and soteriology.  We are now going to go back to pre-Classical Christology.

 

                                                              Pre-Classical Christology/The New Testament

 

Let me turn here to the New Testament.  In a sense, what we are doing here is going back behind the classical Christology and soteriology.  We are looking for two things in doing this.  The first is the question of what basis there is in the New Testament for the Classical approaches to this subject (i.e., is there continuity? and are there developments or materials that are not present in the New Testament or are there matters that are quite foreign to the New Testament?).  But secondly, we can also look to the New Testament for other ideas that might not have been picked up in the Classical developments but which might still prove very fruitful for theological reflection.  I emphasize that because the tendency in Scholastic and Neo-scholastic recourse to the New Testament is first interested only in finding the basis for their own positions (so that a lot of the rest is just dropped aside) and secondly to [strain to] find any possible basis for those positions--even sometimes forcing the texts to reveal information that they really do not contain.  The second of those criticisms (i.e., the problem of reading things into the texts--proof texting) is rather generally recognized now as not the correct way to go.

 

                                                             A Contemporary Shift In Theological Reflection

 

The second point concerns a shift in the theological climate.  The key questions raised in the theological literature in the first half of this century (leading up to the 1950's and even into the 1960's) is how do we get from the New Testament portrayal of Christ to the Classical positions (i.e., is there a basis in the New Testament for the teaching of Nicea and Chalcedon).  There has been a shift in the theological reflection since that time.  [Below we will look at the following questions:] Is the shift that takes place justified, and how extensive a shift is it?

 

                                                   The Legitimacy Of The New Testament Portrayal Of Christ

 

Today you will find a [devaluation of Christological understandings of the past] (e.g., that of Oscar Collmann who tended to say that New Testament Christology is a functional Christology and what comes later is an ontological Christology--a development that he did not see as a positive development).  Others might use the same terminology (e.g., the Lonergan school) but do see development as legitimate.  In any case, my point here is that the framework of the question there is the legitimacy both the New Testament portrayal of Christ [and?] the portrayal of Christ in the early councils and what follows from them.  Those questions are still legitimate and still occupy the attention of theologians today, but they have been replaced in the forefront of theological attention by a different question.  [The new question concerns] the legitimacy of the step from Jesus to the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament.  This is a question that is, in principle, influenced by modern Biblical criticism in a way that was not the case in the past.  This is a question that comes into the forefront in Roman Catholic writing of a relatively recent date.  This has only recently come into the forefront because it is only now that the impact of this Biblical scholarship is being felt in Catholic Christology (i.e., during the past twenty-five years). 

 

                                                     Rahner And The Legitimacy Of New Testament Material

With regard to that, Karl Rahner observed that this is really the key question.  And that if the legitimacy of this step is established, then the question of the further step from New Testament Christology to the early councils is a comparatively simple one.  The New Testament says that Jesus is the Christ (and it uses all types of other titles for him) and it presents a picture of his life as one in union with the Father (in the descriptions of the various deeds, etc.).  It is very common, on the part of exegetes at the present time, to say that a certain amount of this material originated in the early Church--that it is not simply a reporting of what was immediately visible at the time, but that it was an interpretation of Jesus from the perspective of the faith of the early community. 

 

                                                                       The Meaning Of Biblical Legitimacy

 

What I mean by legitimacy is [the question of whether or not] that portrayal is valid or a distortion.  This is a questioning of the Scriptures in relation to the historical Jesus.  Previous to modern Biblical scholarship, the question of the differences (or the question of what is the relationship between the events of Jesus' life and say the Gospels) is simply not questioned.  In the past, scholars believed that what is portrayed in the Gospels are records of the events of Jesus' life (though they would admit that there is more to the life of Jesus than what is portrayed in the Gospels).  It would never strike Aquinas, Anselm or Luther to ask if the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was an actual historical event, or to ask if the various discourses are actual records of what Jesus said (and so on). 

The point that Rahner and others make with regard to this is that there is so much Christological content in the Gospels and in the writings of Paul, that once you get that far it is not very difficult to make the first step.  There is a great deal of terminological refinement and a raising of certain questions that [establishes a pattern].  The question is, "is this legitimate?"  A Christian will no doubt say that yes it is legitimate (there is no doubt about that), but that still does not [???] it would not have to be.

 

                                                                           What Is In The New Testament?

 

The stage that we are looking at here at the moment is really this stage--"what is in the New Testament?"  We will go back later in the course for a further study of the question of the life of Jesus.  It is difficult to get at because we only have to be aware of the difference between what actually went on at that time and what we can still have access to today--almost by definition, to most of it we will not have access.  But this is a question over which we still cannot be skip.

 

                                                                 A Warning Against Possible Exaggerations

 

I have one last remark before we come to the writings of Paul.  I have tried to stress, so far, the importance of going back to the New Testament and the possibilities of finding riches in New Testament Christology and that are not completely [obvious to us?].  I have also warned you against possible exaggeration (e.g., occasionally one finds the opinion that if a theological question was not raised in the New Testament that it cannot be a real question. 

A concrete example of this found in the writings of Irish Catholic theologian James Mackey.^[42]  Mackey is inclined to point out that there are certain trains of thought, certain types of argumentation, which the New Testament authors do not raise or do not pursue (e.g., the New Testament authors, in their treatment of the resurrection are usually less concerned with apologetic argumentation than some later theologians).  That is a legitimate point, but Mackey seems to want to take it a step further and suggest that if the Biblical authors were not concerned with something, then we should not be--and if the Biblical authors did not address a particular question, then we should not use Biblical material in an effort to get at the questions ourselves.  In my opinion (Galvin), those implications do not follow at all.

It may simply be that certain questions were not present at the time the Biblical texts were written, have subsequently taken on an importance which requires us to address them more thoroughly at the present time.  I do not see any reason why we cannot use Biblical material in seeking to do that (though obviously one must make appropriate allowances concerning the purposes for which those texts were written).

 

                                                                                     The Writings Of Paul

Let us then turn to the writings of Paul.  Paul was the oldest of the Biblical authors.  Our purpose here is not to give an exhaustive presentation of Pauline theology or of Paul's Christology in particular, but rather this is just to pick out a few points that are important for our purposes. 

 

                                                             Paul Uses Very Little From The Words Of Jesus

 

First, a couple of remarks on the sources of Paul's Christology.  Paul's epistles give us very little information about Jesus' public life.  They also give us very little information about the words of Jesus.  There are occasional places where saying of Jesus are cited or to which they are alluded (examples of this can be found in the following passages: 1 Cor. 7:10-11^[43], and 9:14^[44]).  There is a passage also in 1 Cor. 11:23-25^[45] which contains a report of the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist, but this type of material is very rare in Paul.  The kind of traditional material found in the Synoptics or the type of stories we find in John simply are not present in Pauline epistles.  Even with regard to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which are central themes of Paul's Christology, Paul does not provide a Passion narrative, nor does he provide information about the empty grave or stories of Resurrection appearances (he mentions them, but does not present them in narrative form).  Instead of drawing on that type of traditional material, Paul seems to have two sources for his thought.  One is his own conversion which is some experience of the presence of the Crucified Christ in God's glory.  It is difficult to get at this too precisely--on the one hand, Paul was not present during Jesus' lifetime (and so he does not have firsthand familiarity with things at that stage), on the other hand, he certainly knew something about Christianity and the Church before his conversion (he had persecuted the Church).  Paul's conversion is not a first acquaintance with Christianity, but it is an adoption of a faith that he had previously opposed and persecuted.  The focus of that conversion seems to be on the death and resurrection (or death and exaltation) of Jesus.  This is, at least, the Christological perspective that is in the foreground of his writing.

 

                                                                          Paul's Use of Traditional Material

 

Secondly, Paul also draws on some traditional material, but not the type of traditional material that contained information about Jesus' life and activity.  Instead, Paul makes great use of material from the early Church (i.e., brief confessions of faith, hymns, acclamations, and material of catechetical and liturgical origin).  Paul feels free to adapt these materials for his own purposes, but at the same time he preserves them sufficiently to  make it possible to detect their presence within he texts.  A couple of examples of this are as follows: Phil 2:5-11^[46] (the famous hymn of Christ's emptying of self) 1 Cor. 8:6^[47], and 1 Cor. 15:3-8^[48] (a passage we will be coming to again).  We see in Paul examples of a combination of traditional material, that Paul has received and passed on a couple of times (even in a fixed formulation), and we also see Paul's willingness to add comments of his own (e.g., the comment in 1 Cor. 15:6 about "most of whom are still alive").  There is a concentration on the death and resurrection of Jesus in the material that Paul uses.  It may be that such a concentration comes from tradition or that that is a reflection of Paul's interest, but it may also be that a concentration on the death and resurrection is typical of this type of formula of hymn in the first place.

 

 

 

 

                                                                            Christology February 14, 1991

 

                                                     A Continuation Of A Discussion On The New Testament

 

Today I would like to go on with our discussion of the New Testament.  Our purpose here is not to do an exhaustive study, but rather to focus on certain characteristics elements.  I have mentioned the sources that Paul draws on in his Christology as reflected in his letters.  I would like to say a couple of words here about the content of his Christology which developed from that. 

 

                                                                                   A Pauline Christology?

 

Paul's Christology is marked by a very strong consciousness of history in which the present is very sharply marked off from the past on one hand, and the future on the other hand.  A future orientation (eschatology) is central to Paul.  To that extent, there is a very close relationship with Jesus' own preaching (which also stresses the future), but Paul's vocabulary and form of expression is not the same as that of Jesus.  The Kingdom of God is not the term Paul uses--he speaks instead of the Day of the Lord. 

 

                                                            The End Of The Ages And The Day Of Salvation

 

The Day of the Lord is a time when we all appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:10^[49]).  It is a day that will come like a thief in the night (see 1 Thes. 5:2^[50]).  There may be a link with the Gospel tradition in 1 Thes. 5:2 (the imagery of the "thief," however unflattering, is used elsewhere).  Everything is judged with reference to this future which is completely beyond the human control.  The other side of the coin here is that the present situation is very sharply distinguished from the past--that in some respects it is linked more closely to the future than the past (and by "past" here is meant what to Paul would have been the very recent past).  The following are a couple of examples of this:  1 Cor. 10:11^[51] ("the end of the ages has come") and 2 Cor. 6:2^[52] ("now is the day of salvation").  A new situation for the entire world has come about quite recently, through the death and resurrection, or exaltation, of Christ.

 

                                                                     Paul's Theology Implies A Christology

 

Notice that Paul's theology of history, with its strong eschatological component, already implies a Christology (even apart from the use of any titles for Jesus) because it is Jesus, and specifically his death and resurrection, which marks the break between the present and the past--and in a sense at least the beginning of the future.  I do not want to overstate here the idea that the future has already begun because Paul emphasizes so strongly that we are also looking ahead.  This understanding leads Paul to portray the situation or the human race before Christ in rather negative terms.  I have qualified that by saying "rather negative" because the vocabulary that is used to describe that situation is not uniform and somehow are not as negative as others. 

 

                                                                          Law, Sin, Flesh, Death and World

 

The characteristics of the situation before Christ are the Law (an example of something that I would put in an ambivalent category because Paul recognizes that the Law comes from God and at the same time Paul was critical of the Law in various ways), Sin (this is purely negative), the Flesh and Death (both of which are closely aligned with sin--the flesh here is what wars against the spirit) and finally the idea of the World (not world in the sense creation directly, but rather in the sense of forces that are opposed to God.  Let me give just one example from Galatians 1:3b-4, which reads ". . .our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father."^[53]  Sins and an evil age are characteristic of the former state--the state that for us Christ's death has overcome. 

 

                                                                            Life, Justice and Reconciliation

 

The description of Christ's act also uses widely varying vocabulary.  It describes an act of obedience (i.e., an act of love and an act of righteousness) in contrast to an act of disobedience.  This act brings about a situation which is now characterized by in positive terms (I will give some more concrete instance below).  Some examples of this new situation are Justice (or righteousness), Life rather than death, and Reconciliation.  All of this, of course, is due to God's initiative (a constant emphasis on Paul's part).

 

                                                                 Paul Did Not Write A "Pauline Christology"

 

So far, what I have said has been developed by taking individual themes from different sections of Paul's letters and listing them to characterize the different situation.  Paul, of course, did not sit down and say, "I am going to write a Pauline Christology" (that was not his style of expression, and he probably would not have been very good at it had he tried).  Instead, Paul undertook to address very concrete conditions (and very specific problems) in his individual letters.  And so, there is a danger in trying to understand Paul.  [This danger occurs] when we pull out individual themes from their original setting.  When we do this, we get a certain understanding of the themes, but we also pull back from the immediate setting from which another level of understanding can be achieved.  I would like to sketch here just two forms of Pauline argumentation to show how [a Pauline] Christology works in context.  The two examples that I will take are Romans and 1 Corinthians.  I take these letters specifically because on the one hand, they are the major Pauline letters, and on the other hand, they are rather distinctive in their argumentation.

Romans is a distinctive work.  It was sent to a church which had only heard of Paul--a church where he hopes to go, but not a church which he has founded or otherwise influenced significantly (he is not writing to people with whom he has dealt in the past).  In the Letter to the Romans, Paul tries to present himself, in advance, to a group which has heard of him but has not met him.

 

                                                                                The Righteousness Of God

 

The basic theological problem that he poses is how one is to find the righteousness of God.  Paul's answer is that the righteousness of God is found in the Gospel (not in the sense of one of the four Gospels, but rather in the sense of message of Jesus Christ).  This is expressed first in the letter in chapter one, verses 16-17.^[54] 

 

                                                                             The Sinfulness Of The Greeks

 

What follows after this is a further fleshing out and development of the statement.  Paul first describes the sinfulness of the Greek.^[55]  It may well be that the Church in Rome [was exposed to the Greeks].  The characteristics of the situation of the Greek (i.e, the Greek apart from Christ) are the wrath of God, ungodliness, and wickedness.^[56]  I think that it would be a mistake to generalize this and say that this is an exhaustive description of the situation.  There are occasional positive elements on which Paul touches, but even those are said in such a way that it makes the situation all the worse.^[57]

 

                                                             A Negative Description Of The Jewish Tradition

 

The next section which begins in chapter two and goes on to chapter three, verse eight,^[58] is a harshly negative description of the Jewish situation.  Although they have the Law, the Jews are judged negatively.  The specific items criticized here are self judgement while judging others, obeying wickedness rather than the truth, and breaking of the Law. 

 

                                                        All Have Sinned And Fall Short Of The Glory Of God

 

Then the overall conclusion is drawn in chapter three, verses ten to eleven and verse twenty-three.^[59]  Despite the differences in relationship to the Law, we read un this passage that wickedness is universal and both Jew and Greek are under the power of sin--no one is righteous, no one understands and no one seeks for God.  [Furthermore], all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  We notice in different parts of the New Testament, different tones in the portrayal of the theology of history before and after Christ. 

Texts like [the Pauline one just cited] (and the Johannine material) are the sharpest in their portrayal of contrasts.  Some of the other Biblical authors make the distinctions much less radical than Paul suggests.  Even Paul himself has other positive things to say about the Old Testament that are not reflected in this material.

 

                                                                                The Righteousness Of God

 

Then comes the contrast in chapter three, verses twenty-one to twenty-two.  There is a little bit of overlapping here with the conclusion of the first part because Paul goes back then to reinforce his point.  The passage reads:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."^[60]

This righteousness is a divine gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

 

                                                                               Redemption And Expiation

 

I draw your attention here to a bit of the terminology in chapter three, verses twenty-four and twenty-five.^[61]  In these verses we find reference to Redemption and reference to Expiation by his blood.  This passage will be associated with some of the later theories of the Thomists that we have talked about (though they are not developed here in detail).

 

                                                                  Since Justified We Are At Peace With God

 

Up to this point [in Romans] we have a negative portrayal of the situation before Christ and the identification of Christ's death in particular as the transition.  The next section, chapters five through eight, give the positive side of the picture--since we are justified we are at peace with God.^[62]  This leads to hope.  God shows his love for us through Christ's death and we are justified by his blood.  Here I draw your attention to an implication of verse eight.  The verse reads: "But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."^[63]  Note that in this verse, the death of Christ is not presented as causing God to love us.  It is quite the contrary--it is God's love for us which is shown in the death of Christ.  So the picture of Christ's death as somehow causing a wrathful God to change his mind is not an accurate understanding of Paul point. 

 

                                                           Freedom, Righteousness, The Spirit, Love Of God

 

The following chapters in Romans continue to develop the positive themes.  These themes are: freedom, righteousness characterized by the Spirit and of love of God from which nothing can separated us.  This has not been a complete outline of Romans (there are eight more chapters following chapter eight) but it is a basic indication of the Christological argumentation--indication how it is drawing to a theological anthropology and doctrine of sin and grace and how it is drawing to an understanding of history. 

 

                                                                                  Past, Present and Future

 

I note in conclusion with regard to Romans, that while there is this strong emphasis on contrasts between present and past, still sight is not lost in the differences between the present and the future.  Here I note chapter eight, verses eighteen to twenty-five.^[64]  In this passage we read that even though the human situation has thoroughly changed for the better by Christ, still there is need for hope--all creation is still groaning and longing for the glory that is to be revealed at the end. 

A second example is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.  First Corinthians can be presented more briefly than Romans.  First Corinthians will show again how Paul develops his Christology in the form of a criticism of alternative positions.

 

                                                                              A Foretaste Of What Will Be

 

The introduction of First Corinthians contains what appears to be very simple references of a non-controversial sort, but which in fact are an attack on Paul's opponents in Corinth.  Paul gives thanks to God (chapter one, verses four and five^[65]) that the Corinthians have received the gift of God's grace and that they have been enriched in all speech and all knowledge.  We see that the Corinthians are not lacking in any spiritual gift (and that is the part that is critiqued) as we wait for the renewal of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  What they have is still simply a foretaste of what will be present more fully at the end--it is not yet the final stage.  The Corinthians have misunderstood it as the final stage (as the Corinthians are inclined to do) and a distorted picture results.

 

                                                                                   The Word Of The Cross

 

The fundamental error in believing that the end has already has been achieved through the ecstatic possession of the Spirit, is that it endangers the word of the Cross.  The word of the Cross is folly to unbelievers (both Jew and Greek), but to those who are called (both Jews and Greeks) Christ is the power of God and the Wisdom of God.  It is the crucified Christ to whom Paul constantly appeals in this letter as he argues against any separation of the Spirit from Christ.  Let me give a couple of references.  In chapter one, verses ten through seventeen,^[66] Paul addresses the problems of the division of the Corinthian church into factions--each of which claims a different leader (Paul being one of those leaders mentioned).  After listing some of the positions, Paul asks "Is Christ divided?  Was Paul crucified for you?"^[67]  The point here is that Christ cannot be put on the same level as others, but the specific way of articulating that is with reference to the Crucifixion.  The next line, "Or where you baptized in the name of Paul?"^[68] at least indirectly makes reference to the same point, because for Paul there is a very close link between baptism and death.  This link is not developed here, but one need only to recall the passage in Romans which reads, ". . .all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. . ."^[69]

 

                                                            Paul And The Proclamation Of The Lord's Death

 

Another example can be found in chapter eleven where Paul criticizes the liturgical practices of the Corinthian community--partly because of divisions and partly because of discrimination against the poor.  He incorporates into his argumentation a brief account of the last supper, and then says at the end of the chapter in verse twenty-six, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."^[70]  We sometimes speak of proclamation of Death and Resurrection in liturgical acclamations and sometimes use this verse as a point of departure--that is not wrong in a Eucharistic context, but that is not Paul's point here.  Paul's point here is the link precisely to the death.

 

                                                                          Jesus And The Link To The Spirit

 

Finally, another example, that does not refer explicitly to the crucifixion, but which does reflect a link between Jesus and the Spirit, is found in chapter twelve, verse three, which reads:

"Therefore, I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says 'Jesus be cursed!' and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."^[71]  What happens here?  The test of possession of the Spirit is not the claim to posses the Spirit--the test is acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord.  Evidence that the Spirit is not present is found in rejection of Jesus.  This particular passage does not mention the Crucifixion, on the other hand, you have not only have Paul's overall interest in the Crucifixion, but you have a repeated insistence in First Corinthians that it is a crucified Christ in which the wisdom and glory of God [are found].

There is a very clear recent expression of this idea that Jesus is Lord, put in slightly different language and [along with the sense that] Jesus is the Christ in John Paul II's recent encyclical Redemtoris Missio.^[72]  This is not extensively developed, but it is a very clear articulation of the 'spirit' of First Corinthians.  This comes through in paragraph six, which is on the need to not separate Jesus from the Christ.  One ought not to imagine a Christ figure who has nothing to do with Jesus.  That in a sense, is closely linked to Paul's point here (though not in the same vocabulary).  What Paul was getting at is the claim to the Spirit without brushing aside Jesus.

Those are outlines of Christological argumentation in two of Paul's epistles.  In each case, Christology developed in connection with more general theological arguments.  There is a characteristic focus on Crucifixion and perhaps to a certain extent the Resurrection.  There is not a focus on Jesus' public life (although there may be a bit of an exception to that with the retelling of the last supper).

 

                                                                                 Paul And The Incarnation

 

Before going on from Paul, I have two additional notes to make.  The first is with regard to what we call the Incarnation (which of course is Johannine terminology--and that is the reason I put it this way).  The hymn in Philippians (especially chapter two, verses seven to eight^[73]) speaks of self-emptying.  In effect, what this is speaking of is the Incarnation.  My point is to emphasize how quickly Paul links the Incarnation to death.  Of course this is a hymn initially, but notice how the hymn jumps quickly over the rest of Christ's life (see verse eight).  In that sense it is a bit like the creeds--the public life is subsumed under the heading of the crucifixion.  The idea seems to be that the crucifixion epitomizes everything else that has occurred.  This death is then linked immediately to exaltation--"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name."^[74]  We will come back to this when we treat the Resurrection and exaltation later in the semester.  That is the first added point.

 

                                                                             Paul's Use Of Titles For Jesus

 

The second and final point concerns the use of titles.  The two most important titles for Paul are the titles Lord (Kyrios), and Christ.  Against the Old Testament background, the title Lord suggests divinity but the word "God" however is usually reserved for God the Father.  Christ is the Messianic title--the confession of Jesus as Messiah.  But there are also some places in Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3^[75]) in which it has practically become a proper name.   The title Son is also used frequently.  In contrast to that however, Son of Man, which is important in the Gospels, is not Pauline vocabulary.  Paul uses "Son," "Son of God," but not "Son of Man." 

In regard to the use of these titles, we know that each of them is somewhat modified in its application to Jesus.  To seek to understand the predication of these titles of Jesus, it is not sufficient to investigate the background (Biblical or otherwise) of the term.  It is also necessary to see how it has been re-cast to become appropriate for application here.  I stress that because it is frequently overlooked, as if these titles have fixed meaning that would simply be [the same] from place to place.

                                                                                 Mark As A Starting Point

 

I would like to turn here to the Gospel of Mark to begin our look at the Gospels.  Mark is not an easy Gospel to assess theologically.  None of the Gospels are easy to assess. but Mark is a particular problem.  The reason lies in part because of the nature of the situation. 

 

                                                                          The Synoptics Grouped Together

 

Up until fairly recently (i.e., the mid 1950s), the Synoptic Gospels tended to be grouped together for theological treatment.  The Synoptics were not often considered as significant theological accomplishments (and this was true for many years).  It was believed that the importance of the texts rested on the fact that they give us information about Jesus. In the past, the Synoptics were used as a kind of historical resource (critically or uncritically), but not with the idea that each of these three authors had a distinctive theological contribution to make (which at the present time is a common assertion).  If you look, for example, at Rudolph Bultmann's theology of the New Testament (or other theologies of the New Testament from the same period) you will notice that the significant New Testament theologians are Paul and John (and possibly the author of Hebrews).  The Synoptic evangelists are mentioned, but more as sources of background to Paul and John.

 

                                                                   The Development Of Redaction Criticism

 

In recent years, since roughly the mid 1950s, this situation has changed.  This change was partly due to the development of Redaction Criticism, which seeks to analyze the theological tendencies in the individual evangelists by seeing how they selected and shaped their material (i.e., particularly in a theological direction).  This change was also partly due also more recently through studies of the New Testament as narrative.  This type of study indicates the development of "the story" in individual texts.  This development is not coincidental, but rather makes certain theological points that would not have been made otherwise.

 

                                                                                           Form Criticism

 

Prior to the development of interest in these perspectives, one of the common forms of Biblical criticism was form criticism (which is still practiced today).  Form criticism is a study basically of the units within the New Testament--particularly in the Gospels, with a view to assessing where they came from and how they can be traced back behind the writers of the Gospels to the early Christian communities (or for that matter, into the life of Jesus himself).  The results are going to be hesitant in some cases, but the point of this exercise is to look back, not to raise the questions, what [are the individual Gospel authors doing with the same material], but rather can we get away from what the individual authors have done with it to see where it comes from in the pre-Gospel tradition or earlier (i.e., the life of Jesus).  So, you might be able to get some historical data about Jesus out of the passage.  In so far as the Form critics raise the question, "what did the specific evangelists do," the point is to try to "rub that off" and get behind it. 

The second characteristic of the Form Critical method is to look at an individual section, an individual passage, an individual story or unit within the Gospel.  The purpose is not to take the Gospel as a whole, but it is rather to take individual stories by themselves (i.e., fragments).  The advantage to fragmenting [like this] is that you can then study the parts quite thoroughly.  The disadvantage to fragmenting is that you do not see the fragment in the context of the whole thing--you are analyzing a twig instead of looking at the whole forest. 

 

                                                                  A Caution With Regard To Form Criticism

 

As long as you pursue the Synoptics from the perspective of Form Criticism (and this perspective is more suitable to the Synoptics than to other parts of the Scriptures because you have three parallels to compare), you are not going to see the Gospels as anything other than a collection of such materials.

 

                                                                 The Gospel Of Mark As A Theological Unit

 

In the 1950s [a development occurred in Biblical studies].  The first figure [in this development] was a man by the name of Willi Marxsen (who is best known for this and writings on the Resurrection).  Marxsen developed the principle that the Gospel of Mark could be developed as a theological unit.^[76]  He suggested that the way to do this is to analyze certain features of Mark's language and presentation of his material.  [Let us study Marxen's theory] by taking a look at the first verse of Mark which reads, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."^[77]  Mark is the only one of the four who calls his work a "gospel" (we have generalized this title for all four of the Gospels).  What occurs in verse one, is that an ancient Christian word for the Christian message (e.g., Paul talked about this in Romans), is now being claimed for a new literary form of Christian presentation.  This new literary form does not just give individual stories about Jesus, but brings them together into a whole.  There is a sense, that is reflected elsewhere in the text, that Jesus himself is present where the Gospel is present.  So this is a way of conveying a Christology and in a sense, also an ecclesiology.

A similar work on the other Synoptics was done chiefly by Gunther Bornkamm on Matthew^[78] and Hans Concelmann on Luke.^[79]  These were done in the mid-to-late 1950s.  Many of the studies since then, developed in pursuit further by other exegetes, sometimes with modifications of the original interpretations.  The overall theological significance is that here it is not only presumed but also argued, from an analysis of the texts, that we should not simply lump the Synoptics together, but that we should be alert to the differences among the various texts, and see those differences as the key to the theological interests of their authors.

 

                                                              A Caution With Regard To Redaction Criticism

 

One caution with regard to Redaction Criticism.  The following comment, like most of the work in this area, rests completely on a two source understanding of the Gospel tradition (i.e., Mark and "Q" are the basic sources for Matthew and Luke).  The problem is that when you ask the question, "what about the theology of Matthew," or the question, "what about the theology of Luke," then you can go through the texts and say that Matthew had Mark and "Q" plus some other material (and you can say the same of Luke).  So if you find something distinctive in Matthew or in Luke you can say that at least it appears to be the case that [those authors used] what Mark had written but modified it in some way (i.e., Mark's vocabulary, etc.).  You can develop on that basis that the author's [particular theology] is reflected in that.  This can be done with Matthew or Luke, but it can be tricky to try this with Mark because we do not have another Gospel (by definition) to go to as a source.  And so if you want to try to argue with regard to Mark that something is characteristic (that something is introduced as typically Markan vocabulary), then we must base our argument on internal analysis of the text (preconceived usage, etc.).  The danger of circular reasoning is then very clear.  This is a reason why there is greater diversity among scholars of Mark than there is among scholars concentrating on the other Gospels.

 

                                                          Great Diversity Among Scholars Concerning Mark

 

The range of this diversity can be expressed by reference to two authors, Theodore Weeden^[80] and Rudolph Pesch.^[81]  On one hand, Weeden believes (incorrectly according to Galvin) that Mark is hostile to many of the traditions on which he draws.  The implication would then of course be that he modifies them considerably.  An opposite position, that of Pesch, is that Mark is very restrained in modifying his material and that what Mark reported was accurately historically (though Pesch would hold that not everything in the text is a true Markan commentary).  The overall sense on which Mark can be relied on in material about Jesus' life is a matter of great dispute among exegetes.

 

 

 

                                                                            Christology February 19, 1991

 

                                                                                       Narrative Criticism

 

[Missed the first five minutes of class]

 

. . . from the Gospel of Mark.  There are two illustrations to indicate two different dimensions of this issue.  The point behind narrative criticism is to ask the question: what is the author doing in the telling of the story?  It abstracts basically from the question whether [or not] the story is factual or fictional.  It is not asking what is the historical basis for this and it is not asking directly what has this author [found as?] his sources.  It is asking simply, how is this story being told in this situation.  And when you [???] over this methodology it is incomplete--it does not [???]. 

 

                                                                  Illustrations From The Gospel Of Matthew

 

It is not really legitimate to ask, what really went on?  The question is Mark's or Matthew's picture of Jesus and so on.  [Allow me to give you] two illustrations of this technique from Matthew.  The nature of this technique is such that it is not tied primarily in comparison to other authors.  One might think it is [???] to note that this telling of the story differs from the way that someone else told the story.  The first illustration has to do with Matthew's gospel as a whole.  Matthew begins chapter one, verse one^[82] by identifying Jesus as the Son of David and the Son of Abraham.  That is not done in those words by the other evangelists.  Just by looking at the words you can see that Matthew is placing Jesus in the context of the history of Israel formulation--that type of title.  Consistent with that, [Matthew then presents] the genealogies (that we occasionally here at the Liturgy) which accent various stages in the Old Testament.  Then Matthew gives an infancy narrative whose persistent them is rejection by his own people (Herod as the King), recognition and even adoration by the Gentiles, refuge in Egypt (which is not now the place of slavery, but the place of sanctuary), and adoration on the part of the Wise Men who come bearing gifts.  So the foreigners recognize who Jesus is, while his own people to whom he has come specifically do not recognize him.  In the process of trying to bring about Jesus' death, Herod succeeds only in inflicting damage on Israel itself.  The story then that is told after that is a story of gradual presentation of the Kingdom to Israel but repudiation on the part of the intended audience leading up to Jesus' death.

Aspects of this of course can be found elsewhere--much of that material (i.e., the events from Jesus' life) is common in the different Evangelists, but the telling of the story as Matthew does it culminates in chapter twenty-eight with a final scene in which the Risen Lord sends his disciples to make disciples of all nations (they are not sent back to Israel, but rather receive a universal mission).

 

                                                                           Salvation First Offered To Israel

 

What Matthew has done (not just in the cited passages--but with a certain concentration in those passages each of which is only to be found in Matthew's Gospel) is to present Jesus' story as a way in which the story of salvation is first offered to Israel, but then offered to the nations.  There are exegetical debates about whether or not Israel is included among "the nations."  "The nations" can equal the Gentiles or Pagan countries--even if you include Israel among "the nations" it is simply incorporated simply as one among many rather than [with a] distinctive position. 

 

                                                                                "A Retelling Of The Story"

 

The above example is one in which Matthew is "retelling the story"--taken as a whole from beginning to end.  Notice you do not get this picture if you isolate individual scenes of the Gospel.  We do not view how an individual chapter or portion of the book is written but rather we view the thrust of the story as a whole.  On the base of this type of literary analysis, it is possible for exegetical theologians to conclude that this is a distinctive portrayal of Jesus (and you can do the same thing with the portrayal of the disciples).

 

                                                                                       A Second Example

 

The second example is taken with reference to an internal part of the story.  It focuses on a particular scene in a particular period.  This example focuses on chapter twenty of Matthew's Gospel (this focuses on the period just at the start of the Passion narrative--Jesus is making his way to Jerusalem and is just about to enter the city).  The whole story here is presented in the form of popular acclaim of Jesus as Son of David. 

 

                                                                                        The Son Of David

 

Son of David is a Messianic title accented at the very beginning of Matthew's Gospel.  Some believe that it is important to count the occurrence of words, etc., in the New Testament--the term "Son of David" occurs nine times in the Gospel of Matthew (and only three times in Mark and three times in Luke).  This seems to be sign that "Son of David" reflects an important part of Matthew's Christology.  The section at the end of chapter twenty and the beginning of chapter twenty-one shows a certain concentration of this. 

In chapter twenty, verses thirty and thirty-one,^[83] there is a claim and appeal to Jesus as Son of David (this is the story of the healing of the blind).  Then in chapter twenty-one, verse nine, Jesus is hailed as the Son of David in the context of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  The point that I wish to direct attention to is that fact that while Matthew wishes to present Jesus as the Son of David, he also wishes to guard against the interpretations of that in political, dynastic terms.  One of the ways in which he does this is in the portrayal of the actual entrance into Jerusalem, where he inserts the comment with regard to the taking of the colt, "this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, 'Tell the daughter of Zion, behold your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on and ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass.'"^[84]  The point is to draw in the reference to humility and a theme of peacefulness precisely at a stage where the titular references might suggest something to the contrary.  That citation, of course, is a point where Matthew is quite free to introduce what seems appropriate to those [on the scene?]--it is not something that is inherent in the telling of the story in all circumstances. 

 

                                                                      Looking Back To The Old Testament

 

It is significant here to look back at the Old Testament passage that is involved in a portion of the New Testament text just cited.  In Zechariah, chapter nine, verse nine, we read:  "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!  Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!  Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass."^[85]  We should be alerted to what is not cited in this passage.  We see that Matthew uses an editorial technique.  [We cannot be sure] whether or not Matthew sat down with an Old Testament and an eraser or whether he was simply was quoting in a looser sense (as they may have tended to do).  But we can see the difference in the language of the quotations as they are presented.  This serves to tell the story of an entrance into Jerusalem which in principle might be seen as a political claim (as was apparently seen as such by some) but [instead] it puts it in a type of religious, theological interpretation.

 

                                                                     Jesus As A New Kind Of Davidic King

 

Matthew presents Jesus as a Davidic king but the fact that he accents humble, rather than victorious and triumphant is the point where he provides an indication of how to interpret the kingship.  I would certainly say that [Matthew's approach] is not lacking in royal symbolism but [we need to observe] what happens after Jesus gets into Jerusalem.  We read in chapter twenty-one, verses ten and eleven that: "when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, 'Who is this?'  And the crowds said, 'This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.'"^[86]  Matthew did not write that the crowds said, "This is the King."  This is another way of putting it an the end which has a certain connected function to it--at the end the accent is not on the royal dimension, except it is reinterpreted in this section.

 

                                                                The Narrative Technique And The Synoptics

 

The Narrative technique can be applied to Mark as easily as it can be applied to anything else.  The technique of comparing Gospels [???] looking at alterations in the sources, however cannot be combined.  It cannot be applied here as readily as in some other instances because we do not have the earlier sources to deal with--we must attempt to reconstruct them.  This technique is more readily applied to the Synoptic Gospels [but] we are at a disadvantage with regard to Mark.  You have to be at a disadvantage with regard to something.

 

                                                                                          Some Problems

 

There are two problems with structuralism.  The first is that the structuralism tends to impose a grid and then rely on the grid so that what goes on inside does not make too much difference.  The second problem is that those techniques abstract from the historical questions.  In some cases they even go further and leave out the historical questions (i.e., the text speaks for itself--it has a life of its own and so one should not ask then what goes on behind the text).  This is a position that exegetes on the whole, and theologians in general, do not find acceptable because they say it does make a difference whether a story is factual or fictional (at least at certain key stages).  It may not make a difference in interpreting a story such as the flight into Egypt, but that is not so with the crucifixion. 

 

                                                                                        A Focus On Mark

 

Allow me to say a few words about Mark concretely.  This is not going to be an exhaustive presentation of his Christology but just an accenting of certain points.  First of all, Mark's achievement in writing a Gospel makes it possible for him to link together various traditions about Jesus into a more complete and coherent picture.  What I have in mind here is to illustrate this with reference to a couple of specific elements.  First, recall what was said earlier in the semester about the different approaches or trajectories to Christology which may have been present in earlier periods of the Church's history.  We saw that among those approaches was a type that concentrated on Jesus as miracle worker with the inherent danger that Jesus would be seen only as a miracle worker.  Another approach saw Jesus as teacher (a wisdom approach) which risks, first of all, the danger that it may present Jesus only as teacher and secondly, that if the person of Jesus recedes,y the teaching may seem to stand by itself (after all you can have many wisdom sayings--it does not matter who said it first as long as the saying has some content to it).  In either case you will not get a Christology--you may end up with a number of moral principles, but not an adherence to Jesus. 

 

                                                                       The Notion Of The Messianic Secret

 

One of the effects of Mark's work is to draw that type of material into a greater whole and therefore to overcome at least some potential misunderstandings.  One indication of this can be found in the notion of the "Messianic secret" which is reflected at various stages of the Gospel.  [When the notion of the Messianic secret appears in Mark,] it is very often followed by a command to remain silent (either to tell no-one or to tell a small number of people--i.e., not to spread the word).  [This] general theme is [evident] when Jesus does something extraordinary (perhaps not using the precise word "Messiah" but something that shows particular claim to power and exercise of power on Jesus' part).  [The following are a few examples of this].  In chapter one, verse forty through forty-five,^[87] after the healing of the leper, Jesus says "See that you say nothing to any one. . ."^[88]  Then in verse forty-five, we read, "But he went out and began to talk freely about it. . ."^[89]  Although this is a typical feature, such commands are usually not observed.  And so there is a certain tension between who Jesus is, the command to keep silence and a least a certain disobeying of that command.  Allow me to give you two other illustrations to demonstrate that this is not confined to this instance.  In chapter three, verses eleven and twelve we read about the unclean spirits.  The passage reads: "And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, 'You are the Son of God.'  And he strictly ordered them not to make him known."^[90]  This passage does not reveal what happened further in this situation.  Another example is found in chapter eight, verse twenty-six [which tells of] the healing of the blind man.  The blind man has been brought to Jesus by a group of people.  Jesus takes him away from the rest of the crowd and tells him not to go back to the people who had aided him in the first place.  The passage reads: "And he sent him away to his home, saying, 'Do not even enter the village."^[91]  There is an effort here to keep it a secret if possible.

 

                                                                  The Disciples Failure To Understand Jesus

 

Parallel to this theme of the secret, there is a theme of the disciples' failure to understand Jesus--despite what they see and hear.  The disciples are not presented in a completely negative fashion on this issue because they do not go away--they still continue to adhere to Jesus.  Allow me to give you a few illustrations of this.  In chapter six we find the following: The story of the multiplication of the loaves (the feeding of the five thousand) and then the scene where Jesus comes to the disciples who are in the boat having problems with the wind (in the boat situation, Jesus walks on the water and gets into the boat).  In verses fifty-one and fifty-two of this chapter, we find a commentary on what has transpired in these two situations.  We read: "And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased.  And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened."^[92]  The fact that their hearts were hardened may be a bit of an excuse (it may not be their fault that their hearts were hardened, but still the person we often think of when we refer to a hardened heart is the Pharaoh and so this is not the nicest association as far as the disciples are concerned).  In chapter eight, verses seventeen and eighteen, there is an allusion back to the same point.  In this chapter there has been a second feeding of the multitudes, and for those present for the first feeding, the second feeding begins with them wondering how can they feed the crowds.^[93]  In verses seventeen and eighteen we read: "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread?  Do you not yet perceive or understand?  Are your hearts hardened?  Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?"^[94]  

 

                                                     Not Possible To Understand Jesus Apart From The Cross

 

A theme that is rather persistent in the Gospels is that (no matter what is seen or heard) the presentation of the accurate recognition of Jesus is blocked for further dissemination or it just does not take hold with the audience in some fashion.  The thrust of this seems to be Mark's position that it is not possible to understand Jesus accurately apart from the cross.  So the miracle stories are fine as far as they go, but they do not go far enough--and the same thing with the other pieces of the picture up to this stage.  Only faith, which looks to the cross and accepts the cross in discipleship is authentic.  We can think here for example of the conversations with Peter about the recognition of Jesus as Messiah.^[95]

 

                                                                 Mark's Emphasis On The Passion Narrative

 

A second element, tied in closer to the first, is Mark's emphasis on the Passion narrative.  We can think of it initially in this way: If you were writing a biography of someone, you would certainly accent some periods of the life more than others, but would you write a biography in which the last third or a half was devoted to the last forty-eight hours?  That is putting an emphasis in an extraordinary way on the end.  It is true that the other Gospels put a lot of space into the Passion narratives, but they are longer than Mark to begin with, and so they are proportionately not as great in those instances. 

In Mark, the Passion narrative is a great part of the whole--Mark has been called, with a bit of an exaggeration, a Passion narrative with an extended introduction.  Even apart from the length however, there are other considerations.  Much of what precedes the Passion narratives is linked to it by references which are sometimes quite overt and sometimes more subtle.

 

                                                                          Jesus' Predictions Of The Passion

  

Let me start with the direct ones.  There are Jesus' predictions of the Passion which are spread at appropriate intervals through the second part of the Gospel.  Chapter eight, verse thirty-one,^[96] chapter nine, verse thirty-one,^[97] chapter ten, verses thirty-two to thirty-four,^[98] and then chapter ten, verse forty-five^[99] (which does not take the same form as the others but is a reference to the Son of man giving his life as a ransom for the many).  These are always called Passion predictions, but on the whole they are also predictions of the Resurrection as well.  They serve to link the attention of the reader to what lies ahead. 

 

                                                                    More Subtle References To The Passion

 

But there are also a couple of references that are more subtle, but which would not escape the attention of a Christian reader who is familiar with the basic substance of the story.  An example of this can be found in the first chapter, verse fourteen.  Mark has no infancy narrative--he plunges immediately into some references to John the Baptist and then moves from that to Jesus.  Verse fourteen is the transition--there has been a brief account of the Temptation and then the text says, "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God."^[100]  The reference here to John the Baptist being handed over, serves in two ways to link the reader to Jesus' Passion.  First of all, John the Baptist has not simply gone away--he has been taken into custody, is to be put to death and the story of his death is going to be narrated in chapter six.  That suggests from the start, that the beginnings of Jesus' public preaching take place in a very dangerous situation.  Secondly, the word that is used here for "handed over" is a word that is going to be used extensively in the Passion narrative (Just as John was handed over, so too will Jesus be handed over).  That is not all spelled out in verse fourteen.  If you read it initially, it is nothing more than a little bit of digging, but remember that the audience for which Mark is writing is an audience that knows roughly at which points what will come later in the text--and this is enough to alert them to it. 

 

                                                                  Other Sources For The Passion Narrative?

 

Then there is the Passion narrative itself, which Mark does not make up by himself.  Mark draws on old tradition--probably to a great extent on very old tradition.  This always gets a bit tentative, but the Passion narrative is usually identified as one of the oldest parts of the Gospel (though not in all of its individual pieces).  The extent of the earlier Passion narratives is very much disputed.  All that I can do here is to indicate the range. 

Some authors, particularly those associated with Rudolph Bultmann, tend to think that a very brief Passion narrative (basically a Crucifixion narrative) stands at the start, and that this was developed backwards to include material on Jesus' way to the Cross.  It is believed that this Crucifixion narrative was a very brief presentation which then grew.  At the opposite extreme here is a position developed by Rudolph Pesch.  Pesch believes that the early Passion narrative was relatively lengthy beginning even with the confession of Jesus as the Messiah (chapter eight of Mark's Gospel).  Pesch's idea is that from the start there was included an account of the way to Jerusalem, arrest, crucifixion and death.  Pesch does not say that every item that is currently in the Passion narrative was there from the start, but he does think that even the very early versions were quite extensive.

The differences between Bultmann's approach and the approach of Pesch cannot resolved here (even if they can be resolved).  They do have a bearing on interpretation because the longer the narrative was in an earlier stage, the more likely it is to contain viable historical data from that period. 

 

                                                       The Passion Narrative As A Theological Interpretation

 

In any case, the Passion narrative is not only a record of historical information, but also a theological interpretation of Jesus' death.  There is very extensive drawing on the Psalms--particularly the Psalms of lament in which the innocent, righteous sufferer turns to God and appeals for vindication.  The chief reference here is to Psalm twenty-two^[101] which is drawn on in the Gospel^[102] (and is also a text which is used liturgically towards the end of Lent).  There are many references to the Old Testament in the Passion narrative.  The point of using Old Testament passages is to show that Jesus' way to the cross is a paradoxical way to glory--it fits in the context of God's past dealings with Israel. 

 

                                                                                      Focus On The Cross

 

Finally, this focus on the cross comes to a head in the Crucifixion scene in chapter fifteen.  When Jesus is crucified, he is mocked in various ways--and finally in verses thirty-one and thirty-two there is a last challenge from the chief priests.  In those verses we read: "So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself.  Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.'"^[103]  This is a challenge to perform a final miracle for his own benefit.  Although it may be sarcastic in the form of its presentation, the challenge of the chief priests does not question what Jesus has done on behalf of others--it does say that those actions are not sufficient and that there is a need for a final coming down from the cross at this stage.  Jesus performs no miracle and gives no direct response to this challenge.  Instead, Jesus cries out with a loud voice,^[104] and they wonder whether or not Elijah will come and take him down in a final rescue.  Instead, Jesus dies and the curtain of the temple is torn into two.  Then in verse thirty-nine there is a comment by the centurion who says: "Truly this man was the Son of God!"^[105]  This comment by the centurion is a confession of faith from a highly unexpected source.

 

                                                                               The Centurion's Confession

 

With the centurion's statement, we see the first time when there really is no need to correct the confession because this time the confession takes place precisely within the context of Jesus' death.  It seems clear that in Mark's presentation he wants the statement by the centurion to be understood as a confession of faith in who Jesus is as God's Son recognized in his death.  Remember that the first verse of Mark's gospel spoke of Jesus as the "Son of God" and throughout the Gospel Mark has told the story of the revelation of the Son of God (which is not recognized by many, but which is recognized by some).

 

                                                                  Where Did Mark's Gospel End Originally?

 

On last comment about Mark's Gospel.  There is a third element after the Messianic Secret and the Passion narrative that I wish to discuss.  This element has a connection with some exegetical issues that are disputed.  The disputed question is, "Where did Mark's Gospel end originally?"  The most widespread opinion among exegetes at the present time is that the Gospel originally ended with what we call chapter sixteen, verse eight.  In other words, it ended with Mark's story of the visit to the empty grave and did not include Resurrection appearances.  We must come back to this issue later when we talk specifically about the Resurrection. 

Those who hold that chapter sixteen, verse eight, is the original ending refer to the remaining verses (nine through twenty) as the canonical ending and believe that they were written at an early date by taking together the material from the other Gospels (perhaps by people who thought that a good Gospel should end with a Resurrection story). 

Without chapter sixteen, verses nine through twenty, the Gospel would end with the following words of the young man in a white robe:

"And he said to them, 'Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.  He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.  But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.'  And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid."^[106]

The ending in this case is abrupt (and is more abrupt in its original Greek). 

What happens here is that there is a proclamation of the Resurrection at the Tomb (precisely at the place of burial), there is a promise that Jesus goes before his followers to Galilee (a pointing forward in the sense that the story is still not complete) and then there is the odd reversal of the Messianic Secret.  Before this time, people have been told to say nothing and they have broadcast information; here, people are told to convey a message and they do not convey the message. 

We can ask a whole series of questions about this (e.g., If they did not say anything, how did the story get into the Gospel?  Should we think that they did not say anything right away, but later said something?).  These questions are important from the view of historical reconstruction, but sticking just to the text the way that it is written, the effect of this ending is once again to leave the tension between clarity and hiddenness with regard to Jesus. 

In this ending, it has become clear who Jesus is--he is the Son of God who is to be met eventually in Galilee, but at the same time, he is still not quite fully revealed (the message is still not presented in full directness and openness, even to the disciples).  Obviously, the situation of the reader is such that the reader is bound to know that the message has been presented and is being presented at the present time, but the openness at the end, the emphasis on the cross and the orientation towards the future seems to be a deliberate way of bringing the story to a climax in a certain tension.

 

                                                                                  The Gospel Of Matthew

 

We will now turn our attention to the Gospel of Matthew.  I wish to note that the different aspects as presented by the different evangelists are not competitive with one another.  There may be an initial sense in which we are attracted to one more than another, but it in not a question of saying, "Matthew is right, therefore Mark is wrong!"  The fact that each Gospel is included, tells us that there is something of each worth keeping. 

                                                                Matthew's Influence In The Church's History               

 

Matthew is a Gospel that has been focal point of enormous influence in the history of the Church.  Earlier in the Church's history, there was a presumption that Matthew was the oldest Gospel.  The idea that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, held for a long time (a theory held as recently as the nineteenth century and even later).

 

                                               Ecclesiology, Baptismal Theology And The Trinitarian Formula

 

Matthew was also influential because it contained certain distinctive passages which have been highly important at certain stages of the Church's history (below are two examples of this).  In chapter sixteen, verse eighteen we read that "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."^[107]  This passage obviously has been important for questions concerning the primacy of the pope, but also important for more general questions regarding ecclesiology (i.e., the word "church" is found only in the Gospel of Matthew).  Secondly, also with regard to ecclesiology, chapter twenty-eight, verses eighteen to twenty,^[108] contains the baptismal command which is important to the theology of the sacraments and it also contains a very explicit Trinitarian formula.  This passage seems at least, to give the possibility not only of supporting baptismal theology, and Trinitarian theology, but in tracing them both quite directly back to Jesus (though in this case it is the Risen Jesus).  These elements in Matthew are three elements (primacy, baptismal theology and Trinitarian formula) that are not found elsewhere in any other Gospel tradition.

 

                                                                     Matthew's Use Of "Littleness Of Faith"

 

The following is a discussion with regards to a couple of themes found in Matthew.  First of all, we find an emphasis on faith and the presentation of a distinctive theology of faith.  As time went on, Christianity broke with Judaism, Jerusalem was destroyed and the world showed no signs of ending.  Matthew seems to have written in a period in which faith is under challenge and in which the fervor of the first generation of Christians has waned (this is not an unusual phenomena).  One of the ways in which this is reflected in Matthew is the use of the term "littleness of faith" (this is a single word in Greek).  The word is not original to Matthew--it is present in the "Q" source, but Matthew uses it in some distinctive ways. 

 

                                                                            Matthew Compared With Mark

 

The following are a couple of examples where comparisons with the Gospel of Mark are instructive (given the presumption of the priority of Mark).  In Matthew, chapter eight, verse twenty-six,^[109] (compared with Mark 4:40^[110]) we see that Jesus refers to littleness of faith on the part of the disciples (in Mark, the reference is to "unbelief"--a harsher term).  In Matthew, chapter sixteen, verse eight,^[111] (compared with Mark 8:17^[112]) again he refers to little faith, whereas Mark refers to "hardness of heart."  In Matthew, chapter fourteen, verse thirty-one^[113] (a passage to which we will return) speaks of littleness of faith directly with reference to the chosen twelve.  Notice what that does.  If the littleness of faith (the weakness of faith) that that implies is so characteristic of [Matthew's] own time, it means that the people in [Matthew's] own time are in the same situation as the original disciples, even the twelve.  This is not what ought to be--it is not the complete, fuller faith that is desired, but none-the-less, it means that there is a situation comparable to the earlier followers of Jesus and not to his opponents (they are not characterized by the same state of mind or heart that is in the Pharisees).

 

                                                                        The Relationship Of Jesus To Israel

 

I mentioned already some of the elements of Matthew's Christology.  I will not run through them here with the emphasis on Son of David as has already been said in that regard, but I [will draw your attention to an] interest in the relationship of Jesus to Israel (even beyond the title, "Son of David").  Allow me to give you a few examples here.  In Matthew, chapter twenty-seven, verse forty-two^[114] we see that Jesus is called "King of Israel."  In chapter two, verse two^[115] and chapter twenty-seven, verse thirty-seven^[116] we see that Jesus is called "King of the Jews."  This parallel with Israel (parallel, also in the sense of surpassing) is carried out in a number of ways.  Even as a child, Jesus suffers the typical fate of Israel--his life is threatened by the king (just as Moses' life was threatened by the Pharaoh), his birth (like the birth of Moses) is linked with infanticide, Jesus flees [to] Egypt and is called back, Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophesy of Isaiah (chapter seven, verse fourteen^[117]), Jesus is the representative of Israel, and then he is a representative (as mentioned earlier) whose salvific activity extends beyond Israel's boundaries. 

 

                                                                 Jesus As Fulfillment Of The Old Testament

 

I referred above to the presentation of Jesus as the Son of David--and in that sense, as fulfillment of Messianic expectations.  I would like to refer here to another scene which illustrates a similar point.  In chapter twelve, verses eighteen to twenty-one^[118], Matthew cites from Isaiah a passage which speaks about the servant who will proclaim justice to the Gentiles and in whose name the Gentiles will hope.  Notice that in the very next verses (chapter twelve, verse twenty-two and twenty-three^[119]) people are amazed by a healing miracle.  In this passage we find reference to Israel's Messianic title, but the reader has been prepared for that in the preceding verses by the reference to the Gentile in the passage taken from Isaiah.  So we see Jesus presented as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.  The fulfillment, however is strictly in Jesus--his followers (the disciples) share in a degree in this, but still remain characterized by weakness and littleness of faith.  Whatever the disciples are able to do is possible only by reliance on Jesus' power.  We can think here again of the climatic scene at the end of the Gospel in which before giving the baptismal command, Jesus tells the disciples that all authority has been to me on heaven and earth^[120] (even in that scene some doubted).

 

                                                                                 The Stilling Of The Storm

 

I would like to conclude our brief look at Matthew by running through a short passage with a couple of interpretive comments.  The passage is "The Stilling of the Storm" (chapter fourteen, verses twenty-eight to thirty-three^[121]).  This discussion is intended here as an illustration of Matthew's thought.  In a previous class we mentioned that there has been redaction criticism of Matthew's work and that one of the figures associated with that has been Gunther Bornkamm.  What follows below is based on Bornkamm's exegesis.  In the cited passage, the disciples are in the boat and are going across to the other side (Jesus was not there--he had stayed back to dismiss the crowd).  The boat in a sense is a symbol of the Church (this symbolism can also be found elsewhere).  The boat represents the Church temporarily without Jesus (the Church when Jesus is away).  This story is an illustration of the elements both in Matthew's presentation and in Jesus' corresponding picture of the Church.

 

 

 

 

                                                                            Christology February 21, 1991

 

                                                                                               Luke-Acts

 

I would like to go on today to a discussion of Luke-Acts.  We find in Luke-Acts something unique as far as the New Testament is concerned.  It is significant that Luke-Acts is a two part work--it indicates a theological orientation of the author who chose to do this. 

The section of Acts cited below is often taken as an indication of the way in which Luke envisioned the situation in which he was writing.  This is presented in Acts not directly as Luke's analysis of the situation, but rather as Paul's prediction in his farewell speech at Ephesus about what lies ahead for the Church.  Paul's speech begins in verse eighteen of chapter twenty and it concludes in verse thirty-five of the same chapter.  The section that interests us here is contained in verses twenty-eight to thirty-two.

"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has make you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.  I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.  Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.  And now I command you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."^[122]

Paul is speaking to the elders of the Church for the first time gathered from Ephesus to Miletus.  In this passage, Paul warns the Church about problems from without and heresies within the Church.  The elders of the Church are confronted by Paul to deal with these issues. 

 

                                                       Luke And The "Theological Interpretation Of History"

 

To a certain extent, Paul's warning in the above cited passage reflects the situation that Luke envisions.  In this context, Luke stresses the need for moral endurance and patience.  He refers very frequently, especially in the Gospel, to the end of the world but he does not expect the end of the world to come in the near future (the time of imminent expectation is passing).  Luke does not seek to revive the sense of imminent expectation.  Instead, Luke offers, what could be called a theological interpretation of history which identifies the time of Jesus as the salvific center of time.

I mentioned earlier that the redaction criticism of the theology of Luke had initially been done by Hans Concelmann.  The following discussion basically follows his presentation.^[123]  There are some modifications and questions raised about his presentation, but basically those who discuss Luke's theology reflect similar interpretations--at least as far as the major points are concerned.  The outline of the history that Concelmann presents has as its outer boundaries creation on the one hand and the parousia on the other. 

 

                                                                                  Three Periods Of History

 

Within the above mentioned framework, history is divided into three periods of unequal length:  The Old Testament; The time of Jesus as the salvific center of time and thirdly, the age of the Church (which of course is not yet complete).  One indication of the importance that Luke places on this is simply his decision to write Acts--so that there is a theological presentation of at least the initial history of the Church.  These three periods are interconnected and this is particularly because of the link to the central period that the other times are found to be salvific. 

 

                                                                                  The Old Testament Time

 

According to this view, the Old Testament is a time of preparation for the coming of Christ (so we see that there is a Christological reading of the Old Testament).  In that sense, Christ is taken as the reference point and the Old Testament is interpreted in-so-far as it points in that direction (we will come back to this).  This means that Messianic themes in the Old Testament are accented [from this perspective] than when one simply takes the Old Testament by itself.  The Old Testament has as salvific gifts the Law and the Prophets, and these gifts point ahead, together with the Psalms to Jesus. 

The following are a couple of passages to demonstrate this point.  The first example (Luke, chapter sixteen, verse sixteen) is a text that is often referred to with regard to Luke's [???] of certain periods of history.  In this passage Jesus speaks to the Pharisees and says,

"'The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.'"^[124] 

(I am not quite sure about what the part that reads "enters it violently" is referring).  Our interest in citing this passage is to demonstrate the break that is made: The law and the prophets were until John, then there is a break since then which is the preaching of the Gospel.  The same reference to the law and the prophets is picked up but expanded by further reference to the Psalms in another very instructive scene.  We refer here to the Resurrection appearance of the Risen Lord to the disciples on the road to Emmaus.  This story is found in Luke, chapter twenty-four.  Let us examine the moment when the appearance begins to reach its conclusion (see verses twenty-five and twenty-seven).  Jesus says:

"'O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?'  And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."^[125]

This is a kind of brief course in the arguments of the Old Testament by Jesus according to the understanding of Luke.  This is how the Scriptures are supposed to be read.  We find something similar, but more explicit in the same chapter of Luke (but of a different appearance story).  This is in chapter twenty-four, verses forty-four to forty-seven.  In this passage, Jesus refers the disciples to the Scriptures.  He speaks about the fulfillment that is written about him in the law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms.  Luke writes:

"Then he said to them, 'These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.'  Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."^[126]

This is a Christological reading of the Old Testament as foretelling the chief events of Jesus' life.  Now what this means with regard to the Old Testament is that it is being presented as a first stage of a divine plan--the promise or foretelling of what lies in the future.  Here there is a strong accent on the unity of the divine plan.  This is less a picture of a break as Paul presents.  Luke's approach here serves to link the Old Testament with the time of Jesus and to indicate that the Old Testament is salvific. 

 

                                                          The Time Of Jesus As The Salvific Center Of Time

 

The time of Jesus itself is the salvific center of time.  It is characterized by the presence of Jesus and the presence of the Spirit.  The following are a couple of references to this (which are not unique to Luke, but accented particularly in this Gospel): chapter three, verses twenty-one and twenty-two^[127], chapter four, verses eighteen to twenty-one^[128].  On the whole, Satan is absent in this period.  He is present at the temptation (chapter four^[129]) then reappears at the beginning of the Passion narrative entering the heart of Judas^[130]--this is the point where we see that the center of time is beginning to draw to an end. 

 

                                                                                  The Age Of The Church

 

Then there is the third period--the age of the Church.  The theology of the Church is a decisive element for Luke.  The age of the Church shares in the salvific qualities of the time of Jesus because it is linked back to that time.  There are connections on one level to the gift of the Spirit.  The Spirit was present and active in Jesus' life.  It is then promised to the Church at the Ascension, and poured out on the Church at Pentecost.  The presence and activity of the Spirit is then reflected in the various times as unfolded in the rest of the story found in the Acts of the Apostles. 

The link with the time of Jesus is also present on another level--particularly in the early days of the Church there is continuity between the leaders of the Church (the Apostles) and those who were Jesus' closest followers during his public life.  There is a great deal of emphasis in the Gospels on the institution of the Twelve--Luke is the only Gospel which presents Jesus explicitly as calling these people Apostles (the word Apostle is used much more in Luke than in the other Gospels).

 

                                                                Criterion For Matthias' Selection As Apostle

 

Let us examine another example found in chapter one of the Acts of the Apostles.  Recall the selection of Matthias to take the place of Judas.^[131]  This is an act done to reconstitute the group of Twelve--it is important that this is done before Pentecost (one might get the impression that that is why the Spirit "waits" ten days!).  The point that is instructive is the way in which Matthias is chosen.  On the one hand, there is involvement of the whole community in various ways, but that is not the focus of this example.  It is the criterion that anyone to be considered eligible for this role must have been present from the Baptism of John through the Forty days.  The reason for that standard is that the function of the Twelve is to a large extent one of witnessing to what has happened in Jesus' public life (this is why, for example, that had Paul been on the scene at that point he still would not have done what was needed to be considered for this position).  This shows that one of the functions of this office is to embody a concrete link between the age of Jesus and the age of the Church.  Luke is then at pains in the rest of Acts to link other lesser offices to those of the Seven, to those of the Presbyters and Elders and even the position of Paul back to the fundamental office of Apostle.  We can find an illustration of this in Acts, chapter six when it is decided that a new office is necessary because of problems that have arisen in the community.  To answer this need, the multitude chooses Seven, then verse six says, "These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them."^[132]  They are installed in this new office through official conferral of the office on the part of the Apostles.  

 

                                                                The Identification Of The Church With Jesus

 

These various levels of connection to the time of Jesus lead to a certain identification of the Church with Jesus (we must be careful here in our wording so as not to give the impression that the Church supplants Jesus).  This is on the line of Paul's theology of the Church as the Body of Christ--although this is not quite the same terminology.  The best example of this is in Acts, chapter nine, verses four and five which is one of the accounts of the conversion of Paul.  Describing the situation, the passage reads:

"And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'  And [Paul] said, 'Who are you, Lord?  And he said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."^[133] 

Paul himself, in his letters, says that he has persecuted the Church of God (and this is the same material that is envisioned here).  The way in which this is presented conveys the understanding that a persecution of the Church is a persecution of Jesus.  We see the close identification with the Church to Jesus in the above cited passage.  This presence of Jesus in the Church is also expressed through references to the Name of Jesus.  We find examples of this in Acts, chapter four, verse twelve^[134] and Acts, chapter ten, verse forty-three^[135].  It is only in this name that salvation is to be found.  In this there seems to be the sense that Jesus is present where his name is invoked.

 

                                                      Luke's Treatment Of The Passion, Death and Ascension

 

To conclude this discussion of Luke, let us briefly examine his treatment of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension.  There are some unusual characteristics about these events in Luke's presentation.  First of all, the Passion is presented as part of the divinely willed plan for the Messiah.  We saw a reference to this in the Emmaus story (i.e., a reference to what "must" occur).^[136]  I would like to refer here to just one more passage--Luke, chapter eighteen, verses thirty-one to thirty-four.^[137]  There is no explanation in this passage of why this is the plan of God.  The fact [is] that [the situation is said to be] the plan of God [and it is given in] a salvific context.  Corresponding to that, the Resurrection is seen as a Divine correction of the error and guilt of those who put Jesus to death.  This is expressed most clearly in the Acts of the Apostles (note the following passages: Acts 3:13-18, 3:30-33, 10:37-40 and 13:27-31).  Chapter thirteen, verses twenty-seven to thirty-one is presented as a speech of Paul.  He has given a brief history of salvation, and then after a reference to John the Baptist comes to this section.  He says,

"For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him.  Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed.  And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.  But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people."^[138]

Notice that in the first part of that, the death of Jesus is attributed first to the leaders in Jerusalem and then to Pilate.  Notice that there is a certain degree of excuse provided here--they did not recognize him and they did not understand the utterances of the prophets.  When they finished with everything, however, God raised him from the dead.  We see in this, the Resurrection as the correcting of the error.

 

                                                             The Resurrection Distinguished From Ascension

 

The Resurrection is however distinguished here from the Ascension or Exaltation (which is not always the case in the New Testament--sometimes they are used interchangeably).  Luke gives a distinctive account of the Ascension in two places.  The first place is rather brief and is located at the conclusion of his Gospel.  We find this in chapter twenty-four, verses fifty to fifty-three.^[139]  The scene takes place in Bethany near Jerusalem.  In the scene, Jesus blesses them and departs while blessing them.  There is a suggestion here that the departure is a blessing (not that they are glad to see him go, but because the implication of his departure is that the Spirit will be sent).  After his departure, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy--an indication that they understand what has happened.  The ascended Jesus is to remain close to the Church in what follows.

 

                                                                                     The Ascension Event

 

A more complete description of the Ascension event is found in Acts, chapter one, verses three to twelve.  The text reads:

"(3) To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.  (4) And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which he said, 'you heard from me, (5) for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

(6) So when they had come together, they asked him, 'Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?'  (7) He said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority,  (8) But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.'  (9) And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.  (10) And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, (11) and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven?  This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'

(12) Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath's day's journey away."^[140]

 

                                                                      A Study Of The Above Cited Passage

 

The following is a exegetical study of the above passage.

There are a couple of things in verse three that are worth noting.  First of all, there was a forty day period (a significant number) which is presented as a unique time of transition between the time of Jesus and the age of the Church.  These forty days are not the same as during Jesus' lifetime--he is not there at every moment, but on the other hand he is regularly appearing to the Apostles and providing them with further instruction.  This instruction is so important to Luke that presence during this period is one of the criterion that must be fulfilled for the selection of a replacement for Judas.  In verse four (while staying with them) Jesus tells them to wait in Jerusalem, the Holy City for the promise of the Father.  In verse five, he speaks of them being baptized in the Holy Spirit.  In verse six we come directly to the Ascension material itself.  Here we find a certain recapitulation of Luke's position on various subjects.  The disciples ask here if the Kingdom of Israel will be restored.  Jesus answers in verse seven that it is none of their business (that the time and seasons have been fixed by the Father).  But this is not the complete answer--the answer continues in verse eight which in effect corrects the question (answers the question as they should have asked it).  Jesus promises them the Holy Spirit.  When Jesus says "you shall be my witnesses" it is a prediction, but it is also a command.  This process of being witnesses of Jesus goes out from Jerusalem in concentric circles (a good bit of acts is a description of this).  Acts ends with Paul preaching the Gospel in Rome which is a type of fulfillment of this prophecy (even though Paul himself was not one of those who received it directly at that time).  Then at this point (in verse nine) Jesus is lifted up into the cloud.  In verse ten, the men in white robes provide an interpretation of what has happened--this may again be a reflection of the idea that the proper interpretation is God's gift.  The Ascension is a promise that Jesus has been exalted and will return, but it is not a promise that he would come soon.  The proper attitude in the time in between is not looking up to heaven, but a carrying out of Jesus' commands (i.e., to wait first for the gift of the Spirit and then to be his witnesses throughout the world).  So the Christology of that point is very closely linked to ecclesiology. 

 

                                                  Luke's Temporal Framework Influences The Liturgical Year

 

I have just one last comment on this final scene that has to do with the liturgical year.  A good bit of the liturgical year comes from Luke (at least as far as the Paschal material is concerned).  There is forty days between Easter and the Ascension and ten more days until Pentecost.  There is a logic to this time spacing.  We need to be careful, however, that we do not transplant this temporal framework to other parts of the New Testament.  What Luke presents as happening fifty days after Easter (i.e., Pentecost) John presents as happening on Easter Sunday evening (i.e., to the assembled disciples).  To pull these Gospels apart and to think that they are in contradiction with one another is to misunderstand both--they are both understandings of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the fact that presence is derived from Jesus.  But each Evangelist has chosen to accent a distinct facet of that link.  John's presentation links it very closely with the Resurrection.  Luke places the exaltation in the middle as distinct from the Resurrection and provided a further period of waiting until the gift takes place.  We need to be careful not to impose Luke's temporal framework on John or on the other Evangelists for that matter.

 

                                                                                            John's Gospel

 

Let us take a brief look at John's Gospel.  Here I would like to pick out just a few points, but before I say anything immediately about the text of the Gospel I have a comment about its use in the history of the Church.  This Gospel is different than the Synoptics and has long been prized as a theological Gospel (though the others are also theological!). 

In the period in which there was intense interest in finding the "historical Jesus" (19th century Biblical criticism) John's Gospel receded from favor.  The reason this occurred was because it was recognized that the Synoptics provided more material for the search for historical reconstruction.  In the period roughly from the end of World War I until the early 1950s, when there was not as much interest in the historical Jesus, John's Gospel (as well as Paul) made a comeback as far as theological interest was concerned.  This occurred precisely because of John's theological character. 

                                                                Christological Implications Of John' Gospels

 

At the present time this situation has changed in a couple of respects.  The first reason for this change is one already mentioned--there is interest in the theologies of the Gospels (an interest that includes the theology of John as well as the theology of the Synoptics).  This is a reason for focus on John, but not to the detriment of the others.  At the same time, there is also a recognition that, at least as far as certain pieces of information on the historical Jesus, that John's Gospel may be a useful historical source.  This can be misunderstood--no one seriously holds that the speeches of Jesus from John's Gospel give as much information about the preaching of Jesus as do the Synoptics.  But there are a couple of things (e.g., the dating of the Last Supper, the frequency of Jesus' visits to Jerusalem and perhaps the length of Jesus' public life) where the material from John's Gospel can be useful.  Although some of these things do not have earth-shaking Christological consequences, John's portrayal of Jesus as one who goes back and forth to Jerusalem on a couple of occasions, may well reflect the historical reality more than the Synoptic accounts which are designed to make a particular theological point.

What does John's Gospel have to say?  The Prologue to the Gospel, especially verse fourteen, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ."^[141] is a noted reference point for Christology.  The Gospel is very explicitly Christological--it has been said that in the Fourth Gospel "the revealer becomes the revealed."  In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus reveals God, and in John, Jesus reveals himself.  In this Gospel, Jesus speaks about himself a great deal.  Jesus is presented as the only revealer of God (he is the only one who knows the Father), and in that sense as irreplaceable.  According to chapter one, verse eighteen, "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."^[142] 

 

                                                                       Symbolic Language In John's Gospel

 

The position of Jesus [as the one who is revealed] is reflected in explicitly symbolic language throughout the Gospel.  Usually this symbolism is developed at some length (presented at the beginning of each chapter and then illustrated in the story that follows).  Below are some examples of this.  In chapter four Jesus is presented as the living water (in the encounter with the woman at the well).  In chapter six Jesus is presented as the bread of life (in the discourse and also in the multiplication of the loaves).  In chapter nine Jesus is presented as the true light (in the story of the healing of the blind man).  In chapter ten Jesus is presented as the Good Shepherd (distinguished as such from the hireling). 

 

                                                       The Single Purpose Of Jesus' Mission--Double Results

 

In John's Gospel, we see that all through his discourses and his actions, Jesus reveals himself but is generally not recognized (only his own recognize him).  The purpose of Jesus' coming is salvation, but the effect of his coming is division--we see this in chapter one, verse eleven which reads, "He cam to his own home, and his own people received him not."^[143]  This effect is spelled out explicitly in chapter three, verses sixteen to eighteen which reads,

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.  He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. . .""^[144]

The point is to contrast between the two.  The purpose in the mission is single--it is for salvation.  It is not a mission of both salvation and condemnation, but the effect is both because the reaction of the presence of the Son is divided.  Those who are evil reject the presence of the light.

 

                                                                               Eschatological Implications

 

In addition to the Christological implications of this (i.e., the focus on Jesus as the revelation of God), there is also an eschatological implication.  The time of judgement is now.  There are some references to future eschatology still preserved, but on the whole the focus is on present eschatology.  An example of this that combines both of them, in somewhat of an awkward fashion, is found in chapter five, verses twenty-four and twenty-five and twenty-eight and twenty-nine.  In verse twenty-four, Jesus says,

"'Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life.'"^[145]

Notice the words has eternal life and does not come into--these words are in the present tense.  In verse twenty-five, Jesus says,

"'Truly, truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.'"^[146]

There is a certain tension here--the hour is coming and now is.  In the same section, Jesus goes on in verses twenty-eight and twenty-nine to say,

"'Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement.'"^[147]

This type of passage still points ahead further to a future eschatology, but the great emphasis throughout the Gospel is rather on another aspect--a present eschatology.

 

                                                                             Access To Jesus By His Death

 

This theology of Jesus as revealer, as the self-revelation of God is also very closely linked to a theology of death and resurrection.  There is a strong focus here on Jesus' words (earlier we talked about a Christology that focuses on Jesus' words), but they are not abstracted from Jesus' person.  All throughout, Jesus' public life is pointed toward the hour of his death, which is the hour of his being raised and glorified.  Some examples of this can be found in the following passages: In chapter three, verses fourteen and fifteen^[148] (a reference to the serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness is given as an example of the Son of man being lifted up on the Cross), chapter seven, verse thirty-nine^[149] (a reference to the Spirit is given after Jesus has promised that anyone who is thirsty should come to him), and finally in this vein, chapter twelve, verse twenty-three and twenty-four which reads:

"And Jesus answered them, 'The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified.  Truly, truly I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.'"^[150]

The language here is veiled, but after the fact the reader understands what Jesus means.  In this particular case, let me be a bit more specific about what this means for us in context.  This passage comes after John notes that Greeks were present to worship on the feast.^[151]  The issue behind this is the question of access of Gentiles to Jesus.  In this passage, the Greeks had come to Philip and asked to see Jesus.^[152]  Jesus answered this request with the words in the passage cited above ("The hour has come. . .").  This does not seem to be an answer to the question of the Greeks at all.  In John's Gospel, Jesus does this with some regularity.  Usually the point is that on a deeper level there is an answer present.  The point here is that access to Jesus by Gentiles comes about after his death--that the bearing of much fruit is, to a large extent, the spread of the Gospel as a result of the Crucifixion.  This is one of the reasons why the dying itself is an exaltation.  There seems also to be an implication that it is through his disciples that access to Jesus will be obtained.

 

                                                                            Jesus' Death As A Glorification

 

When Jesus' death is presented in John's Gospel, it is presented as a glorification, a completion of his work--a moment of triumphant return to the Father.  Jesus remains active in death.  According to chapter fourteen, verse thirty, ". . .the ruler of this world. . . has no power over me."^[153]  According to chapter nineteen, verse eleven, "[Pilate] would have no power over [Jesus] unless it had not been given [to him] from above."^[154]  The most explicit reference in this vein is at the end of the self-presentation as the Good Shepherd, which is found in chapter ten, verses seventeen and eighteen.  In this passage Jesus says, rather abruptly,

"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.  I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."^[155] 

The Crucifixion here is presented as it is in Acts, nor is the Resurrection viewed as the Divine reversal of this misdeed.  Instead, both death and Resurrection are presented as Jesus' laying down and taking out of his life.

 

                                                                                    Jesus' Death Is Salvific

 

Linked to this is the very direct notion that Jesus' death is salvific.  This is presented with a different type of symbolism (i.e., the symbolism for the salvific significance of his death), but the type of symbolism I would accent here is the symbolism of water.  The following are a couple of passages in the Gospel that reflect this theme.  Water is mentioned and even accented in chapter four as the salvific gift (we find here the story of the woman at the well).^[156]  In chapter seven, verse thirty-seven Jesus says, "If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink."^[157]  Then further, in the same chapter, Jesus says, "He said this of the Spirit which as yet had not been given."^[158]  Then in the Johannine Crucifixion narrative, chapter nineteen, verse thirty-four, we read, "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water."^[159]  This is a passage unique to John and one that seems to have symbolic ecclesiological and perhaps sacramental implications.   So we see that Jesus is more active in his death--there is theme of self-giving that is accented here not as a dark passage to glory on the other side, but actually as an exaltation, even in itself.  The Resurrection becomes a kind of enhancement of that--perhaps a manifestation of that, but certainly not a correction.

 

                                                                                    Jesus As The Revealer

 

Finally, with regard to John, I not a theme that is strongly accented in the Gospel, but which is challenged in some circles at the present time.  This is the emphasis on the exclusivity of Jesus' position as the revealer of God (or as the mediator of salvation).  We have already seen chapter one, verse eighteen ("No one has seen God, only the Son") but then there is also an explicit dialogue on the subject in chapter fourteen, verses one through eleven.  This passage reads:

"'Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.  In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?  And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.  And you know the way where I am going.'  Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?'  Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.  If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen  him.'

Philip said to him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.'  Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip?  He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father?'  do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.'"^[160]

The claim to exclusivity in this passage is very tightly linked to the assertion on Jesus' part to unity with the Father.  If you have another way, then it could only be a way that leads someplace else.  You cannot consistently drop that aspect of Johannine Christology without scrapping a great deal of the rest of it at the same time.

 

                                                                        But. . . Light On All Human Beings

 

I would however note one passage that is not narrow with regard to this.  Here again, we go back to the Prologue to look at verse nine of chapter one.  This passage notes that "the true light that enlightens every man was coming in the world."^[161]  The light that comes is one which sheds light on all human beings, not simply by a restricted circle.  This stands in a certain tension with some other elements in the Gospel.  It is mentioned here to suggest a kind of universality to the picture of John's Gospel.

 

 

 

                                                                            Christology February 26, 1991

 

                                                                    New Testament Christology (Continued)

 

Just a couple of words to complete our discussion of the New Testament section. . .  This has not been an exhaustive study in the sense of treating all the books of the New Testament.

 

                                                                                Colossians And Ephesians

 

Today we will take a look at two final texts--Colossians and Ephesians.  These two texts go together to make the same point.  These epistles are in the Pauline tradition, however most exegetes at the present time hold that Paul did not write them.  For our purposes, the important thing is that they are in the Pauline tradition, yet somewhat later than the other Pauline material. 

The element that is important for our study is the linking of Christ to creation found in these texts.  This is particularly reflected in the hymns (Colossians 1:15-20 and Ephesians 1:10 & 20-21^[162]).

In the Colossians hymn we read:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  He is the head of the body, the church; his is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.  For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."^[163]

In this passage, we see that to Christ is attributed a distinctive role in creation. 

 

                                                                  Linking Christ To The Whole Of Creation

 

We can say that Christ's role is not solely for redemption.  If Christ is going to be the universal redeemer, or the source of universal salvation, then there is a need to link Christ to the whole of creation in the first place (that is what is reflected in these hymns).  This idea is not totally foreign to earlier Pauline material.  We may compare the above noted passage with First Corinthians, chapter eight, verse six which reads:

"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."^[164]

The idea is present in earlier Pauline letters, but the development of it and emphasis of it in Colossians and Ephesians is something new. 

 

                                                                                   The Theme Of Creation

 

This linking of Christ to the whole of creation is reflected subsequently in the fact that many theologians who try to connect Christology to the theme of creation (i.e., evolutionary perspectives or matters of that sort) typically make appeals to Colossians and Ephesians as the Biblical background for what they are doing.  This is not done in the sense that their own positions are completely reflected in those texts, but that there is a certain affinity between the texts and those lines of thought.  This is true for those who link the theology of creation to Christology--sometimes with the development of an evolutionary perspective (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin).  These are Biblical passages that are in at least the remote background of such thought and provides something of a Biblical reference point for a cosmic picture of Christ.  The people that do this are not simply saying that their ideas are a repetition of what is in the hymn.

 

                                                                 The Pursuit Of Other Theological Questions

 

I have just a few concluding comments on the New Testament.  First, everywhere in the New Testament, the development of Christology is linked to the pursuit of other theological questions.  It is joined to a conception of salvation.  It is very closely linked to eschatology.  It is joined to theological understandings of sin and grace.  And very often, at least, joined to a theology of the Church. 

There are reasons to believe that these links of Christology with other aspects of theology are not accidental at all.  In the long run Christology must be pursued as one part of the greater whole.  This does not mean that a theology student should not take a course in Christology and take only a course on theology in general (pursuing everything simultaneously).  The Biblical notion that all of this must be seen in its interconnection is a valid one.  The separations that take place for the purpose of examining individual themes more thoroughly can be methodologically appropriate, but only as long as such separations do not give the impression that the issues are as isolated as they may appear. 

 

                                                   Diversity And Development In New Testament Christology

 

Secondly, there is both a diversity in New Testament Christology and the development of Biblical Christology that is linked to specific problems which the Church confronted at that time.  The New Testament does not claim to be an exhaustive presentation and it does not claim to be a completely well-rounded presentation.  Instead, in various ways, specific issues and questions are picked up and pursued because of the immediate circumstances. 

 

                                                                     Implications For Subsequent Questions

 

One implication of this is that systematic Christology (i.e., subsequent Christological questioning) cannot contend itself with organizing New Testament material into a more structured fashion.  If we put all of New Testament Christology somehow together in a book with that title, then we would have something very useful, but we would not have exhausted the theme of Christology.  The insufficiency of New Testament Christology in the sense prescribed, is not an excuse to throw the New Testament aside and proceed lightly on from there as if nothing of significance were being abandoned.

 

                                                                  The Historical Dimensions Of Christology

 

Thirdly, it is important to note something that we find in different forms throughout the New Testament.  This is the insistence that Christology has to do with a historical event and from the New Testament point of view, an individual from the very recent past and specific occurrences related to his life and death.  What is important to note here is that the Biblical affirmations about Christ are meant as comments about a figure of recent history.  These affirmations are not meant as truisms of a timeless nature--at least many of them are not of a timeless nature.  They are affirmations of the significance of one particular historical figure (e.g., this can be seen in different ways in both Paul and Luke where there is something of a shift in history that is linked to the figure of Christ).  One conclusion that can be drawn from this is that orientation toward history, and particularly during the period of Jesus' life, is something intrinsic to Christology (i.e., Christology always must combine an historical dimension with its more speculative systematic reflection).

In the early pages of his Foundations of Christian Faith,^[165] Karl Rahner has a very brief warning against a type of Biblicism which ignores this.  What Rahner has in mind is not uncritical Biblicism, but what he has in mind is an approach which is quite sophisticated in its approach to the Bible, but lacking the same sense of nuance in locating the Bible within the overall framework of the Church's history or history of the world.  This is one reason why this book has so few Biblical references.

---

     ^[1]  Avery Dulles, "Contemporary Approaches to Christology: Analysis and Reflection," Living Light 13 (1976): 119-144.

     ^[2]  See: Karl Rahner. "What is a Dogmatic Statement," Theological Investigations Vol. V (1961): pages?

        And: W. Pannenburg.  "What is a Dogmatic Statement,"  Principles of Christian Theologies (the collected essays of W. Pannenburg)

     ^[3]  Bernard Lonergan, Collection. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967).

     ^[4]  Karl Rahner, "Current Problems in Christology," Theological Investigations 1.  Baltimore: Helicon, 1961, pp. 149-200.  (See class syllabus for weeks of April 16 and 23).

     ^[5]  Aloys Grillmeier.  Christ In Christian Tradition 2.  Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976.

     ^[6]  A. Grillmeier.  Christ In Christian Tradition 2. 98.

     ^[7]  For further information about this see: Ronald Roberson, Eastern Christian Churches.  Rome, 1990.   This is a survey of Eastern Churches in general--those in union with Rome and those not in union with Rome.  There is also a treatment of what we could call Oriental Churches (i.e., do not accept Chalcedon--either Nestorian or inclined toward Nestorianism {these churches also do not accept the Council of Ephesus}, and churches of the Monophysite variety that do accept Ephesus). 

     ^[8]  Mysterium Filii Dei  AAS 64 (1972): 237-241.

Found in Catholic Mind 70 (1972): 61-64.

     ^[9]  See: Avery Dulles, "Contemporary Approaches to Christology: Analysis and Reflection,"  Living Light 13 (1976): 119-144.

     ^[10]  Redemptoris Missio, issued by John Paul II on December 7, 1991 (paragraph 6).  The entire paragraph treats this question.

     ^[11]  Mystici Corporis Christi, issued by Pius XII on June 29, 1943 (paragraph 75).

     ^[12]  Haurietis Aquas, issued by Pius XII on May 15, 1956.  National Catholic Welfare Conference (Washington: Ransdell Press, 1956) Paragraph 64.  See also DS 3924.

     ^[13]  The reference is: Cfr. Sum Theol. III, q. 9 aa. 1-3: ed. Leon., vol. XI, 1903, p. 142.

     ^[14]  See: Raymond E. Brown, "'Who Do Men Say That I Am?' - A Survey of Modern Scholarship on Gospel Christology,"  Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church.  New York: Paulist, 1975, pp. 20-37.

     ^[15]  "And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, 'Why do you question thus in your hearts?'"  (MK 2:8, RSV).

     ^[16]  ". . . but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." (MK 3:29, RSV).

     ^[17]  "And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." (MK 8:31, RSV).

     ^[18]  ". . . for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, 'The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.'"  (MK 9:31, RSV).

     ^[19]  ". . . he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise.'"  (MK 10:32c-34, RSV).

     ^[20]  "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."  (MK 10:45, RSV)

     ^[21]  "And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!  For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'"  (MT 16:17-19, RSV).

     ^[22]  "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.  'But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'"  (MK 13:30-32, RSV)

     ^[23]  See article: Karl Rahner, "Dogmatic Reflections on the Knowledge and Self Consciousness of Christ,"  Theological Investigations 5.  Baltimore: Helicon, 1966, pp. 193-215.

     ^[24]  For the best example of his position on this is found in:  Edward Schillebeeckx, "Jesus' Original Abba Experience, Source and Secret of His Being, Message and Manner of Life," Jesus: An Experiment in Christology.  New York: Crossroads, 1979. pp. 256-271. 

--After Schillebeeckx explains or portrays at length (in a number of places throughout this book) what Jesus does or says in his public life he then steps back and asks what the basis for all of this is.  He says that you cannot explain it completely by reference to the existing conditions [of Jesus' day] because there was nothing present in the existing conditions that would have given rise to this type of context.  He says that the only thing that can be a basis (if there is a real basis) is an awareness of God as creator and as infinitely good.

     ^[25]  A contemporary defense of the Scholastic position is found in:  William Most, The Consciousness of Christ. (Not sure of publication information).

--Most offers a defense of the traditional position on the subject of Jesus' knowledge and strongly implies that anyone who disagrees with such a position is heretical.  Most explains the Patristic material as a failure to come to the full appreciation of Jesus' knowledge achieved at a later date.  Significant Biblical passages (such as the eschatological discourse) is explained as a kind of refusal to communicate on Christ's part.

     ^[26]  John 1:11 (RSV)

     ^[27]  Galatians 4:4 (RSV)

     ^[28]  Ephesians 1:9b-10 (RSV)

     ^[29]  The passage reads: "The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"  Ephesians 1:10 (RSV)

     ^[30]  From a homily attributed to John Chrysostom.  (Specific reference unavailable).

     ^[31]  See: Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies. v, 1.1 and ii, 18.6 in: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Anti-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 Vol. 1.  Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

     ^[32]  For complete English text, see: Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man and The Virgin Conception and Original Sin.  Albany, New York: Magi Books, Inc., 1969, pp. 64-163.

     ^[33]  Gustaf Emanuel Hildebrand Aulen, Christus Victor, New York: Macmillan, 1969.

     ^[34]  Gisbert Greshake is a professor at Friebourg, Germany.  Many believe that he is one of the "stars" of German Catholic theology, however he is not that well known outside of Germany.  He has a small book on the priesthood that has been translated into English but most of his works on the subject of soteriology have not been translated.

     ^[35]  Karl Adam, The Son of God.  Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1934. (not sure of page number).

     ^[36]  Joseph Pohle and Arthur Preuss, Soteriology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemption.  St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1916. (not sure of page number for the reference given).

     ^[37]  Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology. (not sure of page number for the reference given).

     ^[38]  Daniel Helminiak, The Same Jesus.  Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1986.

     ^[39]  See Colossians 1:15b+16b (RSV).  The entire Hymn is found in verses 12-20.

     ^[40]  Thomas Marsh, "Soteriology Today,"  The Irish Theological Quarterly 46 (1979): 145-157.

--Thomas Marsh is an Irish theologian.  This paper was originally presented as a lecture at a conference of Irish and British theologians at Cambridge in 1978.  The body of the paper is the text of his lecture, while the footnotes were added as a further explanation. 

     ^[41]  Laurence J. O'Connor, "British-Irish Theological Seminar," The Irish Theological Quarterly 46 (1979): 57.

     ^[42]  See: James Mackey, Jesus, the Man and the Myth: A Contemporary Christology.  New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

     ^[43]  "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband should not divorce his wife."  (1 Cor. 7:10-11 RSV)

     ^[44]  "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." 

(1 Cor 9:14 RSV)

     ^[45]  "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you.  Do this in remembrance of me.'  In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"  (1 Cor. 11:23-25 RSV)

     ^[46]  "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  (Philippians 2:5-11 RSV)

     ^[47]  ". . .yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."  (1 Cor. 8:6 RSV)

     ^[48]  "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."  (1 Cor. 15:3-8 RSV)

     ^[49]  "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body."  (2 Cor. 5:10 RSV)

     ^[50]  "For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."  (1 Thes. 5:2 RSV)

     ^[51]  "Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come."  (1 Cor. 10:11 RSV)

     ^[52]  "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation."  (2 Cor. 6:2 RSV)

     ^[53]  See Galatians 1:3b-4  (RSV)

     ^[54]  "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'"  (Romans 1:16-17 RSV)

     ^[55]  See Romans 1:18-32

     ^[56]  Note verse 18 which reads: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth." (Romans 1:18 RSV).

     ^[57]  An example of this: ". . .for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him. . ."  (Romans 1:21a RSV)

     ^[58]  Refer to the New Testament for this rather lengthy passage i.e., Romans 2:9-3:8).

     ^[59]  ". . .as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. and ". . .all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. . ."  (Romans 3:10-11 & 23 RSV)

     ^[60]  Romans 3:21-22 (RSV)

     ^[61]  ". . .they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.  This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. . ."  (Romans 3:24-25 RSV).

     ^[62]  See Romans 5:1

     ^[63]  Romans 5:8 (RSV)

     ^[64]  Refer to the New Testament for this rather lengthy passage i.e., Romans 8:18-25).

     ^[65]  "I give thanks to God always for you because of the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge."  (1 Cor. 1:4-5 RSV)

     ^[66]  Refer to the New Testament for this rather lengthy passage i.e., 1 Cor. 1:10-17).

     ^[67]  1 Corinthians 1:13a (RSV)

     ^[68]  1 Corinthians 1:13b (RSV)

     ^[69]  Romans 6:3 (RSV)

     ^[70]  1 Corinthians 11:26 (RSV)

     ^[71]  1 Corinthians 12:3 (RSV)

     ^[72]  Redemptoris Missio, issued by John Paul II on December 7, 1991.  In: Origins 34 (1991) 541-568.

     ^[73]  ". . .but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."  (Philippians 2:7-8 RSV)

     ^[74]  Philipians 2:9  (RSV)

     ^[75]  "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . ."  (1 Cor. 15:3 RSV)

--This is the traditional formula (that is even pre-Pauline)--that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

     ^[76]  See: Willi Marxen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel, trans. James Boyce (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969).

     ^[77]  Mark 1:1 (RSV)

     ^[78]  Not sure of the name of the work cited.

     ^[79]  Not sure of the name of the work cited.

     ^[80]  See: Theodore Weeden, Mark--Tradition in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).

     ^[81]  I am not sure of the title of Pesch's work, but he wrote a two volume commentary on the Gospel of Mark.  Pesch is a German exegetical scholar.

     ^[82]  It reads: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."  (Matthew 1:1 RSV)

     ^[83]  "And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, 'Have mercy on us Son of David!'  The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out the more, 'Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!'"  (Matthew 20:30-31 RSV)

     ^[84]  Matthew 21:4-5  (RSV)

     ^[85]  Zechariah 9:9  (RSV)

     ^[86]  Matthew 21:10-11  (RSV)

     ^[87]  "And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, 'If you will, you can make me clean.'  Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, 'I will; be clean.'  And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.  And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, and said to him, 'See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.'  But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter."  (Mark 1:40-45 RSV)

     ^[88]  Mark 1:44  (RSV)

     ^[89]  Mark 1:45 (RSV)

     ^[90]  Mark 3:11-12 (RSV)

     ^[91]  Mark 8:26 (RSV)

     ^[92]  Mark 6:51-52 (RSV)

     ^[93]  Earlier in the chapter the disciples questioned: "How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?"  (Mark 6:4 RSV)

     ^[94]  Mark 8:17-18 (RSV)

     ^[95]  "And he asked them, 'But who do you say that I am?'  Peter answered him, 'You are the Christ.'  And he charged them to tell no one about him.  And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."  Mark 8:29-31 (RSV)

     ^[96]  "And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."  Mark 8:31 (RSV)

     ^[97]  ". . .for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, 'The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise.'"  Mark 9:31 (RSV)

     ^[98]  "And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise.'"  Mark 10:32-34 (RSV)

     ^[99]  "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."  Mark 10:45 (RSV)

     ^[100]  Mark 1:14 (RSV)

     ^[101]  "My God, my God, why hast though forsaken me?  . . .scorned by men, and despised by the people.  All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; 'He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!'  . . .Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hand and my feet--I can count all my bones--they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.  But thou, O Lord, be not far off!  O thou my help, hasten to my aid!  . . .I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee: 'You who fear the Lord, praise him!  all you sons of Jacob, glorify him."  Psalm 22:1a, 6a-8, 16-19, 22-23a (RSV)

     ^[102]  Psalm 22:1 is cited in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.  Psalm 22:7-8 is cited in Matthew 27:39, Mark 15:29 and Luke 23:35.  Psalm 22:18 is cited in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34 and John 19:24.

     ^[103]  Mark 15:32-33a (RSV)

     ^[104]  "My God, my God, why hast though forsaken me?"  Mark 15:34b (RSV).  See also Psalm 22:1.

     ^[105]  Mark 15:9b (RSV)

     ^[106]  Mark 16:6-8 (RSV)

     ^[107]  Matthew 16:18 (RSV)

     ^[108]  "And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."  Matthew 28:18-20 (RSV)

     ^[109]  "And he said to them, 'Why are you afraid, O men of little faith?'"  Matthew 8:26a (RSV)

     ^[110]  "He said to them, 'Why are you afraid?  Have you no faith?'"  Mark 4:40 (RSV)

     ^[111]  "But Jesus, aware of this, said, 'O men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?'"  Matthew 16:8 (RSV)

     ^[112]  "And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, 'Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread?  Do you not yet perceive or understand?  Are your hearts hardened?"  Mark 8:17 (RSV)

     ^[113]  "Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, 'O man of little faith, why did you doubt?"  Matthew 14:31 (RSV)

     ^[114]  "'He saved others; he cannot save himself.  He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.`"  Matthew 27:42 (RSV)

     ^[115]  "'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'"  Matthew 2:2a (RSV)

     ^[116]  "And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, 'This is Jesus the King of the Jews.'"  Matthew 27:37 (RSV)

     ^[117]  "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son."  Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

     ^[118]  "'Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.  I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.  He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will any one hear his voice in the streets; he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick, till he brings justice to victory; and in his name will the Gentiles hope.'"  Matthew 12:18-21  (RSV).  Compare with Isaiah 42:1-4.

     ^[119]  "Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw.  And all the people were amazed, and said, 'Can this be the Son of David?'"  Matthew 12:22-23 (RSV)

     ^[120]  "And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.  And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  Matthew 28:17-19 (RSV)

     ^[121]  "And Peter answered him, 'Lord if it is you, bid me come to you on the water.'  He said, 'Come.'  So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, 'Lord, save me.'  Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, 'O man of little faith, why did you doubt?'  And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.  And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'"  Matthew 14:28-33 (RSV).  See verses 22-32 for the entire story.

     ^[122]  Acts 20:28-32 (RSV)

     ^[123]  See: Hans Concelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, (publication information not given).

For a similar treatment of this subject see also: The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1985), vol 28: The Gospel According to Luke, by Joseph Fitzmeyer.

     ^[124]  Luke 16:16 (RSV).

     ^[125]  Luke 24:25-27 (RSV).

     ^[126]  Luke 24:44-47 (RSV)

     ^[127]  "Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven.  'Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.'"  (Luke 3:21-22 RSV).

     ^[128]  "'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.'  And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.  And he began to say to them, 'Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.'"  (Luke 4:18-21 RSV).

     ^[129]  See Luke 4:1-13.

     ^[130]  "Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve."  (Luke 22:3 RSV).

     ^[131]  See Acts 1:15-26.

     ^[132]  Acts 6:6 (RSV).

     ^[133]  Acts 9:4-5 (RSV).

     ^[134]  "'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.'"  (Acts 4:12 RSV).

     ^[135]  "'To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.'"  (Acts 10:43 RSV).

     ^[136]  "'that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.'"  Luke 24:44b (RSV)

     ^[137]  "And taking the twelve, he said to them, 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written of the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.  for he will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon;  they will scourge him and kill him, and on the third day he will rise.'  But they understood none of these things; this saying was hid from them, and they did not grasp what was said."  Luke 18:31-34 (RSV).

     ^[138]  Acts 13:27-31 (RSV).

     ^[139]  "Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them,  While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.  And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God."  Luke 24:50-53 (RSV).

     ^[140]  Acts 1:6-12 (RSV).

     ^[141]  John 1:14 (RSV).

     ^[142]  John 1:18 (RSV).

     ^[143]  John 1:11 (RSV).

     ^[144]  John 3:16-19 (RSV).

     ^[145]  John 5:24 (RSV).

     ^[146]  John 5:25 (RSV).

     ^[147]  John 5:28-29 (RSV).

     ^[148]  "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."  (John 3:14-15 RSV).

     ^[149]  "Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."  (John 7:39 RSV).

     ^[150]  John 12:23-24 (RSV).

     ^[151]  "Among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks." (John 12:20 RSV).

     ^[152]  See John 12:21-22.

     ^[153]  John 14:30 (RSV).

     ^[154]  John 19:11 (RSV).

     ^[155]  John 10:17-18 (RSV).

     ^[156]  See John 4:5-42.  More specifically, see verse fourteen which reads: ". . .but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst."  (RSV).

     ^[157]  John 7:37b (RSV).

     ^[158]  John 7:39 (RSV--paraphrased).

     ^[159]  John 19:34 (RSV).

     ^[160]  John 14:1-11 (RSV).

     ^[161]  John 1:9a (RSV).

     ^[162]  ". . .as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

. . .which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places. far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church. . ."  Ephesians 1:10 & 20-22 (RSV).

     ^[163]  Colossians 1:15-20 (RSV).

     ^[164]  1 Corinthians 8:6 (RSV).

     ^[165]  Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith. (New York: Crossroads, 1987).