Christology

Home > Philosophy and Religion > The Bible > Bible: General

Christology A doctrine of the Person of Christ, and the study of it, has been an essential part of rational thought about their beliefs once monotheistic Jews found that they were worshipping Jesus Christ as God. It is the work of interpreting the significance of Jesus Christ for faith. Down the ages it has taken many shapes, beginning with the application of ‘Christ’ (= ‘Messiah’) to Jesus; this asserted the connection of Jesus with the aspirations and beliefs of the OT and the people of Israel, however interpreted.

After long and sometimes acrimonious debates the Church gave a final definition of its Christology at the Council of Chalcedon in Asia Minor in 451 CE, affirming belief in Jesus Christ as One Person in Two Natures, which are united without confusion. Much subsequent thinking started with the premiss that Jesus was the second Person of the Trinity and then speculated how he could have been man. An early suggestion had been that Jesus only appeared to have had a physical body (this became known as the heresy of docetism and was ruled out by stressing the genuine humanity of Jesus, descendant of David, 2 Tim. 2: 8). Nevertheless there continued a long tradition in the Church which emphasized the divine nature of Christ at the expense of his humanity.

Much recent Christology claims to work ‘from below up’, that is to say, to begin with the humanity of Jesus and go on to show that the evidence leads to a recognition also of his divinity. It is a procedure beset with problems; for it necessarily depends upon controversial assessment of the historical value of the gospels which recount words and deeds of Jesus within the context of an interpretative apparatus. Examples are the messages of angels at the beginning and end, voices from heaven (at the baptism and transfiguration), various theological reflections (e.g. Luke 23: 44–5), and constant references (especially in Matthew) to OT prophecies.

On the other hand, there is much in the narratives of the gospels which can be accepted as historically trustworthy and which provides a foundation for a modern Christology. Events which are recorded in spite of being obviously embarrassing to the early Church and which might therefore have been understandably omitted impress for their veracity; an example is the baptism of Jesus and the history of its treatment from Mark, through Matthew (3: 14); Luke (3: 21), where the baptism by John is not mentioned explicitly; and John (1: 33), which does not record the baptism of Jesus at all. Such a progress reveals the embarrassment felt that Jesus should have undergone a ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1: 4). It was his self-identification with his people, but theological interpretation is evident: there is the mention of the heavenly voice, where Matthew uses a rabbinic image, the bath qol, to confirm the readers' inference that there is a pattern of events similar to that of the Exodus (of Israel). There can be no doubt about the crucifixion and little doubt that Jesus at the end cried, ‘My God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Mark 15: 34), where Luke (23: 46) prefers the cry, ‘Into your hands I commend my spirit’. Equally authentic are the stories of Jesus consorting with disadvantaged, unpopular, and despised people, and the accounts of miracles of healing and exorcizing.

Given the recognition that the gospels portray a genuinely human Jesus whose mode of life and teaching provoked opposition almost from the start (Mark 3: 6), we are entitled to take a further step by noting the theological interpretation given to some of these events. That Jesus was born somewhere in Palestine at the end of the reign of Herod the Great is a fact of history, but the interpretation of Matthew and Luke that the birth by Mary without the agency of a human father is an assertion that the man Jesus came from God to inaugurate a new relationship between God and humanity. The Transfiguration (Mark 9: 2–8), often dismissed by critics as a post-resurrection narrative which has been lifted out of the oral tradition into its present significant location within the ministry, need not be regarded as theological fiction. The account of Jesus' shining garments is paralleled by authentic accounts of the luminosity of saints. But the theological apparatus of the cloud and the arrival of Moses and Elijah are pointers to the belief that this wholly human figure can be discerned by faith to be invested with a transcendental ‘glory’.

Beginning therefore with clear expressions of the humanity of Jesus, it is discernible that the gospels also bestow on it a depth of glory which goes beyond our own humanity. In him there is a combination of the authority in his teaching, an outreach of unselfish love, and a total obedience, with humility, to God's calling.

The NT account of the Person of Christ is also expressed in the use of an extraordinary range of titles, or names, or images, applied to Jesus.

Among these ‘titles’ the best known are ‘the Son of Man’ and ‘the Son of God’, which have often been seen as straight references to Jesus' humanity and divinity respectively. But it is not so simple. Both terms have a long history in the OT and later literature and have been the subject of a whole industry of scholarship. Was ‘Son of Man’ used by Jesus himself with or without the definite article? Are the sayings in the gospels authentic utterances of Jesus? If so, do they refer to himself or to some other figure? Are they references to an individual or to a collection of people? Does the Aramaic simply mean ‘man’ in general, or does the background of the term denote a supernatural, apocalyptic figure that was taken over by the Palestinian Christian community and applied in the first generation of the Church to Jesus?

There is wide agreement that at least certain sayings in the gospels cannot be the words of Jesus himself, such as Matt. 16: 13. There is also considerable agreement about the almost complete absence of the term ‘Son of Man’ outside the gospels: that the phrase was so consecrated to the lips of Jesus that others in the NT did not use it of him. As to the meaning, it is probable that, in Aramaic, it was an oblique, reticent way of referring to himself—‘I, being the man I am …’ ‘The Son of Man’ was not a Messianic title and in using it Jesus was not laying claim to Messiahship; but neither was he denying such a claim.

‘Son of God’ was a familiar expression in Hebrew and Jewish thought: it does not characterize a divine being but is used of male persons who are believed to stand in a close relationship to God. The gospels maintain that Jesus was Son of God in a preeminent sense, as is apparent from the application of the expression to him by the Voice at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration. In the Hellenistic world into which the Church advanced, ‘Son of God’ was being accorded to the Roman emperor Augustus and his successors, so that ‘Son of God’, an early use in the Church (1 Thess. 1: 10), made possible an easy transition from Jewish to Gentile understanding. The early and authentic origins of the phrase as applied to Jesus is indicated by the unconcealed confession of the ignorance of the Son (Mark 13: 32), though the Son does enjoy a unique knowledge of the Father (Matt. 11: 27).

Another title which made an easy transition to the Hellenistic world was ‘Lord’ (kurios, in Greek; used in the LXX with the definite article for ‘The Lord’ or Yahweh) which could mean merely ‘sir’ but to gentile converts would imply supernatural status. It was already acquiring this meaning in the third gospel, written for Gentile readers (Luke 22: 61). Cf. Phil. 2: 10–11.

There is therefore in the NT, especially in the gospel of John, material which led to the classical Christological definitions. Emphases and terminology certainly vary, but all the NT authors share a common faith in Jesus as the unique agent of God's saving purpose for humankind. Some forty-two names or titles of Jesus are used in the NT; his humanity is clear—he is a ‘son of Joseph’, ‘rabbi’, ‘prophet’—yet the gospels were compiled ‘that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God’ (John 20: 21, making explicit what was unformulated in the synoptic gospels). Jesus was tempted to escape the cup of suffering (Mark 14: 36) but through death was vindicated by resurrection and then bestowed the Spirit on his disciples (Luke 24: 49; John 20: 22).

Christology. The study of the Person of Christ, and in particular of the union in Him of the Divine and human natures, and of His significance for Christian faith. In the NT Jesus of Nazareth is presented as a teacher, a prophet, and as Messiah (the Christ), but such merely human categories were felt to be inadequate; instead of being an interpreter of the Law, Jesus is seen as superseding the Law (Mt. 5: 21–48), and the role in the work of creation that Jewish thought had ascribed to the Torah or Wisdom is attributed to Christ, the Son of God, the Word (1 Cor. 8: 6; Heb. 1: 2; Jn. 1: 3).

The idea that in Jesus was encountered the One through whom God had made the universe provided a starting-point for a more philosophical approach to Christology. The Apologists of the 2nd cent. saw Jesus as the Logos or Word of God, understood as the source of all order and rationality; in Jesus the Logos united Himself to a human being. For them, however, the Logos was an intermediary between God and the world, distinct from Him. When Arius (d.336) held that such a subordinate Logos was not the uncreated God but part of the created order, he was opposed by those for whom to say that Jesus was the Logos incarnate was to say in some way that He is God. At the Council of Nicaea (325) Arius was condemned and it was asserted that the Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus is ‘consubstantial with the Father’. Such a clear affirmation of the divinity of Christ provoked debate. The Alexandrians stressed that in Christ God Himself was living a human life; the Antiochenes emphasized that in Christ both humanity and divinity co-operated without involving any encroachment on the reality of either nature. After the Council of Ephesus (431) had rejected Nestorius' objection to the title of ‘Theotokos’ (‘Mother of God’) being applied to the BVM, Cyril of Alexandria and the moderate Antiochenes reached an agreement enshrined in the ‘Formulary of Reunion’ (433); this affirmed the unity of Christ and asserted that He is ‘consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in manhood’. Eutyches in 447 began to teach that after the union there was one nature and that this nature was not ‘consubstantial with us’, but this teaching was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451), which asserted that there is ‘one Christ … in two natures, without confusion, without change, without separation’. It also endorsed the Christological teaching of Pope Leo that there is one subject in Christ, to which, paradoxically, two sets of attributes, Divine and human, are to be ascribed. Neither the Council of Ephesus nor that of Chalcedon secured complete agreement. Those who supported Nestorius rejected the Council of Ephesus and formed a schismatic Church, the Church of the East. The so-called ‘Monophysites’ rejected the Chalcedonian Definition. In an effort to secure agreement between the Chalcedonians and the Oriental Orthodox Churches the 6th cent. ‘Neo-Chalcedonians’ developed the doctrine of ‘Enhypostasia’ (q.v.). In the W. the Chalcedonian Definition was generally accepted.

At the Reformation Christological concern shifted from the question of the two natures of Christ to a more direct analysis of His work in redemption. J. Calvin stressed the Divine transcendence, while the Lutheran tradition developed a new Christology of the two states of Christ's humiliation and exaltation in cross and resurrection, in accounting for the biblical stress on historical contingency in the Incarnation. This led to reflection on kenosis (self-emptying) in Jesus and in God.

After the Enlightenment a new Christology was produced which tended to see belief in the divinity of Christ as a way of articulating the conviction that the distinctive character of Christian faith in God is that this faith is focused on Jesus of Nazareth. It looked for the divinity of Jesus in the unique quality of His life on earth. In reaction to such an approach the so-called ‘dialectical theology’ arose. K. Barth's God is wholly other; in Christ He reveals Himself as and when He wishes. For R. Bultmann Jesus is the one who confronts man with an eschatological message, demanding response. Bultmann's pupils developed a ‘New Quest’ of the historical Jesus, accepting the importance of kerygma, but seeking again to relate it to history. J. Moltmann sees the cross of Christ as the key not just to Christology but to all legitimate talk about God. Liberation Theology relates the Incarnation to salvation directly in its commitment to love of the poor and dispossessed. See also HISTORICAL JESUS, QUEST OF THE; INCARNATION; and JESUS CHRIST.

Christology (Gk., christos, Christ, + logos, ‘reflection’). The attempt in Christianity to account for the relation of Jesus to God, especially in his own nature and person. From the outset, New Testament writers related Jesus so closely to God that he could be seen as the initiative of God in seeking and saving that which was lost, even to the extent of being the manifestation of God so far as that can be seen or conveyed in human form. This led inevitably to questions of how the being of God is related to the humanity of Jesus in such a way that both are truly contained and present in one person.

The answers given to those questions are necessarily speculative. They range across a spectrum (in the history of the Church) from a view that he was a remarkable teacher and healer who was promoted by the faith of the early Christians into God, to the view that the pre-existent Son is God as God always is, and that the eternal and unchanging nature of God was truly present to the humanity of Jesus, both as co-agent of his activity and subject of his experience, without the humanity being obliterated or the divine nature compromised. The former are known as Euhemeristic or Adoptionist Christologies (see e.g. ARIUS). The latter culminated in the Chalcedonian definition, which sees the person of Jesus as (in the words of Aquinas) instrumentum coniunctum divinitatis, the conjoined instrument of the Godhead.