Christology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of a series on the |
 |
| Background |
| Four Marks of the Church Early Christianity · Timeline History of Christianity Theology · Ecclesiastical polity Trinitarianism Nontrinitarianism Christian Primitivism Christology · Mariology |
| Creeds |
| Apostles' · Nicene Chalcedonian · Athanasian |
| Patristic theology · Councils |
| Church Fathers · Augustine Nicaea · Chalcedon · Ephesus |
| Post-Nicene development |
| Heresy · List of heresies Monophysitism · Monothelitism Iconoclasm · Gregory I · Alcuin Photios · East-West Schism Scholasticism · Aquinas · Anselm William of Ockham Gregory Palamas · Old Believers |
| Reformation |
| Protestant Reformation Luther · Melanchthon Indulgences · Justification Sola fide · 95 Theses Book of Concord Predestination · Calvinism Arminianism · English Reformation Counter-Reformation · Trent |
| Since the Reformation |
| Pietism · Revivalism John Wesley · Great Awakenings Holiness movement Restoration Movement · Existentialism Liberalism · Postmodernism Vatican II · Radical orthodoxy Jean-Luc Marion · Hermeneutics Deconstruction-and-religion Liberation Theology Christian Anarchism |
 Christianity Portal |
Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is a field of study within Christian theology which is concerned with the relationship of Jesus with God particularly with respect to his nature and person. Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life (what he did) than with who or what he is. There have been and are various perspectives by those who claim to be his followers since the church began after his ascension. The controversies ultimately focused on how the human and divine nature can co-exist in one person. Although this study of the inter-relationship of these two natures is one of the preoccupations of the majority tradition, some essential sub-topics within the field of Christology include:
- the Incarnation,
- the Resurrection,
- and the salvific work of Jesus (known as soteriology).
Christology is related to questions concerning the nature of God like Trinitarianism, Unitarianism or Binitarianism. However, from a Christian perspective, these questions are concerned with how the divine persons relate to one another, whereas Christology is concerned with the meeting of the human (Son of Man) and divine (God the Son or Word of God) in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Throughout the history of Christianity, Christological questions have been very important in the life of the Church. Christology was a fundamental concern from the First Council of Nicaea (325) until the Third Council of Constantinople (680), or most of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils. In this time period, the Christological views of various groups within the broader Christian community led to accusations of heresy, and, infrequently, subsequent religious persecution. In some cases, a denomination's unique Christology is its chief distinctive feature; in these cases it is common for the denomination to be known by the name given to its Christology.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] History of major controversies
[edit] Trinitarian background
A series of articles on | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
The early Christians first defined how Jesus is related to God the Father in the late first and early second century.[1] Many of the Christological controversies of the first two centuries of the common era had direct implications for later thinking about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.[2]
Within the early church Christological positions known as Arianism and Ebionitism were held by some, which argued that Jesus was an ordinary mortal. Other groups, including Gnosticism, held docetic views which argued that Christ was a spiritual being that only appeared to have a physical body.[3][4] Tensions within the Church between Christological positions that stressed the humanity of Jesus and Christological positions that stressed the divinity of Jesus lead to schisms within the church in the second and third century, and church councils of the fourth and fifth-century were convened to deal with the issues. They decreed that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human, making this part of orthodox Christian declaration/creed.[1][2]
[edit] Ecumenical Councils
To calm disputes in his empire, Constantine I invited all the Christian bishops to gather at Nicaea to debate their doctrine. Whichever conclusions convinced him the most, he would impose as official policy throughout his empire. Later emperors leant similar weight to such ecumenical councils, although the increasing weakness of the Roman Empire allowed those who disputed the council's conclusions to continue holding their doctrine at the empire's fringes.
[edit] Council of Nicea
The Christological controversies came to a head at the First Council of Nicaea (325), at which the church defined the persons of the Godhead and their relationship with one another. Constantine later changed his mind, inviting Arius back into the empire from exile, and expelling the principal advocate of the Council's conclusions, Athanasius. However, during his triumphal return, Arius suddenly fell violently ill, in circumstances widely thought to indicate assassination[5][6][7].
The decisions made at Nicaea were eventually re-ratified at the First Council of Constantinople (381), after several decades of ongoing controversy during which the work of Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were influential. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular it was affirmed that the Son was homoousios (of one substance) with the Father. The Creed of the Nicene Council made statements about the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus, thus preparing the way for discussion about how exactly the divine and human come together in the person of Christ (Christology).
The Council of Nicaea insisted that Jesus was fully divine and also human. What it did not do was make clear how one person could be both divine and human, and how the divine and human were related within that one person. This led to the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era.
[edit] Council of Ephesus
The subsequent Council of Ephesus considered the suggestion of Nestorius that the human and divine components were distinct individuals (a position known as Hypostases), rather than parts of a single individual (a position known as Hypostasis). This second debate over one iota took place in controversial circumstances - Nestorius' enemies arrived first and held the council without his supporters; the emperor consequently quashed its conclusions, but due to being besieged by an anti-Nestorius mob, lead by a hermit named Dalmatius, and his courtiers being bribed, he eventually retracted his decision.[8] As a result of the annulment of the quashing of the Council, the supporters of Hypostases split from the others, becoming the Church of the East.
[edit] Council of Chalcedon
However, the most important event in these controversies was the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451. The Council promulgated a Christological doctrine known as the hypostatic union. In short, this doctrine states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. This view is sometimes called Dyophysite (meaning two natures) by those who rejected it.
The Chalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all Christological debate, but it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for all other Christologies. Most of the major branches of Christianity —Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Reformed — subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of Eastern Christianity - Syrian Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism - condemn it.
[edit] Person of Christ
[edit] Only divine?
Docetism (from the Greek verb to seem) taught that Jesus was fully divine, and his human body was only illusory. At a very early stage, various Docetic groups arose; in particular, the gnostic sects which flourished in the second century AD tended to have Docetic theologies. Docetic teachings were attacked by St. Ignatius of Antioch (early second century), and appear to be targeted in the canonical Epistles of John (dates are disputed, but range from late first century among traditionalist scholars to late second century among critical scholars).
The Council of Nicaea rejected theologies that entirely ruled out any humanity in Christ, affirming in the Nicene Creed the doctrine of the Incarnation as a part of the doctrine of the Trinity. That is, that the second person of the Trinity became incarnate in the person Jesus and was fully human.
[edit] Only human?
The early centuries of Christian history also had groups at the other end of the spectrum, arguing that Jesus was an ordinary mortal. The Adoptionists taught that Jesus was born fully human, and was adopted as God's Son when John the Baptist baptised him (Mark 1:10) because of the life he lived. Another group, known as the Ebionites, taught that Jesus was not God, but the human Moshiach (messiah, anointed) prophet promised in the Hebrew Bible.
Some of these views could be described as Unitarianism (although that is a modern term) in their insistence on the oneness of God. These views, which directly affected how one understood the Godhead, were declared heresies by the Council of Nicaea. Throughout much of the rest of the ancient history of Christianity, Christologies that denied Christ's divinity ceased to have a major impact on the life of the church.
[edit] How can he be both?
[edit] What sort of divinity?
Arianism affirmed that Jesus was divine, but taught that he was nevertheless a created being (there was [a time] when he was not [in existence]), and was therefore less divine than God the Father. The matter boiled down to one iota; Arianism taught Homoiousia - the belief that Jesus's divinity is similar to that of God the Father - as opposed to Homoousia - the belief that Jesus's divinity is the same as that of God the Father. Arius' opponents additionally included in the term Arianism the belief that Jesus' divinity is different from that of God the Father (Heteroousia).
Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicea, but remained popular in the northern and western provinces of the empire, and continued to be the majority view of western Europe well into the 6th century. Indeed, even the Christian legend of Constantine's death-bed baptism involves a bishop who, in recorded history, was an Arian.
In the modern era, a number of denominations have rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, including the Christadelphians and the Jehovah's Witnesses.[9]
[edit] What sort of amalgamation?
The Christological debates following the Council of Nicaea sought to make sense of the interplay of the human and divine in the person of Christ while upholding the doctrine of the Trinity. Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390) taught that in Jesus, the divine component took the place of the human nous (thinking - not to be confused with thelis, meaning intent). This however was seen as a denial of Jesus' true humanity, and the view was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople.
Subsequently, Nestorius of Constantinople (386-451) initiated a view that effectively separated Jesus into two persons—one divine and one human; the mechanism of this combination is known as hypostases, and contrasts with hypostasis - the view that there is no separation. Nestorius' theology was deemed heretical at the First Council of Ephesus (431). Though, as seen by the writings of Babai the Great, the Christology of the Church of the East is highly similar to that of Chalcedon, many orthodox Christians (particularly in the West) consider this group to be the perpetuation of Nestorianism; the modern Assyrian Church of the East has at times shunned this term, as it implies acceptance of the entire theology of Nestorius.
Various forms of Monophysitism taught that Christ only had one nature: that the divine had either dissolved (Eutychianism), or that the divine joined with the human as one nature in the person of Christ (Miaphysitism). A notable monophysite theologian was Eutyches (c. 380-456). Monophysitism was rejected as heresy at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which affirmed that Jesus Christ had two natures (divine and human) joined in one person, in hypostatic union (see Chalcedonian creed). While Eutychianism was suppressed into oblivion by the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, the Miaphysite groups who dissented from the Chalcedonian formula have persisted as the Oriental Orthodox Church.
As theologians continued to search for a compromise between the Chalcedonian definition and the Monophysites, other Christologies developed that partially rejected the full humanity of Christ. Monothelitism taught that in the one person of Jesus there were two natures, but only a divine will. Closely related to this is Monoenergism, which held to the same doctrine as the Monothelites, but with different terminology. These positions were declared heresy by the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 680-681).
[edit] Mariology and Christology
Some Christians, notably Roman Catholics, view Mariology as a key component of Christology.[10] In this view, not only is Mariology a logical and necessary consequence of Christology, but without it, Christology is incomplete since the figure of Mary contributes to a fuller understanding of who Christ is and what he did.[11] Some other Christians, such as the Protestants, do not agree with this view.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) expressed this sentiment about Roman Catholic Mariology when in two separate occasions he stated: "The appearance of a truly Marian awareness serves as the touchstone indicating whether or not the Christological substance is fully present"[12] and that "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ".[13]
[edit] Other Christological concerns
[edit] The sinlessness of Christ
Although Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus was fully human, the New Testament teaches that he is without sin. For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews states that Christ was 'holy and without evil'. (7:26) The question concerning the sinlessness of Jesus Christ focuses on this seeming paradox. Does being fully human require that one participate in the "fall" of Adam, or could Jesus exist in an "unfallen" status as Adam and Eve did before the "fall," according to Genesis 2-3?
[edit] Kinds of sinlessness
The sinless nature of Jesus Christ involves two elements according to MacLeod, “First, Christ was free of actual sin.”[14] Studying the gospels there is no reference to Jesus praying for the forgiveness of sin, nor confessing sin. The assertion is that Jesus did not commit sin, nor could he be proven guilty of sin; he had no vices. In fact, he is quoted as asking, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" in John 8:46. “Secondly, he was free from inherent sin (or "original sin").”[14]
[edit] Temptation of Christ
The temptation of Christ shown in the gospels affirms that he was tempted. Indeed, the temptations were genuine and of a greater intensity than normally experienced by human beings.[15] He experienced all the frail weaknesses of humanity. Jesus was tempted through hunger and thirst, pain and the love of his friends. Thus, the human weaknesses could engender temptation.[16] Nevertheless, MacLeod notes that “one crucial respect in which Christ was not like us is that he was not tempted by anything within himself.”[16]
The temptations Christ faced focused upon his person and identity as the incarnate Son of God. MacLeod writes, “Christ could be tempted through his sonship.” The temptation in the wilderness and again in Gethsemane exemplifies this arena of temptation. Regarding the temptation of performing a sign that would affirm his sonship by throwing himself from the pinnacle of the temple, MacLeod observes, “The sign was for himself: a temptation to seek reassurance, as if to say, ‘the real question is my own sonship. I must forget all else and all others and all further service until that is clear.’”[17] MacLeod places this struggle in the context of the incarnation, “...he has become a man and must accept not only the appearance but the reality.”[17]
[edit] Communication of attributes
The communion of attributes (Communicatio idiomatum) of Christ’s divine and human natures is understood according to Chalcedonian theology to mean that they exist together with neither overriding the other. That is, both are preserved and coexist in one person. Christ had all the properties of God and humanity. God did not stop being God and become man. Christ was not half-God and half-human. The two natures did not mix into a new third kind of nature. Although independent, they acted in complete accord; when one nature acted, so did the other. The natures did not commingle, merge, infuse each other, or replace each other. One was not converted into the other. They remained distinct (yet acted with one accord).
[edit] Kenosis
One kenotic theory states that the Christ laid aside some of God’s characteristics when God became human. Typically, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence were laid aside, since these characteristics seem incompatible with being a human. This also attempts to solve the problems when Jesus appears to show incomplete knowledge (Matthew 24:36), presence (Luke 13:33), or ability (John 4:6).
Some within the Reformed theology tradition suggest that Jesus put limitations on himself. Jesus chose to only be in one place at a time, to limit his power, and to limit his knowledge. Others explain the Hypostatic union in terms of "emptying by adding."[18] According to Philippians 2:7, Christ was emptied when he added the human nature, and no clear indication is given that he emptied himself of divine nature, per se.
[edit] Virgin Birth
The Gospel according to Matthew and Gospel according to Luke suggest a virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Some now disregard or even argue against this "doctrine" to which most denominations of Christianity ascribe. This section looks at the Christological issues surrounding belief or disbelief in the virgin birth.
A non-virgin birth would seem to require some form of adoptionism. This is because a human conception and birth would seem to yield a fully human Jesus, with some other mechanism required to make Jesus divine as well.
A non-virgin birth would seem to support the full humanity of Jesus. William Barclay: states, “The supreme problem of the virgin birth is that it does quite undeniably differentiate Jesus from all men; it does leave us with an incomplete incarnation.”[19]
Barth speaks of the virgin birth as the divine sign “which accompanies and indicates the mystery of the incarnation of the Son.”[20]
Donald MacLeod[21] gives several Christological implications of a virgin birth:
- Highlights salvation as a supernatural act of God rather than an act of human initiative.
- Avoids adoptionism (which is virtually required if a normal birth).
- Reinforces the sinlessness of Christ, especially as it relates to Christ being outside the sin of Adam (original sin).
[edit] Relationship of Persons
The discussion of whether the three distinct persons in the Godhead of the Trinity were of greater, equal, or lesser by comparison was also, like many other areas of early Christology, a subject of debate. In Athenagoras of Athens (ca. 133-190) writings we find a very developed trinitarian doctrine.[22][23] On the one end of the spectrum was modalism, a doctrine stating that the three persons of the Trinity were equal to the point of erasing their differences and distinctions. On the other end of the spectrum were tritheism as well as some radically subordinationist views, the latter of which emphasized the primacy of the Father of Creation to the deity of Christ and Jesus's authority over the Holy Spirit. During the Council of Nicea, the modalist bishops of Rome and Alexandria aligned politically with Athanasius; whereas the bishops of Constantinople (Nicomedia), Antioch, and Jerusalem sided with the subordinationists as middle ground between Arius and Athanasius.
[edit] Resurrection of Jesus
The resurrection is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity hinges on this point of Christology, both as a response to a particular history and as a confessional response.[24] Some Christians claim that because he was resurrected, that the future of the world was forever altered. Most Christians believe that Jesus’ resurrection brings reconciliation with God (II Corinthians 5:18), the destruction of death (I Corinthians 15:26), and forgiveness of sins for followers of Jesus Christ.
After Jesus had died, and was buried, the New Testament states that he appeared to others in bodily form. Some skeptics say his appearances were only perceived by his followers in mind or spirit. The gospels state that the disciples believed they witnessed Jesus’ resurrected body and that led to the beginning of the faith. They had previously hid in fear of persecution after Jesus’ death. After seeing Jesus they boldly proclaimed the message of Jesus Christ despite tremendous risk. They obeyed Jesus’ mandate to be reconciled to God through repentance (Luke 24:47), baptism, and obedience (Matthew 28:19-20).
[edit] Work of Christ
[edit] Offices of Christ: "Prophet, Priest, and King"
Jesus Christ, the Mediator of humankind, fulfills the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. Eusebius of the early church worked out this threefold classification, which during the Reformation played a substantial role in scholastic Lutheran Christology and in John Calvin's[25] and John Wesley's Christology.[26]
[edit] Prophet
Christ is the mouthpiece of God as the Prophet, speaking and teaching the Word of God,[27] infinitely greater than all prophets, who spoke for God and interpreted the will of God.[28] The Old Testament prophet brought God’s message to the people. Christ, as the Word (John 1:1-18)/Logos is the Source of revelation. Accordingly, Jesus Christ never used the messenger formula, which linked the prophet’s words to God in the prophetic phrase, Thus says the Lord.[29] Christ, being of the same nature,[30] provides a definitive and true exposition of God.
The Word/Logos is Light. As the true Light (John 1:1-18), Jesus Christ exclusively enlightens humankind in the office of Prophet. Jesus affirmed his Divine identity and ultimate authority, revealing God to humanity, continuing His work into the future as the Light (Revelation 22:3).
- The Bible refers about the Prophetic nature of Jesus Christ in the following verses:
- John 17:4 "I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."
- John 14:24 "These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."
- Act 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, A man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."
- Mark 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
- Luke 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
- Matthew 19:16-26 In these verses Jesus is not denying his divinity when he says "there is none good but one". Rather Jesus realized that the young man saw him as an excellent teacher but not as the promised Messiah the "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" of Isaiah 9:6 Therefore instead of seeking to convince the young man that he was the Messiah, Jesus merely corrected the young man's notion of "goodness" as it pertained to achieving eternal life by stating "If thou wilt be perfect...come follow me". Thus as the prophet spoken of by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15 - "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" - Jesus was telling the young man "if you would know how to attain eternal life, come follow me and I will show you" If in fact the young man had followed Jesus, he would have eventually seen how to obtain eternal life and seen that Jesus truly was the "one who was good" and would have along with the Apostle Thomas been quite willing to call Jesus "My Lord and my God". John 20:26-28 There are several instances in the Bible that suggest that Jesus' contemporaries regarded him as a prophet. After raising the widow's son at Nain in Luke 7:16, the witnesses say,"A great prophet has arisen among us!" In Luke 24:19, Jesus is called a prophet by the people who do not recognize him when they say,"The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people".
[edit] Priest
Christ, whom believers draw near to in confidence, offered Himself as the sacrifice to humanity as High Priest (Hebrews 4:14). Old Testament priests declared the will of God, gave the covenant of blessing, and directed the processing of sacrifices.[31] The priest represented humankind before God. While humankind took the office of priesthood in their weakness, Jesus holds the position with an indestructible power that overcomes the weakness of humanity as described throughout the book of Hebrews.[32] As High Priest, Christ became one with humanity in human weakness, offered prayers to God, chose obedience through suffering, and sympathized with the struggles of humanity.
The atoning death of Christ is at the heart of His work as High Priest. Metaphors are used to describe His death on the cross, such as, “Christ, the Lamb of God, shed His blood on the cross as the sin offering for humankind.” Christ made one sin offering as High Priest in contrast to the Old Testament priests who continually offered sacrifices on behalf of humanity. Because of the work of Christ on the cross, humanity has the opportunity to have a living relationship with God. Conversely, the individuals that deny the work of God are described as dead in sin, without God and without hope.
[edit] King
Christ, exalted High Priest, mediates the sin that estranges humankind from the fellowship of God. In turn, He has full rights to reign over the church and world as King. Christ sits at the right hand of God, crowned in glory as "King of kings and Lord of lords.”[33] God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him 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 the age to come. And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church.[34]
[edit] Methodologies
Theologians like Jurgen Moltmann and Walter Kasper have characterized Christologies as anthropological or cosmological. These are also termed 'Christology from below' and 'Christology from above' respectively. An anthropological Christology starts with the human person of Jesus and works from his life and ministry toward what it means for him to be divine; whereas, a cosmological Christology works in the opposite direction. Starting from the eternal Logos, a cosmological Christology works toward his humanity. Theologians typically begin on one side or the other and their choice inevitably colors their resultant Christology. As a starting point these options represent "diverse yet complementary" approaches; each poses its own difficulties. Both Christologies 'from above' and 'from below' must come to terms with the two natures of Christ: human and divine. Just as light can be perceived as a wave or as a particle, so Jesus must be thought in terms of both his divinity and humanity. You cannot talk about “either or” but must talk about "both and".[35]
[edit] Cosmological approaches
Christologies from above start with the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, establish his eternality, his agency in creation, and his economic Sonship. Jesus' unity with God is established by the Incarnation as the divine Logos assumes a human nature. This approach was common in the early church - e.g., St. Paul and St. John in the Gospels. The attribution of full humanity to Jesus is resolved by stating that the two natures mutually share their properties (a concept termed communicatio idiomatum).[36]
[edit] Anthropological approaches
Christologies from below start with the human being Jesus as the representative of the new humanity, not with the pre-existent Logos. Jesus lives an exemplary life, one to which we aspire in religious experience. This form of Christology lends itself to mysticism, and some of its roots go back to emergence of Christ mysticism in the sixth century East, but in the West it flourished between the 11th and 14th centuries. A recent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg contends that the resurrected Jesus is the “eschatological fulfillment of human destiny to live in nearness to God.”[37]
[edit] Political approaches
The Christian faith is inherently political because allegiance to Jesus as risen Lord relativises all earthly rule and authority. Jesus is called "Lord" over 230 times in Paul’s epistles alone, and is thus the principle confession of faith in the Pauline epistles. Further, N.T. Wright argues that this Pauline confession is the core of the gospel of salvation. The Achilles' heel of this approach is the loss of eschatological tension between this present age and the future divine rule that is yet to come. This can happen when the state co-opts Christ’s authority as was often the case in imperial Christology. Modern political Christologies seek to overcome imperialist ideologies.[38]
[edit] Other approaches
[edit]
The doctrine of Perichoresis is the doctrine of how the three Persons of the Trinity are one in their threeness. Perichoresis is the mutual indwelling or mutual relatedness within the Trinity. Recently Perichoresis has been applied to the two natures, human and divine, of Jesus to help explain how they remain in perfect union yet unconfused, inseparable but not commingled. Further, “perichoretic realities” are considered to be somehow brought down into the world by the Incarnation. Jesus characterizes his relation to his Father in terms of mutual indwelling, "believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me" (John 14:11). Jesus also suggested that people can participate in these perichoretic realities - "I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us” (John 17:20-21).[39]
[edit] Wisdom Christology
This Christology views the Jesus as Wisdom. Since the Torah equals Wisdom, and Jesus equals the Torah, then naturally Jesus equals Wisdom.[40] In the Gospel of John, John tells a story of how Jesus came across a woman at the well and offered her living, eternal water but the Samaritan woman thinks he is talking about natural, drinking water to quench her bodily thirst. In this story, John employs six distinct techniques:
1. Poetic Form (similar to the Wisdom poetry in Hebrew scriptures)
2. Misunderstandings
3. Two-Fold Meanings
4. Irony
5. Inclusions and Transitions
6. Parentheses and Footnotes[41]
John uses all of these techniques together in order to draw in the reader and allow the reader to take the place of the person who is actually encountering Jesus so that the reader may find out who Jesus is ontologically. Wisdom Christology highlights that Jesus is Wisdom and able to offer the living water that will forever satisfy, also showing how he is unique and set apart from all other prophets who are not able to make this offer.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar