CLASS NOTES on CHRISTOLOGY
By Prof. Dr. Fr. Jospeh M. Miras, SVD
DIVINE WORD SEMINARY, Tagaytay City

Compiled by ARNOLD C. BIAGO,SVD

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. BOOKS

Brock, Rita Nakashima, Journeys of the Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power (New York, Crossroad, 1989).

Boff, Leonardo, Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology for Our Time. trans. Patrick Hughes (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1978).

Borg, Marcus, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity, 1994).

Borg, Marcus, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (1994).

Borg, Marcus, Jesus: A New Vision (San Francisco: Harper, 1987).

Bowden, John, Jesus: The Unanswered Question (London: SCM Press, 1988).

Brown, H. O. J., Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1988).

Cowdell, Scott, Is Jesus Unique?: A Study of Recent Christology (New York: Paulist Press, 1996).

Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991).

Dupuis, Jacques, Who Do You Say That I Am? Introduction to Christology (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1994).

Funk, Robert, W.R. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (New York: McMillan, 1993).

Funk, Robert, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: Harper, (1996).

Griffin, David Ray, A Process Christology (Lanham MD/NY/London: University Press of America, 1990).

Hopkins, J.M., Towards a Feminist Christology: Jesus of Nazareth, European Women and the Christological Crisis (Kampen, Kok Pharos, 1994).

Johnson, Elizabeth, A., Consider Jesus: Waves of Renewal in Christology (New York: Crossroad, 1990).

Kasper, Walter, Jesus the Christ (New York: Paulist, 1976).

Kung, Hans, On Being a Christian (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976).

Meier, John P., The Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991).

Meier, John P., The Mission of Christ and His Church: Studies in Christologies and Ecclesiology (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1990).

O’Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (New York: Oxford University, 1995).

Pinnock, C.H., A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Ml.: Zondervan, 1993).

Powell, Mark Allen, Jesus as Figure of History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1998).

Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Women and Redemption: A Theological History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).

Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985)

Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York: Seabury, 1979).

Schussler-Fiorenza, Elizabeth, Jesus: Miriams Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (New York: Continuum, 1994)

Sobrino, Jon, Jesus the Liberator: A Historical-Theological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth trans. P. Burns and F. McDonagh Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993).

Witherington, Ben III, The Jesus Quest: Third Quest for the Jesus of Nazareth (Downers Grove, III: Intervarsity, 1995).

2. Articles

Amaladoss, M., “The Pluralism of Religions and the Significance of Christ,” Vidyajyoti 53 (1989): 401-420.

Bauchhmann, R. J. “Moltmann’s Messianic Christology,” Scottish Journal Theology 44 (1991) 519-531.

Blandino, G., “Recent Hypotheses about the Ontological Constitution of Christ,” Euntes Docete 41 (1988): 117-152.

Breck, John, “Reflections on the ‘Problem’ of Chalcedonian Christology,” St. Vladimir’s Quarterly 33 (1989): 147-157.

Caffey, David, “The Theandric Nature of Christ,” Theological Studies 60/3 (1999):

405-431.

Chryssavigis, J., “Patristic Christology: Through the Looking Glass of the Heretics,” Pacifica 3 (1990): 187-200.

Crowley, P.G., “Instrumentum Divinitatis in Thomas Aquinas: Recovering the Divinity of Christ,” Theological Studies 52 (1991): 451-475.

Dhavamony, M., “The Cosmic Christ and World Religions,” Studia Missionalia 42 (1993): 179-225.

Duffy, S.J., “The Galilean Christ: Particularity or Universality?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26 (1989): 154-174.

Dupuis, Jacques, “On Some Recent Christological Literature,” Gregorianum 69 (1988): 713-740.

Duyer, J.C., “Theoretical Linguistics and the Problems of Christology,” CTSA Proceedings 42 (1987): 16-35.

Englert, James, O., Retrieval of the Christological Focus of Trent’s Decree on Justification,” Josephinum Journal of Theology 6/2 (1999): 57-79.

Evans, Craig, “Life of Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 3-36.

Fastiggi, R.L. “The Incarnation: Muslim Objections and Christian Response,” The Thomist 57 (1993): 457-493.

Fitzmayer, Joseph, A. “The Biblical Commission and Christology,” Theological Studies 46 (1985): 407-479.

Galvin, John, P. “ From the Humanity of Christ to the Jesus of History: A Paradigm Shift in Catholic Christology,” Theological Studies 55 (1994): 252-273.

Gibson, J. “ Could Christ Have Been Born a Woman?” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 8/1 (1992): 65-82.

Haight, Roger, “The Case for Spirit Christology,” Theological Studies 53 (1992): 257-289.

Haight, Roger, “The Situation of Christology Today,” Ephemerides Theologica Louvaniensis 69 (1993): 315-334.

Havrilak, Gregory, “Chalcedon and Orthodox Christology Today,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33 (1989): 127-145.

Hebblethwaite, B, “The Jewishness of Jesus from the Perspective of Christian Doctrine,” Scottish Journal of Theology 42 (1989): 27-44.

Heim, S.M., “Thinking About Theocentric Christology,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 24 (1987) 1-16 (17-52).

Hellwig, Monika, “The Re-Emergence of the Human, Critical, Public Jesus,” Theological Studies 50 (1989): 466-480.

Hellwig, Monika, K., “Christology in the Wider Ecumenism in Gavin D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, 1990, 107-116.

Hick, John, “The Logic of God Incarnate,” Religious Studies 25 (1989), 409-423.

Hospital C. G., “Toward a Christology for Global Consciousness,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26 (1989): 45-57.

Johnson, Elizabeth, A., “Jesus Christ in the Catechism,” in Reese, T.J., ed., The Universal Catechism Reader (1990), 70-83.

Kavunkal, J. “Ministry-Centered or Dogma Centered,” Christo-Centrism Re- Examined,” Verbum SVD 34 (1993): 237-249.

Keenan, J.P., “The Emptiness of Christ: A Mahayana Christology,” ATR 75 (1993): 48-62.

Kim, H.Y., “Jen and Agape: Towards a Confucian Christology,” Asia Journal of Theology 8 (1994) 335-364.

Krasevac, E.L., “’Christology from Above’ and ‘Christology from Below’,” The Thomist 51 (1987): 299-306.

Kuikman, J.H., “Christology in the Context of Jewish-Christian Relations: Unresolved Issues and the Theology E. Schillebeeckx,” Toronto Journal of Theology 7 (1991): 76-91.

Leonard, E., “Women and Christ: Toward Inclusive Christologies,” Toronto Journal of Theology 6 (1990): 266-285.

Levy, E.P., “The Two Natures of Christ: Suffering Victim and Pitying Witness,” Toronto Journal of Theology 5 (1989): 57-62.

Loewe, William P., “From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus,” Theological Studies 61 (2000): 314-331.

Macquarrie, John, “Pluralism in Christology,” in Jeanrond, W.G. and Rike J.L. eds., Radical Pluralism and Truth, 176-186.

Mansinis, Guy, “Quasi-Formal Causality and ‘Change in the Other’: A Note on KarlRahner’s Christology,” The Thomist 52 (1988): 293-306.

Nessan, C.L. “Confessing the Gospel of Jesus Faithfully: The Context over Christology,” Currents in Theology and Mission 21 (1994): 6-20.

Pattison, G., “Idol or Icon: Some Principles of an Aesthetic Christology,” Literature & Theology 3 (1989): 1-15.

Perkinson, J. “Soteriological Humility: The Christological Significance of the Humanity of Jesus in the Encounter of Religions,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994):

1-26.

Peter, Carl, J. “Jesus Christ and Dogma: Karl Rahner on Chalcedon,” Chicago Studies 26 (1978): 315-329.

Phan, Peter “Jesus the Christ with and Asian Face,” Theological Studies 57/3 (1996): 399-

Pregeant, R., “Christological Groundings for Liberation Praxis,” Modern Theology 5 (1988-89): 113-132.

Rahner, Karl, “Current Problems in Christology,” Theological Investigations 1, New York: Seabury, 1974):

Schults, Leron F., “A Dubious Christological Formula: From Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth,” Theological Studies 57/3 (1996): 431-

Sevilla, Pedro, C., “Teaching Christology According to the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines,” Landas 7 (1993): 3-13.

Sevilla, Pedro, C., “The Glory of the Lord and Christology,” Landas 7 (1993): 161- 176.

Soskice, Janet, M., “Blood and Defilement: Jesus, Gender and the Universality of Christ,” ET-Bulletin 5 (1994): 230-241.

Sullivan, J.M., “Matter for Heaver: Blondel, Christ, and Creation,” Ephemerides Theologica Louvaniensis 64 (1988): 60-83

Swidler, Leonard, “ Jesus’ Unsurpassable Uniqueness’: Two Responses,” Horizons 16 (1989): 116-120.

Thompson, W.M., “Distinct But not Separate’: Historical Research in the Study of Jesus and Christian Faith,” Horizons 21 (1994): 130-141.

Thompson, W.M., “’Jesus’ Unsurpassable Uniqueness: A Theological Note,” Horizons 16 (1989): 110-115.

Thompson, William, P. “Christologies from Above and Below,” Chicago Studies 26 (1987): 300-314.

Wells, Harold, “Christology,” Theological Studies 61 (2000):

Williamson, C.M., The Christology of Hans Kung: A Critical Analysis,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 30 (1993): 372-388.

Wong, J., “Christ and Non-Christian Religons,” Philippiniana Sacra 25 (1990): 157-193.

Wong, J., “Christ and World Religions: Towards a Pneumatological Christocentrism,” Landas 5 (1991): 3-45.

Wostyn, Lode, “Doing Christology After Vatican II,” East Asian Pastoral Review 28 (1991): 253-269.

Tentative Outline

1. Methodological Questions

1.1. Theology and History (Faith and History)

1.2. The Situation of Christology Today

2. Biblical Sources

2.1. The Search for the Historical Jesus

2.2. NT Appropriations of Jesus

2.3. Jesus’ Resurrection

2.4. Pluralism of NT Christologies

3. Classical (Patristic) Christology

3.1. The Development of the Classical Doctrine

3.2. Structure of Classical Christology

3.3. (Re-) interpretation of Nicea and Chalcedon

4. Re – Appropriation of the Relevance of Christology

4.1. Jesus as Savior

4.1.1. Mary and the Salvation Offered through Christ

4.1.3. Jesus and the World Religions

4.2. Jesus’ Divinity

4.3. The Trinitarian Context of Christology

The Situation of Christology Today

Approaches to Christology

1. Biblical

search for a valid foundation for the christological faith in the Church

1.1. Historical- Critical

Form criticism, Historical criticism, Redaction criticism

Gattungsforschung, Forschungsgeschichte, redactionschichte

provide a historical basis for what Jesus did and taught

1.2. Existential (Bultmann)

Impossible to retrieve the Jesus of history from the faith interpretation of the NT kerygma

Extreme (?) (1) Jesuology (return to Jesus of history), (2) Life of Jesus Research (Historical Quest for Jesus)

2. Theological

2.1. Critico-Dogmatic

the context of the council definitions have to be investigated; what led the early Church to formulate such kind of doctrine and dogma? Was the language sufficient enough to describe what was at stake in confession of Christ as the Son of God?

2.2. Salvation History

eschaton; here and now, already and not yet (Cullman), the person and Christ, the fulfillment at his death and resurrection, the fulfillment at the end times

2.3. Anthropological

#humankind supposes a certain openness and capacity

#two forms: (1) evolutionary approach: Teilhard de Chardin: the motivating context was the alleged contradiction between faith and science; “the evolutive Christ” “Christ is the omega point”, cosmic nature of Christ; Christo-genesis (event of the incarnation); criticism – (1) by its own resources, it cannot arrive at the conclusion that the incarnation was necessary; (2) “cosmic Christ” is not an abstract principle but is identical with Jesus of Nazareth

(2) Philosophical approach: open to self-transcendence in God and capable of receiving the free gift of God’s self-communication; “Transcendental Christology” (Rahner)

#Limitation: (1) less in touch with biblical foundation

Contribution: (1) Openness to the mystery of Jesus Christ, (2) God’s realization of this mystery in history

2.4 Liberationist

recovery of the praxis of the historical Jesus as a hermeneutical principle for the liberative praxis of the Christian Church; the historical Jesus for its own sake and as a criterion of discernment for the praxis of the Church; faith is discipleship in the historical Jesus

danger: Christological reductionism (the historical Christ might not be the Christ of the orthodox [official] Church; Jesus might be at variance with the Church’s faith hence the warning on distortions

2.5. Feminist

2.6. Process

Old Classical Approach (Low Descending Christology)

Prologue, council definitions (divinity of Christ, hypostatic union), theological reflection

Criticisms

1. How to get a pre-existent divine person become a human person? (How did belief in Jesus’ divinity arise?)

2. Jesus human nature was explained in philosophical terms – complete human nature (fully human, fully divine) (Left out Jesus’ life, death and resurrection)

3. starting point is divinity (hidden nature- like us in all things but sin)

Methododological Issues

1. Meaning of Incarnation; demythologization

2. Meaning of Nicea and Chalcedon for present time

3. Logos Christology; are there other alternatives available

4. Relationship b/w Trinity and Christology

Questions: (1) Who was Jesus? (2) What does Jesus mean for us (for me), (3) What is the relationship of Jesus to God and to other human beings (The Status of Jesus)

2. Biblical Sources

2.1. The Historical Quest for Jesus

Old Quest – 19^th cent.; (Reimarus-Schweitzer) anti-theological, anti-Christian, anti-dogmatical; main agendum: the faith of the Church could not be based on the real Jesus of Nazareth; Hermann Samuel Reimarus, (1694-1768) professor of Oriental language is Hamburg; after his death, G.E. Lessing published parts of Reimarus’ writings which has come to be called Fragments in 1774. After 4 years, Lessing was asked not to publish them because they were unfit for Christians.

What was important for Reimarus? What were the intentions and motivations of Jesus that enabled him to do what he did? “Repent! The Kingdom of heaven is at hand!” But Jesus spoke about the Kingdom without explaining what was the Kingdom about! What was the Kingdom for a first century Jew? The Messiah would be raised up, expel all the foreign invaders. He called for repentance. Jesus had a Davidic-messianic understanding of the Kingdom but with an ethical twist (“Repent”). But he failed and was executed.

The disciples, however, enjoyed the status accorded to members of Jesus’ movement. So they explained away Jesus’ failure. The Kingdom is not of this world but a spiritual one. His death did not mean failure but was meant to save us from our sins. Christianity was a result not of Jesus’ intentions but a fraud on the part of his disciples.

“He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, He came to those men who knew him not. He speaks to us the same word: ‘Follow thou me!’ and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” (A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (London, 1954)

Context: Supernaturalists (Deism) vs. Rationalists; Reimarus was determined to destroy Christianity (Protestant, European) at its roots; for the supernaturalists (1) God is the author of the Bible and human authors are passive instruments, (2) If God is the author, everything in the Bible is true, therefore the Bible contains no error. Rationalists were Christians who tried to be faithful and at the same time modern (contemporaneous). The miracle stories posed a problem for their modern mentality.

Jesus must be seen in the context of first century Judaism

David Friedrich Strauss – The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1831-32, 1835) he went further: (1) discredits the rationalists, miracle stories are crude elements which have to be removed but actually Jesus and disciples knew what happened but allowed the story to be told since it was a good example of how people are fed in the example of the multiplication of bread; as regards the official’s son, he was not actually dead, but rationalists failed to ask why the disciples allowed those stories to be told? Why reconcile Christianity with modern culture? Why bother? (2) offers counterarguments against the supernaturalists; the gospels are myth! They are not historical biographies of Jesus! Myth for Strauss was a (literary) device (stories) used to allow people draw some comparisons from the lessons of the stories and their own lives; ultimate goal was to draw out from people the basic good that resides in them

Gospels are not about Jesus but about God-(hu)manhood; no individual can embody the ideal but Jesus disclosed the ideal; relation of Jesus to the gospels (1) He inspired the vision of the ideal, (2) his life provided the materials for their stories

Ernst Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1863) highpoint of liberals’ lives of Jesus; portrait of Jesus was so romantic, sentimental, bordering on the effeminate when faced with the present (aggressive) age; timeless Galilean!

Christian Weisse - (Markan hypothesis); claimed that the gospel of Mark was the first to be written; confirmed by Christian Wilcke and further supported by Julius Holzmann in 1863; a big blow (“My God, my God why have you abandoned me!”) to those who held that John was the first and faithful gospel; John provided the basis for a high, descending Christology

Bruno Bauer – John’s Prologue was a product of mythopoeisis (myth making); denial of Jesus existence; origin of Christianity originated within the Gospel of Mark; Mark was a product of two cultural patterns – (1) Roman mystery religions (Hellenistic mystery) – the divine descends and rises to renew the cycle of seasons with new life, (1) features of apocalyptic Jewish thought; there was no need for Jesus!

Adolf Von Harnack – What is Christianity?(ET 1957) (cult, creed, code – proper worship system of beliefs, morality); all of this can be found in Jesus; once the message of Jesus is understood, Jesus is dispensable; Is Jesus still needed once the message has been delivered?

What matters most is the spiritual life; Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom of God, but at the same time it is also a present reality; there are two strands – apocalyptic and the interior life;

Who was Jesus? He was a part of Christianity because he “was its personal realization and its strength, and he is still felt to be.” Two points: (1) powerful figures precede influential movements, (2) Christian consciousness helps sustain the interest and define Christianity

William Wrede - The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark; put into question the assumption of Liberal Protestants that once the Synoptics were removed of the supernatural material the real Jesus will come out; Jesus is unknowable by historical methods; community was wrestling with challenges

Johannes Weis - Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God; apocalyptic cannot be excluded from consideration of Jesus and Kingdom; final conflict was inevitable

Albert Schweitzer – The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906); Jesus proclaimed the imminent end of the world and deliberately sought to bring it about by undergoing the suffering of the end time in his person (historical skepticism); apocalyptic preacher and Jesus was wrong; Jesus must be seen in the context of the Jewish apocalypticism

No Quest (Interim) (Schweitzer – Schillebeeckx)

Quest for the Kerygmatic Church; attempt to reconstruct movements of thought and belief in the first century, to recapture early Christian faith (which is more difficult)!

period of via negativa; reasons: (1) a strong sense of the historical irrelevance of Jesus research (A. Schweitzer); (2) little could be known of the historical Jesus

R. Bultmann published The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1921); little of the preaching and teaching of Jesus could be traced back to Jesus himself (form criticism re-enforced by redaction criticism); personality is irrecoverable from the records, & there would be no need of theology; stories were faith statements of the primitive Church rather than historical memory; history of Modern New Testament Studies; history has nothing with faith

Others who could be classified into the group: J. Jeremias, C. H. Dodd, M. Hengel

(3) apocalyptic Jesus needed to be purged “demythologized” by existentialist categories

(4) emergence of new methods; inclusion of other disciplines like social sciences; Social Science and New Testament Interpretation section of SBL, Social Facets Seminar (with Jesus Seminar)

New Quest – 1950’s & 1960’s played down the specifically Jewish features of Jesus, stressing instead those which he may have shared with other Mediterranean cultures; downplayed to a large extent the significance of Jesus’ death, stressing that we little about it and suggesting that the earliest Christians were not interested in it; the question was the continuity or discontinuity of historical Jesus and the preaching of the early church; E. Käsemann began the “new quest” (October 23, 1953) with his paper, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in the gathering of Bultmann students (Marburgers); followed by Gunther Bornkamm’s Jesus of Nazareth (1956), (No one is no longer in a position to writte a life of Jesus), and James Robinson’s A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (1959); not much could be known about Jesus and the little that could be known seemed unrelated to theology and the practical life of the Church

E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (1974), Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World (1977); traditio-historical criticism; resurrection accounts are stories from Jesus’ lifetime brought forwards; his conclusion that the historical Jesus is the incarnate Son of God has no basis in his book

Two new professional associations - (1) sub-group of Society of Biblical Literature became a permanent group in 1983 and is now called Historical Jesus Section

(2) Jesus Seminar - 1985 R. Funk from University of Montana founded the Jesus Seminar; it is the first collaborative systematic examination of the entire Jesus tradition in the history of scholarship

Features – (1) all relevant material be included (Gospels, Thomas, numerous other works) (2) color coded voting to symbolize grades of probability (red-authentic; pink-probably authentic; grey – probably inauthentic; black-definitely inauthentic) (3) the publication targeted not only the scholars but a wider public (included a plan to make a film)

Criticisms – (1) uneasy balance between positivism and methodological uncertainty, (2) an apriori image of Jesus, (3) the voting does not explain quantifiable result

3 figures of Jesus Seminar

Burton Mack – A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, 1988;

View of Jesus – Cynic wordsmith; not the innocent Son of God (son of man) who announced the end of the world

Christian origins – combination of two strands (Jewish and Hellenistic); first group were the Jews who kept the memory of Jesus alive and thought of themselves in Jewish terms; the Christ cult had no idea of Jesus as god or savior

Mark’s Gospel – created a myth of Christian beginnings; Mark is the authority who settled the conflicts between two rival groups

Criticisms- (1) presence of apocalypticism in popular Judaism – eager expectation of Israel’s God to act decisively against the Romans, (2) two meanings of apocalypticism – end of space-time world and disruption of present order – climax of liberation of Israel from enemies by God (3) exercise of creative imagination by Mack

J. Dominic Crossan

Intro: like Mack he claims that Mark is a fictitious writer; eschatology is subversion of the world; we can sufficiently know Jesus; history must be read politically; Jesus tradition is hermeneutical (Jesus’ origin may not matter but in the end one has to ask about it)

Basic Features

(1) treatment of sources

(2) historical method – microcosmic (stratification); mesocosmic (reconstruction of the world of Eastern Mediterranean in first century); macrocosmic – (social anthropology)

(3) epistemology – he claims that he avoids the positivistic approach but claims that his ‘Jesus’ is the true Jesus

Marcus Borg

Tried to locate Jesus within a wider history of religions context; apocalypticism in Jesus’s sayings means that a theological significance is placed on historical and political events

Jesus - (1) Jesus was a religious ecstatic, (2) healer, (3) wisdom teacher, (4) social prophet, (5) movement-founder (catalyst)

Conclusions: ultimate reality is the arena of transforming relationship; called to a life centered in the Spirit

Third Quest – Jesus must be understood as a crucifiable first century Jew no matter what the theological and hermeneutical consequences are; Wrede- Schweitzer distinction; Caird, Brandon, Betz, Lohfink, Theissen, Horsley, Vermes, Hengel, Borg, Sanders, Witherington, Meier

OQ- Jesus should look as little like a first century Jew as possible

NQ- played down the specifically Jewish features of Jesus and stressed those features he may have shared with other Mediterranean cultures; downplayed Jesus’ death

Basic Issues in the Search for the Historical Jesus

Jesus as the Source of Christology (Criteria of Christology)

Larger questions: how do we account for the fact that by 110 C.E. there was a large and vigorous international movement, with so much diversity, and whose founding myth was a story about one Jesus of Nazareth? How do we get from a pluriform Judaism which existed within the Greco-Roman world at 10 C.E to pluriform Judaism and Christianity of 110 CE of Herod the Great to Ignatius of Antioch?

1. How does Jesus fit into Judaism? (Jesus’ Context)

How does he belong there; was he a typical Jew who was unremarkable or was a he Jew who stood out well? Did he share the perspective of his people to a large extent, making adjustment here and there? Did he have a major program of reform? Where did he fit vis-a vis the revolutionary groups or the Pharisaic movement? Was he a Hasid? A prophet? Did he encourage armed resistance to Rome or did he speak out against it? Did he ignore the issue de he appear like a messiah figure?

Two groups

(1) maximize his Jewishness – Jesus was a wandering Hasid (Vermes) and revolutionary (Brandon); (2) minimize his Jewishness – teacher of timeless truths (Bultmann), Cynic (Downing, Mack, Jesus Seminar)

Third option: confrontation between Jesus and Judaism by reclaiming a key part of the Jewish heritage (Borg)

Israel was disobedient and she was not faithful to her vocation

Jesus’ relation to the hopes and aspirations of Israel – notion of Messiahship not a divine category but Israel category (King of the Jews was a insult to the nation)

Was he expecting the end? Yes, no and no-no;

Answer = (1) hold continuity and discontinuity, and (2) nature of apocalyptic language

Apocalyptic – an elaborate system of metaphor which invests historical events with meaning; warnings of Jesus have to seen as sociopolitical events seen as the climactic moment in Israel’s history the consequence of which is national repentance

Meaning of society, politic(s)al

2. What were Jesus’ aims? (Mission of Jesus)

Traditional answers: To found a church, to die for our sins

Our guidelines: study the culture the worldview of the society, culture or sub-culture; example: (1) Kamikaze, (2) Desert Fathers (3) prodigal son

OQ and New Q – Jesus was a teacher; concentrate on his sayings, proclamations on timeless truths on god or human relationships

TQ – Jesus’ aims had to do with the kingdom; foment revolution, (Brandon), oppose revolution (Borg), bring about restoration eschatology – destruction and re-building of temple (Sanders); when this failed to come about he changed his strategy or plan

Two effects: (1) Jesus had only one set of aims (2) Jesus had a change of mind

Did Jesus have a special vocation? Did he believe that he had a special role to play in the kingdom he was proclaiming? Did he give any (theological) meaning to his death?

OQ and NQ – deny that Jesus knew he was the divine Messiah

TQ – separated the issue of divinity and messiahship focusing on the former

3. Why did Jesus die? (Meaning of Jesus’ Death)

If Jesus intend to die – should crucifixion be the appropriate way for his death?

Answers:

Theological – to die for our sins

Historical – (1) from the Talmud – Jesus was deceiver of the people

(2) among historians (Reimarus) - revolutionary

(3) for some group – Jesus must be put away from some less obvious reasons

What were those less obvious reasons: Political, more or less the Roman were convinced that Jesus was some sort of a trouble maker. But who convinced them? Pharisees or Temple hierarchy; he regarded himself as a counter Temple movement (association with the Temple)

Trial: Jesus was handed over to the pagan rulers by the Jewish authorities

4. How and why did the early Church begin? (Origins of the Early Church)

Why did the early church attach so much significance to Jesus’ death

What actually happened at Easter morning? The resurrection

Why did they worship Jesus in Jewish style monotheistic formulae?

Portrait of Jesus is complemented by early church

5. Why are the gospels what they are?

The discourse on Jesus lies between first century Judaism and gospels

5 questions are reducible to two (1) Jesus relation to Judaism (2) relation the early church

6. So what? Does the study of the historical Jesus matter?

How does the Jesus recovered by history relate to contemporary church and world?

Is it possible to proceed by historical study, to a portrait of Jesus, which is sufficient to evoke a kind of worship, which traditional Christianity offers him?

Read:

M. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Trinity Press International: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1994)

N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996),

J. Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (Harper: San Francisco, 1991)

James H. Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus and Existential Theology,” The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 22/1 n.s. (2001): 46-63

Boris Repschinski, “Some Trends in Life of Jesus Research,” Theology Digest 48/1 (2001 11-19

2.2. Jesus in the NT

2.2.1. Jesus as Prophet (mighty in word and deed Lk. 24:19)

a. Texts

‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his house (Mt. 13:57/Mk 6:4; cf. Lk 4:24)

‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, others one of the prophets’ (Mk 8:28/Mt 16:14); ‘This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee’ (Mt. 21:11); ‘…because they held him to be a prophet’ (Mt. 21:46);‘…a great prophet has risen among us’ (Lk. 7:16); ‘It is a prophet , like one of the prophets of old’ (Mk. 6:14/Mt. 14:1-2/Lk. 9: 7-9); “…a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7:16); “..if this man were a prophet…” (Lk 7:39-50); it is impossible for a prophet to perish away from Jerusalem (Lk 13: 33); Samaritan perceives him to be a prophet, soldiers hit and mocked him, the man born blind says that Jesus is a prophet (Jn 4:19; 7:52; 9:17); at Emmaus they began to speak of him as a prophet mighty in word and deed (Lk 24:19)

b. Context

First –century Judaism – plenty of evidence for revolutionary movements

The goal was clear – Israel’s god will come to liberate Israel from pagan colonizers; but the means to do it is debatable; the revolutionary type was waning

c. Social context – banditry – actions which are not allowed by legitimate authorities; common criminals; social banditry – (1) Robin Hood type, (2) support the violence of bandits, (3) sociological phenomenon (Crossan) – bandit moves from power and unpower, from peasant class to governing class (the borders are ambiguous between what a bandit is and what a legitimate ruler is); definitely the Jewish and Roman authorities took banditry seriously; between religious movements and banditry the relationship was fluid

c. Kinds of prophets

Clerical – holders of priestly office, possessing prophetic powers by virtue of their office; (ex: Hyrcanus and Josephus)

Sapiential – wise men belonging to sectarian groups such as the Essenes or Pharisees (Philo and author of Wisdom) for whom prophecy was still a live possibility, occurred when there are ‘wisdom inspired people’

Popular – (leadership and solitary) – emerge and appeal to ordinary people of Palestine, without benefit of office of scribal learning; (1) leader – attempted to lead a movement or liberation; (2) solitary – announced oracles of the impending doom

Even if prophecy in the technical sense had ceased it might have continued in the popular sense; this was the context of John the Baptist and Jesus

d. John the Baptist – ‘oracular’ (apocalyptic) and ‘leadership’ prophet in the late 20’s of First cent.; came from a priestly family (Zechariah); a counter clerical prophet; he gathered people in the Jordan wilderness; activity was both religious and political – symbolical; (baptism) without the Temple here is the true Israel, those who refuse the invitation are forfeiting the right to be called covenant people; he was replacing the structures; Herod Antipas had him arrested not only because John attacked his marital arrangement but also because of political (wider) reasons; Jesus considered him as the advance guard for his work chronologically and theologically

e. Jesus – oracular and leadership, itinerant prophet (mighty in word and deed); charismatic (popular); public career as an oracular prophet, ‘action prophet’ (Horsley), leadership prophet (Webb); leadership prophet and more or less copied John; intended to continue what John was doing; gathered followers – re-constituting Israel; had support group reminiscent of Isaiah of Jerusalem; combining oracular prophets and the leaders of renewal movements; moved to ff directions: (1) itinerant, (2) teaching extensively on an urgent message, (3) engaged in regular program of healing

2.2.2 Jesus as Wisdom Teacher (Sage); enlightened one, Rabbi, Pharisee

a. A teacher in the Jewish sapiential tradition (Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, Qoheleth)- sources are from the prophetical, sapiential and apocalyptic traditions; Jesus was the embodiment of God’s wisdom; charismatic figure; holy man; use of parables

b. A Cynic (North American research) – challenge people’s moral life; critics of status quo; conventional wisdom – core values of a culture (images of the good life, rewards and punishments [religious –karma; secular – success is not hard work but dishonesty]; psychological consequences – basis of identity and self-esteem; alternative wisdom of Jesus – (1) subversion of conventional wisdom, (2) invitation to transformation

c. as a teacher Jesus called people from a life of conventional wisdom to a life centered in God (compassion, mercy)

2.2.3. Jesus as Healer (Magician) exorcist, ecstatic; miracle worker (Crossan – magic; exegetes – miracles; Wright – mighty works or works of power)

a. anthropological - possessed by the spirit (“I am the one in charge”, “Temporarily, I don’t exist”; I give way to another; “I the Spirit comes to be”{It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me Gal 2:20); “any altered state of consciousness indigenously interpreted in terms of the influence of an alien spirit” (Crapanzano, V., “Introduction” in his and Vivian Garrison (eds.), Case Studies in Spirit Possession (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977), 7)

The possessed person is in a state of dissociated personality whereby a split-off part of the mind possesses the whole field of consciousness, the rest being in complete abeyance. Splitting of the stream of consciousness into parallel streams is familiar to anyone who can “do two things at once,” such playing the piano and simultaneously planning a summer holiday… It is the total banishment of all but one stream, which is the essential feature of dissociation. (Field, M. J. “Spirit Possession in Ghana,” in Beattie, John and J. Middleton, (eds.) Spirit Mediumship and Society in Africa (London: Routledge, 1969), 3)

Mk 13:11 – When they lead you away and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever will be given to you at that time. It will not be you who speak but the holy spirit.

miracles are not proofs/evidences of Jesus’ divinity; not presuppose that Jews did not know natural laws; evangelists use paradoxa – unexpected; dunameis – displays of power and authority; terata/semeia – signs or portents; thaunasia (Mt. 21:15) – marvels the nearest English equivalent to miracles

b. Context: a maimed Jew is not a full member of the community (at least in some Jewish circles (Qumran); in addition to being blind, deaf, lame, dumb, a Jew if in such a state is blemished and not a full-fledged Israelite;

c. Meaning of Jesus’ actions: Jesus’ healings were seen as ushering in shalom, bringing not only physical health but wholeness of being; the members of the household of God is reconstituted; a renewed sense of community membership; this is part of the open welcome Jesus extended – the inauguration of God’s reign; part of his subversive work; the great blessing of the (new) community; covenant is forgiveness; judgment; supernatural display of power

d. Jesus was serious threat to the social, cultural and religious world

2.2.4. Jesus as Savior (Liberator) (Haight) – a social prophet with religious and secular concerns; had an alternative social vision (Borg)

Context: post-Easter; answers the question what is the religious appeal of Jesus?

Jesus was political in the broader sense of the word; because of the emergence of cross-cultural perspectives and models

a. peasant society – pre-industrial agrarian (vs. hunting and gathering, simple horticultural, advanced horticultural); difference was in (1) technology – hoe and stick vs. plow, (2) socio-economic organization – urban elites and rural peasants; inequality of wealth – land rental and taxation

G. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Survey of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966)

1 – the ruler – 1-2 % and receive ½ of the total wealth of population

2 – the governing class (high officials and traditional aristocracies)

3- retainers – soldiers, bureaucrats, scribes, tax collectors next 3 comprise 8 %;

4- merchant class

5 -priestly class – (Sadducees, Scribes [jurists] Pharisees, Sanhedrin); first 5 urban elites

6- agriculturalists - peasants proper; 90% of population

7- artisans,

8- unclean and degraded

9- expendables (outlaws, beggars)

a different understanding of the prophetic ministry of Jesus and the rest of the prophets came under a different light; the indictment was no longer on Israel but on the elites

under this grid, Jesus’s sayings on the poor and the rich, wealth and riches become more economical; poverty is material and not an abstraction or a metaphor (Blessed are the poor…, “You cannot serve God and mammon…,” “ Beware of scribes and Pharisees in long gowns or robes ….they devour widow’s houses… they will receive the greater condemnation ); Jerusalem was the home of the ruling elites

b. patriarchy – a way of structuring society (1) hierarchical, (2) male dominated; hate your father and mother – leave your patriarchal family which is a reflection of patriarchal society; androcentrism – the male way of seeing. Ex. Book of Proverbs – no difficult husbands; no portrait of ideal husband; patriarchal structure of society is mirrored in patriarchal structure of a family; “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it ‘ Lk 11:27 – remark of a woman on the mother of Jesus- there is an identity outside patriarchy; Mt. 23:9 – “call no one your father because there is only one Father in heaven” – fatherhood of God means have no other fathers

c. purity – birth (caste system), action (behavior), social position (occupation), physical condition; (1) political, (2) Jewish Palestine was purity society – Temple and particular interpretation of Torah (3) applied to person and social groups – sinners and righteous

d. connections of the peasant, patriarchy (hierarchy) and purity: (1) gradations of purity corresponded to descending ladder in peasant society, (2) purity was the ideology of ruling elites, justification of system - result of scribal activity, (3) income of the temple and temple elites paid for by those who observe the law

Read:

Roger Haight, Jesus: Symbol of God (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999), 60-78

N. Thomas Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 147-197

The Death of Jesus

Jesus’ death seen from three perspectives:

(1) Roman Authorities

crucifixion was a symbolic act with a clear and frightening meaning; Jesus was executed as a rebel against Rome; both parties knew Jesus was not guilty of the crime

Pilate was an incompetent and indistinguished official; he did not know what to do with the Jewish leaders’ demand and he was afraid of what Tiberius will do if the news about Jesus leaked out; incident of washing of the hands confirm what kind of a person Pilate was: (1) he recognized that Jesus was not an ordinary sort of revolutionary, (2) realized that Jewish leaders had their own reasons for wanting to kill Jesus; sedition was the convenient excuse, (3) he refused the Jewish leaders’ request but in the end he failed, (4) he put his personal interest ahead of what is just; the Jewish leaders put in clear terms the choices open for Pilate – he would be disloyal to Caesar if he would not execute a would be rebel king

(2) Jewish Leaders (Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, Sanhedrin)

-many saw Jesus as a ‘false prophet, leading the people astray’

-his Temple action was a blasphemy to the central symbol of national life and YHWH’s presence with the people

-Jesus saw himself in some sense a Messiah and could become the focal point of revolutionary activity

-they saw Jesus as a dangerous political nuisance whose actions might draw the wrath of Rome towards the Temple and the nation

- at critical moments in the trial, he pleaded guilty to the charges; he did it in such a way that he placed himself alongside the good of Israel

(3) Jesus’ intentions

actions: (a) Temple is the focal point of Jewish expectations – presence of YHWH, sacrificial system, political significance; drove out the money changers; predicted that after three days the temple will be rebuilt

(b) Last Supper – a double story - story of Jewish history, story of Jesus’ life; Jesus identified his body with the bread and his blood with the wine; these became new symbols and the context of the Passover, sacrifice and the renewed covenant was his body (life)

words: riddles and parables

-rejected Son – Mt 21:34-46/Mk 12:1-12/Lk 20:9-19

the great commandment – Mt 22: 34-40/Mk12:28-34

anointing for burial – Mt 26:6-13/Mk 14: 3-9/Jn 12:7

the green tree and the dry – Lk 23:27-31

hen and her chicken – Lk 23: 37-39/Lk 13: 34-35

baptism and the cup – Lk 12:49-50, Mk 10:38-40

predictions of the Passion – (i) How then is it written of the son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt, (ii) The son of man came not to be served but so serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many, (iii) You will all fall away because of me this night for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, (iv) For I tell you, this thing that is written must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’ For that which concerns me has its fulfillment, (v) The hour is at hand, and the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, (vi) All this (Jesus arrest) has taken place so that the scriptures might be fulfilled

vocation:

(a) he came to a realization that it was his vocation (mindset) to be the messiah; the messianic task was to clean, restore and rebuild the Temple; he must fight the battle against Israel’s enemies; his actions towards the Temple and the Last Supper made a reference to his death and not to anyone else; (1) fight the battle against Satan – face to face with Caiaphas, (‘this is your hour’)(2) face the real battle – face the might of Rome (At Gethsemane his vocation was put to the test)

suffering messiah (1) fate of the martyrs intimately connected with the nation as a whole, (2) his suffering is the focal point of the suffering of the nation (exile-as-the-punishment- for-sin), (3) representative suffering functions redemptively

(b) He claimed that he was the Messiah at his trial; by his very words and testimonies

- replaced the Temple with his body

- he will sit at the right hand of YHWH – this means a royal status (Dan 7:9); the one sitting at the right hand is the highest of the kings but it is not transcendent; two powers in heaven – those who believe that one day the one at the right hand will share God’s glory and those who do not believe

- Jesus exaltation will be on the clouds – clouds signify theophany

- He was a false prophet leading the people astray

- Caesarea Philippi – ‘who do people say that I am’?; only kings made a triumphal entry

- his ministry – his proclamation implied an self-reference (can this be the son of David?)

- sayings – shepherd as the classical image; I have come for the lost sheep of Israel

- Jesus and Solomon – Jonah and Queen of the south – ‘something greater than Jonah and Solomon is here’

Theology of Salvation (Soteriology) – atonement – sacrifice: Public ministry led Jesus to the cross

New Testament Christologies

Preliminary Remarks:

It is difficult to harmonize the New Testament materials. What will be presented are the most common Christologies found in the New Testament.

1. Jesus Christ as the Last Adam (Paul)

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because of men sinned – sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification, If, the free gift following one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5: 12-21

1.2. Comments

2. Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Mark)

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mk 1:1)

Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased (Mk 1:11)

This is my beloved son; listen to him (Mk 9:7)

Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed (Mk 14:61)

Truly this man was the Son of God (Mk 5:39)

Comments

3. Jesus Christ as Empowered by the Spirit (Luke)

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the son of God.” Annunciation story (Lk 1:35)

“…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.’” Baptism (Lk 3:22)

Anointing for mission (Acts 10:38)

Ministry (Lk 4:18-19)

Beelzebul Controversy (Lk 11: 14-23)

Comments

4. Jesus Christ as the Wisdom of God (Paul, Matthew)

“…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 likeness of men” (Phil 2:6-7)

“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 dominations or principalities or authorities---all things were crated through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15-17)

“At that time Jesus declared, ‘I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Mt 11:25-30

Comments

5. Jesus Christ as the Logos of God (John)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory of the only Son from the Father

5.2. Comments

The Early Kerygma based on the speeches of Paul and Peter

1. You are now witnesses and have the experience of the action of the Holy Spirit;

2. If the Holy Spirit has been poured in such abundance over Israel, this signifies that the “last days” foretold by the prophets have come

3. This has been verified in the birth, the life and the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews have killed, but whom God has raised from the death – of which we are witnesses

4. This Jesus, God has constituted Lord and Christ, making him ascend into heaven and placing him at his right hand

5. All this has happened in conformity of the Scriptures; it is part of the plan of God for salvation “from our sins”, and is conformed to the faith of our fathers

6. The Risen Jesus is the new Moses, who will come on the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man to lead the eschatological Israel to final redemption

7. If you believe the word, which has been preached to you, if you repent and are baptized, you will be saved.

Main Elements

From God:

To Jesus

For Us:

6. Significance of the New Testament Christologies

6.1. Jesus raises the religious question

6.2. The interpretation of Jesus in the light of Easter

6.3. Contexts of Christology

6.4. The adequacy of a given Christology

Read:

Boring, E., “Markan Christology: God-Language for Jesus,” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 451-471.

Müller, M., “The Theological Interpretation of the Figure of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: Some Principal Features in Matthean Christology,” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 157-173.

Haight, Jesus, 152-184

Classical Christology

1. Features of the development of the Classical Christological tradition

1.1. Process of Inculturation

1.2. Development of the Norms and criteria

1.3. Process of hypostatization

1.4. The identity of Jesus Christ

Logos-sarx (Alexandria)

(Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria); The Logos enters wholly into the flesh in order to permeate that flesh with himself (unity of God and the human being); The Logos, though truly incarnate in Jesus, remained untouched and still was the Logos. The humanity was divinized (theopoeisis)

Logos- anthropos (Antiochene)

There is a distinction within the Godhead and humanity (two natures); How are divinity and humanity one? How are the divinity and humanity related in the person of Christ?

2. Alexandrians

Arius

A native of Libya, Alexandria was his residence; 318 he probably became a priest; he was popular preacher; his allies included Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea; most of his ideas can be found in hymns and songs (Thalia – banquet).

Reacted to Alexander’s views (bishop of Alexandria); in his letter to Alexander he outlined his monotheistic view on God; God alone is ingenerate, eternal, true immortal, wise, good, sovereign

Condemned because he claimed that the Son had a beginning whereas God is without beginning; he refused to preach the eternal generation of the Son

Arius was accused of having argued his theological position through sheer logic and not through scriptures. He said that God is underived and that the Son of God is begotten. It logically follows that the Son is a creature (because begotten), he is fallible, passible, could not know the Father (knowledge was limited) and could have failed like the devil.

Recent studies, however, show that Arius’ concern was soteriological, ethical, and christological. His concerns were further based on scriptures. Arius preferred a Savior who faced and conquered temptations than to a Savior who already appeared as divine and therefore immune to temptations and even doubts. He was even open to the possibility that the Savior might have succumbed to them but nevertheless triumphed in the end.

The bone of contention, of course was his idea of sonship (children of God). It is easier for us human beings to follow and imitate a Savior who was like us. Christ’s limitations are ours and likewise his benefits and glories are ours too. If this Savior is portrayed this way it is easier for us to follow him and we too can become sons and daughters (children) of God. What is being proclaimed then is not the demotion of the Son but the promotion of believers to full and equal status as sons (and daughters) or children of God. As regards God it is the exaltation of the Godhead.

At Nicaea, his opponents were forced to use a non-scriptural and philosophical term, homoousios to precisely exclude his views. Arius’ views revolved around key texts of the scriptures. His opponents did not have a choice except to do a forced exegesis in an effort to refute him. For example in trying to explain the passage “My Father is greater than I”, Arius adopted a literalist position which attributed progress and human weakness to the Son of God, and claims that this is supported by Jn 1:14. In Prov. 8, he claimed that the Wisdom is identical with the Logos and in Prov. 8:22 the Logos is a creature.

If ever Arius was accused of using philosophical terms the same accusation could be hurled back to his opponents. In other words, he simply used the language available at the time.

In many ways, Arius was a conservative priest. His views on God had links with the ideas of Athenagoras (apologist). His subordinationism was Origenist in tradition (hierarchical Trinity) and his theological method came from Dionysius of Alexandria. Arius ranked Logos among the creatures because he tried to avoid attributing physical process like emanation or generation to God (for indeed the Logos will have the same nature a God.)

Athanasius

Life: successor of Alexander as bishop of Alexandria. He was the personal secretary and deacon of Alexander. He was a deacon at the Council of Nicaea He is credited to have inspired Alexander in making a strong stand against Arius. Even if he was not yet a bishop, he strongly opposed the ‘Arian plague’ according to Gregory of Nazianzus. According to scholars the role of Athanasius in Nicaea is part of a ‘good legend’ about Athanasius. This good tradition has enhanced his image as a saint and a theologian who defended the Nicene formula single-handedly through the Arian emperors and facilitated the reconciliation of the anti-Arian parties in the East.

He was only 30 yrs. old when he became bishop in 328. The aim in Nicaea by Constantine was to bring unity in the Church. But the homoousion formula was not well received by the eastern bishops so majority of them accepted Arius into communion. It was only Athanasius who stood steadfastly in support of Nicaea so at the Synod of Tyre (335) Athanasius was deposed on charges of murder and black magic. A graver charge which finally brought him to his first exile in Trier (Germany) was that he interfered with the sailing of cornships from Alexandria to the capital (Constantinople?).

After Constantine’s death in 337, Athanasius returned home but the emperor Constantius was an Arian sympathizer and the bishops were ready to implement the imperial line. Thus in 339, Athanasius fled again to the West where the Pope and Constans sympathized with him. Athansius is said to have introduced monasticism to the Western church during his exiles and while setting up the monastic foundations, he was drumming up his own support group. From 340 the empire (Eastern and Western parts) and church were divided by the Arian doctrines highlighted by the Council of Sardica in 343.

Athanasius was re-instated in 346 with pressures coming from Constans (Western Emperor) but the murder of his advocate made his position precarious. Athanasius realized that it is difficult to manage a far-flung community (church), especially maintain its independence from her own political-wielding lay member (Arius). But when Constantius became the sole emperor, he coerced the council of Milan in 355 to depose Athanasius and in 356 soldiers came to arrest him. Athanasius did not flee outside but stayed with his loyal monks of Egypt. Legends narrate that Atanasius eluded imperial detectives, with accounts of his narrow escapes. During this period, he was considered as the ‘invisible patriarch’, who administered the church and was kept informed by his loyal followers. It was during this period that his alliance with the monks of the countryside was forged and eventually this alliance became a force to reckon with in the next century. As a prominent authority, he was appealed to by Basil of Caesarea. He made an ecumenical attempt to unite all anti-Arian parties in the later years of his life. He died in 373, proud to be considered as the upholder of his own convictions. The last seven years of his life and the period from 346-356 were relatively spent in peace in Alexandria.

The ‘bad tradition’ on Athanasius portrayed him as a politician very much capable of subtle maneuvers like his election as a bishop considered to be illegal and so has been contested. He resorted to violence to achieve his own ends. The example was his antagonistic actions towards the Meletians (It is said that there were 35 out of 65 bishops were Meletians) instead of bringing them to reconciliation as given in the provisions of Nicaea. It was the Meletians who made Athanasius vulnerable to attack at the Council of Tyre. His deposition at Tyre was based not on doctrines but on his misconduct in Egypt. In 345 to 373, the idea that Athansius’ influence was thorough going in the Eastern church is constested. A certain J. M. Leroux claims that Athanasius was out of touch; he was fighting the old Arian battle when in fact he should have faced the emerging issues raised by Aetius and Eunomius; he had no idea of Antioch. He was appealed to because he was influential in the West. So only in Egypt was he considered supreme but this attribution was even contested because he had to defend himself, besides, church politics in the East do not mention him. This evaluation by Leroux is going too far for some elements in the ‘good tradition’ were correct. He forged an alliance with the Coptic monks and won a completed ascendancy over Egypt because from this ground emerged his successors who were equally determined that they even posed a challenge to Constantinople and the emperor.

Thought: The notion of salvation for Athanasius focuses on the human being’s irrationality and mortality. The human being with the rest of creation was called by God out of non-being. God endowed them with God’s image, sharing the Logos himself so that they might partially enjoy God’s eternal life. The human being, however, forfeited this share in the Logos by disobedience.

The human being’s irrationality. Originally, the human being had the vision of God. But because the human being was nearer to material things, he/she turned to them. Thus he/she became corrupted by selfish desires and did not worship God the Creator. Once human beings had lost the Logos they could not be images (logokoi) reflecting the Logos. They were reduced to the level of beasts and worship idols in bestial forms, hence, idolatry became the proof of the human being’s irrationality. Human being cannot regain their full knowledge of God and the the only solution is for God to renew God’s image in human beings. This renewal was done by the Logos when he dwelt in human beings. The indwelling of the Logos taught human beings at a level they could understand. God reveals the Godself in direct contact with human beings. Revelation then is a necessity for salvation.

The human being’s mortality. God gave human beings free will. Obedience to a particular law safeguards this gift. A broken law means human beings are left to the forces of death and corruption. In other words, acts of disobedience on the part of the human being are tantamount to acts of forfeiture of the principle of life – the Logos. But God cannot go back to God’s word. If the human being transgresses the law, the human being must die. But this won’t speak of God’s goodness. God is caught in some kind of a dilemma (divine). The answer to this dilemma is the incarnation.

His position against the Arians. Athanasius soteriology can be expressed in two basic notions: revelation and re-creation (incarnation). Only God can initiate and deal with the human being’s situation. The Logos took a body so that we might be renewed and deified (theopoeisis). By sharing a common body we are transformed into a perfect human being, we ascend to heaven and made divine. Only the Logos-God can accomplish this for us.

Some questions on Athanasius’ position:

(1) How do we become divine? We never become gods (theoi) or sons (daughters) of God in the same sense as the Logos is God (theos) and son of God. The Logos is son in nature and truth whereas we are sons (daughters) by appointment and grace. This has to be insisted upon because Arius claimed that the Son was son in the same limited sense as we are. There would be no adoption if there were no true Son in whom we participate. There would be no divinization if the Son is not true God of true God by nature.

(2) Did the Logos dwell in individual or collective humanity? Athanasius had no great interest in the historical Christ like modern investigators have. Even if there were passages in his writings that explicitly state that he was human, the reason for these passages was to emphasize the soteriological significance of the incarnation. Ther are also passges that speak about the sanctification of the whole of humanity but it was something not automatic. Participation is still called for. Evidently, in Athanasius’ thought, Christ’s humanity is not something quite ordinary.

(3) Is Athanasius’ account of the incarnation docetic? For Athanasius, Arius’ position that the Logos was fallible and a mere creature has to be refuted. But in doing so Athanasius seems to be Apollinarian when he says that the Logos imitated our characteristics, that his ignorance and weaknesses were merely referring to the incarnation situation. Athanasius’ view was reflective of the current philosophy of the time. In a Platonic perspective, the soul is trapped in the flesh succumbing to temptations. If this was the view of Athanasius then it was perfectly correct. The Logos experienced being human, trapped in human flesh, tempted but did not succumb to sin because his nature was divine. The Logos experienced the conditions of human life and therefore this was not docetic. Generally, this was not a problem for Atahansius. He was not interested in anthropological analysis. His fundamental idea was the radical distinction between the Creator and everything God created.

Athansius swa things in black and white. He was a leader with the capability to inspire deep loyalty. He endeared himself to the monks and ascetics. As whole, the political motives underlying his actions can only be seen within the context of his Christian aims.

Didymus the Blind

Life: An aged and revered teacher in the Origenist tradition ans was condemned in 553; highly respected in ecclesiastical circles around the Mediterranean; because of simple ascetic life and remarkable learning inspite his blindness he endeared himself to lots of people; Alexandrian by birth and never ventured far from the city; at the age of four he lost his sight; this handicap did not prevent him from attaining competence in subjects which constitute higher education, like dialectic, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, music, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy which included Aristotles’ syllogisms and Plato eloquence; learned to read by feeling the letters that have been carved on a tablet; known most for his prodigious memory for it was claimed that he retained everything read to him. Known not through his extant writings but through the vast quantity of quotations found in biblical and Christian sources, pagan literature; an anecdote is narrated that Antony the founder of monasticism once told him on a visit not grieve over the loss of his sight because ants and flies possess it, rather he should rejoice because he has the vision of the angels and can discern God; Jerome called him Didymus the Seeing instead of Blind; lived until 398 and died at the age of 85; remained a Nicene but little did the turmoil affect him; he is said to be the Alexandrian counterpart of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus fighting also Arianism

Thought: his most controversial doctrines were the pre-existence of the souls and apokatastasis (all things will be restored to the original state - Origen); he may not have invented the formula ‘one ousia in three hypostases’ but he explained it with volumes of scriptural proofs.

He was already occupied with the question whether the Logos assumed a soul as well as flesh in the incarnation – a question which will still flower in the 5^th century. For him the Savior did assumed a body with a soul and a mind, a very anti-Apollinarian stance. He accused the Arians of attributing human characteristics to the Divine Logos instead to his flesh. The soul cannot be spoken of without a soul in the same way the Divine needs food or sleep. Thus the incarnation was not without a soul. If ever there were weakness attributable to Christ it should be to his fallible human soul. If ever Jesus Christ experienced weaknesses and bodily pains or psychological tensions and mental suffering as described in the scripture, they were no more than the consequences of being made human. If ever there was difference in the sould of other human beings and Jesus it was a difference of quality and not of nature. Jesus was sinless even if there was possibility for him that he might have succumbed to temptation. The Savior’s soul was fallible but it was sinless, conforming to the will of the Father. In a way, it became the instrument of salvation

Antiochenes

Nestorius

Life: Self-effacing monk; a headstrong bishop of Constantinople; drawn into controversy because of Cyril; did not start the whole Nestorian controversy; supporter of Anastasius, a presbyter from Antioch who was a member of his entourage, acc. To the historian Socrates, he was not as literate as he was portrayed to be.

Modern interest in Nestorius began with the discovery of a Syriac manuscript possessed by a Nestorian Patriarch in the mountainous area between the southern part of Armenia and West of the Caspian sea in what is present-day Iran. It was believed to have contained his lost apology the Book of Heraclides.

Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople because he was a popular preacher. Most sources about him can be found in his sermons and homilies. Though most of his writings were burned by the decree of Theodosius some informations about him exist because they were damaging about his position. Some fragments of his Greek sermons on the Theotokos exist.

After Ephesus, he asked to be returned to a monastery near Antioch. He was allowed for a short time. Imperial decrees in 435 not only destroyed his writings but also exiled him to Oasis in Upper Egypt. John of Antioch sacrificed him for the sake of peace among the churches. The following words, at the end of his life, might express the faith and conviction of Nestorius about God and the search for what is true.

“I regard the sufferings of my life and all that has befallen me in this world as the suffering of a single day; and I have not changed all these years. Now my death approaches and everyday I pray to God to dismiss me – me whose eyes have seen the salvation of God. Rejoice with me, Desert, thou my friend, my nurse, my home; and thou exile, my mother, who after my death will keep my body until the resurrection by the grace of God. Amen.”

Thought: His personality contributed to the antagonism he created among his peers. Immediately after his consecration as a bishop these ringing words were most remembered: “Give me, my prince, the earth purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven as a recompense. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians.” With these words he set into motion a vicious persecution of the heretics in Constantinople and in Asia Minor. He was nicknamed ‘Firebrand’ after an Arian chapel went up into smoke.

He was tactless when he paid attention to some Western adherents of Pelagius who were condemned at Rome, high-handed when he addressed the bishop of Rome in his letters. He was strong to take a position in a dispute and was liable to make some comments open to misinterpretations (did not call God an infant of two or three months old, refused to call Mary Theotokos – remarks to which simple believers reacted). He considered himself as the sole judge when he claimed that the best term to be used was Christotokos instead of Theotokos or Anthropotokos. These last two terms were espoused by hostile groups – ‘Mother of God’ (Manicheans or Apollinarians) and ‘Mother of Man’ (Photinians or followers of Paul of Samosata) hurled heretical accusations to each other

His prosopic union was his serious attempt to give a metaphysical explanation to the unity of the person pf Christ. His basic metaphysical terms were: ousia (substance), physis (nature), prosopon (person). An ousia is what a thing is in itself; physis is the totality of qualities or those which refer to thing’s particular characteristics, and prosopon refers to a thing’s concrete manifestation or its external presentation. Divine ousia and human ousia are diametrically different from each other so a union at this level is not possible. A union of physis is not feasible because the union of is a result or product like a third thing out of the mixture of two natures. It is only on the level of prosopon that a union is possible. Jesus Christ is the concrete manifestation of the Son of God and the union cannot be separated or divided into two. Underlying the two prosopa are the two ousiai – the divine and human. Seemingly, Nestorius equated the term prosopon with hypostasis because in the Trinitarian context, he preferred to speak of three prosopa and not hypostaseis and in Christology he spoke of each nature having its own hypostasis. He even accepted that it is possible to speak of hypostatic union as long as the union is a union of prosopon and not of ousia or physis.

For Nestorius this prosopic union explains well a ‘real union’ and avoids the difficulties inherent in ‘natural’ or substantial’ union. The one Christ ha ‘two grounds of being’ or he is ‘in two natures’. Christ is indivisible as Christ but he is twofold in his being as God and his being as man. Unity and duality are two different metaphysical levels.

Because Nestorius was deeply entrenched in the Antiochene symmetry which emphasizes both the divine and human natures, it was not surprising that his opponents accused him of teaching a ‘double Christ’. Even if he distinguished ousia and physis his opponents cannot be faulted for their (wrong) impressions on Nestorius’ application of the terms.

But Nestorius clearly spoke of a mutual reciprocity of prosopa. The two prosopa did not unite to form a third one. There was only one prosopon with two underlying ‘grounds of being’. The divinity made use of humanity and the humanity made use of the divinity. The two complete beings can interprenetrate the essential nature of each other without any damage to each other. In many ways, he was using the traditional thought on comnmunicatio idiomatum which says that because of the union of two natures in Christ, properties or characteristics proper to the divine can be predicated to the human and properties or predicates proper to the human can be predicated to the divine.

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Life: had a good sense of God’s purposes as it unfolds in history. His heavy reliance on a good exegesis betrayed this perception for in the OT he sees how the scriptures address contemporary situations and how the NT proclaims God’s saving grace anew. His eschatological perspective included a doctrine of two ages wherein he is critical of the anthropological view where the human being is a spiritual being is trapped in flesh by the Fall. He instead explored the idea of Paul’s dialectic of ‘man-in-Adam’ and ‘man-in-Christ, creation and new creation, two states (katastaseis). This is the basis of his emphasis on the genuine and complete manhood of Christ. Salvation for Theodore depends on Christ who is the first fruits of the new creation. He was condemned by an edict of Justinian I in the 6^th cent. He was a good friend of John Chrysostom and they both studied under Libanius. Ordained priest in 383 and consecrated bishop of Mopsuestia in 392. He was an active evangelist who encouraged many to come to the Catholic faith. He too was actively involved in establishing the truth against the Arians and other heretics. He died in 428.

For the Monophysites his work was suspect and it was not accepted when he was condemned. He was believed, together with Diodore (Tarsus) to be the true originators of Nestorianism. His literary output has been largely on scriptural commentaries. He avoided allegorical and mystical methods in his scriptural interpretations and he was more into the historical (critical) method of exegesis.

Thought: 1. The framework of Theodore’s thought: For salvation to be achieved, both God and man will have to perform their parts. God’s creative grace was required to re-fashion man. Man, in turn, had to achieve his perfection by exercising his will in obedience God.

2. Anthropology operated on the body-soul dualism, and their unity was a puzzle. Theodore found this terminology sufficient enough to explain the unity of Christ. The God-Word united with the Man by the habit of the will (κατα σχεσίή τής ςγνώς - kata skesin tes gnomes) or by favor (kata eudokian) and remained as two distinct natures. Nevertheless, there was still one subject (prosopon) from which all actions of the Savior come.

3. Theodore gave more meaning to the union (kata eudokian). God is overall and the particularity God did was a special favour on God’s part. When God chose to dwell on Man, God did it uniting the whole to the Godself. This was a case of God’s presence, done by the act of divine will and unique since God operated in the man Jesus wholly, totally, and completely.

4. The unity of the prosopon is more than a union of appearances. Theodore used the word prosopon when he speaks of the unity of the subject. Furthermore he placed a great weight on the notion of participation in his Christology and soteriology. His theology is rooted in the sacrament of Baptism. It is in baptism that the gift of the Spirit shared the divine immutability. In the life of the Son (Savior) the fullness of participation was uniquely realized to the extent that the unity of prosopon defined in terms of sharing the honor, and worship was effected. Participation was away of uniting the two natures without compromising either of the two.

5. Jesus was no mere man and there was no point in time where the Logos was separated from the Man God has assumed. The perfect union was never destroyed. If Theodore spoke of ‘divine condescension’ and ‘economy of humanity’, he spoke of the basic unity in the saving action effected by the dual nature in Christ with an emphasis on the priority of God’s initiative.

Read:

Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Wilmington, Delaware: Glazier, 1987).

Dupuis, Jacques, Who Do You Say I am? Introduction to Christology (New York: Orbis Books, 1994).

Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition I, trans. J. Bowden, rev. ed., (London: 1975).

Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1950).

Küng, Hans, The Incarnate God, 509-558.

Haight, R., Jesus, 244-298.

Ratzinger, Joseph, Introduction to Christianity, trans. J. R. Foster (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970).

De Margerie, Bertrand, The Christian Trinity in History, trans. Edmund Fortman (Massachusetts: St. Bede’s Publications, 1982), 57-121.

Young, Frances, The Making of the Creeds (London: SCM Press, 1991);

________, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).

4. Some Notes on the Nestorian Controversy

Cyril (Alexandria) started a correspondence to Nestorius (Antioch) in friendly terms. He pointed out the letters he circulated among the monks as the reason why Nestorius was upset. He brought out the possibility for Nestorius to consider his position regarding his understanding about the Theotokos because peace is not at hand in Christendom.

Nestorius played it cool by answering Cyril politely. He claims that though the letter was set in an un-brotherly tone he would bear it patiently. The second letter of Cyril dealt more specifically with christological issues. He used the thoughts of the Nicene Fathers in towing the line of orthodoxy to which Nestorius must submit: “For we do not say that the Nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that he was transformed into complete human being, I mean one of soul and body; but this rather, that the Word having united himself in his own hypostasis, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, flesh animated with a rational soul, became man.”

Nestorius did not give in easily. This time he answered Cyril doing away with the usual introductory niceties. He claimed that the division in the natures is orthodox and the Fathers never taught a second (γεννήσίς – gennesis) birth from a woman. Nestorius further claimed that Scriptures attribute the economy, the birth and suffering to the Manhood and not to the Godhead.

The third letter of Cyril to Nestorius was no longer about clarification of ideas but a demand for submission from a synod of Egyptian bishops. It was also no longer charitable and persuasive. Consequent events – like the synod in Rome held by Pope Celestine, the verdict of the synod, the ultimatum given to Nestorius and the 10 day allowance for Nestorius to recant – led to the split of two hostile theological camps. The final letter contained the 12 anathemas, which the Nestorians wanted to be removed if union and peace would be achieved.

Twelve Anathemas:

1. Those who refuse the title theotokos to the holy virgin and that the Word originated from God; an explanatory clause is added which further asserted that the Word was born in a fleshly manner when he became flesh.

The Orientals asked: how is it possible to state that he was born ‘in a fleshly manner’ and then imply that his was a virgin birth? (Is there not a contradiction?). Bu their main objection is how can the divine admit change?

For the Antiochenes, Theodoret for example, would admit the title theotokos only if what she bore was the temple (naos) of the divine which all the fullness of the divine dwelt bodily.

Cyril: John 1:14 is a statement of the mystery of incarnation; Nicaea said that the Word incarnate originated from God and was made man. It happened without change or mixture since the Logos is unchangeable by nature. If the Orientals insist that his birth was divine (theoprepes), he could not see any reason why the virgin should not be called Theotokos.

To Theodoret: When it is said that the Logos became flesh, a mixture or a change is not being spoken of but the indescribable and ineffable union with the holy body having a rational soul is being spoken of.

2. Those who deny that the Word which originated from God the Father was united hypostatically with the flesh.

The term hypostatic was a problem for the Antiochenes because it had a wrong connotation. It implied Apollinarianism, a mixture and confusion of natures, a ‘natural union’ (which is brought about by something inherent in the nature of things and therefore necessary. It is not brought about by the gracious will of God).

For Cyril this is the only was of speaking of a ‘real union’ (for want of a better term). To suggest that Theodoret (and the Antiochenes) should have realized what Cyril meant because it was used in the Trinitarian formula, ‘One ousia and three hyspostaseis’ is not fair because the function of the term in the Trinitarian formula was to distinguish single individuality. And to affirm a single individuality in Jesus Christ could imply a mixture or a confusion approached from a christological perspective. It was most likely that Cyril invented the formula kath hupostasin (hypostatically) and introduced in the process a novel terminology into the christological debate.

The Antiochenes agreed that there was a union, supported by the scriptures but they rejected the word hypostatic as being alien from the scriptures and to the Fathers. If the union is hypostatic and a mixture of flesh and divinity is intended then it is a blasphemy. Mixture implies confusion; confusion undermines the peculiar character of each nature.

By kath hupostasin, Cyril meant that the very nature and hypostasis of the Logos was united to human nature by means other than confusion. Theodoret practically meant the same thing as Cyril. Cyril insisted that the Logos was the one incarnate and it is not legitimate to divide the one Christ into Man on his own and God on his own, or to think in terms of two Sons.

3. Those who divide the natures after the union. The union is not an association (sunapheia) of dignity, authority or power but it is rather a union called conjuction (sunodos) by natural union (phusei, that is, by physis).

The Monophysites rejected Chalcedon because it spoke of ‘in two natures’ rather than ‘out of two natures’. For them this manner of speaking about the union implied a continuing presence of two separate natures after the union. They also pointed out that Cyril spoke of two natures in his letter to the monks. Had he not spoken of confusing the two natures into one hypostasis and called it a ‘natural union’? Is Cyril pushing for acceptance a physical union, which excludes the action of grace? This must be very Apollinarian.

Cyril answered that it is the same Son and Lord before and after the incarnation. The natures are not divisible after the union. He then points out that in the writing of Nestorius, he (Nestorius) divides the natures, and then unites them merely in a common worship, authority and dignity alone. He further explains that by phusei he means kat aletheian – a real or true union and not confusion. He rejects Apollinarianism.

Theodoret regarded the subtle distinction between sunapheia and sunodos as unintelligible. He focused an attention to the necessity in a natural union. Drinking, sleeping and breathing are all natural necessities. If the union were natural they were inevitable and therefore not acts of the will and not act of God’s love. A union by an act of the will is far superior than a natural union. If it was possible for Paul to speak of an ‘outer and inner man’ what was wrong with speaking of two natures after the union?

For Cyril, what is being denied is the view that two independent natures were joined (σχετικώς - sxetikos) by habit, or simply by dignity, authority or by having a common title ‘Son’.

4. Those who differentiate the scriptural texts assigning them to each appropriate nature of Christ.

Cyril justifies his position by citing Phil 2. Everything human and divine is ascribed to the same subject. All scripture texts should be applied to one prosopon (subject). The danger of ascribing texts to two subjects (prosopa) is that it easily suggests two Sons.

5. Those who say that Christ is God-bearing man (theophoros anthropos) not the Word made flesh.

*6. Anyone who said that the Logos was the God or Lord of Christ and did not agree that the same one is God and man, the Word having become flesh. (The anathemas with asterisks are Alexandrian christological statements.)

7. Those who say that Jesus was a man energized by the Word. (energized – typical Antiochene vocabulary).

Antiochenes: There is a scriptural basis for the term energizing and doing signs by the power of the Spirit. Jesus’ uniqueness lies in the fact that he was energized as a Son.

8. Those who say that an independent man was assumed by the Logos and eventually co-worshipped and co-glorified.

Antiochenes: Co-worship means the single worship offered to the Son.

9. Those who claim that Christ was empowered to do his mighty acts by the Spirit as if the Spirit were foreign to himself and not his own.

10. Those who say that a man born of a woman was made into a high priest and apostle.

Antiochenes: God cannot be the subject of many texts in the Epistle to the Hebrews; how can God offer many prayers and supplications with many tears? How can God learn obedience through suffering? But they failed to answer Cyril’s question: How is this Man Assumed different from a saint or a prophet? How can this be described as an incarnation of the Logos?

*11. Those who say that the flesh is not the Logos’ very own flesh and therefore life-giving.

Antiochenes immediately accused Cyril of Apollinarianism. Theodoret points out that Cyril keeps on talking of flesh like Apollinarius. Cyril failed to say that the flesh was ours, did not mention that it was ‘intelligent’ nor agreed that what was assumed was perfect Manhood. The flesh is life-giving because it is united with the Logos.

Cyril answers that his language was intended merely to exclude the Nestorian suggestion that the flesh belonged to a separate human person. Flesh means ‘man in his completeness’; he took flesh from the virgin; the union is without confusion; the Logos remains unchanged.

*12. Those who do not confess that the Logos which originated from God, suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh. Let them be anathemas.

The anathema which was the most provocative. It was blasphemous to suggest that God was passible. If the Son was pathetos while being homoousios to Patri, then the Father was passible. In other words if the Son suffered while being con-substantial with the Father then the Father also must have suffered. The logical result is that of Patripassianism or Arianism.

The Antiochenes could not make the Logos to be the direct subject of incarnation and Cyril was trying to do exactly this. For Cyril the Logos made the sufferings his own while remaining apathes in his own nature. For the Antiochenes (Theodoret) the ‘form of a servant’ suffered, and being with it the ‘form of God’ also suffered when it assented to the suffering for the salvation of all because it was united. For Theodoret, apathes is above pathe; but only the pathetos can suffer.

It appears that both parties are almost saying the same thing. There is a distinction between apathes (form of a God) and pathe (form of a servant). But both parties were passionate in defending their positions at the point of giving offence to each other.

The real issues were: (1) How could God be the subject of incarnate experiences? (2) How could Christ be genuinely man of identified with God incarnate?

Interpreting Nicaea (325)

1. Before Nicaea

There were several solutions to the problem of God (Trinity) before the Council of Nicaea. The Ebionites maintained that there was no virgin birth and the eternal did not pre-exist. The “Shepherd” of Hermas already made a distinction within the Godhead when he assigned to the Son of God a higher status than the angels for he is the way to God. “Angel Christology (Christos Angelos) was another popular attempt at hinting at Jesus’ function in the economy of salvation but was inadequate to explain his true nature. Marcion rejected the OT because its legalism and strict justice contradict the notions of love and grace in the NT. For him there were two gods, one in the OT who is a lesser of lower god and one in the New who is supreme and made known by Jesus Christ. Gnosticism had an elaborate system of knowledge claiming to answer questions of our origin, our present status and our future (destiny). At the point of oversimplifying this pseudo-symbolic system of speculation, three important teachings from among its complex worldview were thorny points for the Christian understanding in the early period (2^nd and 3^rd centuries): (1) the process of emanation. Aeon proceeds from aeon as human thoughts and desires proceed from mind and will (for Trinitarian discussion), (2) consubstantiality (what is emitted is of the same nature as what emits), (3) there is a wide chasm between spirit and matter; spirit longs to be freed from matter and once it is freed true gnosis of the system leads to enlightenment. Adoptionism (Paul of Samosata) taught that it was the moral progress of Jesus that won for him the title Son of God.

2. Arianism: Worthy of note are some details of Arian teaching.

2.1. Main tenets: (1) God, the unbegotten is one (en), (2) the Son had a beginning in existence (There was when he was not)

The classic expression: (…as Monad (monas) and beginning (arche) of all so God is before all. Wherefore he is also before the Son…)

2.2. Cosmological terms: (God, Father, Son, Word, Essence, from the non-existent, creature, work, by his will and pleasure); meaning of Father and Son contains 3 aspects: (1) priority of importance, (2) sequence of time, (3) quality of relationship

2.3. Salvation: Does the divine drama feature the eternal, consubstantial Son of the Father, whose descent arrests creation from perishability by means of divine power visiting creaturely weakness? Or is the Son a “certain one” among creatures, foreordained and faithful, the servant who brings himself to perfection by discipline and exemplifies relationships to be had with the Father by “all the rest”? (Gregg & Groh, Early Arianism, 79)

2.4. Son: the Son had a beginning, was not “true Word, no “portion” of the paternal essence; simultaneously a creature and a “strong God”

We call him unbegotten because of (dia) the one by nature begotten;

We praise this one as without beginning because of (dia) the one having the beginning;

We worship him as everlasting because of (dia) the one who has come to exist in times (quoted by Athanasius from Arius’ Thalia)

/ in these passages what is suggested is the indispensability of the Son for knowledge and reverence of the Father/

He was made for our sake, in order that God might create us through him, as by an instrument. And he would not have existed, if God had not willed to make us. (Alexander’s encyclical composed 5 years before Nicaea)

/the Son came into being for the sake of humanity; this may not be incompatible for Arius’ concern that God is the absolute but at the same time it does not promote the assertion that God is indeed absolute/

sonship – understood as a believer; the Son gains properties of powers by adoption as a believer, found in Jn 1:12 and Dt 14:1

2.5. Arius’ use of some biblical passages:

The following passages are read along creationist lines (opposed to essentialist, substantialist)

You are the sons of the Lord your God (Dt 14:1); But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God (Jn 1:12)

Arius denies phrases “from him” (Rom 11:36), “from the womb” (Ps 109:3 LXX) and “I came forth from the Father and I am come “(Jn 16:28) as not expressive of equality (con-substantiality)

Arius’ confession has scriptural references

We confess one God, alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone unbegun, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, orderer [and] governor of all, unchanging and unalterable, just and good, God of [the] law and prophets and [the] New Testament

(1) “alone true” (monon alephinon) echoes the prayer of Jesus in Jn 17:3 (ton monon alephinon theon), (2) “alone wise” (monon sophon) corresponds to doxological language of Rom 16:27 (mono sopho theo), (3) the Deity as “alone good” echoes Mk 10:18 (oudeis agathos me o theos), (4) alone sovereign, judge is taken from eschatological passage from 1 Tim 6:15-16

proof text for the Son’s mutability is found in Ps 44: 7 (LXX) “you have loved righteousness and hated iniquity” (affection is a species of willing for the Arians)

3. Position of Nicaea

Nicene terms: relationship between the Father and Son: consubstatiality, nature, essence, substance (in the context of change, mutability), will and pleasure

Salient points: (1) God is singular, simple, undivided, undifferentiated, one and only principle (vs. if Son is distinct (“There was when he was not”), this Son is granted a divine status, he is also God, therefore there would be two gods), (2) Logos-sarx is the Son incarnated in Jesus and is imitable (vs. Jesus saved by being obedient and we are saved by imitating Jesus), there is also an implied soteriology in this explanation, (3) Jesus is homoousion same substance (substratum) from the Father, true God from true God (vs. Logos is a creature), (4) strict divinity of the Son or Logos, (5) Son is of the essence and being of God (the movement of thought is from Jesus Christ to Son to the divine status).

Meaning: (1) God was present and actively involved in Jesus, (2) God is immanent in and personally present to human existence, (3) in refuting Arianism, it came up with three main ideas: (a) how is salvation experienced, (Jesus mediates salvation for creation – “…because of us and because of our salvation he came down and became incarnate”, (b) what is the nature of God (God is involved in human affairs), and (c) what is Jesus’ humanity (Jesus is divine because he is the medium of God’s salvation – functional divinity)

Anathemas were expressions of the Council’s hermeneutical position: “But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

4. Critique of Nicaea: (1) Johanine framework, (2) usage of scripture made it appear as if scriptures provide informative data, (3) not clear whether the teaching is about Jesus? Logos, or God?

Interpreting Chalcedon (451)

1. Historical Context: Marcian called the council together with his wife Pulcheria. The robber synod the Second Council of Ephesus (499) where Dioscorus (successor of Cyril at Alexandria bent in overthrowing Two Natures) played a significant role reinstated Eutyches and deposed bishops supportive of Cyril’s views. (For Eutyches, a priest from Constantinople and there were two natures before the Incarnation after which there is one Lord, hypostasis and prosopon.) It began on 08 Oct and lasted until 10 November 451. It covered 16 sessions.

2. Document: First part was the creed of Nicaea. The Second part was the definition. The third were disciplinary statements and the 4^th part was composed of canons, questionable of which was 28^th which gives honor to New Rome (Constantinople) in ecclesiastical matters next to Old Rome (Italy).

3. Meaning of Chalcedon: (1) oneness of the subject: the divine Son and Jesus Christ are one and the same, (2) duality characterizes the one subject: perfect in Godhead, perfect in manhood, (3) communicatio idiomatum: whatever can be attributed to God can be attributed to the human Jesus and vice-versa

4. Chalcedon expressed its teaching in two dimensional way. It explains the natures involve in the person of Christ as “pone and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man”. As to the relationships of the two natures, the expression is negative: “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation”

4. Evaluation of Chalcedon: General criticisms (1) linguistic terms like nature, person, substance, being are abstract and negative (Prestige, Fathers and Heretics, 145), (2) works within the framework of John’s Prologue (Haight, Jesus, 288-292), (3) outdated argument from scriptures, (4) hypostatization of biblical symbols, (5) descending Christology. Particular criticisms (1) left out hypostatic the concept of hypostatic union unclear, (2) did not specify the subject of suffering and crucifixion, (3) did not state clearly that the deification of human beings began in the union of humanity of Christ with his divinity in an intimate and inseparable wholeness of person (Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 188).

5. After Chalcedon

Monophysites in Egypt and Syria, extended to Armenia, Nubia and Ethiopia. The Monophysites are of two types: those who are called materialists and those called formalists (verbalists). The materialists say that Christ should not possess humanity which is the same as ours. The formalists reject Chalcedon and mingled Cyril’s terminology and teaching with nationalistic patriotism. Monoenergism – there was only one principle of action (energy) operating jointly in the two natures. Monothelites – Christ possessed only one will

Read:

W.H. Frend, Saints and Sinners in the Early Church: Differing and Conflicting Traditions in the First Six Centuries (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1985).

G. L. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics (London: SPCK, 1940).

Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E Groh, Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadephia: Fortress Press, 1981).

W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 230-273.

Mary: Mother and Woman

1. Mary in Christian Sources

Mary in Scriptures: Accounts of Mary are very scant; One can find them only in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles; she gave birth to Jesus, she lived with her family in Galilee, present at the wedding feast at Cana, she looked for Jesus at some definite point in time in her life, she was at the foot of the cross, she joined the apostle when the Spirit descended on them ten days after Jesus’ ascension. Some biblical passages” (1) But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4); (2) She pondered the wondrous events of Jesus birth “in her heart” (Lk 2:19), (3) Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55), …whoever does the will of God is my bother and sister and mother (Mk 3:32-35), (4) she joins them in prayer (Acts 1:14), (5) Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come (Jn 2:4), (6) Behold your mother (Jn 19:27),

What do the Scriptures say? (1) Mary is the mother of God, mother of Jesus, mother of the Church and mother of us all, (2) Mary is the perfect example of a true disciple, (3) Prime example of faith

Mary in apocryphal tales: Mary met Jesus when he rose again (Salubong); Thomas the unbelieving disciple visited her grave three days after her death, only to find that the tomb was empty, except for her belt and a garden of roses where her body should have been; gives one a glimpse at the mentality of 4^th cent and medieval Christians

Mary in Christian art (icons, statues): Byzantine iconography the Virgin draped in maroon veil holds the Christ child; Christ is draped in blue or gold over a maroon tunic; gold and maroon are royal colors which stand for divinity and blue for humanity; Christ wore a maroon tunic (truly God) clothed in blue (humanity); Mary wore a blue tunic draped with maroon veil. Humanity was raised to the dignity of being the theotokos.

Byzantine, classical, Gothic (human body), Rennaisance (nude) very maidenly, Jesus (child and adult) was painted, sculpted as nude but not a nude Mary fear of arousing erotic feeling; (more slender figure,Venus, Aphrodite; in Baroque she was more in an ecstatic contemplative mode)

Madonnas speak of wealth, wealth speaks of power (power speak of wealth) –to heal, influence, perform miracles, answer prayers

2. Mary in the Church – Historical Development

2.1. The Early Period

First 300 years Mary was hardly mentioned. If ever she was mentioned it was very minimal. The theological reason given was that the Church at this period was busy with her own understanding of Jesus. Besides the cult of martyrs provided the Church so much models, heroes and heroines then it was followed by monasticism as a new way to holiness.

Year 400, monasticism began. This was started by men who went into seclusion to devote life (time) to prayer. Celibacy was a sign which prefigures the completion of God’s reign in us (individuals). Mary became the model of Perfection. Blessed Virgin was used. Virginity was a key in understanding her special status.

Then the Council of Ephesus (431) defined Mary as the Mother of God. This move made a universal recognition of Mary and Marian devotion in special prayers, liturgies, feasts sprung up

In the 12^th cent. came Bernard of Clairvaux. Mary became more personalized and not just the Mother of the Church. Mary is my mother.

In the Middle Ages the Dominicans and Franciscan were tasked to re-Christianize Europe. Rosary was the most simple and available means of knowing the truths on salvation. It was the prayer for the uneducated (lay) people. This was also the age of chivalry and romanticism. Mary became a (Our) Lady.

In the 15^th and 16^th cent., due to bad theology and superstitious practices, devotion to Mary deteriorated. It was even believed that Mary can change the mind of God. Scapulars were believed to have magical powers. There was excessive pietism.

1850 and 1950 – devotion to Mary reached its highest peak. It was between these times that the other dogmas on Mary was defined (Immaculate Conception –1854 and Assumption – 1950).

Vatican II suggests that Mary and devotions to her should revolve around Christ, be sensitive to the concerns of our separated brothers and sisters, and avoid “transitory affection” and vain credulity”.

2. 2. Mary in the Conciliar Period

*the deepest level of human self-hood is beyond the polarity of the sexes; this is true of divine being and attributes; grammatical declension has no connection with sexual gender

a. Motherly ways of God- creation, conservation, redemption; led to non-dogmatic belief

OT – God behaves like a mother toward his baby (Hos 11: 4; Is 49:15)

God is a like a woman in labor (Is 42:14)

Mother to the people of Jerusalem “As a mother comforts her children so will I comfort you (Is 66:13)

She calls people to follow her (Prov 1:20-21; 8:1-4)

Wisdom is God’s companion; his perfect image and mirror (Wis 7:22-29)

God’s beloved and shares his power and knowledge (Wis 8:1-8)

Wisdom is identical with God’s word and is the medium of creation and government of the cosmos (Wis 9:1-3)

Weeping over Jerusalem: “a hen gathers her chicks under her wings (Mt 23:37)

Father is mother “the only Son in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18)

Odes of Solomon (poetic compilation of Syriac origin: “Father’s breasts and nurturing milk”

Clement of Alexandria (115-250) “the Father’s loving breasts” and his milk”; “In his love the Father became mother to us”

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) (alluding to Mt 23:37) “Truthfully, Lord, you are my mother”

Julian of Norwich: Wisdom of God and Christ Himself as our Mother

John Paul I “God loves us with an unfailing love…God is father; more still is he mother” (10 Sept. 1978)

b. God as Lover; Divine Spouse

experience of the mystics

St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582); John of the Cross (1542-1591); spiritual marriage (reaction to oppressive practices of Greek and Roman societies; bridegroom

God is the heavenly bride and the soul is the bridegroom

Early Marian doctrines

(1) the mother of Jesus conceived her son virginally (Ignatius of Antioch)

(2) the mother of Jesus, by the grace of God, was holy and became a symbol of holiness with the spread of the monastic movement

(3) parallelism between Jesus as new Adam and Mary and the new Eve

(4) model of prophetic typology relating to Mary is extended by some Church fathers to other passages of the OT; Gregory of Nyssa virginitas in partu – Ex 3:2 the bush did not burn

(5) Mary is invoked in prayer

3. Dogmas About Mary

3.1. Mary is the Mother of God (Ephesus 431)

3.2. Immaculate Conception Pope Pius IX (1854): Mary is conceived in the womb of her mother without original sin

Meaning: preservation from original sin – Preservation means God was actively involved in Mary; the grace in her allowed her to make a choice for God; she made into full use what she received from God; sin did not have a hold on her, she was not entrapped by the sin of the world; the emphasis is not on being different but by being the prototype of a humanity redeemed from original sin; what God did for Mary has more importance; original sin means the supraindividual aspects of sin and the social setting, state or context; “inclination to evil” - tendency to self-centeredness; through (with) her cooperation, God’s grace, through and in Jesus, came into full bloom.

3.3. Assumption of Mary (Pope Pius XII 1950): on her death she went directly to God and enjoyed the beatific vision (Mary, Immaculate Mother of God always a virgin, having completed the course of her earthly life, was taken body and soul into heavenly glory)

an eschatological statement – it is about the fulfillment of the fullness of what a human being is. Anticipation is not a question of temporal priority. The temporal is subsumed by the ontological. All will be saved. From our point of view Mary might have been ahead of us in terms of fulfillment but the point of ontological is that all of us will share and commune with/in God. IN God there is not “time”. Nobody is ahead, nobody is last.

The Assumption of Mary is a ‘singular’ and of a different order than that of others in at least that (a) it has a unique foundation, i.e., the divine motherhood; (b) it is the reward of her total freedom from sin which she alone shares with her son; (c) its term is the highest share in the glory of her son granted to any mere creature. But its singularity need not imply that she alone among the redeemed was resurrected before the eschaton. (Ashley, Theologies of the Body: Humanist and Christian (Braintree, Mass: The Pope John Center, 1985), 628, n. 89.)

The virginity of Mary simply points out the availability of Mary for God. God ‘dwelt’ in Mary and the ‘dwelling’ was with the cooperation of Mary.

4. Apparitions of Mary: Does God still make new revelations? The Church is cautious towards new revelations that accompany the apparitions of Mary.

5. Mary and The Feminine Question in Christology

5.1. Feminist Criticisms and Perspectives

In the portrayal of Mary the most dominant image is that of a mother (Filipinos – Mama Mary) and a queen. Do they sufficiently capture the aspects of womanhood? What are the aspects of femininity? Why have we not explored the sexual elements of Mary’s femininity? (fat folds in the neck suggest aristocracy in Chinese art) How do we handle femininity? Are we comfortable with the sexual aspect of femininity?

A Patriarchal mentality: male is superior or in control; in vocabulary: Logos is male; Father-Son metaphor (pataasan ng ihi); watch out for androcentric or patriarchal (hierarchical) connotations of words such as: boss, senior, superior. In stories, women are portrayed as tanga, boba, sexual object.

1. Maleness of Christ has been used by the androcentric imagination to be constitutive of God. If Christ is the fullness of God’s revelation and Christ is male, it is too tempting and has been followed that God must be male.

2. Particular honor, dignity, and normativity are accorded to the male sex because the male sex was chosen by the Son of God.

Case in point is document by the CDF on priesthood: thanks to men’s “natural resemblance” they enjoy a closer identification with Christ so they are ordained (see CDF, “Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood,” (Inter Signores), Origins 6/33 (3 Feb. 1977). Women may be recipients of grace but they are not suited to carry out christic or eucharistic function publicly.

Also in soteriology, androcentricism cuts off women from salvation – “What is not assumed is not redeemed but what is assumed is saved by union with God”. Dualistic anthropology puts women in a gradated scale.

Maleness of Christ is “intrinsically important for his own personal historical identity but not theologically determinative of his identity as the Christ nor normative for the identity of the Christian community”. (Johnson, She Who Is, 156).

5.2. Woman and Man In God’s Image and Likeness

In relation to God, man and woman are equal. But they are distinct and their biological diffrence is the basis of social difference. Complementarity does not delineate well the idea of equality of men and women before God’s eyes. It rather has a different function especially in the determination (implication) for sexual behavior. It includes, among other things, the notion of completion (of life); purpose and function (sexuality – reproduction); Sexual difference is important for biological reproduction but it is not deteminative of persons as such. It is rather reason that reflects humanity’s image as created beings. (Is this not patriarchal?)

How valid is this observation? Sociologically, there is a truth in this but it does not speak all. Is not being logical in thoughts desirable for anyone- male and female? To be well-rounded people, we develop our feminine side, if we are male, and develop the masculine side, if we are female.

What we have to ask is how valid is our classification? In more ways than one, the norm is always made and determined by the dominant group – in this case the male. The criticism of feminist thought is to make us aware of the patriarchal thought that enslaves us, that is reflected in our thoughts and ideas. A patriarchal idea tends to look at the male as superior and the female as inferior. In the end, when we speak of complementarity – what is meant is the mutual service that we render to each one. It seeks the good of the other. Although sexuality is not excluded from the concept ‘image of God’ (Häring, Free and Faithful in Christ, Vol II, 497). Our vocation/calling is to ‘reflect the inner unity of the Creator’ (CDF, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals).

Read:

Brock, Rita Nakashima, Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power (New York: Crossroad, 1988).

Javellana, Rene, “Ntra. Sra. De La ________ To Mama Mary,” in Reyes Soledad, ed., Reading Popular Culture Quezon City: Office of Research and Publications Ateneo de Manila University, 1991), 147-156.

What about psychological or spiritual complementarity?

Their psychological qualities and spiritual dispositions differ. The male is more active and outgoing; he possesses greater courage to assail. The female is more receptive and protective; she shows greater fortitude to endure. The man is ordered towards things and more concerned with goals of [an?] objective nature. The woman is interested in persons and consecrates herself to those whom she loves with her soul and entire being. The logic of facts and keen penetration mare characteristic of the man; the woman is more led by emotion, sensitivity and intuition. He is ruled by principles, she by love. (Henry Peschke, Christian Ethics, Vol. II, p. 377.

For early cultures, the word “virgin” did not mean “one who has never had sex”. In its primal sense the word “virgin” describes a maiden, a very young woman who is leaving girlhood, just beginning to explore and taste her grown-up Self. She is in bud – full of potential, unfinished, entering the unknown in a state of joyous uncertainty. Such a one is full of wonder and becoming, curious about all the possibilities in herself and the world – open to the mysteries and dangers that lie ahead. Clarity does not apply to her, for She is in process, in-between. Anticipation, freedom, and spontaneity do describe her. She is highly susceptible to falling in love – with the dawn, with the changing seasons, with any and all creatures in their miraculous diversity, with people, their eyes and stories. For whatever the risks, the virgin experiences Nature as full of good things, gifts, full of possibility (Wilshire, Diana, Virgin, Mother, Crone: Mysteries of the Triple Goddess (Rochester,Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1994) quoted by D. O’Muchu, Vows for Non Violence (Quezon City: Claretian Publicaitons, 2001), 44

Ecumenism

Ordination of women

Feminism

Jesus Christ and World Religions

1. A Short History

1.1. Pre-Conciliar Developments

Fulfillment theory (preparation for the Gospel): The Savior was promised and prefigured in many ways in the OT and the promises were fulfilled and consummated in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Non-Christian religions contain seeds of spiritual and moral truths, they contain a certain mediation of grace which became completely clear and communicable in Christianity. (Non-Christians can be saved by natural religion).

Otto Karrer

He made a phenomenological comparison of basic truths of Christianity and other religions; but Christianity possesses that fullness of love.

Thomas Ohm (Die Liebe zu Got in den nichtchristlichen Religionen [1950])

Universal love is present in all religions but perfected in Christianity (religions have no specific role of mediating love).

Joseph Ratzinger

The human being has the natural inclination to love; non-Christian religions contain the natural moral law; they are “preparatory” for Christianity; they reflect that truth evident only in the specific revelation of the Christian faith.

Presence of the saving mystery of Jesus Christ in religious traditions: Jesus is actively involved in the world because the Spirit of God is working in all peoples and in all places

Henri de Lubac (Catholicisme 1938, Surnaturel 1946)

Theological anthropology: all human beings are created in the image of God and on the basis of their humanity they are “anonymously” participants in the divine mystery; this is the “supernatural” dimension of every human being.

He rejects the idea of natura pura and introduced the idea of ontological sacramentalism. Supernatural grace is not external, non-personal, moralistic, non-historical, outside thing but inherent in humanity; He avoids the distinction between the universal grace and the specific christological grace that has come into the world through the incarnation and historical revelation of God.

Because of creation every human being has a “positive ordination to the supernatural”. Every human being “longs to see God”.

By incarnation, all of humanity, in a mystical and sacramental way, has been imbued with supernatural divine grace.

Christianity and World Religions follow the structure of nature and the supernatural. The supernatural is a gratuitous gift coming from God and it fulfills the natural desire of the human being for union with God. By grace, all religions are united by the same finality: in the depths of human consciousness, everyone tries to answer that divine calling. The “depths of God” can be found in the “depths of humanity”.

Christianity is the supernatural religion; Christianity unveils their positive values, purifies and transforms them.

The single point of convergence for all religions is Jesus Christ (patterned after Teilhard de Chardin’s Christification of all things).

Jean Daniélou (nouvelle theologie)

He was the first Western exponent of fulfillment theory.

History is a progressive unfolding of divine plan for humanity and this history is the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Christianity perfects the truth, the seeds of truth discernible in other religions; Christianity “completes other religions and other civilizations”.

He follows the schema of nature and supernatural.

Karl Rahner (Das Christentum und die nichtchristlichen Religionen [1962])

Theological anthropology: The human being is open for the unlimited being of God. Every human being is ontologically constituted by a “supernatural existential” that enables the human being to connect and communicate with God.

Non-Christian religions do not simply “contain elements of natural knowledge of God” but they are also “supernatural instances of the grace which God presents to man because of Christ”. (Heiloptimismus)

He is considered the first successful Catholic theologian to relate the idea of grace outside the Church to the concrete elements of non-Christian religions. God does not offer God’s grace “directly”; grace is incarnated in matter, in concrete element, in historical flesh; grace is always of a sacramental nature.

For those who not know the Christian mediation: their religions are channels of God’s supernatural grace; they are “legitimate religions”. He introduced “categorical mediation” (kategoriale Vermittlung) to point out that religions serve as links between human beings and God (transcendentally); atheists – lack that categorical mediation while adherents of other religions do not have this lack.

Christ is the final cause of God’s universal salvific will; consequently he coined “anonymous Christians” who are the “not-yet-perfected members of the same body of Christ”.

Heinz Robert Schlette

He was the first to employ the concept of “theology of religions”. The non-Christian religions are the “ordinary route” to salvation and Christianity is the “extraordinary route” to salvation.

His “history of epiphany” develops the idea that in human history there are many various ways to union with God but Christianity was the final “epiphany” of God’s saving will. The Church is the eschatological sign of God’s kingdom in human history and in all cultures.

Hans Küng (Ways of Salvation)

He renounced the old dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

For Küng, religions are “means” or “ways” of salvation (affirming Rahner); also says that religions are ordinary ways of salvation while Christianity is the extraordinary (follows Schlette); even if salvation is attained through explicit faith is Jesus Christ (the norm), it is also possible that salvation can be had through “other extraordinary ways”.

He has a negative evaluation of non-Christian religions: in his own terms non-Christian religions are “Unhistorical, circular in thinking, fatalistic, unworldly, pessimistic, passive, have caste spirit, socially disinterested”

Though he bats for an openness of attitude, mutual critique and honest confrontation, his project is said to be deficient (by Dupuis) because he argues only for the functionality of Jesus’s divinity short of arguing for Jesus’s ontological divinity.

Raimon Pannikar (The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, 1964)

The living presence of Christ can be found in Hinduism (p. ix). This presence is not only found in religious and sincere individual Hindus but also in an objective and social religious phenomenon.

Christ is the “ontological meeting point” between Hinduism and Christianity. Christ does not belong to Christianity; he belongs to God. Christianity and Hinduism belong to Christ, though on two different levels (20-21). Hinduism is the starting point of religion and Christianity is the culminating point. Hinduism is “Christianity in potency” and contains the “Christian reality”.

Question: Does a mere natural prolongation of any religion (Hinduism) lead to the authentic and real religion of Christianity? (Like the transition from OT to NT?)

There has to be a conversion that should happen. As Hinduism descends into the “living waters of baptism” so must it rise up as a better form of Hinduism. The Christian alone perceives the presence of the hidden Christ in religions and in Hinduism in particular.

The hidden Christ is the Christ of Faith and identical with the pre-Easter Jesus.

Revised edition in 1981 The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany

“The Christ…is the living and loving reality of the truly believing Christian in whatever form the person may formulate or conceptualize this reality”. (Pannikar, 1981, 21)

Christ is the most powerful symbol of the full human, divine, cosmic reality called a mystery. The symbol can have many names: Rama, Khrishna, Ishavara, Purusha

Question: How do we conceive the relation of the “reality” or “mystery”, the Christ symbol to the historical Jesus?

Pannikar makes a distinction between historical Jesus and Christ. His thought has evolved and can be found in more clear terms in The Intrareligious Dialogue (1978).

Distinction between faith (is the person’s basic religious experience; basic constitutive element of the human person; mystery is the content; cosmotheandric reality) and belief (is the particular expression of this fundamental attitude in a given situation; religious myths are the contents; Jesus myth is one of them)

Problem: Is Jesus of history not the same as the Christ of faith among the first Christians?

Gustav Thils (Propos et problèms de la théologie des religions non chrétiennes [1966])

He recognized an “analogical salvific value” of religions; in and through their religion, salvation is available for them because their religions embody God’s universal saving will’; in God’s eyes they have certain “legitimacy”, they can be called “ways” of salvation as far as they express the “providential order” of God to their members.

All religions do not have the same value; the way of Christianity is richer in comparison to them; special economy of salvation has been realized in Christ; specificity and means of salvation have been received through Christ; Christianity is the “fullness of the way to salvation”.

Christianity is the “principle analogue” (vs. secondary analogue) and religions are a “”sketch” or a veiled “duplicate”.

In God’s design, all religions have a place, but some express this design more perfectly.

1.2. The Magisterial Teaching: Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes, Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Church’s Relations to Non-Christian Religions)

Vatican II dealt with two issues: (1) individual salvation outside the Church, (2) the roles played by other religions or religious traditions; what positive values can be found in them

As regards the first issue, Gaudium et Spes mentions the possibility of salvation outside the Church. It is possible through the working of the Holy Spirit (22)

As to the second issue, Lumen Gentium (16-17) says that salvation is available to those “who without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.” (16); “By her activity whatever good is found sown in the minds and hearts of human beings, or in the rites and customs proper to various peoples, is not only saved from destruction, but is also healed, ennobled, and brought to perfection, for the glory of God, the confusion of the devil, and the happiness of human persons. (17)

Ad Gentes (3,9,11) has this to say. “The universal design of God to save the human race is not achieved only in secret, as it were, in the hearts of people; nor merely through the undertakings, including religious ones, by which they seek God in many ways, in the hope that they may feel after him and find him, though indeed he is not far from each one of us”. (3)

AG 9 speaks of the Church’s missionary activity. It purifies, raises, and brings to perfection in Christ whatever goodness lies in people and in traditions to which they belong.

AG 11, “They must be familiar with their national and religious traditions…. Just as Christ searched the hearts of people and led them to the divine by truly human contacts, so his disciples, imbued with the Spirit of Christ, should know the human persons among whom they live and associate with them. In this way, through sincere and patient dialogue they will learn what treasures the bountiful God has distributed among nations. At the same time they should strive to illumine those riches with the light of the Gospel, to liberate them and bring them under the dominion of God the Saviour”.

The statement that contains the document’s assessment of religions:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. With sincere respect she looks on those ways of conduct and life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing on many points from what she herself holds and teaches, yet not rarely reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings. But she proclaims and must ever proclaim, “the truth and the life (Jn 14:6), in whom human beings find the fullness of religious life, and in whom God has reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18f).

And so the Church has this exhortation for her children: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness to the Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral good, as well as the socio-cultural values found among them”. (NA 2)

Nostra Aetate was a latecomer; it only appeared in the third session of the Council; Pope wanted to include it on Decree on Ecumenism; in its dialogue with the Jews, the Pope wanted to put an end to the animosity and the division between Christian and Jews.

Only three lines were dedicated to World religions (2/3 of the world)!, the rest of the document was dedicated to Christianity’s relationship to the Jews.

Order: human religiosity > religions found in more advanced civilizations (Hinduism, Buddhism, and others like Islam > Jewish religion.

The intention of the document is pastoral and not doctrinal.

Established two foundational points as regards the Church’s relationship to World Religions: (1) all peoples have a common origin - God (2) all peoples have a common destiny –God

Criticism: no mention of universal action of the Spirit among human beings.

The Secretariat for Non-Christians published in 1984 a document which positively assessed the values contained in the religious traditions.

“This vision induced the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council to affirm that in the religious traditions of non-Christians there exist “elements which are true and good” (LG 16), “precious things, both religious and human” (GS 92), “seeds of contemplation” (AG 18), “elements of truth and grace” (AG 9), “seeds of the Word” (AG 11, 15), and “rays of that truth which illumines all humankind” (NA 2). According to explicit conciliar indications, these values are found preserved in the great religious traditions of humanity. Therefore, they merit the attention and the esteem of Christians, and their spiritual patrimony is a genuine invitation to dialogue (NA 2, 3; AG 11), not only in those things which unite us, but also in our differences. (Secretariat for Non-Christians, 1984, 135-136).

1.3. Post-Conciliar Developments

Paul VI

Ecclesiam Suam (6 August 1964) – history of salvation is a continuous dialogue between God and humankind.

(1) Church’s dialogue with entire world (2) with members of other religions, (“those who worship the one sovereign God whom we, too, adore” [Jews, Muslims, Afro-Asian religions] (3) with other Christian Churches, (4) within the Church.

Pope claims the exclusiveness of Christianity as “one true religion” when he says, “Indeed honesty compels us to declare openly what we believe, namely that there is one true religion, the Christian religion, and that we hope that all who seek God and adore him, will come to acknowledge this”. (ES 655)

Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975)

“In other words, through our religion an authentic and living relationship with God is truly established, such as other religions cannot bring about even though they have, as it were, their arms outstretched towards heaven”. (53)

The Pope goes back to the fulfillment theory of the pre-conciliar age. The Pope who was called the “pope of dialogue “ became silent in this document.

John Paul II

It is said that JP II simply emphasized the presence of the Spirit in the world and in human beings

Redemptoris Hominis (4 March 1979), the Pope saw the “firm belief” of non-Christians as an “effect of the Spirit of truth”. (6)

Discourse addressed to the Roman Curia on 22 Dec 1986; event was Word Day of Prayer for Peace (held two months earlier 27 Oct. 1986); oneness of creation of the human race and redemption; oneness in origin and destination.

Dominum Vivificantem (18 May 1986) contains the most explicit text on the economy of the Spirit.

Redemptoris Missio (7 Dec 1990) the Spirit affects not only individuals but also religious traditions.

Tertio Millenio Adveniente (10 Nov 1994), the Pope continues the old line of fulfillment theory.

Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (19 May 1991) by Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue + Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples :

“The mystery of salvation reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the invisible action of the Holy Spirit. Concretely, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious tradition and by following the dictates of their conscience that the members of other religious traditions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour”. (PCID 1991), 210-250.

There is a slight opening for an appreciation of mediation of salvation by other religions. There is moving out of the fulfillment theory to an active presence of Jesus Christ in traditions themselves.

2. A Clarification of Terms

Two un-negotiable elements in the Catholic Teaching on the theology of religions: (1) “uniqueness” of Jesus Christ as bearer of salvation, (2) indispensable role of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation

2.1. singularity and unicity: (1) the specific or original character which makes one reality different from the other (every religion is singular and unique, it is different from the other); relative unicity (reductionist), (2) in a more restricted sense, it means “unique uniqueness”, Jesus Christ is a “singularly unique” universal Savior of humankind (exclusivist).

2.2. universality and normativity (1) Jesus Christ is a model, ideal, symbol, among others, of God’s relationships with humankind, (relative) (2) Jesus Christ is - for whatever reason – God’s representative (singular and exclusivist)

another meaning: (1) a particular tradition has no monopoly of paths towards salvation (2) claims that a particular religious tradition has the only appeal to all.

2.3. centrality and finality: Christianity places itself at the center; it has the last word on matter of religions; it has the final verdict on the issue of their mutual relationships.

2.4. transcendence and absoluteness: Only Christianity has the fullness of the revelation of the transcendent and no other (absolute).

3. The Changing Paradigms and the Christological Question

ecclesiocentrism (exclusive Christology)à Christocentrism (inclusive Christology): How central is Christ to the Church? How central is the Church to Christ? Christocentrism à Theocentrism (normative and non-normative Christologies) – Is Christ constitutive in mediating salvation? Can there be other mediators?

exclusivism> inclusivism>pluralism

To be noted are (1) the “decentering” of the focus – from the Church to Christ, (2) the role of Christ

Christ against the religions > the Christ of the religions > Christ among the religions (Pieris)

Reasons for a “revisionist” or “re-interpreted” Christology (1) contemporary historical consciousness, (2) inseparability between content and context in the human experience, (3) the relativity of the experience of the Divine Mystery, (ineffable, inexhaustible) (4) the particularity and contingency of the Jesus event, (5) the “theocentric” outlook of Jesus in contrast to the “Christocentric” mind-set of the Apostolic Church, (6) the total discontinuity of Jesus’ self-understanding and the kerygmatic proclamation of him, (7) the “mythical” and “metaphorical” language of the late NT Christology and post-biblical tradition (Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 190).

Two questions: (1) Are Christocentrism and Theocentrism opposed to each other? (2) What kind of Christology underlies the Christocentric and theocentric paradigms? (relevance of high and low Christology)

Regnocentrism and soteriocentrism (Knitter)

Emphasis on liberation and eschatology

Logocentrism and Pneumacentrism (Congar)

Spirit as the point of entry

Are there other models? (dialogical, close link between redemption, liberation and salvation)

The common criticism raised today is that the models are Western ones. Western models feature an either – or (contradiction and confrontation) and Eastern models feature and-and (Harmony, convergence and unity)

4. Pluralism and Christology

4.1. Reasons for Pluralism

Philosophical: truth is not static and eternal but historical and dynamically conditioned. Knowledge of the Absolute is always relative

historical-critical-exegetical: NT attests to the fact there is a gap between the interpretations of Jesus and the actual historical person of Jesus

theological: the Jesus event was a particular historical event and Christians claim that in this event there is an attached significance; Jesus and other historical mediations; Logos is not limited to Jesus but maybe incarnated in other historical mediations

4.3. On Jesus’ Normativity

Against Exclusivist and Inclusivist (constitutive) Models

Exclusivist is against the NT witness: (1) God cannot save a minority only, (2) impossible to maintain that God cannot save in some other way

Versus Inclusivist: (1) Exegetically, there is abundant evidence that Jesus never preached himself but the Kingdom (rule, reign) of God, although there is no historical link between Jesus and those outside the Christian community, (2) Theologically, the causal nexus between Jesus and the salvation of others is a product of (metaphysical) speculation. The basic premise is that God alone saves.

Meaning of normativity and uniqueness of Jesus

(1) (Inside) His normativity is the logical result of him being the constitutive bearer of Christian faith; the Scriptures are the norm (norma normans); from within Christianity he is the norm

(2) (Outside?) The truth about God has a transcultural, transcendent element (the universal feature of truth). The truth revealed by/through Christ has been recognized as applicable to all. In this way he is the norm; he is universal.

(3) The character of truth includes the meaning of norm. They entail each other. They include each other.

(4) Difficulty of the “object” of religion or of faith. It is the “Transcendent”. But the principle of contradiction can be used. There is commensurability in competing claims and agreement can always be found.

(5) Conditions: (a) The exact contents of normativity of Jesus be specified – what is closer and center to the Christian faith (b) comparison of “norms” between religions and discover what do they exclude and include (c) because of our historicity, truth is relative; a truth “grows”, there is an element of deepening and expanding and changing

(6) The more important question: Is Jesus divine or what do we mean by the claim that Jesus is divine? Is he unique or in what ways he is unique?

Question: Is Jesus Christ the one universal Savior of human kind (and creation)?

5. Towards a Proposal: Trinitarian Christology

5.1. Foundation: A Trinitarian God?

What is it? “Reality-centeredness (Hick), “Ground of Being” (Rahner), “Ultimate Concern”, “Ultimate Reality”, “Divine Ultimate”, “Divine Mystery”, “The Real” (many names, many faces)

Ø the “source,” (Pannikar) that is inexhaustively generative and always generates, the “source” from which arises form and determination, (unoriginated origin);

Ø “being” in the sense of what can be correctly perceived and engaged with; that form itself is never exhausted, never limited by this or that specific realization but is being constantly realized in the flux of active life that equally springs out from the source of all; (Logos ensarkos)

Ø between form, “logos”, and life, “spirit”, there is unceasing interaction (actus purus), a model of “becoming”? (Spirit)

Ø the source of all which does not and cannot exhaust itself simply in producing shape and structure;

Ø it also produces that which dissolves and re-forms all structures in endless and undetermined movement, in such a way that form itself is not absolutized but always turned back toward the primal reality of the source. (Godhead) (Williams, “Trinity and Pluralism,” p. 3).

5.2. The Way: A Phenomenological Christology/Pneumatological Christology

consciousness of Jesus (intimacy with Abba, (The Father and I are one), drawn into the mystery of God, a realized beatific vision? consubstantiality)

No exclusive identification between God and Jesus

“The Father is greater than I”; “whatever is said of the Father is said of the Son, except that the Son is not the Father” (Athanasius); “the Son is not the Father”

Jesus’ human consciousness as Son cannot exhaust the mystery of God

*God is known through the Son and the Spirit; Jesus is wholly God (totus deus) but never the whole of God (totum dei) (D’Costa); the sense of Jesus being the norm means that Jesus is the example, the model by which God reveals the Godself and is known

Jesus Christ’s universality rests on his being the Son of God (Dupuis, p. 297)

primacy of experience – “histories of stories” (D’Costa) include: theologies, philosophies, mythologies, liturgies, rituals, practices that shape a person; liberational approach; aspect of particularity, works of justice, actions of the spirit (sending of the Spirit)

Jesus was “made like his brothers and sisters in every respect” (Heb 2:17); “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death…” (Heb 5: 7)

all human actions will have to be good moral actions to help bring about the saving power of God

the universality of Jesus Christ should not overshadow the particularity of Jesus of Nazareth

The Word made flesh is the universal sacrament of God’s saving action but the action of enfleshment does not exhaust the action of the Logos.

continuity and discontinuity - distinction in identity of Jesus with the Christ; Jesus as the “concrete universal” ( Nicolas of Cusa)

relevance of functional Christology and ontological Christology; “low” and “high” Christology

Jesus is the Christ; the historical Jesus is the Christ of faith

5.3. Contexts for pluralism and dialogue

Ø the significance of the historical starting point

Ø Jesus is the bringer of salvation for all and not only for a certain group

Ø even if the salvation through Jesus is mediated by a specific community, that community does not minimize the extensive reach of God’s love

Ø the causal connection between Jesus of Nazareth (the basis of Christology) and the workings of salvation outside the Christian ambiance has no historical basis.

Ø God is present to other religions; God can be represented in other ways; these representations can also be normative.

Read:

D’Costa, Gavin., ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990).

Dupuis, Jacques, Toward a Christian Theology of Pluralism Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1997).

Haight, Jesus, pp. 395-422.

Hick, John and Paul Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987).

Knitter, Paul, No other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes to World Religions (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1985).

Review Questions for Christology (2002)

1. Discuss the Historical Search for Jesus.

1.1. What was the First Quest? Give some names involved and the features of the ‘First Quest’?

1.2. What was the second Quest (No Quest)? Give some names involved and the features of the ‘Second’ Quest’?

1.3. What was the Third Quest? Give some names involved and the features of the ‘Third Quest’?

1.4. Explain the historical and theological meaning of Jesus’ death for us.

1.5. What does it really mean when we say that ‘Jesus is risen’? (1.5.1.) What is the relationship between Jesus death and resurrection? (1.5.2.) Is there a connection between the empty tomb and Jesus’ resurrection? Is the empty grave compatible with the appearances of the risen Christ? (1.5.3.) What function does the resurrection do in Christology?

1.7. Was Jesus aware that he was divine? Did he know that he was God? Discuss the ontological and functional meaning of Jesus’ divinity.

2. What are some of the NT Christologies? Cite the biblical references. Characterize each.

2.1. What is the meaning of the Logos was hypostatized?

2.2. What is meant by two-stage Christology? Cite the biblical references.

3. What is the doctrine taught in Nicaea? What is the doctrine taught in Chalcedon?

3.1. Discuss the heresies before, during and after Nicaea and Chalcedon.

3.2. Define Ebionitism, Docetism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism.

3.3. Discuss the ‘quarrel’ between Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria

3.4. Differentitate the logos-sarx Christology from logos-anthropos Christology.

3.5. Say/write something about Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius.

3.6. Explain immutability as a problem in understanding God and the mystery of incarnation.

3.7. Discuss the implications of the mystery of incarnation in the feminist approach to Christology.

3.8. Could you demonstrate the connections between Christology, soteriology and theodicy? Is it possible to make the connections of our understanding of God, Jesus Christ and our salvation?

4. What are some of the approaches to Christology? What are the ways of understanding Jesus Christ?

4.1. Describe a narrative approach to Christology. Discuss the proponents and the features of this approach. What are its merits and weak points?

4.2. Describe an existential approach to Christology

4.3. Describe a feminist approach to Christology

4.4. Describe an inculturated approach to Christology

4.5. Describe a transcendental approach to Christology

4.6. Describe a liberationist approach.

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Christology

The Death of Jesus

New Testament Christologies

Arius

Athanasius

Didymus the Blind

Antiochenes

Nestorius

Interpreting Nicaea (325)

Interpreting Chalcedon (451)

Mary: Mother and Woman

Jesus Christ and World Religions

No comments:

Videos

Lectures of Bishop Luis Antonio Tagle

MY OTHER POSTS

Blog Archive

About Me