The “Jesus experience”
Christology starts not from an abstract or philosophical view of the world but from a specific historical person and events, notably the event of the crucifixion.
This experience is interpreted through the lens of a further experience – the “Easter experience”.
What are the challenges of Christology – what is Christology seeking to “explain”, or at least to illuminate? Some of the claims about Jesus are prima face absurd, if not simply logically inconsistent, e.g. that a person can be both human and divine, that a person who dies 2000 years ago is “present” now, and in such a way that we can have a personal relationship with him.
At the very least these claims use words such as human, present, and personal in a way that extends their meaning beyond their commonplace usage. So at minimum we have a burden to explain in more detail what we mean when we say these things.
The person of faith is not compelled to take on that burden – no one requires that we are able to explain our faith. But many find that the effort of seeking for an explanation deepens their faith. Conversely some have found that this path leads to skepticism and at the extreme to loss of faith. So this is not a task to undertake lightly, and is one that should only be attempted “in company” i.e. taking due account of the opinions of others, the traditions and teaching of the church, and in a spirit of prayer and humility.
Jesus the man – the “quest for the historical Jesus” (3 times)
- The historicity of Jesus
- The variability of sources
- The limitations of the sources
- The sayings of Jesus
“If Jesus was not raised from the dead, he is a significant but tragic figure. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then he is a unique figure whose significance requires a great deal of further consideration.” (Polkinghorne)
That is what the church claimed from the earliest time. But it is not a historical claim, it is a faith claim. That is why the church is characterized as “apostolic”. Paul (1 Cor 15:3): I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received…
Jesus as a figure for faith: many designations, some biblical, some later.
- son of man (preferred self designation, at least according to Synoptics)
- Christ (very early followers)
- Messiah (avoided in own lifetime)
- prophet of the Kingdom (implied rather than claimed directly)
- word (Logos) (John and many later Church Fathers – philosophical)
- Lord (Paul and then all)
- Son of God (early use unclear, then common)
- savior (Paul and Fathers)
- priest (Letter to Hebrews)
- king (later from OT extension)
The interpretation of Jesus (the Jesus event)
- In Gospel times: using the Hebrew Scriptures
- In Patristic times: using (Platonic) philosophy
- In Reformation times: reflecting the emergence of the individual and the state
- In modern times: reflecting social perspectives (feminist, Black, radical, fundamentalist)
The fundamental questions of Christology:
- The Resurrection – what happened and what is its significance?
- Lordship – what is the nature of Christ’s “dominion” (power/oversight)?
- New Life – How does the Jesus event relate to our (new) life?
- Universality – does faith in Christ imply exclusivity or inclusivity?
Theologians like Jurgen Moltmann and Walter Kasper have characterized Christologies as anthropological or cosmological: also termed ‘Christology from below’ and ‘Christology from above’.
An anthropological Christology starts with the human person of Jesus and works from his life and ministry toward what it means for him to be divine;
A cosmological Christology works in the opposite direction. Starting from the eternal Logos, a cosmological Christology works toward his humanity.
These options represent “diverse yet complementary” approaches; each poses its own difficulties. Both Christologies ‘from above’ and ‘from below’ must come to terms with the two natures of Christ: human and divine. Just as light can be perceived as a wave or as a particle, so Jesus must be thought in terms of both his divinity and humanity. We should not talk about “either or” but must talk about “both and”.
The divinity of Jesus and the humanity of Jesus
Theories of the nature of Christ
The challenge of incompatible (?) dyads (pairs of concepts): human/divine; finite/infinite; spirit/matter; temporal/eternal.
Who suffered at the crucifixion? Does God suffer? The impassible God.
Kenosis: Paul – “Christ emptied himself …”
God’s self limitation: The omnipotent God chooses to become limited by a human nature
The pre-existent Logos: Christ has existed from all time, and is the creative force for the universe.
Person – a key unifying concept.
Used at Chalcedon, but really exploited in modern times: Thing “in itself” vs thing in relation. Jesus in relation to God; Jesus in relation to other humans, both those he interacted with directly (normal human interaction) and those he interacts with at all times (us).
The current reality of Jesus
In what way is Jesus present now?
- As moral teacher (C19th Liberal protestant Christology)
- In relations to other people
- By mystical encounter (St Ignatius to Albert Schweitzer)
- Through the Spirit
- In the Church; Sacramentally
Christ as the revelation of God.
Christ tells us about God; or,
Christ draws us into communion with God.
Jesus is “Truth” (John 14:6). ‘…for Zizioulas [Greek Orthodox theologian] God’s Word is not truth in the sense of cognitive statements but in the sense of life and communion. One is not to approach God’s Word intellectually, as if he or she could “understand” it. Rather, one is to experience God’s Word communally “as the sacramental intimation of God’s life” ’
(from Karkkainen, “Christology, A Global Introduction”)
Neo-orthodoxy (vs Liberal Protestantism) Barth, Bultmann.
God is completely transcendent and the only point of contact is via His self revelation in Jesus Christ (reminiscent of early Eastern theology). The historical Jesus is unavailable, and irrelevant – it is the Christ of faith that matters. And that faith is independent of miracles, maybe even of the historical reality of the resurrection. “Unlike classical [protestant] theology, which maintains that the definitive self-revelation of God in Christ is found in the Bible, the Word of God, Bultmann believed that the historical Jesus himself is the focus of God’s revelation. God’s revelation lies in the present encounter of an individual with preaching concerning Christ.” (Karkkainen)