Doctrine of Christ

 

Doctrine of Christology

The doctrine of Christology is a challenging area to define in specific terminology. Over the years countless theologians have attempted to balance the paradox and explain in words how God became man. How did a finite human contain the infinite God? The substance of our Christological doctrine is like a concrete foundation on which other doctrines are laid. Because what we believe here will have implications in many other areas, it is imperative to move towards clearer and firmer understanding. However, I believe theology is held together best when we acknowledge our limitations. God alone is certain; we walk by faith and must hold our positions with humility.

Jesus’ full humanity was a plain fact during his earthly life, but it has been under scrutiny and misunderstood in light of his deity. We know Jesus ate, slept, and was fully human in every way yet without sin (Heb 2:17; 4:15). Those who had seen him grow up scoffed and took offense at his wisdom and the miracles he performed (Matt 13:54-57). At the incarnation Jesus assumed a full humanity, not simply a human nature. I am still working to understand the arguments on whether he took on a pre- or post-fall nature. Maximus’s statement that ‘what is not assumed cannot be healed’ is convincing on the side that he took on our sinful nature, yet without sin himself. However, the discussion of Jesus as a new Adam gives me pause to consider if Christ’s humanity was like that of Adam and Eve. Could his life of perfection and faithfulness be the fulfilment of what our earthly parents did not achieve? I lean towards the idea that Jesus took on our sinful nature and, in his death, paid the price for that sin without committing it himself. Nevertheless, I will not put firmer borders around my convictions until after a deeper study of soteriology.

We further assemble our Christology by looking at what Jesus accomplished, the claims he makes about himself, and the titles that refer to him. Jesus’s actions are functional statements of his identity as God because they are acts only God can accomplish. Jesus came to be the savior of humanity (1 Tim 1:15), reveals God (Jn 14:9), and sends the Spirit (Jn 20:19-23). Unlike other teachers who appealed to the authority of esteemed rabbis, Jesus spoke with his own authority on the Torah (Matt 7:28-29). The Pharisees were aghast that Jesus claimed to forgive the sins of the paralyzed man, but he proved his capability to do so by also healing the man’s body (Mk 2:1-12). When they criticized him for working on the sabbath he claimed authority over the holy day by saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:28).

The title “Son of Man” was the name Jesus used most often to refer to himself in the gospel accounts. I believe it is the best reflection of his dual nature. Adopted from Daniel 7 and used to encapsulate the theme of a coming Messiah and King, the Son of Man was a human who would conquer the beastly kingdoms of the world and reinaugurate the kingdom of God on Earth, ruling at God’s right hand. One of God’s intended purposes in creating human beings was to reign as a reflection of his glorious and creative rule over all things. The Son of Man will have “an everlasting Kingdom and all rulers will worship and obey him” (Dan 7:26). The mystery of this coming human who would rule but also receive worship was a puzzle to Daniel and those who read about his dream. Jesus chose this title repeatedly to hint at the union of his humanity and his deity. Other titles like “Savior”, “Messiah”, and “Lord” are announced by angels at his birth (Luke 2:11). Biblical writers use these designations in addition to titles like “Son of God” or even refer to Jesus directly as “God” (Rom 1:4; Jn 1:1).

That Christ has both a divine nature and a human nature is evident from the biblical witness and established as orthodox by the Council of Nicea. How to understand the interrelation of them both is another dilemma entirely. The problem of understanding the divinity and humanity of Christ has given birth to heretical positions in all different directions. Balancing this paradox has been the work of countless theologians, many of whom have tipped too far in one direction. Even with all the study in this area of theology, more needs to be done to fix precise words and find the equilibrium. As it stands, the best description rests in the Chalcedonian Formula that emphasizes Jesus as truly God and truly man yet not parted or divided in two. It says further Jesus was “made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis.” So much of what is said in this formula is stated in terms of what Jesus is not. In using the terms prosopon and hypostasis the writers intended to preserve the unity of Christ’s person while explaining how they can interact. Finding that perfect balance seems to continue in ontological discussions requiring metaphysics. The tension must be held without pushing too far in one direction or the other. Possibly as an early Christian hymn or creed, Philippians 2:6-11 beautifully describes how Jesus is exalted and worshipped as Lord as well as addresses Jesus’s humanity. This passage gives an excellent understanding on how these two natures interact, an important point to which we now turn.

Verses 6-9 address the fact that Jesus is in the same nature truly God, however he did not avail himself of the divine powers. Instead, he humbled himself to fully take on the nature of humanity thus divesting himself of the relative attributes of divinity. In this we see a refusal to use those rights and powers as God. Instead, Jesus willing submitted himself to the humiliation of becoming man, obeying to death, even death on a cross. I have not quite solidified my own understanding on the concept of how Jesus submitted to the Father’s will. At first glance it appears he had a separate will of his own that could differ from that of the Father. We see many occasions in scripture where Jesus refrained from utilizing his divine rights if it meant veering from the Father’s will, most notably in his prayer in Gethsemane, “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mk 12:36). How can we avoid a trinitarian heresy here by assuming competing wills? My tentative theory is Jesus always shared the will of the Father, yet because he voluntarily was bound by human form and time his will also was bound by human form and time. Like concrete, Jesus’s will was made of the same substance as the Father’s will and as time progressed it was perfectly solidified at the conclusion of his earthly life. As Jesus’s earthly life went on, his choices completely matched the will of the Father and thus proved his will was in line with the Father’s. Making allowance for a seeming difference in will by accounting for the temporary effects of being bound by time allows for Jesus’s apparent earthly subordination. This theory would provide a corrective against those who use these texts to promote an eternal subordination while it still allows a temporal subordination without differentiation of wills.

Though much more could be said about Jesus and his work we will save that for the discussion of the doctrine of soteriology.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology : A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. Second ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2020. 

Cohick, Lynn H, and Amy Brown Hughes. Christian Women in the Patristic World : Their Influence, Authority, and Legacy in the Second through Fifth Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017.

Erickson, Millard J. 2013. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. 

Fairbairn, Donald, and Ryan M Reeves. The Story of Creeds and Confessions : Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2019.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The True Image : The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.

McGrath, Alister E. 2017. Christian Theology : An Introduction. 6th ed. Newark: Wiley.