Jesus, the Christ It is very important, therefore, to note that in Scripture the confession of the deity of Christ is not at all regarded as a threat to, or as competitive with, monotheism. G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ The equation very God and very man must always be regarded as an equalizing of the unequal. As we have made it plain earlier, the incarnation of the Logos is not a change from His own nature or His own mode of being as the divine Word into the nature and mode of being of a creature, nor yet the rise of a third thing between God and man. Barth, Church Dogmatics Jesus speaks with divine authority and now we have to make our choice: Either he speaks the truth or he does not. If he does not, we have again two possibilities: He utters falsehood either consciously or not. Should it be deliberate falsehood, he is the greatest deceiver known to history; should it be unconscious falsehood, he is the most pathetic victim of religious megalomania known to history. Given these possibilities we prefer to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth and had the right to speak with divine authority simply because He was God. H. de Vos, in Berkouwer, The Person of Christ The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come take upon Himself mans nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that the two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. Westminster Confession of Faith When certain unknown Jewish men were encountered by the person named Jesus, there had to be a commanding power in his personality in order to explain why they left their normal vocations and followed him. Little by little these men came to understand him until one of them had the spiritual perception to declare, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mat_16:18) . In the weeks and months of the life of Jesus, they came to marvel, doubt, despair, and finally to perceive in his resurrection that a very unusual person stood before them. The background for concluding that Jesus was the Messiah involves a number of passages in the Old Testament. The question was raised in Jesus day concerning whether he was “that prophet?” That expectation reflects on Deut.18 in which God says I will raise up a prophet like unto Moses who will speak his word. Many true prophets came after him as recorded in the Old Testament. More direct to the point are the words of Nathan the prophet to David that David’s house would never lack for one to sit on the throne. In his last words David applauds Gods promise as “ complete and unchanging.” (2Sa_23:5 ) In a matter of time David’s descendants were captured and carried to Babylon, but Amos gives God’s promise to rebuild and set it up again. (Amo_9:11) The book of Hosea describes a future time in which the two kingdoms would be reunited. (Hos_3:5) Isaiah gives very graphic pictures of the future king. A virgin shall give birth and the child shall be called Immanuel. (Isa_7:14 ). Isaiah 9:6-7 describes “ A child has been born for us. We have been given a son who will be our ruler. His names will be Wonderful Advisor and Mighty God, Eternal Father and Prince of Peace. His power will never end; peace will last forever. He will rule Davids kingdom and make it grow strong. He will always rule with honesty and justice. The LORD All-Powerful will make certain that all of this is done.” Isaiah 11 gives a promising future to David’s kingdom like a branch sprouting from a stump. “The Spirit of the LORD will be with him to give him understanding, wisdom, and insight. He will be powerful, and he will know and honor the LORD. Mic_5:2 Micah 5:2 gives the birth home of the coming ruler of Israel, Bethlehem. Jeremiah enlarges on the hope especially when the kingdom was falling in his day. He declared God’s promise: “ The Spirit of the LORD will be with him to give him understanding, wisdom, and insight. He will be powerful, and he will know and honor the LORD.” (23:5) Later God says I will break the yokes that keep you in slavery and “I will choose a king for you from the family of David.” 30:9 Ezekiel promises a future after their present judgement in which God says, “ I will give you a shepherd from the family of my servant King David” Ezek 34:23 In a different motif there are a number of passages in Isaiah focusing on the servant of Yahweh. Most prominent is Isa_52:12-15 and Isa_53:1-12 concerning the suffering servant. There are many other passages in the background of Israel in the days of Jesus in which hopes were evident for a messiah. The Messiah did not appear out of thin air without any basis. The early disciples of Jesus saw in him the fulfillment of these promises. What are the possibilities of coincidentally fitting these prophecies? “Someone did the math and figured out that the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled is one chance in one hundred million billion.”1 Strobel quotes Peter W. Stoner, a mathematician, who computed the “probability of fulfilling forty-eight prophecies was one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion,trillion,trillion, trillion, trillion.”2 After Pentecost, they began to declare to the world a message centered around the events of the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. As the message was proclaimed beyond the boundaries of Jewish culture, both at home and abroad, clearer definition of who Christ was had to come to pass. As believers began to describe the person of Jesus, who was called the Christ, they grappled with the problem of his unique nature. Many views had to be condemned, until finally a statement came forth in A..D. 451 at the Council of Chalcedon which has come to be the traditional orthodox statement of the doctrine concerning the person of Christ. The history of Christological controversies, however, did not really end with Chalcedon. Some of the heresies that were condemned in the past have continually cropped up in one form or another. Arianism is revived in Jehovahs Witnesses, and liberalism is refined Ebionism. Any age has the ever-present danger of consciously or unconsciously reviving a heresy. The only safeguards lie in a thorough understanding of the Scriptures with a knowledge of the history of doctrine as a guideline. The treatment of the complex person of Christ must always necessitate two approaches, that of the biblical material and then the doctrinal deductions in the history of thought. The Biblical Data The problem of Christology begins with the statement, The Word became flesh (John 1:14 ) . This statement combines a transcendent being with a physical being. How are they related to each other? That is the problem of Christology. The writer very obviously intended to relate the two separate natures to each other. Karl Barth suggests, If we paraphrase the statement `the Word became flesh by `the Word assumed flesh, we guard against the misinterpretation that in the incarnation the Word ceases to be entirely Himself and equal to Himself, i.e., in the full sense of the Word of God. God cannot cease to be God.3 Thus we must speak of a true Incarnation, or becoming man, of the Logos, and it can be said that `He became flesh, not that He has been changed into flesh, but that He has taken living flesh on our behalf and has become man. 4 When we turn to the other New Testament data concerning the life of Jesus, we see that some actions are clearly those of a superhuman power, while others can be only attributed to a truly human power. Divine Characteristics 5 Self-consciousness.6 From his early age, Jesus is described as being on unusually unique terms with God (Luk_2:49) . He claimed a unique equality with God (Joh_10:30).. Jesus maintained that men who knew him knew God the Father (Joh_14:9), and believing in him was equal to believing him that sent him (Joh_12:44-45) . His self-consciousness pointed up that he alone reveals the Father and that there is no true knowledge of the Father without the Son (Mat_11:27 ). This seems to be the evident implication, for it was precisely for blasphemy that the people were about to stone him (Joh_10:32-33 Joh_19:7) . The Gospel of John gives the boldest description of things taking place, which could be accomplished only by one greater than human. Jesus promised the prepared heavenly dwelling where his followers shall be with him (Joh_14:1-6). He promised that the prayers of the faithful shall be heard (Joh_14:12-14), and upon his departure the other Counselor, the Holy Spirit, would be given. During his trial he was asked whether he was the Messiah. His reply was, I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven ( Mark 14:62) . For this he was charged with blasphemy and condemned to death. In the Great Commission he laid claim to all power and charged that his name, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be the name of benediction for baptism. Without doubt it is difficult to tear these statements out of the Scriptures. We cannot penetrate beyond these statements, as Bultmann seeks to do,7 to distinguish words Jesus uttered from words supposedly attributed to him without imposing a presupposition that never existed in the New Testament writers mind. The apostolic recognition. By apostolic awareness we want to imply two references. First, we note recognition of him by those who knew him most intimately. Peter has to be listed first. He uttered the words of recognition of Jesus messianic office (Mat_16:16 ). An important confession is that of Thomas who doubted at first about the resurrection but came to confess, My Lord and my God! (Joh_20:26-29). Paul is the latest apostle to speak forth. He is emphatic in declaring, He is the Son of God (Act_9:20), the image of the invisible God (Col_1:15 ), incarnate God in all its fulness (Col_2:9), and the form of God made in servitude (Phi_2:7 ). There are others in the lifetime of the apostles who made similar confessions but who were not enrolled in the apostolic band. John the Baptist declares Jesus to be the Lamb of God, the baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and the Son of God (Joh_1:29-34 ) . Stephen describes his heavenly vision in terms of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (Act_7:56 ) . Second, apostolic recognition must be noted in reference to the combined testimony of the New Testament books. There seems to be no New Testament book without references, either in statement or in title, to the uniqueness of Jesus. Many books contain the introduction with reference to Jesus who is the Christ, or the anointed one of God. Furthermore, throughout the New Testament Christ is called `Lord, not merely in the sense in which men are invested with authority or dignity or ownership, but in the sense of Absolute and Supreme Sovereign, Preserver, Protector.8 The titles ascribed to Jesus are of value in estimating his person. One can multiply the number of titles but the more significant ones speak of Jesus as Lord (Phi_2:11), Lord of lords ( 1Ti_6:15 ), the Lord of glory (1Co_2:8), the mediator (Heb_12:24), and God . ..blessed for ever (Rom_9:5 ) 9 In addition, the New Testament connects the name God with Jesus nearly a dozen times.10 (John 1: 18 (Aleph B. C. text); 20:28; I John 5:20; Heb. 1 :8; II Pet. l:l; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13, and perhaps Acts 18:26; I Tim. 3:16.) Miracles The older and often conservative theologians appeal to miracles with reference to the deity of Christ. We can admit all that is claimed by these writers except perhaps the conclusions. The miracles of Jesus do have an important place in his life. We cannot admit a priori with Hume and Renan that miracles are impossible. Miracle, moreover, should not be defined as an unknown law which may be discovered in due time. A miracle has real significance only in terms of a personal act of God in contradiction to his power in upholding the universe. From the latter point all things could be considered miraculous. This does not seem to be the intention of the writers of the New Testament. J. Gresham Machen defined a miracle as any deviation from, or transcendence of, the order of nature due to the interposition of a supernatural cause.11 The emphasis is on the direct act. In a discussion of miracles it is important to stress that they are not isolated events separated from the person of Jesus and the claim to divine power. It is not as though a mere human were performing them. It is quite natural to be suspicious concerning the claims on the part of anyone, but this is no mere man. Man he is, but more than man. Many are suspicious of the miracles of the New Testament and classify them with miracle stories in other religious cultures. The circumstances in each case are different. Generally the miracle stories of the world religions can be shown to have arisen centuries after the founder of a particular world religion. In the case of Jesus, this is not so. Within the apostolic generation, his miraculous birth is claimed, miracles were performed, and references to him as divine take place. There was really no question concerning the role of miracles in the lifetime of Jesus; instead, it was always a question of the source of his power. It would be easier in a scientific age to dispense with the idea of miracles, and we agree with Machen that the New Testament would be easier to believe without them. But it would not be worth believing.12 It is difficult to conclude, however, that miracles prove the divinity of Jesus. If miracles prove the truthfulness of a claim, then the door is open for all forms of claims. Miracles would then prove the claims of the Christian Scientists, Pentecostals, and Roman Catholics : for all claim miracles of one sort or another. In reality all that miracles provide is the claim to be heard (Deu_13:1-3 2Th_2:9 ). The message is the determining factor of truth. The Bible does speak of false signs as well as false messages. Jesus has to be judged on the basis of what he said and above all for what he did. His miracles are the frosting on the cake. An impartial reading of the New Testament must drive one to conclude that its writers knew of Jesus as divine in a unique sense of the word. This is only one feature of his makeup. We turn now to the other feature. Human Characteristics Virgin birth.---The New Testament is likewise emphatic about the human nature of Christ as well as the divine. The words of John that the Word was made flesh emphasize his likeness to man. There is also another point of departure and that is the virgin birth. Two books, Matthew and Luke, relate the story of Jesus birth. It is implied in other passages.13 The virgin birth lays stress on the real humanity of Jesus. He had true flesh and blood. This was an important declaration against Greek culture and philosophy which could not admit that God could have real contact with flesh which was believed to be evil. One can see the Johannine dispute with this mode of thinking in his warning: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2); and conversely, everyone who does not confess Jesus is not of God (v. 3 ) . So crucial was the conflict in the early centuries that the phrase born of the Virgin Mary was incorporated into the Apostles Creed. Its primary intent was to contend for the true humanity of Jesus.14 Jesus was a true man like other men, but he was also more than man. With the modern tendency to doubt15 the virgin birth, the question is sometimes raised concerning whether it must be accepted. Emil Brunner, along with others, regards it as a peripheral matter.16 However, the question of doctrine is never the question of how little can I accept. The intent is a full exposition of biblical truth. Concerning the virgin birth, Barth warns, The Church knew well what it was doing when it posted this doctrine on guard, as it were, at the door of the mystery of Christmas. It can never be in favour of anyone thinking he can hurry past this guard. It will remind him that he is walking along a private road at his own cost and risk. 17 It is both unfair and wrong to attempt to equate the story of the virgin birth of Jesus with similar stories that have appeared in other religions. The story of Jesus appears from the beginning, whereas the others are due to the influence of centuries of time intervening. Likewise, there is no similarity and connection between the gospel story and the myths of ancient religions. By and large, these myths are connected with fertility of the soil, and they explain the cyclical wheel of death and life. They are repeated every year, whereas the birth and resurrection of Jesus are once for all time events. The gospel birth is in the realm of history, whereas the myths know nothing of historical events. Concerning the so-called parallels, Barth says: In the case of these alleged parallels the similarity can never be more than verbal, because the divine agents in the miraculous births spoken of in this connexion are definitely not God in the full and strict sense of the word, but at best gods, that is, hypostatisations of the feeling of man for nature or his reflection of history, hypostatisations behind which man is everywhere only too visible as the proper lord of the world and as the creator of its deities.18 Physical and emotional responses:--- With the virgin birth as the starting point, the Scriptures speak of other features of Jesus human life. The first word was growth in physical strength and wisdom (Luk_2:40). In his ministry he grew tired and fatigued (Joh_4:6), his physical body needed sleep (Mat_8:24), sustenance (Mat_4:2 Mat_21:18 ) , and water to quench his thirst (Joh_19:28) . In the realm of emotion, Jesus expressed joy (Joh_15:11 ) and sorrow (Mat_26:37). His life was characterized by compassion (Mat_9:36 ) and love (Mar_10:21). In addition, he expressed righteous indignation toward those who withheld faith in himself (Mar_3:5) 19 His humanity received special emphasis toward the latter part of his ministry. The events prior to his trial cannot be understood without a full concept of his humanity. In the garden, he offered up prayer to his Father for strength in the critical hour. He perspired as only one does under great physical strain ( Luk_22:43-44) . His death was a real death. There was no stage-playing involved. His body was prepared for burial, and had not the sabbath occurred, stopping burial preparation on the one hand, and the resurrection, making it unnecessary on the other hand, Jesus body would have received the full Jewish burial preparations. The sinlessness of Jesus: ---Jesus, the Christ is declared to be sinless. He asks the question, Which of you convicts me of sin? (John 8:46). Many other New Testament references speak of Jesus sinlessness.20 The question involved in whether Jesus was sinless or not is an outgrowth of the profound conviction that he was human first of all, and then divine. The book of Hebrews speaks of the common life of Jesus, living among the sinful but without sin. However, the fact of his sinlessness sets him apart from mankind. This, coupled with the fact that Jesus came to expose sin, is the reason that the world hates him (Joh_15:18-22 ) . There are two questions that must be dealt with in connection with the human nature of Jesus, as well as in connection with his sinlessness. The first question relates to his baptism by John the Baptist. Baptism is connected with the confession of sin (Mat_3:6). The implication for Jesus was a confession similar to that of the people who received Johns baptism. Was not Jesus confessing the same guilt that belonged to the multitude? The passages related to Jesus baptism do not imply this. First, John declared that he himself should be baptized by Jesus. He is aware of a unique person in Jesus. Jesus countered with the words that he should be baptized to fulfil all righteousness (Mat_3:15) . The act of submission to baptism fulfills his personal role of humiliation under law. Christ submits to an ordinance of God and is in this respect no exception. He belongs to this people and has come to do the will of the Father. Hence he wishes to receive baptism, too, and this does not mean that he himself has succumbed to the power of sin and therefore needs the baptism of repentance. But he is bound to this people and thus bound he will bear its guilt. 21 Second, the Gospel of John declares that Jesus baptism was heavens way of declaring who the Messiah was (Joh_1:33-34) . Third, without attempting to impose a text on another text, Jesus baptism could be viewed in light of Peters definition of baptism as a testimony of a clear conscience before God (1Pe_3:21 ) . Baptism portrayed for Jesus, without the necessity of repentance, what it portrayed for the other people with repentance 22 Baptism, for Jesus, declared his sinlessness before God. The next question in light of the sinlessness of Jesus is whether there was a possibility of his sinning. The question is sometimes framed in this manner: Was Christ only able not to sin ( potuit non peccare) but did avoid sinning, or was he not able to sin (non potuit peccare ) ? If the latter answer is true, that Christ was not able to sin, in what sense can one speak of a true temptation? Theologians have spoken of a communicatio idiomatum or a communication of properties, which means that the properties of both natures of Christ are ascribed to each other. Therefore, the human nature would be under the realm of enabling grace in which it could not sin. The danger, however, is that of making the issue into a theological syllogism. As a rule, the sinlessness of Christ is affirmed on the basis of his not being able to sin. But the temptation is then placed in a different context from ethical wrong. J. O. Buswell declared that Jesus is a Person with a character, and being Himself, it would be morally impossible (not physically impossible) that He would sin.23 He used the illustration approvingly of a man who could beat his wife but who would not. Berkouwer contends: “One must hold, with the church, that those are wrong who are content to say that Christ was able not to sin. But one must be on his guard against an abstract mode of reasoning about the confession of Christs sinlessness and against playing down the reality of the temptation. . . . The moment the Scripture introduces the temptation in the wilderness it mentions Christs being filled with the Holy Spirit. In his life there is a mysterious incapacity for sin stemming from his love and mercy. Scripture refers to the sinlessness of Christ as his permanent deed. . . . The purpose of the temptation in the wilderness is not that Christ should commit some ethical aberration but that he should be persuaded from entering upon the road to suffering”.24 Berkouwer, therefore, limits the real temptation to the role of Jesus sufferings and the great temptation is that he should depart from it. However, He could not elude his suffering because he did not want to elude it. 25 The truth of the life of Jesus could be stated in terms of an analogy in which gold is tried, but it is part of its nature that it always stands the test. One other word about the sinlessness of Jesus is in order. The Scriptures speak of his being made sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God ( 2Co_5:21 ) . The intent is not that Christ became sinful but that he entered into the judgment and life of man who was in sin. His outward situation was that of a sinful man. The Unity of His Person For the sake of description, we have been referring to Jesus as having human and divine characteristics, but this division is never referred to in the Scriptures. When Jesus speaks it is always with the unity of his person. He says, I say to you. 26 He never declares that I speak this with reference to my divine nature, or with reference to my human nature. When he speaks, it is Jesus the Christ who is Lord that is speaking. Frankly stated, there is no evidence for anything but unipersonality in Jesus. The Doctrines Concerning Christ Orthodoxy There have been many doctrines propounded concerning the person of Christ. For four hundred years, the church struggled with the question. After much controversy, the statement of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 was regarded as the orthodox position. This is the position held in common by both Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions. Although Baptists have never been a creedal people, they have generally accepted the general truths set forth there. It is beneficial for the reader to see the results of the years of theological labor and struggle. We quote it: Following, therefore, the holy Fathers, we confess and all teach with one accord one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once perfect (complete) in Godhead and perfect (complete) in manhood, truly God and truly man, and, further, of a reasonable soul and body; of one essence with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one essence with us as regards his manhood, in all respects like us, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood--on account of us and our salvation-begotten in the last days of Mary the Virgin, bearer of God; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only--begotten, proclaimed in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed on account of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person and one hypostasis--not as though parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Logos, Lord, Jesus Christ, even as the prophets from of old and the Lord Jesus Christ taught us concerning him, and the Creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.27 There are certain terms which need explanation. First, the Son is declared to be perfect or complete in regard to his manhood. He is truly man of a reasonable soul and body. The idea of human nature, however, has changed over the centuries. We must not assume that the Son of God adopted a human person and inhabited that body. Buswell seeks to define nature as a complex of attributes, and is not to be confused with a substantive entity. 28 Pursuing this line of thought, Buswell declares : We can without equivocation, accept the implication and declare that Jesus had a human spirit. I mean this, . . . not in the sense that He had two spirits, but in the sense that His eternal ego, His personality, took to itself in the incarnation all the essential attributes of a human spirit. He had a human spirit in the sense that His spirit became human. 29 Following the same line of thought that a `will is not a substantive entity, but a behavior complex, Buswell then speaks of two wills of Christ as defined by the Council of Constantinople in A.D 680. He writes, Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . took to Himself a human volitional behavior pattern when He took to Himself all the essential attributes of human nature.30 Boettner speaks of the union of the Son of God with an impersonal generic human nature. This human nature had no personality apart from the Divine nature, but came to consciousness and found its personality only in union with the Divine.31 Boettner then likens this to the relation between the human body and spirit. Without true personal life, the body is devoid of reason and sensation, yet it is the physical nature of man. Speaking from the standpoint of John l:14, Barth contends that `flesh does not imply a man, but human essence and existence, human kind and nature, humanity, humanitas, that which makes a man man as opposed to God, angel, or animal.32 The second phrase for our consideration is bearer of God. Generally the phrase is rendered Mother of God, which grates on the nerves of Protestants. Unfortunately the English translation does not carry the intent of the Greek word theotokos. The Greek word fixes attention rather on the Godhead of him who was born. To deny that she [Mary] was Theotokos was really to deny that he who was born of her was God as well as man.33 The term really has no suggestion that Mary gave birth to the divine nature of God. Is Chalcedon a dead issue? Hardly! There are those in the heritage of theological liberalism who regard it as a form of dogma which should never have been brought into existence.34 Those who are enamored by rationalism, certain forms of pantheism, and cultism have yet to make terms with Chalcedon. On the other hand, there are those who accept it in essence but deny the necessity of going beyond the biblical data on the subject. Jesus Christ is the God-man. Therefore, Brunner concludes, Chalcedon is bound to the past and the biblical word is sufficient.35 The importance of Chalcedon is that it defined the doctrine concerning the person of Christ for the primary purpose of safeguarding against heresy. It does not explain how the Incarnation took place. It does explain where the lines can be drawn and heresy denounced. We do not turn to Chalcedon because of traditionalism, but we look at it for the purpose of linking ourselves with a formal statement which attempted to safeguard the biblical message that Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. Unaccepted Views Concerning Jesus Christ In the attempt to come to a comprehensive statement on the person of Jesus Christ, many views were set forth. Obviously not all of them could be right, and several were condemned as heterodox, or erroneous. We need to view these attempts from the right perspective. It is easy to write off the ancients who came to be regarded as heretics without thinking of their motive and purpose. In some cases they were sincere men who were striving to find and formulate answers to the greatest problem of their time: namely, who is Jesus Christ? As it happened, they came up with the wrong or inadequate answers. Others, however, were attempting to impose paganism on Christian thought and thus the motive was false. The value of the following brief sketch of the unaccepted views of Christ rests in seeing that old heresies arise in new disguise in almost every period. Ebionism:--- The Ebionites were Jewish followers of Jesus who solved the problem of the divine nature of Christ by denying it altogether. There seems to be a difference of opinion among them over his virgin birth, but some conceived of him as a human on whom the Spirit of the Lord came. After the enduement with the Spirit, Jesus assumed his prophetic office and through his piety became the Son of God. 36 This type of Jewish influence can be seen, in part, in the Judaizers who nearly succeeded in getting the church to observe the Jewish law. Only by ignoring the New Testament can one conclude for this view. In modern times, the attitude of the Ebionites can be paralleled in the thinking of some religious liberals. Liberalism has little use for dogmas of the past. It attempted to throw off the dogmatic formulations concerning the person of Christ and return to what was presumed to be the simple religion of Jesus. The distinction, the religion about Jesus versus the religion of Jesus, was accepted by liberalism.37 The recovered view of Jesus as held by some liberals was essentially parallel to the Ebionites. Adoptionism.---Adoptionism has a relationship to the Ebionites. The adoptionists believed that Jesus was like any ordinary person, but at one point in his life was adopted as the Son of God. The point at which he became the Son of God, or adopted, was at birth or at his baptism.38 Paul of Samosata, the most important representative of adoptionism, declared that the Logos came and dwelt in Jesus, who was a man.39 Adoptionism denied the Incarnation in the true sense of the word. A real union of the Logos with man as expressed in Joh_1:14 is rejected. Adoptionism has been a real temptation to the church. However, it does a real disservice to the meaning of the New Testament. It is evident that adoptionism has isolated the Scripture witness to Christ as truly man from the total context of Scripture.40 Berkouwer concludes that in order to find Adoptionism in the New Testament, one must make a radical selection in Scripture--- a selection which obscures the mystery of the person and work of Christ.41 Docetism.---This is a view associated with the Greek word meaning to appear. Docetism was influenced by that strain of Greek thought which regarded spirit as good and matter and flesh as evil. Thus it was impossible for them to conceive of Gods really coming into contact with human flesh. What seemed to be the Incarnation was really only an appearance. Jesus was not a real human being but one who only appeared in human form.42 Basilides, one of the advocates, declared that Christ came in phantasm, was without substance of flesh, did not suffer at the hands of the Jews, but instead of him, Simon was crucified; hence we are not to believe in him who was crucified.43 Some how this idea circulated in Mecca since Muslim deny that Jesus was crucified. Docetism has to reject the events recorded in the Gospels because of its philosophical ideas taken over from Greek thought. However, the New Testament takes a strong stand against anyone denying the humanity of Christ. The letter entitled First John says, Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. 44 In fact, the Gospels, as well as other epistles, draw a picture of the genuine humanity of Christ.45 A modern modified type of Docetism is Christian Science. It denies the reality of the Incarnation. It presupposes that matter is evil and that God could not become a corporal man subject to death.46 Apollinarianism:--- Apollinaris ( b. A.D.. 310 ) , bishop of Laodicea, in Syria, reasoned that it was impossible to combine the divine and human natures of Jesus, the Christ. Accepting the trichotomous nature of man as being body, soul, and spirit, he argued that the human nature of Jesus was composed of body and soul but the divine Logos took the place of the spirit. On this basis the human nature of Jesus would not be complete. Apollinarianism was rejected by the Council of Constantinople in 381. As a doctrine it was really a form of Docetism by suggesting that Jesus was not a real or complete man. It would be questionable whether he should be called a man at all, and the whole gospel story is based on a divine deception of a person who seemed to be man but was not. Apollinarianism raised questions concerning the completeness of redemption. If Jesus were without a human spirit, a real part of mans nature, then it was concluded that something in mans redemption would be overlooked. Great emphasis was attached to the necessity of Christs being like man in all respects, except for sin, in order for him to be the Redeemer of man. A being less than man could not enter wholly into mans plight. Gregory of Nazianzus summed up this thought concerning the incompleteness of the Incarnation with reference to the matter of redemption in saying `What has not been assumed cannot be restored; it is what is united with God that is saved. 47 Nestorianism. ---Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, was charged with having taught that the two natures of Christ merely existed in conjunction with each other without a clear union. Nestorianism implied that there were two natures and two persons rather than two natures and one person. Nestorianism was first condemned at the Council of Ephesus in A.D.. 431 and later at the Fifth Ecumenical Council meeting at Constantinople in A.D. 553. Whether Nestorius himself was really heterodox is debated,48 but at least Nestorianism, as historians have come to understand it, would have involved a simple moral unity between the two natures. The Incarnation would be a simple relationship between the human and the divine rather than the Words becoming flesh. Eutychianism—: Eutyches was a monk of Constantinople who attempted to defend the unity of Christs person. He may have been rash to the point that his statements imply more than he wanted to say. Eutychianism has come historically to mean a view that when the divine and human natures came together a fusion took place that made Jesus Christ a third entity, or nature. Eutyches declared, `I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature. 49 With the union of the two natures into one the humanity of the incarnate Word is no longer homoousion, i.e., of like substance with man, but is absorbed into the divine nature. Whatever the personal position of Eutyches might have been, the ideas associated with his name were rightly condemned. In conclusion to this brief survey of the more prominent heresies, we believe that they were rightly rejected by church councils. Although there may have been many political, ecclesiastical, and tactical implications in their rejections, the consensus of opinion is that these ideas were wrong. Summed up, Ebionism and Docetism rejected the reality of the two natures. Arianism and Apollinarianism could not accept the integrity of the natures. Nestorianism, Adoptionism, and Eutychianism denied their proper union.50 There are no elaborated theories concerning the mechanics of the Incarnation in the Bible, but it is emphatic that with relation to God the incarnate Word is one with him by nature; and with relation to man, he is true man by nature also. There are certain ideas associated with modern times that require a few comments. Modern Views Concerning the Christ After the period of the early heresies, there were few new developments in the doctrine concerning the person of Christ. The Middle Ages saw some outbreaks of old ideas, but little else. The two views discussed below are associated with different periods. The first idea is associated with Luther, though it has roots back in the period of the Church Fathers. The other idea is often associated with a serious type of biblically oriented liberalism. Communicatio idiomatum:--- The term refers to the communication of properties, or communication of attributes. In the Incarnation the properties of the divine nature are communicated to the human nature and vice versa. However, the doctrine is generally slanted toward the attributing of the divine attributes to the human nature.51 The Lutheran view of the bodily presence of Christ in the Lords Supper is contingent upon this doctrine. Christs body is omnipresent because the incarnate Son is omnipresent. Therefore, the literal body is present in the elements.52 There are some serious questions connected with this doctrine. Not only does it lack a scriptural foundation but it implies a fusion of the divine and the human natures in Christ. 53 Kenosis:--- The kenosis doctrine concerning the person of Christ came forth from the motivation of doing justice to the unity of Christs consciousness.54 There is also an attempt to account for the growth and development in the life of Jesus. Building on Philippians Phi_2:6-8, in which Christ emptied himself, it was declared that the attributes of deity were laid aside. Thus the humanity of Jesus was emphasized along with the growth of his divine self-consciousness and calling. It is questionable whether the Scriptures will allow such an interpretation of these passages. Should it succeed exegetically, it is no longer evident that it is truly God who comes to us in Christ. A genuine union is then out of the picture.55 Berkouwer further concludes, At the end of the road, when the reconstruction of Christology was undertaken, arose the danger of the complete humanization of Christ. 56 Conclusions and Implications As we reflect upon the biblical view of Christology, we must conclude with the Scriptures that Jesus, the Christ, was more than mere man. He is vere Deus and vere homo. This has been the teaching of the Christian faith since the time of the apostles. With the rise of liberalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a distinction was drawn between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus---said to be the work of the corrupter, Paul. This much is implied by this distinction: Christianity is built upon a falsehood, or a mistake. At the same time, we must remark that the gospel declaring the incarnate Word has had more power in transforming lives than the gospel of human virtue and achievement, which is supposedly the true gospel. Athanasius was correct to say that only God can save the fallen race. `We ourselves were the motive of His Incarnation; it was for our salvation that He loved man to the point of being born and of appearing in a human body. 57 Where there is an attempt on the part of modern man to write off the divine-human nature of the person of Christ, there is a return to some form of ancient heresy or rationalism. The doctrine assumes such an importance that the words of Scripture need to be reiterated : Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God (1Jo_4:15) . But whoever confesses otherwise, let him beware. V. Jesus, the Christ 1Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 183 2Ibid. 3 Church Dogmatics I-2, 160. 4Kelly, op. cit., p. 285. 5Cf. Kelly, op. cit., p. 138, where he declares, The New Testament writers generally regarded Christ as pre-existent; they tended to attribute to Him a twofold order of being, `according to the flesh i.e., as man, and `according to rhe spirit, i.e. as God. So deeply was this formula embedded in their thinking that F. Loofs justly labelled it `the foundation of all later Christological development. 6We are indebted to Loraine Boettner for his cataloging of the Scripture veferences in the description of Jesus life. See his Studies in Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), pp. 140-268. 7Rudolph Bultmann, Form Criticism (New York: Harper & Bros., 1962), pp. 71-74. 8Boettner, op. cit., p. 149. 9Boettner has an extended list. Jesus is called King of Israel, John 1 :49; `The Saviour, II Peter l:ll; Master, Mt. 23:10; Jude 4; Son of God, John 1:34, 20:31; Son of Man, Mt. 17:9; Jesus, Mt. 1:21; Christ, Mt. 16:16; Saviour, John 4:42; Acts 5:31; Messiah, John 1:41; 4:25-26; The Lamb of God, John 1:29; `The Word, John 1:1; The Only Begotten Son, John 3:16; Redeemer, Gal. 3:13; . The Image of God II Cor. 4:4; The Effulgence of His Glory, Heb. 1:3; The Very Image of His Substance, Heb. 1:3; Great High Priest, Heb. 4:14; The Author of our Salvation, Heb. 2:10; The Author and Perfecter of our Faith, Heb. 12:2; The Head of the Church, Eph. 5:23; . . . The Power of God, and the Wisdom of God I Cor. 1:24; The Bread of Life John 6:35; The Living Bread, John 6:51; The True Vine, John 15:1; The Door, John 10:7; The Holy and Righteous One, Acts 3:14; The Prince of Life, Acts 3:15; . . . The Lord God, Rev. 1:8; My Lord and my God, John 20:28. These titles assume more significance when it is understood that they come from a strictly zealous monotheistic background. Op. cit., pp. 151-52. 10 John 1: 18 (Aleph B. C. text); 20:28; I John 5:20; Heb. 1 :8; II Pet. l:l; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13, and perhaps Acts 18:26; I Tim. 3:16. Ibid., p. 151. 11Christianity and Liberalism, p. 103 12Ibid. 13J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper & Bros., 1930). 14 William Hordern, A Laymans Guide to Protestant Theology (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1957), pp. 19-20. 15 A recent news release on a survey by a team of University of California sociologist showed that only 57 percent of Protestants believed in the virgin birth, while 81 percent of Roman Catholics did. 16Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952), p. 354. Brunner declares concerning the virgin birth, `Thus we must assume, either, that the Apostles were unaware of this view, or, that they considered it unimportant, or even mistaken. 17Church Dogmatics, I-2, 181. Cf. his statement in Dogmatics in Outline p. 100. One thing may be definitely said, that every time people want to fly from this miracle, a theology is at work, which has ceased to understand and honor the mystery as well, and has rather essayed to conjure away the mystery of the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ, the mystery of Gods free grace. 18Church Dogmatics, I-2, 197. 19Boettner, op. cit., pp. 183-84. 201 John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:21-22; Heb. 4: 15. 21G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, trans. John Vriend (Grand Ra~ ids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 245. 22Baptism portrayed a clear conscience and this seemed to be the testimony of Josephus in the first centuries. He wrote, Who [John] was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.-Antiquities of the ,lews, book 18, chapter 5, section 2, quoted in Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951 ), p. 104. 23A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, II, 61. 24 Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, p. 261. 25Ibid. 26Matt. 5:18,20,22,26,28,32,34,39,44. Many more could be given. 27J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen & Co., 1903 ), p. 287. 28 A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, II, 52. 29Ibid., p.53 30Ibid., p.54 31op.cit., p. 199 32Barth, Church Dogmatics, I-2, 149 33 Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 262. 34 DeWolf, op. cit., p. 73. As an ontological theory the Chalcedonian Creed , with its ancient metaphysical categories, is quite impossible for most of us. Yet, as an expression of our apprehension of God through the man Jesus, it speaks for our faith, as for theirs in the fifth century. 35The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 362. 36 Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 88. Cf. H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 587. 37 Cf. Harry E. Fosdick, The Hope of the World (New York: Harpers, 1933 ), pp. 103-4. Also Fosdicks The Modern Use of the Bible (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1924), pp. 181-86; 102. 38 Seeberg, op. cit., pp. 104-105 39 Ibid., p. 164. 40Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, p. 176. 41Ibid. 42Wolfson, op. cit., p. 588. 43Quoted in Seeberg, op. cit., p. 96 44 1 John 4:2,3; Cf. 1 John 5:5,9; 2:18-19. 45Luke 24:36-43; John 20:17,27; Heb. 2: 17. 46Cf. Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health (Boston: 1934), pp. 314, 322-32. 47Kelly, op. cit., p. 296. 48 With the discovery of the Bazaar of Heracleides in the early part of this century, J. F. Bethune-Baker and F. Loofs have attempted to defend Nestorius of the charge of heresy. It is certainly true that Nestorius was a victim of ecclesiastical politics, but whether he can be completely exonerated is a continuing question.
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:57:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015