Who He Is
In Michael Horton's section in Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism I found a really good distinction between Eastern and Western thought. Horton says:It in an oversimplification, but it may be said generally that, while Western theological systems often follow a Trinitarian pattern reflected in the Apostles Creed, the focus is often more on the work of the persons than on their perichoretic unity and the nature of the hypostatic union of the God-Man. This becomes most apparent in the second article, where Western theology tends to regard Christology as an essential means to the end of soteriology. Thus, there is an emphasis on the cross and the resurrection as the apex of human redemption. In Eastern patristic and Byzantine theology, however, the accent falls on the incarnation itself. Jesus Christ the God-Man is not only who he is in order to be a Savior; he is Savior precisely in being who he is.This comment really struck a chord in me as I continue through my long-going paradigm shift in Christology and soteriology. I had a debate with a great Calvinist friend of mine once. As we debated the obvious issues of determinism and destiny the inevitable question arose concerning grace. His claim was that there was no grace before the Fall. Furthermore, he suggested that the Fall had to happen in order to have a Savior -- for you can't have a Savior without sin.
These beliefs do not only represent a convoluted view of grace, they also have a very functional understanding of Christology and soteriology. Is it Christ's work on the cross that makes him the Savior?
I will assert that Jesus' works flow from who He is, and not the other way around. His works do not make him anything, rather who he is determines what he does. Jesus is the self-emptying Savior, not just because He willfully died on a cross, but because he is fundamentally self-emptying. It is essential to his nature. It is at the heart of deity. John's revelation was not of a conquering King who gave his life; it was of a lamb standing as though slaughtered who conquered.
He is holy.
He is love.
He is holy love. Not because anything he has done. It is who he is.
Praise the name of Jesus!
16 Comments:
Good point! Yet, let us be careful that we do not separate the work of Christ from the person of Christ. It is the Incarnation of the Son that brings salvation, but the Son is not incarnate from all eternity. With the assumption of our humanity, the Son takes on himself all that our condition entails existentially. In the words of Athenasius, he took upon himself our decay and our falleness in order to reverse it. He borrowed death in order to die and be raised for our sakes. Hence, the acts of the Son as the Incarnate Savior, Jesus, cannot be separated from the Person of the Trinity who makes himself (by His work) to be our Savior. The Person not the Work of Christ saves us, but He saves us by His work.
Update: don't forget about little me at thining is good for you.
Sean,
I think that certain topics should not be allowed to be part of theological discussions. Christology is one of them. :)
First rules of engagement for discussion on Christology (according to MG):
1. Determine if Christ had two natures (Divine & Human)
2. If you accept that He had two natures go to #3, if you think that Jesus Christ was only of one nature, man only or God only, go back and read your Bible two times, and call Sean if you are having problems grasping the Word.
3. Now since the human mind can not comprehend how Christ can be 100% God, and 100% man, separate the two for discussion purposes.
4. Define the 100% God nature of Christ.
5. Now, define the 100% man nature of Christ.
6. Now take steps 4 & 5 and put them together in a way that they still only equal 100% total.
Then after all of that, Sean states at the end of his post, “God id Holy. God is love. God is Holy love.”
If you are going to try to discuss those two natures of God (Holy & love), there is already a topic posted on 6/20/05 just for that with 51 posting (currently), and we still don’t know the answer.
Okay…on a more serious note.
I think that Christ defined Himself as best we can understand, “I am.”
He just is. There is no one we can compare Him to, there is nothing we can measure Him against, and there is no way to express or comprehend the nature of Christ. He just is who He is.
There is no concept that we can apply to define the two natures, and how they co-exist. Some of us may figure out a way to somewhat grasp the concept, but to try and explain it in words is almost futile.
As far as we are concerned, He is God, and He lived as man so that we might be saved. His incarnation was a loving act out of His Godly nature. His dying on the cross as man was an act that we might come close to comprehending, as men.
The more significant act that He endured for our salvation, however, was the moment of being separated from God the Father. That was an act far greater than anything He suffered in the flesh. His greatest suffering was spiritual.
He is who He is,
-Matt Gaiser
Matt,
Toward the end of your post you come express a point of view that could be read as perilously close to an ancient heresy. You said.
"As far as we are concerned, He is God, and He lived as man so that we might be saved. His incarnation was a loving act out of His Godly nature. His dying on the cross as man was an act that we might come close to comprehending, as men."
Jesus is God incarnate. That is the mystery. But to say that he "lived as an man" could easily be construed to mean that he was not really a man.
You also said "There is no concept that we can apply to define the two natures, and how they co-exist. Some of us may figure out a way to somewhat grasp the concept, but to try and explain it in words is almost futile."
I would suggest that you read treatments of the mystery of the Incarnation by Thomas Aquinas in Part 3 of Summa Theologica. He articulates a way to envision the mystery without "explaining" it. Surely mute silence is not what this great mystery should produce in the Church. The question is not whether or not 100% + 100% = 100%. THe issue is how the divine person of the Son can assume into Himself a human nature and still be the Son. There are many treatments of theology besides Aquinas that do a good job of dealing with this. Besides, if you cast the discussion as you have in terms of natures (100% x 2) you run the risk of an unacceptable dualism regarding the Person of the Son as divine/human.
Finally, when you speak of his separation from HIs Father, of what do you speak? Surely not the cry of abandonment on the cross. I know that many soteriologies have embraced the view that some sort of rupture took place the Son and the Father at that moment. However, those interpretations are fraught with all sorts of other theological problems, i.e, how there can be separation in the oneness of God.
Steve,
I never intended to come across as saying that Jesus was not really a man. After re-reading my post, I don’t think that anyone would think that I was saying that.
Just for the record though, I will restate my intended perspective on that matter. Jesus was totally man (period, end of that sentence). Jesus was totally God (period, and of that sentence).
In regards to the incarnation of Christ, that is only one part of Christology. Christology deals with who Christ was and “is,” the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. While understanding, or trying to understand, the incarnation will help the rest of the picture fall into place, we can not stop with the incarnation alone.
I don’t think we can grasp Christ’s entire life from birth to reserrection as 100% man, and 100% God. We may be able to envision certain aspects, but not the entirety of man & God in one.
As far as separation from the Father, I guess we will just have to disagree because that is an entirely different subject, and would greatly distract from the discussion at hand. I will say that you read, and understood my post correctly in saying that Jesus was separated from the Father.
No, I do not draw this from His cry of abandonment on the cross. Many would say that His cry was quoting Psalms 22:1 (which would then refer the Jews to that scripture, and all the prophecies within it that He was currently fulfilling).
I did not say that God the Father rejected Jesus. I said that there was separation. This was due to the fact that Jesus Christ took on the sins of the world. God the Father could not look upon sin, and sin separates us from God.
Adam and Eve sinned, and were separated, but not rejected.
Also when Christ rose from the dead, He said, “John 20:17 (New International Version)
17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
Christ was made sin. Christ did not sin, but He took on our sins.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (King James Version)
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Okay I will stop there with a VERY brief explanation to your question.
Like I said, that is another topic, for another discussion.
-Matt
PS- When I said that Christology is a topic that I think should not be allowed in a theological discussion, it was in jest...
Matt,
I enjoyed your treatise on the "mystery" of Christology in your original post, but Steve is right when he points out that shrouding our doctrine in muted mystery will benefit no one. Even our discussion here is an articulation of theology (limited as we are).
There are ALOT of issues that have been brought up... I'll only pick out one. I agree with Steve, when he writes,
"many soteriologies have embraced the view that some sort of rupture took place the Son and the Father at that moment (calvary). However, those interpretations are fraught with all sorts of other theological problems, i.e, how there can be separation in the oneness of God."
Whether you see this "separation" in the incarnation or the atonement makes little difference, both suggest a break in the Triune nature of God... which is either impossible or of incredible consequence to all our theology.
You reason that such a separation existed (even momentarily) due to the presence of sin--or the taking on of the sin of the world. You point to Adam and Eve as a comparative illustration of this "separation". Two thoughts: 1) Adam and Eve had an entirely different relationship with God--they were "man" but not "God/Man". 2) It seems to me that God did not hide his face from his creation--in fact, the opposite occured, they hid their faces from God--He instead entered the garden to bring redeeming grace to fallen man. We speak of a "spiritual death/separtion" from God as a consequence of sin, but I don't think it is quite so literal. If God completely removed himself from the presence of sin--there would be no such thing as "soteriology".
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Okay... I herby remove my cooment that Christology should not be allowed in a theological discussion. I should have clarified that I was making a comment in jest. I was more saying that for an online discussion it is a difficult thing for “me” to articulate online.
I in no way, shape or form, think that we should be silent on the topic. If I really thought that, I would not have responded.
I am simply a guy who has worked in foodservice my entire adult life. I do not hold a degree in Bible, I am not a professor of Theology, and I certainly do not know 100% what all the church counsels have said throughout history. I just go to Church pray, read the Word, love God, and love others.
So I have a few questions that would greatly help me in this area.
1) Who took on the sins of the world?
What I am asking is, did anyone take on the sins of the world? I mean did Jesus Christ (God/Man) do it by himself, or did God (triune) take on the sins.
2) If Jesus Christ (God/man) took on our sins, how could He do that without God (triune) taking on the sins as well?
I have always thought that the wages of sin were death. Death is separation from God. So did Jesus Christ not really die? I always thought that Jesus Christ died for our sins. If He was never separated from God (death) then He never really died?
I am asking these questions out of true curiosity. I have never heard someone say that there was no separation from God (triune) when Christ “died.”
I have always thought that Jesus Christ took our consequence for our sins, which was death (separation from God). Now you guys are saying that He never died, and that it was only a death in the flesh?
I can not explain, however, how there can be separation from oneness. I know what I believe, but can not explain it. I just justify it by saying that man can not fully 100% comprehend the trinity, and the triune nature of God, and so there will be things that we can not explain, but must take by faith.
I truly am curious as to these questions, they are not meant to be an attack on anyone’s beliefs.
In Him,
-Matt
To All,
This has been a great dialogue! I don't think any of you (barring Blakemore) understand the significance of this dialogue. I find it beautiful that lay people to pastors to professors are grappling with the truth of who Jesus is. This debate is as old as Christianity. I hope that the dialogue on this subject continues.
I was thinking about Gregory of Nyssa, who in the fourth century complained that he couldn't go anywhere around the city of Constantinople without someone trying to engage him in debate over the two natures of Jesus Christ. It wasn't just theologians, but it was tradespeople also. In his book "On the Deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", he said, "If you ask for change, someone philosophizes to you on the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you ask the price of bread, you are told, 'The Father is Greater, and the Son is inferior.' If you ask 'Is the bath ready?' someone answers, 'The Son was created from nothing.' (The debate was over Arius' views of Christology) We argue those beliefs that hold the most importance to us. I hope Christology is central for us all.
May we continue to find truth.
Matt, your points are very logical. You're working under the presumption that because God is holy he can have absolutely no contact whatsoever with sin (an idea very familiar with all of us raised under the preaching of the holiness movt.)
However, if you accept that idea, then you have to deal with the divinity of Christ. He did take on the sins of the world, so does that make him unholy? If being holy means having no contact with sin, it might. Morever, if the Father and Spirit separated themselves from Christ at the cross (or wherever) because he was "contaminated by sin".... if Christ was quarantined from the Trinity... does that make him less divine, less holy and consequently inferior to the Father and Spirit?
If God can have absolutely no contact with human sin how did Jesus eat with tax collectors and sinners? Why were they so drawn to him? How will any one stand before him on the day of judgment? How will any of us enter the gates of heaven--are we absolutely purged of every hidden sin? Forgiven I'm sure, but all sin removed from our lives? There aren't unknown un-Christlike attitudes, or actions (infirmities) in our lives that are nonetheless "sinful" at their core? How will a holy God deal with those?
Where we may say Jesus died a "physical death" as a result of the atonement or the incarnation or both... I don't believe we can go so far as to say that was "spiritually dead" and separated from the Father and Spirit.
But I'll be silent now, I haven't cracked out any old theology texts or anything... these are just my own ramblings probably in error.
Matt, you're a great thinker who is making me think more about these ideas every moment. I'm trying not to make many claims, just thinking aloud with the rest of you. You've raised some very deep and interesting questions.
To all,
The question by Matt, "who took on sin?" Answer: GOD the Son. St. Paul says that all of the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ.
That claim does not deny the particular claim that the Son (or Logos, a la St. John) became flesh and bore our sins. But it indicates to us that we cannot make an ultimate ontological separation between the Persons of the Trinity. So, in some way the Son becomes incarnate so that the Triune God as the Triune God can bear our sins.
Now the only Christology that might have a problem with that would be one that is tied to a penal substitutionay theory of the atonement as the most essential understanding. IN that theory, someone has to pay (be punished by God) for sin. So, the Son in the flesh bears the punishment. Therefore, a separation might be emphasized in that soteriology, not for Christological reasons but because of the way that the person envisions God's method of saving us.
AT least, maybe..........
Okay...
I guess my main questions right now are:
What is death?
Did Christ experience death?
If His death was merely physical, why did His spirit grieve (in the garden) what was about to come?
Thanks for the input,
-Matt
Well, if Jesus became truly human (and that means all that it means to be us) then death would have been a fearful thing, even if he trusted the Father. Then there was the isolation that he was going to feel (which he obviously felt, even if kGod did not separate himself from him).
I also think, by the way, that there is a way in which we can talk about HIs taking spiritual death into himself. If the human condition was one of spiritual death, then he had to assume that. That, however, does not necessarily mean separation from the Father and the Spirit. It means that he as a human Savior took the worst of our condition into himself and he undid Adam's sin by so doing.
Something like that is what his death is about. That is why he grieves in the Garden, it is the sorrow of anticipation of the darkness that will come upon Him. The best way for us to think about the Garden prayer is to emphasize -- close to the point of over emphasis -- Christ's humanity and the self-emptying of the Son and his descent to identify with us so to redeem us by allowing us, through that identification, to begin to participate in the life of God. But the identification on his part with us had to be complete, so it had to include death physical and (in some sense) spiritual. But again, that does not entail separation from the Father.
Thank you Steve.
Does anyone have any insight (as I can't read Greek) into what is actually said when Jesus appears to Mary (after He has risen) and He says to her, "do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father."
First of all, was He in human, or divine nature at that point, or still both?
No matter which nature He was, why couldn't she touch Him?
-Matt
Matt, your questions go to the heart of the matter. I wish more Christians had you desire to think, as well as you capacitiy for it.
It seems to me the statement "don't touch me" (which more accurately probably is don't hold on to me) is a statement to Mary indicating to her that Christ's ascension has not been made complete. Mary does not realize that now Jesus is the risen Lord of all Creation and that his agenda is to return to the Father to complete the circle of redemption -- Descent into Sin -- Ascent to take our lives into the life of God.
He is speaking in neither divine or human natures. Rather, he is speaking as Jesus the Lord -- the God-Man Savior and Lord. Christ's nature is forever to be the God-Man. That is why he is the only Savior, because He is the only one in whome God and humanity meet and are reconciled. It is utterly crucial that we never fail to affirm the absolute uniqueness of Jesus. He is the only one of the Trinity who has united HImself to Creation. And He is the only created person (he was born of the Virgin a real creature in our world) who is God Incarnate. This is the mystery and this is the thing that Mary did not grasp at the resurrection.
He became what He was not, and He stayed what He became.
Mysterious indeed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog