Christology

A doctrine of the Person of Christ, and the study of it, has been an essential part of rational
thought about their beliefs once monotheistic Jews found that they were worshipping Jesus
Christ as God. The figure of Jesus of Nazareth was from the start the centre of Christian
preaching, and in the complementary presentation of him in the four biographical narratives of
the gospels Jesus is a unique human body who, replacing the Torah, revealed God through words
and deeds, and the death and resurrection. Down the ages it has taken many shapes, beginning
with the application of Christ (= Messiah) to Jesus; this asserted the connection of Jesus with
the aspirations and beliefs of the OT and the people of Israel, however interpreted.

After long and sometimes acrimonious debates the Church gave a final definition of its
Christology at the Council of Chalcedon in Asia Minor in 451 CE, affirming belief in Jesus
Christ as One Person in Two Natures, which are united without confusion. Much subsequent
thinking started with the premiss that Jesus was the second Person of the Trinity and then
speculated how he could have been man. An early suggestion had been that Jesus only appeared
to have had a physical body (this became known as the heresy of docetism and was ruled out by
stressing the genuine humanity of Jesus, descendant of David, 2 Tim. 2: 8). Nevertheless there
continued a long tradition in the Church which emphasized the divine nature of Christ at the
expense of his humanity.

Much recent Christology claims to work from below up, that is to say, to begin with the
humanity of Jesus and go on to show that the evidence leads to a recognition also of his divinity.
It is a procedure beset with problems; for it necessarily depends upon controversial assessment of
the historical value of the gospels which recount words and deeds of Jesus within the context of
an interpretative apparatus. Examples are the messages of angels at the beginning and end,
voices from heaven (at the baptism and transfiguration), various theological reflections (e.g.
Luke 23: 445), and constant references (especially in Matthew) to OT prophecies.

On the other hand, there is much in the narratives of the gospels which can be accepted as
historically trustworthy and which provides a foundation for a modern Christology. Events
which are recorded in spite of being obviously embarrassing to the early Church and which
might therefore have been understandably omitted impress for their veracity; an example is the
baptism of Jesus and the history of its treatment from Mark, through Matthew (3: 14); Luke (3:
21), where the baptism by John is not mentioned explicitly; and John (1: 33), which does not
record the baptism of Jesus at all. Such a progress reveals the embarrassment felt that Jesus
should have undergone a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1: 4). It was
his selfidentification with his people, but theological interpretation is evident: there is the
mention of the heavenly voice, where Matthew uses a rabbinic image, the bath qol, to confirm
the readers' inference that there is a pattern of events similar to that of the Exodus (of Israel).
There can be no doubt about the crucifixion and little doubt that Jesus at the end cried, My God,
why have you forsaken me? (Mark 15: 34), where Luke (23: 46) prefers the cry, Into your
hands I commend my spirit. Equally authentic are the stories of Jesus consorting with
disadvantaged, unpopular, and despised people, and the accounts of miracles of healing and
exorcizing.
Given the recognition that the gospels portray a genuinely human Jesus whose mode of life and
teaching provoked opposition almost from the start (Mark 3: 6), we are entitled to take a further
step by noting the theological interpretation given to some of these events. That Jesus was born
somewhere in Palestine at the end of the reign of Herod the Great is a fact of history, but the
interpretation of Matthew and Luke that the birth by Mary without the agency of a human father
is an assertion that the man Jesus came from God to inaugurate a new relationship between God
and humanity. The Transfiguration (Mark 9: 28), often dismissed by critics as a
postresurrection narrative which has been lifted out of the oral tradition into its present
significant location within the ministry, need not be regarded as theological fiction. The account
of Jesus' shining garments is paralleled by authentic accounts of the luminosity of saints. But the
theological apparatus of the cloud and the arrival of Moses and Elijah are pointers to the belief
that this wholly human figure can be discerned by faith to be invested with a transcendental
glory.

Beginning therefore with clear expressions of the humanity of Jesus, of a life within the
historical conditions of human existence, it is discernible that the gospels also bestow on it a
depth of glory which goes beyond our own humanity. In him there is a combination of the
authority in his teaching, an outreach of unselfish love, and a total obedience, with humility, to
God's calling. Jesus' words and deeds, his death and resurrection, are not merely images or hints
of divine love: they were perceived as the actuality of divine love.

The NT account of the Person of Christ is also expressed in the use of an extraordinary range of
terms, or names, derived from the OT. He was proclaimed as the great High Priest, the Lord
(Acts 7: 60), Immanuel, God with us.

Among these, the best known are the Son of Man and the Son of God, which have often been
seen as straight references to Jesus' humanity and divinity respectively. But it is not so simple.
Both terms have a long history in the OT and later literature and have been the subject of a whole
industry of scholarship. Was Son of Man used by Jesus himself with or without the definite
article? Are the sayings in the gospels authentic utterances of Jesus? If so, do they refer to
himself or to some other figure? Are they references to an individual or to a collection of people?
Does the Aramaic simply mean man in general, or does the background of the term denote a
supernatural, apocalyptic figure that was taken over by the Palestinian Christian community and
applied in the first generation of the Church to Jesus?

There is wide agreement that at least certain sayings in the gospels cannot be the words of Jesus
himself, such as Matt. 16: 13. There is also considerable agreement about the almost complete
absence of the term Son of Man outside the gospels: that the phrase was so consecrated to the
lips of Jesus that others in the NT did not use it of him. As to the meaning, it is probable that, in
Aramaic, it was an oblique, reticent way of referring to himselfI, being the man I am The
Son of Man was not a Messianic title and in using it Jesus was not laying claim to Messiahship;
but neither was he denying such a claim.

Son of God was a familiar expression in Hebrew and Jewish thought: it does not characterize a
divine being but is used of male persons who are believed to stand in a close relationship to God.
The gospels maintain that Jesus was Son of God in a pre-eminent sense, as is apparent from the
application of the expression to him by the Voice at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration. In the
Hellenistic world into which the Church advanced, Son of God was being accorded to the
Roman emperor Augustus and his successors, so that Son of God, an early use in the Church (1
Thess. 1: 10), made possible an easy transition from Jewish to Gentile understanding. The early
and authentic origins of the phrase as applied to Jesus is indicated by the unconcealed confession
of the ignorance of the Son (Mark 13: 32), though the Son does enjoy a unique knowledge of the
Father (Matt. 11: 27).

Another title which made an easy transition to the Hellenistic world was Lord (kurios, in
Greek; used in the LXX with the definite article for The Lord or Yahweh) which could mean
merely sir but to Gentile converts would imply supernatural status. It was already acquiring this
meaning in the third gospel, written for Gentile readers (Luke 22: 61). Cf. Phil. 2: 1011.

There is therefore in the NT, especially in the gospel of John, material which led to the classical
Christological definitions. Emphases and terminology certainly vary, but all the NT authors share
a common faith in Jesus as the unique agent of God's saving purpose for humankind. Some
fortytwo names or titles of Jesus are used in the NT; his humanity is clearhe is a son of
Joseph, rabbi, prophetyet the gospels were compiled that you may come to believe that
Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20: 21, making explicit what was unformulated in
the synoptic gospels). Jesus was tempted to escape the cup of suffering (Mark 14: 36) but
through death was vindicated by resurrection and then bestowed the Spirit on his disciples (Luke
24: 49; John 20: 22).