“Christology”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Christology (from Greek Χριστός Khristós and {{lang|grc|-λογία}}, -logia), literally "the understanding of Christ,"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} is the study of the nature (person) and work (role in salvation){{refn|group=note|name="work"}} of Jesus Christ.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=1-3}}{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}^[1]{{refn|group=note|name="Definitions"}} It studies Jesus Christ's humanity and divinity, and the relation between these two aspects;{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=ch.6-9}} and the role he plays in salvation.

The earliest Christian writings gave several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and Kyrios, which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures.^[2] These terms centered around two themes, namely "Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God," and "Jesus as a creature elected and 'adopted' by God."^[2]

From the second to the fifth century, the relation of the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the early church and at the first seven ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division".{{sfn|Davis|1990|p=342}} Most of the major branches of Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to this formulation,{{sfn|Davis|1990|p=342}} while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches reject it,{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}{{sfn|Espín|Nickoloff|2007|p=217}}{{sfn|Beversluis|2000|p=21–22}} subscribing to miaphysitism.

Definition and approaches

Christology (from Greek Χριστός Khristós and {{lang|grc|-λογία}}, -logia), literally "the understanding of Christ,"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} is the study of the nature (person) and work (role in salvation){{refn|group=note|name="work"|The work of Jesus Christ:
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen: "soteriology, the doctrine of salvation"{{sfn|Kärkkäinen|2016}}
* biblicaltraining.org:
* "The Past Work of Christ, The Atoning Savior"^[1]
* "Present work of Christ: work as mediator and Lord"^[2]
* "Future work of Christ: work as coming judge and reigning king"^[2]}} of Jesus Christ.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=1-3}}{{request quotation|date=March 2019}}{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}^[3]^[4]{{refn|group=note|name="Definitions"|Definitions:
* Bart Ehrman: "the understanding of Christ";{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} "the nature of Christ—the question of Christology"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}
* Bird, Evans & Gathercole (2014): "New Testament scholars often speak about “Christology,” which is the study of the career, person, nature, and identity of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}
Raymond Brown (1994): "[C]hristology discusses any evaluation of Jesus in respect to who he was and the role he played in the divine plan."{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=3}}
* Bernard L. Ramm (1993): "Christology is the reflective and systematic study of the person and work of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}
* Matt Stefon, Hans J. Hillerbrand (Encyclopedia Britannica): "Christology, Christian reflection, teaching, and doctrine concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Christology is the part of theology that is concerned with the nature and work of Jesus, including such matters as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and his human and divine natures and their relationship."^[3]
Catholic Encyclopedia: "Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ. In its full extent it comprises the doctrines concerning both the person of Christ and His works."^[4]}} It studies Jesus Christ's humanity and divinity, and the relation between these two aspects;{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=ch.6-9}} and the role he plays in salvation.

"Ontological Christology" analyzes the nature or being^[5] of Jesus Christ. "Functional Christology" analyzes the works of Jesus Christ, while "soteriological Christology" analyzes the "salvific" standpoints of Christology.^[6]

Several approaches can be distinguished within Christology.{{refn|group=note|Bird, Evans & Gathercole (2014): "There are, of course, many different ways of doing Christology. Some scholars study Christology by focusing on the major titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, such as “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” “Messiah,” “Lord,” “Prince,” “Word,” and the like. Others take a more functional approach and look at how Jesus acts or is said to act in the New Testament as the basis for configuring beliefs about him. It is possible to explore Jesus as a historical figure (i.e., Christology from below), or to examine theological claims made about Jesus (i.e., Christology from above). Many scholars prefer a socio-religious method by comparing beliefs about Jesus with beliefs in other religions to identify shared sources and similar ideas. Theologians often take a more philosophical approach and look at Jesus’ “ontology” or “being” and debate how best to describe his divine and human natures."{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.5}}}} The term "Christology from above"{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}} or "high Christology"{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} refers to approaches that include aspects of divinity, such as Lord and Son of God, and the idea of the pre-existence of Christ as the Logos (the Word),{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}}{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}}{{sfn|Pannenberg|1968|p=33}} as expressed in the prologue to the Gospel of John.{{refn|group=note|{{bibleref|John|1:1–14|ESV}}}} These approaches interpret the works of Christ in terms of his divinity. According to Pannenberg, Christology from above "was far more common in the ancient Church, beginning with Ignatius of Antioch and the second century Apologists."{{sfn|Pannenberg|1968|p=33}} The term "Christology from below"{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16}} or "low Christology"{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} refers to approaches that begin with the human aspects and the ministry of Jesus (including the miracles, parables, etc.) and move towards his divinity and the mystery of incarnation.{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}}{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}}

Person of Christ

A basic Christological teaching is that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine. The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ apparently (prosopic) form a duality, as they coexist within one person (hypostasis).^[7] There are no direct discussions in the New Testament regarding the dual nature of the Person of Christ as both divine and human,^[7] and since the early days of Christianity, theologians have debated various approaches to the understanding of these natures, at times resulting in ecumenical councils, and schisms.^[7]

Historical christological doctrines which gained broader support are Monophysitism (monophysite controversy, 3rd-8th c.), Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox churches), Dyophysitism (Chalcedonian Creed), and Monarchianism (Adoptionism (2nd c. onwards); Modalism). Influential Christologies which were broadly condemned as heretical are Docetism (3rd-4th c.), Arianism (4th c.), and Nestorianism (5th c.).{{refn|group=note|Heretical Christologies:
* Docetism is the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. Docetic teachings were attacked by St. Ignatius of Antioch and were eventually abandoned by proto-orthodox Christians.{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}}
* Arianism viewed Jesus as primarily an ordinary mortal was considered at first heretical in 325, then exonerated in 335 and eventually re-condemned as heretical at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}}
* Nestorianism opposed the concept of hypostatic union, and emphasizes a radical distinction between two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ. It was condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431), and Monophysitism by the Council of Chalcedon (451).}}

Salvation

In Christian theology, atonement is the method by which human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.^[8] Atonement is the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,^[9] enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation. Due to the influence of Gustaf Aulèn's (1879-1978) Christus Victor (1931), the various theories or paradigma's of atonement are often grouped as "classical paradigm," "objective paradigm," and the "subjective paradigm":{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=2}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=11-20}}^[10]^[11]

Other theories are the "embracement theory" and the "shared atonement" theory.^[14]^[15]

Early Christologies (1st century)

Early notions of Christ

The earliest Christological reflections were shaped by both the Jewish background of the earliest Christians, and by the Greek world of the eastern Mediterranean in which they operated.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}}^[3]{{refn|group=note|Early Christians found themselves confronted with a set of new concepts and ideas relating to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as well the notions of salvation and redemption, and had to use a new set of terms, images, and ideas in order to deal with them.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}} The existing terms and structures which were available to them were often insufficient to express these religious concepts, and taken together, these new forms of discourse led to the beginnings of Christology as an attempt to understand, explain, and discuss their understanding of the nature of Christ.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}}

Early Jewish Christians had to explain their concepts to a Hellenistic audience which had been influenced by Greek philosophy, presenting arguments that at times resonated with, and at times confronted, the beliefs of that audience. This is exemplified by the Apostle Paul's Areopagus sermon that appears in Acts 17:16–34, where Paul is protrayed as attempting to convey the underlying concepts about Christ to a Greek audience. The sermon illustrates some key elements of future Christological discourses that were first brought forward by Paul.{{sfn|McGrath|2006|p=137–41}}^[16]^[17]}} The earliest Christian writings give several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and Kyrios, which were all derived from the Hebrew scriptures.^[3]{{sfn|Brown|1994|p=4}} According to Matt Stefon and Hans J. Hillerbrand,

Historically in the Alexandrian school of thought (fashioned on the Gospel of John), Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos who already possesses unity with the Father before the act of Incarnation.^[18] In contrast, the Antiochian school viewed Christ as a single, unified human person apart from his relationship to the divine.^[18]{{refn|group=note|The views of these schools can be summarized as follows:^[19] Alexandria: Logos assumes a general human nature; Antioch: Logos assumes a specific human being.}}

Pre-existence

The notion of pre-existence is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, and can be found in apocalyptic thought and among the rabbis of Paul's time,{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}} but Paul was most influenced by Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom literature, where "'Wisdom' is extolled as something existing before the world and already working in creation.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}} According to Witherington, Paul "subscribed to the christological notion that Christ existed prior to taking on human flesh [,] founding the story of Christ [...] on the story of divine Wisdom."{{sfn|Witherington|2009|p=106}}{{refn|group=note|Witherington: "[Christ’s Divinity] We have already seen that Paul, in appropriating the language of the christological hymns, subscribed to the christological notion that Christ existed prior to taking on human flesh. Paul spoke of Jesus both as the wisdom of God, his agent in creation (1 Cor 1:24, 30; 8:6; Col 1:15–17; see Bruce, 195), and as the one who accompanied Israel as the “rock” in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4). In view of the role Christ plays in 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul is not founding the story of Christ on the archetypal story of Israel, but rather on the story of divine Wisdom, which helped Israel in the wilderness."{{sfn|Witherington|2009|p=106}}}}

Kyrios

The title Kyrios for Jesus is central to the development of New Testament Christology.^[32] It is the Greek translation of Aramaic Mari, which in everyday Aramaic usage was a very respectful form of polite address, which means more than just "Teacher" and was somewhat similar to Rabbi. While the term Mari expressed the relationship between Jesus and his disciples during his life, the Greek Kyrios came to represent his lordship over the world.^[20]

The early Christians placed Kyrios at the center of their understanding, and from that center attempted to understand the other issues related to the Christian mysteries.^[21] The question of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is inherently related to the Kyrios title of Jesus used in the early Christian writings and its implications for the absolute lordship of Jesus. In early Christian belief, the concept of Kyrios included the pre-existence of Christ, for they believed if Christ is one with God, he must have been united with God from the very beginning.^[21]^[22]

Development of "low Christology" and "high Christology"

Two fundamentally different Christologies developed in the early Church, namely a "low" or adoptionist Christology, and a "high" or "incarnation Christology."{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=125}} The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.{{sfn|Loke|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2014}}{{sfn|Talbert|2011|p=3-6}}^[37]

The "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" is the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead,"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=120; 122}} thereby raising him to "divine status."^[23] According to the "evolutionary model"{{sfn|Netland|2001|p=175}} c.q. "evolutionary theories,"{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=3}} the Christological understanding of Christ developed over time,{{sfn|Mack|1995}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003}}^[24] as witnessed in the Gospels,{{sfn|Ehrman|2014}} with the earliest Christians believing that Jesus was a human who was exalted, c.q. adopted as God's Son,{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=3-4}}{{sfn|Talbert|2011|p=3}} when he was resurrected.^[24]^[25] Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his eternal existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John.^[24] This "evolutionary model" was proposed by proponents of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, especially Wilhelm Boussets influential Kyrios Christos (1913).{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=3-4}} This evolutionary model was very influential, and the "low Christology" has long been regarded as the oldest Christology.{{sfn|Bird|2017|p=ix, xi}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=132}}^[23]{{refn|group=note|Ehrman:
* "The earliest Christians held exaltation Christologies in which the human being Jesus was made the Son of God—for example, at his resurrection or at his baptism—as we examined in the previous chapter."{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=132}}
* Here I’ll say something about the oldest Christology, as I understand it. This was what I earlier called a “low” Christology. I may end up in the book describing it as a “Christology from below” or possibly an “exaltation” Christology. Or maybe I’ll call it all three things [...] Along with lots of other scholars, I think this was indeed the earliest Christology.^[26]}}

The other early Christology is "high Christology," which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come,"^[23]{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=122}} and from where he appeared on earth.{{refn|group=note|name="Christophany"}} According to Bousset, this "high Christology" developed at the time of Paul's writing, under the influence of Gentile Christians, who brought their pagan Hellenistic traditions to the early Christian communities, introducing divine honours to Jesus.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=4}} According to Casey and Dunn, this "high Christology" developed after the time of Paul, at the end of the first centiry CE when the Gospel according to John was written.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=4-5}}

Since the 1970s, these late datings for the development of a "high Christology" have been contested,{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}} and a majority of scholars argue that this "High Christology" existed already before the writings of Paul.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=125}}{{refn|group=note|Richard Bauckham argues that Paul was not so influential that he could have invented the central doctrine of Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place. The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). "What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles."{{sfn|Bauckham|2011|p=110-111}}}} According to the "New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,"{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}^[27] c.q. "Early High Christology Club,"^[47] which includes Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, N. T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham,{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}^[47] this "incarnation Christology" or "high Christology" did not evolve over a longer time, but was a "big bang" of ideas which were already present at the start of Christianity, and took further shape in the first few decades of the church, as witnessed in the writings of Paul.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}^[28]^[23]{{refn|group=note|name="Loke2017"|Loke (2017): "The last group of theories can be called 'Explosion Theories' (one might also call this 'the Big-Bang theory of Christology'!). This proposes that highest Christology was the view of the primitive Palestinian Christian community. The recognition of Jesus as truly divine was not a significant development from the views of the primitive Palestine community; rather, it 'exploded' right at the beginning of Christianity. The proponents of the Explosion view would say that the highest Christology of the later New Testament writings (e.g. Gospel of John) and the creedal formulations of the early church fathers, with their explicit affirmations of the pre-existence and ontological divinity of Christ, are not so much a development in essence but a development in understanding and explication of what was already there at the beginning of the Christian movement. As Bauckham (2008a, x) memorably puts it, 'The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.' Many proponents of this group of theories have been labelled together as 'the New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule ' (Hurtado 2003, 11), and they include such eminent scholars as Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, N. T. Wright and the late Martin Hengel."{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=5}}}} Some 'Early High Christology' proponents scholars argue that this "High Christology" may go back to Jesus himself.{{sfn|Loke|2017|p=6}}^[29]

New Testamentical writings

The study of the various Christologies of the Apostolic Age is based on early Christian documents.{{sfn|Gerald|2009|p=1-3}}

Paul

The oldest Christian sources are the writings of Paul.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=113}} The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}}{{sfn|Witherington|2009|p=106}} and the identification of Christ as Kyrios.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15–19}} Both notions already existed before him in the early Christian communities, and Paul deepened them and used them for preaching in the Hellenistic communities.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15}}

The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord.{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=142}} Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God.^[4]

The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology"{{refn|group=note|The concept of "Cosmic Christology", first elaborated by Saint Paul, focuses on how the arrival of Jesus as the Son of God forever changed the nature of the cosmos.{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15–19}}^[30]}} later developed in the fourth gospel,^[31] elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Also, in Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."{{sfn|Grillmeier|Bowden|1975|p=15–19}}^[30]

The Gospels

The synoptic Gospels date from after the writings of Paul. They provide episodes from the life of Jesus and some of his works, but the authors of the New Testament show little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life,^[32] and as in John 21:25, the Gospels do not claim to be an exhaustive list of his works.{{sfn|Gerald|2009|p=1-3}}

Christologies that can be gleaned from the three Synoptic Gospels generally emphasize the humanity of Jesus, his sayings, his parables, and his miracles. The Gospel of John provides a different perspective that focuses on his divinity.^[4] The first 14 verses of the Gospel of John are devoted to the divinity of Jesus as the Logos, usually translated as "Word", along with his pre-existence, and they emphasize the cosmic significance of Christ, e.g. John 1:3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." In the context of these verses, the Word made flesh is identical with the Word who was in the beginning with God, being exegetically equated with Jesus.^[4]

Controversies and ecumenical councils (2nd-8th century)

Following the Apostolic Age, from the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.{{sfn|Fahlbusch|1999|p=463}}{{sfn|Rausch|2003|p=149}} As of the second century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. In contrast to prevailing monoprosopic views on the Person of Christ, alternative dyoprosopic notions were also promoted by some theologians, but such views were rejected by the ecumenical councils. For example, Arianism did not endorse divinity, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body.{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}} The resulting tensions led to schisms within the church in the second and third centuries, and ecumenical councils were convened in the fourth and fifth centuries to deal with the issues.

Although some of the debates may seem to various modern students to be over a theological iota, they took place in controversial political circumstances, reflecting the relations of temporal powers and divine authority, and certainly resulted in schisms, among others that which separated the Church of the East from the Church of the Roman Empire.^[33]^[34]

First Council of Nicaea (325) and First Council of Constantinople (381)

In 325, the First Council of Nicaea defined the persons of the Godhead and their relationship with one another, decisions which were ratified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular, it was affirmed that the Son was homoousios (of the same being) as the Father. The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus.^[35]^[36]^[37] After the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the Trinity were being used interchangeably.^[38]

First Council of Ephesus (431)

In 431, the First Council of Ephesus was initially called to address the views of Nestorius on Mariology, but the problems soon extended to Christology, and schisms followed. The 431 council was called because in defense of his loyal priest Anastasius, Nestorius had denied the Theotokos title for Mary and later contradicted Proclus during a sermon in Constantinople. Pope Celestine I (who was already upset with Nestorius due to other matters) wrote about this to Cyril of Alexandria, who orchestrated the council. During the council, Nestorius defended his position by arguing there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine, and Mary had given birth only to a human, hence could not be called the Theotokos, i.e. "the one who gives birth to God". The debate about the single or dual nature of Christ ensued in Ephesus.^[39]^[40]^[41]^[42]

The First Council of Ephesus debated miaphysitism (two natures united as one after the hypostatic union) versus dyophysitism (coexisting natures after the hypostatic union) versus monophysitism (only one nature) versus Nestorianism (two hypostases). From the Christological viewpoint, the council adopted Mia Physis (But being made one κατὰ φύσιν) - Council of Ephesus, Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, i.e. One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē). In 451, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed dyophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox rejected this and subsequent councils and continued to consider themselves as miaphysite according to the faith put forth at the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus.^[43]^[44] The council also confirmed the Theotokos title and excommunicated Nestorius.^[45]^[46]

Council of Chalcedon (451)

The 451 Council of Chalcedon was highly influential, and marked a key turning point in the Christological debates.{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2006|p=1–5}} It is the last council which many Anglicans and most Protestants consider ecumenical.{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}

The Council of Chalcedon fully promulgated the Western dyophysite understanding put forth by Pope Leo I of Rome of the hypostatic union, the proposition that Christ has one human nature [physis] and one divine nature [physis], each distinct and complete, and united with neither confusion nor division&mdash.{{sfn|Fahlbusch|1999|p=463}}{{sfn|Rausch|2003|p=149}} Most of the major branches of Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Reformed) and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism) reject it.{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}{{sfn|Espín|Nickoloff|2007|p=217}}{{sfn|Beversluis|2000|p=21–22}}

Although the Chalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all Christological debate, it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for many future Christologies.{{sfn|Armentrout|Boak Slocum|2005|p=81}}{{sfn|Espín|Nickoloff|2007|p=217}}{{sfn|Beversluis|2000|p=21–22}} But it also broke apart the church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century,{{sfn|Price|Gaddis|2006|p=1–5}} and unquestionably established the primacy of Rome in the East over those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon. This was reaffirmed in 519, when the Eastern Chalcedonians accepted the Formula of Hormisdas, anathematizing all of their own Eastern Chalcedonian hierarchy, who died out of communion with Rome from 482-519.

Fifth-seventh Ecumenical Council (553, 681, 787)

The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 interpreted the decrees of Chalcedon, and further explained the relationship of the two natures of Jesus. It also condemned the alleged teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul, and other topics.^[47]

The Third Council of Constantinople in 681 declared that Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine, contrary to the teachings of the Monothelites,^[48] with the divine will having precedence, leading and guiding the human will.^[49]

The Second Council of Nicaea was called under the Empress Regent Irene of Athens in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the veneration of icons while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy".^[50]

9th-11th century

Eastern Christianity

Western medieaval Christology

The term "monastic Christology" has been used to describe spiritual approaches developed by Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux. The Franciscan piety of the 12th and 13th centuries led to "popular Christology". Systematic approaches by theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, are called "scholastic Christology".^[51]

In the 13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas provided the first systematic Christology that consistently resolved a number of the existing issues.^[52] In his Christology from above, Aquinas also championed the principle of perfection of Christ's human attributes.^[53]{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=208–12}}^[54]

The Middle Ages also witnessed the emergence of the "tender image of Jesus" as a friend and a living source of love and comfort, rather than just the Kyrios image.^[55]

Reformation

Modern developments

Liberal (Protestant) theology

The 19th century saw the rise of Liberal Protestant theology, which questioned the dogmatic foundations of Christianity, and approached the Bible with critical-historical tools.^[58] The divinity of Jesus was problematized, and replaced with an emphasis on the ethical aspects of his teachings.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=ch.4}}{{refn|group=note|Gerald O'Collins and Daniel Kendall have called this Liberal Protestant theology "neo-Arianism."{{sfn|O'Collins|Kendall|1996|p=30-31}}}}

Roman Catholicism

Topics

Nativity and the Holy Name

The Nativity of Jesus impacted the Christological issues about his Person from the earliest days of Christianity. Luke's Christology centers on the dialectics of the dual natures of the earthly and heavenly manifestations of existence of the Christ, while Matthew's Christology focuses on the mission of Jesus and his role as the savior.^[61]^[62] The salvific emphasis of Matthew 1:21 later impacted the theological issues and the devotions to Holy Name of Jesus.^[63]^[64]^[65]

Crucifixion and resurrection

The accounts of the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Jesus provides a rich background for Christological analysis, from the canonical Gospels to the Pauline Epistles.^[69]

A central element in the Christology presented in the Acts of the Apostles is the affirmation of the belief that the death of Jesus by crucifixion happened "with the foreknowledge of God, according to a definite plan".^[70] In this view, as in Acts 2:23, the cross is not viewed as a scandal, for the crucifixion of Jesus "at the hands of the lawless" is viewed as the fulfilment of the plan of God.^[70]^[71]

Paul's Christology has a specific focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus is directly related to his resurrection and the term "the cross of Christ" used in Galatians 6:12 may be viewed as his abbreviation of the message of the gospels.^[72] For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus was not an isolated event in history, but a cosmic event with significant eschatological consequences, as in Cor 2:8.^[72] In the Pauline view, Jesus, obedient to the point of death (Phil 2:8), died "at the right time" (Rom 4:25) based on the plan of God.^[72] For Paul, the "power of the cross" is not separable from the resurrection of Jesus.^[72]

Threefold office

The threefold office (Latin munus triplex) of Jesus Christ is a Christian doctrine based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. It was described by Eusebius and more fully developed by John Calvin. It states that Jesus Christ performed three functions (or "offices") in his earthly ministry – those of prophet (Deuteronomy 18:14–22), priest (Psalm 110:1-4), and king (Psalm 2). In the Old Testament, the appointment of someone to any of these three positions could be indicated by anointing him or her by pouring oil over the head. Thus, the term messiah, meaning "anointed one", is associated with the concept of the threefold office. While the office of king is that most frequently associated with the Messiah, the role of Jesus as priest is also prominent in the New Testament, being most fully explained in chapters 7 to 10 of the Book of Hebrews.

Mariology

Some Christians, notably Roman Catholics, view Mariology as a key component of Christology.^[73] In this view, not only is Mariology a logical and necessary consequence of Christology, but without it, Christology is incomplete, since the figure of Mary contributes to a fuller understanding of who Christ is and what he did.^[74]

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many of its assertions lack any biblical foundation.^[75] Strong Protestant reaction against Roman Catholic Marian devotion and teaching has been a significant issue for ecumenical dialogue.^[76]

See also

Notes

1. ^[https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology-ii/bruce-ware The Work of Jesus Christ: Summary]
2. ^¹[https://www.biblicaltraining.org/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology Lecture 8: The Work of Jesus Christ: Summary]
3. ^¹²³⁴⁵⁶Matt Stefon, Hans J. Hillerbrand, [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology Christology], Encyclopedia Britannica
4. ^¹²³⁴⁵Catholic encyclopedia, Christology
5. ^thinkapologetics.com, http://thinkapologetics.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesus-functional-or-ontological.html?m=1 Jesus- A Functional or Ontological Christology?]
6. ^Christology from within and ahead by Mark L. Y. Chan 2001 {{ISBN|90-04-11844-6}} pp. 59–62 [https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQJ74t0aE4C&pg=PA59&dq=ontological+christology&hl=en&ei=n6rfTOTAJM2Kswbao6X8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ontological%20christology&f=false]
7. ^¹²Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard J. Erickson, L. Arnold Hustad 2001 ISBN p. 234
8. ^"Atonement." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
9. ^Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition, atonement, retrieved October 03, 2012: "2. (often capital) Christian theol
a. the reconciliation of man with God through the life, sufferings, and sacrificial death of Christ
b. the sufferings and death of Christ"
10. ^Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, E.T. London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan,1931
11. ^Vincent Taylor, The Cross of Christ (London: Macmillan & Co, 1956), p. 71-2
12. ^Leon Morris, 'Theories of the Atonement' in Elwell Evangelical Dictionary.
13. ^{{citation|last=Tuomala|first=Jeffrey|year=1993|title=Christ's Atonement as the Model for Civil Justice|journal=American Journal of Jurisprudence|publisher=University of Notre Dame|volume=38|pages=221–255}}
14. ^Jeremiah, David. 2009. Living With Confidence in a Chaotic World, pp. 96 & 124. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.
15. ^Massengale, Jamey. 2013.Renegade Gospel, The Jesus Manifold. Amazon, Kindle
16. ^Creation and redemption: a study in Pauline theology by John G. Gibbs 1971 Brill Publishers pp. 151–53
17. ^Mercer Commentary on the New Testament by Watson E. Mills 2003 {{ISBN|0-86554-864-1}} pp. 1109–10
18. ^¹Karl Barth's christology by Charles T. Waldrop 1985 {{ISBN|90-279-3109-7}} pp. 19–23
19. ^Historical Theology: An Introduction by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 2000 {{ISBN|0567223574}} pages 50-51
20. ^The Christology of the New Testament by Oscar Cullmann 1959 {{ISBN|0-664-24351-7}} p. 202 [https://books.google.com/books?id=79Zovlpi8uQC&pg=PA202&dq=mari+aramaic+jesus&hl=en&ei=DUDeTMDXGoT2sgbW5tmEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=mari%20aramaic%20jesus&f=false]
21. ^¹²Christology: Biblical And Historical by Mini S. Johnson, 2005 {{ISBN|81-8324-007-0}} pp. 229–35 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3yRbs0tisC&pg=PA231&dq=Kyrios+christology&hl=en&ei=hTbeTIlPzfiyBoT30fUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kyrios%20christology&f=false]
22. ^The Christology of the New Testament by Oscar Cullmann 1959 {{ISBN|0-664-24351-7}} pp. 234–37 [https://books.google.com/books?id=79Zovlpi8uQC&pg=PA234&dq=Kyrios&hl=en&ei=WtjdTIyAHcfzsgb_qbCTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Kyrios&f=false]
23. ^¹²³{{cite web|last1=Ehrman|first1=Bart D.|authorlink1=Bart D. Ehrman|title=Incarnation Christology, Angels, and Paul |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/incarnation-christology-angels-and-paul-for-members/|website=The Bart Ehrman Blog|accessdate=May 2, 2018|date=February 14, 2013}}
24. ^¹²Bart Ehrman, How Jesus became God, Course Guide
25. ^Geza Vermez (2008), The Resurrection, p.138-139
26. ^[Bart Ehrman (6 feb 2013), [https://ehrmanblog.org/the-earliest-christology-for-members/ The Earliest Christology]
27. ^Larry Hurtado (July 10, 2015 ), [https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/early-high-christology-a-paradigm-shift-new-perspective/ "Early High Christology": A "Paradigm Shift"? "New Perspective"?]
28. ^¹²{{cite web|last=Bouma|first=Jeremy|title=The Early High Christology Club and Bart Ehrman — An Excerpt from "How God Became Jesus"|url=https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/how-god-became-jesus-bart-ehrman-high-christology-excerpt/|website=Zondervan Academic Blog|publisher=HarperCollins Christian Publishing|accessdate=May 2, 2018|date=March 27, 2014}}
29. ^¹Larry Hurtado, [https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/the-origin-of-divine-christology/ The Origin of “Divine Christology”?]
30. ^¹The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology by Larry R. Helyer 2008 {{ISBN|0-8308-2888-5}} p. 282
31. ^{{cite journal|last1=Enslin|first1=Morton S.|title=John and Jesus|journal=ZNW|date=1975|volume=66|issue=1–2|pages=1–18|doi=10.1515/zntw.1975.66.1-2.1|url=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zntw.1975.66.issue-1-2/zntw.1975.66.1-2.1/zntw.1975.66.1-2.1.xml|publisher=De Gruyter|issn=1613-009X|quote=[Per the Gospel of John] No longer is John [the Baptizer] an independent preacher. He is but a voice, or, to change the figure, a finger pointing to Jesus. The baptism story is not told, although it is referred to (John 1:32f). But the baptism of Jesus is deprived of any significance for Jesus – not surprising since the latter has just been introduced as the preexistent Christ, who had been the effective agent responsible for the world’s creation. (Enslin, p. 4)}}
32. ^Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 {{ISBN|0-86012-006-6}} p. 731
33. ^Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV p. 207, translated edition by H.R. Percival. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html
34. ^The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), XIV, pp. 192–42
35. ^Jonathan Kirsch, God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism (2004)
36. ^Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (2002)
37. ^Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88), 21
38. ^A concise dictionary of theology by Gerald O'Collins 2004 {{ISBN|0-567-08354-3}} pages 144-145
39. ^The creed: the apostolic faith in contemporary theology by Berard L. Marthaler 2007 {{ISBN|0-89622-537-2}} p. 114 [https://books.google.com/books?id=TY3-aZIo9HEC&pg=PA114&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=L5fhTP7zAcn3sgaIsPTxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false]
40. ^[https://books.google.com/books?id=uDZaZJkkWgQC&pg=PA18&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=L5fhTP7zAcn3sgaIsPTxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false Mary and the Saints by James P. Campbell 2005 0829417257 pp. 17–20]
41. ^Essential theological terms by Justo L. González 2005 {{ISBN|0-664-22810-0}} p. 120 [https://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C&pg=PA120&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=ZZfhTKzIIdCSswaWztz5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false]
42. ^Doctrine and practice in the early church by Stuart George Hall 1992 {{ISBN|0-8028-0629-5}} pp. 211–18 [https://books.google.com/books?id=TLyjrU3LPlUC&pg=PP7&dq=council+ephesus+nestorius+theotokos&hl=en&ei=ZZfhTKzIIdCSswaWztz5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=council%20ephesus%20nestorius%20theotokos&f=false]
43. ^Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer 1993 {{ISBN|0-8254-2340-6}} pp. 382–84 [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZFCoSSKTffcC&pg=PA382&dq=Hypostatic+union&hl=en&ei=AVPgTMvlGImU4Abtqvj6Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Hypostatic%20union&f=false]
44. ^The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity by Ken Parry 2009 {{ISBN|1-4443-3361-5}} p. 88 [https://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA88&dq=Miaphysitism&hl=en&ei=sVDgTKqDKpDOswbundTyCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Miaphysitism&f=false]
45. ^Fundamentals of Catholicism: God, Trinity, Creation, Christ, Mary by Kenneth Baker 1983 {{ISBN|0-89870-019-1}} pp. 228–31 [https://books.google.com/books?id=yBW8l1opH-oC&pg=PA228&dq=Hypostatic+union&hl=en&ei=AVPgTMvlGImU4Abtqvj6Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Hypostatic%20union&f=false]
46. ^Mary, Mother of God by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson 2004 {{ISBN|0802822665}} p. 84
47. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8068|title=The Fifth Ecumenical Council – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|publisher=|accessdate=5 March 2015}}
48. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8069|title=The Sixth Ecumenical Council – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|publisher=|accessdate=5 March 2015}}
49. ^The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology by Alan Richardson and John Bowden (Jan 1, 1983) {{ISBN|0664227481}} page 169
50. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8071|title=The Seventh Ecumenical Council – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America|publisher=|accessdate=5 March 2015}}
51. ^Christology: Biblical And Historical by Mini S. Johnson, 2005 {{ISBN|81-8324-007-0}} pp. 74–76 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3yRbs0tisC&pg=PA74&dq=christology+franciscan&hl=en&ei=px3jTNHFJc3BswaKu7XnCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=christology%20franciscan&f=false]
52. ^{{Citation|last= Gilson|first= Etienne|title= The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas|year= 1994|publisher= University of Notre Dame Press|location= Notre Dame, IN|isbn= 978-0-268-00801-7|page= 502}}
53. ^Christology: Biblical And Historical by Mini S. Johnson, 2005 {{ISBN|81-8324-007-0}} pp. 76–79 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3yRbs0tisC&pg=PA75&dq=Christology+aquinas&hl=en&ei=EZDgTPP6K8HEswach6z4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Christology%20aquinas&f=false]
54. ^Aquinas as authority by Paul van Geest, Harm J. M. J. Goris pp. 25–35 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Svfrp2LSlkEC&pg=PA27&dq=Christology+aquinas&hl=en&ei=EZDgTPP6K8HEswach6z4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Christology%20aquinas&f=false]
55. ^Christology: Key Readings in Christian Thought by Jeff Astley, David Brown, Ann Loades 2009 {{ISBN|0-664-23269-8}} p. 106
56. ^Calvin's Christology by Stephen Edmondson 2004 {{ISBN|0-521-54154-9}} p. 217
57. ^Calvin's First Catechism by I. John Hesselink 1997 {{ISBN|0-664-22725-2}} p. 217
58. ^Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-debate-over-Christology-in-modern-Christian-thought he debate over Christology in modern Christian thought]
59. ^Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 {{ISBN|0-86012-006-6}} p. 1822
60. ^The eschatology of Hans Urs von Balthasar by Nicholas J. Healy 2005 {{ISBN|0-19-927836-9}} pp. 22–23
61. ^Theology of the New Testament by Georg Strecker 2000 {{ISBN|0-664-22336-2}} pp. 401–03
62. ^Matthew by Grant R. Osborne 2010 {{ISBN|0-310-32370-3}} lxxix
63. ^Matthew 1-13 by Manlio Simonetti 2001 {{ISBN|0-8308-1486-8}} p. 17
64. ^Matthew 1-2/ Luke 1-2 by Louise Perrotta 2004 {{ISBN|0-8294-1541-6}} p. 19
65. ^All the Doctrines of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer 1988 {{ISBN|0-310-28051-6}} p. 159
66. ^¹Matthew's Emmanuel by David D. Kupp 1997 {{ISBN|0-521-57007-7}} pp. 220–24
67. ^Who do you say that I am?: essays on Christology by Jack Dean Kingsbury, Mark Allan Powell, David R. Bauer 1999 {{ISBN|0-664-25752-6}} p. 17
68. ^The theology of the Gospel of Matthew by Ulrich Luz 1995 {{ISBN|0-521-43576-5}} p. 31
69. ^Who do you say that I am? Essays on Christology by Jack Dean Kingsbury, Mark Allan Powell, David R. Bauer 1999 {{ISBN|0-664-25752-6}} p. 106
70. ^¹New Testament christology by Frank J. Matera 1999 {{ISBN|0-664-25694-5}} p. 67
71. ^The speeches in Acts: their content, context, and concerns by Marion L. Soards 1994 {{ISBN|0-664-25221-4}} p. 34
72. ^¹²³Christology by Hans Schwarz 1998 {{ISBN|0-8028-4463-4}} pp 132–34
73. ^"Mariology Is Christology", in Vittorio Messori, The Mary Hypothesis, Rome: 2005.
74. ^Paul Haffner, 2004 The mystery of Mary Gracewing Press {{ISBN|0-85244-650-0}} p. 17
75. ^Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 736.
76. ^Erwin Fahlbusch et al., “Mariology,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003), 409.
77. ^Communio, 1996, Volume 23, p. 175
78. ^Raymond Burke, 2008 Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, seminarians, and Consecrated Persons {{ISBN|1-57918-355-7}} p. xxi
79. ^"Angel of the Lord" by T. E. McComiskey in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2001 {{ISBN|0-8010-2075-1}} p. 62