Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology
SUMMARY
The book is composed of six chapters dealing with the person and work of
Christ, written by theologians from various inter-disciplinary subfields of
theology (systematic, historical, philosophical, and practical).
J. Scott Horrell, in “The Eternal Son of God in the Social Trinity,”
tightens the relationship between the economic and immanent Trinity by drawing
a social model of the Trinity. By social
Trinity, Horrell means that “the one divine Being eternally exists as three
distinct centers of consciousness, wholly equal in nature, genuinely personal
in relationship, and each mutually indwelling the other,” and affirms the
“perpetual distinction of roles within the immanent Godhead” (p.44). Horrell, based
on biblical evidence, established the loving interpersonal relationship in the
social Trinity and a hierarchical order of the Godhead in relation to creation
with “preeminence of the Father, joyous collaboration of the Son, and the
ever-serving activity of the Holy Spirit” (p. 67-68).
Donald Fairbairn, in “The One Person Who is Jesus Christ: The Patristic
Perspective,” discusses the Christological controversy initiated by Nestorius
and opposed by Cyril of Alexandria, in the fifth century. The author argues that the controversy was not
about two different schools of thought (Antioch and Alexandria), or the nature
and person of Christ, but about who the one person of Christ is. He consents with Cyril’s Christology that
“the one person of Christ is in fact God, the Logos, the second person of the
Trinity,” and that salvation is participation in God to share “by grace that
very same fellowship that the persons of the Trinity share by nature” (p. 80,
96). The author argues that the
Chalcedonian Definition was a doctrinal development of previous theological formulations
and not a document mediating between two schools of Christian thought and
exegetical interpretation—Antioch and Alexandria.
Garrett J. DeWesee, in “One Person, Two Natures: Two Metaphysical Models
of the Incarnation,” discusses two models of incarnation, one historical
dyothelite and one contemporary, to give content to the two-nature formula to
rebut John Hicks’ objection that the Chalcedonian formula is meaningless. He overviews the historical development of
the Chalcedonian Definition that left ambiguous terms undefined opening the
door for heresies and disputes over Christ’s two wills (dyothelite) and
one will (monothelyte)—this latter was condemned as heretical. He argues for the contemporary model that asserts
that “the second person of the Trinity, the divine Logos, is eternally a person
with a divine nature…apart from the incarnation. At incarnation, the set of properties that
define human nature are assumed by the Logos and thus are exemplified by a
divine person. Christ’s human nature
realized its personality only in union with the divine” (p. 144).
Bruce A. Ware, in “Christ’s Atonement:
A Work of the Trinity,” argues that the “success of the atonement
depends on the identity of Christ as the theanthropic person, the One who is
both fully God and fully man in the incarnation” and that the atonement was the
work of the Trinity in fellowship—the Father and the Spirit in conjunction with
the Son (p. 156). The author
examines Anselm’s question, “why did God become man?” and seeks to lay a
rationale for understanding why without the Trinity there could be no atonement
and hence no salvation. Anselm answered
this pressing question by arguing that “it is necessary for a God-man to pay
the price [of sin, because] no one can pay except God and no one ought to pay
except man” (p. 158).
Klaus Issler, in “Jesus’ Example:
Prototype of the Dependent, Spirit-filled Life,” argues that “Jesus
Christ’s supernaturally oriented life on this earth resulted from predominant
dependence on the divine resources of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, while
employing his own divine powers infrequently, if at all” (p. 189). The article presents the imitatio Christi
and the author’s dependency thesis with two lines of biblical evidence related
to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, then draws “orthodox Christology for
practical Christian living…to enrich the doctrine of sanctification” (p. 191).
He too discusses some implications pertaining to Jesus’ childhood.
CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
The thesis of the book argues for a Christology in the context of the
Trinity—salvation through atonement requires incarnation that requires the
Trinity. It is the seed of conversation
between a philosophical theologian (DeWeese) and a practical theologian
(Issler) and builds on the groundwork and axioms of the first four ecumenical
councils. Nicaea I (325) is contra
Arianism affirming “God alone can save;” Constantinople I is contra
Apollinarianism (381) affirming “what is not assumed is not healed;” Ephesus
(431) is contra Nestorianism affirming “God alone can save us” through the
incarnation of the Son who is homoousios with the Father and homoousios
with Mary theotokos (God-bearer); and Chalcedon (553) is contra
Eutychianism affirming two natures of Christ in hypostatic union without
confusion, or change, or separation, or division (negative theology). Each article has introductory summary, axioms
for Christological study, key terms grouped separately with Latin and Greek
equivalents, further readings suggested, and study questions.
Horrell argued that “the Scripture’s record of God’s revelation in human
history (the economic Trinity) should inform and control how we think about the
eternal relations of the Godhead (the immanent Trinity)” (p. 47). He clarified two background issues—revelation
and the infinite, and person and nature—that shape a threefold approach:
evidence for a social model of the Godhead; biblical data supporting eternal
order in the Godhead; and synthesis of biblical evidences for an “eternally
ordered social model” (p. 47). He argued
that subordinationism is heresy and non-heresy; heresy in terms of relegating
the divinity of Christ and non-heresy in
terms of eternal obedience to accomplish His role as Savior (p.
72).
The strength of Horrell’s article resides in the logical progression of
arguments supported by biblical evidence more than logic. He constantly drew distinctions between the
Eastern Fathers and the Western Church in their various conceptions of the
Trinity and terms such as “origin,” “begotteness,” and “procession,” which set
the background before the reader to understand how the Church got divided over
inadequate language and terms, which could never fully describe the conception
of the Trinity. This comparison
highlights the ways finite people conceive of the Infinite God; no matter what
they reach in understanding about the Trinity, the knowledge will only be full
in heaven. He approached the eternal Son
of God in the social Trinity with extreme humility and balance, reiterating
that language is inadequate to describe the complex relationship between the
three members of the Godhead, while warning of not “slipping into either
modalism or tritheism into which other solutions tend to fall” (p. 59). However, he did not expound on that warning
statement, which by itself is a thesis that needs further explanation. The language and terms used are difficult and
intimidating but this effect is mitigated by various explanations, repetitions,
and rhetorical questions posed in different sentence structures. Repetition of the unfamiliar meaning of “Social
Trinity” was the hymn that helped the reader follow the thesis the writer is
trying to prove.
With open understanding and stretched horizons, was there really a
serious reason for the division of the church?
If this article serves a precious lesson, it is not about driving home
the eternally social model affirming distinctions of roles within the immanent
Godhead, or the mutual indwelling of the three members of the Trinity in the
Godhead without confusion of self-consciousness (perichoresis), or the
immanent Trinity with ontological equality yet also eternal order, but that God
is infinite and the mystery of the Trinity can never be fully
comprehended. In humility, we just have
to receive God’s biblical disclosure about His identity, the way we understand
it, and accept differences (precluding refuted ecumenical heresies) that should
not divide the church. Horrell has well
explained the mutual love and self-givingness of the three members in the
divine fellowship, which should be a powerful dissolvent for all divisions and
schisms in the Church. If this is how
our Triune God acts in interpersonal relationship in the Godhead with
self-givingness, wouldn’t this teach the Church the everlasting lesson of love
and unity along with John 3:16 and 17?
Fairbairn, in his discussion of the Christological controversy initiated
by Nestorius and responded to by Cyril of Alexandria and defined in the Council
of Chalcedon, explains his understanding of the Greek word prosopon, which
means mask worn by actors to change character or appearance. Applying it to Jesus, it asserts Christ was
“two different subjects, the Logos and the man Jesus, appearing together as one
prosopon” (p. 83). The question Fairbairn tries to answer is, “Who was
born, the Logos or the man Jesus? Who died, the Logos or the man Jesus?” He goes on to further assert that the
Chalcedonian definition is not only about the union of two natures in one
person (Christ) and addresses the Christological controversy from two different
perspectives—the literal-historical-exegetical School of Antioch that
emphasized Christ’s humanity and the allegorical-exegetical School of
Alexandria that emphasized Christ’s divinity. The author argued that the controversy was not
because of literal or allegorical exegetical interpretation of the Bible or the
two natures of Christ, but “whether God the Logos was personally involved in
human experience,” or “whether the one person of Christ is God the Son” (p. 88,
92).
This
article dwelt on Cyril’s Christology that affirmed that Christ is God the Son, the
Logos who personally experienced human life in incarnation by uniting flesh to
his own person and undergone suffering in his human flesh and not in his
divine nature (101-103). Cyril’s concept
of salvation as participation in God to
share “by grace that very same fellowship that the persons of the Trinity share
by nature” is a source of joy and hope (p. 96).
The language of the article is simple and concepts heavy; but once concepts
are understood, they create satisfaction and praises to who God is and to the
Logos’ work of salvation by bringing God to humanity. The author’s comparison between
Theodore/Nestorius’ and Cyril’s soteriology helped explain Cyril’s insistence
that God himself, the Logos, is the one personal subject in Christ. Fairbairn highlighted the recurring phrases in
the Chalcedonian Definition of “the same one” and “one and the same” which
relay that “the one who is consubstantial with the Father is the same one who
is consubstantial with us,” the Logos, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity
(p. 105). Cyril’s contribution to the
Chalcedonian definition resides in using the words that draw a line between physis
and hypostasis; “ousia and physis are used for
Christ’s twoness and hypostasis and prosopon of his oneness”
(106). The author believes that the
Chalcedonian Definition does identify who the person of Christ is, contrary to
most theologians who have confused between the primary emphasis (union of two
natures without confusion, change, division, or separation) and the new
contribution. The author comments on
Cyril’s insistence on God’s impassibility and fails to explain God’s suffering,
reiterating, “let the mystery be adored in silence” (p. 107)
Ware’s article, “Christ’s Atonement:
A Work of the Trinity,” delves into the reason why the Trinitarian
personhood is necessary for Christ to be our atoning Savior by drawing the
relationship between the Father and the identity of Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit and the identity of Jesus Christ—the relationship that is the source of
efficacy. He explains the submission of
the eternal Son to the eternal Father by alluding to the patriarchal language
of the bible and the patriarchal culture then relates it to a biblical passage (Mal
1:6) about the son honoring his father and the servant respecting his
master. God’s rhetorical question
emanates from the eternal Son who honors His eternal Father; hence, the author rules
out subordinationism or relegation of consubstantiality and co-eternality and approves
the eternal submission, on which he grounds the sending of the Son and not the
Father or the Spirit (p. 160, 168). He
refutes the egalitarian view that purports that any person of the Trinity could
have accomplished the incarnation based on the eternal Father-Son relationship
and the eternal commissioning of the Father to His Son (Ps 2), who submits to
incarnation, being empowered by the Holy Spirit. It is this Father-Son eternal relationship
that explains the identity of Jesus as the atoning Savior sent by the Father,
which is reiterated in the gospel of John, the Synoptics, and 1 Cor 11:3 (p.
163-167). Ware goes on to relate the
indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit to Jesus—the Spirit-anointed
Messiah—to the work of salvation and to the identity of Jesus as Savior, by
referring to biblical references (p. 171-173). Though Ware rules out subordinationism, in
his explanation of the Father being the architect of salvation, he falls into this
trap by saying “the Father’s supreme position of authority over all” (p.
174). Language is indeed inadequate to
fully get across divine ontological relational concepts in the Trinity. Ware brings challenging questions raised by
Jesus’ own utterances that relegates His deity and refutes it on grounds of
human limitations and restrictions that Jesus had to accept and live as a fully
human being, while being fully God. The
Holy Spirit partakes in salvation through regeneration and quickening that was enabled
through the blood of Jesus on the Cross.
“Must God be Triune for Christ to be a Savior?” is the question the
author answered in his article.
The book is a pleasure to read, however, heavily theological and
definitely not for beginners. Not all parts
are intelligible but the overall impression is satisfactory and the book leaves
you with a wonderful sense of how great a God we worship. It is a must book for
theologians, seminarians, and professing believers.
CONCLUSION
The book has covered Christology in Trinitarian perspective from various
angles so as to give a comprehensive picture of who Christ is and His
relationship to the Trinity. Horrell
discussed the “Social Trinity” affirming the distinction of roles in the
immanent Godhead, with distinct centers of consciousness, equal in nature,
personal in relationship, and mutually indwelling the other. Fairbairn consents with Cyril’s Christology
that the one person of Christ is in fact God the Logos and that salvation is
participation in God to share fellowship in the Trinity. DeWesee discusses two models of incarnation
and advocates for the contemporary model
asserting that
the divine Logos is eternally a person with a divine nature apart from
incarnation and that at incarnation the Logos assumed the human
properties. Ware answers the question,
“Why the God-Man,” and argues that atonement in the work of the Trinity—the
Father and the Spirit in conjunction with the Son. Issler defends the dependency thesis that
Jesus’ life on earth resulted from a predominant dependence on the divine
resources of the Father and of the Holy Spirit and presents the imitatio
Christi.
No comments:
Post a Comment