Christology

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).^[27] There are no direct discussions in the New Testament regarding the dual nature of the Person of Christ as both divine and human,^[27] 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.^[27]

Some historical christological doctrines gained broad support:

• Monophysitism (Monophysite controversy, 3rd–8th centuries): After the union of the divine and the human in the historical incarnation, Jesus Christ had only a single nature. Monophysitism was condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon (451).
• Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox churches): In the person of Jesus Christ, divine nature and human nature are united in a compound nature ('physis').
• Dyophysitism (Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Church of the East, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and the Reformed Churches): Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation; articulated by the Chalcedonian Definition.
• Monarchianism (including Adoptionism and Modalism): God as one, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity. Condemned as heretical in the Patristic era but followed today by certain groups of Nontrinitarians.

Influential Christologies which were broadly condemned as heretical^{[note 5]} are:

• Docetism (3rd–4th centuries) claimed the human form of Jesus was mere semblance without any true reality.
• Arianism (4th century) viewed the divine nature of Jesus, the Son of God, as distinct and inferior to God the Father, e.g., by having a beginning in time.
• Nestorianism (5th century) considered the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ almost entirely distinct.
• Monothelitism (7th century), considered Christ to have only one will.

Various church councils, mainly in the 4th and 5th centuries, resolved most of these controversies, making the doctrine of the Trinity orthodox in nearly all branches of Christianity. Among them, only the Dyophysite doctrine was recognized as true and not heretical, belonging to the Christian orthodoxy and deposit of faith.

Salvation

In Christian theology, atonement is the method by which human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.^[30] Atonement is the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,^{[web 6]} 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 paradigmata of atonement are often grouped as "classical paradigm", "objective paradigm", and the "subjective paradigm":^{[31][32][33][34]}

• Classical paradigm:^{[note 6]}
  • Ransom theory of atonement, which teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan or to death itself, in some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory,^[35] calling it the Christus Victor doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil, but defeated the powers of evil, which had held humankind in their dominion.;^{[36][note 7]}
  • Recapitulation theory,^[38] which says that Christ succeeded where Adam failed. Theosis ('divinization') is a "corollary" of the recapitulation.^[39]
• Objective paradigm:
  • Satisfaction theory of atonement,^{[note 8]} developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4–1109), which teaches that Jesus Christ suffered crucifixion as a substitute for human sin, satisfying God's just wrath against humankind's transgression due to Christ's infinite merit.^[40]
  • Penal substitution, also called "forensic theory" and "vicarious punishment", which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm's satisfaction theory.^{[41][42][note 9][note 10]} Instead of considering sin as an affront to God's honour, it sees sin as the breaking of God's moral law. Penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God's wrath, with the essence of Jesus' saving work being his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man.
  • Governmental theory of atonement, "which views God as both the loving creator and moral Governor of the universe."^[44]
• Subjective paradigm:
  • Moral influence theory of atonement,^{[note 11]} developed, or most notably propagated, by Abelard (1079–1142),^[45][46] who argued that "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.^[45][47]
  • Moral example theory, developed by Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) in his work De Jesu Christo servatore (1578), who rejected the idea of "vicarious satisfaction".^{[note 12]} According to Socinus, Jesus' death offers humanity a perfect example of self-sacrificial dedication to God.^[47]

Other theories are the "embracement theory" and the "shared atonement" theory.^[48][49]

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.^{[50][web 1][note 13]} 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 Hebrew scripture.^{[web 1][22]} According to Matt Stefon and Hans J. Hillerbrand:

Until the middle of the 2nd century, such terms emphasized two themes: that of Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God and that of Jesus as a creature elected and "adopted" by God. The first theme makes use of concepts drawn from Classical antiquity, whereas the second relies on concepts characteristic of ancient Jewish thought. The second theme subsequently became the basis of "adoptionist Christology" (see adoptionism), which viewed Jesus' baptism as a crucial event in his adoption by God.^{[web 1]}

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.^[55] In contrast, the Antiochian school viewed Christ as a single, unified human person apart from his relationship to the divine.^{[55][note 14]}

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.^[9] The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.^{[63][64][65][web 7]}

The "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" is the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead",^[66] thereby raising him to "divine status".^{[web 8]} According to the "evolutionary model"^[67] or evolutionary theories,^[68] the Christological understanding of Jesus developed over time,^[69][70][71] as witnessed in the Gospels,^[64] with the earliest Christians believing that Jesus was a human who was exalted, or else adopted as God's Son,^[72][73] when he was resurrected.^[71][74] Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his pre-existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John.^[71] This "evolutionary model" was proposed by proponents of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, especially Wilhelm Bousset's influential Kyrios Christos (1913).^[72] This evolutionary model was very influential, and the "low Christology" has long been regarded as the oldest Christology.^{[75][76][web 8][note 16]}

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",^{[web 8][77]} and from where he appeared on earth.^{[note 17]} 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.^[78] According to Casey and Dunn, this "high Christology" developed after the time of Paul, at the end of the first century CE when the Gospel of John was written.^[79]

Since the 1970s, these late datings for the development of a "high Christology" have been contested,^[80] and a majority of scholars argue that this "high Christology" existed already before the writings of Paul.^{[9][note 18]} According to the "New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule",^{[80][web 10]} or the Early High Christology Club,^{[web 11]} which includes Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, N. T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham,^{[80][web 11]} 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.^{[80][web 11][web 8][note 19]} Some 'Early High Christology' proponents scholars argue that this "high Christology" may go back to Jesus himself.^{[85][web 7]}

There is a controversy regarding whether Jesus himself claimed to be divine. In Honest to God, then-Bishop of Woolwich, John A. T. Robinson, questioned the idea.^[86] John Hick, writing in 1993, mentioned changes in New Testament studies, citing "broad agreement" that scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God, quoting as examples Michael Ramsey (1980), C. F. D. Moule (1977), James Dunn (1980), Brian Hebblethwaite (1985) and David Brown (1985).^[87] Larry Hurtado, who argues that the followers of Jesus within a very short period developed an exceedingly high level of devotional reverence to Jesus,^[88] at the same time rejects the view that Jesus made a claim to messiahship or divinity to his disciples during his life as "naive and ahistorical".^{[failed verification]} According to Gerd Lüdemann, the broad consensus among modern New Testament scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a development within the earliest Christian communities.^[6] N. T. Wright points out that arguments over the claims of Jesus regarding divinity have been passed over by more recent scholarship, which sees a more complex understanding of the idea of God in first century Judaism.^[89] However, Andrew Loke argues that if Jesus did not claim and show himself to be truly divine and rise from the dead, the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet; they would not have come to the widespread agreement that he was truly divine, which they did.^[90][91] Brant Pitre also argues that the Historical Jesus claimed to be divine and was the origin of high Christology.^[92] His argument has been particularly well received, obtaining the endorsement of noted scholars Dale C. Allison Jr., Chris Tilling, Tucker Ferda, and Christine Jacobi.^{[93][11][page needed]}

New Testament writings

The study of the various Christologies of the Apostolic Age is based on early Christian documents.^[2]

Paul

The oldest Christian sources are the writings of Paul.^[94] The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence^[57][58] and the identification of Christ as Kyrios.^[95] Both notions already existed before him in the early Christian communities, and Paul deepened them and used them for preaching in the Hellenistic communities.^[57]

What exactly Paul believed about the nature of Jesus cannot be determined decisively. In Philippians 2, Paul states that Jesus was preexistent and came to Earth "by taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness". This sounds like an incarnation Christology. In Romans 1:4, however, Paul states that Jesus "was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead", which sounds like an adoptionistic Christology, where Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" after his death. Different views would be debated for centuries by Christians and finally settled on the idea that he was both fully human and fully divine by the middle of the 5th century in the Council of Ephesus. Paul's thoughts on Jesus' teachings, versus his nature and being, are more defined, in that Paul believed Jesus was sent as an atonement for the sins of everyone.^[96][97][98]

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.^[99] 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.^{[web 4]}

The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology"^{[note 20]} later developed in the Gospel of John,^[101] elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."^[102] Paul writes that Christ came to draw all back to God: "Through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven" (Colossians 1:20);^[103][104] in the same epistle, he writes that "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15).^{[105][95][100]}

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,^[106] and as in John 21:25, the Gospels do not claim to be an exhaustive list of his works.^[2]

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.^{[web 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.: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."^[107] 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.^{[web 4]}

Post-Apostolic controversies

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.^[108][109] 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.^[28][29] 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.^{[citation needed]}

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 separated the Church of the East from the Church of the Roman Empire.^[110][111]

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.^{[112][113][114]} After the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the Trinity were being used interchangeably.^[115]

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.^{[116][117][118][119]}

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.^[120][121] The council also confirmed the Theotokos title and excommunicated Nestorius.^[122][123]

Council of Chalcedon (451)

The 451 Council of Chalcedon was highly influential, and marked a key turning point in the christological debates.^[124] It is the last council which many Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestants consider ecumenical.^[13][14]

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.^[108][109] Most of the major branches of Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Reformed), Church of the East,^[125] Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism) reject it.^[14][15][16]

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.^[14][15][16] But it also broke apart the church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century,^[124] 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 to 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.^{[web 12]}

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,^{[web 13]} with the divine will having precedence, leading and guiding the human will.^[126]

The Second Council of Nicaea was called under the Empress Regent Irene of Athens in 787. It affirmed the veneration of icons while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy".^{[web 14]}

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.^{[web 15]} The divinity of Jesus became of less emphasis or importance, and was replaced with an focus on the ethical aspects of his teachings.^{[136][note 21]}

Roman Catholicism

Catholic theologian Karl Rahner sees the purpose of modern Christology as to formulate the Christian belief that "God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ" in a manner that this statement can be understood consistently, without the confusions of past debates and mythologies.^{[138][note 22]} Rahner pointed out the coincidence between the Person of Christ and the Word of God, referring to Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26 which state whoever is ashamed of the words of Jesus is ashamed of the Lord himself.^[140]

Hans von Balthasar argued the union of the human and divine natures of Christ was achieved not by the "absorption" of human attributes, but by their "assumption". Thus, in his view, the divine nature of Christ was not affected by the human attributes and remained forever divine.^[141] The same distinction is recorded in the Second Vatican Council's pastoral constitution, Gaudium et spes: "in Him, human nature was assumed, not absorbed".^[142]

Pope Francis, in his 2024 encyclical letter Dilexit nos, refers to the "divinity and plenary humanity" of Jesus.^[143]

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.^[144][145] The salvific emphasis of Matthew 1:21 later impacted the theological issues and the devotions to Holy Name of Jesus.^{[146][147][148]}

Matthew 1:23 provides a key to the "Emmanuel Christology" of Matthew. Beginning with 1:23, the Gospel of Matthew shows a clear interest in identifying Jesus as "God with us" and in later developing the Emmanuel characterization of Jesus at key points throughout the rest of the Gospel.^[149] The name 'Emmanuel' does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament, but Matthew builds on it in Matthew 28:20 ("I am with you always, even unto the end of the world") to indicate Jesus will be with the faithful to the end of the age.^[149][150] According to Ulrich Luz, the Emmanuel motif brackets the entire Gospel of Matthew between 1:23 and 28:20, appearing explicitly and implicitly in several other passages.^[151]

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.^[152]

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".^[153] 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.^[153][154]

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.^[155] For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus was not an isolated event in history, but a cosmic event with significant eschatological consequences, as in 1 Corinthians 2:8.^[155] In the Pauline view, Jesus, obedient to the point of death (Philippians 2:8), died "at the right time" (Romans 5:6) based on the plan of God.^[155] For Paul, the "power of the cross" is not separable from the resurrection of Jesus.^[155]

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, priest, and king. 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.^{[web 16]} 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.^[156]

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many of its assertions lack any Biblical foundation.^[157] Strong Protestant reaction against Roman Catholic Marian devotion and teaching has been a significant issue for ecumenical dialogue.^[158]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) expressed this sentiment about Roman Catholic Mariology when in two separate occasions he stated, "The appearance of a truly Marian awareness serves as the touchstone indicating whether or not the christological substance is fully present"^[159] and "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ."^[160]