The seventh of my ten-part series on a basic systematic theology deriving from the Nicene Creed.

----------------------------------

The last article dealt with the first part of the Creed. This section deals with that part that is most integral to the Christian message, i.e., Jesus Christ. The second section of the Creed begins with the confession of belief:


And in one Lord, Jesus Christ...

Who is Jesus? This question is the central question to any Christian theological reflection. The person and work of Jesus Christ, the salvific work and incarnation, are the pivot point around which all else revolves, else it ceases to be Christian. ‘Christology is not the whole of Christian doctrine, but it is the point from which all else is illumined.’ (Migliore, p. 139) Remove Jesus Christ or reduce the role of Jesus Christ in salvation history, and one tends toward a universalism, a philosophical construct a la John Hick and others who strive more for a logical framework for a nonspecific Godhead. However, ‘for Christians, it is not a Supreme or Transcendent Being as such who is spoken of as God but the One who freely became a humble servant in Jesus Christ.’ (Migliore, p. 164) Ultimately, Jesus Christ is, and represents, for Christians ‘...the very reality of God at work in the world.’ (Jones II, p. 23)

The first half of this part of the creed emphasises the divinity of Jesus and the unity with God the Father, as part of the Trinity. The second half places emphasis on the human aspects of Jesus, culminating in the salvific acts of death and resurrection.

Our first source of Jesus is from Scripture, the gospels and other writings in the New Testament. These were set down by followers some time after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They are based upon testimony heard, passed down from those who witnessed these events firsthand. In the New Testament, ‘Jesus is recognised as genuinely human, and he is said to have a special relation to God and a special role in the work of salvation.’ (Migliore, p. 145) Perhaps one of the goals of the gospels was to portray Jesus as a fully-human being so as to avoid the tendency (which still arises) of emphasising the divinity of Jesus, sometimes to the point of excluding his humanity altogether. This incarnation as a human being is important: ‘the incarnation makes accessible the Trinity and our participation in the divine nature.’ (Rahner I, p. 212). As Gregory of Nazianzus stated, ‘That which he has not assumed, he has not healed.’ (Migliore, p. 146). As portrayed in the gospel stories, ‘Jesus bears the human essence and its creaturely limitations.’ (Jones II, p. 20)

From the beginning of these narratives of Jesus, however, ‘the followers who believed him and believed in him came to realise that the story of this actual, historical Jesus cannot be fully and faithfully rendered without confessing that from beginning to death and resurrection we are dealing with the actual life of God as well.’ (Jones II, p. 10) Thus, what was reported was not a simple Joe-Friday ‘just the facts’ account--this was a statement of faith. In our present age we tend to put much faith in scientific approaches as being more objective and therefore more real than the scripture accounts, particularly in light of modern historical research methods being applied to scripture. However, as Rahner states, ‘Can salvation be dependent on an historical event, or must it depend on something more verifiable than history?’ (Rahner I, p. 233) The problems of historical method seem to highlight a difference between the ‘Jesus of history’ and the ‘Christ of faith’, a distinction Jones does not adopt, favouring a distinction between the Jesus of historical research and the Jesus in the testimony of the church. (Jones II, p. 6) The aspect of Jesus of historical research are devoid of many of the meanings necessary for faith; from a Christian perspective, while this may be interesting data, it is not Jesus, because Jesus has particular context and particular meaning which cannot be separated out.

Likewise, the aspects of Jesus’ life cannot be separated out. Jones would state that we must always keep in mind that Jesus Christ’s roles as Prophet, Priest and Victor must always be seen in perichoretic union with each other, and no particular mode of being-in-act should be elevated above the others. ‘The atoning work of Christ encompasses the whole gospel story: the ministry, teaching, cross, and resurrection.’ (Migliore, p. 155) Even with as complete a picture as we can get with all elements in place, we have an incomplete view of the work and person of Jesus. How much more distorting is it, therefore, if that which we do know is reduced or excluded from view? Scripture has diversity as part of its very structure; the diversity of aspects of Jesus, in interplay with each other, can help to enlighten us further.

Jesus becomes incarnate as fully human, for the purpose of redeeming a sinful humanity. There are divers ways of interpreting this. One aspect is the defeat of ultimate death. ‘In God-the-Son’s dying a human death, human death is taken up into the divine life, experienced, suffered, and finally defeated.’ (Jones II, p. 52) Jesus through his teaching and ministry also identifies and builds community with the poor and outcast, demonstrating the way of the kingdom of God--‘precisely in this person divinity and lordship are radically redefined in terms of a surprising love that welcomes sinners, makes itself vulnerable, and is shockingly partisan toward the weak, the poor, and the outcast.’ (Migliore, p. 149) Most important for us as human being is our response to this model--how well our community structures follow the intent of the kingdom of God is a reflection on our nearness to proper interpretation of the salvific message.

Jesus’ salvific function operates on a universal scale. ‘Jesus is an inclusive and salvific cosmic event that touches all creatures, whether they know Jesus or not.’ (Jones II, p. 30) Just as God is the creator of all things, whether those creatures are aware or acknowledge that truth, so to does Jesus’ salvific work. Rahner and Jones both speak in terms of a broader salvation, beyond the narrow confines of traditionally-formulated Christian salvation; Rahner speaks of the ‘anonymous Christian’, which is nonetheless problematic (Christians might be taken about to be described as a misguided or misinformed anonymous member of another religion). Perhaps this is the best point at which to realise our incompleteness of knowledge of God, even as incarnate and defined in the self-revelation of Jesus Christ. It will be a guard against arrogance and self-righteousness.

The scripture verse so well known, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son--incorporates God’s love for us as a free action on the part of God. ‘Grace in us, and the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ, must be understood as aspects of the one decision and initiative of God.’ (Rahner I, p. 201) There is no ‘must’ in God’s action--God was not required to give grace, or send Jesus an incarnate Word to redeem the world. That we are valuable to God becomes apparent in God’s free action. ‘The Father abandons the Son to the forces of sin in order that the powers of sin might be defeated as determiners of human destiny, determiners of our destiny.’ (Jones II, p. 51) Through sending Jesus to be fully human among us, God welcomes us into community, and ultimately into God’s presence.

The eschatological affirmation at the end of this section of the creed I will discuss with the conclusion of the next section of the creed in a later article, as they relate to each other.

The next article deals with the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.


References for this section:

Book of Common Prayer. 1979. Seabury Press: New York.

Jones, Joe. Manuscript for A Grammar of Christian Faith, Volumes I & II. 1999-2000. Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. 1991. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. 1997. Crossroad Publishing: New York.

Rahner, Karl. Edited by Geffrey B. Kelly. Karl Rahner. 1992. Augsburg Fortress Press: Minneapolis, Minnesota.