Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4.04 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.04 Mb.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   38

ahristolosv THE NEW SC$AFF HERZOG 68

eion to the faith in the incarnation for ages to come. It saves the full idea of the God man as to

the essential elements, however imper­S. Reel fect the form in which it is cast. It

Value. defines with sound religious judgment

the boundary line which separates christological truth from chriatologieal error. It guards against two opposite dangers the Scylla of Nestorian dualism, and the Charybdis of Eutycliiaa Monophysitism, or against au abstract separation of the divine and human, and an absorption of the human by the divine. It excludes also every kind of mixture of the two natures which would result in a being which is neither divine nor human. With these safeguards, theological speculation may boldly and hopefully move on, and penetrate, if possible, deeper and deeper into the central truth of Chris­tianity.

VII. The Orthodox Protestant Chrlstology: The churches of the Reformation (Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinistic) adopted in their confessions of faith, either is form or in substance, the three ecu­menical creeds, and with them the ancient Catholic doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's divine­human character and work. They condemned the old and new Antitrinitariana, and the peculiar doctrine of the Sociniane that Christ was raised by his own merit to a participation in the divine honor and dignity. The Unitarians, like the Ana­baptists, were everywhere (except in Poland sad Transylvania) imprisoned, exiled, or executed; and the unfortunate Servetus was burned as a heretic under the eyes of Calvin and with the approval of the mild Bullinger and Melanehthon. The following are the relevant passages from the principal Protes­tant confessions.

The Augsburg Confession of the Lutherstn Church (1530), Art. iii. (De Filio Dei):

" The Word, that is, the Bon of God, took unto him man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably joined together in unity of person; one Christ, true God and true man: who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried."

The Second Helvetic Confession, by Bullinger (1566), chap. xi.:

" There are in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord, two natures, the divine and the human nature; and we say that these two are so conjoined or united that they are not swallowed up, confounded, or mingled together, but rather united or joined together in one person, the properties of each nature being safe and remaining still: so that we do worship one Christ our Lord, and not two; I say, one, true, God and man; as touching his divine nature, of the same substance with the Father, and as touching his human na­ture, of the same substance with us, and ' like unto us in all things, sin only excepted., 11

The Thirty nine Articles of the Church of England, Art. ii.:

" The Bon, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and fiery man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried."

The Westminster Confession, chap. viii., § 2:

" The Bon of God, the second person in the Trinity being

very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature with all the essential properties and com­mon infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her sub­stance: so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the Manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and men."

The Westminster Shorter Catechism, which is famous for clear and terse definitions, says (Qu. sxi.):

" The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Bon of God, became man, and so was, and oontinueth to be, God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person forever."

VIII. The Scholastic Lutheran Chrietology: On the general basis of the Chalcedonian christology, and following the indications of the Scriptures as the only rule of faith, the Protestant, especially the Lutheran, scholastics, at the close of the six­teenth, and during the seventeenth, century, built some additional features, and developed new aspects of Christ's person. The propelling cause was the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence or omni­presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper, and the controversies growing out of it with the ZWln­gliane and Calvinists, and among the Lutherans themselves (see LORD'S SUPPER; LUTHER; ZWIN­OLI; BRENZ;, CHEMNITZ; etc.). These new features relate to the communion of the two natures, and to the states and the offices of Christ. The first was the production of the Lutheran Church, and was never adopted, but partly rejected, by the Re­formed; the second and third were the joint doc­trines of both, but with a very material difference in the understanding of the second.

1. The aommnnioatio Idiomatnm: The com­

munication of attributes or properties (Gk. idia­

mata, Lat. proprietdtes) of one nature to the other,

or to the whole person. It is derived from the unio

Personalis and the communio naturarum. The Lu­

theran divines distinguish three kinds or genera:

(1) The genus zdiomatieum (or idiopoietikon),

whereby the properties of one nature are trans­

ferred and applied to the whole person, for which

are quoted such passages as Rom. i. 3; I Pet. iii.

18, iv. 1. (2) The genus apotelesmotieum (koino­

pol'elikon), whereby the redemptory functions and

actions which belong to the whole person (the

apotelesmata) are predicated only of one or the

other nature (I Tim. ii. 5 6; Heb. i. 2 3). (3)

The genus auchematicum, or majestaticum, where­

by the human nature is clothed with and mag­

nified by the attributes of the divine nature

(John iii. 13, v. 27; Matt. xzviii. 18, 20; Rom. ix.

5; Phil. ii. 10). Under this head the Lutheran

Church claims a certain ubiquity or omnipresence

for the body of Christ, on the ground of the personal

union of the two natures; but as to the extent of

this omnipresence there were two distinct schools

which are both represented in the Formula o f Concord

(1577). Brenz and the Swabian Lutherans main­

tained an absolute ubiquity of Christ's humanity

from his very infancy, thus making the incarnation

not only an assumption of the human nature, but

also a deification of it, although the divine attri 


butes were admitted to have been concealed during the state of humiliation. Chemnitz and the Saxon divines called this view a monstrosity, and taught only a relative ubiquity, depending on Christ's will (hence called voliprcesentia, or multivoliprce­sentia), who may be present with his whole person wherever he pleases to be or has promised to be. (4) A fourth kind would be the genus kenoticum (from kenasis), or Lapeinotieum (from tapeinasis), Phil. ii. 7, 8; i.e., a communication of the prop­erties of the human nature to the divine nature. But this is decidedly rejected by the old Lutherans as inconsistent with the unchangeableness of the divine nature, and as a " horrible and blasphemous " doctrine (Formula of Concord, p. 612), but is asserted by the modern Kenoticists (see below, IX.).

The Reformed divines never committed them­selves to the communicatio idiomatum as a whole (although they might approve the first two kinds, at least by way of what Zwingli termed allai8sis, or a rhetorical exchange of one part for another); and they decidedly rejected the third kind, because omnipresence, whether absolute or relative, is inconsistent with the necessary limita­tion of a human body, as well as with the Scrip­ture facts of Christ's ascension to heaven, and promised return. The third genus can never be fully carried out, unless the humanity of Christ is also eternalized. The attributes, moreover, are not an outside appendix, but inherent qualities of the substance to which they belong, and insep­arable from it. Hence a communication of attri­butes would imply a communication or mixture of natures. The divine and human natures can indeed hold free and intimate intercourse with each other; but the divine nature can never be trans­formed into the human, nor the human nature into the divine. Christ possessed all the attributes of both natures; but the natures, nevertheless, remain separate and distinct. See COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATTJM.

2. The Doctrine of the Twofold State of Christ: This is the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation. This doctrine is based upon Phil. ii. 5 9, and is substantially true. The state of hu­miliation embraces the supernatural conception, birth, circumcision, education, earthly life, passion, death, and burial of Christ; the state of exaltation includes the resurrection, ascension, and the sitting at the right hand of God.

But here, again, the two confessions differ very considerably. First as to the descent into Hades. The Lutherans regarded it as a triumph over hell, and made it the first stage of exaltation; while the Reformed divines viewed it as the last stage of the state of humiliation. It is properly the turning point from the one state to the other, and thus belong to both (see DESCENT of CHRIST INTO HELL). Secondly, the Lutheran Creed refers the two states only to the human nature of Christ, regarding the divine as not susceptible of any humiliation or exaltation. The Reformed di­vines refer them to both natures; so that Christ's human nature was in a state of humiliation as com­pared with its future exaltation, and his divine nature was in the state of humiliation as to its ex 

ternal manifestation (ratione occultationis). With them the incarnation itself is the beginning of the state of humiliation, while the Lutheran symbols exclude the incarnation from the humil­iation. Finally, the Lutherans regard the humil­iation only as a partial concealment of the actual use (Gk. kryPsis chreseos) of the divine attributes by the incarnate Logos.

The proper exegesis of the classical passage, Phil. ii. 7 aqq., decides here in favor of the Reformed, and against the Lutheran theory. The kenasis, or self humiliation, can not refer to the incarnate Logos, who never was " in the form of God," but must refer to the preexistent Logos (the Logos asarkos). This is admitted by the Greek Fathers, and by the best modern commentators, Lutheran as well as Reformed. (Cf. quotations in Schaff, Creeds, i. 328 329, and see JESUS CHRIST, Two­FOLD STATE OF.)

S. The Threefold Oboe of Christ : (a) The pro­phetical office (munus, or officium prophetieum) in­cludes teaching and the miracles of Christ. (b) The priestly office (munus sacerdotale) consists of the satisfaction made for the sins of the world by the death on the cross, and in the continued interces­sion of the exalted Savior for his people (redemptio et intercessio sacerdotalis). (c) The kingly office (munus regium), whereby Christ founded his king­dom, defends his Church against all enemies, and rules all things in heaven and on earth. The old divines distinguish between the reign of nature (regnum natures sine potentics), which embraces all things; the reign of grace (regnum gratics), which relates to the Church militant on earth; and the reign of glory (regnum glori~e), which belongs to the Church triumphant in heaven. The threefold office or function of Christ was first presented by Eusebius of Caesarea. The theologians who fol­lowed Luther and Melanchthon down to the middle of the seventeenth century treat Christ's saving work under the two heads of king and priest. Cal­vin, in the first edition of his " Institutes " (1536), did the same, and it was not till the third edition (1559) and the Genevan Catechism that he fully presented the three offices. This convenient three­fold division of the office of Christ was used by the theologians of both confessions during the seven­teenth century. Ernesti opposed it, but Schleier­macher restored it. See JESUS CHRIST, THREE­FOLD OFFICE OF.

1X. The genosis Controversy Between Giessen and Tiibingen: This is the last chapter in the development of the orthodox Lutheran christology on the basis of the Formula of Concord. It arose in the early part of the seventeenth century, be­tween the Lutheran divines of the universities of Giessen and Tiibingen over the Kenosis and KryP­sis ; that is, over the question whether Christ, in the state of humiliation, entirely abstained from the use of his divine attributes (kenosis, abstinentia ab vsu, Phil. ii. 7), or whether he used them secretly (kryPsis). The divines of Giessen (Balthasar Ment­zer, his son in law Feuerborn, and Winkehnann) de­fended the Kenotic; those of Tiibingen (Thumm, Hafenreffer, Osiander, Nicolai), the cryptic view. Both schools were agreed as to the possession of the

ahristolocy THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 58

divine attributes by Christ, including omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, during all the stages of his humiliation, and differed only as to the use (chreais) of them whether it was a kryPsis chreseda (a concealed use), or a kenosis chr8seds (a non use). The cryptic view of Tiibingen is logically (i.e., from Lutheran premises) more con­sistent, but carries the theory of the communica#io idiomatum to the very verge of Gnostic Docetiam, which resolves the human life of Christ on earth into a magical illusion. The Kenotic view of Giessen is more in accordance with the facts of Christ's life, but agrees with the other in principle, and admits, after all, as exceptional use in the performance of miracles. The controversy was waged with violence, and threatened to weaken the Protestant cause at a very critical period. The Lutheran princes interfered. In their name, Hoe von Hoenegg (q.v.), court preacher at Dresden, is­sued a Solids decisio (1624), essentially favoring the cause of the Giessen Kenoticista; but the Tiibingen theologians defended their position till the con­troversy was lost in the disastrous events of the Thirty Years' War, without leading to any posi­tive result. The Kenotic controversy was renewed recently, but in a modified form, and on a new basis (see below, X., 4; see also KErrosis).

%. Modern Christologiea: The orthodox chris­tology emphasized the divinity of Christ, and left his humanity more or less out of sight and, in the last stage of its Lutheran development, arrived at the brink of Gnostic Docetism. Rationalism arose, toward the close of the eighteenth century, as a reaction against symbolical and scholastic orthodoxy, and ran into the opposite extreme; it ignored the divine nature, and fell back upon a purely human, or'Ebionitic, Christ. Its worth, as well as its weakness, consists in the examination of the human element in Christ and in the Bible.

With the revival of Evangelical faith in Ger­many, the divine element of Christ was again duly appreciated by theologians. Hegel and Schleiermacher mark a new epoch in chriatolog­ical speculation, with two tendencies =the one pantheistic, the other humanistic; and these, again, were followed by original reconstructions and modifications of the Catholic doctrine of the God man. The pantheistic tendency of Hegel is more congenial to the maxim of the Lutheran Confession, that the finite is capable of the in­finite; the humanistic of Schleiermacher to the tendency of the Reformed Confession, which guards the genuine humanity of Christ against confusion with the divine. The former starts from the divine, the latter, from the human element; but both may unite, and often do unite when they proceed from naturalistic premises. Both Hegel and Schleier­macher gave impulse to orthodox as well as nega­tive and destructive tendencies. To most of his pupils Schleiermacher was a sort of John the Bap­tist, who led them to Christ.

1. The Humanitarian or Unitarian Ohrietology makes Christ a mere man, though the wisest and beat of men, and a model for imitation. It is held in various forms, from the communicated semi­divinity of the old Sociniana down to the pure

humanity of modern Unitarians and Humanitarians. Professor Bruce (Humiliation of Christ, Edinburgh, 1881, lecture v., p. 193) distinguishes five classes of Humanitarians. Kant may be said to have inaugurated the modern Humanitarian view. He regarded Christ as the representative of the moral ideal, but made a distinction between the ideal Christ and the historical Jesus. The conservative Unitarians admit the sinless perfection of Christ. William Ellery Charming (q.v.) was, at least in his earlier period, a firm believer in the preexist­ence of Christ, and is sometimes called an Arian by his nephew and biographer. He certainly rose above the mere Humanitarianism of Priestley. He caw in Christ the perfect manifestation of God to man, and the highest ideal of humanity, and paid one of the noblest and moat eloquent tributes to Christ's character and inspiring example. With this school must be reckoned Prof. Levi L. Payne, who dissociates christology, or the person of Christ, from theology; or the doctrine of God, and joins it to anthropology. Christ is a man and to be judged as a man. It was " not necessary that his moral consciousness should be divinized." He is separated by no miraculous act from the beings he came to save, and yet his moral consciousness has surpassed that of all other men (Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, Boston, 1900, pp. 199, 281).

fd. The Pantheistic Uhriatology, suggested by Schelling and Hegel, and best represented by Daub, Marheineke, and Goechel '(of the right, or conservative, wing of Hegelianiam), and by Baur, Strauss, and Biedermann (of the left, or radical, wing), starts from the idea of the essential unity of the divine and human, and teaches a continuous incarnation of God in the human race as a whole, but denies, for this very reason, the specific dig­nity of Christ as the one and only God man. This, at least, is the theory of the "left," or radical and negative, wing of the Hegelian School, although Hegel himself had no sympathy with rationalism, but despised it. " The infinite," says Strauss, " can not pour out its fulness into a single indi­vidual." The peculiar position of Christ, however, is that he first awoke to a consciousness of this unity, and that he represents it in its purest and strongest form. Under this view Biedermann (Christliche Dogmatilc, Zurich, 1869) places Christ highest in the scale of humanity, not only in the past, but for all time to come. Even Strauss was at one time willing to go so far; but he destroyed nearly the whole historic foundation of his life, and ended in the philosophical bankruptcy of materialism.

8. The Ohrietology of $ohleiermaoher (d. 1834) sad his Sohool represents the highest form of Hu­manitarianism with an important admission of the supernatural or divine element. He regards Christ as a perfect man, in whom, and in whom alone, the ideal of humanity (the Urbild) has been fully realized. At the same time he rises above Humanitnrianiem by emphatically asserting Christ's essential ainleesnesa and absolute perfection (" we­senlliche Unsiindlichkeit" and "schlechthiniqe Voll­kommenheit "), and a peculiar and abiding indwell 


ing of the Godhead in him (" sin eigentliches Sein Gotten in Am "), by which he differs from all men.

He admits him to be " a moral 1. Bohleier  miracle," which means a great deal

msoher. for a theologian of the boldest and

keenest criticism in matters of his­tory. He was willing to surrender almost every miracle of action in order to save the miracle of the person of him whom he adored and loved as his Lord and Savior. He adopts the Sabellian view of the Trinity as a threefold manifestation of God in creation (in the world), redemption (in Christ), and sanctification (in the Church). Christ is God as Redeemer, and originated an incessant flow of a new spiritual life, with all its pure and holy emotions and aspirations, which moat be traced to that source. Sabellian as he was, Schleier­macher did not hold an eternal personal preex­istence of the Logos which would correspond to the historical indwelling of God in Christ. His conception of the abstract unity and simplicity of the Godhead excluded an immanent Trinity. (For his christology, cf. his Der christliche Glaube, §§ 92 99, vol. ii., Berlin, 1830, pp. 26 93; cf. also the sharp criticism of Strauss, in Die christliche Glaubenalehre, ii., Tiibingen, 1841, pp. 175 sqq.)

Ullmann (d. 1865), originally a pupil of Schleier­macher, but more orthodox, wrote the best book

on the important topic of the sinless­2. Ullmann. ness of Christ, which has an abiding

doctrinal and apologetic value, inde­pendently of all speculative theories (Die Siind­losigkeit Jesu, 7th ed.,. Goths, 1863, Eng. tranal., Edinburgh, 1870).

Somewhat similar is the christology of Richard Rothe (d. 1866), one of the greatest speculative theologians of the nineteenth century. He wrought out an original system of ethics of the highest order. He abandons the orthodox dogma of the Trinity and the Chaleedonian dyophysitism (which he thinks goes far beyond the simplicity of Biblical teaching, and makes the union physical rather than moral), but fully admits the divine human charac­ter of the one personality of Christ, and lays great stress on the ethical feature in the development of Christ, by which alone he can become our redeemer and example. God, by a creative act,

calls the second Adam into existence 8. Rothe. in the bosom of the old natural hu 

manity. Christ is born of a woman, yet not begotten by man, but created by God (as to his humanity), hence is free from all sinful bias, as well as actual sin. His development is a real, but normal and harmonious, religious moral growth, with a correspondingly increasing indwelling of God in him. There was not a single moment in his conscious life in which he stood not in personal union with God; but the absolute union took place with the completion of the personal development of the second Adam. This completion coincided with his perfect self sacrifice in death. Hence­forth he was wholly and absolutely God (ganz and achlechthin Gott), since his being is extensively and intensively filled with the true God; but it can not be said, vice versa, that God is wholly the second Adam; for God is not. limited by an individual

person. The death of Christ on earth was at the same time his ascension to heaven and his ele­vation above all the limitations of material exist­ence into the divine mode of existence (a return to the morphe theou), which, however, implies also his perpetual presence with his Church on earth (Matt. xxviii. 20).

Here is the place also for the theory of Horace Bushnell (q.v.; d. 1876), which strongly resembles those of Schleiermacher and Rothe, but differs from them by adhering to the eternal preexistence of Christ (though only in a Sabellian sense). It was first announced in his Condo ad Clerum, at the annual commencement of Yale College, New Haven, Aug. 15, 1848, and gave rise to his trial for heresy.

Bushnell, one of the most independent 4. Horace and vigorous American thinkers, read

1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page